tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/online-survey-7686/articlesOnline survey – The Conversation2018-02-08T10:28:42Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/889642018-02-08T10:28:42Z2018-02-08T10:28:42ZOnline polls are everywhere: here’s why we should be wary before trusting them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/204410/original/file-20180201-123840-15gjw58.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/picture-red-button-on-computer-keyboard-592946366?src=DgbyWu2SoZR_PPg54bHy-A-2-24">Creativa Images via Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Online polling is overhauling traditional phone polls, according to a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/upshot/online-polls-are-rising-so-are-concerns-about-their-results.html">New York Times</a> analysis of the 2016 US presidential election campaign. Four years earlier, telephone surveys still had an edge of about four to one. But now online polls have almost caught up and are thought likely to overhaul telephone surveys by the next presidential campaign. </p>
<p>Beyond professional surveys, informal polls on news sites or social networks are everywhere – they engage online audiences and provide them, as well as politicians and the media, with an immediate snapshot of public opinion.</p>
<p>But commentators have raised <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/why-you-shouldnt-believe-most-online-polls.html">concerns</a> about online polls. Lack of representativeness is an obvious flaw for polls that only sample a specific audience. So, when NBC Sports in Philadelphia asked viewers about the best undefeated NFL team, the unsurprising winner with <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCSPhilly/status/780208030465961984">96% of votes</a> was the Philadelphia Eagles. </p>
<p>But it isn’t just biased audiences that can skew online polls. Some are susceptible to <a href="https://resources.distilnetworks.com/all-blog-posts/how-to-manipulate-an-online-poll-with-a-bot">manipulation by bots</a>. Worse, there exists a black market for buying online votes: a vote can be bought for less than two roubles (£0.03) on <a href="http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/online-economy-fake-news/">Russian online marketplaces</a>. This allows individuals or organisations to easily fudge poll outcomes that can be used to influence citizens’ voting decisions. </p>
<p>Manipulated polls could also be used by companies such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica">Cambridge Analytica</a>, who compile psychological profiles of individual citizens to run micro-targeted political campaigns. The company uses data from online quizzes and personality tests to build detailed profiles of individuals. It worked with the UK’s EU Leave campaign, which said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Cambridge Analytica are world leaders in target voter messaging. They will be helping us map the British electorate and what they believe in, enabling us to better engage with voters. Cambridge Analytica’s psychographic methodology … is on another level of sophistication.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There have also been <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/7482ec7c-01c9-11e7-aa5b-6bb07f5c8e12">concerns about data protection issues</a> and the ways in which this information might have been used – although there is no suggestion that Cambridge Analytica engaged in poll manipulation.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"958341218374733824"}"></div></p>
<p>Manipulation of online surveys can be problematic in two ways. First, when many bots or paid respondents take part, it can change the results of the poll. Ideally, this dynamic can be tamed by robust technological authentication. But, more subtly, manipulation could also open the door to a phenomenon dubbed “cascades” by social scientists. By planting a few initial votes that make it look as if voters favour a particular outcome, manipulators could <a href="http://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2017/11/15/manipulation-of-elections-through-information-cascades-in-social-media/">offset a dynamic</a> that eventually shifts the poll result in the desired direction.</p>
<h2>Majority appeal</h2>
<p>But this thinking relies on competing assumptions about ways in which internet users are prone to social influence. On the one hand, out of a desire for conformity, it could be that individuals tend to shift their opinion towards what appears to be the average of the opinion distribution. On the other hand, they might just as easily be put off by the majority and adjust their opinions away from it. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2974413">recent study</a>, we tested how users state their opinions in an online poll after seeing other people’s opinions. We used data from an informal polling tool that displays previous votes before inviting a user to vote. The tool stacks votes into multiple bars. Here’s an example of this kind of poll in the context of product ratings. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205162/original/file-20180206-88803-16gc3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205162/original/file-20180206-88803-16gc3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205162/original/file-20180206-88803-16gc3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205162/original/file-20180206-88803-16gc3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205162/original/file-20180206-88803-16gc3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205162/original/file-20180206-88803-16gc3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205162/original/file-20180206-88803-16gc3d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our questions ranged from general topics, such as Brexit or the US 2016 presidential election, to more specific questions such as the need of female quotas for recruiting pilots. The polls were embedded in real articles on British, American and German news sites, including the Huffington Post, The Times and Spiegel Online. Our study allowed us to estimate how users might change their opinion after seeing the opinions of others. Overall, we collected more than a million opinions.</p>
