Concluding

This last blog post is attempting to sum up the result of the research project as of time.

 

Our data showed that the synchronized movement resulted in the highest level of cooperation in America. However, we also found out that the cooperation level of the control condition also was too” high”, casting a doubt into the actuality of the measured conditions’ impacts.

Collaborators from Japan had finished collecting their data. According to the data from Japan, the control condition had the highest level of cooperation, not the coordination condition. Although the coordination condition did have higher level of cooperation than the synchrony condition in Japan, this again, casts doubt into either the impact of the manipulations or the existence of the impact or both.

Although it is possible that the control condition was not random enough to serve as a control condition, we conclude that our hypothesis, coordination is more effective in increasing cooperation level in collectivistic culture whereas synchrony is more effective in increasing cooperation level in individualistic culture, is not currently supported by our data, until further and more detailed analysis is done.

However, science is not about proving that we made a correct hypothesis, but whether or not the hypothesis is supported or not. Although our result did not support our hypothesis, it is not to devalue the accomplishment and think of it as a waste. With the time and effort spent, we now know that the previous control condition might not sufficiently be random and it might not be the case that synchronized action is more effective in increasing level of cooperation than coordinated action in individualistic country and vice versa in collectivistic country. In addition to this, I have gained valuable research experiences and improved as both a researcher and an experimenter! I am glad I was granted the opportunity to par take in the research project!