5 ms·

Sounds like a very weak study: >The researchers ran two online experiments to find evidence of the misperception. They asked some participants to describe a ti

Sounds like a very weak study: >The researchers ran two online experiments to find evidence of the misperception. They asked some participants to describe a time they had bragged about themselves (self-promoters) and asked others to describe a time that they were on the receiving end of someone else’s bragging (recipients). >Taken together, the data from the two experiments indicated that self-promoters overestimate the extent to which people on the receiving end of their stories are likely to feel happy for them and proud of them. At the same time, they also seem to underestimate the extent to which recipients are likely to feel annoyed with them.

sarreph 11y ago
Yeah, I was becoming genuinely interested in the study's results until I face-palmed at the methodology. Relying on 'remember a time when...' anecdotal evidence surely is not the best qualitative data they could come up with.
- dbbolton 11y ago
  Reproducibility is already a huge issue in modern psychological research, and this type of presumptive analysis of self-reported anecdotes isn't helping.
  - hyperpape 11y ago
    This shows a misconception. Bad evidence may be perfectly reproducible. Being reproducible seems to mostly be an issue about statistics and experimental methodology, but your reproducible findings may not be good evidence for any deeper finding. Moreover, while I'm not impressed with the evidence of this study, finding out what people say when you ask them to remember X is a perfectly legitimate thing to collect data on, as long you recognize its limitations.
    - dbbolton 11y ago
      What misconception, exactly? I understand that reproducibility is not the only factor in evaluating a study's weight, but it's still important, and still problematic in psychology. >Bad evidence may be perfectly reproducible. That was part of my point, namely that a weakly supported interpretation of subjective reports is probably a lot easier to reproduce than more empiric studies, but it does nothing to further the art. >finding out what people say when you ask them to remember X is a perfectly legitimate thing to collect data on, as long you recognize its limitations. I'm actually not arguing that subjective reports aren't legitimate data though. I think this study's methodology was also flawed due to the way it was structured. Group A was asked to describe an act of self-promotion of their choosing, and in a separate survey, Group B was asked to describe an instance of their choosing when someone had self-promoted to them. It's disjointed and lacking context. There is a distinct possibility that people in Group A chose to report a time when they felt that their bragging was socially acceptable and perhaps the people they bragged to were actually happy for them (e.g. health of their child). Likewise, I think the people in Group B were more likely to report a particularly obnoxious brag simply because that would be more memorable. A better (albeit admittedly more difficult to execute) study would involve investigating real-world and online instances of humblebragging, where there is direct relationship between promoter and recipient, and the subjects don't get to decide which experience they describe.
      - hyperpape 11y ago
        The misconception that reproducibility has anything to do with the things that we can criticize about this study. That's the only way I can figure out to read your original post. If that's not your point, then we don't have anything in particular to disagree about, and my only advice would be to be more explicit about what point you're trying to make.
        dbbolton 11y ago
        I guess I can see how you got that impression from my reply to sarreph. My emphasis was on the "presumptive analysis" part, not the "self-reported anecdotes" part, but there is no way for anyone to know that since I didn't indicate it. I hope my first reply to you made my intended meaning clear because it's too late to edit now. In case not: reproducibility is a major concern with psychological studies in general. Drawing broad/subjective conclusions will make the results easier reproduce, but it also leaves more room for confirmation bias, so it's not a valid solution to the problem.
lukevdp 11y ago
The way these studies are reported do more harm than good. The studies prove basically nothing but get reported in a way that people draw wide inferences from them and think they are based in fact. Even the discussion in this thread all just assumes that this study backs up what the title says.
- dbbolton 11y ago
  I agree. Even when scientific journalism is responsible, there's a concerning trend on social media, esp. reddit, where a study appears to be judged by how interesting the headline is, and its rigor is seldom discussed (e.g. an unreviewed paper by researchers working with limited data will likely overshadow more thorough but less exciting studies). But this isn't even responsible science journalism.
- formulaT 11y ago
  The blame also lies with the study authors and the peer reviewers for allowing the article to make these claims based on their results. E.g. from the abstract As a consequence [of our hypothesis], people overestimate the extent to which recipients of their self-promotion will feel proud of and happy for them, and underestimate the extent to which recipients will feel annoyed (Experiments 1 and 2). Because people tend to promote themselves excessively when trying to make a favorable impression on others, such efforts often backfire, causing targets of self-promotion to view self-promoters as less likeable and as braggarts (Experiment 3).

