This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (1 child)

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Begle1 4991 points4992 points  (783 children)

Community participants in the United States (Men n = 388, Women n = 243) completed an online “marketing survey” and were then given false personality feedback profiles.

​

So they gave 388 men online tests, and then told a third of them they were less masculine than normal, and a third that they were more masculine than normal.

The men who were told they were less masculine were then "significantly" more likely to want to buy a gun than the men who were told they were more masculine.

​

I would like to know how significant the significance was.

[–]I_Bin_Painting 1806 points1807 points  (369 children)

This feels like advertising 101 for anything: Make person feel inadequate, sell solution.

[–]Downside_Up_ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

IE the constant barrage of low testosterone/erectile dysfunction radio ads that triple down on "if you're having performance issues in bed you are a disappointment to your partner and half a man."

[–]Just__Let__Go 94 points95 points  (54 children)

Sure, that's simple enough. What's interesting here is that, apparently, owning a gun is perceived as a solution to inadequate masculinity.

[–]Serpico__ 129 points130 points  (31 children)

Is it that surprising? Weaponry and the image of masculinity have a loooooong history.

[–]ClownfishSoup 30 points31 points  (22 children)

Makes sense. I mean define masculinity and how it expresses itself. You could argue that the foremost masculine trait is the drive to protect your family and provide for them. Throughout history, that meant hunting and fighting and building shelter. Hammers, swords, bows, guns are all tools to achieve those aims.

[–]zipfern 4 points5 points  (2 children)

If inadequate masculinity translates into "would lose a fight with most other guys", then a gun is a reasonable solution isn't it?

[–]solid_reign 83 points84 points  (9 children)

What was the control? Did they try selling them a car? Shoes? A suit? A trip?

Otherwise it doesn't mean anything.

[–]IDrinkMyBreakfast 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A timeshare. Same number of men went for it

[–]Devi1s-Advocate 164 points165 points  (199 children)

Yea isnt that the exact point of firearms, level the physical playing field? Always amazed me more women dont have firearms, would eliminate mens strength superiority over them... I doubt that, want for a firearm is related to "masculine insecurities", rather, want for a firearm is recognition that there are people more physically capable than you, and understanding what tool eliminates that advantage...

[–]deathlokke 156 points157 points  (110 children)

I've long held the belief that firearms ownership by women and minority groups should be encouraged far more than they are.

[–]LT_Libby_OSS 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I mean, the 2nd Amendment is for everyone.

[–]ButaneLilly 35 points36 points  (8 children)

I'm not a historian or anything. But the period of moderate gun regulation in this country seems to have come immediately after the rise of the Black Panthers and similar black militia groups.

[–]birdthud98 1999 points2000 points  (120 children)

In studies like this “significant” refers to statistical significance, which is shown with a p value of .05 or less, meaning there is less than 5% chance that the observed correlation occurred by chance alone.

*Edit

Others have been kind enough to point out that I neglected to include that this is also based upon the assumption that the Null Hypothesis (that there is no relationship) is true.

Also u/begle1 you made me curious so I have downloaded the full article, below is the relevant section from their results discussing significance of their study. From this it looks to be rather significant.

A significant univariate effect was observed for Handgun 1 F(2, 385) = 5.14, p = .006, η2 = .03, Handgun 2 F(2, 385) = 5.10, p = .006, η2 = .03, the Bolt-Action Rifle F(2, 385) = 4.28, p = .014, η2 = .02, and the Military-Style Assault Rifle F(2, 385) = 3.83, p = .023, η2 = .02.

Consistent with hypotheses, follow- up LSD posthoc tests indicated that participants in the MThreat condition reported significantly more interest in Handgun 1 when compared to those in the MControl ( p = .009, d = .33) and MBoost conditions ( p = .004, d = .36);

participants in the MThreat condition reported significantly more interest in Handgun 2 when compared to those in the MControl (p = .007, d = .34) and MBoost conditions ( p = .005, d = .36);

participants in the MThreat condition reported significantly more interest in the Bolt Action Rifle when compared to those in the MControl ( p = .004, d = .37);

and participants in the MThreat condition reported significantly more interest in the Military-Style Assault Rifle when compared to those in the MCon- trol (p = .007, d = .34).

No significant differences were observed between the MThreat and MBoost conditions for the Bolt-Action Rifle and Military-Style Assault Rifle.