<p>We found that users were drawn towards the average of the opinions displayed online – typically, a user moves a bit less than half the distance towards the average opinion displayed. This seems like a substantial shift and would present a strong possibility for manipulation.</p>
<p>But the impact of the initial manipulation declines as more genuine opinions are collected. We found that this is because most users state opinions that are between the displayed average (which could be created through manipulation) and the “true average” – in other words, the average of users’ personal opinions. As our mathematical models show, eventually the average opinion converges to the true average, despite the strong social influence. This is bad news for manipulators.</p>
<p>But whether a poll converges from a manipulated average to the true average depends on the time the poll is active online. The shorter the poll runs for, the stronger the impact of initial manipulation. Also, the further away the fake votes are from the genuine votes, the more effective the manipulation. One important measure to prevent manipulation is thus to increase the time polls are online.</p>
<h2>Opinion polarisation</h2>
<p><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2974413">Our results</a> also give some perspective on the current debate about <a href="http://voxeu.org/article/internet-social-media-and-political-polarisation">online polarisation</a>. We’ve seen the way that users can be socially influenced towards the average of other people’s views. And because many people tend to visit news websites that publish news and opinions in accordance with their political views, results of any given poll on one site may tend to be homogeneous. </p>
<p>But overall, this can also mean that differences between opposing camps on any given issue can increase. To exploit this effect in order to intensify the differences between political camps, manipulators might use targeted messages in online social networks to lure users with opposite opinions to different polls. </p>
<p>This can lead to a questionable narrative if polling outcomes are presented as a significant body of opinion – think of the effect of the informal polls declaring Donald Trump the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-donald-trump-debate-polls-2016-9?IR=T">winner of the 2016 TV debate</a>.</p>
<p>One solution might be to employ polling tools across websites and show users of any site the opinions of users from many different sites. This would create a poll of polls that aims to reflect opinion across the spectrum. There’s clearly a fair way to go before we can trust online polls to tell us about how people really feel.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88964/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New research has shown how easily online polls can be manipulated.Bary S. R. Pradelski, Research Fellow, Oxford-Man Institute of Quantitative Finance, University of OxfordBernhard Clemm von Hohenberg, PhD researcher, European University InstituteMichael Maes, Assistant lecturer, University of GroningenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/822032017-11-02T02:52:41Z2017-11-02T02:52:41ZStop doing companies’ digital busywork for free<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192300/original/file-20171027-2402-p3er9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How much time and energy do people spend rating, reviewing and answering surveys?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/reputation-management-concept-feedback-rating-677453737">Ditty_about_summer/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the past year, I stopped responding to customer surveys, providing user feedback or, mostly, contributing product reviews. Sometimes I feel obligated – even eager – to provide this information. Who doesn’t like being asked their opinion? But, in researching media technologies as an anthropologist, I see these requests as part of a broader trend making home life bureaucratic. </p>
<p>Consumer technologies – whether user reviews and recommendations, social media or health care portals – involve logistical effort that means more administrative work at home. As economic anthropologist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber">David Graeber</a> <a href="https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit">observes</a>, “All the software designed to save us from administrative responsibilities [has] turned us into part- or full-time administrators.” Companies may benefit when customers create content, provide feedback and do busywork once done by paid employees, but what about the customers themselves – all of us?</p>
<p>Many researchers recognize professional <a href="https://hbr.org/1983/09/moral-mazes-bureaucracy-and-managerial-work">workplaces are becoming more bureaucratic</a>, managing workers through documentation and quantification. But fewer acknowledge the expansion of this logic into private life. It might not feel like a burden to update your Facebook profile, review a business or log in to a web portal to message your doctor. But when you lose time answering customer surveys, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/325807937506242/">setting privacy rules</a>, resetting a password, wading through licensing agreements or updating firmware, it becomes clear how digital technologies increase managerial work at home. In my forthcoming book, I explore this phenomenon, which I call logistical labor.</p>
<h2>Digitizing daily life</h2>
