- Does noise affect the concentration and response time of college students? (A classic lab experiment in which participants had to complete a reading test while either listening to the sound of a jackhammer at 75db. No significant difference found.)
- Baptist feelings toward science at a small Southern college over a 47-year span (A replication of a survey conducted in the early 1960s. Interestingly, 2008 respondents were significantly less likely to believe that: "It is possible to harmonize modern scientific findings with religious concepts?")
- Reasons Facebook users accept friend requests from strangers (A low response rate led to insignificant results, nonetheless this remains an important topic.)
- What makes a woman stay with her abuser? (Women from a local shelter and college students who responded to an e-mail request were surveyed. A small N led to nonsignificant results.)
- Female perceptions of male intelligence based on first names (A partial replication of a 1993 study discovered that men with younger generation names [e.g., Matthew, William, and Ethan] were perceived as more intelligent than men with older generation names [e.g., Harry, Don, and Fred].)
- Are cigarettes purchased more by males or females: Age and race effects (A field experiment at a local convenience store found that older, White males purchased the most cigarettes, younger, White males the most Skoal, and younger, Black males the most cigars.)
- Who are more depressed: Black or White men? (A survey study using the Beck Depression Inventory found no differences with two groups of 25 male colleges students.)
- A small campus study on classroom seating due to student gender (An observational study of where students sit in class by instructor gender, student gender, instructor race, and student race found that females are more likely to sit near the front of the class and more so when the instructor, too, is female.)
- Are children in two-parent households more academically successful? (Conducted at a local school system, the research found no difference in student GPAs by household type.)
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Fall 2008 Completed Research Projects
Here's another batch of student research projects. This particular class did a very good job planning and executing their research over a two-semester time span.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
An Academic Pack Rat
I was reading Mischel's column in the November APS Observer. In that column, Mischel speculated about why psychologists reviewing grants are so tough on each other. He noted that it is relatively easy to judge the methodology of a study, but that it is a lot more difficult to judge the importance of the work within the larger context.
Mischel referenced a 1973 American Psychologist article by Cartwright, Determinants of scientific progress. So, I walked out of my office into the lounge where we keep our American Psychologists and picked up Volume 23, Number 3 (March, 1973) and opened it up to page 222. Our in-house collection goes back to 1955 and is largely complete. It represents the personal collections of several faculty over many years.
Next, I read Cartwright's article which is about the risky shift and how it became an important topic in social psychology. Cartwright wrote (p. 223), "Interest in the field [the risky shift] was heightened further by the publication of a popular social psychology text by Brown (1965), which devoted an entire chapter to this research and proposed an ingenious explanatory scheme to account for the major results known at the time."
It just so happens that when I took social psychology in 1970 as my second-ever psychology course, Brown's text was the one used. I walked over to my bookshelf, picked up the volume and found the chapter, Group Dynamics, and read the several pages on Stoner's original research on what is now called the risky shift.
Then, I went to my one of my file cabinets and retrieved my notebook from that 1970 class. On May 4, 1970 we discussed in class what Brown called Stoner problems in the text. Certainly, I did not recall that class or our discussion. A few pages later, I noted Stoner's name among the others the class was supposed to know for the final exam. (The other names for that chapter were Sherif, Asch, and Bales.)
While scanning my old notebook I was struck by how many topics that had been covered in that class were now totally familiar to me: Calhoun's rat crowding study, LeBoeuf's elephant seals, Harlow's attachment research, Heider's balance theory, Gestalt psychology, the founding of the Royal Society, and many more.
When I first read Mischel's column and Cartwright's article, I wondered what I was doing in March, 1973. I recall I was a senior finishing up my undergraduate degree in psychology at the University of Baltimore. Certainly, I was not thinking about what makes a particular piece of scientific research important. The other thing I thought of was how nice it is to have old materials at hand. It reinforces my pack rat tendencies.
Mischel referenced a 1973 American Psychologist article by Cartwright, Determinants of scientific progress. So, I walked out of my office into the lounge where we keep our American Psychologists and picked up Volume 23, Number 3 (March, 1973) and opened it up to page 222. Our in-house collection goes back to 1955 and is largely complete. It represents the personal collections of several faculty over many years.
Next, I read Cartwright's article which is about the risky shift and how it became an important topic in social psychology. Cartwright wrote (p. 223), "Interest in the field [the risky shift] was heightened further by the publication of a popular social psychology text by Brown (1965), which devoted an entire chapter to this research and proposed an ingenious explanatory scheme to account for the major results known at the time."
It just so happens that when I took social psychology in 1970 as my second-ever psychology course, Brown's text was the one used. I walked over to my bookshelf, picked up the volume and found the chapter, Group Dynamics, and read the several pages on Stoner's original research on what is now called the risky shift.
Then, I went to my one of my file cabinets and retrieved my notebook from that 1970 class. On May 4, 1970 we discussed in class what Brown called Stoner problems in the text. Certainly, I did not recall that class or our discussion. A few pages later, I noted Stoner's name among the others the class was supposed to know for the final exam. (The other names for that chapter were Sherif, Asch, and Bales.)
While scanning my old notebook I was struck by how many topics that had been covered in that class were now totally familiar to me: Calhoun's rat crowding study, LeBoeuf's elephant seals, Harlow's attachment research, Heider's balance theory, Gestalt psychology, the founding of the Royal Society, and many more.
When I first read Mischel's column and Cartwright's article, I wondered what I was doing in March, 1973. I recall I was a senior finishing up my undergraduate degree in psychology at the University of Baltimore. Certainly, I was not thinking about what makes a particular piece of scientific research important. The other thing I thought of was how nice it is to have old materials at hand. It reinforces my pack rat tendencies.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
New-ro Psychology
An article by David Glenn in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Psychology departments are changing their behavior (December 5, Volume 55, Issue 15, Page A1) discusses how research in psychology is changing because of neuroscience.
As we have noted earlier, the practice of science has become more of a team sport. Neuroscience is suited to groups of scientists working together because of its inherent complexity, large equipment costs, and necessity for specialization.
Like physics and biology before, psychology is now becoming "big science" and directors of research projects manage large budgets and supervises teams of scientists and assistants. Fortunately, according to Glenn, the emergence of neuroscience has, mostly, led to cooperation with older, traditional forms of behavioral psychology.
One exception, however, has been grant funding. Since 2004, the National Institute for Mental Health has changed its research priorities and now tends to fund research that has neuropsychological or genetic components. (Here is an article from APA on that topic.)
Glenn quotes Alan Kraut, APS's executive director, "Everybody, I think, would recognize that behavior is ultimately the result of biological, environmental, and genetic processes...But that doesn't mean that every study needs to have a biological component."
Clearly, psychology has entered a new era, one characterized by the search for the neurological causes of behavior. This is not a bad thing. However, it means that those who wish to research psychology will have to adapt and learn new ways to work together.
As we have noted earlier, the practice of science has become more of a team sport. Neuroscience is suited to groups of scientists working together because of its inherent complexity, large equipment costs, and necessity for specialization.
Like physics and biology before, psychology is now becoming "big science" and directors of research projects manage large budgets and supervises teams of scientists and assistants. Fortunately, according to Glenn, the emergence of neuroscience has, mostly, led to cooperation with older, traditional forms of behavioral psychology.
One exception, however, has been grant funding. Since 2004, the National Institute for Mental Health has changed its research priorities and now tends to fund research that has neuropsychological or genetic components. (Here is an article from APA on that topic.)
Glenn quotes Alan Kraut, APS's executive director, "Everybody, I think, would recognize that behavior is ultimately the result of biological, environmental, and genetic processes...But that doesn't mean that every study needs to have a biological component."
Clearly, psychology has entered a new era, one characterized by the search for the neurological causes of behavior. This is not a bad thing. However, it means that those who wish to research psychology will have to adapt and learn new ways to work together.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Utilitarian Views of Science
James Williams recently wrote about training science graduates to become science teachers in the New Scientist (free registration required). He has surveyed 74 of his graduates and found that many fail to understand basic scientific concepts despite being good students and well versed in their respective disciplines.
For example, only 11% of his students knew what constituted a scientific fact. Many (76%) thought that scientific facts were the same as the words "truth" and "proven." On the other hand, most (61%) understood the definition of a hypothesis and its provisional nature.
Williams interprets his results as being due to a lack of history or philosophy of science courses. Most of his students were good scientists, he maintained, but were not aware of how science fit into the big picture. Williams also worries that the lack of historical and philosophical awareness may affect how scientists counsel policymakers about issues such as global warming and cloning. If the scientists cannot understand these issues, they will not be able to advise others.
In our first chapter, we explicitly attempt to situate psychology, historically and topically, within the broader framework of science. We also briefly cover the philosophy of science and feature sections on Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend. We strongly agree with Williams, science is more than learning methods and techniques. Scientists must be aware of how their discipline evolved and how their data fit into larger and important contexts. In other words, scientists should adopt something more than an utilitarian view of science.
For example, only 11% of his students knew what constituted a scientific fact. Many (76%) thought that scientific facts were the same as the words "truth" and "proven." On the other hand, most (61%) understood the definition of a hypothesis and its provisional nature.
Williams interprets his results as being due to a lack of history or philosophy of science courses. Most of his students were good scientists, he maintained, but were not aware of how science fit into the big picture. Williams also worries that the lack of historical and philosophical awareness may affect how scientists counsel policymakers about issues such as global warming and cloning. If the scientists cannot understand these issues, they will not be able to advise others.
In our first chapter, we explicitly attempt to situate psychology, historically and topically, within the broader framework of science. We also briefly cover the philosophy of science and feature sections on Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend. We strongly agree with Williams, science is more than learning methods and techniques. Scientists must be aware of how their discipline evolved and how their data fit into larger and important contexts. In other words, scientists should adopt something more than an utilitarian view of science.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Experimental Golf
I have been playing golf for over five years. Because I teach research methods, I think of golf as a long-term research project. In other words, I'm always changing things: stance, grip, swing, speed, and who knows what else. From a research methods point of view, those things could all be be independent variables. Me, I'm always searching for a better combination of those variables so as to lower my score.
The score, of course, is the main dependent variable in golf. In stroke play (the most common form of keeping score) the player who takes the fewest strokes wins. In match play, the player who wins the most holes wins.
Over the last five years, I have discovered other golf dependent variables. One is the net number of balls lost or found. If I find more lost balls than I lose, I win. Another dependent variable is the number of pars (birdies if you are good or bogeys if you are not) per round. Other interesting dependent variables are how straight the ball flies or how far it goes.
Lately, my experimentation is progressing nicely. Golf being what it is, I should expect a sudden and rapid rise my stroke count.
Golf is also a good way to approach statistical topics. In class, I like to show the difference between my golf game and Tiger Woods'. Tiger has a MUCH lower standard deviation than I do for both direction and distance.
The good news is I am bringing my SD down for both distance and direction. Last week, I told a colleague about playing in the early morning fog. He asked me if I could tell whether or not the heavy, foggy air was making my shots shorter. I replied that my SD was still too big for me to answer that question. In other words, the distance I hit the ball is still too variable to conduct an experiment using the independent variable of air density.
To answer his question, I'd have to hit the ball the same distance and direction every time. Then, if I did that when the air was dry and the air was foggy, I could answer his question. There is a way to do that; use a machine to hit the ball consistently.
One machine that does that is called the Iron Byron:
It is named after famous golfer Byron Nelson who holds the record for most consecutive wins on the pro tour (11 wins). He also possessed an exceptionally smooth golf swing.
Now to figure out how to acquire an Iron Byron and get some one to pay for my golf research.
The score, of course, is the main dependent variable in golf. In stroke play (the most common form of keeping score) the player who takes the fewest strokes wins. In match play, the player who wins the most holes wins.
Over the last five years, I have discovered other golf dependent variables. One is the net number of balls lost or found. If I find more lost balls than I lose, I win. Another dependent variable is the number of pars (birdies if you are good or bogeys if you are not) per round. Other interesting dependent variables are how straight the ball flies or how far it goes.
Lately, my experimentation is progressing nicely. Golf being what it is, I should expect a sudden and rapid rise my stroke count.
Golf is also a good way to approach statistical topics. In class, I like to show the difference between my golf game and Tiger Woods'. Tiger has a MUCH lower standard deviation than I do for both direction and distance.
The good news is I am bringing my SD down for both distance and direction. Last week, I told a colleague about playing in the early morning fog. He asked me if I could tell whether or not the heavy, foggy air was making my shots shorter. I replied that my SD was still too big for me to answer that question. In other words, the distance I hit the ball is still too variable to conduct an experiment using the independent variable of air density.
To answer his question, I'd have to hit the ball the same distance and direction every time. Then, if I did that when the air was dry and the air was foggy, I could answer his question. There is a way to do that; use a machine to hit the ball consistently.
One machine that does that is called the Iron Byron:
It is named after famous golfer Byron Nelson who holds the record for most consecutive wins on the pro tour (11 wins). He also possessed an exceptionally smooth golf swing.Now to figure out how to acquire an Iron Byron and get some one to pay for my golf research.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Einstein: The Rest of the Story
In chapter 1, we briefly discuss the history of science and use John Horgan's idea of scientific surprises as an explanatory device. One of those scientific surprises is Einstein's theory of general relativity. We describe (pp. 15-16) how Eddington empirically confirmed Einstein's predictions:
In 1905 Albert Einstein (1879–1955) (Figure 1.6), an obscure Swiss patent examiner who was also a PhD candidate in physics, surprised the scientific world by publishing three extraordinary papers on physical phenomena. The first paper on the particle nature of light won him the Nobel Prize in 1921. One of the other two papers explained Brownian motion, the previously unexplained movements commonly observed in microscopic systems. Molecules themselves were causing the movement. The third paper eventually made him a worldwide celebrity; its topic was special relativity. In it, he demonstrated that time was a necessary fourth dimension to the three dimensions of space and that energy and mass were equivalent (E = mc2). When he extended that paper in 1915 to include gravity (general relativity) and when his theoretical predictions were later empirically confirmed, Einstein became a worldwide celebrity.
Figure 1.6 Albert Einstein
Einstein’s surprises were startling. His equations showed that time and space were not invariant, but that they changed depending on the motion of the observer. The equations also indicated that gravity warped space itself, a prediction confirmed by Edington’s observations of stars during a solar eclipse in 1919. At the atomic level, Einstein’s definition of light as quanta (small packets of light energy), led to the development of quantum mechanics, which was yet another scientific surprise. Like Galileo and Darwin before him, Einstein prompted a completely new worldview in which very small or very fast particles followed rules unlike any in the observable world.
