||03/11/12 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by hotrod
I read the clarification, the journalist interpreted the study in that way, not the researcher. However if you have a study which produces so many differing interpretations based on the results, then that is not an accurate study.
I just think the premise of the study doesn't make sense. First off regardless of music or any other influential factors the actual activity the participants had to do was divide tuition money between groups. So wouldn't the logical conclusion be to divide the money equally between all groups? I don't understand how people could use ingroup favoritism based on hearing a Bruce Springsteen song in the background. I don't see how the music manipulates the participants into giving one group more money over the other. Their personal opinions, and motives have had to be the primary mechanism for choosing to split the money the way they did. I don't buy it.
Clearly you don't understand how priming works then. Yes, perhaps the "logical" thing to do would be to divide it evenly. We aren't completely logical beings. I don't know whether or not the money gets divided up evenly in neutral environments. I don't think you need to understand the exact mechanism by which the music primes people, but the results clearly demonstrate that it has an effect. How it does so is certainly up for debate. Sure, there may be alternative explanations, but basic knowledge of psychology should tell you that this finding isn't that crazy or controversial.
You need to change the way you are thinking about the issue. It's not meant to be an attack on rock music, and is certainly not some brand new revelation; studies like this have certainly been done before. This may have been done to see if the results replicate with a different medium. The fact that something primes people's ingroup, and thus leads to ingroup favoritism, is not new or controversial. The fact that you acknowledge that this phenomenon exists, as in the case of the Greek community at your school, should tell you that people don't simply have an attitude or belief or though and act accordingly in every instance that that belief or though or attitude is relevant. People's personal opinions and motives are not necessarily stable throughout the course of one's life, let alone the course of the day. They can be influenced and thus lead to a change in actions or attitudes. The music is not causing
people to divide up the money differently, but it does lead to an activation of ingroup bias or favoritism, in this case without the conscious awareness of the participants, hence why it is priming, that is the mediator (or the intermediate step) that leads to dividing the money unequally. Basically, music --> unconscious activation of ingroup favoritism/bias --> dividing money unequally. Again, you might come up with alternate explanations for this study, but saying it just doesn't make sense...well, doesn't make sense and is not a compelling argument.
And just because somebody can distort the findings of a study really does nothing to affect the validity of the findings. Obviously the newspaper or whatever publication it was was looking for something sensationalized and created a juicy headline. That means nothing about the study itself. That's likes saying because I post on Facebook that the sky is purple it is suddenly less blue. Plenty of studies are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally, in the popular media. That doesn't mean they are any less accurate. The logic just doesn't add up.