psychology research paper
FINAL PAPER INSTRUCTIONS 1
FINAL PAPER INSTRUCTIONS 7
Instructions for Paper V: Final Paper (Worth 75 Points)
Ryan J. Winter
Florida International University
Purpose of Paper V (Final Paper)
1). Psychological Purpose
The psychological purpose behind Paper V is to present your final paper. Essentially this paper will be similar to any article you would find in an academic journal. It will include a Title Page, Abstract, Literature Review (study one), Methods Section (study one), Results Section (study one), Brief Discussion Section (study one), Literature Review (study two), Methods Section (study two), Results Section (study two), Brief Discussion Section (study two), General Discussion Section, References, and Appendices. The good news is that for most of this paper you will simply combine Paper I, Paper II, Paper III, and Paper IV (including any needed revisions) for Paper V. Two new components for Paper V include the Abstract and a General Discussion section.
The Abstract is one of the first items readers see. You need to convey a lot of information in this very short paragraph, as the potential reader will decide whether to read your full paper based on the information in the Abstract. There are several elements needed in the Abstract about both of your studies, including information about: a). your research questions, b). your participants, c). your experimental methodology, d). your findings, and e). your conclusions. Being able to write a precise yet succinct Abstract takes some effort, so make sure you go through several drafts before settling on your final version. Make sure to include keywords / key phrases as well (remember entering keywords into PsycInfo when you searched for articles? The authors actually recommended those keywords, so if you want to increase the number of times your paper comes up for readers, use good keywords!)
Your General Discussion section will also be new in Paper V. Here, you will summarize your results from BOTH studies and draw conclusions, but you will NOT use statistics again. This section will evaluate both of your studies and see if (and how) they connect and lead you to general conclusions. That is, your general discussion is the end of your story, so make sure to tie it back to information that you presented throughout both of your studies. You can also identify flaws in your study designs as well as propose new directions for future research in this section.
2). APA Formatting Purpose
Paper V should follow all APA formatting guidelines. See our feedback on prior papers, use Chapter 14 in your textbook, and look at the instructions on the next page for help with formatting
3). Writing Purpose
Paper V is your final paper in the course, and it should reflect the skills and knowledge you have developed throughout the semester. You should be able to convey information to an educated reader, but one who is unfamiliar with your specific study and the content area. More importantly, many students use Paper V as their writing sample for graduate school applications, thus your paper should be grammatically correct and easy to read yet informative for a reader who may have little to no knowledge of your specific topic. Thus educate your reader, but keep in mind that your reader is probably intelligent.
Note that the plagiarism limit for Paper V is 50%. I expect less overlap in your lit reviews and discussions than in the methods / results. As usual, references, citations, and predictions are not included in the plagiarism limit.
Instructions for Paper V: Final Paper (Worth 75 Points)
Note that these instructions relate to the whole paper, but I concentrate on the Abstract and Discussion below since those are new elements in this paper. Refer to the instructions for Paper III: Study Two Literature Review for information on the study one literature review, methods, results, and discussion and the study two literature review and references. Refer to Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results and Discussion for information on the methods, results and discussion for study two.
1. Title Page: I expect the following format (1 point):
a. This Title Page section will be one (1) page in proper APA format
2. Abstract (7 points) NEW SECTION
a. The Abstract starts on its own page, with the word Abstract centered (not bolded).
b. Make sure your header and page number is still on this abstract page
c. The abstract should be between 150 and 200 words, and must include ALL of the following elements
i. Identify your general problem or research question
ii. Note your participants
iii. Note your experimental method
iv. Note your findings for both studies
v. Note your conclusions about the studies as a whole
d. Keywords / phrases are required for your paper (at least 5 keywords or phrases)
3. Literature Review (Study One): I expect the following format (6 points):
a. Include your revised literature review from Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
(recall that you revised the study one literature review for Paper III, so that Paper III literature review will be your most recent version of that study one literature review)
b. The study one literature review must have minimum of two (2) full pages of text (not including the hypotheses) and a maximum of five (5) pages
4. Methods Section (Study One): I expect the following format (6 points):
a. Include your revised methods section from Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
b. There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the methods section, but I would expect at least a page as you detail your materials and procedure. Missing important aspects of your IVs and DVs or presenting them in a confused manner will lower your score in this section
5. Results Section (Study One): I expect the following format (6 points):
a. Include your revised results section from Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
b. Like the methods section, there is no page minimum of maximum for the results section, though I would expect it to be at least a paragraph or two for each of the dependent variables you analyzed
6. Brief Discussion (Study One): I expect the following format (1 point):
a. Include a brief description of your study one findings (but avoid using statistics)
b. I expect a paragraph or two, revised from Paper III: Study Two Literature Review.
7. Literature Review (Study Two): I expect the following format (6 points):
a. Include your revised literature review from Paper III: Study Two Literature Review. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
b. The study two literature review must have minimum of two (2) full pages of text (with or without hypotheses) and a maximum of five (5) pages
8. Methods Section (Study Two): I expect the following format (6 points):
a. Include your revised methods section from Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Discussion, and Results. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
b. There is no set minimum or maximum on the length of the methods section, but I would expect at least a page as you detail your materials and procedure. Missing important aspects of your IVs and DVs or presenting them in a confused manner will lower your score in this section
9. Results Section (Study Two): I expect the following format (6 points):
a. Include your revised results section from Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, Discussion. Those instructions continue to apply to this section
b. Like the methods section, there is no page minimum of maximum for the results section, though I would expect it to be at least a paragraph or two for each of the dependent variables you analyzed
10. Brief Discussion (Study Two): I expect the following format (1 point):
a. Include a brief description of your study one findings (but avoid using statistics)
b. I expect a paragraph or two, revised from Paper IV: Study Two Methods, Results, Discussion
11. General Discussion (12 points) NEW SECTION
a. Write the word General Discussion at the top of this section and center and bold it. This section comes directly at the end of the brief discussion section from study two, so the general discussion section DOES NOT start on its own page. See the example paper for some formatting visual hints.
b. At the beginning of this section, give a brief reminder of your predictions from both study one and study two. Then provide a discussion of your results. In English (not statistics), tell me what you found. In this discussion, you should talk about all of the following:
i. An explanation of your findings – across both studies, did your results support or not support your hypothesis?
1. If you found support, tie it in with the prior research you cited in your literature review as well as your predictions. You may want to refer back to your literature review, and re-cite some of the studies you mentioned there (I really recommend that, in fact!).
2. If you didn’t find any support for your hypotheses, contrast your findings with prior research. You can highlight differences in your methodologies. You may also find other studies that either support your results or help explain why you found what you found.
3. If one study found support and the other did not, try to explain the discrepancy.
4. In a nutshell, tell me how both studies help inform the reader about the nature of your variables and how they impact human behavior.
ii. Next, examine study limitations – would other methods have been better? Were there problems with your study that a follow-up study should fix?
iii. Propose future directions for research – If you could do your studies over again, what would you change? Or how might you expand them?
iv. Optional: Talk about the ethics of your study – Did you follow ethical guidelines? Were participants harmed in any manner
c. The general discussion section must have minimum of one (1) full page of text and a maximum of three (3) pages. If it is only one pages, it better be very, very good! I actually expect to see closer to two pages
12. References: I expect the following format (6 points):
a. Include your revised references from Paper III: Literature Review (Study Two)
i. Include any new references you may have cited in the discussion section
b. References start on their own page
c. Follow all APA formatting rules for the references
d. We will mark off per number of error, so really make sure to proofread this. The same error in six references will leave you with zero points!
