At this point in my life, I have really come to believe in the importance of self-reflection as a major influence in improving the quality of one’s life. As a licensed, practicing Psychologist, I have also seen the positive ripple effects that an examined life has on those in one’s sphere of influence, whether that is within a family setting, a work setting, or the community at large. So, I imagined the benefits that might come into peoples’ lives if I were to offer an opportunity to do a cost-free, no-strings-attached, self-evaluation. I have taught Personal Growth to several hundred students at the University of Florida, and I used to assign a Personal Life Plan that was full of questions to stimulate self-reflection. Invariably, the assignment was initially met with grumbling, and later, with sincere appreciation for the effects it produced.
So, in forming the questions
for the Lifestyle Poll, I repeatedly asked myself…
· What is INTERESTING?
· What will prompt meaningful self-exploration and self-reflection?
· What is going to stimulate conversations between participants and their
partners and friends?
I drafted a set of questions and passed the survey through eight readers, several
of who were also Harvard graduates. I then launched the first phase of the
Lifestyle Poll, with the attitude that I would learn as I went. Based on the
overwhelmingly positive feedback received during the first phase of the project
(click here for Comments from Past Participants
of the Lifestyle Poll), the scope of the project has now been expanded
to include anyone who wants to participate.
Question formation: What’s the deal with some of those “weird”
questions?
I considered using only previously validated items from other well-known, and
well-researched, survey measures. The biggest advantage to this approach is
the existence of comparative norms; that is, information about how other samples
have responded to the same questions, which makes it possible to assess convergent
or divergent validity of the construct(s) you are studying.
On the other hand, a significant disadvantage to the approach of using well-validated questions is a “rich get richer” phenomenon. In other words, the same questions show up repeatedly across multiple research projects because survey developers typically pull material from what has been studied in the past. I didn’t find this to be a particularly compelling approach given my central goal of asking interesting questions that would stimulate conversations and meaningful self-reflection. So, I decided to deviate from this approach by including a number of completely new questions that have not previously been researched.
In this way, then, my questions were not formed using a strictly scientific approach. However, by deviating from what has been done in the past, and even flouting some of the conventions of academic research, new questions are formed and new lines of inquiry are developed.
Safeguarding your confidentiality
Safeguarding trust and protecting confidentiality is my number one priority.
As in the first phase of the study, I have a number of measures in place to
protect confidentiality and anonymity.
First, aside from consulting with a university affiliated statistician, there will be no other individuals that are unknown to participants who will be looking at the raw data set at any point. This ensures more confidentiality than the ethical standards upheld within IRB-affiliated institutions, as university-affiliated research projects tend to utilize teams of unidentified research assistants and various staff members who are often able to access and view private information.
Second, research will be collected in an anonymous format (i.e. online) and information will be collected from at least 200 respondents before any data is downloaded or analyzed.
When the results are analyzed, all quantitative information will be explored at the group level and any open-ended responses will be de-identified. An example of a group-level analysis would be: “What percentage of people feel that their financial situation in retirement will be much worse than their parents’ financial situation at retirement age?” De-identification refers to the removal of any information that could be used to identify a particular participant. So, if a participant identified herself as the “Vice President of Financial Operations for Mercury Investments in Jacksonville, Florida,” a de-identified translation of her occupation could be a “Finance Executive based in North Central Florida.”
The importance of being earnest
Valuable information comes from respondents who feel comfortable enough to be
frank, and who are motivated to be thoughtful in responding. The saying “garbage
in, garbage out” would apply to any interpretations of results that are
not based on honest, accurate responses from participants.
One plausible advantage to constructing an anonymous internet-based survey is a decrease in social desirability, which is the tendency for research participants to tell a researcher what they think is socially acceptable or desirable, rather than what they truly think or feel.
Another important feature of internet
surveys is that they are generally more convenient for participants than research
that is conducted within a specific physical location. The research “comes
to you” as opposed to the other way around. This has both advantages and
disadvantages. One advantage is that participants can be recruited from geographically
diverse locations. For example, in the first phase of the project, about half
of the participants (52%) were living in a large city, 42% were living in a
medium-sized community, and 6% were living in a small town.
On the other hand, one of the potential disadvantages to posting a survey on
the internet is that it can be difficult to get accurate data, given the ease
of responding. However, in this case, the Lifestyle Poll is lengthy. In effect,
this means that completing the survey requires an investment of a significant
amount of time (usually about an hour). The main reason for the poll’s
length is that a comprehensive evaluation of several topics allows a more meaningful
picture to emerge. As an additional side benefit, it might be reasonable to
assume that those who do complete such a lengthy survey are motivated to respond
thoughtfully.
In fact, participant motivation is another distinguishing feature of this project.
Most traditional studies are based on the assumption that people don’t
really want to participate in research projects, that they would rather be doing
other things with their time. So, in most cases, participation is either made
as painless as possible (e.g. a very brief online measure that promises to take
“only 10 minutes”), or is induced through some extrinsic motivator
(e.g. course credit, monetary reimbursement). In my opinion, making a measure
shorter, and less painful, especially in the case of an anonymous online survey,
would seem to produce a lot of “junk” data from people who are not
invested in a research project. On the other hand, when people engage in behavior
that has the type of intrinsic motivation that is already built into this project
(e.g. a major goal of the project is to stimulate meaningful self-reflection),
a genuine effort is likely to be made. Of course, since the exact motivating
factors of each participant are unknown, caution in making interpretations will be
warranted. Based on the length of the poll, though, a generally high level of
motivation might safely be assumed.
Thank you for contributing to the Lifestyle Poll project. Your time and efforts, and your help in spreading the word about the project, are sincerely appreciated!
Dr. Shauna Springer