Everyday Research Methods

Do puppies remember their siblings?

The studies found that puppies recognize their mothers and that mothers recognize their offspring, but that siblings may not recognize each other after they've lived apart. Photo credit: cynoclub/Deposit Photos

Not an endorsement, but our dog Fig likes to use Rover.com, and the company sent me this article in their email newsletter. 

It's titled, "Do puppies remember their siblings?" I'm happy to talk about any kind of dog research, so let's dive in!

The article covered a couple of studies that tracked how long puppies would remember their siblings and mothers. Before you read on, consider: How could you measure whether puppies remember these early relationships? You can't ask them, so what behaviors might help you decide?

Here's the Rover description of one of the studies.

One study used scent-based tests to determine whether dogs recognized their mother and siblings two years after leaving the litter by the age of 12 weeks. They found that by the age of 2, dogs could only recognize a sibling they lived with—not any of their other siblings.

But dogs could recognize their mothers after two years of separation, and the mothers also recognized their puppies.

The snippet above doesn't provide a lot of information about how the scent-based tests were conducted. However, by looking at the original empirical article, we can learn more details. Specifically, the researchers placed blankets in the beds of dogs' littermates, mothers, and other unrelated dogs that were matched on sex and age. Then they conducted three studies.

In the first one, they tested mother dogs. The mother dogs were presented at the same time with a cloth from one of their offspring (who they'd not seen for about 2 years) and a cloth from an unrelated dog of the same sex and age. Fourteen out of 18 of the mother dogs spent more time sniffing the cloth from their own offspring.

In the second study, offspring were tested. The researchers presented offspring with a blanket from their own mother and from another female dog of the same age. Nineteen out of 25 offspring spent more time sniffing the cloth from their own mother. 

In the third study, dogs were presented with a blanket from one of their own siblings, whom they had not been with in over 2 years, and a blanket from another dog of the same age and sex. Among the 25 dogs who lived alone, they showed no preference for one blanket over another. Among the 23 who dogs lived with one of their siblings (they'd been adopted together), most showed a preference for the blanket from one of their siblings (not the one they lived with) compared to the control blanket. 

a) Start with the first study (with mothers). Make a table of the variables in this study:

Variable name	What are the variable's possible levels?	Is this manipulated or measured?	Is this an IV or a DV?	For IVs: is it within groups or independent groups?

b) Also with the first study: Which kind of experiment is this? Posttest only? Pretest/posttest? Concurrent measures? Repeated measures? 

c) Now do the with the third study (with siblings). Make a table of the variables in this study:

Variable name	What are the variable's possible levels?	Is this manipulated or measured?	Is this an IV or a DV?	For IVs: is it within groups or independent groups?

d) Also with the third study: Which kind of experiment is this? Posttest only? Pretest/posttest? Concurrent measures? Repeated measures? 

Sketch a graph of the results of the third study. Remember to put the DV on the y-axis. 

Now for another study from this article:

Another, smaller study also supports the importance of scent in recognizing dog and human family members. Eight dogs separated from their mother for varying lengths of time—from several months to several years—still reacted more strongly to her scent than the scent of another female dog.

And here's a study that tested whether dogs could recognize the smell of the humans who raised them as puppies (but whom they no longer lived with):

In the same study, researchers also considered nine dogs reared by humans from birth who were separated from their owners for varying lengths of time—from 11 months to just over three years. After this time, the dogs spent longer reacting to their owner’s scent than the scent of a same-sex human who lived with a dog of the same breed and gender.

e) In the "recognize the humans" study, classify the variables: 

Variable name	What are the variable's possible levels?	Is this manipulated or measured?	Is this an IV or a DV?	For IVs: is it within groups or independent groups?

f) Also with the first study: Which kind of experiment is this? Posttest only? Pretest/posttest? Concurrent measures? Repeated measures? 

g) You might have noticed that all of these studies used the same design (did you get concurrent measures?). Why? Could you design an independent-groups version of one of these studies? What might be the advantages and disadvantages of that choice? 

Gendered racism (intersectionality) and psychological distress

The study found a correlation between gendered racism and symptoms of depression among Black college women. Photo: Deposit Photos

This post is about a study on intersectionality--a combination of race and gender--in the lives of Black women in college. The empirical study appeared in the Journal of American College Health, and a journalist from PsyPost summarized it on the PsyPost website.

