[RD] Numbers and psychology

[amadeus]

I was reading an article in the UK Guardian and they were having a fund drive, of which 9,500 or so people out of a goal of 50,000 have donated.

Which makes me wonder: what is the role that psychology plays in these numbers? I mean when I saw they were still 41,000 donors short, I kind of thought that giving any money wouldn’t have much impact. (Worth noting that in this case I wouldn’t have given any money if I need to send it online. I’m somewhat of a modern day digital Luddite: all my banking and charity is done in person.)

But had they said their goal was 10,000, that could be something more easily achievable, and maybe I’d feel more compelled to donate if I thought it would help push them over the mark.

Unrelated, also, rating things: sometimes things are on scales of 1-4, 1-5, and 1-10. Are people more likely to judge something better or worse given the options? I was thinking about this in the context of political polling—I wonder how different your answers would be if you asked people to rate, for example, the likelihood they will vote for a given candidate based on different numeric scales.

I think when rating things out of five, a score of four feels harsher than rating something 7 out of 10, even though if you were to change the denominator to five the 7 would end up being 3½.

What do you think? Do you think it makes a difference? On a scale of 1-12 tell me.

 

[Yeekim]

all my banking and charity is done in person.)

You don't transfer money electronically? No online shopping or e-tickets?

 

[amadeus]

You don't transfer money electronically? No online shopping or e-tickets?

Nope. I like to pay either with cash or my train fare card.

 

[Yeekim]

Nope. I like to pay either with cash or my train fare card.

... but why?
Shady source of income or just LARPing the 20th century?

 

[amadeus]

... but why?
Shady source of income or just LARPing the 20th century?

I’m assuming the latter part is a joke, but I’ll answer: I work for a regular company.

Why? I’m used to the way I do things, it’s not an inconvenience, and I see no benefit to change. I forgot to mention that for some things I can also use bank transfers at the ATM or one of the branches. It’s very easy and paying my bills every month takes less than 2-3 minutes.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I actually don't like having to rate stuff on a scale of anything. Numbers cannot adequately express opinions or how one feels. I told a therapist off one day when he wouldn't let me use .5s in a 1-10 scale of how I felt that day.

 

[CKS]

For one of my medical study groups, I have to rate how healthy I'm feeling each time I visit my doctor. They make me use two different scales, both a 1-7 scale and a 1-100 scale, to answer the same question. They, at least, think the scale matters.

I think that the 100 point scale is silly. I'd like to be able to annotate my 1-7 scale, though - something like, "I'm not very achy from the medicine, but I jammed my knee playing pickleball, and it is really hurting."

 

[amadeus]

1-7 scale

Bristol?

That aside, it’s interesting they have both a 7 point scale and a 100 point scale. I suppose it was chosen because it’s hard to divide by sevens in your head.

Numbers cannot adequately express opinions or how one feels.

This may be true, but for some purposes a number that expresses a general idea where they are on a single scale is easier to ask for than trying to sift through the nuances of people’s opinions.

Were I a therapist, I would not be trying to stringently regulate the use of decimals by patients. Maybe they had an off day, but I don’t see the utility in arguing in it unless they were by law required to ask the question and put only full integers on the form.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I guess studies have shown that people take more M & Ms from a bowl with a lot of them in it than from a bowl with fewer.

I rate your new avatar 0/10.

Also 0/100.

Also 0/7.

 

[amadeus]

I guess studies have shown that people take more M & Ms from a bowl with a lot of them in it than from a bowl with fewer.

Perfectly reasonable in my opinion as I imagine people would think as there is more to go around, one person can take a bit more each without spoiling it for someone else.

I rate your new avatar 0/10.

Also 0/100.

Also 0/7.

How about my ability to think of something that rhymes with “Rome?”

 

[Gori the Grey]

How about my ability to think of something that rhymes with “Rome?”

Every Joe from Jorge to Jerome
Can think up a rhyme-word for Rome.
Since an apple can pair
With a quince or a pear,
You can end your po-em with a pome.

 

[Hygro]

... but why?
Shady source of income or just LARPing the 20th century?

I think there's a different national culture with regards to cash.

I never carry cash anymore in the USA.

 

[Samson]

I thought someone must have looked at this properly, and I was right though not answering your exact question. I have not really read it, just looked at the pictures and skimmed a bit This is how different numerical scales have been used over the years for political polling:

Evolution over time in the use of the different scales by the CIS (1977–2022)

This is the difference between text and numerical scales

Study POL2743A. Comparison of responses using the measurement scales S1 (1–5), text only, and S9 (1–10), numerical scale

This is the difference changing the labels at each end makes, adding "Extreme" to the desriptions.

 

[soundjata]

Numbers make me sad
I like colours though

 

[Kyriakos]

What do you think? Do you think it makes a difference?

I suppose it is purely psychological. Although when the numbers are so small (0-5, 0-10, 0-12 etc), I don't quite see how one wouldn't mentally calculate a common denominator instead of focusing on how the numerator feels.
Of course if the denominator is even smaller, you run into the issue of any larger integer numerator implying that you see something as perfect. Eg how would you rate CFC? As a 0/2, 1/2 or a 2/2 site? If the are actual consequences to the answer, maybe you'd shy away from 2/2 despite 1/2 having so small a value.
I imagine that for most practical questions, a 0-100 scale is sufficient to psychologically express you. On the other hand, if I had 101 (or 1000 etc) paintings in front of me, I could still order them from least to most favorite, as then their grade is in relation to a perfectly defined group and not in some relation to an implicit archetype of great and terrible.

 

[Plains-Cow]

CIV IV combat numbers have psychologically scarred me to see 95% or below as terrible odds.

 

[amadeus]

I thought someone must have looked at this properly, and I was right though not answering your exact question.

This doesn’t exactly look like the kind of thing I’m talking about.

Let’s say you have a phone survey asking potential voters how likely they are to vote for a candidate—if they are given a scale of 1-4, 1-5, 1-10, for instance, are they more likely to select a higher or lower number than they would otherwise?

And if someone wanted to, could they choose which scale to use in order to manipulate the responses?