Re: [Heartlogic-dev] the plan

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 02:14 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 00:27 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> >>> 1. Rating the believability of goal status (Goal, Anti-goal, NoGoal) of
> >>> various participants.  This corresponds to level 'g'.
> >
> > Without going too deep, the hypothesis is that a pair of goal statuses
> > (same topic, same mindreader, different appraisers) characterize the
> > situation in an affectively meaningful way.  We can take this hypothesis
> > in lots different directions.
> 
> I confused.  I thought the goal statuses were Goal, AntiGoal and NoGoal.

Oh, yes, correct.

In simpler terms, what I mean is to ask about the goal status of Toby
and Toby's dad.  So there are two goal statuses (a pair).  The
hypothesis is that a pair of goal statuses is an affectively meaningful
way to characterize a situation.

I am not in a hurry to turn this goal-status thing into an empirical
study.  However, it seems like a useful thing to start exploring and we
can do it in a Hot-or-Not style format without any registration
requirement.

> > Are you hinting at a tree or flow-chart style extension of WLJ 2003?  If
> > so, sounds good.
> 
> I'm not sure.  Reimplimenting WLJ 2003 would not involve a flowchart. 
> Doing your study might.
> 
> Here's what I'm thinking.  JoeUser logins in.  A computer (or a 
> ROBOT!!!!) flips a coin.  If it's heads, JoeUser gets stuck with WLJ 
> 2003.  JoeUser will be required to complete about 10 items for his data 
> to be used.  If it's tails, JoeUser gets to do your study.  Hopefully, 
> the amount of effort required by JoeUser would be roughly the same 
> regardless of whether he gets to do yours versus gets stuck with mine.

Hrm.

Don't we need a valid email address to allow participation in a study?
The requirement for an email address (and informed consent) has been my
assumption.  Is it wrong?

> > Can you propose a specific list of things you want ready before we go
> > live?  It seems like your list is longer than mine.

> Compare currently collected data to WLJ 2003.  If data appears sane 
> then continuing marching forward with replication of WLJ 2003.  Maybe talk 
> through the project with UT statistical services to make sure everything 
> is sane.  Make sure I can run the data and test the hypotheses on a 
> moments notice using SAS.  Make sure I know precisely what constitutes 
> replication.  Give Joshua study 3 items from 2 or 3 more groups.  Make 
> sure website can randomly decide which group each new subject goes into 
> yet keep the groups balanced.  Review ethical issues associated 
> with doing WWW study and implement/modify informed consent/etc as 
> necessary.  Publicisize the website a little to see what kinds of 
> response we get for what kind of publicity.   If response is 
> suprisingly  big, then we will want to be careful to not blow all our 
> e.g. 1000's of subjects unnecessarily.  Instead, have other studies lined 
> up.  If response is tepid, then this is less of a worry.  Once completed, 
> distill all remaining study 3 items for the of the 12 groups and send off 
> to Joshua to be put up on website.  Publicize as necessary to get 
> sufficient subjects.

OK, good.

> As for your deal...
> 
> Get clear on the terms/constructs, research questions and hypotheses. 
> Develop the experimental method.  Probably write it up to prove we know 
> what we are doing.  Plan the statistical analysis -- e.g. seek input from 
> UT Statistical Services as necessary.  Pilot he items on 1 - 20 friends 
> and tweak based on their feedback.  Run study.  Analyze results.  Write 
> up.  Publish.

OK, and I want to do something like WLJ 2003 modified into a tree /
flowchart.

> Once both of the above are done... Become famous and watch the $$$ roll 
> in as we sip margaritas in Goa or somewhere!!!!! (-;

Yah.  :-)

To review, our front page is:

1. Hot-or-not style single-click goal status

After registration & informed consent then we offer a choice of:

2. WLJ 2003 replication
3. WLJ 2003 modified into a flow-chart format
4. Adding cues and exploring the statistical results of #1

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part