To start, here's the journalist's introduction to gendered racism, which is related to intersectionality:

Racism and sexism are both forms of discrimination that can take a significant psychological toll on the person suffering from it. Black women in particular are a group who often suffer from the combination of both forms of oppression, which can be referred to as gendered racism.

And here is an overview of the study's methods: 

For their new study, the researchers utilized 164 Black, female participants who were undergraduate or graduate students at a primarily White public university in the Southeast United States to serve as their sample. Data was self-reported online during the fall of 2016. Participants completed measures on demographic information, gendered racial microaggressions (e.g. “Someone accused me of being angry when I was speaking in a calm manner”), depression, and psychological distress.

One of the results reported by the journalist is the following: 

There was ... a relationship between frequency of gendered racism microaggressions and depression, with those experiencing more instances of microaggressions experiencing increased depression. 

a) Using the table below, identify the variables in this study:

Variable name	How was this variable operationalized? (if you can't really tell, say so)	Is this manipulated or measured?
		(add rows as needed)

 

b) Is this a correlational or experimental study? How do you know?

 

c) Sketch a scatterplot of the study's results (as described above).  Label your axes mindfully.

 

The PsyPost article included these two caveats: 

This study took important steps toward understanding negative outcomes associated with gendered racism. Despite this, there are limitations to note. One such limitation is that due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, causation cannot be inferred. Additionally, data was only collected from one, primarily White institution and may not be generalizable to other schools.

d) Let's dig into the first caveat, "One such limitation is that due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, causation cannot be inferred." Apply the three criteria for causation here.
i) First, does the study have covariance?  
ii) Second, why does the study not have temporal precedence?   
iii) Third, what is a third variable (a "C" variable) that might independently go with both gendered racism microaggressions AND with higher levels of depression? 

e) Now let's address the second caveat, "data was only collected from one, primarily White institution (PWI) and may not be generalizable to other schools".

Which big validity is this caveat addressing? 

f) Do you think that the association they found between gendered racism microaggressions and depression might be stronger, weaker, or the same if they conducted the study at a historically Black college or university (HBCU)?  Explain your reasoning. 

(Note: In question f, you are thinking about a moderator! Specifically, you are thinking about whether the type of institution (PWI vs. HBCU) moderates the relationship between gendered racism microaggressions and depression).

g) How could you interrogate the construct validity of this study? List two questions you could ask (one for each major variable).

 

Producer focus: Estimating how long your survey will take

How long will your survey take? Photo: MarutStudio/Shutterstock

Here's a post for producers of research (especially students who are designing their own surveys). 

I'm a fan of the Pew Research Center's polling website, in part because they are transparent about their methods, and in part because they share educational content about how to do good surveys. For example, they have videos on random sampling and question wording that I've blogged about here before; both are worth watching.

A new example of Pew's educational content is this recent piece, called "How we keep our online surveys from running too long".

This article is referring to panel research, in which people are randomly sampled from a national address database, provided tablets and internet access if they need it, and agree to complete surveys every so often, often for several years. Pew's panel is the American Trends Panel (ATP). You can read more about panel research--and its advantages over telephone-only surveys--in Chapter 7 .

A concern for panel research is the length of a survey. You can't make your survey too long, because people will stop responding. Pew strives to keep their ATP surveys at 15 minutes or less. Here's the overview of how they do it:

In a nutshell, we classify survey questions based on their format. Each question format has a “point” value reflecting how long it usually takes people to answer. Formats that people tend to answer quickly (e.g., a single item in a larger battery) have a lower point value than questions that require more time (e.g., an open-ended question where respondents are asked to write in their own answers). A 15-minute ATP survey is budgeted at 85 points, so before the survey begins, researchers sum up all of the question point values to make sure the total is 85 or less.

There are different point values for different types of questions. You can see examples of each format in their story (here). But here's the overall approach:

Question format	Assigned points
Stand-alone question	1
Batter item (multiple, similar questions)	0.67
Open-ended question	5 or 8, depending on the requested length
Check-all that apply question	2
Vignette	1 point per 50 words
Thermometer rating	1.5

Being a data-driven company, Pew has stored information on how long each type of question takes--that's the basis for this point system. They report:

When administering an online survey, researchers can see how long it takes each respondent to answer the questions on each screen. ... more challenging open-ended questions can take people minutes to answer, while an ordinary stand-alone question takes only about 10 seconds or so.

So...if you are a student developing your own survey for a research project, you can probably use these estimates, too!  

 

Really? "Sleep this way to add 5 years to your life"

A friendly reminder that when all the variables are measured, causal claims aren't supportable. Photo credit: Sleeping: MicrostockAsia/Deposit Photos

CNN's headline was "sleep this way to add 5 years to your life." This headline should immediately kick in your "correlation is not causation" spidey-sense.

a) What makes this headline causal?

b) What are the two variables in the headline? 

c) Why might you suspect this headline is based on a correlational study (rather than an experiment)?

Now that these preliminaries are out of the way, let's find out if the study behind the headline  can support causation.

Here's the splashy intro:

Want to live longer? Then prioritize sleep in your life: Following five good sleep habits added nearly five years to a man's life expectancy and almost 2.5 years to a woman's life, a new study found.

The article then provides advice such as getting at least 7 hours of sleep, and so on. The journalist links that advice to the following research summary:

"Recent studies have shown irregularity in sleep timing and duration have been linked to metabolic abnormalities ...," he said. "Encouraging maintenance of regular sleep schedules with consistent sleep durations may be an important part of lifestyle recommendations for the prevention of heart disease."

d) In the example above--What are the two variables in the study? What makes the study correlational? 

e) Apply the three causal criteria to the example in d). The study can support covariance (why?). What about temporal precedence? What about internal validity? What specific third variables might be responsible for the link between sleep timing and metabolic abnormalities?

 

Later in the piece, CNN shares data from another study, this one using multiple regression:

The preliminary study, presented Thursday at an annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, analyzed data from over 172,000 people who answered sleep questionnaires between 2013 and 2018 as part of the National Health Interview Survey. The annual survey is done by the CDC and the National Center for Health Statistics.

 

Each of the five healthy sleep habits — falling asleep easily, staying asleep, getting seven to eight hours of zzz's, waking up rested and foregoing sleep meds — was assigned a number. People were scored on how many of the five habits they had.

 

About four years later, researchers compared those scores with National Death Index records to see if their sleep behaviors contributed to an early death from certain diseases or any cause.

 

The team then factored out other potential causes for a higher risk of dying, such as alcohol consumption, lower socioeconomic status and existing medical conditions.

 

f) Make a table of the variables in this study:

Variable name	How was this variable operationalized?	What are the variable's possible levels?	Is this manipulated or measured?
			(add rows as needed)

 

g) The study directly above meets both covariance and temporal precedence....can you explain why? 

h) Imagine that a critic says, about the study directly above, "Hmmm....it could be that healthy sleep habits predicted early death because of alcohol consumption--maybe people who drink more alcohol are more likely to have unhealthy sleep, and they are also more likely to die early." What do you say? 

 

Finally, if you're looking for an example of a moderator, we've got you:

 

Men who followed all five of the healthy sleep habits had a life expectancy that was 4.7 years greater than people who had none or only one of the five elements of low-risk sleep, the study found.

 

The impact of healthy sleep habits was much lower for women: Those who followed all five sleep habits gained 2.4 years compared with those who did none or only one.

 

i) Put this into a moderator sentence: _____ moderates the relationship between _____ and _____ such that ____.

 

Thanks Stephen Chew for sharing yet another great example from the "correlation is not causation" files.

 

Selected answers

a) The headline is causal because it takes the form of advice: If you do X, it will cause Y (here, If you sleep better, it will cause increased life span)

b) Type of sleep and lifespan are the two variables.

c) You might suspect this headline is based on a correlational study (rather than an experiment) because lifespan is definitely a measured variable (you can't manipulate it), and sleep seems likely to be measured as well. Of course, it's possible to randomly assign volunteers to one of two sleep patterns---you'll want to read the article closely to see!

d) One variable is irregularity in sleep timing and duration; the other is metabolic abnormalities. 

