What does your choice of scuba gear say about you?

[RJP]

Probably should have entitled the thread "Does you choice of gear say something about you" rather than "What does..."

I simply grabbed this as an interesting incidental finding from a study that was unrelated to the "style/image" question. Wasn't trying to support any specific finding about that, but rather was highlighting the inability of most humans to objectively answer questions that you ask them about themselves. However, when you ask/allow people to project what "other people like them" think/feel/do you will actually get a pretty accurate reading as to what the person responding to the question thinks.

As to "poor construction of survey questions" comment. You need to stop reading marketing stuff like a lawyer. The wording of these types of questions has been tested and validated many times over by people far smarter than me. The power in them is in being "specifically vague" and letting the imprecision sort itself out. ie "the majority of the respondents will have read/interpreted the question correctly. Studies have shown that the more specific you get with questions like this, the wider range of errors (less precision) you get back. The fact that the response curves for both questions is clustered and unimodal bears that out. When questions are misunderstood you'll typically see flat or bimodal response curves.

As always... I'm extremely happy to find that very smart people don't believe that any of this marketing stuff is effective. Restores my faith in humanity.

PS - Want to know what those curves look like based on which brand primary regulator the respondent dives? Fascinating stuff.

"You can go about about your business..."

:d

 

[Dr. Lecter]

If the second question had simply said "about me as a diver," we wouldn't be debating this issue.

 

[RJP]

If the second question had simply said "about me as a diver," we wouldn't be debating this issue.

That's a different - and far more limiting - question. But I've said too much already.

"Move along. Move along..."

 

[EFX]

As to "poor construction of survey questions" comment. You need to stop reading marketing stuff like a lawyer. The wording of these types of questions has been tested and validated many times over by people far smarter than me. The power in them is in being "specifically vague" and letting the imprecision sort itself out. ie "the majority of the respondents will have read/interpreted the question correctly.

Sorry, I don't get it. Your claim that the majority of respondents will read/interpret the question correctly because the question is "specifically vaque" seems nonsensical to me. The more vaque the question is the more interpreted answers you will get. So how does the survey become useful if the surveyor is interpreting the survey results differently than the one taking the survey?

Studies have shown that the more specific you get with questions like this, the wider range of errors (less precision) you get back. The fact that the response curves for both questions is clustered and unimodal bears that out. When questions are misunderstood you'll typically see flat or bimodal response curves.

So, how do you tell the difference between flat answers which could be accurate based on a narrowly correct interpretation of the questions, and a broader range of answers received from multiple interpretations? It seems to me that vaque questions give vaque answers which are all over the place. How can that be useful?

 

[KeithG]

In this recent survey I went at the issue of "image" and gear selection in a very specific way. By asking the same question two different ways and comparing the answers.
...
Interested in what folks think of this information.

The problem with your survey is the imprecision of what, exactly, you're implying is conveyed in either scenario.

For example, I can tell quite a lot about a diver by how their gear is arranged, regardless of what gear it is, and the vague "you can tell a lot about a diver by the gear they choose" supports that reading. On the other hand, while I submit most people would admit the same is true of them, I doubt they generally feel that who they are as a person is really reflected in their gear choices, and that's certainly what could be read into the vague "choice of dive gear says a lot about me".

Surveys aren't much good past the limits of their wording, no? I get the point you're trying to make, but your chosen evidence doesn't offer that much support for it because of the poor construction of the survey questions.

I agree with Dr Lector. Faulty survey.

Natural languages are ambiguous and imprecise. In my (maybe faulty, but man on the street brain) interpretation, the survey asked 2 very different questions.

The first question wanted to discover what we knew about a diver based on their gear. The implication is the scope of the question is limited to their diving abilities. Will they run out of air? Bad bouyancy? Note that these examples both have negative connotations.
The second question wanted to discover what other people knew about me as a person (not as a diver). The scope is not limited to my diving ability. Am I rich? Do I do a lot of volunteer community projects? These are both positive connotations.

