Since we could not find any valuable correlation when plotting all of the variables against each other, we decided to start thinking outside the box and use any way possible to get a prediction that could tell us if somebody will have a higher or lower emotional granularity based on the variables we were given. Through ways thought about in class and on my own, alternate options were developed to try to figure out how to predict emotional granularity based on the variables we were given.
The first thing I did was gather summary statistics, or moments, about the total electronic use, level of emotional difficulty, and emotional granularity. I have not done anything with these statistics, but I am sure they will be useful in future attempts to unravel the data.
Next, Professor Davis told us about how he had a colleague who was asked to predict something and couldn’t until she had a random idea to scale all of the variables and sum them. This random idea worked to predict, although it couldn’t tell her client what caused the predictions. Dr. Fugate also just asked us to predict somebody’s emotional granularity. Therefore, we could use this same tactic to try to predict somebody’s emotional granularity. That is exactly what I did. However, even after removing outliers, I still only found an r-squared value of 0.2544991. This means that only 25.4% of the emotional granularity can be explained by the summations I developed.
I then started doing my own research and thinking back to my class on R programming. I remembered how we used clusters and dendrograms and wondered if they could explain anything significant about this data. I immediately started remembering how to do this and created an elbow graph that would show me the ideal amount of clusters for the data (the largest change in slope at a point). The ideal amount of clusters ended up being 3, so I created a cluster plot using the “clusplot()” function. This returned to me 2 things; it returned a plot of clusters, obviously, but it also returned to me how much variability that the components explained. The components of the cluster plot explained about 60% of the point variability. I then added a dendrogram and split it into 3 sections, which is similar to the clustering method. I am unsure what to do with this information, or if it is even a good percentage, but I will try to find out.
This cluster plot was slightly confusing to me, so I tried to do another version, just based on 2 variables. I created a cluster plot based on the emotional granularity, or RDEES, and the summation calculation that I described earlier. Again, I am not sure what a cluster plot will be able to tell us with this data, but it was worth a shot.
Finally, I tried two different dendrograms, both split into 4. One using the standard method and the other using the Agnes method. When doing this, I got an agglomerative coefficient of 0.92, which I’m assuming is good, but I am still unsure about this process that I’m testing.