Final Paper

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS

Kaytlin De Los Santos

PSY 3215

07/27/2020

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 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.

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). 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.

References

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_ALCLRf1qGJmWRlyVHAMTQ&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

Table 1

Demographics Study One

Table 2

Crosstabs and Chi-Square – Study One

Table 3

ANOVA Donation Amount – Study One

Table 4

ANOVA Friends Stingy – Study One

Table 5

ANOVA Friends Care – Study One

Table 6

Demographics – Study Two

Table 7

2 X 2 ANOVA – Study Two