Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/03040195.510 hotline item

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Thursday 4 Mar 2010 19:55:10
Date:         Thu, 4 Mar 2010 19:54:03 -0500
From:         Lydia Yang 
Subject: Re: Lying
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

--001636c925b0d7a79d0481032682
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Also you can make the Q-sample statements more personal by using the first
person.  but again if you are asking people's beliefs, I think it isn't easy
to eliminate the impact of social desirability, or is it?

Lydia

***


On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Suzy Robinson  wrote:

>
> Good question but I suppose it all depends of what sorts of things you are
> asking your P-set to sort. If the items to be sorted are behaviours or
> beliefs, maybe someone would be more able to "lie" (or maybe some people do
> this anyway due to normative social influences). If what is to be sorted is
> more benign (e.g., colour preferences) then... I'm not sure how someone
> could lie on those types of preferences with any predicted outcome.
>
>
>
> >
> > Inviting a colleague to be part of my P-sample, she told me that she
> wasn't sure
> > that she would do it 'properly' as she lies on 'these sorts of things',
> which
> > set me thinking.
> > What might the differences be if a study involved asking the P-sample to
> sort a
> > set of statements for a second time, but this time by lying-by 'really'
> lying?
> > My guess is that it if factors emerged from the second sort (as I would
> expect)
> > they would probably be similar to those found in the first sorting
> condition,
> > as the viewpoints would have to be drawn from the same set of discourses
> that
> > the first sort drew upon. In other words the finite diversity would
> relate to
> > both of the sorts.
> > Any thoughts, comments-anyone done or know of a study which relates to
> this?
> > Martin
>
> ------------------------------
> Sign up for SEEK Jobmail. Get the latest jobs delivered.
>

--001636c925b0d7a79d0481032682
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Also you can make the Q-sample statements more personal by using the first =
person.=A0 but again if you are asking people's beliefs, I think it isn=
't easy to eliminate the impact of social desirability, or is it?=A0 

Lydia

***


On Thu, Mar 4, 2=
010 at 7:07 PM, Suzy Robinson <suzy_rob@hotmail.com> wrote:







Good question but I suppose it all depends of what sorts of things you =
are asking your P-set to sort. If the items to be sorted are behaviours or =
beliefs, maybe someone would be more able to "lie" (or maybe some=
 people do this anyway=A0due to normative social influences). If what is to=
 be sorted is more benign (e.g., colour preferences) then... I'm not su=
re how someone could lie on those types of preferences with any predicted o=
utcome.



<=
/font>
=A0

> 
> Inviting a colleague to be part=
 of my P-sample, she told me that she wasn't sure
> that she woul=
d do it 'properly' as she lies on 'these sorts of things', =
which

> set me thinking.
> What might the differences be if a study invo=
lved asking the P-sample to sort a
> set of statements for a second t=
ime, but this time by lying-by 'really' lying?
> My guess is =
that it if factors emerged from the second sort (as I would expect)

> they would probably be similar to those found in the first sorting con=
dition,
> as the viewpoints would have to be drawn from the same set =
of discourses that
> the first sort drew upon. In other words the fin=
ite diversity would relate to

> both of the sorts.
> Any thoughts, comments-anyone done or know =
of a study which relates to this?
> Martin
 		 	   		  
<=
/div>
Sign up for SEEK Jobmail. Get the latest jobs delivered.




--001636c925b0d7a79d0481032682--