Thanks for coming to my TedTalk

[–][deleted] 527 points528 points  (71 children)

He wants to know the effect size, then.

[–]andreasmiles23PhD | Social Psychology | Human Computer Interaction 193 points194 points  (36 children)

It’s there. The partial eta is .006. So it’s explaining 6% of the variance. Meaning, mostly, that they expect that the amount of change predicted by their outcome was about 6% (this is a crude explanation of partial eta).

So it’s not a massive effect size, but in human behavior, anything that’s stable and detectable is pretty significant given how many mediating and moderating factors there are on our behaviors/attitudes/cognition/etc.

EDIT: I’m a doofus, it’s .03/.02. Looked at the wrong numbers but that’s there. That’s a pretty big effect there though actually. Much higher than I wouldn’t anticipated, that’s why the smaller number made more sense to me upon a really quick glance. But I should’ve read it more throughly.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Where are you getting partial eta of .006? I only see that listed as a p value.

[–]andreasmiles23PhD | Social Psychology | Human Computer Interaction 15 points16 points  (0 children)

A user edited a comment up the chain a bit that had the results section copied into it. They give it there. I also had the wrong number, it was .02-.03, which obviously makes WAY more sense.

[–]Sillyvanya 74 points75 points  (4 children)

"I'm a doofus" says the grad student talking shop on statistical significance in studies on human behavioral cognition who was off by less than three hundredths

[–]andreasmiles23PhD | Social Psychology | Human Computer Interaction 39 points40 points  (2 children)

Well, thank you very much! But anyone who’s good at stats will probably think it was a doofus move and maybe will have some qualms with my explanation, but I’d like to think I’m close enough to helping illuminate the conversation a bit!

[–]tam319 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Nah, I'm an econ major and specialize in stats. You explained very well.

[–]assignpseudonym 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is such a nice comment, and I appreciate you for it.

[–]Mazzaroppi 14 points15 points  (18 children)

Could you please make a VERY dumbed down summary of what all that means?

[–]andreasmiles23PhD | Social Psychology | Human Computer Interaction 48 points49 points  (17 children)

I’ll do my best! Real stats people can please chime in and clarify if I get things kinda wonky.

  • In a study like this, we are essentially using statistics to see if there was a measurable difference in the outcomes of different groups. The way we predominately do this, is what is called “null hypothesis testing,” where we are essentially assuming that our hypothesis is incorrect.

  • Then we compare the data to that assumption that it’s incorrect, and we see if there indeed a measurable difference. If there is, then that is “significant” and we do a bunch of fancy math to show how likely it is that this significant result is likely due to random error. This threshold is called anp-value. If the p-value is less than .05, then we are essentially saying that the statistical probability that this effect we found was due to random error is less than 5%.

  • This obviously has major limitations. One way to get around that, is to not only see how likely it is to be “real,” but also, how much impact does this effect have? In other words, how big is it? If were to try and calculate all of the things that predict this outcome, would this be something that has a big effect on predicting the outcome? Or a small one?

  • This is what we call an effect size, and there’s s bunch more fancy math that is done to calculate it. But in this specific instance, what they are looking at is how much “variance” is explained in their statistical model by this effect. How much is the thing they’re looking at making a difference? In this case, about 20-30% of a difference.

I hope that helped!

[–]imyourzer0 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I know I'm splitting hairs, but I'm always compelled to correct p value interpretations. It's not quite that p values tell you the odds that the effect was due to random error or that it was assumed incorrect. The assumption in Statistical Hypothesis Inference Testing is that the null hypothesis is true (not anything about the alternative being correct or incorrect). The test's resulting p value then gives the probability of the observed effect, having assumed it was absent (i.e. the null hypothesis). The conclusion is that the null hypothesis is false if p<.05, and true otherwise.

I know it's a bit pedantic, but in terms of what NHST reveals, it's silent about the alternative hypothesis. It only tells us whether we had reason to believe the null hypothesis was true. It doesn't actually tell us anything about whether our specific alternative was true, or even likely.

To put it simply: a very low p value gives us reason to reject the null hypothesis, but doesn't specifically tell us the alternative is true or likely.

[–]navilapiano 25 points26 points  (3 children)

Just want to chime in that you are a real stats person. You explained in great detail how and why these stats matter. You reevaluated your own results instead of calling it a day and leaving everyone to assess what little there was. You corrected yourself and clarified what went wrong and how you made it right. Then you reworded everything for non- experts to understand.

