Final Paper

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS

Kaytlin De Los Santos

PSY 3215

07/27/2020

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 2

Methods Study Two

Participants

One hundred and seven participants in the new sample for study two, 74% (n = 144) were

recruited to participate. Out of the 107 participants, 49% (n = 52) were male and 51% (n =55)

were female. Participants ages ranged from 18 to 70 (M = 24.95, SD = 9.13). The sample

population consisted 34% Caucasian (N = 36), 49% Hispanic (N = 52), 2% Native Indian (N =

2), 8% African American (N = 17), 4% Asian American (N = 5), and 3% of participants

reporting “Other” (N =3). See Table 6.

Materials and Procedure

In the second research, a group of 107 individuals was selected from the prior sample group used

in the initial research to represent the sample number needed. The first study had necessitated the

participants to read the Facebook post that is being assessed; the posting involves a gentleman named

Michael who requests that his followers to contribute to "Unlikelyheroes," and his friends' replies commit

to assist in the donation. In the research, we included only two conditions: high and low, and the medium

state was eliminated because it does not have much difference with the top state in the first study. The

significant difference in this second study is its concentration in the charitableness independent variable to

deeply evaluate whether the extent in which the participants would involve themselves in an honorable

course of giving out to those who are vulnerable and in need of assistance (Walther et al., 2018). In this

study, we only classify participants' willingness to contribute as either high charitableness or low

charitableness based on their responses to the questions regarding donating the available money that they

might have.

In the first study, we collected a lot of data regarding how numerous dependent variables like the

friends of Michael friends appear as if they are individuals who care about others, donation amounts

(money), and the friends of Michael give an impression that they are mean. In study two, we are majorly

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 3

focusing on donation amount (money), which is the dependent variable, by identifying the responses of

the amount of money from $0 to $100 that participants would be willing to give out to ensure that

vulnerable people such as homeless children get helped. We will evaluate the donation amount (money)

using the four conditions, that is, high contributors whose ability to give is high, high participant with

little contribution to the charity, low participant soaring giving capability, and low participant minimized

capability to give out.

Results Study Two

Testing the initial reliant variable, necessitated that we run the 2 X 2 ANOVA with the state

(elevated and little) and charitableness (low and soaring) as the variables which are independent and the

donation amount (money) as the variable which is dependent. The outcomes show that there is no

statistically noteworthy impact for charitableness on the amount that is donated, F (1, 103) = 16.80, P

=.000. It shows that the differences that exists in the donation of money between the high condition (M =

28.87, SD = 14.53) and the low condition (M = 16.48, SD = 13.41) are not meaningful. Nevertheless, a

statistically noteworthy divergence can be seen in charitableness, the independent variable, F (1, 107) =

0.876, P =.351. The individuals who contribute more, (M = 26.28, SD = 13.26) were seen to believe that

individuals were likely to donate more money when there is the availability of finances than the

participants who contribute very little, (M = 19.67, SD = 16.13).

Besides, there exists a relation involving the ability of the individuals in the sample to contribute

and the condition of the scenario, F(1, 103) = 1.014, P =.316, indicating that the charitableness differed

significantly among the high participant elevated capacity to give out (M = 31.09, SD = 11.76), high

participant little ability to give to charity (M = 25.48, SD = 17.74), low participant higher capability to

contribute to charity (M = 16.33, SD = 10.60), and low participant minimal ability to give to charity (M =

16.54, SD = 14.47) as displayed in the table labeled seven.

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 4

Discussion Study Two

Even though the second study displays that the amount of money available to a person influences

their charitableness based on the purpose of the charity and thoroughly assessed the likelihood of people

to give to those in need when they have financial resources, the presented outcomes do not clearly show

this argument. Considering that all participants had access to money, their variance in charitableness did

not have a statistical significance to demonstrate that they believed others would donate more when they

were given the same amount (Vaidhyanathan, 2018). The results show that individuals who had thought

of giving more to the charity were highly likely to classify the individuals who contributed less money as

stingy and seem to believe that Michael's friends were not very caring about helping Michael meet his

birthday wish of donating to support children in need.

The results indicate that the individuals with low donations had justified that Michael's friend was

willing to give all they had and would most probably suggest that other individuals donate less just like

they did. Moreover, individuals in the low category who had at least had higher charitableness seemed to

be more concerned with the course and believed that there was a need or Michael's friends to give more to

the charity (Hallinan et al., 2020). It is clear to see that as much as all individuals valued the course of

donating and helping those in needs, individuals with high charitableness would classify friends of

Michael as stingy and with reduced capability to care about the charity and those individuals who were

willing to donate a considerably low amount of money rated the impression given in a way to suggest that

the friends of Michael did a great job and helped as expected.

