Everyday Research Methods

Podcast: WOOP, WOOP!

 

Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan: An evidence-based app. Photo courtesy of Dr. Oettingen/Woopmylife.

Here's another podcast-based post. NPR's Hidden Brain podcast frequently uses psychological research to illuminate a variety of psychological topics. Today's post is based on a Hidden Brain episode called You 2.0: WOOP, WOOP!

 

The episode asks,"is there a methodical way to achieve your dreams?"

The episode starts off with the suggestion that maybe positive thinking alone isn't the best way to achieve your dreams. Of course, in the United States, we are encouraged to "dream big" and shoot for the stars. But as host Shankar Vedantam interviews researcher Dr. Gabriele Oettingen, we learn that positive thinking--by itself--may not be very helpful. 

At minute 1:40,  you hear how Dr. Oettingen first started getting interested in positive thinking--it stems from a cultural difference she observed between Germany (her home country) and the U.S.  Then Dr. Oettingen lays out the theory. She explains that positive thinking feels good, but...

(2:45)...these positive fantasies--they seduce us to feel already accomplished, and they take our energy away.

Dr. Oettingen describes a series of correlational findings:

(3:00) We found that, for example, the more positively women enrolled in a weight reduction program fantasized about their success in the program, the fewer pounds they lost--three months later, one year later, two years later.

Or the more positively university graduates fantasized about an easy transition into work life, the fewer dollars they earned two years later, the fewer job offers they had gotten, and the fewer job applications they had sent out.

a) Consider the dieting study above. Sketch a well-labeled scatterplot of the correlation she describes (one axis should have "level of fantasizing" on it, and pick one of the weight loss variables for the other axis).

b) Does this study, by itself, show that fantasizing caused these women to lose less weight? (Apply the three causal criteria).

c) Now consider the work life study above. Sketch a well-labeled scatterplot of the correlation she describes (one axis should have "level of fantasizing" on it, and you should pick only one of the job-related outcomes for the other axis).

d) Does this study, by itself, show that fantasizing caused these graduates to do worse on the job market? (Apply the three causal criteria).

In the podcast, Dr. Oettingen shared two other examples: One study on surgery patients and another study on people who had a crush on another person. [Instructors, you could consider having four different groups of students graph each of the four studies.]

e) What are the advantages of doing this same correlational study in four samples (dieters, graduates on the job market, surgery patients, and people with a crush?) Use the term "external validity" in your answer. 

Now let's move on to the rest of the theory. Dr. Oettingen's theory proposes that fantasizing by itself makes people relax--"because mentally, they're already there"--they've achieved the goal. It's better, she argues, to pair your fantasies with thoughts about obstacles. Starting at minute 9:00, Oettingen introduces the term mental contrasting, in which people follow their fantasies with thoughts about the potential obstacles, asking the question: "What is it in you that stands in the way?" 

Listen from minutes 9:00 to 15:30, as Oettingen walks through the WOOP process of activating wishes, fantasizing about the outcome, anticipating obstacles, and making a plan. (WOOP stands for Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan.) 

Oettingen and her team are well aware of the limitations of correlational evidence like that introduced above.  So, although it's not described in the podcast, her team has also conducted experimental studies. In her experimental work, Oettingen and her team have randomly assigned people to engage in WOOP and others to engage in the activities in a different order (perhaps Obstacle, Wish, Outcome). They find that people in the WOOP conditions are more likely to achieve their goals.

f) If you were designing a study for people in a weight loss program, how would you design an experimental study to test if WOOP thinking would lead to more successful weight loss? 

i) What would the IV be (What would its levels be)? What would the DV be?
ii) How would you assign people to the conditions? 
iii) How would you eliminate internal validity threats? 
iv) Sketch a bar graph of your predicted outcome. 

Are you interested in trying WOOP out on your own goals and wishes? The phone app is free, and you can also access it online: www.woopmylife.org.

 

 

 

Too sleepy to choose that major

These students might misattribute their early-morning fatigue to their interest in the subject. Photo credit: Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

Podcasts have been gaining in popularity in the last few years, and several feature psychological research. I'm going to be devoting my next few posts to some podcasts. We'll start with this very short, 3-minute episode/ interview from the NPR podcast, Hidden Brain. The episode is called "How does the way you feel shape your life?" and it's about how students might be influenced by situational factors (such as how early a class is) when they select their majors. 