13. Tables (3 points)
a. Here, simply include the eight tables listed sequentially (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8,) from Papers II and IV. Make sure each are clearly labeled. You might have more than eight, but you should have eight minimum
14. Overall writing quality (8 points)
a. Make sure you check your paper for proper spelling and grammar. The FIU writing center is available if you want someone to look over your paper (an extra eye is always good!) and give you advice. I highly recommend them, as writing quality will become even more important on future papers. NOTE that this writing quality is nearly 10% of your final paper grade, so I suggest you proofread!
b.
You can also visit the Research Methods Help Center for some help or just someone to glance over your final paper.
Other Guidelines for Paper V: The Final Paper
1. 1). Pay attention to the page length requirements
1. 2). Page size is 8 1/2 X 11” with all 4 margins set at on inch on all sides. You must use a 12-point Times New Roman font. Double space EVERYTHING
1. 3). When summarizing articles for your lit review and doing so in your own words, make sure you still cite the original source. Always use proper referencing procedures, which means that:
2. If you are inserting a direct quote from any source, it must be enclosed in quotations and followed by a parenthetical reference to the source. “Let’s say I am directly quoting this current sentence and the next. I would then cite it with the author name, date of publication, and the page number for the direct quote” (Winter, 2016, p . 4).
0. Note: We will deduct points if you quote more than three times in the whole paper, so keep quotes to a minimum. Paraphrase instead, but make sure you still give the original author credit for the material by citing it or using the author’s name (“In this article, Smith noted that …” or “In this article, the authors noted that…”)
1. 4). PLEASE use a spell checker to avoid unnecessary errors. Proofread everything you write. I actually recommend reading some sentences aloud to see if they flow well, or getting family or friends to read your work.
1. Finally, go look at the supporting documents for this paper. Like prior papers, there is a checklist, a grade rubric, and an example paper for Paper V. All will give you more information about what we are specifically looking for as well as a visual example of how to put it all together in your paper. Good luck!
N
ORMATIVE SOCIAL IN
F
LUENCE: CHARITY DONATION
Normative Social Influence: Charity Donation
Name
Florida International University
Methods
Participants
A total of
1
4
7
persons were picked randomly to participate in charity donation study. From these
14
7
individuals, 9
0
.
5
% (n=1
3
3) were Florida International University students whereas 9.5% (n=14) were non students of the university. Out of the
147
respondents the males were
51
.7
% (n=
7
6
) while females were
4
8
.3
% (n=
71
). The age range of respondents were between of 3 years being the youngest and 7
2
years being the oldest with a mean of
24
.59 years (SD=8.72). The sample of the study comprised of;
Hispanic
47.6
% (n=
70
),
Caucasian
27
.9
% (n=
41
),
African American
11
.6
% (n=
17
),
Asian American
4.8
% (n=7),
Native Indian
s being
1.4
% (n=2) and individuals from other ethnic origins being
6.8
% (n=
10
).
Materials and Procedure
As per the standard procedures the likely respondents were picked in a random manner and they were informed of the benefits and possible risks of taking part in the study process. The likely individuals that agreed to be part of the study were in a random way a given one of three questionnaires which had five different sections.
In section one, partakers viewed the “About” page of a Facebook user called Michael Bezjian. The account page had an image header profile picture of Michael, a general “About” segment which encompasses basic data about the user called Michael), fake promotions, a list of “Friends” with selfies of six friends as well as an appeal from Michael to contribute towards his birthday charity he had picked. This appeal is trailed by a short description of the charity and an image accompanied by a link to the contribution. Individually, the three questionnaires showed the same initial plea for charity donation with alternative conditions (high, medium and low) that led to the various outputs.
In the “
High
” condition, the comments from the account user friends reveal that they were willing to contribute a high sum of cash to the “Unlikely Heroes”, that is Michael’s selected charity for his birthday. For instance, Michael’s friends made remarks such as, “
Count
me in for $
45
, Mike. Sounds like a good cause”, and “Hi Michael. I just donated $
50
. Make sure you provide more pics of the kids!” all the eight comments from friends we noted they included pledged donations which ranged between 45 and 50 dollars.
In the “
Middle
” condition, the comments from friends were noted and they pledged to contribute average amount of money to Michael’s “Unlikely Heroes” , the amounts indicated ranged between
25
and
30
dollars. For instance, Michael’s friends made remarks such as, “Count me in for $25, Mike. Sounds like a good cause”, “Hi Michael. I just donated $30. Make sure you provide more pics of the kids!” The phrasing is similar to the high condition, the difference being the dollar amounts pledged are lower. In the “
Low
” condition, eight different comments similar to the ones in the high and middle conditions from Michael’s friends were again noted, however the dollar amounts were between $5 and $10.
In section two, partakers went through a brief set of guidelines notifying them to imagine that they were requested to donate to the charity as well. Respondents then continued to fill three open-ended questions: how much they would donate, secondly, how much they think other people would contribute and the last one asked that if they can contribute time instead of money, then how much of their time they were willing to donate. In all the three questions, partakers were expected to answer the questions with amounts that ranged between 0 and
100
dollars or hours.
In section three, the participants rated their impression of the Facebook account user called Michael Bezjian, they were asked to rate by either agreeing or disagreeing with five statements about the Facebook account user in an interval scale which range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). The statements about the account user that were presented to be rated included: “Michael seems like a warm person”, “Michael seems like a generous person”, “Michael seems like a stingy person”, “Michael seems to care about others”, and “Michael seems like a selfish person”. The next five statements were similar to the ones about the account user, but emphasizes on Michael’s friends and enquired if the participant agrees or disagrees that they were also warm, generous, stingy, caring, or selfish. The next two questions in the section, focused on the participants’ impressions of the charity, “Unlikely Heroes”. The last part asked the participants’ that, “In my everyday life, I feel that I am generally more charitable than other people.
In section four, participants were requested complete queries about their demographic data which included; gender, age, ethnicity, first language and whether they were a student at Florida International University or not. Finally, in the last section of the questionnaire, partakers were asked whether the amounts of money that Michael’s facebook friends pledged in their comments for donation to the charity was; low ($5 to $10), middle ($25 to $30), or high ($45 to $50). To summarize the study, the participants was debriefed about their valued contribution to the study and the insights into normative social influence and its relation to the main hypothesis of the study.
The study had several dependent variables but the main focus was to evaluate whether the amount of money or time that Michael’s Facebook friends were willing to the charity affects the amount of money or time that participants are prepared to practically contribute towards a similar cause. The participants ranked in the high dollar condition were hypothesized that they will be more generous with their individual contributions and would be keen on the contributions of other donors than participants in the low dollar condition, the participants in the middle dollar condition falling in the average values. Initially, we predicted that participants’ in the high dollar condition were willing to contribute more amount of money and time to the charity and they would consider that other participants would do the same by contributing more amounts of money or time than participants in the low dollar condition, with middle dollar condition participants willing to donate an average amount of both money and time. A prediction that individuals in the high dollar condition were more likely to perceive the other contributors to be more warm, generous, and caring as well as less mean and selfish than the participants in the low dollar condition, the middle dollar condition contributors were likely to offer average amounts for donation.
