Gave it a little boost via Flayrah newsbytes. Hope it helps!

Thanks Greenreaper!

post this on to reddit.com/r/furry i've noticed a lot of people have been linking their surverys there. they have community of at least 25,000 furries.

Alas, I do not have a reddit account. I really ought to get one x.o'

I'll link your journal to it then :P

Shared via my Twitter. I'll add a journal here a bit later today when I'm on my computer

That would be wonderful <3 Thank you!

Done & just heading off to fill out the form right now

Part of the explanation about the survey on the linked page states, "Findings from this research will be made available at the International Anthropomorphic Research Project Website at: https://www.furryresearch.org";. Upon entering that URL, I get this warning; http://i.imgur.com/xEDdQ0R.png. I'd appreciate some insight on what's going on here.

Hmm... that's really weird o.o' I've never seen that happen before. It certainly doesn't do that when I hop on it, or when anyone I know has. I'll look into it to see what's going on - thanks for bringing it to my attention! I'll let you know what I find out!

I'm noticing it's happening to me when I use "https" instead of "http". Again, looking into it...

Huh, I tried the same thing and it lets me in without a warning now. That's odd.

Yeah, I'm talking to our tech guy right now. He's a bit baffled by it, but he's going to talk to the folks he knows to figure out what's going on. It's a head-scratcher, but I promise we're not doing anything insidious ^^; Just displaying the results of our furry data!

Okay. Thanks a lot for taking the time to look into it, there aren't that many people who are so willing to listen to their viewers.

No problem at all! Thanks for letting me know :) If there's something wrong with the site, I'd like to make sure about it! ^^; And I really don't have a lot of viewers, so it's not too hard :p

I'm a little confused with the one that asks "Are you a...?" because I don't know what the furry option means in this case. A lot of people think a furry is an anthro character, while a lot of others think it's just a person who associates with the furry community.

That's up to you to decide :) We don't impose a definition of what a furry is, because it means different things to different people. We just want to know if you would use the label to describe yourself.

Oh, I see. Thank you!

Well, it looks like you're trying to use HTTP Secure (that's what the https:// bit means), but haven't set up a SSL certificate for your domain name. So when GoDaddy (which is hosting your website, as well as your domain name) responds over HTTPS, it does so only with a wildcard certificate valid for its own services, rather than one valid for your domain name.

Even if I override the security warnings, it won't work, because the hosting isn't set up to serve data over HTTPS for that domain name. It's basically like having two doors in a wall, and the HTTPS one goes into the IT guys next door, not your own office. The door says, very clearly, "IT office", and if you ignore that and ask them about furries they just give you a blank expression.

Long story short, you need to be telling people to use http:// on your survey instructions until you set up https://.
(Also, GoDaddy seems willing to rip its customers off when charging for SSL on hosted websites…)

:D! Excellent! Thanks so much Greenreaper! I wish I knew more about this tech stuff XD I wish I could hire you to help manage our website (alas, if only I could pay you in cookies :p)

Looks like you're having a certificate problem. I had this issue when I setup my router to do seamless proxying. I almost wonder if there is an interception going on. Weird.

done

Sure. why not.

Yay! That's how all the best science is done XD "why not?"

yay for science!

Done. This as quite an interesting survey.

Thank you! :3 I'm glad it's being so well-received by the fandom!

Taken, linked to, and feedback given!

Wonderful! Thank you very much! :3

Glad to help!

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/7887929/ -- SCIENCE!!!

Aww! Thank you for sharing! :3

Just a heads up, some of these questions could use some improvement, like the one about fantasy things.

Indeed - there is no such thing as a perfect measure! That's part of the reason for this research - to see where our measures are flawed and could use improvement!

No, but the questions are likely to get you results contrary to what you claim you want unless they are carefully crafted. The fantasy one is a bit hard to understand.