The podcast opens with a story:

...behavioral economist Kareem Haggag at Carnegie Mellon University... sometimes teaches early morning classes. And he's worried that when his students are tired or sleepy, they might draw the wrong conclusion about him and about the class.

The researcher himself states (around minute 1)

DR. KAREEM HAGGAG: Our hypothesis was that students who are assigned to an early morning section of the class, or to multiple back-to-back classes before a class, might mix up how tired they are in that class with how much they like the subject, thus leading them to be less likely to choose the subject as their major.

The host, Shankar Vedantam, reports:

This is a psychological phenomenon called misattribution. You know, you go to an amusement park on a sunny day and you think the park is great. You go when it's raining - you think the park is terrible. You're unconsciously confusing your feelings about the weather for the quality of the park.

The researchers used thousands of data points from students at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point to test their hypothesis. As Vedantam points out:

... students at West Point are randomly assigned classes that are scheduled at different times of the day, which means that some students are taking this introductory class first thing in the morning. Some students are taking the very same class later in the day. The researchers then measure the chance that students would later on choose that subject as their college major.

The researchers, led by Dr. Haggag, found that students were more likely to major in the topic of that introductory class if they'd taken it at a later time of the day: 

HAGGAG: We find that students who are randomly assigned to the first period, 7:30 a.m. section, are about 10% less likely to choose the corresponding major compared to a student who takes that class later in the day. 

Questions

a) What are the two main variables of interest in this study (the independent and dependent variables)? What are the levels of each variable?

b) Is this a true experiment or a quasi-experiment? If it's a true experiment, what kind is it (prettest-posttest, posttest-only, repeated measures, concurrent measures)?

If it's a quasi-experiment, which of the four types is it (nonequivalent control groups, nonequivalent control group prettest-posttest, nonequivalent control groups interrupted time series, nonequivalent control groups interrupted time series)?

c) Which is the IV and which is the DV here?

d) Sketch a small bar graph of the results they describe.

e) Can these researchers support the causal claim that "having an early morning introductory class makes you less likely to want to major in that discipline?" Apply the three rules of causation: covariance, temporal precedence, and internal validity in your response.

f) Ask a question about this study's internal, external, statistical, and construct validity.

Bonus content:

In the study above, the main IV was "time of day of the introductory class". As a bonus, here is another independent variable they studied--"number of breaks before the introductory class":

DR. KAREEM HAGGAG: We also compared two students who are sitting in the exact same classroom, but one of whom just had a free period as a break before, and the other came from one or more back-to-back classes. We find that each additional back-to-back class reduces the likelihood that that student enrolls in the major by about 12%.

g) Which is the IV and which is the DV here?

h) Sketch a small bar graph of the results they describe.

i) Can these researchers support the causal claim that "having breaks before your introductory class makes you more likely to want to major in that discipline?" Apply the three rules of causation: covariance, temporal precedence, and internal validity.

 

 

Lion attacks on cattle: A field experiment

Researchers painted eyes like these on some of the cattle in each herd. Credit: Cameron Radford

Here's an example of a field experiment that took place in actual fields. The empirical article appeared in Nature Communications, and the authors of the research wrote their own summary for a popular audience in The Conversation. The quotes below come from their popular audience summary. 

In this study, the authors worked with cattle ranchers in Botswana who were trying to reduce the number of lions and leopards who attacked their herds.

The introduction outlines the theory the researchers were testing:

Many big cats – including lions, leopards, and tigers – are ambush predators. This means that they rely on stalking their prey and retaining the element of surprise. In some cases, being seen by their prey can lead them to abandon the hunt. We tested whether we could hack into this response to reduce livestock losses to lions and leopards in Botswana’s Okavango delta region.

Below are some details of the method of their study. It sounds like an experiment: Can you see why?

Working with Botswana Predator Conservation and local herders, we painted cattle from 14 herds that had recently suffered lion attacks. Over four years, a total of 2,061 cattle were involved in the study.

Before release from their overnight enclosure, we painted about one-third of each herd with an artificial eye-spot design on the rump, one-third with simple cross-marks, and left the remaining third of the herd unmarked. We carried out 49 painting sessions and each of these lasted for 24 days.

