RATIONALE
Anonymity is the state of being unknown to those around you, providing a sense of perceived exemption from consequence. When a person’s anonymity is threatened, they have a tendency to act with a sense of impunity they do not possess to protect their identity. A recent case of this was the 2015 ‘Ashley Madison’ leaks. Ashley Madison provided a safe haven for adulterers worldwide, until the website’s database was leaked, along with the identities of millions of its users, including celebrities and government officials, by a team calling themselves “The Impact Team”, resulting in suicides, divorces, and shame within communities (Burana, 2015). This leak exposed the presence of a link between a person’s anonymity, and their inherent honesty, by exposing untruths within intimate relationships and marriages, and suggesting that the removal of one’s anonymity has consequences. This paper will explore the hypothesised link between a person’s anonymity and their honesty.
In the paper “The impact of anonymity on Responses to Sensitive Questions” by Anthony D. Ong and David J. Weiss, it is indicated that research has been divided on the matter of honesty vs anonymity, with some researchers stating that anonymity has an effect on honesty, while other researchers stating the opposite is true. These inconclusive findings suggest that further research on the subject of anonymity in relation to honesty is required, and alternative methods should be employed during testing. (Ong & Weiss, 2000).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
RESEARCH QUESTION
Does the perceived anonymity of a subject affect the inherent honesty of the subject, and thus the time taken to provide an attractiveness rating?
HYPOTHESIS
NULL
The null hypothesis states that the anonymity of the subject will have no effect on the time taken to provide a response, indicating that a subject will be honest regardless of whether they are anonymous or not.
ALTERNATIVE
The alternative hypothesis states that the anonymity of the subject will have a lengthening effect on the time taken to provide a response, indicating that a subject is more likely to be honest when they are anonymous, as the repercussions cannot be traced back to them.
METHODOLOGY
VARIABLES
The experimental methodology was refined from Weiss & Ong’s earlier experiment of similar intent to review only one independent variable in order to assist in the collection of data. In this case, the independent variable was the presence of anonymity, and the dependent variable was the time taken to rate the volunteer on their attractiveness. This was operationalised by asking the subjects to not list their name on the rating sheet, and rather list only the rating on the first test representing the “control group” [CG], while asking them to write their name on the second test, which was performed under the experimental conditions [EG]. This was refined to the subject writing their first name on the sheet rather than their full name, thus making categorizing alphabetically less complicated. In order to minimize extraneous variables, the same volunteers were used and lined up in the same order, with their hair in the same style and their make-up removed.
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were randomly selected by the conductors from a population of 15-18-year-old students at Bundaberg State High School. Five subjects were assigned to this experiment, and all participants were asked to complete the experiment twice, using a Repeated Measures Design. Sexual orientation was not accounted for among the subjects.
METHOD
Subjects are seated in a room at separate desks. A pen and a piece of paper are then given to each of the subjects. Another group of pupils are then led into the room and are placed standing at the front of the room. The subjects are then instructed to rate each of the pupils standing in front of them anonymously by writing their rating on a sheet of paper. A stopwatch is started, and the time it takes for them to rate is recorded. Subjects are then asked to rate the pupils before them again, this time identifying themselves to the pupils by initialling the sheet. The time taken to rate is recorded and compared to the previous, anonymous time taken and averaged to obtain the raw data.
SAFETY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
During the planning of this experiment, subjects were asked to read and sign a consent form informing them of the variables being measured and the methods used to measure them. Every effort was taken to ensure that no harm came to the participant, mental or physical, by rigorously reviewing and rewriting the experiment to both reach conclusive results and ensure the total safety of the participants. Participants were instructed to ask any questions they may have, and informed that they may leave the experiment for any reason and at any time they wish, without question.
The results indicate that the mean time for the Control group (0.285) is lower than the mean time for the Experimental group (0.655). The standard deviation for the Experimental group (0.220624115) has a higher dispersion than the Control group (0.026925824), indicating a link between the subject’s anonymity and their honesty, due to the fact that a higher standard deviation indicates a higher significance of data, and thus a greater variability between the two conditions. Figure 2 indicates the standard deviation as error bars. As these error bars are not overlapping, it is suggested that the results fall in a different range for each condition.
STATISTICAL TEST
A two-sample t-test (paired) was chosen as the most appropriate technique of analysis as the experiment aimed to identify a relationship between the subject’s anonymity and their honesty. The experiment used time measurement to collect data. The research design employed was that of a repeated measure design, where all participants perform the test under both Control and Experimental conditions. The calculated result of the test is p = 0.024623, indicating a significant relationship between one’s anonymity and their honesty, by suggesting the removal of one’s anonymity urges them to be more honest. This supports the alternative hypothesis.
LIMITATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS
The identified limitations of the aforementioned experimental process were of low impact, yet many were identified. The large standard deviations found indicate a significant issue with the experiment and suggest that the validity and reliability of the experiment is not of a high standard. A large standard deviation was identified in the experimental group, indicating that outside variables were poorly controlled, and thus reliability was negatively impacted. Multiple distractions were observed during the experimental process, and the focus of subjects was momentarily lost, impacting the results reached. A major variable that was unaccounted for was the sexual preference of the subject, and thus ratings may not have been as extensively considered. The limitation of highest impact was identified to be the small group of subjects, which limited the amount of data that was able to be collected, thus lowering the reliability of the findings.
CONCLUSION
In response to the earlier posed question, and after thorough testing, results suggest that the removal of one’s anonymity encourage them to answer with increased thought, and thus, increased honesty. This supports the alternative hypothesis and indicates that the null hypothesis was incorrect. The limitations presented by the uncontrolled variables altered the data noticeably, but results were still in support of the alternative hypothesis.
SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS AND EXTENSIONS
After thorough analysis of the evidence, it was found that the experiment lacked a high level of reliability and validity of data. Improvements to the process are as follows:
To improve the overall reliability and validity of the experiment, it could be suggested that more subjects be tested, thus increasing the volume of data, and reducing the dispersion of data. Further to this, subjects could be asked their sexual orientation prior to the commencing of the test.
An extension to the test could be to group the actual listed ratings and establish a categorization method based on both time and rating, thus sorting the data into more obvious categories.
Lastly, a decrease in outside distractions could be attempted and re-tested to ensure that timings and ratings are correct.
REFERENCES
- Burana, L. (2015, August 26). Ashley Madison aftermath: Breaking down the hack that exposed millions of people’s carnal interests. Retrieved from Womenintheworld: https://womenintheworld.com/2015/08/26/ashley-madison-aftermath-breaking-down-the-hack-that-exposed-millions-of-peoples-carnal-interests/
- Griffiths, J. (2016, September 1). Sex, Lies and Cyber Attacks. Retrieved from The Sun: https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1708802/sex-lies-and-cyber-attacks-ashley-madison-hack-victims-reveal-the-traumatic-impact-its-had-on-their-relationships/
- Ong, A. D., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). The Impact of Anonymity on Responses to Sensitive Questions. In Journal of Applied Social Psychology (pp. 1691-1708). Los Angeles: V. H. Winston & Son.
- Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority. (2018). IA2 High Level Annotated Sample Response. Brisbane.
Stuck on your essay?
