Helmholtz Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
PIK PublicationsNot a member yet
55339 research outputs found
Sort by
A process-based questionnaire for social media problematic use: A validation study driven by a focus groups
No full textThis study aims to develop a social media scale.The questionnaire will be based on the theory developed by Perales et al. (2020). Nonetheless, items will be built based on focus groups' results and information retrieved from widely used questionnaires (e.g., Social Media Disorder Scale; Boer et al., 2022).
Focus groups’ participants will be recruited from two institutes in Valencia, Spain. Four focus groups with participants of different ages (14 to 17 years old) will be conducted to ensure sample heterogeneity, as recommended by Casey & Kruger (1994). Each of them will be composed of 6 to 8 participants (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The selection of participants will be based on the questions regarding technological aspects that are attached to the protocol (i.e., subjective and objective daily use).
Selected students will accept informed consent. If they are under 16 years old, parents will have to accept informed consent. Students will go to a different classroom, where researchers will introduce themselves and explain the purpose of the focus group. They will also clarify nuances of the concept of social networks and will allow participants to introduce themselves. Next, the focus group questions attached to the protocol will be asked. After collecting and transcribing the material, the topics and interactions highlighted by focus groups will be analyzed using the thematic analysis method (Clarke et al., 2015). Finally, a questionnaire will be developed with the results obtained about compulsive use and the relative outcome utility of social media. As previously stated, the questionnaire will be grounded on the contributions of participants (i.e., focus groups) and previous literature (i.e., Perales et al., 2020).
Boer, M., van den Eijnden, R. J., Finkenauer, C., Boniel‐Nissim, M., Marino, C., Inchley, J., ... & Stevens, G. W. (2022). Cross‐national validation of the social media disorder scale: findings from adolescents from 44 countries. Addiction, 117(3), 784-795.
Casey, M. A., & Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus group interviewing. In Measurement of food preferences (pp. 77-96). Springer, Boston, MA.
Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic analysis. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods, 222, 248.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). A practical guide for applied research. A practical guide for applied research.
Perales, J. C., King, D. L., Navas, J. F., Schimmenti, A., Sescousse, G., Starcevic, V., ... & Billieux, J. (2020). Learning to lose control: A process-based account of behavioral addiction. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 771-780
What are the Effects of Observing Compared to Actively Making Predictions during Learning?
No full textPrevious research has shown that making a prediction facilitates belief revision in the domain of water displacement, and that this effect is related to increased surprise, as assessed by the pupillary surprise response. In the current study we will investigate if it is necessary that participants actively choose, and thereby commit to, a particular outcome for this prior observed increase in pupillary surprise and learning. We compare this condition to one where children observe a fictitious other child choosing, to assess the impact of active-choice on these outcomes. We will use a water-displacement task about which sphere will displace more water; during the task participants are presented with spheres of different sizes and material and are asked to predict (or observe a prediction)
Are There Ideological Asymmetries in Intergroup Bias? A Minimal Groups Approach
No full textThe divide between political liberals and conservatives is rapidly growing. Several influential theories contend that this divide hinges on orientations towards social groups, such that conservatives (versus liberals) show a greater tendency to favor their “ingroups” and discriminate against “outgroups.” However, other theories contend that liberals and conservatives do not differ in their degree of intergroup bias. Both perspectives have received empirical support, and the debate has reached a standstill. We argue that this theoretical and empirical stalemate stems from inherent limitations of examining attitudes towards real-world social groups—a strategy used by both sides of the debate. Drawing on social identity theory, we propose an alternative approach—using “minimal groups” (i.e., experimentally constructed groups)—to determine whether and why ideological differences in intergroup bias may exist. Finding support for either account will help resolve this longstanding debate and deepen our understanding of the psychological underpinnings of political ideology
The role of incivility and moral disengagement in dehumanisation.
No full textWe want to study the extent to which immoral behaviours that are also associated with high or low levels of incivility dehumanise unequally. Furthermore, different ways of rationalising these deviant behaviours will dehumanise to a greater or lesser extent
Testing domain extensions of the IoED
No full textIn this project we are testing whether the results of Study 8 and Study 9 Rozenblit & Keil (2002) replicate
Individual Differences in Social Deprivation and Social Oversatiation
No full textBoth affiliation motive theory and the social affiliation model postulate that social interactions follow a homeostatic regulation principle: People try to regulate their daily social interactions towards their “ideal range of social contact”, which is influenced by their personality characteristics, such as affiliative needs. “Less-than-ideal” social interactions result in social deprivation and a desire to increase social contact, whereas more (especially unpleasant) social contact than needed leads to social oversatiation and a desire to be alone. How quickly and how strongly people experience social deprivation or oversatiation varies with individual differences in social personality characteristics (e.g., affiliative needs) as well as situational constraints (e.g., availability of contact partners, possibility to be alone)