Everyday Research Methods

"Reading for pleasure helps kids' brain development"

 

The study measured reading for pleasure and a variety of cognitive, behavioral, and biological variables at multiple points throughout childhood.
Photo: Samuel Borges Photography/Shutterstock

An article for the general public led with this headline: "Reading for pleasure helps kids' brain development". The story in this post comes from coverage in The Conversation and Scientific American.  The Conversation is a place where researchers describe their studies for a general public audience. This study provides an opportunity to talk about moderators, cross-lag panel designs, and potential third variables.  

 

The researcher writes,

Our observational study shows a dramatic and positive link between a fun and simple activity – reading for pleasure in early childhood – and better cognition, mental health and educational attainment in adolescence.

We analyzed the data from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) project, a US national cohort study with more than 10,000 participants across different ethnicities and and varying socioeconomic status. The dataset contained measures of young adolescents ages nine to 13 and how many years they had spent reading for pleasure during their early childhood. It also included data on their cognitive, mental health and brain health.

About half of the group of adolescents starting reading early in childhood, whereas the other, approximately half, had never read in early childhood, or had begun reading late on.

a) Based on what you've read so far, was this a correlational study or an experiment? Why? (hint: use the terms "measured" or "manipulated" in your answer).

Here's how the authors describe the results:

We discovered that reading for pleasure in early childhood was linked with better scores on comprehensive cognition assessments and better educational attainment in young adolescence. It was also associated with fewer mental health problems and less time spent on electronic devices.

We also discovered that children who read for pleasure had larger cortical surface areas in several brain regions that are significantly related to cognition and mental health (including the frontal areas). Importantly, this was the case regardless of socioeconomic status. The result therefore suggests that reading for pleasure in early childhood may be an effective intervention to counteract the negative effects of poverty on the brain.

b) Sketch a scatterplot of this relationship: "children who read for pleasure had larger cortical surface areas in ...the frontal areas" Before you start, think about how you will label the two axes. 

c) This line, "Importantly, this was the case regardless of socioeconomic status. " indicates that the authors may have conducted a moderator analysis.  What does the quote mean--did socioeconomic status moderate the relationship between reading for pleasure and cortical surface areas, or not?  

d) This article did not mention whether certain third variables were controlled for when they investigated this relationship. What might be a third variable (C ) that might be correlated with both reading for pleasure (A) and cortical surface areas (B)? Do you think it would be important for the authors to control for that C variable statistically? (The general-audience article actually doesn't mention what variables were controlled for.)

e) The empirical journal article (published in Psychological Medicine, see Figure 3) shows that the authors also conducted a cross-lag panel design on the relationship between reading for pleasure (as measured at ages 9-11 and ages 11-13) and a varaible called "crystallized cognition", also measured at ages 9-11 and 11-13.  Look at the Figure to see what they found. Do the results indicate that reading for pleasure led to better crystallized cognition? Or do the results suggest that better crystallized cognition leads to more reading for pleasure?

f) Think about the three criteria for causation: Covariance, Temporal Precedence, and Internal Validity. Does this study appear to satisfy all three of them? Why or why not? Compare your analysis to the headline provided for the story (which stated that "Reading for pleasure helps kids' brain development").

 

What's your love language?

Are there really only five love languages? Does everyone have only one primary love language? Do couples who match--have the same love language--experience better relationships? Photo: Olesia Bilkei/Shutterstock

It's nearly Valentine's Day, so it's a good time to feature this new story on so-called "love languages." According to a new review article by relationships researchers, it looks like we should move love languages into the category of "things that make research psychologists cringe" (along with the Myers Briggs Type Inventory, learning styles, and others).

Many journalists have covered an empirical review article recently published in the journal, Current Directions in Psychological Science. Here's an example of coverage from website Medical Express:

Even if you don't know your love language, you've probably heard of the concept. The theory's pervasiveness in pop culture has only increased in the 30-odd years since Baptist pastor Gary Chapman published his book "The Five Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts." [...]

"We were very skeptical about the love languages idea, so we decided to review the existing studies on it," says Emily Impett, a professor in the UTM department of psychology who collaborated with UTM graduate student Gideon Park and York University Assistant Professor Amy Muise. "None of the 10 studies supported Chapman's claims."

Chapman's original book argues that there are five love languages: physical touch, words of affirmation, acts of service, quality time and gifts. He also argues that each person has a primary preference for one of these. Furthermore, he argues in his book that when two partners have the same love language (for example, both of them prefer physical touch) that their relationship will be better.

The journalist explains that Impett and her team addressed three weaknesses in Chapman's theory. The first element they investigated was whether people only have one primary love language. While Chapman's q"uiz" does identify one primary love language for each respondent, in fact, because of the way it is set up, Chapman's test forces people to compare each type to the others, so people must choose one. In contrast, Impett and her colleagues wrote that when people are provided a Likert scale and asked to rate each love language individually, most people report multiple preferences of showing and expressing love.

A second critique of Chapman's original thinking was that it was based on a restricted sample (mostly White, religious, middle-class Americans). In other cultural contexts, there may be different ways of expressing love. 

But let's focus on their third , and most important, claim:

Most importantly, Impett and her team found no scientific evidence for Chapman's central contention that people who choose partners that speak their love language, or learn to speak it, will have more successful relationships.

The researchers reviewed the literature and found

...no scientific evidence for Chapman's central contention that people who choose partners that speak their love language, or learn to speak it, will have more successful relationships. "There's no support for this matching effect," says Impett. "People are basically happier in relationships when they receive any of these expressions of love." 

This conclusion is a great example of the theory-data cycle, so let's walk through it. I've included Figure 1 for your reference.

a) The theory-data cycle starts with a theory. What is Chapman's theory about love languages? Remember that a theory is a set of general statements about how variables are related to each other, and Chapman's theory had several ideas. What are his main theoretical ideas?

The next step in the cycle is to select a particular research question. Let's work with the research question about matching love languages. The question might be, "do couples with matching love languages have better relationships?"

Then we design a study to test the research question. In one study that Impett and her team reviewed, researchers recruited a sample of couples and measured each person's love language. They divided the couples into two types: those who had the same love language and those that did not. They measured each couple's relationship satisfaction.

b) The next step in the theory-data cycle is to state a hypothesis for the study--what should the results of this specific study be if the theory is true? State specifically what the results should be--you can even sketch a graph of the predicted outcome.

c) The next step is to evaluate the data in light of the theory. What did the study actually find? Do these results support the theory, or not? That is, which arrow in the Figure above (the right one or the left one) will be be applying in this case?

In addition to providing data to counter the "love language" theory, Impett and her colleagues proposed an alternative metaphor: a "balanced diet." Specifically, they reported that most people appreciate many kinds of ways of showing love--not just one--and that we can all benefit from receiving some of each type, no matter what type it is. 

Challenge question:

d) Come up with a study that might test the "balanced diet" view of love expressions. What variables would you measure? How should the variables be related to each other if this theory is true?

 

 

 

What's your love language?

As it's nearly Valentine's Day, it's a good time to feature this new story on so-called "love languages." According to a new review by relationships researchers, it looks like we should lump this idea, along with the Myers Briggs Type Inventory and learning styles, into the category of "things that make research psychologists cringe."

Many journalists have covered an empirical review article recently published in the journal, Current Directions in Psychological Science. by psychologists. This post features an story for the website medical express.

Even if you don't know your love language, you've probably heard of the concept. The theory's pervasiveness in pop culture has only increased in the 30-odd years since Baptist pastor Gary Chapman published his book "The Five Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts." [...]

"We were very skeptical about the love languages idea, so we decided to review the existing studies on it," says Emily Impett, a professor in the UTM department of psychology who collaborated with UTM graduate student Gideon Park and York University Assistant Professor Amy Muise. "None of the 10 studies supported Chapman's claims."

Chapman's book argues that there are five love languages: physical touch, words of affirmation, acts of service, quality time and gifts, and that each person has a primary preference for one of them. Furthermore, he argues in his book that when two partners have the same love language (for example, both of them prefer physical touch) that their relationship will be better.

The journalist explains that Impett and her team tested each of Chapman's ideas. One was that people only have one primary love language. In fact, Chapman's unscientific "quiz" forces people to choose one. When people are provided a likert scale for each type, they report multiple preferences of showing and expressing love. Second, Chapman's original thinking was based on a restricted sample (mostly White, religious, middle-class Americans), and in other cultural contexts, there may be different ways of expressing love. 

But let's focus on this claim:

Most importantly, Impett and her team found no scientific evidence for Chapman's central contention that people who choose partners that speak their love language, or learn to speak it, will have more successful relationships. "There's no support for this matching effect," says Impett. "People are basically happier in relationships when they receive any of these expressions of love." 

The researchers reviewed the literature and found

no scientific evidence for Chapman's central contention that people who choose partners that speak their love language, or learn to speak it, will have more successful relationships. "There's no support for this matching effect," says Impett. "People are basically happier in relationships when they receive any of these expressions of love." 

This conclusion is a great example of the theory-data cycle. Let's walk through it. I've included Figure 1 for your reference.

a) The theory-data cycle starts with a theory. What is Chapman's theory about love languages? Remember that a theory is a series of general statements about how variables are related to each other. 

b) A researcher can then design a study to test the theory. In one study that Impett and her team reviewed, researchers recruited a sample of couples and measured each person's love language, and also measured their relationship satisfaction. Then they divided the couples into two types: those who had the same love language and those that did not. 

c) The next step in the theory-data cycle is to state a hypothesis for the study--what should the results of this specific study be if the theory is true? Sketch a graph of the predicted outcome, or state specifically what the results should be. 

d) The next step is to evaluate the results in light of the theory. What did the study actually find? Do these results support the theory, or not?