Research experiment: we need your feedback!, Rank the following pictures from 1 to 10 Options

[Kucta-qa]

3,4,5,2265465454854235433357

I got tired with putting in commas. Sorry.

[Gigantofootecus]

5,4,4,2,4,1,5,3,6,2,3,1,3,7,5,7,2,4,6,7,3,5,8,3,5

[Squonksquatch]

2,1,4,5,1,1,3,2,1,1,1,1,3,2,1,4,1,4,5,5,2,3,3,5,1.

Okay, not as time consuming as I thought it would be. And I guess I ranked them on likeability.

[Morgoth]

Okay, not as time consuming as I thought it would be.

See? It's easy. C'mon and take the test if you haven't yet!

Thanks, and we'll have some results at the end of the week.

[Isbjörn]

4,2,7,6,3,3,8,4,7,6,8,2,9,7,9,9,2,9,10,10,4,3,5,3,3



Don't only do take averages of scores for each image. You could have much fun with these data. Could probably do a personality profile of each responder

This post has been edited by Isbjörn: Feb 21 2007, 01:56 PM

[LAL]

All ones but Image 20. The leader looks like my ex on a binge, so it unsettled me somewhat (3.5).

[Shadowmunk]

3 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 6 1 1 3 1 1

[Former_Northwest...]

1,1,2,2,3,1,4,2,2,4,2,2,2,3,4,5,1,4,3,7,2,4,1,1,2

[Morgoth]

RESULTS

Hello all, and thanks for participating in this test, I received 26 usable responses in all. I would like to continue gathering data, so keep those cards and letters coming! But I also promised some preliminary results, so here they are.

This research was the result of a discussion in another thread started by Drew wondering if humans have an "Innate Fear Of Neanderthals." Many of our BFF members discussed various isses about possible human and neanderthal interactions in this thread:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...c=17397&hl=

During the course of the discussion I started to wonder if anyone had ever tried to measure human emotional responses to various hominid characteristics. Kind of like the "cute response", but in the opposite direction. So I assembled these 25 pictures and made each one a combination of the following characteristics:

1) skin covered vs. hairy
2) small vs. big or heavy
3) quadrapedal vs. bipedal
4) primitive vs. tools & technology

So you will notice that some of the pictures are arbitrary combinations of these characteristics, for example a gorilla with tools, a bipedal hairy creature, etc. Then, I specified a linear multiple regression model to estimate the following equation:

emotional response = FX ( hairy , heavy , bipedal , tools )

The model was estimated using the response data provided by you guys in this thread. The regression coefficients from the model are listed below. What this basically means is that emotional response is POSITIVELY related to being hairy, heavy, or bipedal, and NEGATIVELY related to tool use. Another way to think of this is that I could come up with another picture and PREDICT the average emotional response.

response = (0.05 * hairy) + (0.27 * heavy) + (0.07 * bipedal) - (0.05 * tools)

Overall, the picture characteristics accounted for a relatively small amount of the total emotional response, which suggests that there are some missing parameters in the model, but the results WERE significant. I have attached a complete run of the statistics, below.

[attachment=23213:attachment]

[ozzy_tx]

4,3,4,6,8,3,3,6,8,3,5,7,2,6,8,8,8,4,5,2,6,4,9,3,5

[Squonksquatch]

Well, I kind of voted by if I thought the picture was cool or not -- obviously the gorrila with the power drill made me smile, but I also liked the cave man with the spear (where he was sharpening it or something).

[Mike U.]

3,3,6,2,4,2,7,2,7,6,6,5,4,8,7,9,2,8,10,10,8,8,7,9,10

[big.Foot]

2,2,6,1,1,1,3,2,5,1,1,1,2,4,2,5,2,1,1,3,1,2,3,2,3

[Robert]

Morgoth,

Can you summarize your findings for us in sentence form?

[InMichAgain]

3,3,2,3,3,1,2,2,2,2,2,1,2,3,2,3,3,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,2

Morgoth, I entered these before looking at the purpose/results if that makes a difference.

I'd be interested in seeing the results you get from people here vs. those you might get from others, say the first X number of people who walk into a 7-Eleven.

IMA

This post has been edited by InMichAgain: Feb 23 2007, 06:28 PM

[gigantor]

7,5,7,3,3,3,3,3,7,3,5,3,3,8,3,7,2,3,6,8,3,7,7,5,5

If it's worth anything, I think I found my "reaction" to be more intense as the picture showed a closer representation of my preconcieved idea of what a BF should look like.

EDIT: I posted before reading the rest of the thread.

This post has been edited by gigantor: Feb 26 2007, 09:44 PM

[Bf believer]

3,3,4,1,2,1,6,2,5,2,4,1,2,5,3,3,1,3,5,4,3,3,4,3,2

[Teresa]

Okay, I'm lost, could you tell us what the results are in layman's terms?

[Morgoth]

Okay, I'm lost, could you tell us what the results are in layman's terms?

This experiment is a result of various discussions from the "Innate Fear of Neanderthals" thread. I am trying to understand if people have an innate fear or emotional reaction to certain types of hominid characteristics, and what those might be. Former Northwester had a great quote from the book “Nature via Nurture” by Matt Ridley:

Snake-fear is one of the commonest forms of phobia. Coincidentally, many people report that they developed their fear through a vicarious experience, such as seeing a parent react with fear to a snake. People are also commonly afraid of spiders, the dark, heights, deep water, small spaces, and thunder. All of these were a threat to Stone Age people, whereas the much greater threats of modern life – cars, guns, electric sockets – simply do not induce such phobias. It defies common sense not to see the handiwork of evolution here: the human brain is prewired to learn fears that were of relevance in the Stone Age. And the only way that evolution can transmit such information from the past to the design of the mind in the present is via the genes. This is what genes are: parts of an information system that collects facts about the world in the past and incorporates them into good design through natural selection.