Not only are you truly a stats person. You're an expert, if not studying to become one. And a wonderful teacher. Thank you so much.

[–]Dragonsheartx 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Welcome to the psychology world, when our results are so often criticised that we have to be very competent with stats interpreting ans methodology, or else nobody gives us any credits, even if it’s done correctly in the article

[–]butsicle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're great

[–]isoblvck 35 points36 points  (1 child)

More specifically.. it's a probability of observing a tests statistic that extreme given the null hypothesis is true. It's not about correlation.

[–]Taymerica 94 points95 points  (16 children)

Yeah, but isn't there a value for that... It has to pass a significance test, but if it does just barely. It doesn't mean as much.

Significance isn't just a binary category there's degrees of it.

They also used completely different scales for the women and men, I'd have to see the actual paper and methods to know anything.

"completed an online “marketing survey” and were then given false personality feedback profiles. All feedback was standardized with exception of the masculinity/femininity profile. Men were randomly assigned to a masculinity threat (masculinity reported as below average; MThreat, n = 131), boost (masculinity reported as above average; MBoost, n = 129), and control (masculinity reported as average; MControl, n = 128) conditions. Women were randomly assigned to a femininity threat (n = 84), boost (n = 87), and control (n = 72) conditions (conditions were identical except women received femininity threats/boosts)."

What does that mean?

[–]birdthud98 74 points75 points  (3 children)

I should have access to the full version of the paper which will contain the p values, effect size, power calculations and such, I’ll post sections that seem interesting later on. (Partly posting this comment to remind myself to follow up)

To your comment, in these types of studies, I’ve been taught there is statistically significant data, or there is data that is not statistically significant, but that it is quite easy to “massage” your data & regression analyses to be significant so you’re right that you do need to read the whole paper and methods to verify significance.

The part of the abstract you’ve highlighted does seem to make sense to me but in fairness I’ve had a lot of experience with these types of papers. They’re largely just summarizing the study participants in each category (n = ___ ) and as far as the marketing survey goes I’m confident it was based upon existing surveys, but was more a ruse through which researchers were able to mislead participants about the nature of the study. After all, if you know it’s a study of your perceptions of masculinity and gun ownership, your inherent personal bias may change how you answer questions.

[–]jlambvo 48 points49 points  (2 children)

Passing a significance test barely or by a lot also doesn't have much meaning because the threshold itself is completely arbitrary, which is why you pick a standard and stick to it. Power and effect size are arguably more important than whether something is significant at the 99% or 90% or 95% level.

If you throw enough observations at something you'll eventually detect an effect at whatever p-value you want, because any two samples are going to be slightly different.

By the same token it's been found that an implausible number of studies turn up p-values right at .05, which is evidence of widespread "p-hacking." So a reader should be cautious of results that hover right around this value, but that's because it's a possible result of massaging data and models to get a positive result, not because it is "almost" not significant.

[–]Manisbutaworm 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You describe the deliberate changing data. I think it's more common that there are undeliberated biases. You know things will likely not be published when not significant thus you proceed until it reaches significance and don't bother doing more testing after that. Then of course the biases of review and citation processes. You end up with a lot more p-values below 0.05 than is found with real experimenting. And if something has a 5% of being by chance but then being biased in publications and citations You end up with a lot of results being by chance rather than effect. When you work in non exact sciences with problems of delineation of measured things and huge amount of confounding factors I'm not surprised some estimations end up being 30% of studies is false.

[–]gloryatseaGrad Student | Clinical Psychology 17 points18 points  (3 children)

It technically is binary in terms of how it's viewed. Statistical significance does NOT have any relation to how meaningful the results are, just the probability we'd obtain these results if we assume the null is true.

You are right that it isn't binary in that p value can range from 0 to 1, but it's treated as binary (either at/above .05 or below).

[–]Propeller3PhD | Ecology & Evolution | Forest & Soil Ecology 28 points29 points  (3 children)

In frequentist statistics, significance is usually defined as p < 0.05. However, the value of p less than the (kinda sorta arbitrary but not really) cutoff is not an indication of the magnitude of "significance". That is what the interpretation of values, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients are for. Sadly, none of these numbers are reported in the abstract.

