As to why the "females only" finding was not highlighted in the study's abstract (or the original press release), that is because it was an unexpected finding that was not part of our pre-registered hypothesis. It therefore requires further study to understand. But when the media
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
interpretations started to converge on the idea that our findings were potentially "just further confirmation of widespread sexism," then it seemed relevant to emphasize that the main reported effect was in fact driven entirely by female participants, complicating such a view.
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 19 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
Brian D. Earp je proslijedio/a tweet korisnika/ceBrian D. Earp
Here is the original thread https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1098369029088178176 …; and here is the original paper https://psyarxiv.com/pqg3a/
Brian D. Earp je dodan/na,
Brian D. Earp @briandavidearpFrom gender bias to media bias? A thread on how our study looking at adult perceptions of children's pain got misconstrued. A reminder of the importance of taking media coverage with a grain of salt, reading original studies when possible, and guarding against confirmation bias. pic.twitter.com/m0sn8WKlncPrikaži ovu nit1 proslijeđeni tweet 18 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
Okay ... one more thing that's come up. As noted, we found female participants rated boy pain higher & this was speculatively interpreted as evidence of sexism. If we'd found that men rated boy pain higher, I proposed this, too, would likely be interpreted as evidence of sexism.
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 12 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
And that made me wonder if - without some additional building-out of the theory - this raised a problem for some views of sexism in that they might be unfalsifiable (opposite evidence would be seen as equally theory supportive). But one tweeter suggested that the finding could
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 12 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
have been 'opposite' along a different dimension: girl pain could have been rated higher than boy pain (by either men or women). True enough. Suppose we'd found that participants rated a girl as experiencing more pain than a boy given an identical display of pain. One possibility
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 10 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
is that headlines would have read, "Girls' pain is taken more seriously than boys' pain, contra sexism." Or, the finding could still have been interpreted as evidence of sexism: "Girls are seen as oversensitive to pain & not as tough as boys." So my point was just that, in our
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 12 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
study, we did not measure "sexism" nor design our experiment to be able to find evidence in favor of any particular conceptualization or operationalization of sexism. Had we intended to see whether sexist prejudice against girls would lead to different pain ratings for boys
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 11 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
versus girls given an identical display of pain, we (1) would need to have conducted a very different of experiment w a different design & different measures, including measures of, for example, endorsement of sexist attitudes (on some clear conception/theory of sexism), and
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 11 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
(2) we would have to have set up our hypotheses in such a way that, if the data turned out such-and-so, this could count *against* our hypothesis. By contrast, if, no matter which way the data came out, we could have found a way to interpret this as being consistent with
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 10 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit
our particular theory/conceptualization/operationalization of sexism, then our hypothesis would not be meaningfully falsifiable and that would be a troubling feature. And based on the way the media coverage was playing out, it seemed plausible to me that, at least a popular 'lay'
-
-
theory of sexism, might indeed have elements that are unfalsifiable in the present context. E.g., the coverage from Jezebel (https://jezebel.com/girls-pain-taken-less-seriously-than-boys-study-confir-1832233139 …) seemed to just assume that the findings "confirmed" deeply entrenched sexism. But a single finding can't confirm any such thing.pic.twitter.com/7PEJ8n4EJW
1 proslijeđeni tweet 19 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
For more on falsifiability in the context of findings in psychology, see my paper with David Trafimow:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621/full …
5 proslijeđenih tweetova 34 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.