Facebook advertisements for cross- cultural survey recruitment: Insights from the 46-country World Relationships Study 2020/3/24 1 Dr. Mie Kito , Me iji Gaku e n University; Dr. Joanna Schug, College of William & Mary; Dr. Christopher Kavanagh, Oxford University;Dr. Taciano Milfont, Victoria University of Wellington; Ms. Mariko Visserman, VU University Amsterdam; Mr. Mihkel Joasoo, University of Tartu; Dr. Maja Becker, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès; Dr. Julia Becker, University of Osnabrueck; Ms. Ruthie Pliskin, Tel Aviv University and the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya; Dr. Purnima Singh, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi; Dr. Marta Fulop, Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Dr. Claudia Manzi, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore; Dr. Jonathan Jong, University of Oxford; Dr. Ci-Yue Chiu, Chinese University of Hong Kong; Dr. Urszula Marcinkowska, Collegium Medicum of the Jagiellonian University; Dr. Felix Neto, University of Porto; Dr. Alvaro San Martin, IESE Business School; Ms. Ana Maria Houghton Illera, Colegio Colombiano de Psicólogos; Ms. Carolina Maria Ferreira Colmenero, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia; Dr. Maja Becker, Université To u lo u se Jean Jaurès; Ms. Pelin Gul, University of Kent; Dr. Dmytro Khutkyy, Higher School of Economics; Dr. Nour Sami Kteily, Northwestern University Robert Thomson and Masaki Yuki, Hokkaido University, Japan Presented atthe 2 nd 3MC International Conference, Chicago, USA, 21 st July 2015 Collaborators:
71
Embed
Facebook advertisements for cross - cultural survey recruitment · 2020. 3. 3. · Facebook advertisements for cross - cultural survey recruitment: Insights from the 46 -country World
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Facebook advert isem ent s for cross-cu lt u ra l survey recru itm ent :
Insights from the 46-country World Relationships Study
2020/3/24 1
Dr. Mie Kito , Meiji Gakuen University; Dr. Joanna Schug, College of William & Mary; Dr. Christ opher Kavanagh , Oxford University;Dr. Taciano Milfon t , Victoria University of Wellington; Ms. Mariko Visserman , VU University Am sterdam ; Mr. Mihkel Joasoo, University of Tartu; Dr. Ma ja Becker, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès; Dr. Ju lia Becker, University of Osnabrueck; Ms. Ruth ie Pliskin , Tel Aviv University and the Interdiscip linary Center Herzliya; Dr. Purn ima Singh , Indian Institute of Technology Delhi; Dr. Mart a Fulop , Hungarian Academ y of Sciences; Dr. Claud ia Manzi, UniversitàCattolica del Sacro Cuore; Dr. Jona than Jong, University of Oxford; Dr. Ci-Yue Ch iu , Chinese University of Hong Kong; Dr. Urszula Marcinkowska , Collegium Medicum of the JagiellonianUniversity; Dr. Fe lix Neto, University of Porto; Dr. Alva ro San Mart in , IESE Business School; Ms. Ana Maria Hough ton Ille ra , Colegio Colom biano de Psicólogos; Ms. Ca rolina Maria Ferre ira Colmenero, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia; Dr. Ma ja Becker, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès; Ms. Pe lin Gul, University of Kent; Dr. Dmyt ro Khutkyy, Higher School of Econom ics; Dr. Nour Sami Kte ily, Northwestern University
Robert Thomson and Masaki Yuki, Hokkaido University, Japan
Presented at the 2nd 3MC International Conference, Chicago, USA, 21st July 2015
Collaborators:
I wish t o convince you t ha t :
• Facebook ads are great for multi -count ry surveyparticipant recruitm ent• Including difficult to reach developing-country populations
• Reasonable data quality
• But there are som e im portant caveats• Us Facebook users, we’re t he re t o be en t e rt a ined
2020/3/24 2
Overview
The World Re la t ionsh ips St udy
• Core purpose: validate re la t iona l m obilit y• Opportunity and freedom to choose interpersonal
relationships based on personal preference (Yuki et al., 2007; Yuki & Schug, 2012)
• Explains societal differences in behavior and psychology• Interpersonal similarity1, self-disclosure2, self-enhancement 3, shame4,
self-esteem5, general trust6, desire for uniqueness7 etc.
