3 ms·

>Mean engagement was quantified as an average of the two continuous self-reported engagement ratings that each conversation partner made while rewatching a vide

>Mean engagement was quantified as an average of the two continuous self-reported engagement ratings that each conversation partner made while rewatching a video of their conversation The tail is wagging the dog in this study. The study fundamentally fails to validly measure what it claims to measure. It's measuring the perception of attention, not attention itself. I only look at their face to signal that I'm paying attention to them, but if I'm looking at their face, I'm probably paying attention to looking at their face not at what they're actually saying. It's a very conscious move on my part to sacrifice my actual ability to pay attention to give off the perception of paying attention. If I want to both pay attention and look like I'm paying attention, I write notes. >186 subjects comprising 93 dyads (mean age: 19.38 y; 120 females) participated. Subjects were recruited from Dartmouth College Also a rather WEIRD sample which is actually a major issue in a study like this since it's measuring something rooted in cultural perceptions.

gundmc 4y ago
This is a huge problem for many psychology studies more broadly. Undergrads are a ready and plentiful source of test subjects for research professors, but they come with a huge bag of self-selected characteristics that may not extrapolate to the broader population at all.
BeetleB 4y ago
For folks who are not aware of the WEIRD acronym: > In 2008, Arnett pointed out that most articles in American Psychological Association journals were about U.S. populations when U.S. citizens are only 5% of the world's population. He complained that psychologists had no basis for assuming psychological processes to be universal and generalizing research findings to the rest of the global population.[279] In 2010, Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan reported a bias in conducting psychology studies with participants from "WEIRD" ("Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic") societies.[280][281] Henrich et al. found that "96% of psychological samples come from countries with only 12% of the world’s population" (p. 63). The article gave examples of results that differ significantly between people from WEIRD and tribal cultures, including the Müller-Lyer illusion. Arnett (2008), Altmaier and Hall (2008) and Morgan-Consoli et al. (2018) view the Western bias in research and theory as a serious problem considering psychologists are increasingly applying psychological principles developed in WEIRD regions in their research, clinical work, and consultation with populations around the world.[279][282][283] In 2018, Rad, Martingano, and Ginges showed that nearly a decade after Henrich et al.'s paper, over 80% of the samples used in studies published in the journal Psychological Science employed WEIRD samples. Moreover, their analysis showed that several studies did not fully disclose the origin of their samples; the authors offered a set of recommendations to editors and reviewers to reduce WEIRD bias.[284] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias

gundmc 4y ago

This is a huge problem for many psychology studies more broadly. Undergrads are a ready and plentiful source of test subjects for research professors, but they come with a huge bag of self-selected characteristics that may not extrapolate to the broader population at all.

BeetleB 4y ago

For folks who are not aware of the WEIRD acronym: > In 2008, Arnett pointed out that most articles in American Psychological Association journals were about U.S. populations when U.S. citizens are only 5% of the world's population. He complained that psychologists had no basis for assuming psychological processes to be universal and generalizing research findings to the rest of the global population.[279] In 2010, Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan reported a bias in conducting psychology studies with participants from "WEIRD" ("Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic") societies.[280][281] Henrich et al. found that "96% of psychological samples come from countries with only 12% of the world’s population" (p. 63). The article gave examples of results that differ significantly between people from WEIRD and tribal cultures, including the Müller-Lyer illusion. Arnett (2008), Altmaier and Hall (2008) and Morgan-Consoli et al. (2018) view the Western bias in research and theory as a serious problem considering psychologists are increasingly applying psychological principles developed in WEIRD regions in their research, clinical work, and consultation with populations around the world.[279][282][283] In 2018, Rad, Martingano, and Ginges showed that nearly a decade after Henrich et al.'s paper, over 80% of the samples used in studies published in the journal Psychological Science employed WEIRD samples. Moreover, their analysis showed that several studies did not fully disclose the origin of their samples; the authors offered a set of recommendations to editors and reviewers to reduce WEIRD bias.[284] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias