Patterns of Implicit and Explicit Attitudes IV (#55155)

★

☆

SHARE

Overview

Paper Summary

Conflicts of Interest

Identified Weaknesses

Rating Explanation

Good to know

Topic Hierarchy

File Information

Paper Summary

Paperzilla title

Did our predictions hold up? Checking our forecasts against real social attitudes

This study uses data from 2017-2020 to test previously made predictions about the trends of implicit and explicit social attitudes. The researchers will use four different forecast accuracy measurements to compare their predictions to the actual collected data. If their initial predictions don't match the collected data, they plan to further explore potential reasons, including major external shocks.

Possible Conflicts of Interest

None identified

Identified Weaknesses

Potential Impact of External Shocks

The authors indicate a potential for alternative hypotheses being correct. While they don't necessarily have specific hypotheses about external shocks, they also aren't ruling out external shocks being significant. The researchers aren't ruling out the potential for large changes due to specific events like the 2016 American election or 2020 pandemic. So, if their predictions turn out to be wrong, they might have some work to do to explain exactly why that happened. This also may cast doubt on the predictive capabilities of their model.

Pre-registration of analysis with already collected data

Pre-registering methodology can make it clearer what to expect from the results. However, this study uses existing collected data, so even pre-registering the exact analysis there's still some risk for flexibility in interpretation since all the information is already at hand. This doesn't completely invalidate their approach but requires readers to carefully consider the authors interpretations.

Rating Explanation

The study is methodologically sound with a pre-registered analysis plan. Using data collected after the initial forecasts adds validity to the hypothesis testing. While the pre-registration is retrospective, it clearly defines the methods and benchmarks, lending credibility to the upcoming analysis. It would be better if it hadn't been retrospective, but it is still well-defined.

Good to know

This is our free standard analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.

Explore Pro →