Results
Taking the donated amount (money) as our dependent variable and condition (high, medium and low) as the independent variable, a chi-square test was done and its results confirmed that the effect was significant, X2(
20
) =
65
.1
78
, p <
.00
0. Majority of the participants (100%) in the high condition made in their remarks they were willing to donate
35
dollars. Most participants (
75
%) in the middle condition made in their remarks they were willing to donate 25 dollars while majority of the participants (75%), in the low condition made in their remarks they were willing to donate
15
dollars. The findings further revealed that the amounts of money that the participants are willing to donate depends on the set condition that they fall into.
The main analysis consisted of a One-Way ANOVA test which indicated a significant differences
among the independent variable, the condition (high, middle, or low) and the dependent variable, donation amount (money), the statistics for the test were F(2,
144
) = 11.82, p =
.000
. Tukey post hoc test supported our hypothesis at five percent level of significance that participants in the high dollar condition will be more generous in their individual donations and are keen on the donations of other donors than the participants in the low dollar condition, with participants in the middle dollar condition being likely to donate average amounts of money to the charity the test results were: high condition (
Mean
= 28.
68
, SD = 14.55), middle condition (Mean= 22.56, SD= 10.08) and low condition (Mean =
16
.
57
, SD =
13
.62). These results further revealed that the amount of money that Michael’s Facebook friends were willing to contribute to the charity influences the amount of money that the other partakers were willing to contribute towards the same cause.
Furthermore, the second objective was to determine the amount of time that the participants were willing to donate under each condition. One-Way ANOVA test was evaluated using the three conditions (high, middle or low) as the independent variable, and the donation amount (time) as the dependent variable. The results indicated that the association exist between condition category of the participant and donation amount (time) was significant supported by the statistics, F (2, 144) = 5.44, p =
.005
. The prediction that participants in the high dollar condition are willing to donate more time to the charity (Mean = 7.74, SD = 5.05), and the assumption that the other participants would in a similar way contribute more money than participants in the low dollar condition (Mean = 5.49, SD = 3.15), the middle dollar condition participants willing to donate average amount of time (Mean = 7.
90
, SD = 3.66). Since the p-value for the ANOVA test was significant, subsequent Tukey post hoc test confirmed the results.
Discussion
The initial prediction that individuals who are in the high dollar condition were willing to donate more money and time to the charity and that they will presume that their counterparts will in a similar way donate more money than participants in the low dollar condition category, the middle dollar condition participants were prepared to donate average amount of money and time. Furthermore, a prediction that the participants in the high dollar condition were more probable to rate the other contributors to be more warm, generous, and caring and less mean and self-interested than the participants’ in the low dollar condition, with the middle dollar condition participants willing to donate more average amounts of money and time towards the charity.
The outcomes from the examination discloses that the amounts of money or time that the contributors are willing to donate depends on the condition category that they fall in. The results furthermore established that individuals’ in the high dollar condition were willing to donate more money and time towards the charity, and the other participants will in a similar manner donate less amount of money and time in the low dollar condition with the middle dollar condition participants deliberated to donate average amount of money and time towards the same charity. In conclusion, the outcomes of the analysis portrayed that indeed the social psychology concept of normative social impacts on the expected amount of money and time donated by facebook friends thus setting a norm with regards the amounts that is deemed to be appropriate for other individuals to contribute.
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION
Appendix A – Demographics
|
Statistics |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gender |
Age |
Race |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| N |
Valid |
147 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Missing |
0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mean |
1. 48 30 |
24.5 85 0 |
2. 38 10 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Median |
1.00 00 |
2
2.00 00 |
2.0000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mode |
1.00 |
22.00 |
2.00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Std. Deviation |
.50142 |
8.72082 |
1. 46 3 40 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minimum |
3.00 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Maximum |
72.00 |
6.00 |
|
Gender |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
||||||||||||||
|
Male |
76 |
51.7 | |||||||||||||||
|
Female |
71 | 48.3 |
100.0 |
||||||||||||||
|
Total |
|
Race |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Caucasian | 41 | 27.9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hispanic | 70 | 47.6 |
75.5 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| Native Indian | 2 | 1.4 |
76.9 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| African American | 17 | 11.6 |
88.4 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| Asian American | 7 | 4.8 |
93.2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other |
10 | 6.8 |
Appendix B – Crosstabs and Chi Square
|
Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) * Part II: Donation Amount (Money) Crosstabulation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Part II: Donation Amount (Money) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| .00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
15.00 |
20.00 |
25.00 |
30.00 |
35.00 |
40.00 |
45.00 |
50.00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| High | Count | 4 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 3 |
53 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
% within Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
30.8% |
1 0.0% |
28.6% |
12 .5% |
20.0% |
25.0% |
40.0% |
75.0% |
57.1% |
100.0% |
50.0% |
36 .1% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Middle | 15 |
43 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15.4% |
19.0 % |
0.0% |
14.3% |
16.7% |
29.3% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Low | 11 | 51 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
53.8% |
70.0% |
52.4% |
33.3% |
34.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 |
21 |
20 | 14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||||||||
|
Value |
df |
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) |
|||||||
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
65.178a |
.000 | |||||||
|
Likelihood Ratio |
71.132 |
||||||||
|
19.6 26 |
|||||||||
|
N of Valid Cases |
|||||||||
|
a. 20 cells ( 60 .6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.76. |
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION
Appendix C – ANOVA Donation Amount (Money)
|
Descriptives |
|||||
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
|||||
|
Std. Error |
95 % Confidence Interval for Mean |
||||
|
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
||||
|
28.6792 |
14.54935 |
1.99851 |
24.6689 |
32.6895 |
|
|
22.5581 |
10.08 134 |
1.5 37 39 |
19.4556 |
25.6607 |
|
|
16.56 86 |
13.61948 |
1.90711 |
12.7381 |
20.3992 |
|
|
22.6871 |
13.93812 |
1.14960 |
20.4151 |
24.9591 |
|
ANOVA |
|||||||||||||||
|
Sum of Squares |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
||||||||||||
|
Between Groups |
381 2.9 44 |
1906.472 |
11. 18 2 |
||||||||||||
|
Within Groups |
24550.662 |
144 |
170.491 |
||||||||||||
|
28363.605 |
146 |
Post Hoc Tests
|
Multiple Comparisons |
||||||
|
Dependent Variable: Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
||||||
|
Tukey HSD |
||||||
|
(I) Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
(J) Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
Mean Difference (I-J) |
95% Confidence Interval | |||
|
6.12111 |
2.67987 |
.061 |
– .2254 |
12.4 676 |
||
|
12.11062* |
2.56120 |
6.0452 |
18.1761 |
|||
|
-6.12111 |
-12.4676 |
.2254 | ||||
|
5.98951 |
2.70330 |
.072 |
– .4124 |
12.3915 |
||
|
-12.11062* |
-18.1761 |
-6.0452 |
||||
|
-5.98951 |
-12.3915 |
.4124 | ||||
|
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. |
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION
Appendix D – ANOVA Donation Amount (Time)
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Time) |
|||||
|
7.7358 |
5.05413 |
. 69 424 |
6.3428 |
9.1289 |
|
|
7.9070 |
3.65679 |
.55765 |
6.7816 |
9.0324 |
|
|
5.4902 |
3.14562 |
.44047 |
4.6055 |
6.3749 |
|
|
7.0068 |
4.19147 |
.34571 |
6.3236 |
7.6900 |
|
180.318 |
90.159 |
5.444 |
.005 |
|
2384.675 |
16.560 |
||
|
2564.993 |
Post Hoc Tests
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Time) |
|
|
Tukey HSDa,b |
|
| Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
Subset for alpha = 0.05 |
|
1.000 |
.977 |
|
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. |
|
|
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 48.597. |
|
|
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. |
Methods Study Two
Participants
A total of
137
individuals were selected in a random manner to participate in a charity study. From the 137 participants, 30.1% (n=41) were studying at Florida International University during the time of study whereas 69.9% (n=96) reported that they were not students at the University. The sample was comprised of 46 males (
33.6
%), 90 females (
65.7
%) and a single individual reported gender “other”. The age range of the participants were between 16 and 76 years with a mean of
26.87
years (SD=
9.889
). The participants were requested to indicate their relationship status and the outcome revealed that, 53.3% (n=74) of them were single whereas 46.7% (n=64) reported being in a relationship. The sample consisted of
62.8
% (n=86) Hispanic, 19% (n=26) Caucasian, 12.4% (n=17) African American and 2.9% (n=4) Asian American while 2.9% (n=4) of the participants reported their race as ‘Others’. Contributions amount were defined as High, or Low with counts N = 69 and 68 respectively.