The cattle were also collared and all foraged in the same area and moved similarly, suggesting they were exposed to similar risk. However the individuals painted with artificial eye-spots were significantly more likely to survive than unpainted or cross-painted control cattle within the same herd.

In fact, none of the 683 painted “eye-cows” were killed by ambush predators during the four-year study, while 15 (of 835) unpainted, and 4 (of 543) cross-painted cattle were killed.

Questions

a) What were the independent and dependent variables in this study? What were the levels of each variable?

b) What kind of experiment was this: Posttest-only? Prettest-posttest? Repeated measures? Or concurrent measures? (Challenge question: How might your answer change if you take the predator's perspective, as compared to the cattle's perspective?)

c) Sketch a bar graph of the results of the study. (Later you can compare your sketch to the figures in the Nature article).

d) The authors don't seem to specify here whether or not they used random assignment to the three painting conditions. Why would random assignment be important?

e) Ask a question about the external validity of this study. (Which term will your answer involve: random assignment or random sampling?) 

At the end of their popular press summary, the authors raise two important limitations:

First, it is important to realise that, in our experimental design, there were always unmarked cattle in the herd. Consequently, it is unclear whether painting would still be effective if these proverbial “sacrificial lambs” were not still on the menu. Further research could uncover this, but in the meantime applying artificial marks to the highest-value individuals within the herd may be most pragmatic.

Second, it is important to consider habituation, meaning that predators may get used to and eventually ignore the deterrent. This is a fundamental issue for nearly all non-lethal approaches. Whether the technique remains effective in the longer term is not yet known in this case.

f) How might you design a study to test the first limitation? That is, how could you manipulate the eye-paintings variable in order to test if this intervention still works if there are no "sacrificial lambs" in the herd? What would your different conditions look like?

g) How might the authors test the second limitation? What can they change about, or add to, their study to test whether "the technique remains effective in the longer term"?

 

 

 

Does "virtue signaling" change minds?

If a lot of us send virtue signals, it can communicate to others that norms are changing. Credit: SEEphotos7171/Shutterstock"

Among people fighting for racial justice, "virtue signaling" may sometimes be derided as empty action. "Virtue signals" are public messages of support for a social justice cause. They could take the form of a yard sign, a t-shirt, or a social media post. Critics sometimes argue that such messages are easy and cheap. It's easy for a company to put a message on their home page that supports Black Lives Matter. It's not hard to wear a t-shirt that supports a social justice cause. But are these expressions of support all talk and no action?

An article in Time magazine argues that virtue signaling can be more powerful than we think. The authors, psychological scientists Jamil Zaki and Mina Cikara, integrate several studies to make their argument. Here's part of their introduction: 

It’s critical to question people whose most radical act is temporarily changing their profile picture. It’s critical they follow their words with action; the time for talk has passed. But focusing solely on virtue signalers obscures their most important role. Like radio waves, the signals they send are received by someone, and those receivers matter, too.

Zaki and Cikara argue that virtue signaling is an important way of influencing others. If a lot of people change their profile pictures to support BLM, for example, more people will start to believe that this movement is popular and they may adopt it, too:

Opinions can work this way: when a particular viewpoint gets a lot of attention, people assume it’s popular, and shift towards it. We receive signals, and are changed by them.

What studies support their argument? Here's one that the authors summarize: 

As social norms shift, individuals shift with them: adopting popular opinions and behaviors, and dropping ones that fall out of style. Norms are especially powerful as they gain steam. In one set of studies, Gregg Sparkman and Greg Walton presented diners in a cafeteria [either] with evidence that 30% of the U.S. population was vegetarian, or that 30% of the population was newly vegetarian. People who learned about this second, “dynamic social norm” were twice as likely to order a meatless lunch themselves. They saw not just where the crowd was, but where it was going, and didn’t want to be left behind.

Here are some questions about the study summarized above:

a) Was this an experiment or a correlational study? How do you know? (If it's an experiment, what kind of study is it?)

b) What were the key variables in the study? Were they manipulated or measured? 

c) Sketch a small graph of the results being described. Would a bar graph or a scatterplot make more sense?