<p>Here’s a typical example of how this happens at home. I recently received an email from my auto insurance requesting I call. Fair enough; I might not answer if the company called me. But instead of reaching a person familiar with the query, my call fed into an automated system where a synthesized voice asked what I was calling about.</p>
<p>“You told me to call!” I replied.</p>
<p>The automated system was confused: “Sorry, what was that again? You can say auto ‘policy,’ ‘claims’ or ‘tell me my options.’” </p>
<p>Eventually I reached a human, who didn’t know why I’d been asked to call either. “I don’t know,” I told her, “That’s what I’m calling about…” Finally, we figured out what was going on and resolved the issue. Then she asked whether I would stay on the line for a customer service survey. I refused. </p>
<p>Rather than calling or emailing me with specific details, the company made me work through all that automated confusion. Requiring that I call in effectively gave me work previously done by paid employees. And then the insurance company asked for yet more of my time to reflect on how well – or not – my work solved the problem the company had. At what point should I expect to be paid for my work?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are these call center workers happy because other people are doing their jobs?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/call-center-worker-accompanied-by-his-707850307">Redpixel.pl/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Managing work</h2>
<p>Bureaucracy – a term coined in the 18th century to mean “<a href="https://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/social-worlds/all-articles/management/desk">rule by writing desk</a>” – refers to the organization of modern government, desk-bound and hierarchical. Max Weber, a <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/">founding theorist of social science</a>, viewed bureaucratic organization as fundamental to modern society. He decried its rigidity as an <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/understanding-max-webers-iron-cage-3026373">“iron cage” of rationalization</a> in which social life is managed quantitatively. Since at least the 1970s, bureaucratic management has become common in corporate workplaces. </p>
<p>Sociologist Robert Jackall termed this shift the “<a href="https://hbr.org/1983/09/moral-mazes-bureaucracy-and-managerial-work">bureaucratization of the economy</a>,” in which rigid hierarchy and constant documentation takes over business places, including “administrative hierarchies, standardized work procedures, regularized timetables, uniform policies, and centralized control.” More bureaucracy means relentlessly tracking metrics and performances in the name of productivity – and internalizing the idea that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95235-9_5">a person’s value can be quantified</a>.</p>
<p>Graeber, the anthropologist of bureaucracy, suggests bureaucratization is becoming more common <a href="https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit">as Western economies export manufacturing work to developing countries</a>. The work that remains <a href="https://monthlyreview.org/2010/10/01/the-financialization-of-accumulation/">increasingly depends</a> on the <a href="https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/fire_finance_insurance_real_estate_ice_intellectual_cultural_educational/">finance, insurance and real estate sectors</a>, businesses that make their money from service fees and employ people to do pointless <a href="http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/">“bullshit” jobs</a>. Graeber contends that – unlike teaching, manual work, health care or the arts – jobs in management, consulting, PR or other “knowledge” fields could vanish with little effect on society.</p>
<p>In the academic world, <a href="https://www.socanth.cam.ac.uk/directory/professor-marilyn-strathern-cbe-fba">anthropologists like Marilyn Strathern</a> have described the push to quantify and document university work as “<a href="https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/4432135">audit culture</a>.” More broadly, this expansion of administrative work, aided by digital technologies, is transforming how American companies operate. For many companies, shifting administrative labor to consumers and “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-ensure-the-next-generation-of-workers-isnt-worse-off-than-the-last-52110">gig-economy</a>” contractors offers a newly “disruptive” business model. As tech companies <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/354458/whatever-happened-to-customer-support">replace live customer service</a> with online support “topics,” for example, users must spend additional time wading through these articles, or face endless phone trees when they do find a phone number. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When is bureaucracy too much?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/busy-businessman-under-stress-due-excessive-551850775">Elnur/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Laboring for social media companies</h2>
<p>New technologies can generate more pointless work, and not just in professional settings. The <a href="https://www.epicpeople.org/how-theory-matters/">logic of tracking and monitoring</a>, for example, threatens to take over American home life as well, from fitness and wearable tech to smart homes that assess <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDlQu1ow_0s">when you need toilet paper</a> or milk.</p>
<p>But spending time on new tech platforms doesn’t always seem like work. <a href="http://www.jordankraemer.com/writings/">Young Europeans I have studied</a>, for example, enjoy spending time on social networking sites and describe them warmly. But Facebook, Yelp, Instagram and the rest profit from the posts, photos, reviews and links people create, because they incite the “engagement” that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUFN.2016.7536934">drives ad revenue</a>. As with consumer surveys or user feedback, these firms <a href="http://fuchs.uti.at/books/culture-and-economy-in-the-age-of-social-media/">are harnessing user-generated content</a> to convert people’s leisure time into corporate profit. </p>
