User:Alexander L. Davis/Notebook/The psychology of empirical data sharing: Coherence, Correspondence and Performance/2012/03/02
|Project name||Main project page|
Previous entry Next entry
Did not show
The audio for the experiment was bugged and did not work. I believe this may have severely affected comprehension.(ALD: The audio is temporarily removed; not a bug)
Couldn't explain precisely what "actual rule" meant. Still tested different rules and realized they couldn't both be the actual rule.
Was confused and believed the 5, 10, 15 triple was the initial triple. ALD: Too many people get hung up on this. Removed
Bonus payment: Believes that you need to actually be correct about the actual rule and the other person has to agree in order to receive the bonus payment. Other participant's bonus payment: Believed that the other person received bonus money if they agreed with his rule and the rule is correct, while they gain no money if they disagree with his rule.
2nd person to highlight the black box instead of clicking receive feedback.
Did not understand the concept of false feedback. Did not know what the base rate of false feedback was. Realized that some times the feedback was wrong but did not understand why and believed it had to do with the actual rule.
Asked the researcher many questions . Instead of giving him the answer I asked questions to elicit his understanding and then regardless of whether or not it was correct told him good and move on.
Found the task "challenging but not difficult."
When answering the difficulty of judging actual rules and triples he commented that he got Fit/DNF for things he thought actually were DNF/Fit and because he did not understand the false feedback mechanism took a strong skeptic approach to answering these questions.
For the task he questioned what taking the experiment "Extremely" seriously compared to "Very" seriously meant.
Audio was not working properly for the survey