lecture 18 – psyco 350, b1 fall, 2011 n. r. brown

Lecture 18 – Psyco 350, B1Fall, 2011

N. R. Brown

Outline

1. The Partner-Discrepancy – Part 2

2. History & Autobiographical• Background

• Living-in-History Project

Psyco 350 Lec #18– Slide 2


USA Population Surveys-- Tess


USA Population Surveys – TessW & TessT

• TESS -- Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences

• NSF funded program – Survey-based Experiments


USA Web-based Surveys – TessW & TessT

• US data collection: 2004

• TessT:Sample: stratified sample; random digit dialed

telephone survey

• TessW -- Knowledge Network Panel:RDD recruit panel members

Members receive free hardware & internet service

Sample drawn at random from panel.

Data collect via web-based questionnaire.


Method -- Tess

1. Estimates # of SP – Three Versions

2. Indicated estimation strategy – Strategy Menu

3. Sexual orientation

4. Two attitude questions

5. Rate embarrassment

6. Rate truthfulness of response

7. Rate bias of responses


Method -- TessW1. Estimates # of SP – Three Versions

Control: “Please report your number of lifetime sexual partners”

Approx:“Off the top of your head, please provide a rough estimate of your number of lifetime sexual partners.”

Enum:“Please think back over your lifetime starting with your first sexual partner and count all of your sexual partners up to and including your most recent partner.”


Method -- Tess

2. Indicated estimation strategy – Strategy Menu

I just now thought back over my lifetime and tried to remember and count each sexual partner.

I made a rough guess, plus or minus a few sexual partners.

It was a very small number, so I just knew.

I keep a running tally of my number of sexual partners and I remembered this number (for example, I use a diary or I have been keeping track in my head over time).

I thought about the number of different sexual partners who I’ve been with in an average year and multiplied by the number of years that I’ve been sexually active (for example, about 5 a year for 5 years equals 25)

I used some other method to come up with my response. Please specify:


Method -- Tess

3. First Attitude Question

I believe a relationship should form before someone has sex. 1=Agree 2=Disagree 3=Neither

strongly somewhat strongly somewhat


Method -- Tess

4. Second Attitude Question

I would only have sex in the context of a serious relationship. 1=Agree 2=Disagree 3=Neither



Method -- Tess

5. Rated embarrassment

I felt embarrassed answering the questions about my number of lifetime sexual partners

1=Agree 2=Disagree 3=Neither



Method -- Tess

6. Rated truthfulness of response

I was truthful in my report of my number of lifetime sexual partners

1=Agree 2=Disagree 3=Neither



Method -- TessW

7. Rated bias of the estimate.

In terms of report of my number of lifetime sexual partners, I think that:

I greatly under-reportedI slightly under-reportedI was accurate in my reportI slightly over-reportedI greatly over-reported my number of lifetime sexual partners


Research Questions


Research Questions -- Tess

• Will the strategy difference replicate?

• Mode Effects:– Will web-based administration decrease the

discrepancy?

– Will web-based administration affect strategy selection?

• Will self-ratings yield self-incrimination (SI)?

• Will the partner discrepancy & strategy differences disappear when SIs removed?



Mode Effect:• Anonymity promotes disclosure.

–Discrepancy: Web < Telephone

• Web conventions (“flaming trolls”) condone exaggeration.–Discrepancy: Web > Telephone



• Will instructions affect strategy choice?

• If so:

– Will the instructional effect be a large one?

– Will instructions effect (decreases) the discrepancy?


Results

1. The Sample

2. Strategy Differences

3. The Discrepancy

4. Attitudes


The Samples


Sample – TessT(elephone)• Sample: n = 1641

• Relevant Subset:

heterosexual, sexually experienced

provided: SP estimate & strategy report

• Retained: 87.1%

Age

M MD N

♂ 49.8 49.0 727

♀ 51.3 50.5 702


Sample – TessW(eb)• Sample: n = 1893

• Relevant Subset:

heterosexual, sexually experienced

provided: SP estimate & strategy report

• Retained: 89.5%

Age

M MD N

♂ 47.1 46 845

♀ 48.3 48 847


Classification of Respondents %

Res

pond

ents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

TR Se H SI Se HGLBNo OrVirgNo SPTerminate

Telephone Web Women Men Women Men

Sexually-experienced Heterosexuals (SeH): Tel – W 86.6% Tel – M 87.5% Web – W 90.3% Web – M 88.7%


