The Effects of Mobile Phone - Lab Report Example

The Effects of Mobile Phone Abstract Personal choice was one among the very recent growing area of study under Social Psychology. In order to assess the effects of the limited and extensive choice groups on motivation, difficulty and satisfaction on choosing mobile phones, this study was conducted among a total of 100 first year Psychology students of Deakin University (82% females; 18% males) whose average age was 22.84 years old (SD = 7.23). The findings of this study suggested that motivation to win a mobile phone between two groups had no significant difference between the limited and extensive choice groups, which had contradicted Iyengar and Leppar’s (2000) finding. These also suggested that the more choices made more difficulty in deciding which phone to choose, as well as less satisfaction in the choice, which was supported by Schwarz (2006). I. Introduction Personal choice was one among the very recent growing area of study under Social Psychology. According to Iyengar and Lepper in their personal choice study entitled “When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” conducted in 2000, there was a popular notion about personal choice that having more choices was better than having limited choices. This emerging awareness of having more choices yielded more positive benefits had contradicted the findings of the researches and claims on personal choice (Moushart, 2008; Schwartz, 2006; and Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). According to Susan Moushard (2008) in the podcast recording entitled “Multiple Choice, For the Options Generations, the Paradoxes of Choice Abound”, the generation between eighteen (18) to thirty-five (35) year olds were the “options generations”, since it was the period of affluence and period of having unlimited choices. This generation had so much choices and options open to individuals in a very rapidly changing world. Having too many choice options was a privilege to individuals, but choosing which one among the choices was a confusing practice. For Moushard (2008), having limited choices was more advantageous than having extensive choices. Moreover, the video on “Too Much Choice” by Schwarz (2006) also agreed on the general idea that the choices, large or small, were positive things. Choices had made lives to be more liberated, more satisfying and more controllable. However, for the author, having more choices affected not only the decision making in material goods, but also had an effect decision making in major lifestyle. There were two (2) effects of having a wide array of choices, namely paralysis and inertia. First, paralysis was defined as not making a choice as a result of the too much complexity of available options in which had made individual to have difficulty in deciding. Second, inertia, on the one hand, was explained by leaving the options open due to the too many available options. It might be the case that the individual would just go for the safe option which was to buy or even to do nothing because of the fear that having more options put a greater risk of making a wrong decision. When paralysis was overcome, satisfaction s individual choice might be less due to the idea that the other choices could possibly have more and better features. It was the case that the more choices people had, the greater expectations people set and the more expectations people set, the less satisfaction people got. People regretted and were disappointed by their choice because they had tended to think that what they had not selected might be a better choice. In addition to that, the review of three studies on jam, essay and chocolate by Iyengar and Lepper (2002) had yielded the same findings that more choices gave less motivation and less satisfaction. The first study was between six (6) as the limited choice and twenty-four (24) jams as extensive choice. It was found out that the more choices of jams available, the less number of jams sold. The more choices of jams made the customers confused on which one to buy, until they had ended up not to buy at all. The second study was on writing an essay about the movie/s they had watched where the limited choice option was defined as those with 6 options, the extensive choice option had thirty (30) movies. This study had figured out that the limited choice option was a better option because it gave a better quality paper and more students were motivated to finish the essay than the extensive choice option. The third study on chocolates also had resulted to the limited option group who were more inclined participants to receive a $5.00 worth of chocolate as payment than the extensive option group. Given the contradiction by the general idea and the research findings on personal choice, this study would like to examine the effects of personal choice on mobile phones. Specifically, this research investigation is working on the assumptions that first, a person who has less mobile phones to choose from is more motivated to win a phone than someone who has a more extensive choice of phones; second, a person who has less mobile phones to choose from finds it less difficult to choose a phone than someone who has a more extensive choice of phones; and last, a person who has less mobile phones to choose from is more satisfied with their choices than someone who has a more extensive choice of phones. II. Method Participants – This study was participated by a total of 100 first year Psychology students of Deakin University, in which 82 % were females while the remaining 18% were males. The average age of the sample was 22.84 years old (SD = 7.23). Apparatus/ Materials – An online survey was aided with structured questionnaire and visual aids of either six (6) or thirty(30) phones with descriptors on each phone was conducted among each student participant. The questionnaire had a total of six questions to answer which three among those were on the student’s age, gender and ID number. The three remaining questions were asked on a ten-point Likert scale ranging from 1, “not at all”, to 10, “a lot”. The first among the Likert scale question: ‘On a scale of 1 to 10, how much would you like to win the phone you have chosen?’ was to prove the first hypothesis that a person who has less mobile phones to choose from is more motivated to win a phone than someone who has a more extensive choice of phones. The second Likert scale question: ‘On a scale of 1 to 10, how difficult was it to make your decision?’ was to prove the second hypothesis that a person who has less mobile phones to choose from finds it less difficult to choose a phone than someone who has a more extensive choice of phones. The third Likert scale question: ‘On a scale of 1-10, how satisfied are you with your decision?’ was to prove the third hypothesis that a person who has less mobile phones to choose from is more satisfied with their choices than someone who has a more extensive choice of phones. Procedures – In order to explore the differences of motivation, difficulty and satisfaction on choosing mobile phones among the participants, they were categorized into Limited Choice Group and Extensive Choice Group. The Limited Choice Group was exposed to only 6 mobile phones with descriptors for each, while the Extensive Choice Group was expose to a total of 30 mobile phones. Statistics was employed in order to yield the following data. Specifically, independent measures t – test was used to assess the differences between the two groups in terms of motivation, difficulty and satisfaction. III. Results On Motivation – A slight difference was observed between the limited and the extensive choice groups on motivation to win the phone. The mean ratings stated that there was a little difference between the two groups. When the independent measures was applied on t – test on the means and standard deviation, however, it was found out that there was no significant difference between the two groups, t(98) = .19, p >.05. On Difficulty – A difference was observed between the limited and extensive choice group with regards to scores on perception of difficulty in choosing. The limited choice group had lower scores on difficulty, M=3.78 compared to the extensive choice group with M=5.64. An independent measures t – test showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the limited and extensive choice group, t(98) = 2.81, p Read More