Materials and Procedure
The researcher had no preceding information about the participants of the study, and an introduction to the participant was important. The researcher informed the potential participants the objective of the study, and the approximate amount of time it may take for them to complete the study questionnaire was communicated to the participants to facilitate them to oblige till the completion of the research. As per the specified standard guidelines so as to get an informed consent, they were briefed on the probable risks and benefits of participating in the study then they were familiarized with the research documents. Upon their contentment, they were eligible to move on to the subsequent parts of the study.
In section one of the questionnaire, participants were asked to look into a Facebook account of user called “Michael Bezjian.” The page had an image header profile picture of Michael, a generic “About” section which detailed data about the user, false advertisements, a list “Friends” with photos of six friends, and a plea from Michael to donate to his chosen birthday charity. This plea is followed by a description of the charity and a picture with a donation link. Friends, adverts, and the nature of comments were identical except that the amount of money comments displayed differ.
In the “High-High” condition, Michael’s plea to his friends to make high donations towards his chosen birthday charity. His friends made comments like, “Count me in for $45, Mike. Sounds like a good cause”, or “Hi Michael. I just donated $50. Make sure you provide more pics of the kids!” Michael’s friends indicated they were willing to donate either 45 or 50 dollars. In the “High Low” condition, Michael’s makes an appeal to his friends to donate $50 towards his chosen birthday charity. However, the friends’ comments and indicated they would donate either 5 or 10 dollars towards the same cause. In the “Low High” condition, a plea to contribute $10 is done by the Michael, however in the eight comments from Michael’s friends, the dollar amounts indicated is either $45 or $50. In the “Low- Low” condition, Michael is appealing to his friends to donate $10 towards his birthday charity gift, there are eight comments from his friends’ dollar amounts being either $5 or $10. The aim here is to examine whether the participant’s contribution is determined by the contributions indicated in the comments of the Facebook user. We expected that those who get a plea with low contributions would contribute less and those who got a high appeal will contribute more money for charity.
In the second section, participants read a brief set of guidelines informing them to imagine that they are paid $100 to undertake the study and that they are free to donate part, all or none, of the money towards the charity. Participants then proceeded to fill out three open-ended questions: How much would you donate? How much do you think others would donate? And lastly, if you could donate time instead, how much time would you donate? We noted that in all three questions, participants are to provide a number answer ranging between 0 and 100 dollars or hours.
In section three, the participants rated their impression of the Facebook account user called Michael Bezjian on a scale of 1 to 6 where 1 represents (Strongly Disagree), and 6 represent (Strongly Agree). The statements that they used to rate include; “Michael seems like a warm person”, “Michael seems like a generous person”, “Michael seems like a stingy person”, “Michael seems to care about others”, and “Michael seems like a selfish person”. The next five statements are similar to the above, however they emphasize on Michael’s friends and ask the respondent if they agree that they are as well warm, generous, stingy, caring, or selfish. The last statement is, “In my everyday life, I feel that I am generally more charitable than other people.
In section four, participants were requested to complete questions regarding their demographic profile including gender, age, race, their first language, whether they were a student at Florida International University or not and their relationship status; they were informed that they are free leave them blank as well. Lastly, in the last part of the of the questionnaire, contained two manipulation check questions. Like in section one of the study, the participant was asked to give their responses. For instance, the statement “Without looking back, about how much did Michael’s friends decide to donate to his Birthday charity, “Unlikely Heroes”? and Without looking back, about how much did Michael suggest to donate to his Birthday charity, “Unlikely Heroes”. The expected responses were; $5 to $10, $45 to $50 and Unknown. To conclude the study, the participant was debriefed about their valued contribution to the study as well as our insights about normative social influence and the relationship with the main hypothesis of the study.
There are several dependent variables in the study, the study’s dependent variable is the number of participants willing to contribute some amount of money or time to the charity grouped as low, medium, or high. After reading the comments on Facebook, they were asked how much they could contribute grouping the amount into three categories low ($5 to $10) or high ($45 to $50). The independent variables are the amount of time and money indicated by comments grouped as low, medium or high depending on whether the amount in the comment is between low ($5 to $10), middle ($25 to $30), or high ($45 to $50). Other variables were the ages of participants and races, are not used in the study. The primary focus is on comments, and the number of participants was willing to contribute. We predicted that participants in the high dollar condition are more likely to be more generous with their own donations and look more positively on the donations of other people than participants who fall in the low dollar condition. Secondly, we predicted that respondents under the high dollar condition are willing to donate more money and time to a charity and think that their fellow participants would do the same by contributing more dollars or time than participants in the low dollar condition. Lastly, we predicted that the participants under the high dollar condition are more likely to rate other donors as being more warm, generous, and caring as well as less mean and selfish than participants in the low dollar condition.
Results
By taking donation amount (money) as our dependent variable and Donation Amount (High or Low) as our independent variable, a chi-square was computed which revealed a significant effect, X2(17) = 36.451, p < .004. More similar high (N=69) or low (N=68) amounts of were the participants willing to donate to the charity. These findings indicate that the amounts of money that the participants are willing to donate depends on the condition that they fall in.
The main analysis included a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA with Donation Amount (Money in $) and Donation Amount (Time in hours) as our independent variables and Donation Amount as our dependent variable. Results indicated that there was an insignificant main effect of the donation amount on the donation amount condition F (78, 57) =
0.7
10, p =
1.439
. The results further revealed interaction effect did not exist for donation time and amount on the condition F (37, 57) =
1.071
, p =.401 These results indicate that the amount of money or time that Facebook friends are willing to donate to a charity impacts the amount of money or time that the other participants are willing to contribute towards a similar cause.
Furthermore, to test our second dependent variable we ran a 2 X 2 factorial ANOVA with Donation Amount (Money in $) and Donation Amount (Time in hours) as our independent variables and Donation Suggestion (High versus Low) as our dependent variable. Main effect of charitability and the donation amount in dollars was non-existent F (78, 57) =
0.849
, p =.751. This implied that there was no difference in the number of cases generated between high (M =
1.51
, SD =
0.522
) and lows (M =
1.47
, SD =
0.516
). In the same way, there was no interaction effect between subjects of donation time and amount on the condition, F (78, 57) =
0.890
, p = .642.