Here's another study Zaki and Cikara introduce:

Signaling and conformity are not inherently positive. In 2016, the U.S. elected a president whose campaign was jammed with racist talking points. Prejudice subsequently increased, specifically toward groups he targeted (e.g., Muslims, immigrants). 

d) This summary doesn't really help you figure out how the study was designed. But here's a chance to think carefully: What kind of study would we need to conduct in order to test the claim that "prejudice subsequently increased, specifically toward groups he targeted (e.g., Muslims, immigrants)."?  There are three variables you would need to include in your study. What are they? 

 

Suggested answers to selected questions

a) This was probably a posttest-only experiment, because it sounds like they manipulated the message about vegetarianism and measured what foods people took in the cafeteria. Here is a link to the original empirical article. 

d) The key dependent variable in this study is prejudice levels, so that's the first variable. Then, in order to establish that "prejudice increased", you'd need to measure prejudice both before and after the election, so that's another variable. Finally, in order to show that it increased specifically toward groups he targeted, you'd need to measure different types of groups (Muslims, immigrants, as well as other potential groups that Trump did not deride in his campaign). You can review the Crandall article here. Do their results really support what Zaki and Cikara are saying about it? (Pay attention to the difference between people's actual prejudice and the normativity of prejudice.) 

 

 

 

 

Saturated fat can impair concentration

Breakfast of (concentration) champions? Maybe not....Photo credit: Kyndall Ramirez/Unsplash

A headline at Psych Central reads, "High fat meal may impair concentration." Does the study behind the headline support that causal claim?

At first, you might assume that this came from a correlational study on diet and concentration. However, it turns out the research summarized in the article was experimental: It manipulated the saturated fat content of one specific meal. In the study, researchers created two versions of a breakfast--one made with saturated fat and the other made with sunflower oil, which is also high in dietary fat but is not the saturated type. 

The journalist describes the method of the study this way: 

Women in the study [n = 52] completed a baseline assessment of their attention during a morning visit to the lab. The tool, called a continuous performance test, is a measure of sustained attention, concentration and reaction time based on 10 minutes of computer-based activities.

The high-fat meal followed: eggs, biscuits, turkey sausage and gravy containing 60 grams of fat, either a palmitic acid-based oil high in saturated fat or the lower-saturated-fat sunflower oil. Both meals totaled 930 calories and were designed to mimic the contents of various fast-food meals such as a Burger King double whopper with cheese or a McDonald’s Big Mac and medium fries.

Five hours later, the women took the continuous performance test again.

Between one and four weeks later, they repeated these steps, eating the opposite meal of what they had eaten on the first visit.

After eating the meal high in saturated fat, all of the participating women were, on average, 11 percent less able to detect target stimuli in the attention assessment.

(The original empirical journal article is here; it might be paywalled)

Questions:

a) What was the independent variable (IV) in this study and what were its levels?

b) What was the dependent variable?

c) Was the IV manipulated as independent groups or within-groups?

d) This design is difficult to classify because it has a pretest and posttest, but the women also experienced both levels of the IV. Therefore it shares features with two of the four designs in Chapter 10. What are those two designs it shares features with? (Note to students: As you can see in this example, the four designs you learned about in Chapter 10 are not the only types of experiments there are, and this study provides an example of alternative designs.) 

e) Sketch the results of this study--using "reduction in concentration" (i.e., a difference score) as the dependent variable. 

Next let's work through the four big validities. 

f) Here's some text related to external validity of this study:

For this work, Madison [the lead author] conducted a secondary analysis of data from Kiecolt-Glaser’s study assessing whether high-fat meals increased fatigue and inflammation among cancer survivors.

and

[the experimental meals]  were designed to mimic the contents of various fast-food meals such as a Burger King double whopper with cheese or a McDonald’s Big Mac and medium fries.

Given the information above, to what kinds of people and what kinds of situations might this research be generalized? How do you know? 

g) The researchers found an 11 percent drop in concentration after the meal high in saturated-fat. What further information would you like to know in order to evaluate the study's statistical conclusions? 

h) Can this study support the causal claim that "A high-fat meal may impair concentration"? Apply the three criteria to the study: Covariance (what did the results show?), temporal precedence (did the method ensure that the meal came before the drop in concentration?), and internal validity (What potential confounds did they control for in the study?) 

i) Here's some information about the study's construct validity: 

Women in the study completed a baseline assessment of their attention during a morning visit to the lab. The tool, called a continuous performance test, is a measure of sustained attention, concentration and reaction time based on 10 minutes of computer-based activities.

What questions would you need to ask to determine if this test is a good measure of people's ability to concentrate? 

Instructors: If you teach Chapter 12, you can also use this example as a mixed factorial design, because the study also included a participant variable of endotoxemia, a condition called "leaky gut." From the journalist's summary: 

After eating the meal high in saturated fat, all of the participating women were, on average, 11 percent less able to detect target stimuli in the attention assessment. Concentration lapses were also apparent in the women with signs of leaky gut: Their response times were more erratic and they were less able to sustain their attention during the 10-minute test.

“If the women had high levels of endotoxemia, it also wiped out the between-meal differences. They were performing poorly no matter what type of fat they ate,” Madison said.

Students could identify the IV, PV, and DV and practice graphing the results described above. 

Thanks to my colleague Stephen Chew, who shared this example.

Teaching with 100 Humans

In 2020, Netflix released an 8-episode series called "100 Humans" in which 100 (American) humans from a variety of ages and social groups participate in a series of studies. It's a gold mine of examples for critical thinking in research methods. You'll find examples of posttest-only, pretest-posttest designs, HARKing, ethics, and more. Most of the studies have flaws, but that makes them more fun to critique. 

I've cataloged ways you can use the series in your teaching: www.tinyurl.com/teachingwith100humans.

Reach out if you use it! Let me know how it works for you. 

 

Evidence-based tips for well-being during a pandemic

Dr. Santos provides evidence-based ways to enhance well-being during this pandemic. Credit: Yale University

How can people enhance their wellbeing during the Coronovirus pandemic? 

Dr. Laurie Santos (pictured) has been meeting with several news outlets, sharing evidence-based tips from her psychology of well-being class at Yale University. A version of the course is also offered on Coursera.

In the Twitter-embedded video here, produced by the World Economic Forum, Dr. Santos covers five tips for coping during the pandemic. In this space, I'm going to quote moments from the video, and you can practice classifying the claims and describing how the studies would have been conducted. The first three of these tips are also covered in this story from the World Economic Forum.

Tip 1: Keep social, even when socially distancing

Dr. Santos states in her segment that "Happy people spend more time with other people in general. They also prioritize time with their friends and family members"

a) What kind of claim is it to say that "happy people spend more time with other people in general"--frequency, association, or cause?  What are the variables in this claim? 

b) What kind of study was likely conducted to support this claim--correlational or experimental? 

c) Sketch a scatterplot with well-labeled axes that could depict this result.

Tip 2: Help others

To explain this tip, Dr. Santos mentions, "The research shows that doing random acts of kindness...can be incredibly powerful." For example, happy people are giving money to charity and volunteering in their communities. 

d) What kind of claim is it to say that "doing random acts of kindness...can make you happy"--frequency, association, or cause?  What are the variables in this claim? 

e) What kind of study would need to be conducted to support this claim--correlational or experimental? 

f) Can you imagine how you  might manipulate the variable, "doing random acts of kindness?"

Tip 3: Move--even if you can't leave your house

In this section, she says, "Exercise and moving your body is really correlated with improved well-being"

g) The verb, "correlated" gives this one away: It's an association claim. Dr. Santos specifies that they are "really correlated," which seems to suggest a strong effect size. What factors do we consider when we're trying to decide if a correlation (an effect size) is strong versus weak?

Tip 4: Savor everyday pleasures

"Research suggests that happy people tend to be more mindful. They tend to savor the present moment; they tend to be in the present moment"  Here Dr. Santos also strongly recommends taking deep breaths to calm the vagus nerve and connect to the present. 

h) How might you design an experiment to test the hypothesis that deep breathing can improve people's well-being during quarantine? Whom might you recruit for such a study? How would you operationalize each of the two variables? What results would you expect to find? 

Tip 5: Think about how you want to look back on this time

Finally, she shares one of my favorite tips for emotional regulation, psychological distancing: "Psychological distancing is the idea that if we think about ourselves and how we will have dealt with this crisis in the future...Think about how you want to tell your grandkids you lived through COVID-19, you don't want to be like, 'I panicked-bought and hoarded toilet paper..no, you want the story to be positive...'"

Experimental research has supported the causal claim that self-distancing--seeing yourself as though you are a fly on the wall, or even imagining looking back on yourself from the future--is associated with improved emotional regulation. It helps us take a cooler, less impulsive view of our emotions and process them instead of ruminating. For example, self-distancing helps people manage feelings of anger in constructive ways (here's a nice summary). 

i) Review the term translational research in your textbook (Ch 1) and explain how we might conduct translational research on psychological distancing during the pandemic. What is the basic research it is based on? What is the real-world context it's being translated to? And what kind of study could translate--that is, bridge the gap--between the two? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does this font make me look conservative?

Of these three candidates, Yang is considered more liberal than Klobuchar. Do the fonts used in their posters convey that? Photo credit: Kevin McGovern/Shutterstock

Here's something I never considered--different fonts lean conservative or liberal. 

Serif fonts have little curves and edges (like the "Amy" in the green poster here). Sans-serif fonts are cleaner, without these extra flourishes. 

A study showed multiple fonts to a sample of people and found that people rated the serif fonts as looking more conservative and sans-serif fonts as more liberal.

This research was covered by CNN.com. They summarized the results like this: 

For example, study participants saw Times New Roman as more conservative than Gill Sans. Blackletter, which looks like it belongs on a newspaper masthead, was seen as the most conservative font, while Sunrise, a cartoonish-looking script, was seen as the most liberal.

When they interviewed the researcher, she suggested, 

"If you think about serifs being used in more formal types of print or communications, maybe they're viewed as more traditional and sans serifs are viewed as more modern," Katherine Haenschen, an assistant professor of communications at Virginia Tech and the lead author of the study, told CNN. "There's a small but significant difference in how people perceive these fonts."

The researchers showed each font using a simple sentence, "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" and asked online participants to rate the font's conservative (vs. liberal) nature. For example:

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

a) In this study, what was the independent variable (IV)? What were its levels? What was the dependent variable? 

Here is CNN's description:

...987 participants were shown the phrase "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" in one of six fonts and styles: Times New Roman regular, Times New Roman bold, Times New Roman italic, Gill Sans regular, Gill Sans bold or Gill Sans italic.

b) Based on this description, was the IV manipulated as independent groups or within-groups? 

c) You could do the study either way. What are the advantages and disadvantages of manipulating the font variable as independent groups?What are the advantages and disadvantages of manipulating the font variable as within-groups?

d) What does it mean when the author says "There's a small but significant difference in how people perceive these fonts."? 

At the end of the story, the CNN journalist wrote about the potential applications: 

For example, if Bernie Sanders changed the font on his campaign materials, there probably wouldn't be much of a difference in how people see him because he's already a widely known figure.

The choice of font could, however, make a difference for a new candidate, like someone running for school board, town council or state legislature, Haenschen said. While researchers don't know for sure whether a font would change people's perceptions of a candidate, that's another question that could be explored in the future.

e) How might you conduct an experimental test of the journalist's speculation, above? 

You can see the empirical journal article here. Their Figure 1 shows ratings of conservatism and the 95% CIs for six fonts. 

 

 

Research on Native American mascots

The College of William and Mary has phased out its Indian-themed mascot over the years. In 2010, the College replaced its former mascot with "Griffin", above. Photo: Mitchell Layton/Getty Images

Since 2005, the NCAA has required colleges and universities to reflect upon, and if necessary, change sports team mascots that feature depictions of Native-Americans.  Now a team of psychology researchers have published an investigation about support for such mascots among different groups of people. The set of studies  includes both correlational and experimental designs, including one testing whether the mascots can affect people's donations to the universities. 

The lead researcher, Dr. Michael Kraus, told a journalist what led to his interest in the research question. 

“I was at the University of Illinois at the time, and despite their Native American mascot being officially discontinued in 2007, it was surprising to see the mascot on campus in 2013. The continued presence said something about the norms on campus, and what kinds of students feel safe and welcome there,” Kraus said.

The journalist summarized two studies conducted by Kraus and his team. Here's the first:

In a survey of 201 students, the researchers found that those with lower levels of explicit prejudice toward Native Americans reported lower levels of belonging at the University of Illinois.

In other words, students who disagreed with statements such as “It is now unnecessary for the U.S. government to honor their treaty obligations to Native tribes” also tended to disagree with statements such as “I identify with the university” and “I show school spirit regularly.”

In addition, students with higher levels of explicit prejudice, as well as white students, were more likely to have positive views of the retired “Chief” mascot.

