UKC

My name is Fiona Yellowlees and I am carrying out a research project as part of my college course. The aim is to dispel the myth that all participants in high risk activities are 'adrenalin junkies'. It would be
much appreciated if you could spare about 10 minutes to fill in this survey. There are a number of multiple choice questions but please do not deliberate too long on any questions and answer from the heart!

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JYPGFWL

Any feedback is appreciated as I will be developing this study next semester

In reply to Fio:

already done for you Fiona. Good set of Questions i Thought.

In reply to Fio:

Good survey i thought. If I tried really hard i could probably pick qat it but don't see the need. Compared to many on here it is excellent. But then it also feels like it was written to enable for me to express how I feel.

In reply to Fio:

I am pretty sure this myth has been dispelled already!

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=569317

Chapter 8 covers a lot of the research done in this field.

In reply to Fio:

Some of the questions and answer options both contain frequency adverbs, which is obtuse.

"Do you always ... ?" "Rarely", meaning "Rarely always" ...

In reply to Fio:

Good survey.

I think people may find it hard to choose between the two diametrically opposed statements (which answer do you dislike least), but it's not that much of an ask.

Also, it might be worth asking how long people have participated in the sport and what level they're at, i.e. how often do you participate and would you describe yourself as novice, social, intermediate, expert. This might make more sense of the last few questions.

In reply to Fio:

At last, a reasonable survey !

In reply to Fio:

A couple of things I thought could be improved with the survey layout/design.

In Q5, the answers are of the form "always", "often", "sometimes", "never", so perhaps you should avoid putting these in the question? That is, if I have to say how frequently I agree with X, where X is "I often do Y", it feels a bit weird to answer "always".

In Q6, it would be easier to read the questions if there was a line break between A and B. I don't know if this is possible in the surveymonkey template.

In Q6, the A and B are always the same way around. That is, the answers that indicate a greater tendency to take risk are always A. I'm pretty sure there is a well-documented bias associated with this, and it's good practice to randomise the order here.

In reply to Fio:

Agreed with the above comments; this was only crap as opposed to really, really unacceptably crap, like most we get on here.

To take one trivial example, if you knew anything about life you would know that many, perhaps most, people who like to drive fast occasionally also really dislike being driven fast by other people.

jcm

In reply to Fio:

Done, although I couldn't answer this question - should have been 2:

Answer A: I don't like being a passenger in a car of a person who speeds or Answer B: I sometimes like to drive very fast because it excites me.

In reply to Fio:

Done, great survey

In reply to Fio:

Done.

+1 to Nick's comments above.

In reply to Fio:

Done.

+1 re Q5 qualifiers.

In reply to Fio:

Done, one of the better surveys - Caving wasn't in the original list though....

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

"If you knew anything about life?" Seriously? You should hear yourself sometimes jcm.

I thought it was quite a decent survey, apart from the flaws pointed out.

Also, I don't think it's necessarily easy to distinguish between experience and age in Q9/10, because the two progress together?

In reply to Fio:

Done

In reply to Andy Moles:

Well, it's a stupid question, isn't it? Some people strongly agree with both statements. Others strongly disagree with both. Yet the survey asks you to say which one you agree with more. The implication is that the maker doesn't realise this and thinks people simply either like speed or they don't.

Similarly 'I always do preflight checks (a) sometimes (b) frequently (c) always' is a stupid question.

However, at least there aren't any grocer's commas and there appears to be some degree of functional literacy, which is more than you can say for most who post surveys on here.

jcm

In reply to Fio:

Try reading this easy to understand book which completely debunks that particular myth:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Alchemy-In-Action/382008699544

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm not disagreeing with your point, just suggesting there's no need to be so acerbic about it.

But maybe it makes you feel better, and where would UKC be without its angry personae?

In reply to Fio:

A great survey! Will be very interested to hear the results in due course.

In reply to Fio:

The page you link to has no participation information, no information for potential participants about who you are, who you represent or who is responsible for an complaints (your supervisor if you need to ask).
Serious flaws for anyone engaging in human subjects research.