e) The study can support covariance because the results showed a correlation between sleep irregularity and metabolic abnormalities. The study may not have temporal precedence--it's not clear if the variables were measured at the same time, or if sleep irregularity was actually measured first. What about internal validity? It's possible that some pre-existing medical condition (such as depression or addiction) goes with both sleep irregularities and with metabolic abnormalities.  Other third variables might work, too--make sure you explain how the variable you are thinking of links to both sleep irregularities and with metabolic abnormalities.

f)

Variable name	How was this variable operationalized?	What are the variable's possible levels?	Is this manipulated or measured?
Healthiness of sleep habits	Survey; summed five habits (falling asleep easily, staying asleep, etc.)	0 to 5	Measured
Early death	National Death Index records	Alive or dead	Measured
Alcohol consumption	Doesn't say how this was operationalized	Not clear--lo to hi	Measured
SES	Doesn't say how this was operationalized	Not clear--lo to hi	Measured

 

g) It meets covariance because the results show an association between healthiness of sleep habits and early death. It meets temporal precedence because the sleep habits were measured first, and then people were followed for four years, when early death was measured. 

h) This argument doesn't work as a third variable critique because the researchers controlled for alcohol consumption in their multiple regression (The CNN article said, "The team then factored out other potential causes for a higher risk of dying, such as alcohol consumption, lower socioeconomic status and existing medical conditions").

 

i)  Gender moderates the relationship between sleep quality and early death such that the relationship is present for both, but is stronger for men than for women. 

 

In U.S. football, Whiter-looking men more likely to be head coaches

Football coaching seems to have a stereotype problem
Photo credit: dotshock/Shutterstock

Here's a story from the website Psypost. The headline reads, "Study of U.S. football coaches finds the more White you look, the more likely you are to be head coach".

This report is a study based on a well-known disparity in U.S. football (both college and pro): Even though 57% of college players are Black, Whites are more likely to be in football coach positions. Among college teams, for example, position coaches are around 31% Black; only 9% of head coaches are Black. The higher you look in the coaching leadership hierarchy, the more likely you are to see White men (no women are head coaches of college teams). 

A research team got together to document this disparity and also to study whether men who looked especially "White" were even more likely to be head coaches. In their study, the research team obtained coaches' photos and titles from team publicity programs; all coaches were in the college Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). Over 100 Black and White coaches were in the sample. In addition to recording the coaches' roles (such as position coach, defensive or offensive coordinator, or head coach) the team also coded how "stereotypically White" or "stereotypically Black" each coach appeared. "Stereotypicality" was coded by showing the photographs to a new sample of Americans, who were asked to rate each coach on a 5-point scale according to how stereotypically White (or, if they were Black, how stereotypically Black) they looked. 

Here's one of the researchers, Melissa J. Williams, explaining to the Psypost journalist some of the background for the study:

“Race and ethnicity have both internal aspects (such as the importance a person places on their cultural heritage) and external aspects (such as how other people perceive a person’s physical appearance). Each of these aspects has a different effect on the role that race plays in a person’s life.  In terms of the specific setting we explored in this paper, football leadership represents an interesting collision of historical stereotypes about Black and White individuals. Black individuals, especially Black men, are stereotyped as good at sports and as physically imposing – characteristics that go with being good at football. Whereas White individuals, especially White men, are stereotyped as confident and charismatic – characteristics that go with being good at leadership. That combination of stereotypes got us interested in looking at who makes it to the top in football coaching, and how their appearance plays into their success.”

Here's how the journalist summarized the study's results:

The findings revealed that White coaches were more likely than Black coaches to occupy leadership roles. Moreover, among White coaches, the more stereotypically White their appearance, the greater the likelihood they occupied a leadership role. When it came to specific roles, appearing stereotypically White increased the likelihood of being a head coach among White coaches. By contrast, appearing stereotypically Black decreased the likelihood of being a head coach among Black coaches.

a) This was a correlational study. What were the measured variables? (There are three variables mentioned in the paragraph above).

b) This result presents a moderator. One way to draw it is to create two matching scatterplots: One for White coaches and one for Black coaches. What would go on the x and y axes of the two scatterplots? What would the slope of each scatterplot be?

c) Write a moderator sentence of this form: _________ moderates the relationship between ________ and __________, such that ________________.

After documenting the correlation between appearing White and being a head coach, the team conducted a second study, an experiment: 

In a second study, Williams and team had a sample of 375 football fans view photos of real college football players. Through a series of trials, participants were shown side-by-side images of two football coaches [both White or both Black], with one being high and the other low in racial stereotypicality. Participants were asked to select which coach they felt would be promoted to head coach in the future.