Questions

a) This is a bivariate correlational study. What are its two main variables?

b) The journalist gives some clues about how each of these two variables was measured. What kinds of measurements were used--self-report? physiological? observational? What do you think of the items? 

c) Sketch a scatterplot of the results that are described. Label your axes carefully.

d) Can this study support the causal claim? Why or why not? (Apply the three causal criteria; when you come to internal validity, specify at least one third variable that might be associated with both measured variables.)

The empirical article contains several studies on this topic. One of them tested the impact of  the University of Illinois' retired mascot, Fighting Illini, on donations to the school. 

The experiments showed that stereotypic Native American imagery “reduced actual donations to the institution by 5.5%, and was particularly likely to decrease (increase) donations among those low (high) in prejudice,” the researchers wrote.

In the study, researchers had online participants read about different universities, one of which was the University of Illinois. Some participants  were randomly assigned to see the Native American mascot, Chief Illini, next to the school name, while some did not.  Then participants had the chance to distribute $2 in donations to the four universities. When people had been exposed to the  Native American mascot, donations to the University of Illinois decreased. 

But like all research, the study includes some caveats. “Probably the biggest one is that we really only studied these dynamics at the University of Illinois, but we expect these norms to operate similarly everywhere. Someone, maybe us, needs to do that additional work,” Kraus said.

More Questions

e) Is the donation study an experiment or a correlational study? What are its two main variables?

f) When Kraus states that "we expect these norms to operate similarly everywhere," to which of the four big validities is he referring?

You can access the empirical research here.

Instructors: The complete package of studies is a complete set with a frequency claim (via an observational study of mascot use on campus) , a correlational study, and an experimental study.

 

 

 

 

Interested students might learn from Dr. Stephanie Fryberg's work, showing how American Indian high school students respond to being reminded of professional sports mascots that feature American Indians.

Fidget spinners seem to cause worse memory and attention

The fidget spinner IV was manipulated as independent groups in the first study and as within groups in the second. Photo: Marcel Jancovic/Shutterstock

Fidget spinners were extremely popular a couple of years ago. When people promoted them, they often suggested that the toys could help people with ADHD focus and learn more. At the time, such claims were not scrutinized empirically (here's a nice summary of this lack of evidence). It takes time for empirical research to be conducted, analyzed, peer-reviewed, and published, and even though fidget spinners were hot in 2017, we now have a study that tested the effect of using a fidget spinner during a learning task. At least one press outlet covered this study. Here's their summary:

In the first experiment, 98 undergraduate students watched a 15-minute educational video lecture on baking bread while either using a fidget spinner or not using a fidget spinner [randomly assigned]. In addition, half of the participants not using a fidget spinner were randomly assigned to watch the lecture while sitting near someone using a fidget spinner.

A fill-in-the blank memory test showed that participants who used fidget spinners answered significantly fewer questions correctly about the material covered in the video. Participants who used fidget spinners were also more likely to report “zoning out” and having difficulty staying on task while watching the video.

Participants who were sitting near someone using a fidget spinner, however, did not appear to be affected.

Questions

a) This was an experiment. How do you know?

b) What were the IV and DV? How many levels were in the IV and what were they? Was the IV manipulated as independent groups or within groups? 

c) Which of the four simple experiments is this: postttest-only? Pretest-posttest? Repeated-measures? Concurrent measures? 

d) The journalist attached a causal claim to these results, saying "study finds using a fidget spinner can impair memory and attention." Apply the three criteria for causation to this claim to explain why the causal claim is probably valid. How does random assignment assist this study's internal validity?

e) Ask one question each about the study's statistical, construct, and external validities. 

The researchers replicated the effect in a second study. The wondered if fidget spinners might only work among people who believed in their powers: 

The researchers then conducted the experiment again. However, this time around they specifically recruited 48 undergraduates who believed that fidget spinners could help them focus in class.

But the results were the same.

According to the empirical journal article, the second study on 48 students was conducted as a repeated measures design, using two videos. Students used a fidget spinner during one video and no spinner during the other one. Students were tested on their recall for the videos after each one.

f) What are the IV and DV in the second study? How many levels were there in the IV?

g) How do you think the researchers used counterbalancing in this second study?  Why would that have been important? 

You can access the original empirical article here, though you may need to log in via your university library.