Discussion
The initial prediction that individuals who are in the high dollar condition were willing to donate more money and time to the charity and that they will presume that their counterparts will in a similar way donate more money than participants in the low dollar condition category, the middle dollar condition participants were prepared to donate average amount of money and time. Furthermore, a prediction that the participants in the high dollar condition were more probable to rate the other contributors to be more warm, generous, and caring and less mean and self-interested than the participants’ in the low dollar condition, with the middle dollar condition participants willing to donate more average amounts of money and time towards the charity.
The outcomes from the examination discloses that the amounts of money or time that the contributors are willing to donate depends on the condition category that they fall in. The results furthermore established that individuals’ in the high dollar condition were willing to donate more money and time towards the charity, and the other participants will in a similar manner donate less amount of money and time in the low dollar condition with the middle dollar condition participants deliberated to donate average amount of money and time towards the same charity. In conclusion, the outcomes of the analysis portrayed that indeed the social psychology concept of normative social impacts on the expected amount of money and time donated by Facebook friends thus setting a norm with regards the amounts that is deemed to be appropriate for other individuals to contribute.
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION STUDY
Appendix E – Demographics – Study Two
|
|
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 137 | 134 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1.67 |
26.87 |
2.26 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24.00 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
20a |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
0.487 |
9.889 |
1.165 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F) |
||||
| 46 | 33.6 | |||
| 90 | 65.7 |
99.3 |
||
| 0.7 | ||||
| 26 | 19.0 | |||
| 86 | 62.8 |
81.8 |
||
| 12.4 |
94.2 |
|||
| 2.9 |
97.1 |
|||
|
Others–Please specify |
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION STUDY
Appendix F – Crosstabs and Chi Square
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money in $) * IV Donation Amount Cross tabulation |
|||
| IV Donation Amount | |||
| Part II: Donation Amount (Money in $) | |||
| 18 | |||
| 25 | |||
| 30 | |||
| 35 | |||
| 38 | |||
| 40 | |||
| 45 | |||
| 50 | 39 | ||
| 60 | |||
| 65 | |||
| 75 | |||
| 95 | |||
| 100 | |||
| 69 | 68 |
|
36.451a |
0.004 |
|||||||||
|
44.260 |
0.000 |
|||||||||
|
13.666 |
||||||||||
|
a. 28 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .50. |
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION STUDY
Appendix G – ANOVA Donation Amount – Study Two
|
Descriptive Statistics |
|||||||
| Dependent Variable: | |||||||
| 1.47 | 0.516 | ||||||
|
1.50 |
0.527 |
||||||
|
1.69 |
0.479 |
||||||
|
0.480 |
|||||||
|
1.60 |
0.548 |
||||||
|
1.45 |
0.522 | ||||||
| 12 | |||||||
|
0.577 |
|||||||
|
1.25 |
0.463 |
||||||
| 24 | |||||||
| 27 | |||||||
| 36 | |||||||
|
1.33 |
|||||||
| 48 | |||||||
|
1.57 |
0.514 |
||||||
| 85 | |||||||
|
0.452 |
|||||||
|
0.502 |
136 |
|
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects |
|||||||
|
Source |
Type III Sum of Squares |
||||||
|
Corrected Model |
22.550a |
78 |
0.289 |
1.439 |
0.075 |
||
|
Intercept |
107.843 |
536.863 |
|||||
|
PartIIDonation |
6.743 |
0.421 |
2.098 |
0.021 |
|||
|
PartIITimeDonation |
5.334 |
0.222 |
1.106 |
0.367 |
|||
|
PartIIDonation * PartIITimeDonation |
7.962 |
37 |
0.215 |
1.071 |
0.401 |
||
| Error |
11.450 |
57 |
0.201 |
||||
|
340.000 |
|||||||
|
Corrected Total |
34.000 |
135 |
|||||
|
a. R Squared = .663 (Adjusted R Squared = .202) |
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION STUDY
Appendix H – ANOVA Donation Suggestion (High versus Low) – Study Two
|
IV Donation Suggestion (High versus Low) |
|
|
1.56 |
0.512 |
|
1.38 |
0.506 |
|
1.40 |
|
|
1.73 |
0.467 |
|
1.75 |
|
|
0.519 |
|
| 1.51 |
|
IV Donation Suggestion (HIgh versus Low) |
|||
|
18.254a |
0.234 |
0.849 |
0.751 |
|
118.827 |
430.952 |
||
|
2.734 |
0.171 |
0.620 |
0.855 |
|
5.508 |
0.230 |
0.832 |
0.683 |
|
9.082 |
0.245 |
0.890 |
0.642 |
|
15.717 |
0.276 |
||
|
346.000 |
|||
|
33.971 |
|||
|
a. R Squared = .537 (Adjusted R Squared = -.096) |
RESUL
T
S
Descriptive Analysis
To understand the dynamics of the results attained one needs to understand the characteristics of the participants
.
This was done using descriptive where the mean, median, standard deviation to name a few were calculated. The sample size used was
232
with an equal distribution between those who do not have study groups and those who do. The participants who had no study group accumulated a mean of 6
1
.8362, SD=
4.45059
with a minimum of
48.00
and a maximum of
69.00
. Those who had study groups had a mean of
84.9828
, SD=
4.65503
at a minimum of
74.00
and a maximum of
98.00
. They resulted in M=
73.4095
, SD=
12.45670
with a skewness of 0.008.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
|
No |
Yes |
Overall |
|
|
N |
116 |
232 | |
|
Mean |
61.8362 |
84.9828 | 73.4095 |
|
Median |
63 .000 0 |
85.0000 |
71.5000 |
|
Std Deviation |
4.45059 | 4.65503 | 12.45670 |
|
Variance |
19.808 |
21.669 |
155.169 |
|
Minimum |
48.00 | 74.00 | |
|
Maximum |
69.00 | 98.00 |
Independent T test
In respect to the objectives of the study. The following hypotheses were derived to aid achieve set research questions:
Null Hypotheses(H0): There exists no significant difference between participants who have study groups and those who do not in exam scores
Alternative Hypotheses(H1): There exists a significant difference between participants who have study groups and those who do not in exam scores.
As seen in table 2, an independent t test was used as it is the most appropriate to examine the differences between groups. It was conducted to compare the exam scores between the group of participants who have study groups and the group of participants in who do not. There was a significant difference in exam scores between Group 1-those who have no study groups (M = 61.8362, SD = 4.45059) and Group 2-those who have study groups (M = 84.9828, SD = 4.65503), t(D
F
) =
-38.709
, 0.000 < .05. As a result, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis was accepted.
The effect size for the analysis (d = 0
.59796
) was found to be exceed Cohen’s (1988) convention for a medium effect (d = 0.50). Levene’s test for equality of variances was not violated for the present analysis, F(DF) = 0.00, p =0.000. These results suggest that when participants who do not have study groups will have lower exam scores. Specifically, our results indicate that participants who have study groups will have higher levels of exam scores than those who choose not to.
|
Table 2: Comparison of exam scores in study groups |
||||||||||||||
|
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means |
|||||||||||||
| F |
Sig. |
T |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
Std. Error Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|||||||
|
Lower |
Upper |
|||||||||||||
|
Examscore |
Equal variances assumes |
.000 |
.996 |
-38.709 |
230 |
-23.14655 |
.59796 |
-24.32474 |
-21.96837 |
|||||
|
Equal variances not assumes |
229.538 |
-24.32475 |
-21.96835 |
DISCUSSION
Results derived from analyses show that there was a difference in exam scores between those who were in study groups and those involved in none. This was seen with the difference in mean at 23.1466 which had exceeded the medium effect at 0.6. The individuals that were involved in study groups managed to score a higher exam mean at 84.9828% while those with none had a mean score of 61.8362%. In general, this means that there is a slightly more than medium effect on exam scores in involvement of study groups. This supports scholars such as Altman & Miller(2017) on collaborative studying enhancing understanding of topics. The results show that the effect is more than medium enhancing the need to promote study group involvement of students. Moreover, Gillies & Boyle (2011) suggested that collaborative work not only promotes academic achievement but also collaborative abilities. They noted it helped regardless of age or curriculum for individuals to be more open to sharing ideas, learning to inquire, clarifying differences, problem-solving, and construction of new understandings.