Self-Incriminators

• Defining Self-Incriminators (SIs)– Truthfulness Response: NR, 1, 2, or 3

• SIs uncommon -- % Se H– Telephone – Women 3.7%

– Telephone – Men 3.7%

– Web – Women 5.3%

– Web – Men 6.5%


Tr(uth) SeH Samples

Telephone

Age

M MD N

♂ 49.5 49 700

♀ 51.3 50 676

Web

Age

M MD N

♂ 46.8 46 791

♀ 48.32 48 802


Strategy Differences


Strategy Selection: Sex Differences

Telephone Survey

Reported Strategy

Know

Aprox

Enum

Tally

Rate

Other

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of A

ll R

esp

ons

es

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

WomenMen

Web Survey

Know

Aprox

Enum

Tally

Rate

Other

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

***

***

******

***

*


Strategy Selection: Mode Differences

Women

Reported Strategy

Know

Aprox

Enum

Tally

Rate

Other

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of A

ll R

esp

on

ses

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

TelephoneWeb

Men

Know

Aprox

Enum

Tally

Rate

Other

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

TelephoneWeb

***

***

+

******


Relation between Strategy & SPs: Sex Differences

Web Survey

Know

Aprox

Enum

Other

WomenMen

Telephone Survey

Reported Strategy

Know

Aprox

Enum

Other

Med

ian

Est

imat

ed S

P

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20WomenMen

***

***

***

***


Relation between Strategy & SPs: Mode Differences

Men

Know

Aprox

Enum

Other

TelephoneWeb

Women

Reported Strategy

Know

Aprox

Enum

Other

Per

cent

age

of A

ll R

espo

nses

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20TelephoneWeb

***

***

***

*


Replicating the Partner Discrepancy


Distribution of SPs

Telephone Survey

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 <50

Pe

rce

nt o

f Exp

eri

en

ced

He

tro

sexu

als

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

WomenMen

Web Survey

Reported Number of Sexual Partners

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 <500

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

WomenMen


Distribution of SPs

Women

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 <50

Per

cent

of E

xper

ienc

ed H

etro

sexu

als

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

TeleponeWeb

Men

Reported Number of Sexual Partners

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 <500

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

TelephoneWeb


Mean SPAll SeH

Mea

n S

Ps

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

Telephone -- WomenTelephone -- MenWeb -- WomenWeb -- Men

Tr SeH

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27 • Effects:Mode***

Sex***

Mode X Sex *

• SIs unimportant


Median SPs

• Women:Web > Tel

• Men:Web = Tel

• SIs unimportant

All SeH

Med

ain

SP

s

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Tr SeH

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Outliers (Se Hs)Web Sample

Women Men

Telephone Sample

Women Men

Rep

orte

d S

Ps

1

3

5

7

10

20

30

4050

75

100

250

500

750

1000

2000

3000


Mode Effects: Sex & Mode Differences

Estimated Number of Sexual Parnters

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Cum

ulat

ive

Per

cent

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0



Mode Effect: SP ≥ 10

Effects:• Sex***

• Mode***

•Mode X Sex***=================

•Web-♀ almost twice as likely to indicate at

least 10 SPs as Tel-♀

• For ♂s, no effect of Mode.

Survey

Telephone Web

% 1

0 o

r Mor

e S

Ps

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

36

39

Men Women


Attitudes


Are people more embarrassed on the phone?

Embarassment

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Women -- TelephoneWomen -- WebMen -- TelephoneMen -- Web

Modens

Sexns

Mode X Sexns


Does mode affect attitude response?

Question #1:

Mode***

Sex***

Mode X Sex+

==============

Question #2:

Mode***

Sex***

Mode X Sex+

I believe a relationship should orm before someone has sex.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Women -- TelephoneWomen -- WebMen -- TelephoneMen -- Web

I would only have sex in the context of a seriousrelationship.


TESS Summary: Strategies

• Multiple strategies used

• Sex & strategy selection:

–Approximation: ♂ > ♀–“Just Know”: ♀ > ♂

• Mode Effects:

– “Just Know”: Web > Tel

– Other: Tel > Web


And Finally…


The Discrepancy Reduced/Eliminated in 20’s Cohort

Telephone Survey

Cohort

20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s

Mea

n Lo

g10S

P

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.60

0.75

0.90

1.05

WomenMen

Web Survey

20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s

WomenMen


TESS Summary: Strategies

• Estimate related to strategy– Aprox > Enum > JK

• SPs & Aprox: ♂ > ♀

• SPs & Aprox for ♀: Web > Tel


TESS Summary: Mode Effects

• Self Incrimination:Web > Tel

• Attitudes:Web > Tel

• Embarrassment:Web = Tel

Web promotes disclosure.


TESS Summary: SP

• Replicate Discrepancy

• Sex X Mode InteractionConsistent w/ Social Desirability Account

• Sex X Cohort InteractionMemory/Behavioral Differences


Conclusions

• Three-pronged Account necessary– Direct evidence for

• Strategy Differences

• Social Desirability

– Sampling • PSW – “conspicuous by their absence”


Questions

Why do men favor rough approximation?

