English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We applaud Matz et al. (1) for using field studies on Facebook to investigate the effectiveness of psychologically targeted messages, building on prior, largely laboratory-based research. That said, this comparison of Facebook ad campaigns does not randomly assign users to conditions, which threatens the internal validity of their findings and weakens their conclusions.The paper uses Facebook’s standard ad platform to compare how different versions of ads perform. However, this process does not create a randomized experiment: users are not randomly assigned to different ads, and individuals may even receive multiple ad types (e.g., both extroverted and introverted ads). Furthermore, ad platforms like Facebook optimize campaign performance by showing ads to users whom the platform expects are more likely to fulfill the campaign’s objective (e.g., study 1, online … [↵][1]2To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: dean{at}deaneckles.com. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Field studies of psychologically targeted ads face threats to internal validity