Last night, the History Channel, broadcast a television documentary on Einstein which added much detail about the efforts empirical scientists underwent in order to confirm his predictions. That detail is provided by a new book, Einstein's Jury, by Jeffrey Crelinsten. In it, he shows how astronomers attempted to measure the predicted deflection of light caused by the Sun's immense gravity. Attempts were made in Crimea in 1914, but were interrupted by World War I. Another attempt was made by the Lick Observatory in America during the war. After the war ended, Eddington, a pacifist and a Quaker, thought that confirming Einstein's theory would do much to alleviate the deep discords between European scientists.
However, the solar eclipse of 1919 was observed by several groups of astronomers other than Eddington. Also, the Lick data, collected with second-rate equipment (the state-of-the-art telescopes were still in Russia, having been seized in 1914), showed that Einstein's prediction was wrong. News of Eddington's confirming but preliminary analyses made it to London at the same time that the Lick astronomers were about to announce the lack of agreement with the theoretical prediction. When they heard of the discrepancy, William Wallace Campbell, the head of the Lick group, delayed publication.
When Eddington fully analyzed the data, he confirmed Einstein's prediction that gravity did indeed deflect light, thus undermining classical Newtonian mechanics and making Einstein world famous, nearly instantly.
Here is the link to the December 2, 1919 New York Times story on Einstein and general relativity.
Figure 1.6 Albert Einstein
Last night, the History Channel, broadcast a television documentary on Einstein which added much detail about the efforts empirical scientists underwent in order to confirm his predictions. That detail is provided by a new book, Einstein's Jury, by Jeffrey Crelinsten. In it, he shows how astronomers attempted to measure the predicted deflection of light caused by the Sun's immense gravity. Attempts were made in Crimea in 1914, but were interrupted by World War I. Another attempt was made by the Lick Observatory in America during the war. After the war ended, Eddington, a pacifist and a Quaker, thought that confirming Einstein's theory would do much to alleviate the deep discords between European scientists.
However, the solar eclipse of 1919 was observed by several groups of astronomers other than Eddington. Also, the Lick data, collected with second-rate equipment (the state-of-the-art telescopes were still in Russia, having been seized in 1914), showed that Einstein's prediction was wrong. News of Eddington's confirming but preliminary analyses made it to London at the same time that the Lick astronomers were about to announce the lack of agreement with the theoretical prediction. When they heard of the discrepancy, William Wallace Campbell, the head of the Lick group, delayed publication.
When Eddington fully analyzed the data, he confirmed Einstein's prediction that gravity did indeed deflect light, thus undermining classical Newtonian mechanics and making Einstein world famous, nearly instantly.
Here is the link to the December 2, 1919 New York Times story on Einstein and general relativity.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Irritating Phrases
A new book, Damp Squid, lists the most irritating phrases in English. Written by Jeremy Butterfield, it documents many interesting facts about English words. Recently, the Telegraph listed Butterfield's collection of the ten most irritating phrases. Here they are in order:
Finding the mot juste or just the right word is one of writing's pleasures.
- At the end of the day (very British)
- Fairly unique (It's either unique or not)
- I personally (As opposed to...)
- At this moment in time (Now)
- With all due respect (I'm about to disrespect you)
- Absolutely
- It's a nightmare
- Shouldn't of (Shouldn't have)
- 24/7
- It's not rocket science (Does anyone remember when it was rocket science?)
Finding the mot juste or just the right word is one of writing's pleasures.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Archive Fever
Marianna Torgovnick recently wrote about archives in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Volume 55, Issue 2, Page B1). We cover archival research in chapter 10.
In her article, she reviews books, exhibits, and video materials and their use as archives. Her view of archives goes beyond our coverage of archives as sources of data for research.
She notes that Foucault's, The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language and Derrida's, Archive Fever both note how dependent all of us have become on culturally-based archives such as driver's licenses and visas.
Torgovnick notes how much more archivally creative we have become in our electronic era. The ease by which all of us can now create video materials and post them on the Internet via YouTube and similar outlets has led to an explosion of new archival material.
In addition to these new archival outlets, she points out another phenomenon--pseudodocumentaries, a genre as old as Swift's Modest Proposal and as new as Borat.
So, archival research is much more than simply locating an archive and mining it for its data. On top of that, archives are disappearing too. Torgovnick shows that the usual suspects for the loss of archives, "fire, flood, war, and the passage of time" are also accompanied by other sources of loss such as the unrealized greater fragility of microfilm and microfiche compared to paper. The losses are compounded by the necessity for researchers to sift out "real" archives from those, somehow, less real.
Researchers desire archives that harbor no fiction, and such archives exist. However, lack of fiction is not the same as truth. Torgonovnick shows that people are a necessary link to archives and the story they tell. She worries what false truths our archives might reveal were we no longer around to interpret them.