The results revealed that when the two players were White, participants chose the more stereotypical photo as more likely to become head coach in 70% of trials. But when the two players were Black, participants chose the more stereotypical photo only 52% of the time.Thus, stereotypicality had a stronger effect on being perceived as a leader for White compared to Black football players.

c) What are the independent variables in this experiment? What is the dependent variable?

d) To study the "stereotypicality" variable, this second study used a concurrent measures design. Can you explain why?

e) The first study was correlational and the second was experimental. Why is it helpful to have one of each study type in this investigation? 

At the end of the Psypost article, the researchers were quoted about their study: 

Overall, the researchers said their findings, “provide insight into the insidious nature of racial stereotypes, the role of physical appearance in perpetuating them, and how leadership attainment may be constrained for those who do not look the part.”

Here's a link to the empirical journal article, which includes photos of coaches who were coded as higher or lower on the stereotypicality scale: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smartphone checking predicts daily cognitive failures

 

Can the study rule out stress as a third variable? 
Photo credit; GaudiLab/Depost Photos

I have a new favorite website for journalistic coverage of psychology research: Psypost.org. You can read a few articles per month for free. Unlike my other "favorite" site (StudyFinds), Psypost strives to report the research without adding unwarranted causal claims or undue hype. In this post, we'll talk about their article, Smartphone checking predicts daily cognitive failures, study says.

This is a good example for practicing Chapter 9 concepts.  Here's why the authors hypothesized there might be a link between these variables: 

Research has suggested that frequent smartphone use can lead to cognitive overload and decrease attentional control, which may contribute to cognitive failures such as forgetfulness, distraction, and mind wandering. Additionally, smartphone use can be highly distracting and interruptive, which may interfere with the ability to focus and complete tasks.

The study's participants were 181 college students who used iPhones. Psypost summarized the method as follows:

The participants first completed a baseline survey that collected baseline data such as age, sex, monthly household income, and subjective socioeconomic status. The participants then completed a daily diary study for seven days. Screen time and smartphone checking for seven days were objectively tracked using the inbuilt iOS Screen Time Application Programming Interface.

The incidence of daily cognitive failures was assessed by the 13-item Cognitive Failures in Everyday Life Scale, in which the participants indicated whether they had experienced cognitive failures such as leaving tasks unfinished due to distraction, failing to remember the right word to use, or unintentionally allowing their mind to wander.Participants also reported each day whether they had experienced any of seven types of stressors. 

a) Based on the reading so far, you can identify several of the variables in the study. Fill them out on this table:

Variable name	How was this variable operationalized?	What are the variable's possible levels?	Is this manipulated or measured?
			(add rows as needed)

Ready for the results? Here's what the Psypost journalist wrote:

The researchers found that daily smartphone checking predicted higher levels of daily cognitive failures even after controlling for age, sex, monthly household income, subjective socioeconomic status, daily stressor exposure, daily positive affect, and daily negative affect.

b) In the results above, what is the criterion variable? What are the predictor variables?

c) Imagine that a person argues, "perhaps the main reason smartphone checking is associated with cognitive failures is stress....people experiencing a stressful event may need to check their phones more often, and stressed out people may also make more cognitive errors."

Is this a mediator, moderator, or third variable argument? 

Draw a little sketch of this argument using one of the models in Figure 9.14. 

Can the regression analysis rule this argument out, or not? 

e) What do you think of the construct validity of the "phone checking" variable? What about the "cognitive failures" variable? 

f) How would you ask about the external validity of this study? 

g) What information do you need in order to consider the statistical validity of this result? 

Here's a link to the original research/empirical article, which appeared in the British Journal of Psychology. 

 

Respect for "persons" in animal research

On the Farm Sanctuary, chicken pig, and cow participants can only participate in research if they choose to. Credit: Xalanx/Deposit Photos

Here's a second story on animal ethics for the month of February. In this journalist's report, you can read about the Farm Sanctuary in Watkins Glen, NY, USA. The sanctuary has a "new, in-house research team" that is doing a special kind of research on its animal residents. One thing that makes the research special is its view of the autonomy of its animal participants. Each animal only participates in a study if it chooses to. 

According to the journalist, it's been rare to do research on farm animals: 

Chickens can anticipate the future, goats appear to solicit help from humans, and pigs may pick up on one another’s emotions.

But scientists still know far less about the minds of chickens or cows than they do about those of apes or dogs, said Christian Nawroth, a scientist studying behavior and cognition at the Research Institute for Farm Animal Biology in Germany. “I’m still baffled how little we know about farm animals, given the amount or the numbers that we keep,” he said.

The farm hopes its data will help change people's minds, convincing them that animals have emotions and personalities. Indeed, farm animals are sentient, as argued by the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.  At the Farm Sanctuary, research guidelines for their animal work explicitly forbid human dominance and control over them: 

Among other stipulations, the guidelines prohibit invasive procedures — forbidding even blood draws unless they are medically necessary — and state that the studies must benefit the animals. And participation? It’s voluntary.

“Residents must be recognized as persons,” the guidelines state, “and always be provided with choice and control over their participation in an experimental study.”

As an example, the researchers at Farm Sanctuary were studying whether chickens enjoy learning. They created an experimental setting which invited chickens to learn to knock a lid off of a bowl. No chicken was forced to participate in the study; instead, the researchers slowly introduced the setting to the flock, and enticed individual chickens to enter the arena over time with snacks. The journalist reports:

So far, the researchers have tested eight chickens, half of whom were in the control group, and it is too early to draw firm conclusions about chickenkind. (The original group of recruits dwindled after one bird died, another failed to meet the study criteria, and three others dropped out — in one case, to spend time in the nest box instead. “I think she really just was highly motivated to sit on some eggs,” Ms. Prasad-Shreckengast said.)

As this passage describes, waiting for full consent makes the research process slower, but is consistent with the ethical values of these researchers. Another issue with the focus on autonomy concerns generalizability:

 

Personality remains a tricky issue. By limiting their study to chickens who, in essence, raised their wings to volunteer, they may have enrolled an unusually bold group of birds, potentially skewing their results. So the researchers are now administering personality assessments and may try to repeat the study with more birds.

 

In the last part of the article, you can read about the sanctuary's studies on pigs and cows, as well. 

 

Questions:

a) In Chapter 4, you can read about the Three Rs: Researchers are expected to reduce the number of animals used, refine procedures to reduce pain and suffering, and replace animals with computer or cell models. Which of the Three Rs are addressed by the research at Farm Sanctuary? 

 

b)  In what ways do the Farm Sanctuary studies move beyond the minimal considerations required by the Three Rs?

 

c) Are animals in the Farm Sanctuary studies treated the same (ethically-speaking) as human research participants?  Why or why not? You might structure a response around the three core ethical principles of Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. 

 

Animal ethics: What do we owe lab animals?

Researchers are expected to reduce the number of animals used, refine procedures to reduce pain and suffering, and replace animals with computer or cell models. What about repayment of animal subjects? Photo credit: Aleksei Gorodenkov/Alamy Stock Photo

As you read in Chapter 4, the use of animals in research studies is well-regulated around the world. In the United States, many animals are protected by the Animal Welfare Act, and any federally-funded research facilities must follow the review policies of IACUCs. In Canada, researchers follow guidance of the CCAC (Canadian Council on Animal Care).

In both the U.S. and Canada, animal research is guided the "Three Rs", Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. You're introduced to these terms in Chapter 4, but here's how journalist Brandon Keim defined them: 

Researchers are encouraged to replace animals when alternatives are available, reduce the number of animals used and refine their use so as to minimize the infliction of pain and suffering.

In India, a government body enforces a "Fourth R," Rehabilitation. This means providing care and rehabilitation to animals after they have finished being in experiments.  Now this article, published in January 2023 in the New York Times discusses a similar idea in the U.S, including how people are expressing a form of gratitude to animal participants. What do humans owe lab animals? 

The journalist tells the story of a person who, after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, came to appreciate that lab-reared monkeys had played a role in the vaccine's development: 

“I thought, I’m afraid of a stupid needle,” [Ms. Strohacker] said. “And these animals have to deal with this all the time.” She reflected on how her newfound freedom, and quite possibly her health, came at the expense of animals suffering or dying to develop the vaccines.

