this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
31 points (66.0% liked)

science

14362 readers
981 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Alright, maybe I'm just cynical and jaded, but this was put on by Proctor & Gamble, and I get the feeling this was just made for the purposes of having a study they could link to for claims that their new scent plug in can improve memory retention in certain groups of people. The fact that the total sample size was less than 50 and split between control and variable means that about 20 people of different age groups participated. That's not much for a study. Also, the control group actually did worse during the experiment than normal, which leads me to believe that the control wasn't handled very well, or that natural deviance in data is greater than the "improvement" they claim. Either way, I'm dubious. It feels like it's destined for a fine print in a commercial that shows between reruns of Law and Order.

It's destined for a another study by independent researchers. As simple as that. Also more than one and substantially larger ones would be good given the simplicity, more or less innocuous study design, and the potential benefits. Maybe people assume that if a study says something, you're supposed to immediately take that as the truth. That is never the case. This study is just a very clear case for more good studies on this.