In conclusion, the results show a substantial statistical difference between the participants in high

condition, predominantly between the elevated giving and little altruistic respondents. The individuals in

the elevated charitableness category believed that Michael's friends had not been very concerned with

what Michael had posted, and their commitments show that they are stingy (Hallinan et al., 2020).

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 5

However, people in the low charitableness section seemed to believe that the contributions promised were

high and, therefore, rated their impressions in favor of Michael's friends.

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 6

References

Hallinan, B., Brubaker, J. R., & Fiesler, C. (2020). Unexpected expectations: Public reaction to

the Facebook emotional contagion study. New Media & Society, 22(6), 1076-1094.

Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444819876944

Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2018). The role of

friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we

known by the company we keep?. Human communication research, 34(1), 28-49.

Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article-abstract/34/1/28/4210811

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial Media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines

democracy. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=h05WDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1

&dq=facebook+consensus+2017&ots=WfrG1Zoguw&sig=LKhzh_ALCLRf1qGJmWRl

yVHAMTQ&redir_esc=y

Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A. A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N., & Gaddis, S. (2017). Manifestations

of personality in online social networks: Self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and

observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

Networking, 14(9), 483-488. Retrieved from

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2010.0087

Shakya, H. B., & Christakis, N. A. (2017). Association of Facebook use with compromised well-

being: A longitudinal study. American journal of epidemiology, 185(3), 203-211.

Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/185/3/203/2915143

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 7

Table 1

Demographics Study One

Statistics Gender (1 = M,

2 = F) Age Race

Valid 144 147 147N

Missing 3 0 0

Mean 1.4792 24.8435 2.3605

Median 1.0000 22.0000 2.0000

Mode 1.00 22.00 2.00

Std. Deviation .50131 8.48585 1.47558

Minimum 1.00 18.00 1.00

Maximum 2.00 72.00 6.00

Gender (1 = M, 2 = F)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Male 75 51.0 52.1 52.1

Female 69 46.9 47.9 100.0

Valid

Total 144 98.0 100.0

Missing System 3 2.0

Total 147 100.0

Race

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Caucasian 44 29.9 29.9 29.9

Hispanic 67 45.6 45.6 75.5

Native Indian 2 1.4 1.4 76.9

African American 17 11.6 11.6 88.4

Asian American 7 4.8 4.8 93.2

Other 10 6.8 6.8 100.0

Valid

Total 147 100.0 100.0

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 8

Table 2

Crosstabs and Chi-Square – Study One

Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) * Attention Check (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L) Crosstabulation Attention Check (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 = L)

High Middle Low Total

Count 44 3 6 53High

% within Condition (1 = H, 2

= M, 3 = L)

83.0% 5.7% 11.3% 100.0%

Count 0 36 4 40Middle

% within Condition (1 = H, 2

= M, 3 = L)

0.0% 90.0% 10.0% 100.0%

Count 6 6 42 54

Condition (1 = H, 2 = M, 3 =

L)

Low

% within Condition (1 = H, 2

= M, 3 = L)

11.1% 11.1% 77.8% 100.0%

Count 50 45 52 147Total

% within Condition (1 = H, 2

= M, 3 = L)

34.0% 30.6% 35.4% 100.0%

Symmetric Measures

Value

Approximate

Significance

Phi 1.064 .000Nominal by Nominal

Cramer's V .752 .000

N of Valid Cases 147

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymptotic

Significance (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 166.323a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 162.856 4 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 73.251 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 147

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 12.24.

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 9

Table 3

ANOVA Donation Amount – Study One Descriptives

Part II: Donation Amount (Money)

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

High 53 28.8679 14.53251 1.99619 24.8623 32.8736 .00 50.00

Middle 40 23.2500 10.03519 1.58670 20.0406 26.4594 .00 50.00

Low 54 16.4815 13.41042 1.82493 12.8211 20.1418 .00 50.00

Total 147 22.7891 13.98543 1.15350 20.5094 25.0688 .00 50.00

ANOVA Part II: Donation Amount (Money)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 4115.406 2 2057.703 12.123 .000

Within Groups 24441.057 144 169.730

Total 28556.463 146

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Part II: Donation Amount (Money)

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval (I) Condition (1 = H, 2 =

M, 3 = L)

(J) Condition (1 = H, 2 =

M, 3 = L)

Mean

Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Middle 5.61792 2.72868 .102 -.8441 12.0800High