Like other types of research, archival research requires a careful and diligent research to illuminate the data uncovered and to show what has not been uncovered or what still remains to be found.
In her article, she reviews books, exhibits, and video materials and their use as archives. Her view of archives goes beyond our coverage of archives as sources of data for research.
She notes that Foucault's, The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language and Derrida's, Archive Fever both note how dependent all of us have become on culturally-based archives such as driver's licenses and visas.
Torgovnick notes how much more archivally creative we have become in our electronic era. The ease by which all of us can now create video materials and post them on the Internet via YouTube and similar outlets has led to an explosion of new archival material.
In addition to these new archival outlets, she points out another phenomenon--pseudodocumentaries, a genre as old as Swift's Modest Proposal and as new as Borat.
So, archival research is much more than simply locating an archive and mining it for its data. On top of that, archives are disappearing too. Torgovnick shows that the usual suspects for the loss of archives, "fire, flood, war, and the passage of time" are also accompanied by other sources of loss such as the unrealized greater fragility of microfilm and microfiche compared to paper. The losses are compounded by the necessity for researchers to sift out "real" archives from those, somehow, less real.
Researchers desire archives that harbor no fiction, and such archives exist. However, lack of fiction is not the same as truth. Torgonovnick shows that people are a necessary link to archives and the story they tell. She worries what false truths our archives might reveal were we no longer around to interpret them.
Like other types of research, archival research requires a careful and diligent research to illuminate the data uncovered and to show what has not been uncovered or what still remains to be found.
Monday, September 29, 2008
I See Dependent and Independent Variables
I see dependent and independent variables all day long. Years of study both at the undergraduate and graduate level combined with many more years teaching experimental psychology and research methods have worked their effect on me.
The other day, I was driving to Texarkana and saw cattle egrets along the way. In one field with cattle, there were many more egrets than in other fields. That observation started me wondering why that one field had so many more egrets than the others.
Were I to follow up on my observation, then the number of cattle egrets in each field would become a dependent variable in my research.
A few days later, I was walking around campus and I noticed that some parked cars had one current campus parking permit affixed to their rear windows. However, other cars had two or more parking stickers affixed. Now, an independent variable came to mind: the number of parking stickers on each window. In other words, I could now use those two groups to divide drivers into two naturally-occurring groups.
Very quickly, hypotheses began to form in my mind. Were the drivers with more stickers students who were illustrating their tenure on campus? Or, were they simply unable to easily remove the old stickers?
After being exposed to research methods classes and after designing and conducting research projects, the world takes on a new look. Dependent and independent variables pop out everywhere.
Confused about the difference between dependent and independent variables? I like to find the dependent variables in a study first. The dependent variables are the measurements in research. Also, all of the participants will be measured.
On the other hand, independent variables divide the research into groups. The groups can occur naturally or be operationally defined by the researcher. The levels of the independent variable will not be the same for all participants. In the example above, some drivers have one parking sticker while others have two or more. See?
The other day, I was driving to Texarkana and saw cattle egrets along the way. In one field with cattle, there were many more egrets than in other fields. That observation started me wondering why that one field had so many more egrets than the others.
Were I to follow up on my observation, then the number of cattle egrets in each field would become a dependent variable in my research.
A few days later, I was walking around campus and I noticed that some parked cars had one current campus parking permit affixed to their rear windows. However, other cars had two or more parking stickers affixed. Now, an independent variable came to mind: the number of parking stickers on each window. In other words, I could now use those two groups to divide drivers into two naturally-occurring groups.
Very quickly, hypotheses began to form in my mind. Were the drivers with more stickers students who were illustrating their tenure on campus? Or, were they simply unable to easily remove the old stickers?
After being exposed to research methods classes and after designing and conducting research projects, the world takes on a new look. Dependent and independent variables pop out everywhere.
Confused about the difference between dependent and independent variables? I like to find the dependent variables in a study first. The dependent variables are the measurements in research. Also, all of the participants will be measured.
On the other hand, independent variables divide the research into groups. The groups can occur naturally or be operationally defined by the researcher. The levels of the independent variable will not be the same for all participants. In the example above, some drivers have one parking sticker while others have two or more. See?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Care and Feeding of Editors
A recent column by Lynn Worsham in the Chronicle of Higher Education (September 8, 2008) discusses what academic journal editors look for in submissions to their journals.
She identifies several oft-made mistakes by authors:
In our chapter 12, we cover some of the steps necessary to take a research project to completion. Finishing a research project can mean more than one thing. It could mean presenting your results orally in class or in public. Ultimately, it could mean publishing your research in a peer reviewed journal. If that's your goal, pay attention to Worsham's suggestions.