Fair point. Can you be more specific about the problems / what's difficult to understand about the fantasy one? We're primarily interested in any fantasy activity a person engages in, whether it's watching TV, playing video games, daydreaming... Basically, if it involves some element of something that's not real, we're interested in it. We realize this incorporates a HUGE array of different activities, and that's something we're interested in.

That is far too broad though. I mean, what results are you actually going to get? The question could go from reading to dreaming to something actually furry related. You have such a broad category of things to draw from how are the results you get from it even relevant to anything?

It's incredibly relevant for my research in particular. Sure, if all you were interested in was "what sorts of fantasy activities do people engage in?", then it might be too broad and diverse to be meaningfully organized or categorized. But for my purposes, I'm entirely interested in this diversity.

Let me back up and provide some rationale: for the most part, when psychologists study "fantasy", they do so with regard to VERY specific types of fantasies. For example, there's research showing that people who have violent sexual fantasies are also more likely to engage in criminal sexual behavior. Other research shows that people who fantasize about fulfilling goals (e.g., "what'll it be like to graduate?") tend to stick to it and achieve those goals more (when they keep those fantasies in check by contrasting them with all the obstacles in the way). In these two examples, and numerous other examples, researchers are only typically interested in specific fantasy content.

However, I'm more interested in the broader question: Why do we fantasize in the first place? I'm interested in what most, or all fantasies share in common. I believe, for example, that the majority of fantasy activities are engaged in for recreational purposes. This means that for most people, their fantasy activities - whatever they may entail - should, more often than not - be engaged in for the purpose of recreation. So the person who daydreams, the person who watches their favorite TV show, the person who reads fantasy-themed books... all of these people are engaging in dramatically different fantasy activities, but they're all doing it for a similar reason. Now, recreation isn't the ONLY reason people can engage in fantasy: some can engage in fantasy for escapist reasons (e.g., "life sucks, I want to get away for ab it") or for social reasons ("my friends and I all play the same fantasy game"), or a myriad of other reasons. But my argument has always been that, in most cases, it's worth focusing less on what the specific content of the fantasy is and more on the reasons underlying the fantasy. If we want to answer the question "what effect does fantasy have on people?" or "why do people fantasize?", researchers need to stop being caught up in specific fantasy content and, instead, take a step back and look at the "bigger picture". So yeah, that's what I'm trying to do with the fantasy scale. I'm hypothesizing that, in the end, I'll be able to say "hey, look, all the people who said they engage in fantasy for reason X share a lot in common, even though this person's fantasy activity involves TV, that person's involves video games, and that person's involves books!"

Hopefully that makes sense, and isn't just me rambling ^^;

Really? I'd like to see this research. Its my understand that normally the exploration of these desires through fantasy means is a way to keep them from happening in real life.

I'd also like to know why people who dream at night are grouped into the same category. I know what happens to those open-ended questions when they are filled out in most cases. They are simplified to fit into whatever categories you have on your program. There also isn't any way to distinguish between the people that fantasy, act on it in fantasy, or would act on it in reality.


Also even with your question you are still not going to get good results. You results are going to show that some people that fantasize about things have it interfere with life and some don't. How does that help? What exactly could come of "Some people that fantasize about things and are furry have poor lives"? Because surely you know how that must look. If you are not separating those fantasies, people are going to assume the worst.

Sure! I'd be happy to provide you with some references to substantiate the points!

Regarding the association between violent fantasy and violent behavior:

Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Hoglund, W. L. G., & Aber, J. L. (2010). A school-randomized clinical trial of an integrated social-emotional learning and literacy intervention: Impacts after 1 school year. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(6), 829-842.

Smith, C. E., Fischer, K. W., & Watson, M. W. (2009). Toward a refined view of aggressive fantasy as a risk factor for aggression: Interaction effects involving cognitive and situational variables. Aggressive Behavior, 35(4), 313-323.

