Final Paper

Running Head: FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 1

Facebook Consensus

Kaytlin De Los Santos

PSY 3215

07/20/2020

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 2

Methods

Participants

One hundred and forty-four participants in the sample. Of these 75 were males (51%) and

69 were female (46%). Sample ages ranged from 18 to 72 (M = 24.84, SD = 8.48). This included

29% Caucasian (N = 44), 45% Hispanic (N = 67), 1% Native Indian (N = 2), 11% African

American (N = 17), 4% Asian American (N = 7), and 6% of participants reporting “Other” (N

=10). See Table 1.

Materials and procedures

As per the informed consent guidelines, the potential respondents for the survey were

made aware of the advantages of taking part in the research as well as the risks that come with

this action prior to being given the material for the research. The participants who agreed to be

part of the research were issued with a document containing five sections. They would analyze a

Facebook post on a charity event and thus respond to the survey based on their perspectives. The

survey begins by presenting a post from Facebook about a fundraising event and a few of the

comments given by the friends of the individual who has posted it.

After reviewing the post made by Michael Benzjian appealing to the well-wishers to take

part in his birthday fundraiser to help children in need, the student would be required to answer

the part II questions assuming they had been given $100. This part requires then to answer how

much amount they would donate to the charity, how much of the available money would other

individuals donate, as well as answer the amount of their time instead of money would dedicate

to charity.

Part III of the survey requires the participants to rate the post regarding the page itself and

Michael. They would use their perspective to give ratings (Strongly Disagree 1 to Strongly

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 3

Agree 6) of the various conclusions which can be made from this posting. Part IV requires

participants to fill their personal information such as gender, age, race/ethnicity, first language, if

they are a student at FIU, and their relationship status. The final part, part V, asks the participants

to make their judgement based from what they remembered reading in the post, how much they

think Michael’s friends contributed.

Results

Using high, medium and low, the survey conditions, as the variables that are independent

and whether the participant would contribute the given money as the dependent variable, we

were able to determine that 44 participants would give 83.0 % , 3 people would give 5.7 %

whereas 6 people would contribute 11.3 %. The Phi value showed a minimal effect which

indicates that most people would be willing to give less than what they have. See Table 2. The

one-way ANOVA test which is our key analysis also shows the differences existing between the

dependent and independent variables are not significant and gives (F = 12.12). This is likely to

suggest that the money that one has is not really a determinant of their capability to donate and

help other. The largest group of participants were willing to donate the lowest money of the high

group (M = 12.38, SD = 2.51). Similarly, the participants willing to give medium amount to

donation would largely give the lowest amount in this category (M = 6.78, SD = 2.71779). See

Table 3.

The results of the part III of the survey are that most participants indicated lower (M =

2.90) and higher (M = 2.22) ratings for the survey on whether the friends of Michael are stingy.

A huge group indicates their viewpoints which display that the general ratings made by these

individuals state that the donations made are very low and thus these individuals are only giving

a small percentage of what they have. There is a very small significance difference indicated (Sig

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 4

= 0.006, F = 5.37) between groups meaning that the donations considered high, low and medium

has very limited differences. Finally, we ran multiple comparisons to determine the perceptions

of people regarding donating money and the availability of money. See Table 4.

Discussion

We made predictions that the respondents would be highly likely to donate more when

they had money available and this led to their perception of classifying the people involved in

this scenario as stingy. In addition, most of them gave low rating to statement displaying that

Michael’s friends were caring since their contributions are very low. Considering that this

decision of helping children is a noble quest, most participants seemed willing to give up most of

the income they could get for the operations. Consequently, it was forecasted that individuals

who were willing to give up less of the money they had to donate to children in need, would be

less judgement all and would rate low ratings to statements such as friend of Michael are stingy

while rating highly the statements indicating that Michael’s friends are caring. The findings

support these predictions as most individuals who preferred to donate less stated that the friends

of Michael are caring and are in no way stingy. The individuals who ought to donate an average

amount of the $100 mostly were indifferent in that some thought that the individuals in the

scenario are stingy and caring while others thought they were not.

The main reason for variance in the results is the difference in how participants viewed

the matter at hand. Some thought that it was far better to give up money and help a child out

there whereas had a viewpoint that it would be crucial to give up less and save more for

themselves. The personal opinions of people on various matters especially when it comes to

kindness and generosity could have created the gap between their capabilities to donate.

FACEBOOK CONSENSUS 5

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 6

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 7

Table 3

ANOVA Donation Amount – Study One Descriptive

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 8

Table 4

ANOVA Friends Stingy – Study One

Descriptive 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 9

Table 5

ANOVA Friends Care – Study One

Descriptive 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.