“FACEBOOK POST CASE STUDY” Machado 2

Paper-II: Study One Methods/Results/Discussion

Facebook Post Case Study

Roberto Machado

Florida International University

Professor Anabelle Andon

PSY 3215 Section RVGC

Paper-II: Study One Methods/Results/Discussion

Participants

One hundred participants took part in the description of Casey in this study. There were 53 females (53%) and 47 males (47%) in the study. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 59 (M= 22), SD = 2.75.

Methods

Casey Jacobs needed her friends to describe her best. She provided some rules such as not listing something someone already posted, to be honest, and should be the first thing that comes to mind. Therefore, the study had strong internal validity because of the conditions assigned. The study utilized the unstructured questionnaire method. Thus no Facebook friends were restricted to any fixed choice. Facebook friends comprised people of different colors, including Native Indians, Asian, Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, Caucasians, and others. In her question formatting, Casey had done it well. First, she made the question as simple as possible. The question could not be misunderstood. Secondly, she made the question specific by adding three rules that all her respondents were supposed to abide by.

Moreover, by avoiding jargon, Casey ensured that all her friends understood her question. They could either say something good or bad about Casey Jacobs. The conversations and comments flew more naturally for the respondents. The open questions gave more valid data because the Facebook friends expressed what they knew in their own words because in most cases, the Facebook users interacts with the site differently (Gerson, Plagnol & Corr, 2017). In particular, the unstructured questionnaire served to find out the “true” opinion. This is because most people others actions or behaviors and at times makes varying inferences about others’ attitude based on what they observe. In this case, a person’s self-perception and attitudes about others should not be directed. Again, the unstructured question by Casey elicited free responses, which were guided by conversations. Indeed, unstructured questionnaires useful in the qualitative study and form the basis of understanding some finer details about someone or something.

In addition, all Casey’s friends have to bear in mind that there are no wrong or right answers. All were answers. Thus, there is an extensive agreement of the cognitive information involved in responding all queries optimally. Respondents are assumed to execute some steps Smith et al., 2019). First, they must interpret all three rules by Casey. Next, they must use their memories, maybe from past interactions with Casey, for relevant info and then integrate any information which comes to mind into a sole decision. Finally, the friends should interpret the judgment into an answer and comment. However, each of these steps can be multifaceted, involving more reasoning.

A wide variety of reasonable motives may encourage Casey’s friends to respond differently, including intellectual challenge, interpersonal response, altruism, self-understanding, emotional catharsis, and desires for self-expression. As much as Casey hopes all her friends will optimize throughout the opinion poll, this can be an improbable expectation. This is because some of her friends may agree to complete the questionnaire due to the automatic compliance progression or because they are obligated to do so (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2017). However, if they can answer, Casey can get much more insights. In any case, the respondents most settle for the most accurate answer, if not satisfactory answers.

Again, there are expectations that all the respondents have to interpret the question sketchily and write what they believe will appear a sensible response. Casey’s friends can select the answer without denoting internal psychological prompts precisely pertinent to an event of interest, belief, or attitude. For respondents, it may be useful to think of strong satisficing and optimizing as the degree of the thoroughness with which the three rules should be followed. Also, Casey should understand the likelihood of the answers varying due to respondent motivation, task difficulty, and respondent ability. Task difficulty can be utilized as a function of question-specific points: the challenge of construing a query and recovering and manipulating the demanded info.

Guessing in answering Casey’s question is subject to her friends’ decisions. Consistent with this logic, Casey should try and adjust for this. Despite Casey’s open question providing more reliable and valid information, it may prompt “don’t know” responses from friends who know much more about her.

The reason for asking friends to describe Casey Jacobs is because they could have interacted with her. As a result, her friends observe her and see how she acts in a particular situation. Consequently, they attribute her behavior to her traits. Besides, people may infer emotions by observing others’ bodies. Actions like facial expressions, level of arousal, and postures make people conclude about someone easily. Also, meeting with people for the first time may make one make immediate judgments about the other. Casey’s previous plans to meet some of her friends for a small social gathering, class lessons, or a party make people judge her. Others may think she is pleasant, Casey is agreeable, Casey is a good person, and many more others.

Shortly after answers from her friends about her, Casey thinks she is exactly what they describe her. Such answered questionnaire her friends are about to complete, and any information resulting from it can give Casey a snapshot of her actions and behaviors. Maybe, she can understand the value she impacts on others.

