Scribd
Upload
483 views3 pages

w06 Field Report 1

1) The document describes a study where the author tested 4 participants - two sisters, a brother-in-law, and another sister-in-law - using heuristics tests. 2) The tests involved scenarios where participants had to choose options based on brief descriptions. Their answers showed both similarities and differences. 3) The author analyzes the results, finding the participants relied on representativeness and exemplar heuristics to make judgments quickly, by comparing scenarios to prototypes or past memories. Their emotional response also influenced their answer of who would be more upset about a minor issue.

Uploaded by

api-513755215
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
483 views3 pages

w06 Field Report 1

1) The document describes a study where the author tested 4 participants - two sisters, a brother-in-law, and another sister-in-law - using heuristics tests. 2) The tests involved scenarios where participants had to choose options based on brief descriptions. Their answers showed both similarities and differences. 3) The author analyzes the results, finding the participants relied on representativeness and exemplar heuristics to make judgments quickly, by comparing scenarios to prototypes or past memories. Their emotional response also influenced their answer of who would be more upset about a minor issue.

Uploaded by

api-513755215
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Ann Nielsen

05-27-20
Heuristics
Lesson 06
Putting Heuristics to the Test
Participants

● Participant 1: Brother in Law, 39-years old, Councilor


● Participant 2: Sister, 39-years old, Mother
● Participant 3: Sister, 29-years old, Bus Driver & EMT
● Participant 4: Sister in Law, 44-years old, Janitor, CSR & EMT

Procedures

This week’s study was great because I caught all 4 participants at once and asked them if they

would take a test really quick for me for my Psychology class and they were all willing. First, I gave

Participant 1 and Participant 3, Handout 1 and I gave Participant 2 and Participant 4, Handout 2. I

then explained that this was not a test of intelligence, that some of the questions are intentionally

vague and that each participant was to make a judgement for each one, and encouraged them to

answer the questions as fast as possible. When they were finished, I recorded their results. I then

asked the participants how they answered their answers and each one of them had similar and

different unique answers.

Results

If we look at Table 1 we can see for the first scenario that 2 participants chose the Librarian, 1

chose the Trapeze artist and one chose a Lawyer. In the second scenario 2 chose the novels words

ending in “ing” and 2 chose the words ending in “n.” All four participants answered Mario in the

3rd scenario, and again, we see a pattern of all participants choosing 200 in scenario 4.

Table 1
Heuristics test
1. Peculiar cousin Rudy most likely is a...

1
A. Farmer 0
B. Librarian 2
C. Trapeze Artist 1
D. Surgeon 0
E. Lawyer 1
2. A best-selling novel is more likely to have words ending in...
A. ————-ing 2
B. —————n- 2
3. Vito and Mario get shut out of registration, and...
A. Vito is more upset 0
B. Mario is more upset 4
4. How many students are enrolled in St. Edward’s New College program? (Report the average exact guess)
A. Fewer / more than 80 200
B. Fewer / more than 200 200

Discussion

What I found interesting was the participants unique and similar responses to the scenarios.

Scenario 1 was unique in that Participants 1, and Participant 3, picked the Librarian, Participant 2

picked the Trapeze which would have been the representativeness heuristic answer and Participant

4 picked a Lawyer. I asked Participant 4 why she picked a Lawyer and she replied that she knew a

lawyer that was similar to scenario one. I asked Participants 1, and 3, why they picked the

Librarian, Participant 1 said the description in his mind represented a Librarian to him. Participant

3, laughed and answered that she did not know what a Trapeze Artist was so she picked the

Librarian. All the Participants chose Mario being the most upset being only ten minutes late. When

I asked them about this similar answer, they all pretty much responded that being 10 minutes late

would make them upset as well. In my opinion, I believe that they were all “making a probability

judgement..” (1) based on their emotions.

Implications

From what I have studied this week I have found that people base their quick judgements on two

different heuristics. The first, is representativeness heuristic, which is “making a probability

judgement by comparing an object or event with a prototype of the object or event.” (1) This was

2
when my participants all answered scenario 4 as Mario, because due to their emotional response,

they all could relate to Mario being more upset. The second heuristic that came to mind was

Exemplar theory, where “we make category judgments by comparing a new instance with stored

memories for other instances of the category.”(1) Even though most of my Participants had

different answers for scenario 1, they all seemed to answer based on either memory of someone

they knew that fit the description, or from the memory of a certain stereo type.

Peer Feedback

My feedback was that I made a few errors as far as scenarios numbered in correctly and not

sourcing my quote’s. I was also told that I did not include debriefing, but I don’t know what that

is, so I will look and fix it.

From correcting others, I felt that I needed to re-read my field report to make surer that it was

clear and easy to read.

Reference

1) ps://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781464156632

You might also like