Contrary, few studies show that some groups are declared redundant as enthusiasm for group work is affected by type of task, as well as the group’s members. This presents a gap as it suggests that just being in a group will not automatically help in the increase of a student’s performance. Moreover, Faroq et al., (2011) put forward that it did not matter what kind of learning technique a student uses, but majorly on the student’s social economic status. This was from research done in Pakistan that revealed that social economic status was a significant predictor of a student’s performance besides school factors. This shows that other derivatives should be considered while examining the performance of students. However, it is also noted that exam scores do not show understanding of a topic. Karpicke(2009) noted that learning can only take place when students are able to retrieve the information learnt twice. Therefore, it is efficient to study the learning techniques of the study groups to examine whether the techniques used are effective in learning topics successfully.
The study is limited to data collected only on scores and not also on other factors such as time spent in the study groups and interaction of students within the group. This would have aided in examining the correlation between exam scores and the dynamics of the study group.
In conclusion, further data driven research is needed to understand the study group dynamics and how it affects exam scores. Also, research can be done before and after scores of students who were not in study groups but later joined to help cement the notion on effectiveness of groups.
REFERENCES
Farooq, M. S., Chaudhry, A. H., Shafiq, M., & Berhanu, G. (2011). Factors affecting students’ quality of academic performance: a case of secondary school level. Journal of quality and technology management, 7(2), 1-14.
Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and teacher Education, 26(4), 933-940
Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 469.
.
1
Running head:
N
ORMATIVE SOCIAL IN
F
LUENCE: CHARITY DONATION
2
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION 2
Normative Social Influence: Charity Donation
Name
Florida International University
Date of Submission
Methods
Participants
A total of
1
4
7
participants were selected randomly to participate in the charity donation study. From these
14
7
individuals, 9
0
.
5
% (n=1
3
3) were students of Florida International University students, whereas 9.5% (n=14) were not university students. Out of the
147
respondents,
51
.7
% (n=
7
6
) and
4
8
.3
% (n=
71
) were female. Most participants were between the age of 18 years to 24years, with 72 years being the oldest of all. The mean age was 24.59 years (SD=8.72). further, the sample included diverse cultures including;
Hispanic
47.6
% (n=
70
),
Caucasian
27.9
% (n=
41
),
African American
11
.6
% (n=
17
),
Asian American
4.8
% (n=7),
Native Indian
s being
1.4
% (n=2) and individuals from other ethnic origins being
6.8
% (n=
10
).
Materials and Procedure
As per the standard procedures, the intended participants were selected randomly, and they were informed of the benefits and possible risks of taking part in the study process. The individuals who agreed to take part in the study were randomly given one of three questionnaires. Each of these questionnaires included five different sections.
The first section included the About Page. The participants were required to view the “About” page of a Facebook user called Michael Bezjian. The account page entailed an image header profile picture of Michael, basic data about Michael, fake promotions, a list of “Friends” with selfies of six friends, as well as an appeal from Michael to contribute towards the birthday charity which he had picked. This appeal also included a short description of the charity and an image accompanied by a link towards the contribution. Generally, the three questionnaires presented the same initial plea for charity donation; however, with alternative conditions (high, medium, and low) that led to the various outputs.
In the “
High
” condition included that comments from the account user friends reveal that they were willing to contribute a high sum of cash to the “Unlikely Heroes,” that is Michael’s selected charity for his birthday. For instance, Michael’s friends made remarks such as, “
Count
me in for $45, Mike. I just donated $50. Make sure you provide more pics of the kids!” all the eight comments from friends we noted they included pledged donations, which ranged between 45 and 50 dollars.
In the “
Middle
” condition, the comments from friends were noted, and they pledged to contribute an average amount of money to Michael’s “Unlikely Heroes,” the amounts indicated ranged between 25 and 30 dollars. For instance, Michael’s friends made remarks such as, “Count me in for $25, Mike, I just donated $30. Make sure you provide more pics of the kids!” The phrasing is similar to the high condition, the difference being the dollar amounts pledged are lower.
In the “
Low
” condition, eight different comments similar to the ones in the high and middle conditions from Michael’s friends were again noted; however, the dollar amounts were between $5 and $10.
Section two included guidelines for the contribution. Participants were to go through a brief set of guidelines notifying them to imagine that they were requested to donate to the charity as well. Participants were to fill three open-ended questions, including “how much they would donate? how much they think other people would contribute? Can you contribute time instead of money? If yes, how much of their time they were willing to donate?” The three questions required that participants respond to all three questions by indicating an amount ranging from 0 to 100 dollars for the first and second questions and time in hours for the third question.
In the third section, the participants to give their impression of the Facebook account user called Michael Bezjian. They were asked to rate on the five statements about the Facebook account user, and it was based on an interval scale, which had a range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). The statements to be rated included: “Michael seems like a warm person,” “Michael seems like a generous person,” “Michael seems like a stingy person,” “Michael seems to care about others,” and “Michael seems like a selfish person.” The next five statements were similar to the ones about the account user; nevertheless, they emphasized on Michael’s friends and enquired if the participant agrees or disagrees that they were also warm, generous, stingy, caring, or selfish. The subsequent two questions in the section focused on the participants’ impressions of the charity, “Unlikely Heroes.” Finally, the participants were asked about how they feel about whether they are charitable compared to other people.
The fourth section was the demographic section in which participants were required to complete queries about their demographic data, including their gender, age, ethnicity, first language, and their current learning institution.
Last but not least, the last section included the questions that would determine the individual perception of the participants on the amount pledged. Participants were asked whether the amounts of money that Michael’s Facebook friends pledged in their comments for donation to the charity was; low ($5 to $10), middle ($25 to $30), or high ($45 to $50). To conclude the study, the participants were debriefed about their valued contribution to the study and the insights into normative social influence and its relation to the main hypothesis of the study.
The study included several dependent variables; however, the main focus was to evaluate whether the amount of money or time that Michael’s Facebook friends were willing to the charity affects the amount of money or time that participants are prepared to contribute towards a similar cause practically. The participants ranked in the high dollar condition were hypothesized that they will be more generous with their contributions and would be keen on the contributions of other donors than participants in the low dollar condition. On the other hand, the participants in the middle dollar condition falling in the average values. We initially predicted that participants’ in the high dollar condition were willing to contribute higher the amount of money as well as time to the charity. They would also consider that other participant would do the same by contributing more amounts of money or time than participants in the low dollar condition, with middle dollar condition participants willing to donate an average amount of both money and time. A prediction that individuals in the high dollar condition were more likely to perceive the other contributors to be more warm, generous, and caring as well as less mean and selfish than the participants in the low dollar condition, the middle dollar condition contributors were likely to offer average amounts for donation.
