Morality Website Collaboration

From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the planning wiki for www.YourMorals.org


Contents

CURRENT SITE CHANGES

RAVI'S List

Other Stuff

RWA:

OTHER TOP PRIORITY CHANGES TO MAKE

Scales in progress

- feedback [Sena/Pete will do]

- feedback [Pete will do]

- feedback [Jon will do]

- feedback [Jesse will do]

- feedback [Jesse will do]

- feedback [Pete will do]

- feedback [Pete will do]

- No need to do this right now...Ravi will add to retired or old eventually if he needs more data

- Ravi will add.

- Ravi will add.

- which ones should we do? Ravi may add trolley personal/impersonal as a start/template...maybe child smothering one too....would be interesting if we include study timings.

SCALES WE MIGHT POST

on 8/17, AFter the 3rd modifcation approved by UVA in July WE HAVE:

FEATURED STUDIES

OTHER STUDIES POSTED

RETIRED STUDIES

ADDITIONAL SCALES READY TO GO, FULLY TESTED ON THE MIRROR SITE

ADDITIONAL STUDIES UP BUT NOT FULLY TESTED ON THE MIRROR SITE:

OTHER SCALES/STUDIES APPROVED BY IRB BUT NOT YET PUT UP ON MIRROR

FUTURE SCALES/STUDIES, NOT YET APPROVED


SCALES THAT WILL BE ON IDEOLOGY 1.0 (2-YEAR DATA COLLECTION ON PROJECT IMPLICIT - GET DATA FROM JESSE AND BRIAN)

1.Belief in a Just World (Dalbert, 1989)

2.Need for Cognitive Closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)

3.Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1996; Zakrisson, 2006)

4.Bayesian Racism (Uhlmann & Banaji, 2002, updated 2006)

5.Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto & Sidanius, 1994)

6.Protestant Work Ethic (Mirels and Garrett, 1971)

7.Kay/Jost system-justification scale

8.Jost/Thompson economic system justification

9.Moral Foundations Questionnaire

10.Duckitt’s perceptions of a dangerous world scale

11.Two separate items for economic and social liberal-conservative

12.Multi-item questionnaire with econ/social issues

13.Jost’s acceptance of change and inequality scales

14.Disgust Scale - Revised (Olatunji & Haidt, in press)

Studies pending on USC IRB

STUDIES TO DO

POLITICS STUDIES

MORAL JUDGMENT EXPERIMENTS


MORALITY INTERVENTIONS


PERSUASION EXPERIMENTS

MISC IDEAS


How to submit a scale to the site?

So that you guys have a bit more control and I don't have to be so much of a gatekeeper to adding your studies, here are some guidelines for submitting your own surveys/studies....

The Basics

Your survey/study will be a collection of text files that you'll email me. It could be as few as 2 files for a single survey and feedback page...or it could be more if you want to have participants go through multiple pages.

Filenames

Make your filename relatively unique and descriptive. Your feedback page should be the name of your firstpage plus "_process". In addition all filenames should end in ".php". So for example, the Schwartz scale has 2 files, "schwartz.php" and "schwartz_process.php".

Headers

At the top of every study page should be this snippet of text which will take care of validating the user, collecting any data submitted from previous pages, etc...

<? include "studytop.php"; ?>

At the top of your final feedback page should be this snippet.... <? include "feedbacktop.php"; ?>

The Form Tag

After the header for study pages (not the feedback page) should be this form tag...

<form action="NEXTPAGE.php" method=post><?

NEXTPAGE should be the page that you want to go to next. For single page studies/surveys, make that page the name of your feedback page. If you are doing a mutiple page study, each page should name the successive page in place of NEXTPAGE.

Defining Question Format

You need to add the following 4 lines to define your scale.

$scalename = 'SCALENAME';

$scaletype = '7pt';

$scalebegin = 'not at all relevant';

$scaleend = 'extremely relevant';

The first line name of your scale...it will show up in your SPSS data file..it should be different for each page The second line defines how many points your questions scale will have. The third line defines the text for the beginning scale endpoint. The fourth line defines the text for the bend scale endpoint.

Defining Questions

For each question, add a line like this to your file...

addtoquestions('Whether or not someone believed in astrology');

If you want, you can define custom endpoints for a particular column by adding more information to this line...

An example... addtoquestions('Whether or not someone believed in astrology', 'Not Relevant!', 'Extremely Relevant!');

Add as many questions as you wish.

Display Instructions

Add this next to your file...

?> INSTRUCTIONS TEXT <?

Your INSTRUCTIONS TEXT should be in html if possible. You can use frontpage, dreamweaver or even microsoft word and cut/paste the relevant parts in if you want. Or you can write text and then replace all carriage returns with <br> and add "&nbsp;" wherever you want to add a space. Enclose anything you want bold in <b> and end it with </b>. I'm happy to clean this up for you or help you with it.

Display Questions

Add this to display questions

showallquestions(1);

The number 1 in parentheses will display questions in the order you put them in the file. If you put a "0" in the parentheses, the code will randomize the order of questions.

Page Footer

Add this to finish your page....

showfooter("BUTTON TEXT"); ?>

Replace BUTTON TEXT with whatever you want your submit button to say. For example, maybe you want it to say "See your results" and have your page go to the feedback page. Or "Continue" if your page goes to another part of the study.


The Feedback Page

The feedback page is basically a bunch of HTML/text which describes your survey. As noted above, it is named "_process.php" and begins with this tag...

