Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study
#2and asked participants to sketch out a prediction for sea ice through 2025
The good thing is that 2025 is only 7 years away, so we will likely see the actual numbers to compare with. I hope the researchers have saved their data until then.
Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study
#3Approx. last week there was a big study that investigated whether other studies replicate or not.
Here's a fun quiz where people can guess the results: https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/
One of the trends was that priming studies usually failed. I would assume that the quality of study form OP is similar.
Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study
#4Can we stop posting articles like this to HN when the underlying paper isn’t publicly available?
Especially these “doing X causes [major behavioral change]” papers where the sample size is super important, and they also tend to have very low reproducibility rates?
Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study
#5I can only conclude the government should regulate the use of political logos to protect us.
Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study
#6Can we stop posting articles like this to HN when the underlying paper isn’t publicly available? Especially these “doing X causes [major behavioral change]” papers where the sample size is super important, and they also tend to have very low reproducibility rates?
Sample size is pretty big:
> they recruited 2,400 people to join four custom-made social networks
Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study
#7Can we stop posting articles like this to HN when the underlying paper isn’t publicly available? Especially these “doing X causes [major behavioral change]” papers where the sample size is super important, and they also tend to have very low reproducibility rates?
Sample size is pretty big: > they recruited 2,400 people to join four custom-made social networks
2400 people is not a lot, especially for a claim like this.
Also there was a similarly sized study a few weeks ago, and basically all participants were students or faculty at 2 different universities.
If you are going to make a claim like this, you need to have a very large and very significant measurable effect, and the smaller your sample size the larger the effect needs to be to have any confidence of the correctness of the study.
Again, to be on HN the paper itself, and the source data, should be freely available. By allowing them to be on HN as they are we are essentially allowing unchecked press releases that always over state the validity of claims.
Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study
#8and asked participants to sketch out a prediction for sea ice through 2025 The good thing is that 2025 is only 7 years away, so we will likely see the actual numbers to compare with. I hope the researchers have saved their data until then.
Actually the predictions of the participants is orthogonal to the purpose of the study. The study was meant to determine how political labels affect cooperation and understanding. Climate change was only one of many issues that could have been used for this.
I do however take issue with headlines that try to draw conclusions from a study other than “this study happened and this was the result.”
Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sample size is pretty big: > they recruited 2,400 people to join four custom-made social networks
2400 people is not a lot, especially for a claim like this. Also there was a similarly sized study a few weeks ago, and basically all participants were students or faculty at 2 different universities. If you are going to make a claim like this, you need to have a very large and very significant measurable effect, and the smaller your sample size the larger the effect needs to be to have any confidence of the correctn…
>2400 people is not a lot, especially for a claim like this.
For a population size of 350,000,000 people the required sample size for a 95% confidence level within a 2% margin of error is 2,401 people. Assuming these 2,401 people were selected properly then that is just about enough, even for a claim like this.
Re: Seeing a political logo can impair understanding of facts: study
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sample size is pretty big: > they recruited 2,400 people to join four custom-made social networks
2400 people is not a lot, especially for a claim like this. Also there was a similarly sized study a few weeks ago, and basically all participants were students or faculty at 2 different universities. If you are going to make a claim like this, you need to have a very large and very significant measurable effect, and the smaller your sample size the larger the effect needs to be to have any confidence of the correctn…
>basically all participants were students or faculty at 2 different universities.
welcome to psychology studies