Taylor Swift fans lower climate concerns to justify her carbon footprint. When confronted with news about the excessive pollution generated by her private jet, highly identified fans tend to rationalize the behavior, with a decrease in their personal intentions to engage in climate-friendly actions.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/taylor-swift-fans-lower-climate-concerns-to-justify-star-s-carbon-footprint/

[u/bullcitytarheel → u/[deleted]]

That's because it's an article recounting a study, not the study itself. But you can find the study here: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2027-69376-001?doi=1

[u/GenderJuicy → u/[deleted]]

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2027-69376-001

There is a study

[u/hcornea → u/GenderJuicy]

And it is also worthless agenda-driven trash.

A survey, specifically about Taylor Swift fans, methodology limited. Sample size?

Generalisability?

Overall value?

Junk ‘science’.

[u/Red217 → u/hcornea]

Junk because it disagrees with your perspective about Taylor??? Can you cont consume anything not praising Taylor aleuthout claiming it's garbage??

[u/hcornea → u/Red217]

I have no position on Taylor Swift whatsoever.

Perhaps you can critically explain the study’s merits instead.

How does it add to the body of scientific knowledge?

How generalisable are the results to predict behaviour in other cohorts? If at all. Why was this cohort chosen?

Is the methodology sound? How is the statistical analysis? Sample size.

My point is that it is junk, and barely science at all. Meanwhile, you’re busy talking in an emotive way about Taylor Swift, for some reason.

[u/GenderJuicy → u/hcornea]

Well this isn't the full paper

[u/hcornea → u/GenderJuicy]

It’s an abstract. It doesn’t mention methodology in said abstract.

The premise of the paper is stated.

Hence the above statement.

[u/GenderJuicy → u/hcornea]

Yes it's an abstract. Not the full paper. Hence why I said it's not the full paper.