Results
In consideration that the amount of money contributed as our dependent variable and condition (high, medium, and low) as the independent variable, a chi-square test was done, and its results confirmed that the effect was significant, X2(
20
) = 65.178, p <
.00
0. The majority of the participants (100%) in the high condition were willing to donate 35 dollars. Most participants (75%) in the middle condition were also willing to give 25 dollars while the majority of the participants (75%), in the low condition, were willing to donate
15
dollars. These findings indicate that the amounts of money that the participants are willing to donate depends on the set condition that they fall into.
The main analysis consisted of a One-Way ANOVA test which indicated significant differences among the independent variable, the condition (high, middle, or low) and the dependent variable, donation amount (money), the statistics for the test were F(2,
144
) = 11.82, p =
.000
. Tukey post hoc test supported our hypothesis at five percent level of Significance that participants in the high dollar condition will be more generous in their individual donations and are keen on the donations of other donors than the participants in the low dollar condition, with participants in the middle dollar condition being likely to donate average amounts of money to the charity the test results were: high condition (
Mean
= 28.68, SD = 14.55), middle condition (Mean= 22.56, SD= 10.08) and low condition (Mean = 16.57, SD =
13
.62). These results further revealed that the amount of money that Michael’s Facebook friends were willing to contribute to the charity influences the amount of money that the other partakers were willing to contribute towards the same cause.
Furthermore, the second objective was to determine the amount of time that the participants were willing to donate under each condition. One-Way ANOVA test was evaluated using the three conditions (high, middle, or low) as the independent variable, and the donation amount (time) as the dependent variable. The results indicated that the association exists between the condition category of the participant and donation amount (time) was significantly supported by the statistics, F (2, 144) = 5.44, p =
.005
. The prediction that participants in the high dollar condition are willing to donate more time to the charity (Mean = 7.74, SD = 5.05), and the assumption that the other participants would in a similar way contribute more money than participants in the low dollar condition (Mean = 5.49, SD = 3.15), the middle dollar condition participants willing to donate average amount of time (Mean = 7.90, SD = 3.66). Since the p-value for the ANOVA test was significant, subsequent Tukey post hoc test confirmed the results.
Discussion
The initial prediction was that individuals who were placed on the high dollar condition were willing to donate more money and time to the charity. Similarly, they believe that their counterparts will donate more money than participants in the low dollar condition category. On the other hand, we predicted that the middle dollar condition participants were prepared to donate an average amount of money as well as time. Furthermore, we predicted that the participants in the high dollar condition were likely to rate the other contributors as more warm, generous, and caring and less mean and self-interested as compared to the participants’ in the low dollar condition, with the middle dollar condition participants willing to donate more average amounts of money and time towards the charity.
Based on the outcomes of the study, the amounts of money or time that the donors are willing to donate will depend on the condition category that they fall in. The individuals’ in the high dollar condition are willing to donate more money and time towards the charity, and the other participants will in a similar manner donate less amount of money and time in the low dollar condition with the middle dollar condition participants deliberated to donate an average amount of money and time towards the same charity. In conclusion, the outcomes of the analysis portrayed that indeed the social psychology concept of normative social impacts on the expected amount of money and time donated by Facebook friends thus setting a norm with regards to the amounts that are deemed to be appropriate for other individuals to contribute.
References
Bateson, M., Callow, L., Holmes, J. R., Roche, M. L. R., & Nettle, D. (2013). Do images of ‘watching eyes’ induce behavior that is more pro-social or more normative? A field experiment on littering. PloS one, 8(12), e82055.
Croson, R., Handy, F., & Shang, J. (2009). Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive social norms, social information, and charitable giving. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(4), 467-489.
Heiser, R. S. (2006). Normative influences in donation decisions. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 15(1-2), 127-149.
Kim, H., Lee, E. J., & Hur, W. M. (2012). The normative social influence on eco-friendly consumer behavior: The moderating effect of environmental marketing claims. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30(1), 4-18.
Krupka, E. L., & Croson, R. T. (2016). The differential impact of social norms cues on charitable contributions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 128, 149-158.
Reingen, P. H. (1982). Test of a list procedure for inducing compliance with a request to donate money. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(1), 110.
Schwitzgebel, E., & Rust, J. (2014). The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior. Philosophical Psychology, 27(3), 293-327.
Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363-386.
Spangenberg, E. R., Sprott, D. E., Knuff, D. C., Smith, R. J., Obermiller, C., & Greenwald, A. G. (2012). Process evidence for the question–behavior effect: Influencing socially normative behaviors. Social Influence, 7(3),
21
1-228.
Van der Linden, S. (2011). Charitable intent: A moral or social construct? A revised theory of planned behavior model. Current psychology, 30(4), 355-374.
Weyant, J. M. (1984). Applying Social Psychology to Induce Charitable Donations 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(5), 441-447.
Wiesenthal, D. L., Austrom, D., & Silverman, I. (1983). Diffusion of responsibility in charitable donations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4(1), 17-27.
Wilson, K. J. (2015). Motivations to donate to charity using normative social behavior theory. Western Illinois University.
Appendix
A – Demographics
|
Statistics |
|||||||||||||||
|
Gender |
Age |
Race |
|||||||||||||
| N |
Valid |
147 | |||||||||||||
|
Missing |
0 | ||||||||||||||
| Mean |
1.4830 |
24.5850 |
2.3810 |
||||||||||||
|
Median |
1.00 00 |
2 2.00 00 |
2.0000 | ||||||||||||
|
Mode |
1.00 |
22.00 |
2.00 | ||||||||||||
|
Std. Deviation |
.50142 |
8.72082 |
1.46340 |
||||||||||||
|
Minimum |
3.00 |
||||||||||||||
|
Maximum |
72.00 |
6.00 |
|
Gender |
|||||||||
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
||||||
|
Male |
76 | 51.7 | |||||||
|
Female |
71 | 48.3 |
100.0 |
||||||
|
Total |
|
Race |
||||||||||||
| Caucasian | 41 | 27.9 | ||||||||||
| Hispanic | 70 | 47.6 |
75.5 |
|||||||||
| Native Indian | 2 | 1.4 |
76.9 |
|||||||||
| African American | 17 | 11.6 |
88.4 |
|||||||||
| Asian American | 7 | 4.8 |
93.2 |
|||||||||
|
Other |
10 | 6.8 |
Appendix B – Crosstabs and Chi-Square
|
Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) * Part II: Donation Amount (Money) Crosstabulation |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Part II: Donation Amount (Money) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| .00 |
5.00 |
10.00 |
15.00 |
20.00 |
25.00 |
30.00 |
35.00 |
40.00 |
45.00 |
50.00 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| High | Count | 4 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 3 |
53 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
% within Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
30.8% |
1 0.0% |
28.6% |
12.5% |
20.0% |
25.0% |
40.0% |
75.0% |
57.1% |
100.0% |
50.0% |
36.1% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Middle | 15 |
43 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15.4% |
19.0% |
0.0% |
14.3% |
16.7% |
29.3% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Low | 11 | 51 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
53.8% |
70.0% |
52.4% |
33.3% |
34.7% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 | 21 | 20 | 14 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chi-Square Tests |
|||||||
|
Value |
df |