Su, W., Mrug, S., & Windle, M. (2010). Social cognitive and emotional mediators link violence exposure and parental nuturance to adolescent aggression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39(6), 814-824.

Kelty, S. F., Hall, G., & Watt, B. D. (2011). You have to hit some people! Measurement and criminogenic nature of violent sentiments in Australia. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 18(1), 15-32.

Regarding the association between SEXUAL fantasy and problematic sexual behavior:

Adam, P. C. G., Murphy, D. A., & de Wit, J. B. F. (2011). When do online sexual fantasies become reality? The contribution of erotic chatting via the internet to sexual risk-taking in gay and other men who have sex with men. Health Education Research, 26(3), 506-515.

DeGue, S., DiLillo, D., & Scalora, M. (2010). Are all perpetrators alike? Comparing risk factors for sexual coercion and aggression. Sex Abuse, 22(4), 402-426.

Mattek, P. W. (2003). The Role of Sexual Fantasy in the Confluence Model of Sexual Aggression. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL.

Briggs, P., Simon, W. T., & Simonsen, S. (2011). An exploratory study of internet-initiated sexual offenses and the chat room sex offender: Has the internet enabled a new typology of sex offender? Sex Abuse, 23(1), 72-91.

That's just the ones I can think of off the top of my head / within easy reach. I can pull more if you'd like :)

As for the idea that exploring these desires through fantasy is a way to keep them from happening in real life: it's intuitively appealing, and there's a kernel of truth to it. But, ultimately, it's been debunked by psychologists for decades. The notion is that of "catharsis", and suggests that we have a drive that builds up like pressure and, if we don't find some way to "release" that pressure, it'll spill over in harmful / hazardous ways. Now, if you only look at a single instance, you're absolutely correct that a fantasy that "release the pressure" and prevent something unfortunate from happening (for example, you can punch a pillow instead of punching someone else if you're mad, or you can have a sexual fantasy about something illegal instead of doing the act itself). But, while this is true, if you look in the long run, this pattern of behavior actually makes the problem worse: over time, you end up reinforcing the undesirable behavior and increasing the likelihood that, time and time again, the person will be forced to address with the impulse. To use the aggression example again: if a person punches a pillow instead of their boss, they won't go to jail. But if they keep doing this, they repeatedly reinforce the idea "when I get angry, I should hit things". And so, when the "pillow" isn't there to hit, but there's a reinforced impulse to engage in the behavior, that's when bad things happen. And a similar mechanism likely operates with most fantasies being used to overcome undesirable impulses: you can absolutely engage in the fantasy instead of doing the undesirable behavior in the real world. But doing so just reinforces the impulse, making it stronger each time. As a result, the person may well find themselves with the impulse and neither the cognitive resources nor the restraint to deal with it in a socially acceptable manner, or may simply make an impulsive decision in a moment of weakness. For more on catharsis theory and the evidence against it, I'd recommend:

Hornberger, R. H. (1959). The differential reduction of aggressive responses as a function of interpolated activities. American Psychologist, 14, 354.

Geen, R. G., & Quanty, M. B. (1977). The catharsis of aggression: An evaluation of a hypothesis. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 1-37). New York: Academic Press.

Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 724-731.


Actually, I tend to disagree with the notion of lumping in people who dream at night, at least within my own theory. Fantasy, as I define it, is a volitional act: something you CHOOSE to engage in (a willing suspension of disbelief in non-reality). By this definition, dreaming, hallucinations, and other non-volitional acts would not be considered fantasy. And indeed, in the wording of the question, I ask about "daydreams" (which tend to be volitional), but not explicitly dreaming while sleeping. So, in that context, I'd probably agree with you that they don't belong. And, to put your mind at ease that I might erroneously code or categorize the open-ended questions; I'm actually not planning on analyzing that data, beyond using it as a way of making sure that participants were on-task and actually considering a fantasy activity (and not something that doesn't count as a fantasy activity - like walking their dog or something). Again, based on my model, I would argue that most, if not all fantasy activities are comparable in this regard. As such, it shouldn't matter what fantasy activity people put in that box. I'm not planning on content-coding that data. Nor do I have any interest in whether people act on fantasies or the content of the fantasies themselves: I only really care about a) do they engage in a fantasy activity, and b) how frequently? Whether they act on or indulge those fantasies is of little consequence for the questions I'm interested in :)

