These studies appear extremely interpreted here indeed. This is a window into this soft-science research that shows I guess how real the study reproducibility c

These studies appear extremely interpreted here indeed. This is a window into this soft-science research that shows I guess how real the study reproducibility crisis can be. Already the variability in outcomes points to serious methodological and interpretation issues. Malamuth 1981. https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01075.x https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540.... ..appears to get to the 35% by goalpost movement. Palmer, McMahon & Fissel., 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32089128/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32089128/ ...asks another question, has a biased sample of respondents, and has another study objective, ie prevention, than getting to the percentage shown. Hahnel-Peeters, Goetz & Goetz., 2022. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14747049221141078 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14747049221141078 ...has this amazing nugget: surreptitiously testing men's rape likelihood to rape across varying levels of discovery. We found men, compared to women, reported a statistically higher likelihood to rape in both Studies 2 and 3: 48% compared to 39.7% and 19% compared to 6.8% Young & Thiessen, 1992 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-25748-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-25748-001 ...isnt saying what our authors think is saying, IMHO. I stop now, looking at these studies was particularly disheartening, this is not science. nothing can be done with this data I think.