There were red-flags all over this.
I was coming here to call it out, glad you already did.
In general I don't think any studies that have not been replicated, are any better than fortune-telling.
You can make them say anything you want to hear.
Peer-review or GTFO.
There were red-flags all over this.
I was coming here to call it out, glad you already did.
In general I don't think any studies that have not been replicated, are any better than fortune-telling.
You can make them say anything you want to hear.
Peer-review or GTFO.
Yeah, this article generated a bit of a media flurry at the time, and after looking into it I wouldn't be surprised if that was its primary purpose.
It has about 50 citations, but I'm not keen to wade through them and see if any actually give substantial support or criticism of the study.
Yeah, this article generated a bit of a media flurry at the time, and after looking into it I wouldn't be surprised if that was its primary purpose.
It has about 50 citations, but I'm not keen to wade through them and see if any actually give substantial support or criticism of the study.
The article is dodgy in that it doesn't state the full question the students were asked - I'll see if I can find it.
Edit: The paywalled article says the students were given a survey, but doesn't show the actual survey or say exactly what the questions were. Sample size of 73 is pretty weak.
Some other articles that are more critical: https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/many-us-college-men-deny-rape-but-endorse-forceful-intercourse/29581/ https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/01/13/bogus-study-rape-discredits-itself-first-sentence-goes-downhill-there