<? include "feedbacktop.php"; ?>

After that, it can have almost any form as you can write whatever feedback you wish...However, you'll likely want to give them some visual feedback on their score and want to intersperse graphs with your text. Add graphs using these tags...

<?

$labels = array("Harm", "Fairness", "Loyalty", "Authority", "Purity");

$vars[0] = array(2, 3, 4,5,22,23,24,25);

$vars[1] = array(6, 7, 8,9,R26,27,28,29);

$vars[2] = array(10, 11, 12,13,30,31,32,33);

$vars[3] = array(14, 15, 16,17,34,35,36,R37);

$vars[4] = array(18, 19, 20,21,38,39,40,41);

showgraph("self", "Graph Title", "Labels Title", $labels, $vars);

?>

You may want to link to the more information or a paper on the scale.

After you finish with your feedback, add this tag...

<? include "feedbackfooter.php"; ?>


Complete Example

<?
include "studytop.php";
?>
<form action="entitym.php" method=post>
<?
$scalename = 'entitym';
$scaletype = '6pt';
$scalebegin = 'Strongly Agree';
$scaleend = 'Strongly Disagree';

addtoquestions('A person’s moral character is something very basic about them, and it can’t be changed much.');
addtoquestions('Whether a person is responsible or sincere or not is deeply ingrained in their personality. It cannot be changed very much.');
addtoquestions('There is not much that can be done to change a person’s moral traits (e.g., conscientiousness, uprightness, and honesty)');

?>
Please use the scale below to indicate the degree to which each statement describes your thoughts and feelings. 

<br><table border=0><tr><td>	[1] </td><td>	[2]</td><td>		[3]</td><td>		[4]</td><td>		[5]</td><td>		[6]</td></tr>
    <tr><td>   Strongly	 </td><td>    Moderately	</td><td>        Slightly</td><td>	        Slightly</td><td>	     Moderately	</td><td>      Strongly</td></tr>
    <tr><td>   disagree	  </td><td>     disagree	</td><td>        disagree	 </td><td>         agree</td><td>	          agree	</td><td>        agree</td></tr>
</table><?

showallquestions(2);

showfooter();
?>


OLD STUFF IS BELOW THIS LINE -- SECTIONS AND PARAGRAPHS WE NO LONGER NEED

Marketing ideas (Getting Traffic)


Issues/Policies attitudes

Pete's thoughts on picking issues: I suggest we basically pick the key contemporary culture war issues, but with an eye toward finding issues that map onto each of the 5 foundations. We can confirm these relationships empirically later, but try to cover the bases up front. Re the format of the questions and response options, I favor ones with an affective flavor — get people to respond to how they “feel” about abortion, immigration, etc. Lots of evidence suggest that these items are better in a lot of ways, and it actually makes the items simpler to respond to -- don’t need complicated items were you construct nuanced versions of the abortion or immigration issue — just get people to respond in a straightforward pro-con, like it-don’t like it way. Again, we want to use standard items/response options whenever possible, but I favor this basic approach. Another good resources for these items besides ANES, etc. is Linda Skitka.

Legal details, etc.

Just to avoid any possible future hassles, we may want to think about who 'owns' or gets to publish whatever data we collect. Is the site open to all morality researchers to collect data? Perhaps Project Implicit provides a good model for these potentially sticky issues?

[jon]For the first year or two, i think it should just be a collaboration among the 5 of us. It will be hard enough to manage, and to get enough traffic to satisfy all our research fantasies. We also don't have a grant, as project implicit does. Perhaps in the future we could look into doing that. And perhaps we could "vote" to admit a few new members into our collaboration. But unless we have a full time programmer and administrator, I think we should just keep it simple.

[Jon] As for authorship: I think our general spirit should be (and is likely to be) cooperative without being fully communal. That is, I don't think we should assume that every study run here is a joint venture that all 5 of us would be authors on. But on the other hand, to the extent that any of us make more of a contribution than just offering advice at the early stage, that person would become a co-author. If Ravi is doing most of the work to help us all collect data, then Ravi might be in a position to deserve authorship credit more often, especially for our early projects. I want to be sure that everyone benefits from this collaboration, especially the grad students who have more of a rush need to get authorships. I think what's likely to happen is that we'll each put up a few studies more or less separately, and then find that it makes sense to write a manuscript that combines multiple studies. Or Pete or I will be invited to write a theory paper or review paper, for which it makes sense for us all to work together. So I expect that we'll see many joint-authored projects. But each of us should feel free to put up a simple questionnaire or study without feeling that doing so automatically invites co-authors. What do y'all think?

Jon has it exactly right here I think. I don't think we have to assume that everyone is part of everything that goes on on the site. Like any other research endeavor, it should depend on whether people contribute to projects, intellectually and/or logistically. In this sense I also think that Ravi might end up on more things than others, given his crucial technological role. I don't suspect any of this will be a problem with this group -- and ideally, of course, this kind of joint site will promote a lot of discussion and collaboration. We will have to figure out a way to pick and choose what is up on the site -- as I suspect it only makes sense to have a small number of project front and center at any one time. I don't have a good sense for how a website for this works -- how much can be up and available at once to maximize efficient data collection -- but we will have to sort this out -- Pete

Sounds good =) [Sena]

OLD CHANGES TO MAKE TO SITE

Changes to make to MIRROR site, 6/24/07


SCALES TO FORMAT AND ADD

- feedback [done]

- feedback [done]

- feedback [Jon will do]

- feedback [done]

- feedback [done]

- feedback [done]

- feedback [done]

- feedback [done]

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox