Everyday Research Methods

Talk to strangers. Field studies say it's good for you!

We know that meaningful social support and relationships with friends and family are good for our health and well being. But what about superficial small talk--even with strangers?  Well, it turns out that seems to be good for us, too. Here are some examples of experiments that were conducted out in the real world--subway trains and coffee shops. These studies were described in the New York Times. 

Here's the first one:

The behavioral scientists Nicholas Epley and Juliana Schroeder approached commuters in a Chicago area train station and asked them to break the rules. In return for a $5 Starbucks gift card, these commuters agreed to participate in a simple experiment during their train ride. One group was asked to talk to the stranger who sat down next to them on the train that morning. Other people were told to follow standard commuter norms, keeping to themselves. By the end of the train ride, commuters who talked to a stranger reported having a more positive experience than those who had sat in solitude.

a) What are the variables in the study above?  For each variable, is it manipulated or measured? 

b) What type of experiment is this? Pretest-posttest? Posttest only? Repeated measures? or Concurrent measures? 

c) How do you think they measured "having a positive experience"? What are some ways to measure this variable with good construct validity?

Here's the description of another study they ran:

In a recent study, we recruited people on their way into a busy Starbucks with a $5 gift card. We asked some customers to “have a genuine interaction with the cashier,” smiling and having a brief conversation. Others were told to be as efficient as possible: Get in, get out, go on with the day. Those who lingered left Starbucks feeling more cheerful. Efficiency, it seems, is overrated.

d) What are the variables in the study above?  For each variable, is it manipulated or measured? 

e) What type of experiment is this? Pretest-posttest? Posttest only? Repeated measures? or Concurrent measures? 

f) How do you think they measured "feeling cherful"? What are some ways to measure this variable with good construct validity?

g) Sketch a graph of the study's results. Pay close attention to labelling your axes carefully.

h) Can either of the studies above support the causal claim raised in the story, that:

"Even the bit players in our lives may influence our well-being."

Apply the three causal criteria to this statement, and decide if a causal claim is justified.

 

What happens when we get "hangry?"

National Public Radio covered a series of studies conducted by Brad Bushman and colleagues on an emotional state with a new name: "hangry."  It's when you are hungry, and more likely to get angry. Here's how Bushman describes the phenomenon:

"We need glucose for self-control," said Bushman, lead author of the study, which was released Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Anger is the emotion that most people have difficulty controlling."  ..,Bushman said there's a good physical reason to link eating to emotion: The brain, which is only 2 percent of the body weight, consumes 20 percent of our calories.

According to the theory, when the brain is depleted of glucose, we have more trouble controlling difficult emotions such as anger.

In the study, about 200 married couples were followed daily for three weeks. Each night, their glucose levels were recorded, and they were given the opportunity to indicate their anger toward their spouse at that moment. How did they operationalize anger? By sticking up to 51 pins into a voodoo doll representing their spouse:

The researchers found that the lower the blood sugar levels, the more pins were pushed into the doll.  In fact, people with the lowest scores pushed in twice as many pins as those with the highest blood sugar levels, the researchers said.

a) Is the study described above correlational or experimental?

b)  Sketch a graph of the results they describe.

c) The headline of the NPR piece makes a causal claim--Study: Snack Might Help Avoid Fight With Spouse. Is the design of the study able to support a causal claim?

d)  Read the following comment:

Chris Beedie, who teaches psychology at the Aberystwyth University in the United Kingdom, said he thought the study's method was flawed ....The better way to test Bushman's concept is to give people high glucose on some occasions and low glucose on others, and see if that makes a difference in actual acts of aggression, he said.

What kind of study is Dr. Beedie describing? Why is it better than the real study's design? What would be the independent and dependent variables in Dr. Beedie's proposed study?

You can read the PNAS article here.

 

Is marijuana use really "harmful to young people's brains?"

Here's a great analysis of news coverage of a study in the Journal of Neuroscience. The study found an association between marijuana use and brain anatomy.

In response, many press reports of the story reported that "marijuana changes the brain" or that "recreational Pot is harmful."  The piece by John Gever aptly critiques the press's mistakes.