Discussion
The main result of this study was the gender difference. Males tended to favour privatisation and have less prosocial thoughts than females which was an unexpected finding. However you do have to take into account the number of participants in each gender when determining the average answers for each question. The control group responded as expected. Those primed with money did not show any difference in support for special or universal programmes which was not the selfish or self reliant response expected for both studies. The results were not consistent with the hypothesis. We didn 't not get the expected responses from participants that were primed and not primed as there are many factors that influence participants opinions and …show more content…
Statistically, the most of the population is 18-25 years old with a range of full and part-time students. Which impacts how they are affected by priming through money. It also didn 't take into consideration other factors for example if we have personally used specialised programmes as it affects us personally even if we were primed with money. No knowledge of what a service is, what socio-economic group you belong to and your own financial situation will influence each participant 's responses. Students tend to have less of an income than those working full time. Students are also less likely to be selfish and more prosocial as students have a tendency to worry about money i.e. how next weeks rent will be paid which makes us more sensitive to the communities needs not just our own. When it comes to not having knowledge of a specific service information sheets could be given to participants ahead of time detailing each programme and the services that they provide. The amount of time spent priming had minimal if any effect which was not enough to make a change or influence thoughts as the priming wasn 't significant enough. To increase the likelihood of priming with money influencing participants answers priming time could be increased a lot to see if there will be a significant response to the priming. Other limitations include that money has no universal thoughts, everyone 's upbringing and attitudes towards money are different and influenced by many different factors which mean 's that it is difficult to make a generalised statement about the effect of money on behaviour without taking into account the background and other factors in participants live 's that could impact their responses to each
The main result of this study was the gender difference. Males tended to favour privatisation and have less prosocial thoughts than females which was an unexpected finding. However you do have to take into account the number of participants in each gender when determining the average answers for each question. The control group responded as expected. Those primed with money did not show any difference in support for special or universal programmes which was not the selfish or self reliant response expected for both studies. The results were not consistent with the hypothesis. We didn 't not get the expected responses from participants that were primed and not primed as there are many factors that influence participants opinions and …show more content…
Statistically, the most of the population is 18-25 years old with a range of full and part-time students. Which impacts how they are affected by priming through money. It also didn 't take into consideration other factors for example if we have personally used specialised programmes as it affects us personally even if we were primed with money. No knowledge of what a service is, what socio-economic group you belong to and your own financial situation will influence each participant 's responses. Students tend to have less of an income than those working full time. Students are also less likely to be selfish and more prosocial as students have a tendency to worry about money i.e. how next weeks rent will be paid which makes us more sensitive to the communities needs not just our own. When it comes to not having knowledge of a specific service information sheets could be given to participants ahead of time detailing each programme and the services that they provide. The amount of time spent priming had minimal if any effect which was not enough to make a change or influence thoughts as the priming wasn 't significant enough. To increase the likelihood of priming with money influencing participants answers priming time could be increased a lot to see if there will be a significant response to the priming. Other limitations include that money has no universal thoughts, everyone 's upbringing and attitudes towards money are different and influenced by many different factors which mean 's that it is difficult to make a generalised statement about the effect of money on behaviour without taking into account the background and other factors in participants live 's that could impact their responses to each