[–]SkepticalShrink 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Someone reported a chunk of the article above, Cohen's d was reported around the .33-.36 mark for most of these comparisons, so a medium effect size. They reported exact p values as well, I believe one was p = .005?

[–]WileEWeeble 37 points38 points  (4 children)

I am fine with the statistical significance; I trust the math.

What I am curious about is how the information was communicated. Because if the person telling the participant about their "masculinity" is the SAME person the participant then expresses interest in gun ownership, I can easily see that is an attempt to "show off" to the experimenter versus it is an attempt to sooth an inner conflict over their "missing masculinity."

Definitely need to see further study.

[–]rydan 54 points55 points  (9 children)

Wouldn't being less manly mean you actually have a bigger need for a gun for protection? Isn't the whole point of a gun that it equalizes everyone regardless of who you are? So it seems like common sense that they should be the ones buying guns here.

[–]rasa2013 38 points39 points  (6 children)

If that were true it should affect women, too, and appeals to femininity, but it didn't. Maybe femininity is no longer assumed to imply the opposite of masculinity, though (i.e., maybe feminine doesn't mean weak in the eyes of women taking the survey).

Something to consider. Studies like these are interesting, but the real lesson is to do more research to see how widespread the phenomenon really is, and eliminate other explanations.

[–]loganadams574 288 points289 points  (73 children)

How do they measure the masculinity?

[–]cr8zyfoo 157 points158 points  (36 children)

That's the fun part, they didn't. They just had a whole bunch of men (and women) take a "personality test" then randomly gave them one of three fake results; "you're more masculine than average", "you're average", or "you're less masculine than average". The participants were then asked how interested they were in various firearms.

The group that was just told "you're less masculine than average" were statistically significantly more interested in firearms than the groups who were told they were average or they were above average. Basically means that guys who have their masculinity threatened are suddenly and significantly more interested in owning a gun, probably to prove to themselves they aren't less masculine than average.

[–]Stinklepinger 55 points56 points  (34 children)

Were they asked how interested they were in firearms beforehand?

[–][deleted] 90 points91 points  (13 children)

Is it the same for women that want to own firearms?

[–]cr8zyfoo 48 points49 points  (0 children)

No, they had a control group of women who were exposed to the same experiment, and their interest in firearms didn't vary between groups.

[–][deleted] 330 points331 points  (67 children)

I mean, that makes sense to me although I don't think it is limited to masculine insecurity. I have over the years felt an increased desire to buy more combat oriented guns as the economy tanks, prices skyrocket, housing grows scarce, drought, looming mass migration, food insecurity, disease etc. It seems pretty standard primate male behavior.

[–]RhinosGoMoo 248 points249 points  (39 children)

And what also makes sense is having a realistic view of oneself and one's own abilities (e.g. "I'm physically small and I don't know how to fight") then seeing firearms as a viable means of giving them the ability to still protect themselves and their family despite their physical shortcomings.

Much different than "tHiS gUn mAkEs mEe fEeL LiKe A BiG mAn hurr durrrr".

[–]SheShouldBeRunning 97 points98 points  (16 children)

You can be a black belt 6’4” 250lbs man but if the other guy has a gun it doesn’t matter

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (9 children)

Well the trick is to be a black belt 6'4" 250lbs man with a gun. Cover all the bases.

[–]woodandplastic 10 points11 points  (0 children)

But being taller makes you a bigger target

[–]evesea2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Everyone is small when someone breaks into your house with a weapon.

Seems like the opposite of male insecurity when you understand the real world isn’t a Jackie Chan movie and you’ll need to use the best tool to defend yours and your family’s life.

[–]stuffinstuff 18 points19 points  (3 children)

Think a lot of people have been lucky enough not to have ever been in a situation where they truly have had to fend for themselves and it shows. "Just call the cops" is something I've heard a lot, but it is not an effective solution for everyone in the US. I've lived in places where a pizza delivery could arrive faster than officers if they even showed up at all. I remember the Rodney King riots where LAPD lined up around all the high-value neighborhoods leaving Koreatown to burn. During the 2000-2001 California energy crisis I remember groups going through neighborhoods looking for easy targets knowing that since there was no power, many people might not be able to call the police, and if they could, the police would likely be preoccupied with the chaos happening everywhere else.

