Does the use of incentives to promote a specific population to participate in a study not totally butt fuck the results of that study? I understand the intention but I really can not take something seriously if the incentives used are not disclosed in the data collection procedure. For example.... If I offer a free cookie to males to participate in a study they know relatively nothing about (nothing to do with cookie) then are not the results manipulated by the males interest in cookies? Then I publish the realist of said study and say "64% or males prefer blue to red." But we used incentives to gain active participation. DOESN'T THAT JACK THE RESULTS If I publish those findings without disclosing the incentives used. Seriously pisses me off. Or am I over reacting?
It doesn't jack the results because no matter if they pick red or blue, they still get the cookie. The cookie incentive is just to say red or blue. If you got a cookie to pick blue then it would be 'jacked'. Current Strain of Choice - Girl Scout Cookies
Absolutely. However in my publication of these results I disclose nothing about the cookie. Meaning that the reader can interpret the incentive as oral sex. Which is not really ethical. Not that I would mind.
True, but then they should do some sort of double blind study as a control, like, are people who get free cookies more likely to select blue? Or vice versa. People are weird. Especially when they try and study how weird other people are... I love it. Lol.