sarreph 11y ago

Yeah, I was becoming genuinely interested in the study's results until I face-palmed at the methodology. Relying on 'remember a time when...' anecdotal evidence surely is not the best qualitative data they could come up with.

dbbolton 11y ago
Reproducibility is already a huge issue in modern psychological research, and this type of presumptive analysis of self-reported anecdotes isn't helping.
- hyperpape 11y ago
  This shows a misconception. Bad evidence may be perfectly reproducible. Being reproducible seems to mostly be an issue about statistics and experimental methodology, but your reproducible findings may not be good evidence for any deeper finding. Moreover, while I'm not impressed with the evidence of this study, finding out what people say when you ask them to remember X is a perfectly legitimate thing to collect data on, as long you recognize its limitations.
  - dbbolton 11y ago
    What misconception, exactly? I understand that reproducibility is not the only factor in evaluating a study's weight, but it's still important, and still problematic in psychology. >Bad evidence may be perfectly reproducible. That was part of my point, namely that a weakly supported interpretation of subjective reports is probably a lot easier to reproduce than more empiric studies, but it does nothing to further the art. >finding out what people say when you ask them to remember X is a perfectly legitimate thing to collect data on, as long you recognize its limitations. I'm actually not arguing that subjective reports aren't legitimate data though. I think this study's methodology was also flawed due to the way it was structured. Group A was asked to describe an act of self-promotion of their choosing, and in a separate survey, Group B was asked to describe an instance of their choosing when someone had self-promoted to them. It's disjointed and lacking context. There is a distinct possibility that people in Group A chose to report a time when they felt that their bragging was socially acceptable and perhaps the people they bragged to were actually happy for them (e.g. health of their child). Likewise, I think the people in Group B were more likely to report a particularly obnoxious brag simply because that would be more memorable. A better (albeit admittedly more difficult to execute) study would involve investigating real-world and online instances of humblebragging, where there is direct relationship between promoter and recipient, and the subjects don't get to decide which experience they describe.
    - hyperpape 11y ago
      The misconception that reproducibility has anything to do with the things that we can criticize about this study. That's the only way I can figure out to read your original post. If that's not your point, then we don't have anything in particular to disagree about, and my only advice would be to be more explicit about what point you're trying to make.
      - dbbolton 11y ago
        I guess I can see how you got that impression from my reply to sarreph. My emphasis was on the "presumptive analysis" part, not the "self-reported anecdotes" part, but there is no way for anyone to know that since I didn't indicate it. I hope my first reply to you made my intended meaning clear because it's too late to edit now. In case not: reproducibility is a major concern with psychological studies in general. Drawing broad/subjective conclusions will make the results easier reproduce, but it also leaves more room for confirmation bias, so it's not a valid solution to the problem.

lukevdp 11y ago

The way these studies are reported do more harm than good. The studies prove basically nothing but get reported in a way that people draw wide inferences from them and think they are based in fact. Even the discussion in this thread all just assumes that this study backs up what the title says.

dbbolton 11y ago
I agree. Even when scientific journalism is responsible, there's a concerning trend on social media, esp. reddit, where a study appears to be judged by how interesting the headline is, and its rigor is seldom discussed (e.g. an unreviewed paper by researchers working with limited data will likely overshadow more thorough but less exciting studies). But this isn't even responsible science journalism.
formulaT 11y ago
The blame also lies with the study authors and the peer reviewers for allowing the article to make these claims based on their results. E.g. from the abstract As a consequence [of our hypothesis], people overestimate the extent to which recipients of their self-promotion will feel proud of and happy for them, and underestimate the extent to which recipients will feel annoyed (Experiments 1 and 2). Because people tend to promote themselves excessively when trying to make a favorable impression on others, such efforts often backfire, causing targets of self-promotion to view self-promoters as less likeable and as braggarts (Experiment 3).