Presentation on theme: "Inquisit Internet Study: Can Millisecond-Precise Cognitive Research be Done in the Internet Jungle? Brittany Travers, M.A., Mark Klinger, Ph.D., & Carson."— Presentation transcript:
Inquisit Internet Study: Can Millisecond-Precise Cognitive Research be Done in the Internet Jungle? Brittany Travers, M.A., Mark Klinger, Ph.D., & Carson Sandy
Common Concerns with Conducting Internet Research Control of testing environment Internet studies might attract a different type of participant Speed of internet connection Screen refresh rate Technological difficulties Lack of experimenter to answer questions and inspire concentration
Current Study 69 in-lab participants and 67 internet participants 3 tasks: – Implicit Association Task (IAT) – False Memory Task – Exogenous Attention Cueing Task
Implicit Association Task (IAT) First, Say whether a word is good or bad as quickly as possible. Then, say whether a picture is of a flower or insect as fast as possible. Compatible condition: Picture and word stimuli presented. Good word and flower picture use the same key, and bad word and insect picture use the same key. Incompatible condition: good word and insect picture use the same response key, and bad word and flower picture use the same response key Faster reaction times in the compatible condition compared to the incompatible condition indicate an association between flowers and good words and an association between insects and negative words.
IAT Response Time (ms)
IAT Participant Variability Standard Deviations: Correct Compatible Incorrect Compatible Response Time Compatible Response Times Incompatible In Lab Internet Overall, slightly more variability in internet group.
False Memory Task Participants hear a list of words. Immediately after each list, must say if words that are either visually or auditorily presented were on the previous list. However, the lists are arranged to elicit the false remembering of the critical lure.
False Memory Task Spoken Lists Associative Lists FALL (polysemous critical lure) Down Crash Autumn Summer Leaves Hurt (Spreading activation) Categorical Lists Robin (most typical category member critical lure) Blue jay Wren Sparrow Crow Dove Eagle (Conscious inference)
False Recognition of Critical Lures
False Recognition by List Type
False Recognition by Modality
False Memory Participant Variability Standard Deviations: Crit Lure False Recognition Rate Distractor False Recognition Rate In Lab Internet Overall, very similar variability in in lab and internet groups.
Exogenous Attention Cueing Task Is the special cross missing its bottom or top arm?
Exogenous Attention Accuracy Internet group significantly more accurate than in-lab group.
Exogenous Attention Participant Variability Standard Deviations: Cued Correct Not Cued Correct In Lab Internet.17 Overall, slightly more variability in the internet group for the not-cued condition.
The Practical Results 6 s complaining about computer issues associated with internet aspect 2 participants data was lost for 3 rd study (but both of these were in-lab participants) 2 complaints of people completing study but no data available
Discussion In-lab data looked almost exactly like the internet data in all tasks except the attention task Exogenous attention task found internet participants overall more accurate than in-lab participants (contrary to hypotheses) Not too many complaints or computer problems from internet participants Overall, internet data collection appears to render same results as in-lab data collection 3 different tasks currently being run to check generalizability of results