• Memory

• Motivation

• Distributional

Personal Memories & Public Events


Believes about recent

Memory & Public Events

(Biased) Beliefs about past:– Referred to as “Collective Memory”

• Memory in the World• Memory in the Head

– Part of group identity

– Often caused by & central to between-group conflict.

• Much Memory-in-the-World research

• Little Memory-in-the-Head research




Prior Research:

• Memory for historical events (Schuman) predicted by:– nationality

– Age


Schuman et al, 1898

• National surveys• Task:

“Name one or two important events from the past 50 or 60 years.”



Prior Research:

• Memory for historical events (Schuman) predicted by:– nationality

– Age

• Flashbulb Memory Research Memory– “Exceptional” (but imperfect) Memory for

“reception event”

The Living-in-History Project

Aim:

• Understand when & why historical events & autobiographical memory become intertwined

• Indentify “Generation 0” – Which experiences incorporated into a group’s

identity?


Two Assumptions & An Implication

• Life-altering events, landmark events, spawn “lifetime periods.”

• Public events can have a life-altering effect.

Public events might spawn Historically-Defined Autobiographical Periods (H-DAPs).

Empirical Questions

Do H-DAPs exist?

If so, where, when, & why?

Outline

• H-DAPs – Their Origins

–1 Method, 18 Samples, 9 Claims • H-DAPs – Their Implications

Method

Method – Phase 1

• Materials:– 20 neutral cue words:

automobile, bag, ball, book, box, bread, chair, coat, dog, pencil, piano, pill, radio, river, snow, spoon, stone, street, tree, window

• Task:– recall an autobiographical event

• related to cue word• specific• at least one week old

– write brief description on index card

Method – Phase 2

• Task:– estimate when (month & year) each event

occurred.

• Verbal Protocol:– Ps thought aloud while generating dates

–cue word: pill

–“I took a Bayer’s pill to relieve the pain in my tooth.”

–“I remember this one. This was…senior year. Beginning of senior year of 2003. Um…It was fall but it was middle of fall. I think it was October 2003. Yeah, I remember that .”

Rationale

Rationale

Word-cue Task:

• representative sampling of AM

Event-dating Protocols:

• dates typically “reconstructed”

• contents reflect organization

If H-DAPs exist, they should be mentioned in the protocols.

Rationale

If H-DAPs exist, they should be mentioned in the protocols, yielding …

A strong Living-in-History (LiH) Effect*

*frequent mention of H-DAPs in the dating protocols

18 Samples from 11 CountriesSample # Age Test Date(s)

1 Sarajevo, Bosnia 27 24 7/04; 10/04

2 Sarajevo, Bosnia 23 22 9/06

3 Sarajevo, Bosnia 25 37 9/06

4 Podgorica, Montenegro 25 23 7/04; 10/04

5 Belgrade, Serbia 25 25 2/05

6 NYC, NY, USA 23 25 2/05

7 Ann Arbor, MI, USA 24 23 6/05; 9/05

8 Edmonton, AB, Canada 27 23 9/04 – 1/05

9 Jerusalem, Israel 28 24 5/05 – 6/05

10 Aalborg, Denmark 26 23 3/05 – 4/05

11 Izmit, Turkey 27 21 3/06

12 Ankara, Turkey 24 22 3/06; 10/06

13 Moscow, Russia 26 39 12/07

14 Beirut, Lebanon 23 56 11/08 – 3/09

15 Bekaa Valley, Lebanon 21 59 11/08 – 3/09

16 Aalborg, Denmark 36 80 3/06

17 Netherlands 21 82 3/07

18 Edmonton, AB, Canada 26 83 3/07

Protocol Analysis

Protocol Coding – 3 Categories

Justified Responses:

Personal/Generic

Political/Conflict-related

Pop Culture/Sports/Weather

Example Protocol: Personal

–cue word: box – “My siblings and I took the large box from our new washer and dryer and took turns tipping ourselves over inside.”–“I honestly don’t remember how old I was but I know it was in my old house and we moved there when I was 4 so I was probably at least 5. So I’d say 1988 and I have no idea what month it was. Ah, I think we would have been playing outside if it was summer so I’d probably say like November.”



Personal/Generic



Example Protocol: Political/Conflict

cue word: pencil

“I was collecting fancy pencils and I was surprised when my cousin sent me a nice one in a letter.”

“1993 or 1994 because it was during the war and that’s

approximately how old I was, it wasn’t 92’ for sure. Why? Because it was in the middle of the war but I don’t know if it was 93’ or 94’.”



Personal/Generic



Example Protocol: Pop/Sports/Weather

–cue word: spoon – “I practiced bending the spoon.”– “I think I was doing that when I was watching The Matrix movie and The Matrix came out some years ago but when? It’s all mixed up…let’s say 3 years ago, 2002.II watched it, I think it was winter. February, 2002.”

lecture 18 – psyco 350, b1 fall, 2011 n. r. brown

Documents