Comparison of Donations People with the Higher and the Low Dollar Status - Research Paper Example

Methodology

Participants

The study entailed 460 respondent, where 36.1% (N=166) included the male figures while the rest were females. Other gender represented 0.2% while the same figure also failed to respond. Based on race and ethnicity, 18.5 % (N=85) represented the Caucasians, 62.5% were Hispanics, while 0.2% represented the Native Indians. Others were African Americans at 10%, Asian Americans at 2.4% while other races were only 3.5%. Regarding language, 63.7% (N=293) represented the native speakers of English, 7.2% using English as a second language, 28.8% speaking other languages as their native while 0.4% failed to respond. 27.4% (N=126) of the 460 respondents were students from FIU while the rest were never from FIU. Based on the status of the relationship, 42.0% (N=193) acknowledged of being single while 27.4% said that they were leading relationships. For further information, refer to Appendix E.

Equipment and steps

This represents the continuation of study two in which one identified as the 'Anchor' was after assessing what occurred during the social conformity after the charity drive proposes the minimum that needs to be given by the donors. Consequently, the research had two estimations; gave the prediction that persons with the higher condition of the anchor will be ready into donating more cash towards charity in comparison to those within the anchor status. The second estimation was a higher dollar, and anchor status results in bigger donation quantity when compared to the conditions. With the move to confirming the estimations, the research carried out online oriented Qualtrics. Every student, while conducting the research methodologies assumed the teacher's responsibility of collecting data from varied participants who constitute the 450 samples by adopting the prospective respondent for their respective consent.

The likely participants were made aware that the study would last for not more than ten minutes. Upon agreeing to be part of the study, they would proceed with the viewing of the profile of the Facebook they can access. Secondly, they would proceed with answering some follow-up based questions concerning their attitude towards the Facebook page identified as Michael Bezijian. The participants were informed of the likely risks such as the discomfort with the individual based questions and how they stand to respond to the certain scenarios within the social contexts. Regardless of the same, they were informed too about the benefit of involving in the study being the provision of the source data that would result into the development of the study as well as contributing to the knowledge within the field about psychology.

The likely participants were challenged if they were ready to be part of the study. The possible participants who replied with 'No' were in a direct manner discontinued from the process of the study. Those who replied with 'Yes' were taken through the Facebook page that followed. At this juncture, they were informed about reading every aspect cautiously within the page since they require information for giving their relative impressions regarding the page in their following survey. Within the page, Michael took part anchoring or made requests to friends into donating some money close to $50 as the top anchor against $10 as the lower side of the anchor. Four varied pages were available. The first one had the comments from the friend of Michael regarding the contribution, higher anchor and donation status regarding the comments from the friends. The second page had a higher condition of the anchor, but with the lower condition of donation. The third case had a lower anchor but with higher donation status. On its part, the fourth part had the combination of the low donation and anchor as well. Meanwhile, the participants were never made aware regarding the condition they were categorized of up to that juncture they ended up in finalizing the study. A challenge was given to them on whether they in the past had managed to read to the Facebook page upon being exposed to the Qualtrics Survey. Upon confirming the yes admission, the participant was made aware of what followed; otherwise; they had to be prompted into reading the page once more.

The study was made aware of the study being a class project through the previous studies had offered to the participants with deserved compensation for finalizing on the contents. In the present study, it was, on the other hand, possible in doing the same. The researcher sought from the participants into imagining that stood a chance in paying them $100 for the sake of the study. Thus, they had to have the imagination of not donating anything, a section or all the money to the birthday charity of Bezjina Michael. Thus, the question that follows was presented; 'What stands as your hypothetical based donation quantity; $0 up to $100'. In your opinion, what do you believe may be donated by other participants? If you decided to donate, what value can you donate comfortable?'. Participants were given the freedom of stating the exact amount in dollars beginning from $0 and $100 they stood at donating with ease. At last, the respondents were then told give their ratings about their respective impressions on Michael Bezjian, the friends and his page on Facebook as well as the participants too.