Results

Using an unstructured questionnaire method with all three rules abided was an independent variable. The respondents provided the best word that described Casey and it was the dependent variable. I ran a manipulation test in which there were significantly varying answers, x^2 (2) = 67.50, p< 0.001. Respondents in all conditions and those with positive, negative, and mixed traits provided their description of Casey. The scale was run from 1 to 6 for those who strongly agreed and strongly disagreed on the positive traits of Casey. What was evident was that every person provided various answers, much more different from others. However, many of her friends from the University gave answers that portrayed Casey’s positive traits (85%). A few respondents from her University gave answers that portrayed Casey’s negative traits (15%). Notably, for all her friends, there were significant answers, mostly those portraying Casey’s positive traits, t (47) =2.43, p<.001, with men (M 3.75, SD = 3.1 having higher scores than women (W = 2.21, SD = 2.1). Other participants remained much more neutral about Casey, such as having a positive impression of her mean age of 27 (SD = 18.2) and were significantly more than those from outside her school who had a mean of 37.7 (SD = 13.7), t(29) =3.95, p =0.01. The participants paid attention to all the three given rules.

The average between the positive and negative answers described by all respondents varied significantly at 71% and 39%. Consequently, results for the first ANOVA, which tested all respondent’s answers as the independent variable and perceived general traits identified as the dependent variable, were significant M (3, 133) = 2.75, p >5. They had an average age of 28 (SD =5.4). An analysis of variance in respondent’s answers indicated that the effects of the three rules were significant in describing how they thought of her (F(4.95) =6.94, P = 0.07. Subsequently, a post hoc test supported the developed hypothesis by illustrating that respondents from Casey’s learning institution were more likely to provide answers that aligned with a positive trait. Results indicated that all her friends from outside her University either provided neutral and positive descriptions about her (M = 8.11, SD =4.72) than those from her institution (M=13.28, SD =4.20), F(2, 18)=12.32, p=.004. There was no interference in any situation. The results indicated that despite Casey’s interaction with her friends, they described her utilizing all rules given by her.

Discussion

The respondents described Casey utilizing all specified rules, and thus their answers led to a desirable outcome (positive, neutral, and neutral traits). However, acting contrary could not result in the provision of honest answers. Avoiding structured questionnaire methods enabled the generation of more honest answers (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2017). The predictions indicated that respondents who described Casey positively did not differ much from other respondents. In any case, the ease of mapping judgments made could be determined in part by how all responses are to conceptual detachments between adjacent opinions on the scale. The respondents’ opinions on Casey were very positive, slightly positive, neutral, slightly negative, and very negative because all their attitudes varied. The nearness of everyone’s true judgment to any conceptual division can be associated with the unreliability of responses, something not witnessed in this case. In addition, for all ratings to be reliable, there was a need to check how meaningful it to ask if the tests are measuring or probing. Also, Casey’s question type was much more behavioral. The information sought included factual information about what she does and the frequency with which she carries out certain actions. The preexisting questionnaires suggested by Casey covered some conditions and satisfaction measures designed for self-completion. Notably, it is good to include some instructions on the questionnaire to ensure that respondents utilize the provided guidelines. The results indicated that all specified rules were met. All counterfactual responses provided by all respondents never differed with Casey’s rules. Therefore, it could not be established that respondents were unfamiliar with the task, which did not require much thinking. However, there was a need to properly analyze Casey’s behavior and actions to describe her well.

Appendix

Statistics

Gender

Age

Ethnicity

Mean

2.75

5.4

8.11

Minimum

Maximum

Gender

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Males

Valid Females

Total

100

100.0

Ethnicity

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Caucasian

19.5

Hispanic

23.04

Asian American

14.88

African American

17.05

Other

25.11

Total

100

100.0

Positive Trait

Negative Trait

Neutral

85%

15%

0.00

ANOVA

Total Squares

Mean Square

Sig

Positive

231.198

8.11

2, 18

.004

Negative

298.88

3.75

Neutral

0.00

References

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Questionnaires. In Research methods in education (pp. 471-505). Routledge.

Course work (n.d.). Research Study – Florida International University – Summer, 2021

Gerson, J., Plagnol, A. C., & Corr, P. J. (2017). Passive and active Facebook use measure (PAUM): Validation and relationship to the reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 81-90.

Jacobs, C. (2021). Facebook Home Page from Casey Jacobs

Smith, M. G., Witte, M., Rocha, S., & Basner, M. (2019). Effectiveness of incentives and follow-up on increasing survey response rates and participation in field studies. BMC medical research methodology, 19(1), 1-13.

The post “FACEBOOK POST CASE STUDY” Machado 2 “FACEBOOK POST CASE STUDY” Machado 2 appeared first on PapersSpot.