User:Alexander L. Davis/Notebook/The psychology of empirical data sharing: Coherence, Correspondence and Performance/2012/02/27

From OpenWetWare
Jump to: navigation, search
Owwnotebook icon.png Project name Report.pngMain project page
Resultset previous.pngPrevious entry      Next entryResultset next.png

Entry title

  • Insert content here...

Recommendations for future changes

The consent form should read "18 or older" instead of just 18. (ALD: Corrected )

Why are there separate buttons for finalize and receive back on the proposing triples page? (ALD: The second button is used for validation. This can be done with one button, but that would require reworking the entire survey, which is not appropriate at this time. )

Judge the final answer given a triple questions should perhaps explain that you can judge a rule to be true or false and not just judge whether it is the true. (ALD: XX )

There may be information overload with the explanation of false feedback followed by the explanation of the final decision and then the explanation of the bonus money and trial sharing. (ALD: XX )

For proposing a triple the probability box accepts impossible probabilities (>100%) (ALD: This is a mistake by them and they do not receive feedback. )

Bug - clicking finalizing before entering a probability will result in no feedback being given for the triple. (ALD: This is a mistake by them and they do not receive feedback. )

Include a countdown of how many trials the participant has remaining. (ALD: Good idea. Added: Remaining Trials: X)

Unexpected Observations

  • Insert content here...

New Hypotheses

  • Insert content here...

Current Protocol

  • Insert content here...

Current Materials

  • Insert content here...

New Data

Participant 1

No Show

Participant 2

Understood the concept of the actual rule compared to possible rules. Tried to click feedback before the finalize button - why do we require two separate mouse clicks? Understood DNF implies the triple did not fit the rule. Verbally explained the payoff system and understood how both participants received bonus money and how trial sharing works. Asked the researcher about the 40 trial limit and if it should take that long. Assumed that the questions about how easy it would be to judge if it fit the pattern meant that you had to judge that the pattern was true not true or false.

Participant 3

This participant was incredibly mathy and explained the actual rule in terms of a function and mapping. Expressed amusement at the false feedback condition. Found the false feedback to be a minor frustration because he said it required him to double enter all of his triples to get an idea about whether it was true or false feedback. About the bonus money: Asked why it doesn't explain how much less money is received if the answer is somewhere between totally wrong or totally correct. Accidentally entered 110% for a probability and the survey accepted this input. Skipped the text box to enter what the rule is believed to be and just continued proposing triples. Recommended that a countdown of how many trials are left be displayed because he did not know how many trials he had already used. When the participant gave up and proposed his best guess he expressed surprise that he had 8 trials left. Commented that the rule was very confusing and difficult. When asked about how he decided which trials to share responded "I'm sharing everything - even if I share everything this guy has no clue what's going on with the rule".

Participant 4

Was initially confused by the propose additional triples screen being the same screen. When choosing which trials to share he chose not to share the trial that he believed included false feedback.


  • Insert content here...


  • Insert content here...