She identifies several oft-made mistakes by authors:
- submitting the wrong type of article to a journal
- failing to proofread the submission for grammatical and careless errors
- citing sources incorrectly
- being unaware of previous similar research in the same journal and not citing it
- not following specific submission requirements (e.g., # of copies or no return envelope)
- submitting a conference presentation without rewriting it as a paper
- arguing with editor over rejected submissions
In our chapter 12, we cover some of the steps necessary to take a research project to completion. Finishing a research project can mean more than one thing. It could mean presenting your results orally in class or in public. Ultimately, it could mean publishing your research in a peer reviewed journal. If that's your goal, pay attention to Worsham's suggestions.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Crows Recognize People? Dogs Recognize Cars?
I have a fondness for field research. John Marzluff of the University of Washington and his colleagues observed that the crows they had trapped previously in order to band them for identification seemed to be harder to catch later.
So, they decided to test that hypothesis by conducting a field experiment. Three researchers, Marzluff and two students, then wore a caveman mask and trapped and released seven crows. Later, whenever one of the three wore the map on campus, the crows scolded them severely.
However, whenever they walked on campus wearing another mask (a Dick Cheney mask), the crows ignored the wearers. This, of course, was the control condition.
It seems, thus, that crows recognize people who catch and handle them and remember them later. Other researchers, too, have seen similar behaviors in crows and related birds. See a New York Times article for more information.
Informally, I have conducted similar exercises. I like to watch my dogs when I pull up in a rental car. Invariably, they bark at me viciously from behind the living room windows. They stop barking after I exit the rental car and start to walk toward the front door. Also, I have often sat outside in the afternoon while the dogs walk around in the front yard. I watch carefully for cars while I wait. I don't want to explain to my children why their dogs were run over. Interestingly, when I see my wife a block away and go to protect the dogs, they hear her van approaching and start to run in its direction (something they do not do for other vehicles).
So, it seems that dogs and birds can recognize and remember things about us.
So, they decided to test that hypothesis by conducting a field experiment. Three researchers, Marzluff and two students, then wore a caveman mask and trapped and released seven crows. Later, whenever one of the three wore the map on campus, the crows scolded them severely.
However, whenever they walked on campus wearing another mask (a Dick Cheney mask), the crows ignored the wearers. This, of course, was the control condition.
It seems, thus, that crows recognize people who catch and handle them and remember them later. Other researchers, too, have seen similar behaviors in crows and related birds. See a New York Times article for more information.
Informally, I have conducted similar exercises. I like to watch my dogs when I pull up in a rental car. Invariably, they bark at me viciously from behind the living room windows. They stop barking after I exit the rental car and start to walk toward the front door. Also, I have often sat outside in the afternoon while the dogs walk around in the front yard. I watch carefully for cars while I wait. I don't want to explain to my children why their dogs were run over. Interestingly, when I see my wife a block away and go to protect the dogs, they hear her van approaching and start to run in its direction (something they do not do for other vehicles).
So, it seems that dogs and birds can recognize and remember things about us.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Genes and Child Development
Newsweek recently published an article featuring some of the latest research in developmental psychology. Interestingly, specific gene loci may be responsible for many of the behavioral differences seen in children.
Temperament, for example, has a strong genetic link with associated behavioral consequences. Children with easy temperaments are less likely to pay attention to their parents and to listen to them. Fussy children, on the other hand, are more likely to pay close attention to their environment (including their parents) and are, thus, more likely to learn from experience.
The article discusses genetic variations other than the mellow/fussy baby. The gene FADS2, for example, raises IQ scores for babies who have been breast fed. However, the "C" variant of the gene, possessed by about 10% of babies, does not lead to a similar rise in IQ scores. Another gene, MAOA, comes in "sluggish" and "active" forms. The sluggish version of that gene seemingly protects victims of abuse from later risky behavior because memories of the trauma are damped by that version of the gene. The active version, unfortunately, rekindles the traumatic memories and may lead the victim into alcohol or drug abuse as a coping mechanism. Another gene, DRD4, has been linked to a variety of behaviors from increasing coping behavior in children and increased sexuality.
The implications this line of research are varied. For one thing, it multiplies the amount of individual variation previously suspected. For another, it causes researchers and practitioners to look more closely for genetic causes for behavior. Finally, it makes the entire behavioral picture much more complicated than previously thought.
Temperament, for example, has a strong genetic link with associated behavioral consequences. Children with easy temperaments are less likely to pay attention to their parents and to listen to them. Fussy children, on the other hand, are more likely to pay close attention to their environment (including their parents) and are, thus, more likely to learn from experience.
The article discusses genetic variations other than the mellow/fussy baby. The gene FADS2, for example, raises IQ scores for babies who have been breast fed. However, the "C" variant of the gene, possessed by about 10% of babies, does not lead to a similar rise in IQ scores. Another gene, MAOA, comes in "sluggish" and "active" forms. The sluggish version of that gene seemingly protects victims of abuse from later risky behavior because memories of the trauma are damped by that version of the gene. The active version, unfortunately, rekindles the traumatic memories and may lead the victim into alcohol or drug abuse as a coping mechanism. Another gene, DRD4, has been linked to a variety of behaviors from increasing coping behavior in children and increased sexuality.
