X-Envelope-to: PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
XGW-Version: IMail SMTP Gateway v1.54 1/16/92
XGW-To:   PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:02:00 MDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Lora L. Harpster" <PSYLLH@FREUD.SBS.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Results of cheating Q.

Don's message regarding our comments on the cheating questionnaire was
interesting to me.  Yes, you did seem a touch abrasive, but I had a sense of
defensiveness on your part (which I would have probably felt if I'd been in
the same situation) rather than an impression that you were angry.


>   You see, I didn't have any grand illusions about the validity or
>   reliability
>   of my questionaire or questionaires in general.  As a visual
>   perception/human
>   factors researcher, I prefer to collect hard data, GSRs or EMGs or
>   something
>   real.  But this time I wanted to know something about *you*, just
>   descriptive
>   stuff, nothing glamourous.  But you're all a long, long way off!  Someone
>   even suggested I should have run a pilot study.  I wrote the damn
>   questionaire
>   in about an hour and a half!  It was just for FUN!!

     At least in my case, I responded just for FUN as well.  I also have the
sense that those of us who were responding with criticisms were aiming them
at questionnaires in general, and not necessarily firing in your direction!
I considered the pilot study answer a response to the implicit question of
how we can make our use of this type of methodology more useful, given the
obvious drawbacks to questionnaires as a measurement instrument.


>   Thanks again to everyone who responded.  I still think you should have
>   known
>   (or at least been considerate enough) to commit to a response.  If this
>   message sounds angry, it's not.  I had fun with the questionaire and I
>   hope
>   you did too.  It probably wouldn't have made much difference in the
>   numbers if
>   you had responded appropriately.

     I thought I was being considerate in not providing you with "bad" data,
even if this wasn't a serious study.  I find the last sentence interesting as
well.  On a more abstract level, do you think that if subjects in our serious
studies don't respond appropriately it doesn't really make much difference?
I'm not trying to challenge you, I just think it would be an interesting idea
to discuss.

>   And no one even mentioned the biggest flaw in my questionaire.  It was
>   completely obvious to all what responses would make a good impression on
>   the
>   experimentor and what responses would confirm my hypothesis (that most
>   people
>   fudge a little once in a while).  Next time I'll do lots of validity
>   checking on my pilot data. :-/

     That flaw is one that social psychologists take as a given any time we
are using a self-report measure.  Most of us are trained in ways to minimize
this problem, but realize that we will never, ever be able to eliminate it
completely.


>   Please, everyone, don't take offense at the somewhat abrasive tone of
this
>   message.  I don't mean to offend.  The questionaire was meant to be fun
>   and
>   it was.  Besides, I *really* like most of you, and I have no bad feelings
>   for
>   anyone here.  (In fact, I can't remember the last time I had a bad
>feeling
>   of
>   any kind)

     Speaking for myself, I wasn't necessarily offended, merely curious and
interested in what you had to say.  But if you can't remember the last time
you had a bad feeling of any kind, how can you know what a "good" feeling is?
Again, not challenging you necessarily, this is one of the things I teach in
my Personal Growth class, that we all need the downs as well as ups in order
to be able to appreciate the ups and recognize them when they occur.  Ah ha,
a potential NEW topic of conversation!  I'd be interested in hearing from our
clinicians what they think about that philosophy.

     I did an electronic questionnaire to the group some time ago, looking at
demographics for grad students in psychology.  (Anybody remember that one?)
Specific areas were: level of parents' education, age, gender, number of
siblings, level of siblings' education, were you first in family to go to
college, grad school, etc. We were curious about whether the majority of grad
students fit the "traditional" mold (ie best predictor of being in grad
school is to have parents who were in grad school). My results could have
been challenged as easily as yours, since I didn't do any real design work or
piloting on the questionnaire, but like you, I did it solely for fun and the
results were interesting. What I found most fascinating of all were the
personal narratives that many of the respondents included with the numerical
responses.  I came away from that experience feeling a greater sense of
understanding about what drives certain members of the group to do what they
do, and the influences on their life because of their family background, and
I also felt that I knew these respondents a lot better after reading their
messages.  What would really be interesting to me would be to contrast the
types of responses one would receive by using an electronic questionnaire vs
a traditional paper one.  Anyone have any hypotheses about this issue?

     Anyway, no offense taken and none meant either by this response!



Loree Harpster  University of Utah  PSYLLH@FREUD.SBS.UTAH.EDU
                                    PCYLHP@UTAHUSI.BITNET
                 ________
                 |      |         *************************************
                 |   *  |____     This is the place.
                 |           |                      Brigham Young
                 |           |
                 |           |    THIS is the place???
                 |           |                      Brigham's Followers
                 |___________|    *************************************
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad