tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post2204181813259862251..comments2023-11-30T13:15:01.893+01:00Comments on Drang naar Samenhang: 30 Questions about Priming with Science and the Department of CorrectionsRolf Zwaanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07617143491249303266noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-79179398902458910682013-10-31T14:26:58.294+01:002013-10-31T14:26:58.294+01:00Did know if you'd seen it, but thought you mig...Did know if you'd seen it, but thought you might find this article from The Economist interesting: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-troubleSeth Gitterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04741023050125079803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-77332191117190443112013-09-29T00:06:31.569+02:002013-09-29T00:06:31.569+02:00Very interesting, thank you. As for me, I was surp...Very interesting, thank you. As for me, I was surprised about the results of Study 3 about prosocial intentions. I have many friends who actually went to the Arts School and I know that volunteering and various fundraising activities have always been an integral part of their life. I myself (as an undegraduate student) used to take part in various theatrical performances and fundraising has always been a goal of most of them. Therefore, despite the empirical evidence provided by the authors, I suspect that participants from art and theatre (even when not primed with scientific words) would most likely report greater prosocial intentions, compared to students from other fields who are primed with scientific words. In brief, it would be interesting to find out if the results would remain the same if to compare students from art and theatre only (as a control group) with the "primed" (target) group from other fields. I am less sure that "coding for field of study into that science vs. non-science was based on whether the field relied primarily on empirical methods of experimentation" (authors' response to your post-publication review) is the best division. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14188480498516188706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-28000615990377025712013-09-28T00:34:12.961+02:002013-09-28T00:34:12.961+02:00Two further notes. First, I'm not asking about...Two further notes. First, I'm not asking about "any imaginable analysis"; I'm asking about analyses that should have been performed. Second, the vignette is critical to the experiments. How can anyone (especially the reviewers) judge the experiments without the vignette? As I point out in the post, it is very common in other areas to publish stimuli (or examples); and it has been like this for decades.Rolf Zwaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07617143491249303266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-61074770820564065482013-09-28T00:28:30.100+02:002013-09-28T00:28:30.100+02:00Thanks Sanjay, I know it was you. I resonate with ...Thanks Sanjay, I know it was you. I resonate with your posts on this topic. You are right that it would be unfair to ask these questions just about this study. I have asked them about another study as well, as you will know http://rolfzwaan.blogspot.nl/2013/08/50-questions-about-messy-rooms-and.html.<br />I can only ask these questions one study at a time and I'm not done yet.;) Moreover, the questions are not just addressed to the authors but also to the reviewers, and editor, as I've tried to make clear in this post and in the 50 Questions one.Rolf Zwaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07617143491249303266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-54261423128253668862013-09-27T23:37:26.248+02:002013-09-27T23:37:26.248+02:00I was the author of the comment that prompted the ...I was the author of the comment that prompted the corrections. I agree with you that PLoS ONE should make the corrections a more integral part of the main article. If you're interested, I blogged about my experiences with this article:<br /><br />http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/reflections-on-a-foray-into-post-publication-peer-review/<br /><br />http://hardsci.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/pre-publication-peer-review-can-fall-short-anywhere/<br /><br />Regarding your 30 questions, some of the questions are specific to this particular paper. But others -- such as the fact that they didn't provide all of the vignettes and stimuli, or report every imaginably interesting analysis -- are questions you could ask about nearly every study published in every venue. Why isn't it the norm to publish all stimuli and procedural details in a supplement? Or report dead ends and experiments that did not "work"? Or post the raw data so readers can run supporting analyses or see what happens if they rescore or reslice the data in different ways? They are very good questions, but it seems unnecessarily narrow -- and perhaps a touch unfair -- to be asking them about just this study. Sanjay Srivastavahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03677223120010904540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-27854419953644860722013-09-27T17:33:15.548+02:002013-09-27T17:33:15.548+02:00Basically there is one problem with this: you can&...Basically there is one problem with this: you can't run an "effect of science-y words" experiment on university students alone. You would expect a ceiling effect in this population (seriously, which sample would be more pro-science than uni students?), making it all the more likely that it is the control condition that has the effect. In fact, there is not really a control condition.Le Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04826348308063467083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6322739827777311964.post-16522864736148970732013-09-27T15:43:41.467+02:002013-09-27T15:43:41.467+02:00Anyone designing their own scale should read http:...Anyone designing their own scale should read http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/rateratingscales.htm first.<br /><br />In this case, why did the scale for the male character's actions use 1 for saintly and 100 for awful? Why not 1 (or, better, 0) for awful and 100 for good? I can imagine quite a few people instinctively awarding him a "low number" as a "bad person".Nick Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266307287741345798noreply@blogger.com