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) |
|||||
|
Pearson Chi-Square |
65.178a |
.000 | |||||
|
Likelihood Ratio |
71.132 |
||||||
|
Linear-by-Linear Association |
19.626 |
||||||
|
N of Valid Cases |
|||||||
|
a. 20 cells (60.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.76. |
Appendix C – ANOVA Donation Amount (Money)
|
Descriptive |
|||||
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
|||||
|
Std. Error |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
||||
|
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
||||
|
28.6792 |
14.54935 |
1.99851 |
24.6689 |
32.6895 |
|
|
22.5581 |
10.08134 |
1.53739 |
19.4556 |
25.6607 |
|
|
16.5686 |
13.61948 |
1.90711 |
12.7381 |
20.3992 |
|
|
22.6871 |
13.93812 |
1.14960 |
20.4151 |
24.9591 |
|
ANOVA |
|||||||||
|
Sum of Squares |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
||||||
|
Between Groups |
3812.944 |
1906.472 |
11.182 |
||||||
|
Within Groups |
24550.662 |
144 |
170.491 |
||||||
|
28363.605 |
146 |
Post Hoc Tests
|
Multiple Comparisons |
||||||
|
Dependent Variable: Part II: Donation Amount (Money) |
||||||
|
Tukey HSD |
||||||
|
(I) Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
(J) Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
Mean Difference (I-J) |
95% Confidence Interval | |||
|
6.12111 |
2.67987 |
.061 |
– .2254 |
12.4676 |
||
|
12.11062* |
2.56120 |
6.0452 |
18.1761 |
|||
|
-6.12111 |
-12.4676 |
.2254 | ||||
|
5.98951 |
2.70330 |
.072 |
– .4124 |
12.3915 |
||
|
-12.11062* |
-18.1761 |
-6.0452 |
||||
|
-5.98951 |
-12.3915 |
.4124 | ||||
|
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. |
NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: CHARITY DONATION
Appendix D – ANOVA Donation Amount (Time)
|
Descriptives |
|||||
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Time) |
|||||
|
7.7358 |
5.05413 |
.69424 |
6.3428 |
9.1289 |
|
|
7.9070 |
3.65679 |
.55765 |
6.7816 |
9.0324 |
|
|
5.4902 |
3.14562 |
.44047 |
4.6055 |
6.3749 |
|
|
7.0068 |
4.19147 |
.34571 |
6.3236 |
7.6900 |
|
180.318 |
90.159 |
5.444 |
.005 |
|
2384.675 |
16.560 |
||
|
2564.993 |
Post Hoc Tests
|
Part II: Donation Amount (Time) |
|
|
Tukey HSDa,b |
|
| Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) |
Subset for alpha = 0.05 |
|
1.000 |
.977 |
|
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. |
|
|
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 48.597. |
|
|
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. |
PAPER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Darielmys Diaz
JUNE 8, 2020
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
PSY 3215
P a g e | 1
Running head THE INSIGHTS ON FACEBOOK
Have you ever participated in any sort of charity whether it is in person through the process
of social media? Social media is something that we are all aware of specially now after the years.
Go fund me is one of those charities that are now helping indiviuals gather funds for those in need
of it. As mentioned in the journal, “Nonprofit organizations are increasingly dependent on the
involvement of Millennial constituencies. Three studies investigated their motivations to support
charity-linked events.”(Schattke, Ferguson, & Paulin, 2018) These nonprofit organizations
and charities involve and cause emotional and physical concerns. This journal focuses mainly on
the self-determination theory, which allows us to understand the concepts and how individuals
react towards social media and charities.
Social media has a great mix into our livelihood. Whether we admit it or not our network
life creates a social aspect that goes into our real-life planation for their results. “We follow these
studies in manipulating the existence and level of social information available to our subjects.
However, we do so in a natural field experiment. Field experiments have recently been introduced
as a research tool in studying economics (Carpenter et al, 2005; Harrison and List, 2004). A v The
alter ego of the web is very true.” (Shang & Croson, 2009) Our life in the internet may sometimes
mix into our real life, but nonetheless some create an alter ego. This ego makes them believe the
person they imagine themselves being online is the person they truly are. Our ego is a part of our
everyday life, with the new form of society we truly might lose who we are.
P a g e | 2
Running head THE INSIGHTS ON FACEBOOK
As in Study 1, a pretest confirmed that people perceived the audience as intended (e.g.,
liberal or conservative). Specifically58 student participants were presented with either the ‘liberal’
or the ‘conservative’ profiles used in the main study. Using the same items as the main study,
participants rated the political ideology of the unidentified individuals depicted in those profiles
and categorized them as ‘liberal,’ ‘conservative’ or ‘independent’. Results confirmed participants
rated the ‘conservative’ profile as that of conservatives (Mpolitical ideology=5.98, 100%
categorization as conservative) and the ‘liberal’ profile as that of liberals (Mpolitical
ideology=1.93, 100%categorization as liberal). (Kaikati, Torelli, Winterich, & Rodas, 2017) Social
media is playing a huge role in political information. It has been proven that algorithms
demonstrate that all information received on social media has everything to do with the ideology
of the individuals. It starts tracking the type of information, and videos the user likes in order to
layout a platform for them to enjoy. From there the user receives only the information they wish
to have. Thus, allowing them to create a political identity that can be easily demonstrated and
observe from either their opinions or their social media outlets.
“Recent studies have examined the influence of (in) congruence of messages and
individuals’ moral foundations on attitudes toward CB, charitable intentions and actual CB. For
example, Feinberg and Willer (2013) showed that framing messages about the environment
in terms of sanctity, rather than only care, shifted conservatives’ attitudes in a pro-
environmental direction.” (Erceg et al., 2018) Charitable intention can always be a subject of social
status, and also a subject of how to interact in the social media world. A social study almost
P a g e | 3
Running head THE INSIGHTS ON FACEBOOK
demands donations to be made, and if done in social media it can promote the individuals. At the
end we become creature of our environments.
The last article reflects on how social media marketing has increased over the years,
because individuals are being targeted and buying or donating more often by the internet in
comparison to in person. As mentioned on the journal “Twitter activities and sales performances
of five companies from the Fortune 500 companies and its competitors were analyzed to identify
the correlation between the company involvement on the social media sites and its financial
outcomes.” (Barutcu & Tomas, 2013) It is personally crazy to examine the absolute influence social media
has towards our every lives and marketing.
Over all the studies that I provided and spoke about all reflect what I emphasized since the
start individuals influence each other in everything and anything but most importantly on social
media like Facebook, Instagram, and other networks.
P a g e | 4
Running head THE INSIGHTS ON FACEBOOK
Reference page
Barutcu, S., & Tomas, M. (2013). Sustainable Social Media Marketing and Measuring
Effectiveness of Social Media Marketing. Journal of Internet Applications and
Management, 4(1), 5-24. doi:10.5505/iuyd.2013.69188
Erceg, N., Burghart, M., Cottone, A., Lorimer, J., Manku, K., Pütz, H., . . . Willems, M. (2018).
The Effect of Moral Congruence of Calls to Action and Salient Social Norms on Online
Charitable Donations: A Protocol Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01913
Kaikati, A. M., Torelli, C. J., Winterich, K. P., & Rodas, M. A. (2017). Conforming
conservatives: How salient social identities can increase donations. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 27(4), 422-434. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2017.06.001
Schattke, K., Ferguson, R., & Paulin, M. (2018). Motivations to support charity-
linked events after exposure to Facebook appeals: Emotional cause identification
and distinct self-determined regulations. Motivation Science, 4(4), 315-332.
doi:10.1037/mot0000085
Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). A Field Experiment in Charitable Contribution: The Impact of
Social Information on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods. The Economic Journal,
119(540), 1422-1439. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02267.x