The implications this line of research are varied. For one thing, it multiplies the amount of individual variation previously suspected. For another, it causes researchers and practitioners to look more closely for genetic causes for behavior. Finally, it makes the entire behavioral picture much more complicated than previously thought.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Coffee Research
I never drank much coffee before entering graduate school at LSU in Baton Rouge. Early in my first year I noticed two coffee urns at the end of the cafeteria line marked "Light" and "Dark." I turned to Pete Spiliotis, my predecessor in Don Hoffeld's lab, and asked the difference. He explained that dark was short for dark roasted or french roasted coffee, and that I should try a cup. I did and I was hooked.
By the time I left LSU for Milwaukee five years later, I was a Community Dark Roast coffee addict. So much of an addict that I had to order coffee by the case from Baton Rouge. In Milwaukee, I created a few coffee addicts including David Blackwelder, one of the grad students. One day he came into work complaining that he'd been awake all night. Seems he'd been drinking strong brewed dark roast into the wee hours. When I moved to Magnolia, Arkansas in 1980, I noticed that the local groceries stocked Community Dark Roast. I guess because we were only twenty miles from the Louisiana line. Since then, I have switched to Community's New Orleans blend. It adds chickory to the grounds.
Every year, the local schools hold their Red Ribbon week urging students not to do drugs. Alas, I cannot wear that red ribbon. I drink coffee for the kick. I tried going cold turkey a couple of years ago. That lasted about a week or less. It was my students who insisted that I start drinking again. They could not stand my coffee-free self, it seemed.
So, it was not passing interest that called me to read a recent New York Times article about coffee research titled, "Sorting out coffee's contradictions" by Jane E. Brody. She nicely summarizes coffee's myths and health benefits.
Among the myths are: coffee is not a diuretic, does not cause heart disease, hypertension, cancer, bone loss, or weight loss. Among the health benefits are: enhanced mood, performance, alertness, decreased reaction time, fat burning (instead of carbohydrates), lowered risk of Parkinson's and Type 2 Diabetes.
Whew, I guess I'll have another cup.
By the time I left LSU for Milwaukee five years later, I was a Community Dark Roast coffee addict. So much of an addict that I had to order coffee by the case from Baton Rouge. In Milwaukee, I created a few coffee addicts including David Blackwelder, one of the grad students. One day he came into work complaining that he'd been awake all night. Seems he'd been drinking strong brewed dark roast into the wee hours. When I moved to Magnolia, Arkansas in 1980, I noticed that the local groceries stocked Community Dark Roast. I guess because we were only twenty miles from the Louisiana line. Since then, I have switched to Community's New Orleans blend. It adds chickory to the grounds.
Every year, the local schools hold their Red Ribbon week urging students not to do drugs. Alas, I cannot wear that red ribbon. I drink coffee for the kick. I tried going cold turkey a couple of years ago. That lasted about a week or less. It was my students who insisted that I start drinking again. They could not stand my coffee-free self, it seemed.
So, it was not passing interest that called me to read a recent New York Times article about coffee research titled, "Sorting out coffee's contradictions" by Jane E. Brody. She nicely summarizes coffee's myths and health benefits.
Among the myths are: coffee is not a diuretic, does not cause heart disease, hypertension, cancer, bone loss, or weight loss. Among the health benefits are: enhanced mood, performance, alertness, decreased reaction time, fat burning (instead of carbohydrates), lowered risk of Parkinson's and Type 2 Diabetes.
Whew, I guess I'll have another cup.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Summer Research Ideas
Another research method class has come and gone. I thought I'd share their research ideas:
- Is shyness more common in males or females?
- An interpretation of Rap: What we see is what you get
- Wet vs. Dry: Opinions about liquor in Conway, Arkansas
- PTSD: More common after combat or peace keeping missions
- What makes a woman stay with her abuser?
- Reasons why Facebook users accept friend's requests from strangers
- Sports drinks and physical endurance
- Noise effects on concentration and response time of college students
- Teenage female marijuana use as a gateway to other drugs
- Parenting: Do you parent differently from how you were parented?
- Postpartum depression in married vs. single mothers
- Witnessing domestic abuse as a child: Are such men more abusive to their spouses
- Links between childhood abuse and adult domestic violence
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Elizabeth Loftus
This is additional material from the "cutting room floor." Originally, we thought of including examples of extremely successful scientists as a way of wrapping up chapter 1, Science. Here is our short biography of one such successful psychologist, Elizabeth Loftus.
Elizabeth Loftus currently holds joint faculty appointments. She is distinguished professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California-Irvine and is affiliate professor of psychology and law at the University of Washington. Loftus received her BA from UCLA in 1966 and her PhD from Stanford in 1970. She began her academic career at New School University in 1970. From 1973 till the present she has worked at the psychology department at the University of Washington. In 1984, she began to serve as a law professor there too. In 2002, she was named distinguished professor at the University of California- Irvine as well (where she spends most of her time). Loftus is the author of 18 books and more than 250 articles. She has served on many editorial boards and as officer of several professional associations including the presidency of the American Psychological Society. She has also served as an expert witness on human memory in hundreds of legal cases.
