Presentation on theme: "Inquisit Internet Study:"— Presentation transcript:
1Inquisit Internet Study: Can Millisecond-Precise Cognitive Research be Done in the Internet Jungle?Brittany Travers, M.A., Mark Klinger, Ph.D., & Carson Sandy
2Common Concerns with Conducting Internet Research Control of testing environmentInternet studies might attract a different type of participantSpeed of internet connectionScreen refresh rateTechnological difficultiesLack of experimenter to answer questions and inspire concentration
3Current Study 69 in-lab participants and 67 internet participants 3 tasks:Implicit Association Task (IAT)False Memory TaskExogenous Attention Cueing TaskYou hear a list of words. Let’s give it a try. Toe, yard, ankle, inch, heel, sole, shoe.Then, we test their memory for the list. Did you hear truck? Did you hear shoe? Did you hear foot?Then you take a test on them either in written or sound form. Unknown to you, all these words are meant to bring to mind another word, which many people falsely recall in .
4Implicit 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 keyFaster 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.
7IAT Participant Variability Standard Deviations:Correct CompatibleIncorrectCompatibleResponse Time CompatibleResponse Times IncompatibleIn Lab.05.09104.40167.40Internet.08.13121.44218.91Overall, slightly more variability in internet group.
8False 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.
13False Memory Participant Variability Standard Deviations:Crit Lure False Recognition RateDistractor False Recognition RateIn Lab.23.18Internet.22.16Overall, very similar variability in in lab and internet groups.
14Exogenous Attention Cueing Task Is the special cross missing it’s bottom or top arm?
15Exogenous Attention Accuracy Internet group significantly more accurate than in-lab group.
16Exogenous Attention Participant Variability Standard Deviations:Cued CorrectNot Cued CorrectIn Lab.16.13Internet.17Overall, slightly more variability in the internet group for the not-cued condition.
17The Practical Results6 s complaining about computer issues associated with internet aspect2 participant’s data was lost for 3rd study(but both of these were in-lab participants)2 complaints of people completing study but no data available
18DiscussionIn-lab data looked almost exactly like the internet data in all tasks except the attention taskExogenous attention task found internet participants overall more accurate than in-lab participants (contrary to hypotheses)Not too many complaints or computer problems from internet participantsOverall, internet data collection appears to render same results as in-lab data collection3 different tasks currently being run to check generalizability of results