<p>As new social network sites are created and become popular, each person spends more time keeping profiles up to date, checking on connections’ activities or chasing down forgotten passwords. Managing these accounts isn’t just time-consuming; it can be mentally taxing. Inspired by Chandra Mukerji’s <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8911.html">research on the logistical power of water in civil engineering projects</a>, I consider this cognitive effort “logistical labor.” Logistical labor is in this sense the work consumers do to manage tech platforms, often as companies outsource content creation and streamline their operations. </p>
<h2>A new digital divide</h2>
<p>The scope of this uncompensated digital busywork – from which companies profit – goes well beyond social media maintenance and taking consumer surveys. Even setting up a home printer requires exploring settings and configurations and troubleshooting, which can be daunting without the right tech know-how. People who are unwilling or unable to do that miss out on some of technology’s benefits.</p>
<p>In my research, for example, one young person in Berlin balked at purchasing a new mobile phone, overwhelmed by the task of sorting through service plans. Another shared wireless internet service with a friend across the street, resigning herself to spotty connections and limited online activity rather than wrestle with choosing, ordering and configuring her own service. Others were concerned about data privacy but were stymied by Facebook’s privacy options.</p>
<p>The scale of these problems is not only about quality of life – but about life itself. </p>
<h2>Handling health care</h2>
<p>Expecting consumers to be deeply involved expert users is especially concerning when it comes to managing health care. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-health-economy-is-big-but-is-it-better-80593">dysfunctional U.S. health care system</a> is already a Byzantine system of preauthorizations, insurance codes and impersonal treatment. Digitization alone isn’t to blame, but tech platforms like <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2196%2Fjmir.7099">online portals</a> increase administrative work for patients.</p>
<p>Patients, for example, often encounter multiple online portals in the process of paying bills or obtaining prescriptions. Although these systems save time in some ways, they require patients do more legwork like setting up user accounts. This problem is made worse as doctors <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/salaried-doctors-may-not-lead-to-cheaper-health-care.html">leave private practice</a> for hospital groups, which often use unwieldy online platforms and automated phone systems that make it difficult to reach a doctor directly. </p>
<p>Although the health care industry touts such portals <a href="https://www.healthcare-informatics.com/article/business-case-increasing-patient-portal-adoption">as better for business</a> – and in theory, <a href="https://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2014/06/30/how-patient-portals-are-changing-health-care">for coordinating care</a> – little attention has been paid to the additional work they create for patients, or the barriers to accessing their doctors.</p>
<h2>Inequality at home</h2>
<p>In all these examples, managing information on computer systems – for health care, insurance coverage or social media interaction – requires a new level of logistical effort, even with access to computers and the internet. This logistical labor adds to the <a href="https://www.psychologistworld.com/memory/cognitive-load-theory">mental work of managing a household</a>.</p>
<p>In most homes, this additional effort, sometimes called “cognitive load,” <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2017-09-14/the-mental-load-and-what-to-do-about-it/8942032">falls disproportionately to women</a>, who keep track of their families’ needs. For working women, the “second shift” isn’t just about housework or child care, but <a href="http://time.com/money/4561314/women-work-home-gender-gap/">the cumulative fatigue of planning, delegating and worrying</a>. It’s not a coincidence that many “smart home” technologies effectively replace the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDlQu1ow_0s">care work of mothers</a>. This invisible labor typically goes unpaid, further devaluing responsibilities traditionally associated with women. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NDlQu1ow_0s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Do smart technologies tend to focus on gender-biased tasks?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, the logistical labor of managing new technologies entails a cognitive load that can overtake daily life. Of course, I still follow social media, read consumer reviews and sign up for paperless billing. But I’m more aware of how easily my time and labor become new sources of profit, through an unseen exploitation that places the onus on individuals to manage complex systems in the guise of optimizing user “experience.” This broader trend, however, makes individuals complicit in their own exploitation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82203/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jordan Kraemer received funding previously from Intel Labs.