In reply to Choss:

Thank you very much appreciated!

In reply to puppythedog:

Hi - thanks so much I did find it tricky to word the questions but my focus was to get as much personal feedback as possible so I'm glad you felt you could express yourself. Thanks again

In reply to Fio:

How can you "carry out research" to disprove a myth?

That implies that you have already made up your mind about the answer, and that the opposite to your pre-conceived view is "a myth". If so, what you are doing is not research but propaganda, you are looking for confirmation of a pre-existing view, not seeking to discover the truth as research should do. As per Disraeli's famous comment about Gladstone and statistics :

"He uses figures as a drunk man uses a lamppost, for support not for illumination".

So even if you do get some sort of results (I never regard these questionnares as having any value at all, due to the loaded nature of the questions and the self-selecting sample of participants), you will most likely cherry-pick that support your initial thesis. A classic example of confirmation-bias.

In reply to Mark Reeves:

Thanks for the link ...very useful - yes to be honest there is a great deal of recent research showing that this is the case but for alot of the people in my class (who are all based on nidoor sports like football) this myth is still very much assumed, so targeting this information to them. Thanks again fior your support

In reply to Erstwhile:

Thanks yes I did find it tricky wording some of the questions. I hae to develop this topic in a module next year so will certainly try to clarify the wording of some questions. thanks for your time

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Thank you I will certainly take those ideas on for whenI have to develop the project next year, and hopefuilly ensure I can get more of this key information. Thank you for your time

In reply to Doug:

Thanks - much appreciated!

In reply to Nick Russell:

Hi Nick thanks for those comments and yes I have to admit that the survey monkey template has restricted me and made it difficuklt to word the questions. your feedback has been very useful and I will be using your comments to help me develop the project next year. thanks again

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Appreciate that you took the time to take part in this survey. I have to comment that I do certainly understand a great deal about life and that the questions chosen were purposefully designed to elicit a choice between 2 statements - which is based on many professional and empirical studies. Thanks for your time

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Thanks, I will be looking at questions design for the development of this project

In reply to Dirhaelar:

Thanks, much appreciated

In reply to little black dog:

Thanks, time and comments appreciated!

In reply to nwclimber:

Thanks, comments and time appreciated

In reply to JamButty:

Hi - noted I will include that one next time - knew I'd forgotten something. Appreciate your time on this

In reply to Andy Moles:

Hi Andy,

Yes I agree - after submitting survey I did feel the last two questions were a little rushed. I will be developing this next year and hope to iron out some of the flaws, and all this feedback has been so helpful! Appreciate your time

In reply to csw:

Thanks - much appreciated

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I feel like constructive criticism would be more effective than referring to me as stupid. Also I would like to point out that that particular question is based on a widely used and respected sensation seeking questionnaire specifically designed to measure the levels of sensation seeking of individuals.

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks - great link

In reply to nclarey:

Thanks will keep you updated

In reply to Simon4:

No, it is called a null hypothesis: when you start a research you usually expect a certain result. So when you describe your work you do so in assuming you already know the results (e.g. "I will prove that the sky is not blue"). Of course your research can prove that you were wrong or right and you have to accept and interpret the actual results (the sky is actually blue). But it is perfectly normal to assume that your results will go towards a certain direction in the beginning of your research

In reply to Jon Read:

Thanks I will take those comments on board for future - was not informed on the course that this was the protocol and have not done this for previous surveys so thanks for pointing that out

In reply to Simon4:
Comments noted for future questionnaire design - thanks. Also poor wording at the beginning on my part - this is not my aim to confirm an existing belief. More accurate would be research prohject to identify range of personal motivations

In reply to Fio:

I didn't say you were stupid. I said some of your questions were stupid. Which they were.

To quote you, if you disagree explaining why would be more sensible than getting in a huff.

jcm

In reply to drolex:

Thanks for clarification there - I didn't mean to imply that my mind was already made up just more that I was trying to gather as much information on the range of motivations as possible. Poor wording on my part

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I apologise, I'm really not in a huff I just disagree that the questions are stupid. I admit that they could be reworded and there is alot of work to do make the questions more appropriate.