• Need studies beyond East -West dichotomy• Validation as a concept and• The 12-item relational mobility scale (Yuki et al. 2007)
as a measurement tool
2020/3/24 3
Background
1 Schug et al., 20092 Schug et al., 20103 Falk et al., 20094 Sznycer et al., 20125 Sato et al., 2014
6 Yuki et al., 2007; Thomson et al., 20157 Takemura, 2014
Nth. Am ericaHIGH
rela t iona l mobilit yOpen m arke t for
interpersonal relationships
East -AsiaLOW
rela t iona l mobilit yClosed m arke t for
interpersonal relationships
The World Re la t ionsh ips St udy
• Let ’s do a m ult i-count ry survey – 40 countries (n = 300 per country)
• Japan-based data solutions company quote: US$186,000 ba ll-pa rk
• What about Facebook?• 70 count rie s with > 30% penetration (June 2013)
• Includes Middle East, North Africa, South Am erica, South-east Asia
• Response rates 10% to 40% (Ram o et al., 2012; Tan et al, 2012; Kito, 2010)
2020/3/24 4
Background
2020/3/24 5
I’ve t ried Facebook ads be fore(and fa lied )
Before The World Re la t ionsh ips St udy (see Thomson & Ito, 2014 for published paper)
• Masters thesis p roject (2012)• Internet p rivacy concern survey
(18 countries)• Recruited via Facebook ads• $50 Am azon voucher draw
• Externa l m ot iva tor
• Survey design was default Qualtricslayout
• Spend: US$2,099 (7 days) Total valid N = 399 (90 fem ale)
2020/3/24 6
Background
English Japanese
French Arabic
Before The World Re la t ionsh ips St udy
2020/3/24 7
Background
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
02468
101214
Internet privacy concern survey response Rate (%) and Reward Value (as 1/100% of GDP per capita)
Response ra t e (%) Reward Va lue (% of GDP per cap it a )
r = .89, p < .001
02468
101214
Internet privacy concern survey response Rate (%) and Reward Value (as 1/100% of GDP per capita)
Response ra t e (%)
2020/3/24 8
Let ’s t ry Facebook ads aga in(and not fa il)
World Re la t ionsh ips Survey• 1st wave: 46-countries (21
languages)• 5-min survey via Facebook
ads• Countries with >30%
Facebook penetration• Two versions
• Romance and friendsh ip
9
Variab les
• Rela t iona l m obilit y (Yuki et al.’s 2007 12-item scale)
• Self-disclosure (Schug et al., 2010)
• Intimacy (Sternberg, 1986)
• Interpersonal similarity (Schug et al., 2009)
• Others (no. of romantic partners etc)
• Demographics
2020/3/24 北海道大学 10Robert Thomson
Advert se t t ings• Object ive : clicks to website• Targeting: Country of residence
• Underperform ing count ries on ly: Targeted based on interests –rom ance, friendships, boy/girlfriend, m arriage etc (those countries not part of m ain dataset)
• Placem ent : Desktop /m obile news feed, desktop right colum n• NOT “Audience Network” – copious clicks, few responses• Instagram now availab le – haven’t tried it yet
• Bidd ing: Autom atic• Budget based on m id-m arket p rices
• Schedule : Continuous for approx. one week (x 3 waves)
2020/3/24 北海道大学 11Robert Thomson
2020/3/24 12
13
2020/3/24 14
2020/3/24 15
Did t he Facebook ads work?
