this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
93 points (90.4% liked)
Anthropology
646 readers
25 users here now
Welcome to c/Anthropology @ Mander.xyz!
Notice Board
This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
- 2023-06-14: We are looking for mods. Send a dm to @fossilesque@mander.xyz if interested!
About
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
Resources
Similar Communities
Sister Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !microbiology@mander.xyz
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
Plants & Gardening
Physical Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
- !archaeology@mander.xyz
- !cooking@mander.xyz
- !folklore@mander.xyz
- !history@mander.xyz
- !old_maps@mander.xyz
Memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Interesting.
I'm certain there are very real differences between men and women in this regard, but the methodology feels like it reduces the quality of the data.
It would have been nice if the researchers could have used eye tracking to see where people were actually looking, rather than asking them to click on what drew their attention. There's surely at least some difference between what people are actually doing, versus what they self-report as doing when asked about it.
I felt the same. Or better yet, why don't they film participants in real life walking outside at night and tracking eyeballs and heartbeats and other metrics.
I thought that too, but being at night and unsociable hours makes it a more difficult study to perform, and also difficult to control the conditions. So I can accept the desire to simulate it in a lab setting.
Perhaps ideal would have been a VR experience of walking in a nighttime location, which could have done the eye tracking (VR headsets can do that) and also would be identical every time.
The methodology also allows lots of people to participate (600 in the study). If they had to actually walk outside then it would almost certainly reduce the number of participants they were able to have.
A VR type thing could be good
While it increases the N of the study, I'd say it severely cripples the quality of those results. Sometimes less is actually more.