656
Study of men who embodied a young woman in VR finds they felt disgust & anger when catcalled
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
656 points (95.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
9988 readers
2763 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-19418-4.pdf
Paper itself above. Need a deeper reading with my notes but on the surface the stats are so-so. They check normality, but don't confirm linearity (use of pmcc will not be valid without - there are also a few other conditions to check for hypothesis testing with PMCC if memory serves), use of a continuous test (PMCC, ANOVA, unpaired t's) for discrete (likert) data is also little controversial, but generally condoned.
As for the conclusion, not a psych phd so I'll assume they know their stuff!
my personal rule of thumb is that if it's published in Nature, Cell, or another well-regarded journal, the statistical and experimental methodologies are almost certainly solid. Do you think I should adjust that rule going forward?
Honestly, I always poke the stats no matter how good the journal. The best way to read any article is as a skeptic (the onus is on the writer to prove their point), and any small irregularity is something to be queried.
No matter how good the journal, it's only as good as the reviewers, and reviewers are humans too. Odds are a paper in nature is all above board, but I'm somewhat of a pedant when it comes to checking test conditions.
i do that to, i also try to find most recent research, anything older than 5+years is suspect, because they always come with revised papers in newer studies/research eventually.
In some fields (e.g. mathematics) old papers hold up well. However, in fields like psychology where the landscape shifts a lot that's probably a good shout!
sometimes, but they have retracted quite a few papers based on misleading papers, or even AI rgenerated. also because it can mislead readers into thinking "oh this is the sole cause and effect" but not potential alternative scenarios.