2020/3/24 16
N = 800
N = 450
N = 250
N = 70
Part icipan t s( N = 18,707, 46 coun t ries( Fem ale percent: 85% (SD= 13%)Age (yrs): 29 (SD= 6)
Averages
2020/3/24 17
Click-th rough-ra t e (M = 2.8%, SD = 1.4%)
8.5%
4.8%
3.3%
1.8%
Percent of people disp layed an ad who actually clicked on it
↓
2020/3/24 18
40%
20%
10%
3%
Response ra t e (M = 15.2%, SD = 10.8%)
Percent of people who clicked on an ad who
validly com pleted survey↓
2020/3/24 19
$3.50
$1.80
$0.90
$0.30
Cost pe r va lid response (M = US$1, SD =US$0.86)
Cost per valid response↓
2020/3/24 20
Were t he da t a OK?
2020/3/24 21
Measurement modelRe la t iona l m obilit y m easurem ent m ode l
Our general relational mobility measurement model (first proposed by Yuki et al., 2007) – 12 item s, 1-6 Likert
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford University Press.Craik, K. H. (1973). Environmental Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 24(1), 403–422. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.24.020173.002155Davies, N. B., Krebs, J. R., & West, S. A. (2012). An Introduction to BehaviouralEcology (4 edition). Oxford; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Ellis, J. B., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (2000). Relationships Between Self-Construal and Verbal Promotion. Communication Research, 27(6), 704–722.
doi:10.1177/009365000027006002Falk, C. F., Heine, S. J., Yuki, M., & Takemura, K. (2009). Why do Westerners self-enhance more than East Asians? European Journal of Personality, 23(3), 183–203.
doi:10.1002/per.715Fischer, R., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2011). Methods for Investigating Structural Equivalance. In D. R. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver(Eds.), Cross-cultural research
methods in psychology (pp. 179–215). New York: Cambridge University Press.Kelly, J. G. (1971). Qualities for the community psychologist. American Psychologist, 26(10), 897–903. doi:10.1037/h0032231Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (2010). Handbook of Cultural Psychology. Guilford Press.KIto, M., Yamada, J., & Yuki, M. (2015). Intimacy as an adaptive psychological process: Intimacy and social support in a high relationally mobile society.
Presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Long Beach, USA.Li, L. M. W., Adams, G., Kurtiş, T., & Hamamura, T. (2014). Beware of friends: The cultural psychology of relational mobility and cautious intimacy. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12091Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’stheory of independent and interdependent self -construals. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 2(3), 289–310. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00042Oishi, S. (2014). Socioecological psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 581–609. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-030413-152156Oishi, S., & Graham, J. (2010). Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 356–377.Rui, J., & Stefanone, M. A. (2013). Strategic self-presentation online: A cross-cultural study. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 110–118.
Sato, K., & Yuki, M. (2014). The association between self-esteem and happiness differs in relationally m obile vs. stab le interpersonal contexts. Cultural Psychology, 5, 1113. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01113
Schug, J., Yuki, M., Horikawa, H., & Takemura, K. (2009). Similarity attraction and actually selecting similar others: How cross-societal differences in relational mobility affect interpersonal similarity in Japan and the USA. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(2), 95–103. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2009.01277.x
Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between- and within -culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society APS, 21(10), 1471–8.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119Sznycer, D., Takemura, K., Delton, A. W., Sato, K., Robertson, T., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2012). Cross-cultural differences and similarities in proneness to shame:
An adaptationist and ecological approach. Evolutionary Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.epjournal.net/articles/cross -cultural-differences-and-similarities-in-proneness-to-shame-an-adaptationist-and-ecological-approach/
Takemura, K. (2014). Being Different Leads to Being Connected On the Adaptive Function of Uniqueness in “Open” Societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 0022022114548684. doi:10.1177/0022022114548684
Wang, C. S., & Leung, A. K.-Y. (2010). The cultural dynamics of rewarding honesty and punishing deception. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1529–1542. doi:10.1177/0146167210385921
Yamagishi, T. (2011). Trust: The evolutionary game of mind and society. Tokyo; New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-53936-0
Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., & Schug, J. (2008). Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19(6), 579–584. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02126.x
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion. , 18(2), 129.Yuki, M., & Schug, J. (2012). Relational mobility: A socio-ecological approach to personal relationships. In O. Gillath, G. Adams, & A. D. Kunkel (Eds.), Relationship
science: integrating evolutionary, neuroscience, and sociocultural approaches(pp. 137–152). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Yuki, M., Schug, J., Horikawa, H., Takemura, K., Sato, K., Yokota, K., & Kamaya, K. (2007). Development of a scale to measure perceptions of relational mobility in
society. CERSS Working Paper 75, Center for Experimental Research in Social Sciences, Hokkaido University. Retrieved from http://lynx.let.hokudai.ac.jp/cerss/english/workingpaper/index.cgi?year=2007
Rela t iona l m ob ilit y sca le (Yuki et al., 2007; 12 items)
How m uch do you feel the following statem ents accurately describe people in the immediate socie ty in which you live (friends and acquaintances in your school, colleagues in your workplace, and residents in your town etc.)?
• They (the people around you) have m any chances to get to know other people.• It is com m on for these people to have a conversation with som eone they have never m et before.• They are ab le to choose, according to their own preferences, the people whom they interact with in their daily life .• There are few opportunities for these people to form new friendships. (reversed)• It is uncom m on for these people to have a conversation with people they have never m et before. (reversed)• If they did not like their current groups, they could leave for better ones.• It is often the case that they cannot freely choose who they associate with. (reversed)• It is easy for them to m eet new people.• Even if these people were not com pletely satisfied with the group they belonged to, they would usually stay with it anyway. (reversed)• They are ab le to choose the groups and organizations they belong to.• Even if these people were not satisfied with their current relationships, they would often have no choice but to stay with them . (reversed)• Even though they m ight rather leave, these people often have no choice but to stay in groups they don’t like. (reversed)
adap t ive t a sks( Oishi, Schug, Yuki, & Axt, 2015(
Socio-ecologica l approach
2020/3/24 32
Oishi & Graham , 2010
Socia l ecology
Physical environm ent
Interpersonal environm ent
Social environm ent
CultureSym bols, m eaning,
rituals etc.
Hum an psychology and behavior
Relational mobility
Similar to: Ecological (Barker, 1968), environmental (Craik,
1973), community (Kelly,
1971) cultural (Kitayama &
Cohen, 2007)
psychologies, behaviouralecology (Davies et al., 2012)
(Oishi 2014)
What is re la t iona l m ob ilit y?
2020/3/24 北海道大学 33Robert Thomson
High degree of personal choice in interpersonal
relationships・
Easy to change relationships
High re la t iona l m ob ilit y
Lower degree of personal choice in interpersonal
relationships(
Less ease in changing relationships
Low re la t iona l m ob ilit y
Nth . America
Japan
The degree to which there is the opportunity and freedom to form and sever – according to one’s preferences – relationships and group m em berships in a society or social context (Yuki et al. 2007, Yuki & Schug 2012)
Falk, Heine, Yuki, & Takemura, 2009; Schug, Yuki, Horikawa, & Takemura, 2009; Sznycer et al., 2012; Wang & Leung, 2010; Yuki et al., 2007
1st year uni
3rd year uni
Urban
Rural
Nth . America
Japan
Theory
In terpersonalenvironments
d iffer
Adapt ive t a sks inh igh re la t iona l m ob ilit y socia l con t ext s
Acquisit ion of desirab le re la t ionships/group memberships
• Positive self-regard (self-enhancement; Falk et al. 2009)
• Self-esteem (Sato & Yuki, 2014)
• General trust (Yamagishi & Yamagishi 1994; Yamagishi, 2011)
• Desire for uniqueness (Takemura, 2014)
Retention of desirable relationships/group memberships
• Self-d isclosure (Schug et al. 2010)
• In t im acy (Kito et al., 2015)
2020/3/24 北海道大学 34Robert Thomson
Theory
Consequence: In terpersonal sim ilarity (Schug et al., 2009)
Adapt ive t a sk inlow re la t iona l m ob ilit y socia l con t ext s
Maintenance of harmony• Avoiding offence (Yamagishi, Hashimoto, & Schug 2008)
Rela t iona l m ob ilit ylim it a t ions/fu t ure d irect ions
• What about the rest of the world?• Measurement of relational mobility
• Yuki et al.’s (2007) 12-item relational mobility scale (1 -6 Likert)• How much do you feel the following statements accurately describe peop le
in t he im m edia t e socie ty in which you live (friends and acquaintances in your school, colleagues in your workplace, and residents in your town etc.)?
