don't quite match what the "study" reported?
Here's the
link to the .pdf of the "study"The Participants:
Two hundred and twenty-four psychology undergraduate students at New Mexico State University (88 men, 136 women) aged 17–43 years (mean=23.50, median=21, SD=6.40) received extra credit for participation. The majority of the sample (88%) was heterosexual, 5% was homosexual and 6% was bisexual (1% nonresponsive).
First, advertise extra credit. Then test to see if any of those who chose to participate are self-aggrandizing, self-interested, opportunists. Check.
The Procedure:
Participants received a packet that (a) informed them of the nature of the study, (b) asked demographic questions and (c) asked them to respond to the self-report items described below. Participants completed the survey alone in a room with a closed door and a two-way mirror that allowed an experimenter to monitor the participant’s progress. Upon completion, the participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Next, tell the opportunistic, blow hards what exactly the "study" is intended to evaluate then ask them to self-report based on the evaluation criteria. Check.
Yep. I don't see a problem with that at all.
Fortunately, the article doesn't look like it has much to do with the study in the first place. Unfortunately, the article will be touted as "fact" and validation for assholes to be assholes. Oh, yay.
Is there an evo-psych report/study out there that isn't a "scientific" validation for a teen-aged* boy's love affair with his penis {eta} and reassurance of his "manliness"? (*teen-aged regardless of chronological age.)
edit for broken end tag on formatting