</span></em></p>Companies may benefit when customers create content, provide feedback and do busywork once done by paid employees, but what about the customers themselves – all of us?Jordan Kraemer, Visiting Scholar in Anthropology, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/801782017-06-29T01:05:58Z2017-06-29T01:05:58ZTake that chocolate milk survey with a grain of salt<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175921/original/file-20170627-24760-mrp8tm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1310%2C0%2C3784%2C2383&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">And don't expect chocolate ice cream, either.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/barneymoss/15207454576">Barney Moss</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been all over the news lately: a survey by <a href="http://www.usdairy.com/">the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy</a> suggests that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/15/seven-percent-of-americans-think-chocolate-milk-comes-from-brown-cows-and-thats-not-even-the-scary-part/">7 percent of American adults</a> believe <a href="http://www.foodandwine.com/news/survey-finds-too-many-people-still-think-chocolate-milk-comes-brown-cows">chocolate milk comes from brown cows</a>.</p>
<p>The takeaway of much of this reporting is that Americans are science illiterate as well as <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-is-chocolate-milk-made-survey-brown-cows-2017-6">uninformed about how their food is produced</a>. This interpretation is intuitive: research has suggested that <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/09/10/what-the-public-knows-and-does-not-know-about-science/">Americans lack understanding of many scientific concepts</a> and the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/29/americans-are-still-scientifically-illiterate-and-scientists-still-need-a-pr-team/">story line of Americans as woefully ignorant of science</a> is perennial. As a society, we are also urbanizing and <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/">fewer people work in agriculture</a>, so it’s unsurprising that many don’t know how food is made. These survey results line up with this prevailing wisdom.</p>
<p>But is this what the survey is actually telling us? To us as researchers studying science communication and public understanding of science, factors in the survey itself and in the way the media report on it raise questions about how much to read into these findings.</p>
<h2>Survey’s results aren’t publicly available</h2>
<p>Researchers are trained to look for the original methods whenever they read a new study, especially if the results are surprising. Learning how the study was done provides information that helps determine whether the science is sound and what to make of it.</p>
<p>The chocolate milk survey is described as a nationally representative survey of 1,000 American adults, but this is impossible to verify without seeing how respondents were selected. Likewise, how the survey was conducted – whether it was a phone or online survey, for instance – can have significant impacts on its accuracy. Research suggests that <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/2015/05/13/from-telephone-to-the-web-the-challenge-of-mode-of-interview-effects-in-public-opinion-polls/">phone surveys may be less accurate than online surveys</a> because they require people to give their responses out loud to another person instead of quietly clicking away in privacy.</p>
<p>For instance, someone who holds racist views may feel comfortable checking a box about it but might avoid openly professing those opinions on the phone to a stranger. It’s unlikely the chocolate milk survey ran into such problems, but depending on the questions asked, other challenges may have presented themselves.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175922/original/file-20170627-7455-1fqesmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Just to clarify, the recipe includes chocolate and milk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/shutterbean/6757209625">tracy benjamin</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Likewise, it’s difficult to interpret the results of the chocolate milk question without seeing how it was worded. Poorly phrased or confusing questions abound in survey research and complicate the process of interpreting findings.</p>
<p>An NPR interview with Jean Ragalie-Carr, president of the National Dairy Council, is the closest we can get to the actual wording of potential responses: “<a href="http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255590/alarming-number-of-americans-believe-chocolate-milk-comes-from-brown-cows">there was brown cows, or black-and-white cows, or they didn’t know</a>.” But as Glendora Meikle of the Columbia Journalism Review points out, we don’t know <a href="https://www.cjr.org/analysis/brown-milk-study-cows.php">if those were the only options presented</a> to respondents.</p>
<p>This matters. For instance, if respondents associate <a href="http://www.dairyspot.com/dairy-farming/dairy-farming-facts/types-of-cows/">some color cows with dairy production</a> and other color cows with beef production, it’s easy to see how <a href="http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Differences-between-beef-and-dairy-are-not-always-black-and-white-212016371.html">people could become confused</a>. If this is the case, they’re not confused about where chocolate milk comes from, but about the difference between dairy cows and beef cows.</p>
<p>Social scientists call this a <a href="http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/intro/validity.htm">problem with validity</a>: the question doesn’t really measure what it’s supposed to measure. Of course, without seeing how the question was worded, we can’t know whether the chocolate milk question had validity.</p>
