3 ms·

It's common practice in psychology degrees to have some of your ungraded but required credit basically be "participate in the studies of others". I get why they

by kriro 8y ago

It's common practice in psychology degrees to have some of your ungraded but required credit basically be "participate in the studies of others". I get why they do it this way (otherwise there wouldn't be enough people willing to participate in undergrad psychology experiments). Personally I find this practice very unethical.

Retric 8y ago
While true, that’s misleading as this is generally for class assignments not published research. Some overlap does exist, but it’s significantly less than suggested by the requirement.
- rjf72 8y ago
  What do you mean class assignments? It may vary by university but at my school the studies we participated in were indeed being published. This also was not only for psychology majors but anybody who took 'psych 101' -- participation in at least 3 studies was required to receive credit for the class. It was fun, but it was seriously disillusioning to see how absurd most psychology studies are. Two researchers talk to me for 5 minutes about women performing better than men on certain forms of math tests. They then sit me in a room alone for about 10 minutes presumably to try to make me nervous. Finally they give me a test, overtly handing me it on a pink sheet of paper instead of a white one. Then after the test they continually tried to get me to agree that I felt like I probably didn't do so well on the test. I refused - since I was certain I nailed it (it was a cookie cutter pre-sat math type test). They told me I'd receive my results by mail within 2 months. I never did. E-mails asking for such were ignored. The research got published and was of course some trite gender bias explains all difference in math paper. At the time I just found the whole thing quite absurd. In hindsight, I think it was even worse. That study was prepped and ready for p-hacking. They were measuring and possibly varying a large number of variables there. There was the paper color, the isolation, the 'chat(s)', different sections of the test, were men/women over/under estimating their performance, etc. And they were actively trying to push people into agreeing with what they wanted to find. You're going to be able to find some sort of statistically significant correlation there, even if none actually exists.

by kriro 8y ago

Retric 8y ago

While true, that’s misleading as this is generally for class assignments not published research. Some overlap does exist, but it’s significantly less than suggested by the requirement.

rjf72 8y ago
What do you mean class assignments? It may vary by university but at my school the studies we participated in were indeed being published. This also was not only for psychology majors but anybody who took 'psych 101' -- participation in at least 3 studies was required to receive credit for the class. It was fun, but it was seriously disillusioning to see how absurd most psychology studies are. Two researchers talk to me for 5 minutes about women performing better than men on certain forms of math tests. They then sit me in a room alone for about 10 minutes presumably to try to make me nervous. Finally they give me a test, overtly handing me it on a pink sheet of paper instead of a white one. Then after the test they continually tried to get me to agree that I felt like I probably didn't do so well on the test. I refused - since I was certain I nailed it (it was a cookie cutter pre-sat math type test). They told me I'd receive my results by mail within 2 months. I never did. E-mails asking for such were ignored. The research got published and was of course some trite gender bias explains all difference in math paper. At the time I just found the whole thing quite absurd. In hindsight, I think it was even worse. That study was prepped and ready for p-hacking. They were measuring and possibly varying a large number of variables there. There was the paper color, the isolation, the 'chat(s)', different sections of the test, were men/women over/under estimating their performance, etc. And they were actively trying to push people into agreeing with what they wanted to find. You're going to be able to find some sort of statistically significant correlation there, even if none actually exists.