So the questions deal with very different concepts.

 

[halocline]

I wonder how the results would have changed if there had not been a "neutral" option. Then the survey would be forcing participants more into expressing a positive or negative response.

Anyhow, narcissism as a motivating factor in elective purchases? That's a shocker.

 

[RJP]

Sorry, I don't get it.

That's ok. I do.

Your claim that the majority of respondents will read/interpret the question correctly because the question is "specifically vaque" seems nonsensical to me.

That's ok, too.

Folks are really over-thinking thus; it's not that hard. The question is a very general question designed to elicit a generalized response from which a larger gestalt conclusion can reliably be made.

Think about it like this: If you ask 1,000 people "Do you believe that you can tell a lot about someone based on the car they drive?" there will be roughly

• 900 people who correctly understand the question to be general, take it at face-value, and answer it appropriately
• 90 people who incorrectly make specific interpretations of the question that are neverthekess very consistent with the intended general understanding of the question (eg "income" or "socio-economic status" or "style" or what have you) and answer it appropriately
• 10 people who incorrectly interpret the question to be specifically about something inconsistent with the intended general understanding ("BMI" or "astrological sign" or "hair color" etc)

Based on that, if say 75% of people say "Yes, you can tell a lot about a person based on the car they drive" I can correctly make a gestalt conclusion that people have a tendency to judge others based on their car.

With all that, do you honestly believe that many people struggled with a wide range of wildly incorrect interpretations of "You can tell a lot about a diver by looking at their gear" that were wildly inconsistent with the very clear general intent of the question?

 

[Dr. Lecter]

"Do you believe that you can tell a lot about someone based on the car they drive?"

As you've already pointed out, that's a very different question than "Do you believe that you can tell a lot about a driver based on the car they drive?"

 

[KeithG]

That's ok. I do.




That's ok, too.

Folks are really over-thinking thus; it's not that hard. The question is a very general question designed to elicit a generalized response from which a larger gestalt conclusion can reliably be made.

Think about it like this: If you ask 1,000 people "Do you believe that you can tell a lot about someone based on the car they drive?" there will be roughly

• 900 people who correctly understand the question to be general, take it at face-value, and answer it appropriately
• 90 people who incorrectly make specific interpretations of the question that are neverthekess very consistent with the intended general understanding of the question (eg "income" or "socio-economic status" or "style" or what have you) and answer it appropriately
• 10 people who incorrectly interpret the question to be specifically about something inconsistent with the intended general understanding ("BMI" or "astrological sign" or "hair color" etc)

Based on that, if say 75% of people say "Yes, you can tell a lot about a person based on the car they drive" I can correctly make a gestalt conclusion that people have a tendency to judge others based on their car.

With all that, do you honestly believe that many people struggled with a wide range of wildly incorrect interpretations of "You can tell a lot about a diver by looking at their gear" that were wildly inconsistent with the very clear general intent of the question?

What do you mean "incorrect interpretation"? I am answering. Only my interpretation is correct.

You have no scientific means to guess what interpretation the survey set will place on an ambiguous question. It all depends upon the beliefs and values of the person answering. You may "hope" to guess right, but hope is not a plan.

An example: The word "scheme". In common North American culture the word has a negative connotation. Use the word scheme and the audience will think you are a criminal (or at least a bit shifty). A scheme is perfectly fine in the UK. They commonly use it instead of the word "plan". We plan, they scheme. The "financing scheme" is a positive phrase. The simple word scheme can elicit a totally opposite reaction from 2 different people. Not a good word to use in a survey.

 

[Chugwhump]

What does your choice of scuba gear say about you?

I like old stuff.
I like durability.
I could care less if anything "matches".
I am a cheapskate.
I like gadgets.

Chug
Is happy that others spend lots of money on gear to keep the industry alive.
Because if you left it up to me.....
this house would crumble.