<p>Indeed, early media coverage focused on the 7 percent statistic but left out the fact that 48 percent of respondents said they don’t know where chocolate milk comes from. This gives context to the 7 percent number. While it’s conceivable that 7 percent of the population doesn’t know that chocolate milk is just milk with chocolate, the idea that a full 55 percent — over half of adults — don’t know or gave an incorrect response begins to strain credulity. This points toward a confusing survey question.</p>
<p>We reached out to Lisa McComb, the senior vice president of communications for Dairy Management, Inc., about the survey. She confirmed that it’s not publicly available. “The purpose of the survey was to gauge some interesting and fun facts about consumers’ perceptions of dairy, not a scientific or academic study intended to be published,” she told us.</p>
<h2>Story feeds a popular narrative — and media missed it</h2>
<p>Questions about the original findings aside, there’s reason to explore how the media covered the chocolate milk survey.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175925/original/file-20170627-24798-gp73ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">At least they knew cows produce milk?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/9733479421">USDA Photo by Bob Nichols</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The results were instantly shared and republished by a mind-boggling number of outlets (<a href="https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&q=%22chocolate%20milk%22%20%22brown%20cows%22">a Google Trends search</a> for “chocolate milk” and “brown cows” shows a spike beginning June 15th). This factoid likely garnered such massive attention because it feeds into a popular narrative about American ignorance and science illiteracy.</p>
<p>Our research suggests that people who are often accused of being <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/who-are-you-calling-anti-science/">“anti-science” are not necessarily as unscientific</a> as one might think. The rapid spread of this story is likely related to the desire, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/the-birth-of-the-stupid-p_b_10127988.html">unfortunately prominent among many liberals</a>, to see and label other people as ignorant.</p>
<p>Studies suggest we are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28557511">more likely to accept new information when it confirms</a> what we already want to believe. In this case, the chocolate milk statistic fits well with the notion that Americans are fools, so it’s accepted and republished widely despite the numerous red flags that should give scientifically minded people pause.</p>
<p>But the fact remains that many reporters and news outlets decided to run the story without having seen the original results, instead citing one another’s reporting. This led to some interesting challenges when trying to fact-check the survey: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/15/seven-percent-of-americans-think-chocolate-milk-comes-from-brown-cows-and-thats-not-even-the-scary-part/">The Washington Post</a> links to <a href="http://www.foodandwine.com/news/survey-finds-too-many-people-still-think-chocolate-milk-comes-brown-cows">Food & Wine’s</a> coverage, which linked to the <a href="https://dairygood.org/undeniably-dairy">Innovation Center’s website</a>, which originally publicized the survey results. The Innovation Center, in turn, links to a story on <a href="http://www.today.com/food/does-chocolate-milk-comes-brown-cows-t112772">Today.com</a>, which linked right back to the Food & Wine article. This type of circular reporting without seeking out the original source can lead to the spread of misinformation. Unfortunately, as news stories quickly pop up and go viral online, it’s all too likely that we will continue to see such problems in the future. </p>
<p>Importantly, none of this disproves the notion that some adults believe chocolate milk comes from brown cows. It certainly does nothing to undermine the need for increased science education in the United States or suggests that a better understanding of our food production system wouldn’t be beneficial to society. All of these points are still valid. Likewise, this isn’t necessarily evidence that the survey itself is flawed. As McComb notes, the survey is not a scientific one and isn’t meant to be taken as evidence of Americans’ knowledge (or lack thereof) of dairy products. The problem is that it’s being reported on as though it is.</p>
<p>So this survey did point out a lack of science understanding. Ironically, rather than showing Americans’ ignorance of chocolate milk’s origins, the fact that media coverage of this survey was reported so widely and with so few caveats instead showed that many people are not skeptical of the science they read.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80178/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Millions of Americans believe brown cows produce chocolate milk? The way the media reported this factoid raises questions about science literacy – but different ones than you may think.Lauren Griffin, Director of External Research for frank, College of Journalism and Communications, University of FloridaTroy Campbell, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/196732013-10-31T05:50:19Z2013-10-31T05:50:19ZWhy the fear of zombies? Look at the eyes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34116/original/syxj9pss-1383143222.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Blame human psychology.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">burningangelstudios</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Zombies are undergoing a <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/zombie-nation-economy-films-popular-culture-horror-tv">revival.</a> Our screens have been filled with films such as “Zombieland”, “World War Z” and “Resident Evil”. Many home-made zombie will be knocking at our doors this week for Halloween. But what is it about zombies that send shivers up our spines? </p>