Low 12.38644* 2.51904 .000 6.4208 18.3520

High -5.61792 2.72868 .102 -12.0800 .8441Middle

Low 6.76852* 2.71779 .037 .3323 13.2048

High -12.38644* 2.51904 .000 -18.3520 -6.4208Low

Middle -6.76852* 2.71779 .037 -13.2048 -.3323

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 10

Table 4

ANOVA Friends Stingy – Study One

Descriptives Part III: Michael's friends seem like stingy people

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

High 53 2.2264 1.03108 .14163 1.9422 2.5106 1.00 5.00

Middle 40 2.6750 .85896 .13581 2.4003 2.9497 1.00 4.00

Low 54 2.9074 1.27780 .17389 2.5586 3.2562 1.00 5.00

Total 147 2.5986 1.12054 .09242 2.4160 2.7813 1.00 5.00

ANOVA Part III: Michael's friends seem like stingy people

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 12.725 2 6.362 5.370 .006

Within Groups 170.595 144 1.185

Total 183.320 146

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Part III: Michael's friends seem like stingy people

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval(I) Condition (1 = H, 2 = M,

3 = L)

(J) Condition (1 = H, 2 =

M, 3 = L)

Mean

Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Middle -.44858 .22797 .124 -.9885 .0913High

Low -.68099* .21045 .004 -1.1794 -.1826

High .44858 .22797 .124 -.0913 .9885Middle

Low -.23241 .22706 .563 -.7701 .3053

High .68099* .21045 .004 .1826 1.1794Low

Middle .23241 .22706 .563 -.3053 .7701

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 11

Table 5

ANOVA Friends Care – Study One

Descriptives Part III: Michael's friends seem like caring people

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

High 53 4.6038 .74265 .10201 4.3991 4.8085 2.00 6.00

Middle 40 4.5250 .78406 .12397 4.2742 4.7758 3.00 6.00

Low 54 4.1667 .90596 .12328 3.9194 4.4139 2.00 6.00

Total 147 4.4218 .83523 .06889 4.2856 4.5579 2.00 6.00

ANOVA Part III: Michael's friends seem like caring people

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 5.696 2 2.848 4.265 .016

Within Groups 96.154 144 .668

Total 101.850 146

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Part III: Michael's friends seem like caring people

Tukey HSD

95% Confidence Interval(I) Condition (1 = H, 2 =

M, 3 = L)

(J) Condition (1 = H, 2 =

M, 3 = L)

Mean

Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

Middle .07877 .17115 .890 -.3265 .4841High

Low .43711* .15800 .018 .0629 .8113

High -.07877 .17115 .890 -.4841 .3265Middle

Low .35833 .17047 .093 -.0454 .7620

High -.43711* .15800 .018 -.8113 -.0629Low

Middle -.35833 .17047 .093 -.7620 .0454

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 12

Table 6

Demographics – Study Two

Statistics

Age Race

Gender (1 = M,

2 = F)

Valid 107 107 107N

Missing 0 0 0

Mean 24.9533 2.1028 1.5140

Median 22.0000 2.0000 2.0000

Mode 22.00 2.00 2.00

Std. Deviation 9.12945 1.25092 .50216

Minimum 18.00 1.00 1.00

Maximum 70.00 6.00 2.00

Gender (1 = M, 2 = F)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Male 52 48.6 48.6 48.6

Female 55 51.4 51.4 100.0

Valid

Total 107 100.0 100.0

Race

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Caucasian 36 33.6 33.6 33.6

Hispanic 52 48.6 48.6 82.2

Native Indian 2 1.9 1.9 84.1

African American 9 8.4 8.4 92.5

Asian American 5 4.7 4.7 97.2

Other 3 2.8 2.8 100.0

Valid

Total 107 100.0 100.0

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 13

Table 7

2 X 2 ANOVA – Study Two

Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Part II: Donation Amount (Money)

Condition (1 = H, 3 = L)

New IV - Participant

Charitableness (1 = H, 2 = L) Mean Std. Deviation N

Participant High

Charitableness

31.0938 11.75930 32

Participant Low

Charitableness

25.4762 17.74153 21

High

Total 28.8679 14.53251 53

Participant High

Charitableness

16.3333 10.60099 15

Participant Low

Charitableness

16.5385 14.47111 39

Low

Total 16.4815 13.41042 54

Participant High

Charitableness

26.3830 13.25757 47

Participant Low

Charitableness

19.6667 16.12627 60

Total

Total 22.6168 15.23938 107

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Part II: Donation Amount (Money)

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 4504.307a 3 1501.436 7.689 .000

Intercept 46734.294 1 46734.294 239.330 .000

IVCondition 3280.832 1 3280.832 16.801 .000

NewIVCharitable 171.135 1 171.135 .876 .351

IVCondition *

NewIVCharitable

198.062 1 198.062 1.014 .316

Error 20112.982 103 195.272

Total 79350.000 107

Corrected Total 24617.290 106

a. R Squared = .183 (Adjusted R Squared = .159)