In reply to Fio:

The big snag with the questionnaire is it seems to assume a static picture. Whereas, for example, one's attitude to risk-taking will vary with mood, weather, age etc. At some stages in my life in my 20s and 30s I felt much ore inclined to take risks than others (about every 5 years I found I needed another big adrenaline buzz). Most people, as they get older, become less keen on taking risks. For a large number of us, looking back, the taking of quite big risks is something we are glad to have done, but don't see much point in repeating.

I also am rather puzzled as to how helpful these questionnaires really are. Does one just end up with a not very revealing list of statistics, such as 23 % of climbers and adventurers like the sensation of speed ?? I would have thought that to do anything meaningful at degree level would involve doing a huge number of one-to-one interviews with activists. The written word is always so much more useful than statistics. Also, many people will come up with new, interesting ideas, and reasons why they do risky and adventurous things - much more interesting then simply ticking boxes next to someone else's rather nebulous questions. Also, any useful and interesting piece of work needs particular examples/stories etc as evidence for abstract assertions. And anyhow, stories about adventures are usually a lot more interesting than academic studies about them

There are times when one feels that perhaps Mallory saved a lot of time by reducing it all to just three words.

In reply to Fio:

It would have been even more useful if it was the right link!:

https://www.facebook.com/dougrobinsonclimbs

In reply to Fio:

Done.

One of the best surveys that I've seen someone post on this forum. You've clearly researched the subject well.

I notice that you didn't include a question to find out participant's age and level of experience. Maybe you have a reason, but I have added my info in the final comment box.

In reply to Offwidth:

Haha thanks

In reply to Fio:

Done, though I think it could have benefited from an 'almost never' selection to qustion 5. Occasionally, to me, seems more frequent than almost never.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

True, and over time a trend emerges.


Yes, there was a free text question about changing levels of risk appetite with age and experience.


What do you mean by 'activists'? Surely you want to find out what the average punter, the beginner, and the expert/obsessive do and what they feel about it?


Not true. If you want a broad picture of a population then statistics are the best tool. If you want to find out more detail about experiences then qualitative research is better. The problem with many of the questionnaires people do are that they don't use a representative sample so they don't really achieve either. But statistics are the only way to answer questions like "why do people choose to do x, y or z". If you get a handful of in depth accounts it tells you nothing about the broad trends. I suppose with sufficient budget you could get a large number of detailed accounts that cover a representative sample, and then analyse them down into statistics to reveal the trends.


Yes, I agree that quantitative research should be complemented with qualitative.


Not a helpful remark. I prefer mediterranean food to Indian, but I don't go into the curry house to announce that.

In reply to Fio:

Done, one of the better ones.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The written word is always so much more useful than statistics.

While I agree surveys on here are unlikely to reveal very much, this claim by you is quite wrong - and follows from your misunderstanding of statistcs wrt to climate the other day. Rather than being dismissive, you should do a bit of reading about how statistcs can be used well and are, in many instances, essential to understanding. Try Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahnenman for starters for showing how bad the written word is very often for understanding and how statistics can be illuminating, (he covers a lot more than statistics).

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I felt the same when working through the questions & thought about posting a comment similar to yours until I came to the free textboxes at the bottom & made a comment there. But I did wonder when answering questions whether I should write about the current me, or me as a 20 year old - the answers would be quite different

In reply to Fio:

Done - good survey. Pity about the "always" and "seldom" in the questions that duplicated the same words in the answers, but I just read the questions without the qualifiers and chose which one I'd insert - not a big problem. Definitely one of the best surveys posted on this site. Good luck with the course!