<p>There is a little-known psychological phenomenon, called the uncanny valley, which explains it. The “dead” eyes and near-human characteristics of zombies provoke an instinctive disquiet in us. This is down to our inability to process these “strange” faces using normal psychological mechanisms. We are used to seeing and processing human faces and objects, but seeing an eerie, near-human image such as a zombie – which technically has all the features that should make it recognisable to us as a human – is something entirely new, and our brains don’t know how to process this.</p>
<p>As a horror film fan I was intrigued at the psychology behind this, and it appears I am not alone – 3,000 people from around the globe responded to my online surveys and participated in face-to-face experiments to help me discover more about the uncanny valley.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34118/original/dxhb9myw-1383144848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34118/original/dxhb9myw-1383144848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34118/original/dxhb9myw-1383144848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34118/original/dxhb9myw-1383144848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34118/original/dxhb9myw-1383144848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=645&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34118/original/dxhb9myw-1383144848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=645&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34118/original/dxhb9myw-1383144848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=645&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Not to worry, he’s fine.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">rwentechaney</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The term “uncanny valley” was coined in 1970 by a <a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/the-uncanny-valley">Japanese robotics engineer</a> to describe how people’s reactions to robots changed as they were made to look more like humans. It is often described as the sense of unease that accompanies the sight of something almost, but not quite, human. As a robot is gradually given facial features and softer lines, people feel an affiliation and even an affection for it (think of Sonny in the film iRobot). However, as human-likeness increases, this escalating warmth does not continue in a steady line from artificial to human. Instead, at the almost but not quite human point people suddenly find this near-human agent eerie and are repulsed by it – this deviation point is the uncanny valley.</p>
<p>When I began my PhD in 2006 the topic mainly belonged to android scientists and animators, but I wanted to go further. I began without a specific psychological explanation in mind so rather than testing whether, for example, we found near-humans unsettling because they would make unfit mates or trigger a reaction of disgust. Instead I asked participants to write about different near-human agents – some creepy, some not – so I could explore the phrases they would use in their descriptions. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34117/original/vvcjcv5k-1383143367.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34117/original/vvcjcv5k-1383143367.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34117/original/vvcjcv5k-1383143367.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34117/original/vvcjcv5k-1383143367.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34117/original/vvcjcv5k-1383143367.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34117/original/vvcjcv5k-1383143367.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34117/original/vvcjcv5k-1383143367.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34117/original/vvcjcv5k-1383143367.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">All in the eyes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hooman</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Combining qualitative responses and the rating scales, I <a href="http://www.uncanny-valley.co.uk">found</a> that the unsettling faces often had something unusual about their eyes: people reacted strongly to images where the face was convincingly human but with lifeless eyes or where eerily human eyes appeared in a non-human face. </p>
<p>This means that psychological theories of face recognition and the perception of emotional expressions were tools for the analysis. First, I used images which gradually morphed from non-human animals, dolls, robots or statues to entirely human pictures to see whether the eerie near-human faces were being processed in a different way to other types of faces. Second, I observed that unsettling “dead” eyes could occur if an agent wasn’t capable of displaying emotions convincingly. I created “chimeric” faces, where the eyes could show a different expression to the rest of the face, and measured how people responded to different combinations of emotions such as angry faces with happy eyes or disgusted faces with blank eyes.</p>
<p>What every phase of the research confirmed was that images which break our assumptions of how faces should look or behave, were universally unsettling. And particularly the vacant eyes and blank faces – the signatures of movie-makers’ undead. So next time you are watching Walking Dead, the hairs on your arms standing upright and shivers running up your spine, remember, it’s all in the eyes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19673/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephanie Lay does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation apart from Open University that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.</span></em></p>Zombies are undergoing a revival. Our screens have been filled with films such as “Zombieland”, “World War Z” and “Resident Evil”. Many home-made zombie will be knocking at our doors this week for Halloween…Stephanie Lay, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.