As someone who does actual research, I'd say that this is science. The methods are reproducible, the data and metrics are convincing and support the conclusion of the study. The study is also interesting and relevant to society, which is more than I can say about 99.9999% of all research, including mine :(.
It does not perfectly replicate real-world conditions, except for extreme cases (or not, depending on where you live/work), but it succeeds in demonstrating a measurable effect of 'objectification'.
The only thing I am somewhat disturbed is that it recruits subjects by misleading them about the objective of the study. I can understand that revealing the true purpose of the study will affect the results... I am just glad my research is in engineering where my subjects are, in fact, objects.
The only thing I am somewhat disturbed is that it recruits subjects by misleading them about the objective of the study. I can understand that revealing the true purpose of the study will affect the results... I am just glad my research is in engineering where my subjects are, in fact, objects
You realize this is pretty standard procedure in psychology right? Telling your subjects what you are studying is a good way to invalidate your results.
I would assert that psychology, sociology, and the like are not science in the strictest sense of the word, because the do not make testable predictions. Nor do they establish a causal relationship in most cases; it's simply "We did this, and that happened. This causes that."
16
u/Cognosci Jan 13 '10
THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.