Can you get data if a journal has an open data policy?
lol no
OK... can you get data if a paper says "data available on request"?
still no tbh
But! -- can you get data if the data availability policy says 'YES YOU CAN HAVE OUR DATA'
yeah still no actually
1-panel SMBC comic update - Two people are talking while seated at computers. One of them says : "Wait! Look, if we change our hypothesis a little, run this other model, and then make a few tweaks to the variables... BAM! No need to publish. The weekend if free." A caption below the panel reads as follows : "New scientific trend: reverse p-hacking. P-hacking is the practice of manipulating data until a statistically significant result is found, here they are doing the opposite to avoid work.
There's got to be SOME hypothesis that makes our experiment useless. THINK!
COMIC ◆ www.smbc-comics.com/comic/stats-3
PATREON ◆ www.patreon.com/ZachWeinersm...
STORE ◆ smbc-store.myshopify.com
@bmj.com has issued an expression of concern for a paper claiming stem cell therapy can reduce the risk of heart failure. The move comes after sleuths and scientists critiqued the “complete mismatch” between the study data and the article itself.
You know what they say about academics...
"causal" in the streets
"preliminary and hypothesis-generating" in the sheets
Bug in Springer Nature metadata may be causing ‘significant, systemic’ citation inflation
The editors of Neurology have allowed the authors of this paper to make a "correction", stating: "there were errors in the CIs for some estimates presented in the article".
How many CIs must be wrong before a journal loses confidence in a paper?
(Answer: more than 73, apparently!)
But NOT changing one's mind is a strategy of reduction of cognitive dissonance too. Soooo... The study just does not disconfirm 2), yes I agree! But I don't find this to be enough for much rejoicing 😃
Also, do note that CDT is vague enough to interpret the study more or less as we want to. The study did not find a mediating effect of the affect on the attitude change. But it doesn't mean anything: according to CDT, changing one's mind is a strategy of reduction of cognitive dissonance
But does it mean that if we DO find that there is indeed a negative sensation in the specific situation of apparent contradiction, 2) automatically becomes a solid and interesting scientific theory?
Atm, it may seem that those two sentences may be enough to fit 70 years of observations.
Yes, finding that we do NOT have a negative sensation in the specific situation of apparent contradiction would be an absolutely lethal blow to the entire idea
But trying to rephrase my point. Let us say 2 things:
1) generally, we tend to avoid negative sensations through behavior or cognition
2) I name "cognitive dissonance" the negative sensation in the specific situation of apparent contradiction.
Absolutely nothing else than that
any change in attitude, this has huge implications
I'd be wondering if we were not overselling it at least a little bit 😃.
Regarding the attitude change, maybe it would be less clear what I'd think in case of non-replication. But I would definitely think it requires more studies, because if deep-thinking about something cannot provoke
We have all felt the discomfort of holding contradictory information. I don't need 70 years of peer-reviewed studies to know that other human beings have most probably felt sadness at least once in their life. I'd be ok with studies checking that, but if they started coining that "sadness theory"
Which is ok, but it does not feel like a huge win for the field (in the presence or not of alternative theories). Trying to be as honest as possible, I think I would have thought that there was a problem in the way affect is measured or influenced in the study.
as long as it does not propose something specific to it, right? The way I see it, it feels that we took 70 years of research to state "maybe this specific situation where we have negative feelings is just the same as all the other situations where we have negative feelings"
(replying here to not multiply the amount of subthreads) I'm not sure if we disagree because of your first reply here 😃. If you do agree that negative feelings/sensations in general obviously motivate to do something - anything -, then CDT IS just coining the term in specific situations
implication, then all it does is give a name to that feeling. Don't you find obvious that feeling pain will probably motivate you to do or think something to avoid or reduce it? If you do, remember that you did not need "Pain reduction theory" to know that
avoid or reduce it on average (whether the strategy is successful or not). If one feels sadness, that will motivate one to do or think something to avoid or reduce it on average. If all cognitive dissonance theory does is name the unpleasant feeling in a specific situation but has no specific
I mean the observation that we can display an entire spectrum of behavior or cognition to avoid unpleasant sensations or feelings is absolutely not specific to cognitive dissonance. It is in that sense that I find it obvious. If one feels pain, that will motivate one to do or think something to
I'm pretty confident that those have in fact been documented for millennia. The question as to what Cognitive Dissonance Theory has specifically brought into light and been useful for - apart from coining a convenient term - is raised, isn't it?
Yes, but I'm pretty sure that we did not wait the 1950s to realize that it's generally unpleasant to realize you might be wrong about something, and that thinking long and hard about a position contrary to your views might lead people, on average, to at least slightly changed their minds
Unfortunately I don't think I know of such a resource 😬. Even recent Psych textbooks often include lots of unreplicated results afaik. It would certainly be good to have indeed!
A week after @bmj.com published a highly publicized paper claiming stem cell therapy can reduce the risk of heart failure, sleuths have unearthed what they are calling “serious” inconsistencies in the data.
I'm not, and I think it could be important. Right now, I feel we only have the author's word regarding the content of the archive, which could be rather flimsy evidence
Je suis piédestalophobe. J'y peux rien, dès que j'en vois un, faut que je tape dedans jusqu'à ce qu'il s'écroule
"[...] Riecken held an exalted status within the group—one he cultivated through deception. According to the archival material, Riecken fabricated psychic messages from extraterrestrials to shape group behavior including the pivotal events that unfolded on the night of the failed prophecy."
Thanks a lot for the example and the paper, I'll give it read!
So I'm quite unsure. But I'm not an expert in cognitive dissonance (nor even in social psychology), so I'm happy to see important counterexamples!