A total of thirteen statement oriented questions were placed. For instance, "Michael appears to be a cool person", 'Michael may be kind', 'The friends of Michael appear to be warm people' and many others. The statement questions in this regard were applied as the dependent based variables for the following analysis. In the following step, the participants went ahead to finalize the information regarding the demographics like age, language, the status of relationship, ethnicity and gender. On the other hand, they were still encouraged into leaving blank information inquiring on personal matters and such they were feeling into answering. The students managed to complete the Qualtric Survey after giving answers on the two manipulation based check types of questions; that is one touching on the anchor type of condition while the other covering on the condition of donation. At last, it was marked with the debriefing of the participants regarding the study they had immediately completed and the making aware of their full names plus the persons who referred to them about the award for the study.

Findings

The very first tests identified as the Chi-Square was conducted by the use of the donation (higher against lower donations) as the variable identified as being the independent. The other case also entailed the first case of the manipulation check minus having a backward look concerning the way the friends of Michael were donating to the birthday kitty, 'Unlikely Heroes' as the response towards the variable. The findings got after carrying out the Chi-Square tests offered the major realistic impact on the status of the very first manipulation check depicting the ability of the participants into memorizing the amount donated by the friends of Michael as, χ2 (2) = 247.075, p = 0.000. On top of this, the respondents who belonged to the ‘Higher Donation’ status gave their confirmation that the friends of Michael had a contribution of $45 to $50. Hence, majority of the participants recalled their statuses as depicted in Appendix F.

The second tests regarding the Chi-Square were done by making use of another Anchor status; the high anchor against low anchor as the independent variable. The manipulation check based question minus having a look at the extent whereby Michael was seeking donation for his birthday kitty, 'unlikely heroes' as the response type of variable. The findings got as a result of the Chi-Square tests depicted realistic impact on the status of the second manipulation check type of variable showing the capacity of the participants into remembering the quantity whereby Michael made requests from his friends into donating towards his Birthday, ‘Unlikely Heroes’, χ2 (2) = 156.709, p = 0.000. The major effect is visible from the reality that 68.8% among the respondents belonging to the ‘High Anchor’ status made the confirmation that Michael had made requests from his friends into contributing $45-$50. On the other hand, 60.2% among the respondents belonging to the ‘Low Anchor’ status made the confirmation that Michael had made requests from his friends into contributing $5-$10. Conclusively, the majority of the participants were able to recall their statuses, as depicted in Appendix F.

The very first factor regarding the test on ANOVA was done by using the Donation status and the Anchor condition serving as the independent variables and the donation quantity acting as the first independent type of variable. The descriptive statistics depicted about the variation between the High Anchor within High Donation sect (M = 29.33, SD = 15.569) and High Anchor within the Low Donation sect (M = 28.24, SD = 14.136). At the same time, the same time, the descriptive statistics revealed about the variation between the Low Anchor within the High Donation sect (M = 25.91, SD = 14.639) and Low Anchor in the Low Donation group (M = 20.68, SD = 16.438); and the overall difference between High Donation (M = 27.70, SD = 15.196) and overall Low Donation (M = 24.59, SD = 15.719). The findings revealed that the donation status of the participants had a major impact on the donation quantity, F (1,456) = 4.973, p = 0.026. More about this is depicted in Appendix G.

The second ANOVA factor tests were done by the use of the Donation status and the Anchor condition as being the independent variable. 'Michael appeared to be a generous individual' was taken as the second dependent type of variable. The outcomes showed that the condition of donation had a valuable impact on their impressions concerning Michael F (1,456) = 9.099, p = 0.003. The anchor condition of the participants regarding their respective impression of Michael was taken as F (1,456) = 4.552, p = 0.033. More about these are presented in Appendix H.

Discussion

The research was under the guidance of the hypothesis in which people from the higher dollar status are regarded as being extra generous with their relative donations. Similarly, they seem more favourable towards donating in comparison to persons who belong to the low dollar status. As a result, the study made the estimates that people of the higher anchor status will often be donating more towards charity in comparison to those who belong to the low anchor statuses. The other prediction was that the relationship. The other estimation was that the relationship between the Donation status and the Anchor condition led to people within the higher dollar and higher dollar donation being more in comparison to the other respective. The tests regarding ANOVA confirmed the first prediction. Still, following the fact that the very first interaction never had realistic impacts, the results then failed in confirming the second prediction.

Appendix E: Analysis of Demographic

Appendix F: Findings from the analyses using Chi-Square

Appendix G: Analysis of First 2x2 ANOVA

Appendix H: Analysis based 2x2 Factor ANOVA