The key experimental trial told participants
that the average erect penis size of other men was either 18cm (small penis / low self-esteem) or 10cm
(large penis / high self-esteem) and was always followed by rating of one of six sports cars. […] After the experimental trials, participants were told that some of the facts that they had been told were
incorrect, and they were asked to give their estimates of the true values of these facts, including the
true average penis size.
So if someone told me the average penis size is 18 cm I would call that bullshit. But let us assume all the 195 participants fully believed these numbers. They need to know their own penis size to make a comparison. Then this is about if “I feel I am below average”. Then they rated sport cars based on “how much they would like to have that product”
Sorry, but that does not sound very sound to me.
We increased our male participants’ desire for sports cars when we made them feel they had a
relatively small penis. Why cars and why penises? These results raise intriguing questions for future
research. Does penis size effect only ratings for sports cars, or other highly prized items as well? Does penis size have a connection to male self-esteem that just much stronger than the other factors we manipulated in this experiment. If we manipulated other equally strong factors – men’s beliefs about
their intelligence or wealth perhaps - we would find a similar effect on product ratings?
Or perhaps there is just something specific linking cars and penises in the male psyche. That
hypothesis is supported by the data in this paper, and would explain the existence of the phallic car
trope in everyday jokes, advertisements and academic discourse […]
What kind of conclusion is that? This is written like a blog article, not like a scientific paper. The conclusion has only 3 references. In total the paper is pretty short, but to be fair I don’t know what’s common in psychology either.
However what is most suspicious - this is a non peer reviewed preprint from 2023 and I cannot find the publication. So I guess it was declined, if it was even sent in
I looked through the study for fun, and it looks rather poorly made tbh. Also it’s a non peer reviewed preprint from 2023.
I’m curious what you identify as poorly made—I’m not a psychology researcher, but their methodology and statistical analysis seem basically credible.
I’m not at a computer rn, but to make it short:
So if someone told me the average penis size is 18 cm I would call that bullshit. But let us assume all the 195 participants fully believed these numbers. They need to know their own penis size to make a comparison. Then this is about if “I feel I am below average”. Then they rated sport cars based on “how much they would like to have that product”
Sorry, but that does not sound very sound to me.
What kind of conclusion is that? This is written like a blog article, not like a scientific paper. The conclusion has only 3 references. In total the paper is pretty short, but to be fair I don’t know what’s common in psychology either.
However what is most suspicious - this is a non peer reviewed preprint from 2023 and I cannot find the publication. So I guess it was declined, if it was even sent in