Merely being grateful for those animals seemed insufficient; Ms. Strohacker wanted to give something tangible in return. A little online research returned the National Anti-Vivisection Society’s sanctuary fund, which supports the care of retired lab animals. She made a small donation. “To give thanks was the very least I could do,” Ms. Strohacker said.

The Times reports that the COVID-19 vaccines probably helped save 20 million lives in their first year. Some ethicists would argue that animal research may be considered ethical when it does have a clear social benefit; however, even then, the animals must be treated in ways that minimize harm. The Times reports on the view that a fourth R should be "Repayment." Here's an example: 

Inklings of the idea of repayment can already be found in the research community, most visibly in laboratories that make arrangements for animals — primarily monkeys and other nonhuman primates — to be retired to sanctuaries. In the case of dogs and companion species, including rats, they are sometimes adopted as pets.

When adoptions are not possible, another option is a memorial. Some research labs provide plaques or public displays of appreciation for animals that have served in their lab.

Another option, especially if an animal was euthanized in the service of research, is to pay it forward: 

If someone receives a cornea or a heart from a pig — or funding to study those procedures — then they might pay for the care of another pig at a farmed animal sanctuary, Dr. Sharp proposed: “You’re going to have animals who stand in for the whole.”

“You’re contributing to the group, even if you’re not contributing to the individual,” Dr. Walker said. “That can be really relevant to the animal case.” For example, research on captive axolotls, a critically-endangered species of salamander, has yielded insights into breast cancer, spina bifida and tissue regeneration; in return, people might support efforts to help wild axolotls now struggling to survive in polluted canals in Mexico City.

Other researchers in the story described how they provide better-than-required food and housing for the rats in their research, providing large, naturalistic enclosures and playing with the rats every day. 

Questions:

a) It costs money to treat animals well during research and to repay them (or others of their species) after they participate.  Who should pay for these expenses? 

b) Two cases of alleged animal mistreatment in research have been in the news lately. One is the case of a beagle-breeding facility that was ordered to be closed down. In the other case, Elon Musk's company, Neuralink, is being accused of causing undue distress, pain, and harm to monkeys in allegedly "shoddy" experiment.  If you choose, you could research these stories and apply concepts such as the Three Rs to what you find. Specifically, how did these cases violate the Three Rs? 

c) Can you think of additional ways, besides those mentioned, to repay the animals that have been involved in psychological and medical research? 

Sports fans and self-esteem

Based on how many UD articles these students are wearing, can you predict whether their team won or lost last weekend? Christopher Ginn/University of Delaware

Here's a newspaper feature on how people's moods and self-esteem fluctuate with the performance of their favorite sports teams.  A variety of studies were covered by a journalist for the Washington Post, under the title, Self-esteem of sports fans is linked to their team, research shows.

The article introduces readers to the terms BIRGing and CORFing, which are defined as follows:

If their team wins, fans wear team colors the following day and brag about how “we” won the day, a behavior researchers have dubbed “basking in reflected glory,” or BIRGing. But if their team loses, fans cast off their team jerseys and talk about how “they” did not perform as well, thereby “cutting off reflected failure,” or CORFing.

Example 1:

BIRGing and CORFing have been studied using the apparel that students wear. Specifically, in one study, researchers... 

...surreptitiously monitored — with approval of the institutional review board — how many of over 200 students wore school-affiliated apparel during roll call for each class, throughout the college football season at seven universities.

The researchers found that if a student’s football team won a game, it more than doubled the odds of the student wearing the team’s apparel in the following class. Winning also more than tripled the likelihood of wearing more than two articles of team-branded clothing.

a) Using the table below, classify the two main variables mentioned in this study:

Variable name (conceptual variable)	How was this variable operationalized?	What are this variable's levels?	Was this a manipulated or measured variable?	Was this an IV, a Quasi IV, or a DV?

b) Sketch a graph of the study's outcome--be sure to put the DV on the y-axis.  (by the way, the original empirical study is here)

c) How do these results support the BIRGing hypothesis?

d) Consider construct validity: Did the study directly measure self-esteem? Why or why not? 

Example 2:

The BIRGing hypothesis has also been tested by studying the language soccer fans use to talk about their teams. 

In one study, Billings and his colleagues used machine learning to analyze more than 7,000 geo-tagged tweets made during 2018 World Cup matches pitting England against Croatia and Colombia to analyze BIRGing and CORFing in real time.

