Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Curious. I finished your study and answered the questions as asked - about "the article" as a whole, rather than the subjects of the article itself. No initial source was provided until later, and as far as I knew I could have been reading a bit of fiction in both articles. Wouldn't it have suited the study better to ask about perceptions and/or feelings towards the entities in the article(s) rather than the article itself? This is supposed to somehow analyze group think, but I don't see how. It was an online test that one takes alone and confidentially without the participation of others to influence the outcome with respect to the questions. It also seems to assume that a favorable circumstance would generate favorable results, and then judge the difference in how the questions are answered. I don't think this should be assumed because the reader may not even think the circumstances describe make any real difference.If you're interested in group think/influence, you might find the following interesting if you haven't already come across it: [MEDIA=youtube]FnT2FcuZaYI[/MEDIA] Two more notes about your study. 1) The bubble sensitivity makes it difficult to definitively place a number, and as a result I did my best to just keep it in the range I wanted, instead of picking a distinct number. This could lead one to assume a slight change in mind (say, for range bound answers) when there wasn't one. 2) A little better punctuation in places would make it look more professional.
Curious.
I finished your study and answered the questions as asked - about "the article" as a whole, rather than the subjects of the article itself. No initial source was provided until later, and as far as I knew I could have been reading a bit of fiction in both articles. Wouldn't it have suited the study better to ask about perceptions and/or feelings towards the entities in the article(s) rather than the article itself? This is supposed to somehow analyze group think, but I don't see how. It was an online test that one takes alone and confidentially without the participation of others to influence the outcome with respect to the questions. It also seems to assume that a favorable circumstance would generate favorable results, and then judge the difference in how the questions are answered. I don't think this should be assumed because the reader may not even think the circumstances describe make any real difference.
If you're interested in group think/influence, you might find the following interesting if you haven't already come across it:
[MEDIA=youtube]FnT2FcuZaYI[/MEDIA]
Two more notes about your study. 1) The bubble sensitivity makes it difficult to definitively place a number, and as a result I did my best to just keep it in the range I wanted, instead of picking a distinct number. This could lead one to assume a slight change in mind (say, for range bound answers) when there wasn't one. 2) A little better punctuation in places would make it look more professional.