Why would an rando anecdote (which another sibling comment has proven does not reflect the broader reality) call into question an actual study? The latter may be garbage, or not, but it starts with a much better claim to credibility.
I would say it's not really a "rando anecdote", but the whole basis of the relationship of the first actual study in the paper.
To quote the paper:
"Our first two studies were naturalistic field studies, and examined whether upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals while driving. In study 1, we investigated whether upper-class drivers were more likely to cut off other vehicles at a busy four-way intersection with stop signs on all sides. As vehicles are reliable indicators of a person's social rank and wealth (15), we used observers’ codes of vehicle status (make, age, and appearance) to index drivers’ social class."
Comments
This really does seem to call into question the credibility of this study.
Why would an rando anecdote (which another sibling comment has proven does not reflect the broader reality) call into question an actual study? The latter may be garbage, or not, but it starts with a much better claim to credibility.
I would say it's not really a "rando anecdote", but the whole basis of the relationship of the first actual study in the paper.
To quote the paper:
"Our first two studies were naturalistic field studies, and examined whether upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals while driving. In study 1, we investigated whether upper-class drivers were more likely to cut off other vehicles at a busy four-way intersection with stop signs on all sides. As vehicles are reliable indicators of a person's social rank and wealth (15), we used observers’ codes of vehicle status (make, age, and appearance) to index drivers’ social class."