> The researchers recruited 218 participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online task platform. The volunteers were randomly assigned to one of six different websites that were designed to reflect a site with a crowd cue or one without the crowd cue, a site with a connectivity cue or no connectivity cue, or a site that reflected the community framing or no framing.
n=218 across 6 groups testing 3 different variables (also why not 2^3=8 groups?). Let me know when it replicates. :-|
The findings were significant, presumably, and this bitching about replication without doing anything about it isn't helping. You replicate it and let us know what you find if it's such a pain to you.
Sure, this is one reason voting rings exist, to create an illusion of plurality for what is often an extremely fringe viewpoint. This has been weaponized for years.
> The size of the crowd suggested by the icon changed randomly for participants so that they were not merely jumping on the bandwagon of a large crowd, according to the researchers
14 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 47.2 ms ] threadWow...this reads like news about the "World Wide Web" and "Information Superhighway" from 1995. Takes me back.
n=218 across 6 groups testing 3 different variables (also why not 2^3=8 groups?). Let me know when it replicates. :-|
Why not just put a (tentative) next to the findings and take it for what it is?
Clickbait Crap like this is why there is a replication crisis.
"Millionaires don't use astrology, billionaires do."
> replication crisis
more like a paradigm crisis... Scientism ftl!
If you don't think it's legit, get a counter-study published. Or go into the math and show how they used the wrong statistical test.
Peer-review exists, and the people doing it are a lot smarter than "um sample size lol."
.... so it was a lie?
https://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=3274359&ftid=2013951&dw... [PDF]
(Noticed this after ^S after delay resulted in a 403)