IGEM:Carnegie Mellon University/2009/Notebook/SUCCEED Survey and Peer Incentives/2014/02/11

From OpenWetWare
Revision as of 12:14, 13 February 2014 by Xiyu Wang (talk | contribs) (Entry title)
Igem-logo-150px.png iGEM Project name 1 <html><img src="/images/9/94/Report.png" border="0" /></html> Main project page
<html><img src="/images/c/c3/Resultset_previous.png" border="0" /></html>Previous entry<html>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</html>Next entry<html><img src="/images/5/5c/Resultset_next.png" border="0" /></html>

Entry title

  • Insert your content here.

Met with Alex, went over these things:

Smoking in Thailand paper, control vs treatment - treatment had incentives for both team members if they quit but nothing if only one person quit, the other had teams but no group incentives

Also went over two options for group incentives:

1) 3rd person: feasibility issues with how money will be distributed to third person

2) Trust: uncertainty over whether or not person will respond, cost-effectiveness.

Also raised question of unconditional vs conditional incentives: do we give the incentive upfront? After the survey? Or a hybrid between the two?

Unconditional incentives could incentivize people to pass it on to their friends, since it's free money for your friends

Conditional group incentives people might not pass survey to friends if they don't know whether friends will even fill it out. Possibility of monitoring your friends would make conditional group incentive more effective

Any way to reconcile uncertainty in us giving participants money and participants' uncertainty in getting paid?

Look into monitoring vs modeling (peer pressure vs imitation) - supermarket paper

Origami money as gift: "legitimacy" coming from CMU, could be more legitimate with gift wrapping

How to send the money: through email, can do Amazon gift cards --> what about follow up if they don't respond?

How to gauge interest in doing survey for research, ask friends