Martin

In reply to MG:



Please remind me what I said wrt climate … I don't recall that. AFAIK, statistics are vitally important to the whole issue of climate change because this is something that can be quantified very accurately. But things like emotions, likes and dislikes, and value judgements in general, are extremely difficult to quantify. Thus the range of disagreement when a star system is used to judge the value of a movie, for example.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I had in mind this

"This seems such a peculiarly un-scientific way of speaking. Are you a statistician? Because you speak as if the correct way of looking at the natural world is as if at a set of unrelated statistical particles "

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



Apologies to Fio if I've got this wrong, or if it sounds patronising, but I'd assumed that this was an undergraduate project whose real aim is not to illuminate the world but to illuminate Fio's education. If Fio comes back in 5 or 10 years time as "Dr Fio" with a human behaviour survey that really does change our understanding of the world then I for one will be delighted to have been a tiny part of helping her on her way.

In reply to MG:

As someone once said: "The answer to any scientific question is a probability distribution". They were a statistician.

In reply to Fio:

Good survey, though as pointed out, by saying "the aim is to dispel the myth" it sounds as though you've already decided what you want the results to be. A better way of putting it would be (for example):

"A commonly held view is that most participants of high risk activities are 'adrenalin junkies'. The aim of the survey is to assess the extent to which this is really the case"

Of course, one can thrive on adrenalin while at the same time managing risk effectively, so saying one is or is not an adrenalin junkie may be simplifying things. If using the term, you may need to discuss it in some detail.

In reply to Fio:

Done. Much the most interesting survey I have completed in a while.

In reply to Fio:

Done interesting survey but stating you're out to achieve a particular result isn't very objective!

In reply to Fio: Looked through the questions. Problem is, I don't see myself as having taken any risks. Some people might consider climbing and mountaineering as high risk, but I suspect most people on this forum think of it as normal life. Even something like car driving, fast, is more to do with the satisfaction of using a highly functional machine.

In reply to Fio:

Interesting survey, though some of the sections were quite hard to fill in. Section 6 for example I often wanted to tick "both" or "somewhere in between".

In reply to Fio:

Done.


I think that by asking direct questions (fear, risk, adrenaline rush) you do not get the whole picture.

Gamblers do not go to casino for the thrill of losing. They go there for the thrill of winning. Similarly, participants in high risk activities do not seek fear, suffering or injuries.

Not always one's reaction to a challenging situation is panic. Often one simply becomes more focused and determined, feels in control and does not feel there is any risk at all. Physical capabilities feel (and are?) superb. When everything goes well it is a positive experience.

In small doses it is probably healthy and perfectly normal. Is is still so when one gets hooked and keeps stepping up the challenge?


I used to think that the term 'adrenaline junkies' is a nonsense. Not so sure now ...

Good luck with your research.

In reply to PMG:


I know. I often liken climbing with drug use: I do it for the buzz, and as time goes on I have to up the difficulty and exposure - the 'dose' - to achieve the same buzz.

But not everyone is like me by any means. More climbers choose routes that are well-protected struggles, which just isn't what gives me a buzz. I like to be on tiny holds, above the gear, miles above the sea (or whatever). Important to note though that it isn't about increasing the risk. Such routes are often no more dangerous than stuff which is less 'out there', they just have a much greater buzz factor for the exposure and run-out.

What motivates me to choose these routes is the buzz from the exposure, difficulty and I guess illusion of risk, rather than risk itself. I would get no buzz at all from climbing something dangerous because it was damp and loose in grotty quarry - that's just risk without buzz.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Thanks, appreciate your time

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Agreed! Thank you for the feedback

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Agreed I did regret that once I had posted, should have thought more carefully about how I introduced it. Thanks for your time and feedbck

In reply to PMG:

Thanks for the points you raised I found them very helpful - I did find it a difficult subject to design a questionnaire for as the reasons are so diverse and the different sensations difficult to quantify. Interesting research to do though.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Lots of interesting points there, I think you have just managed to write down what I have had in my head but couldn't seem to put down in words - especially 'its the illusion of risk rather than the risk itself'. Thanks

In reply to Fio:

This survey is now closed thank you all so much for your time and feedback!

In reply to Fio:


“Risk anything! Care no more for the opinion of others ... Do the hardest thing on earth for you. Act for yourself. Face the truth."

(Journal entry, 14 October 1922)”
― Katherine Mansfield, Journal of Katherine Mansfield