I think I disagree with you about whether I'll get "good" results. In fact, I'm not even sure there's such a thing as "good" or "bad" results - the data are ultimately the data, and I'll see how they come out. I agree that some people will fantasize about things and have it interfere with their life and some won't. In fact, I can tell you, based on prior studies, that this will be true for approximately 5-10% of the people who take the study. Part of what interests me is what makes these people different from the others. I don't think it's a matter of "what" they're fantasy activities entail, I think it has more to do with the reasons they engage in their fantasies. In other words, I don't think that a person's sexual or violent fantasies, in and of themselves, are a problem, or would lead to any problematic behavior. IF, however, people are engaging in those fantasies as a way to otherwise control potentially harmful or dangerous impulses, then those impulses themselves, and not the fantasy, are likely the issue. In other words, I'm less interested in the content of the fantasy, and more interested in the reasons why people engage in them in the first place. What functions do the fantasies serve for people, regardless of what the content is?

I can also assure you that my fantasy question actually has precisely nothing to do with furries as a group - I've collected data from six entirely different, non-furry samples, in addition to this one. I have no predictions about furries, nor do I think furries will be any different from anyone else with regard to the reasons underlying their fantasy activities. In the end, I'm testing the hypothesis that people will engage in fantasy for a variety of reasons, regardless of whether those fantasies are about baseball, furries, sex, violence, or anything else. I just want to know whether we can use information about the reasons people engage in fantasy to better understand when a person may be in trouble or need of help (for example, distinguishing the difference between two different World of Warcraft players who both play a lot, but one of them plays for recreation, while the other plays to avoid thinking about how they're unable to pay their bills).

That's the idea, at least :)

There are plenty of studies that disagree with you, but I'm not about to pointlessly debate by flinging citations about.


I don't agree with the fundamentals behind this and think its very bad for the fandom that you are promoting that, bad for humanity as a whole really - at least everyone who values freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

o.o' I apologize if I've said something to upset you, I sincerely am. Perhaps I didn't do a very good job explaining the goals of this study, or perhaps my tone is somehow being lost in this.

All I'm trying to do is study what fantasies have in common. I'm not passing any sort of judgment on the content of these fantasies. I'm not trying to say that some fantasies are better or worse. I'm certainly not trying to limit anyone's freedom of expression or freedom of speech. All I'm doing is testing whether the motivations driving people to engage in fantasy are the same regardless of the content of the fantasy itself.

I would also disagree that this research is bad for the fandom - I've been studying furries with my research team for nearly 7 years now, and have even put out a book with the intent of helping furries and non-furries alike better understand the fandom to dispel the harmful misconceptions about what furries are / are not (http://furscience.com/wp-content/up.....ok-First-5.pdf).

If there's a specific concern you have, or if there's something I can do to try and convince you that I honestly have no malicious intent with this research, please let me know! Really, I'm just trying to improve psychology's understanding of fantasy. At the moment, psychologists tend to only discuss fantasy in terms of its "bad" side. But I'm convinced that fantasy is incredibly useful for most people (that's why most of us do it), and I'm trying to understand exactly how that may be the case by studying the needs it fulfills for people. That's all - nothing more, nothing less.

I'm naturally weary of any one who blames fantasy for society's ills. Fantasy has existed since human cognitive capacity first allowed it, and has featured rape and sexual violence as one of its first things. Sex it self is a natural part of life as it is the end goal of life. Everything about evolution is geared towards sex. Its part of humanity no matter what religion or ideology you fall under.

