I'm not entirely sold on the methodological soundness. It seems like they went into it looking to confirm something, and designed and experiment that probably would. Maybe it's more rigorous than I got from reading the first part of the article, it doesn't come across that way.
I do think the conclusion makes sense, I'm just not sure about how well this demonstrates it.
Let's see... You could make people try a VR driving simulator and make them face various provocations and see how they react... You could put a car out on the road which is driven badly and try putting different bumper stickers on to see how people respond. If it wound up in a crash it would be like mashing up both of Zimbardo's experiments that you could never do today. [1] [2]
From the article: "Finally, we also vary the demographics of the driver of this other car to determine if this effect is even stronger if the viewer is white, and the driver of the car with the sticker is Black."
I wonder why they didn't do the flip-side demographic experiment.
Do people react in real life in the same way that they do in a simulation? I will suggest no, they don't. I think that a simulation is great for training but crap for experimentation.
With a simulation you can help prepare someone to be able to react within a "situation". It does not follow that you can simulate a "situation" and extrapolate that a person will react and behave as they would in real life.
This experiment only involves simulated dashcam footage as the "experience". It does not include the visceral feeling of actually being in a car. I personally know that my mental processes whilst driving are not the same as when I am, say, walking a street. For example when in car mode I "know" that German marque cars often have ineffective indicators. I could go on at length and no doubt my own driving style pisses off someone. That is the way of the road and for some reason, touch wood, I've managed to keep safe for 30 odd years driving. The way of the road is not controlled for in the simulation described.
You might as well remove the driving "simulation" and simply ask people what they think of the partisan stickers - I suspect you'll get the same results.
I gotta be honest I haven't really seen political bumper stickers since around the early 2000s. It's now maybe a couple of times a year out of the 10k+ cars I see in all that time?
I think social media became the outlet for all that stuff and the damage to the paint hurts the resale value of the car. If I ever see any stickers otherwise it's on the glass and still not political.
I think everyone kinda just admitted to themselves that they're trashy and pointless.
I think we've seen enough vehicles and homes damaged because of political signs that there is some evidence that people react badly.
I don't agree with this at all, but I don't think there's anything we can do about it.
I'm not a fan of political signs, but I do think they play a role with unaligned voters. If someone sees frequent signs for a candidate/party they're considering but were unsure about (e.g. a new or controversial candidate/party that might be considered unlikely to win), they might feel validated in that choice through social proof.
I do think the conclusion makes sense, I'm just not sure about how well this demonstrates it.