So far the test results seem to show that emotional reaction is increased by hairy, big, and bipedal characteristics, but decreased by tool use. One possible interpretation of this is that people have a strong reaction to "bigfoot" like creatures, and this explains the consistent sightings of a creature like this around the world. Another possible explanation is that members of the BFF have a strong reaction to those pictures anyway, and so one could argue that the test suffers from sample bias. So I wouldn't make too much out of it one way or the other, but at least we are attempting to shed some light on this issue.

[Mogmon]

5,4,5,3,3,1,2,2,4,4,3,3,2,3,4,9,3,3,8,6,5,7,7,4,4

[scotto]

1,2,3,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,9,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,4,1,1

[superd]

2,5,5,1,2,1,6,2,1,1,3,1,1,3,2,4,2,6,9,10,4,5,2,2,5

[RayG]

Gah! Maybe that's why I hate tests like this. The test is to determine if there's an emotional response to any of the pictures, then I find out, if I'm not mistaken, it's whether or not the pictures elicit fear as a specific emotional response.

Fear however, is but one of many emotional responses -- anger, fear, sadness, disgust, surprise, curiosity, acceptance, and joy, so someone may give a high value to a picture they find surprising, disgusting, or joyful, and it will instead be recorded as a high value for fear.

I would have preferred a test where the emotional states were clearly defined/stated/indicated, and then have me match an emotion to each picuture.

Not to worry, you'll eventually learn I'm just a huge pain in the butt and I like to :pokey: a lot. :laugh:

RayG

[Huntster]

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,8,1.

I'm not sure why most of those photos should have prompted an "emotional" reaction. Number 24 was the only one, and it prompted a smile.

[GrandCherokee]

5,2,3,1,1,1,2,2,6,1,3,1,1,4,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,4,5,1,3

There ya go!

[Chewy]

Sorry, this was too weird. I didn't participate. Nice collection of contrived artist conceptions, though. And a couple very envious spears! :eek3dance:

[spudsquatch]

1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,3,1,

[spudsquatch]

Im I supposed to get a new toe after 15 posts? Find out in a second I guess

[Morgoth]

...then I find out, if I'm not mistaken, it's whether or not the pictures elicit fear as a specific emotional response.

No worries Ray, the test is for ANY emotional reponse you might have. If we focus on fear, then the intellectual side kicks in, and people start judging combat readiness based on the image. So just any emotional response will do, like an interest level, etc.

[RayG]

No worries Ray, the test is for ANY emotional reponse you might have. If we focus on fear, then the intellectual side kicks in, and people start judging combat readiness based on the image. So just any emotional response will do, like an interest level, etc.

So even though you said...

I am trying to understand if people have an innate fear or emotional reaction to certain types of hominid characteristics, and what those might be.

...and you included:

Snake-fear is one of the commonest forms of phobia. Coincidentally, many people report that they developed their fear through a vicarious experience, such as seeing a parent react with fear to a snake. People are also commonly afraid of spiders, the dark, heights, deep water, small spaces, and thunder. All of these were a threat to Stone Age people, whereas the much greater threats of modern life – cars, guns, electric sockets – simply do not induce such phobias. It defies common sense not to see the handiwork of evolution here: the human brain is prewired to learn fears that were of relevance in the Stone Age....

...you have no idea whether the image produced a fearful emotional response or not, nor are you able to determine what the specific emotional response is. I know you've now said you're looking for ANY emotional response, but you loaded the test with images you thought would produce certain responses, even though they might not.

For example, image #9 might produce a 9 response from me. You might interpret that as a 'fear' response, when in actuality it's either a 'disgust' or 'joy' (laughter) caused by a memory of seeing a naked grandma reaching for her slippers as she steps from the bathtub, as you inadvertently walk in on her. It has nothing to do with whether or not she has or doesn't have a tool, or is hairy.

I guess I just don't see how this test can provide any useful information when the results are based on interpretations instead of specifics.

RayG

[Morgoth]

I guess I just don't see how this test can provide any useful information when the results are based on interpretations instead of specifics.

The specifics come in from the characteristcs of the pictures, check the regression model for that. I just didn't want to limit reaction (dependent variable) to fear, we are looking for innate emotional responses. But I agree that this is a difficult thing to test...

[SarBear]

1,4,2,3,1,2,3,2,1,1,1,1,4,1,1,1,2,2,2,5,4,2,5,6,1

[Former_Northwest...]

The specifics come in from the characteristcs of the pictures, check the regression model for that. I just didn't want to limit reaction (dependent variable) to fear, we are looking for innate emotional responses. But I agree that this is a difficult thing to test...

Thanks for doing this, it's interesting. I think in some ways it does make sense to just ask for an "emotional" response level rather than narrowing down the type of emotion. Because the very act of thinking about which emotion it is can cause the results to change, since the emotions come from the mid-brain without conscious thought. If you start to think about it consciously, you have to use your neocortex, and then it could get all confused. Maybe next time you should say people can look at the image for 1 second and record the response.

That Implicit Association Test I mentioned in the Neanderthal thread actually measures the time it takes you to do the association and if it's too long they know you're using your conscious brain and not the emotional quick reaction.

This post has been edited by Former_Northwester: Mar 4 2007, 08:52 PM