And people that write (as myself) or draw explicit things that are 'naughty naughty' like rape and the like end up getting demonized when barely substantiated claims like that get thrown around. I wondered where the recent moral crusader against such things in fantasy came from, well know I have a culprit! Others, and I for sure, are pretty tired of death threats and attacks over fictional things that do not hurt anyone. Bolstering the belief that fantasy is bad doesn't help.

I don't think we disagree on most things there! Let me back up - earlier, when I mentioned that psychologists had linked people who have violent fantasies with violent behavior, I wasn't saying that this had anything to do with my research. In fact, the entire PURPOSE of my research on fantasy started precisely because I hated the fact that people had come to demonize fantasy! I'm a furry - I have a VERY fun and active fantasy life, and it was annoying me to no end that people would treat furry activities as "trivial" or as a sign of "dysfunction" simply because it was a fantasy activity that differed from theirs. In my work, I've been trying to test the hypothesis that it doesn't matter what your fantasy is about - it matters more why people engage in it. Yeah, sure, furry may be a really unusual thing to be a fan of, but, I argue, that "furry fantasy" is no different than, say, reading fantasy books or playing science fiction games. The content of the fantasy, as far as I'm concerned, isn't as important as why people are engaging in the fantasy.

So, let's address what you were talking about - sexuality and sexual fantasy. I COMPLETELY agree with you that it's wrong to demonize sexual fantasy. I do! One hundred percent! Using the exact same argument I just used above, I would say that it doesn't matter whether a person's sexual fantasies involve something very "vanilla" or something really out there - if people are using it to fulfill a need for sexual gratification, to "scratch that itch", then, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter what the content of that fantasy is. So I completely agree with you in this regard. I have absolutely no problem with artists who produce pornography (many of my good friends draw porn, and I, myself, own erotic artwork). In fact, I absolutely and staunchly defend furry pornography on the grounds that, from a functional perspective, I think it fulfills the EXACT same needs that non-furry pornography does.

I'm not on any sort of crusade to censor or demonize the fantasies people have. Quite the opposite: my goal has always been to REMOVE the stigma from fantasizing. I've done this work to show people that we shouldn't treat any person's particular fantasy as being "wrong" or "immoral". I recognize that the fantasy and the act itself are absolutely, 100% COMPLETELY different things. I think people should be punished for rape, but not for having rape fantasies or finding artwork featuring this content arousing. I'm completely on-board with you on this. In fact, I'd me MORE than happy to show you the manuscript based on two years of studies that I've been trying to get published which is on the exact subject of trying to take the stigma out of fantasy content, telling people not to trivialize or demonize fantasy in and of itself, just to show you that I'm genuine in this.

I don't think anything ill of you at all for the art you produce or the people who commission it. Not at all! Nor do I have any desire to stop it. I want people to focus LESS on content and simply ask "why do people engage in fantasy?" Are they fulfilling a sexual desire? Are they doing it to hang out with friends? Are they doing it because it's fun? That's all - I'm only saying that different people use different ways to scratch the same itch: none of those different ways are inherently "good" or "bad". Does that make sense?

I'll also point out that I completely 100% agree with you about evolution being about sex - I was a biological sciences major for the first two years of undergrad, and I've studied evolutionary psychology: I completely agree with the tenant that life is, first and foremost, about sex. I don't disagree with you on that point either!

I guess what I'm saying is that we may have gotten derailed somewhere along the way, and I feel like I wasn't clear enough in what, precisely, I'm doing with this project. Pointing out that other psychologists have done work on catharsis theory or that other psychologists have studied violent or sexual fantasies doesn't mean that's what I'm doing. Their work is completely different from what I'm doing! I'm not interested in specific fantasy content, I'm really not! I'm interested in what fantasies all have in common with regard to the needs they fulfill for people. I sincerely apologize if I've misspoken or somehow suggested otherwise.