4 ms·

82 participants. 3 participants did not complete. 1 person excluded as inconsistent > 4SD. Study comes down to: Participants were text-messaged 5 times per day

82 participants. 3 participants did not complete. 1 person excluded as inconsistent > 4SD. Study comes down to: Participants were text-messaged 5 times per day between 10am and midnight over 14-days. """ Each text-message contained a link to an online survey, which asked participants to answer five questions using a slider scale: (1) How do you feel right now? (very positive [0] to very negative [100]; M = 37.47, SD = 25.88); (2) How worried are you right now? (not at all [0] to a lot [100]; M = 44.04, SD = 30.42); (3) How lonely do you feel right now? (not at all [0] to a lot [100]; M = 27.61, SD = 26.13); (4) How much have you used Facebook since the last time we asked? (not at all [0] to a lot [100]; M = 33.90, SD = 30.48); (5) How much have you interacted with other people “directly” since the last time we asked? (not at all [0]to a lot [100]; M = 64.26, SD = 31.11) """ So we have a shaky self-reported study with low (and relatively homogeneous) sample size where it is fairly clear what the researchers are after, spun into an article with link bait title about how Facebook makes you sad. This is news now.

devindotcom 13y ago
Also, every participant was an undergrad at a single university - not that that's an uncommon thing for psych studies!
- beachstartup 13y ago
  in almost every lower division psychology class i took, i remember they forced us to participate in experiments as part of our grade. and not just one or two, either. i remember it was a huge pain in the ass. one of the many reasons i graduated university with a C average.
dylangs1030 13y ago
To be fair, maybe BBC doesn't have an in-house team of journalists who understand what peer-reviewed rigor looks like... Okay, yeah, this is crap. I couldn't even devil's advocate that with a straight face. You'd need a sample size of several thousand, a much more rigorous (as always, preferably double-blind assessment) method than self-report, and diversify the sample size with much higher age variation (at the least). To top it all off, news nowadays doesn't wait for repeat studies to demonstrate reliability of an outcome. It's all, "Holy shit, this thing happened once, linkbait that puppy and put it online." I remember hearing about a 20th-century study done where a psychology researcher made huge claims about racial intelligence differences based on the number of pebbles he could fit into their skulls. It was widely believed until someone finally tried to repeat it. (My google-fu failed me, if someone else knows this study, feel free to link it).
threeseed 13y ago
I would go easy on the BBC here. The article's title was an accurate summation of the study and they obtained a qualified, third party person to comment on the study. It's hardly going to win a press award but it is definitely newsworthy.
- rlpb 13y ago
  I don't see how your first sentence relates to your second. Whether the BBC accurately reported on the study doesn't have any bearing on whether the study is newsworthy in the first place.
singingfish 13y ago
You are correct, the conclusions of the study are wrong. One name used to describe this phenomenon is "Demand Characteristics" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_characteristics
dweinus 13y ago
...or do people use Facebook more when slipping into a more depressed state? Their method is crafted to find the reverse relationship, but I don't think that they properly defended against confusing the two.

devindotcom 13y ago

Also, every participant was an undergrad at a single university - not that that's an uncommon thing for psych studies!

beachstartup 13y ago
in almost every lower division psychology class i took, i remember they forced us to participate in experiments as part of our grade. and not just one or two, either. i remember it was a huge pain in the ass. one of the many reasons i graduated university with a C average.

dylangs1030 13y ago

To be fair, maybe BBC doesn't have an in-house team of journalists who understand what peer-reviewed rigor looks like... Okay, yeah, this is crap. I couldn't even devil's advocate that with a straight face. You'd need a sample size of several thousand, a much more rigorous (as always, preferably double-blind assessment) method than self-report, and diversify the sample size with much higher age variation (at the least). To top it all off, news nowadays doesn't wait for repeat studies to demonstrate reliability of an outcome. It's all, "Holy shit, this thing happened once, linkbait that puppy and put it online." I remember hearing about a 20th-century study done where a psychology researcher made huge claims about racial intelligence differences based on the number of pebbles he could fit into their skulls. It was widely believed until someone finally tried to repeat it. (My google-fu failed me, if someone else knows this study, feel free to link it).

threeseed 13y ago

I would go easy on the BBC here. The article's title was an accurate summation of the study and they obtained a qualified, third party person to comment on the study. It's hardly going to win a press award but it is definitely newsworthy.

rlpb 13y ago
I don't see how your first sentence relates to your second. Whether the BBC accurately reported on the study doesn't have any bearing on whether the study is newsworthy in the first place.

singingfish 13y ago

You are correct, the conclusions of the study are wrong. One name used to describe this phenomenon is "Demand Characteristics" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_characteristics

dweinus 13y ago

...or do people use Facebook more when slipping into a more depressed state? Their method is crafted to find the reverse relationship, but I don't think that they properly defended against confusing the two.