• They (the people around you) have m any chances to get to know other people.
• It is uncom m on for these people to have a conversation with people they have never m et before . (reversed)
• They are ab le t o choose the groups and organizations they belong to.• Even though they m ight rather leave, these people often have no choice but
Configural (1) 4423.3 1950 .928 .905 .054 - - - - ✔Part ia l Metric (2) 5085.4 2292 .919 .909 .053 2 vs 1 .009 -.004 -.001 ✔Part ia l Scalar (3) 5506.3 2368 .909 .901 .055 3 vs 2 .010 .008 .002 ✔
• Configura l m ode l: Sam e structure as pooled sample across groups• Met ric inva riance : Sam e factor loadings as pooled sample across groups• Sca la r inva riance : Sam e item and 1st order factor intercep ts as pooled
sample across groups
N = 39 count rie sRho = .58 ~ .88
Means can bem eaningfu lly com pared across coun t ries
• Higher relational mobility requires strategies to acquire and re t a in desirab le relationships• Result is higher hom ophily in interpersonal relationships
Do previous East-West findings replicate across societies?
Relational Mobility andSelf-disclosure to close friend
Relational Mobility and Romantic Intimacy
Relational Mobility and Similarity
Relational Mobility and Self-esteem (Schmitt & Allick, 2005)
2020/3/24 48
Relational m obility and se lf-d isclosure t o a close friend
Const ruct va lid it y: Va lues and cu lt u re WRS Results
Associations with other cultural/value constructs?
0
50
100
3 5 7 9 11
Relat ional Mobility Index
Ind ividua lismr = .184
0
50
100
3 5 7 9 11
Relat ional Mobility Index
Power Dist ance
r = -.2500
50
100
3 5 7 9 11
Relat ional Mobility Index
Mascu lin it y
r = -.2340
50
100
3 5 7 9 11
Relat ional Mobility Index
Uncert a in ty Avoidance
r = .1240
50
100
3 5 7 9 11
Relat ional Mobility Index
Long Term Orien t a t ionr = -.189
3
4
4
5
3 5 7 9 11
Relat ional Mobility Index
Em beddedness
r = -.413†
3
3
4
4
5
3 5 7 9 11
Relat ional Mobility Index
Affect ive Autonom yr = .367 †
2
2
3
3
3 5 7 9 11
Relat ional Mobility Index
Hiera rchyr = -.444*
4
4
4
4
4
3 5 7 9 11
Relat ional Mobility Index
Mast e ryr = -.056
4
5
5
6
3 5 7 9 11
Relat ional Mobility Index
Ega lit a rian com m itm ent
r = .501*
(2001) HofstedeN = 32
Schwart z (1994)
N = 20
2020/3/24 60
Relational m obility and socia l cyn icism
WRS Results
r = -.460p = .04
Social Cynicism Index(Bond et al., 2004)“Represents a negative view of hum an nature, especially as it is easily corrupted by power;a b iased view against som e groups of people; a m istrust of social institutions; and a disregard ofethical m eans for achieving an end.”