RE: "Risky" Situations

Fri, 13 Oct 95 9:24:23 EDT

Lindsay Oades sez:
> I am thinking firstly of asking young
> people about their definitions of risk (and its alternative) combined with
> laddering and pyramiding. Following this I intend to ask them to choose some
> drawings I will have of "risky" situations. I am currently deciding
> whether to
> fix some situations, which they must rate, and/or leave choice open
> with other

Thinking of what your average non-PCP committee member may want, some
combination of provided and personal items seems appropriate. As I
suggested earlier, defining a domain and generating items is one way
of doing the 'provided' part. Another way is to have a set of
situations that they can do paired comparisons on. Obtain a
similarity matrix and do some ALSCAL to get at their individual
spaces. There may be more or less contradiction among different
people, giving them different 'weirdness coefficients' (weirdness in a
purely statistical sense, of course). *This* may well be related to
the degree of order in their construct systems as shown by a grid that
uses personally-generated situations from their own experience. In
fact, I'd be surprised if there *wasn't* a relationship. Showing a
mapping between personally- and researcher-provided patterns across an
older "conservative" technique and a grid would be a coup for PCP!

> Both asking for a definition and giving some choice seems
> important, so not to impose my construct of risk.

What's wrong with the question "to what extent does this group agree
with my construct system for risky things?" ? Your examples
<snipped> seem pretty good, although a couple of focus groups wouldn't
hurt in refining them.


Travis Gee () ()
() () ()()()()
() () ()
() ()()()()()()()()()
"In science, the more we know the more extensive the
contact with nescience." -Spencer