They found that English fans tended to bask in reflected glory when England was leading or victorious, increasing the use of pronouns such as “we,” “us” and “our” [on Twitter] to show their affiliation with the soccer team when their team scored or saved a goal.

 

In contrast, the fans used pronouns such as “they,” “them” and “their” [on Twitter] when England trailed or lost.

d) Using the table below, classify the two main variables mentioned in the second study:

Variable name (conceptual variable)	How was this variable operationalized?	What are this variable's levels?	Was this a manipulated or measured variable?	Was this an IV, a Quasi IV, or a DV?

 

e) Think about replicating the first, sports apparel study at your own college or university. How might you do it? Would football be the best sport to use, or some other sport? And do you think the results would replicated at your own school--why or why not? 

 

Personality correlates of liking spicy foods

Photo credit: marcoscastillo/Deposit photos

Here's another article from the content farm website, StudyFinds.  This one's on the personality correlates of liking spicy foods, and it includes a combination of frequency and association claims. The same poll was also covered by the NYPost and by Yahoo! News (with a video)

Below I will post a series of quotes and questions from the StudyFinds version of the story. 

Ninety-three percent of respondents prefer some level of heat in their food. However, nearly four in 10 (36%) say they go for medium heat, 33 percent go for mild, and just 24 percent like their spice level set to hot.

a) Based on this statement, there seem to be four levels of the "Liking Spicy Foods" variable. What are they? 

The methodology of the survey is not always clear from the press stories. Here is one example:

Spicy food eaters are more likely to enjoy trying new things (76%), consider themselves attractive (62%), and are more content with their lives (66%) than those with milder heat preferences.

b) In the quote above, what is your guess about who counts as a "spicy food eater"? That is, which answer would a person have to give to the "Liking Spicy Foods" variable you listed in a) in order to be counted as a "spicy food eater"?

In the quote above, another problem is they only report the percentages for the "spicy food eaters". We'd also need to know the corresponding percentages for "those with milder heat preferences."

c) What would these corresponding percentages be able to tell us about effect size? Propose some alternative outcomes for the variable "trying new things" that would show a large effect size vs. a small one. 

Here is a quote from later in the story:

Almost one-third (32%) of spicy food fanatics follow a certain diet like vegan or vegetarian— more than double than no spice fans (13%) and more than any other spice preference.

It's great that this quote at least tells us the percentage in each group that are vegan/vegetarian. However, it still does not tell us how they operationalized being a "spicy food fanatic" vs a "no spice fan."  

d) Here's another quote from the journalist's story. Based on what you answered so far (in previous questions), what is good and bad about the coverage in this quote? 

Of those who prefer hot foods, 21 percent consider themselves extroverted, compared to 15 percent of mild food eaters. Those who pack on the heat are also more likely to describe themselves as creative (54%), confident (51%), and adventurous (44%).

Another consideration here is the cultural background of the participants. One of my colleagues grew up in India, where children often learn to eat spicy foods from an early age.

e) How might culture moderate the relationships reported here, for example, how might it moderate the relationship between liking spicy food and being extroverted? 

f) This study was conducted by a commercial polling firm, and this particular study was commissioned by the brand Frank's RedHot. Do you think this commercial funding should affect our interpretation of the data? Why or why not? 

Selected Answers:

a) The variable "Liking Spicy Foods" has four levels: No heat, mild heat preference, medium heat preference, and hot heat preference.

b) It's not clear--but it's possible that they counted anybody who picked mild, medium, or hot (that is, 93% of the sample) as a "spicy food eater"?

c) Here's an example. What if 76% of spicy food eaters like trying new things but 70% of non-spicy food eaters like trying new things? That's not a very big effect size! But if 76% of spicy food eaters like trying new things but 20% of non-spicy food eaters like trying new things, that would be a very large effect size. 

d) This quote has the same problem of not defining what a spicy food eater is. But at least they give the percentages of extroverts for two different groups.

e) If a culture serves a lot of spicy foods and even children learn to enjoy them, then it's possible that "liking spicy food" will not be strongly correlated with personality (there's a ceiling effect on the spicy food variable). The personality correlations may exist only for cultures where spicy foods are more variable.