Test 2:LABS Flashcards
Consumer Behaviour: What are the IV's in our class study?
NZ: Whether products were
kiwi products
TR: Whether ad included Te
Reo
Consumer Behaviour: What were the DV's in our class study?
(A) Good Index:
Included good/bad,
pleasant/unpleasant and
attractive/ugly ratings.
(B) Liking:
How much consumers liked
each ad.
(C) Offensive:
How offensive people
viewed the ad to be.
(D) Honesty:
How honest people
perceived the ad to be.Consumer Behaviour:
Analysis Main Findings?
(A) Good Index:
> Significant main effect
of NZ.
- Estimated Marginal
Means analysis found
that products that were
more kiwi related was
correlated with higher
sucres on the good
index.
> Insignificant main effect
of TR.
> Insignificant Interaction
between NZ and TR.
(B) Liking:
> Significant Main effect of
NZ.
- Estimated Marginal Means
analysis revealed that ads
on NZ products were
liked more than non-kiwi
products.
> Non-Significant main
effect of TR.
> Non-Significant
interaction between NZ
and TR.
(C) Offensive:
> Non-significant main
effect of NZ.
> Non-Significant main
effect of TR.
> Non-Significant
interaction between NZ
and TR.
*Other studies have found that
the use of te reo maori with
non-kiwi products were rated
as being more offensive.
(D) Honesty:
> Non-Significant main
effect of NZ.
> Non-Significant main
effect of TR.
> Non-Significant
interaction between NZ
and TR.
*Other studies have found that ads on kiwi products are viewed as more honest if they include te reo. In contrast, non-kiwi products which use te reo are seen as being less honest.
In summary, no effects of te reo maori in our study. NZ related products had higher good index scores, likability ratings compared to non-kiwi products.
Political Psychology:
Main Point:
Site 1: where parties policies
viewable and you
select all the polices
you agree with and
then it calculates which
party you affiliate more
with.
> Limitations:
- Since Labour is in
power they have not
put out any new
polices onto the
website. They instead
are relying on their
likability to keep them
in power. Thus, my
results are not always
too personalised.
- Social desirability
biases where people
censor there policy
selections to avoid
being seen as
conservative, or with
parties they do not
want to be affiliated
with.
- cluster of polices in
areas which values
reflect the parties core
political beliefs. Aim
gain votes by matching
peoples expressive
needs, people expect
more polices in one
area and none in
others. If parties had
policies in all areas it
would be hard for
anyone to feel affiliation
with said party.
Site 2: People were presented
with topical issues,
choose which policy
response they agreed
with and then were
able to rate how much
each topic was
important to them.
> More personalised
method because it
includes ratings of
importance, values
without biases of
knowing which policy
corresponded with
what party.
> Labour is
proportionally
represented because
it is not based on how
many policies were
implemented.
> Included more lesser
known parties,
highlights political
party overlap in
values, highlights if
your LW or RW,
interestingly showed
that I was unexpected
parties, makes people
revaluate their own
beliefs and party
perceptions.
- Green party was
misplaced on this
Libertarian-
Authoritarian and LW-
RW model.
Matt Crawford
Consumer behaviour
Main research question?
The effects on consumer ratings on ads that contained te reo on nz and non nz products.
What factors impact people’s risk perceptions?
- Saliency
- If the risk is catastrophic
- If we can not control the risk
- If the nature if the risk is unknown to most
citizens
Risk judgments reflect what two features?
A. The probability of the hazard occurring
B. Its magnitude I.e does it harm lots of people
What aspects of NZs response to covid could be applied to other hazards?
- Draw on social identity
- Follow the advice of experts
- Build resilience
- Act fast
Is perceiving risk enough to make people act?
What factors are important?
No people can perceive it to be a risk but still not act.
A. We need to feel that our contribution will
change the outcome. I.e. self efficacy.
B. We need motivation to make a personal
sacrifices in the short term for the long term
goal/payoff.
How do we counter fatalism? In application?
A. Casual attributions. We need to feel that the
causes of the hazard are controllable I.e
human action can mitigate it successfully.
B. Learned helplessness. When we attribute
negative events to uncontrollable causes we
feel helpless.
C. Therapy/intervention. Help give people a
sense of control and feel that their individual
actions will make a difference.