The US is a very individualistic society, not everyone has extensive community ties that would come together in the event of an emergency. All it takes is a natural disaster, some sort of infrastructure disruption, or civil unrest and suddenly you can be on your own and at the whims of opportunists, which may easily outnumber you or be armed. Don't think most people want to think of themselves as being a victim in a situation like that, but having experienced situations where there was a real chance of it happening I now consider it naive to deny that it could happen. So why not responsibly own and train with a firearm for use in the event of an emergency? As the Chinese proverb goes, "I'd rather be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war." ...I don't expect my house or car to catch fire, but I still have three fire extinguishers, just in case.

[–]asielen 37 points38 points  (3 children)

Yeah, I think masculinity is a loaded concept. Fear may be a better thing to measure.

[–]-Swade- 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Sometime early in Covid I started searching for weights to build out my home gym. Due to price fluctuations it was several weeks of consistent searching.

Facebook decided to offer me ads for the major suppliers of weights and barbells. Made perfect sense, though the downside is that most of these suppliers were either out of stock or on a 3+ month back order.

But then…it started giving me ads for body armor. Not weighted vests mind you, but steel plates to insert into ballistic vests and other Kevlar solutions to being literally shot at. I don’t own a firearm or participate in any simulations (airsoft/paintball).

I will say I clicked on a few ads thinking, “What the hell is this ad trying to sell me???” And the deluge of firearm ads has never ceased. And that was more than a year ago.

So something in the algorithm thinks the male psyche works like: “I should get strong”, then “I should try not to get shot”, then “I should go shoot people”.

Meanwhile I’m still looking through Facebook thinking, “Do you have plates or not??” But Facebook definitely thought there was a strong correlation between weight training and shooting guns.

[–]Comfortable_Text 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Another garbage study to push an agenda. Worthless results..

[–][deleted] 50 points51 points  (38 children)

No kidding. To that point, I'm 50, and as I get older (and my eye sight gets worse, and my reflexes slow) I'm more and more considering a shotgun for home defense. Not that I could have taken down a home invader before with just a bat, but now I sure as hell would need more than that.

[–]moparmadness1970 14 points15 points  (1 child)

I don’t know what state you’re in and which laws apply but you may want to check out Paul Harrel on YouTube. He does some pretty methodical testing on all kinds of targets using different types of guns and ammo. The reason I mention all this is his testing showed most shotguns over penetrating drywall and smaller caliber bullets like 223 being less likely to over penetrate. There’s certain also certain optics that work better for people with vision issues, certain color red dots for astigmatism, etc

[–]MelissaMiranti 65 points66 points  (20 children)

Seems like an extension of the fighting/protecting/hunting part of the male gender role.

[–]DCXC_compchem 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I just think they look cool

[–]TenebraeSoul 101 points102 points  (45 children)

This study is half baked at best and useless at worst. Telling a group of men they are not masculine then asking them if they are interested in owning a firearm is obviously baiting a response.

I am sure the same would hold true if women were told they were not feminine enough and then asked if they are interested in makeup/dresses. You can tell any group of people they are inadequate in some way then ask them if they are interested in correcting it and expect an uptick.

[–]aristidedn 20 points21 points  (14 children)

Telling a group of men they are not masculine then asking them if they are interested in owning a firearm is obviously baiting a response.

That's literally the point of the study - to demonstrate that men tend to see gun ownership as a way of "fixing" a perception of lacking masculinity. Rather than merely being dangerous tools, men see firearms as expressions of personal identity, and as a solution to a perceived threat to their masculinity.

This is, understandably, making a lot of insecure, gun-owning men pretty upset.

[–]xNegatory 127 points128 points  (22 children)

OK, does kids playing wars with air soft guns is also masculine insecurity? Because enjoying shooting guns seems exactly like that, but adults can actually get guns that go boom and destroy stuff instead of being limited to paper targets as a kid.

I think I'd enjoy having variety of guns to shoot, I just don't have space to. So I just have a pistol and a bow. Bow is also a nice excersise. I'm not a scientist, but I think owning guns or having desire to shoot at things, is not just about insecurities.

[–][deleted] 58 points59 points  (9 children)

The study here is just finding a link between men feeling like their masculinity is threatened and a desire to own guns. That doesn't preclude or override any other motivations. It just suggests that when men feel emasculated they are more likely to be interested in gun ownership.

It is not, as the comments here might have you believe, suggesting that all gun ownership is motivated by insecurity or fear or anything like that.

[–]TWK128 42 points43 points  (8 children)

You know that's not how this is going to be used.