At age 14, Loftus lost her mother to a drowning accident. To this day she believes that event marks a profound division in her life. Ever since that day, Loftus has seen herself as an agent for helping others. As an undergraduate at UCLA, she excelled at both math and psychology. Like Robert Sternberg, she attended Stanford and studied psychology. She married Geoffrey Loftus in graduate school. After graduating, he went to work at the University of Washington and she followed a year later (turning down an assistant professorship at Harvard to do so). Their marriage lasted 23 years, “...an accomplishment...” according to Loftus, given her work ethic. They are still friendly. Loftus fell into her first major research topic, eyewitness memory, because she wanted her research to have practical applications, and it has.
Early in her academic career (around 1972), Loftus was studying memory using pictures as stimuli. After a conversation with a man who had been convicted of killing someone in self–defense she began to use films of accidents as experimental stimuli. What she found surprised her. The participants who viewed the films gave her different answers depending on how she phrased the questions she asked them. The relationship between leading questions and eyewitness memory became her first major research project. She found that leading questions influenced eyewitness memory and that a large percentage of eyewitnesses (in her lab) insisted they had seen something that, in fact, they had never seen. They had, however, heard that thing mentioned while being questioned in an intentionally leading manner. For example, nearly 20% of participants claimed to have seen a barn in one of her films. In reality, there was no barn and only those who had been earlier asked a leading question about the non-existent barn claimed to have seen it. In 1999, the United States Department of Justice published guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony in criminal investigations that stemmed directly from Loftus’ research. Those recommendations call for law–enforcement personnel to avoid the use of leading questions and to place only one suspect in a line-up. Loftus’ eyewitness reliability research has been called one of the best examples of how psychological research can affect public policy (Foxhall, 2000).
Later, Loftus began to study the difference between repressed memories and false memories. Repressed memories are true memories that have become unconscious for a time and then re-appear. Repressed memories of child abuse are a common example. However, some memories that appear to be repressed are not true, they are false memories. Although false memories are not true, the person believes them to be true. After observing a link between some therapists and the subsequent revelation of incriminating memories by their patients, Loftus demonstrated that false memories could be induced in a small percentage of individuals (See Chapter 3 for a more complete discussion of this research.). Her research ignited a legal and psychological controversy. Because of the large number of criminal cases based upon repressed memories, Loftus began to testify as an expert witness on human memory at hundreds of trials including those of the Hillside Strangler, O. J. Simpson, Rodney King, the Menendez brothers, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Her success in defending people accused of crimes like murder and child–molestation has created enmity from prosecutors, their witnesses, and even the public. Because of her research, her public appearances often require security personnel to be present. Her work has caused her hardship and grief while also bringing her fame and prestige. Recently, she was named as one of the top 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century (and the top ranked woman) putting her in the company of Freud, Skinner, and Piaget.
Reference
Foxhall, K. (2000). Suddenly, a big impact on criminal justice. Monitor on Psychology, 31 Retrived September 8, 2006 from http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan00/pi4.html
Elizabeth Loftus currently holds joint faculty appointments. She is distinguished professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California-Irvine and is affiliate professor of psychology and law at the University of Washington. Loftus received her BA from UCLA in 1966 and her PhD from Stanford in 1970. She began her academic career at New School University in 1970. From 1973 till the present she has worked at the psychology department at the University of Washington. In 1984, she began to serve as a law professor there too. In 2002, she was named distinguished professor at the University of California- Irvine as well (where she spends most of her time). Loftus is the author of 18 books and more than 250 articles. She has served on many editorial boards and as officer of several professional associations including the presidency of the American Psychological Society. She has also served as an expert witness on human memory in hundreds of legal cases.
At age 14, Loftus lost her mother to a drowning accident. To this day she believes that event marks a profound division in her life. Ever since that day, Loftus has seen herself as an agent for helping others. As an undergraduate at UCLA, she excelled at both math and psychology. Like Robert Sternberg, she attended Stanford and studied psychology. She married Geoffrey Loftus in graduate school. After graduating, he went to work at the University of Washington and she followed a year later (turning down an assistant professorship at Harvard to do so). Their marriage lasted 23 years, “...an accomplishment...” according to Loftus, given her work ethic. They are still friendly. Loftus fell into her first major research topic, eyewitness memory, because she wanted her research to have practical applications, and it has.
Early in her academic career (around 1972), Loftus was studying memory using pictures as stimuli. After a conversation with a man who had been convicted of killing someone in self–defense she began to use films of accidents as experimental stimuli. What she found surprised her. The participants who viewed the films gave her different answers depending on how she phrased the questions she asked them. The relationship between leading questions and eyewitness memory became her first major research project. She found that leading questions influenced eyewitness memory and that a large percentage of eyewitnesses (in her lab) insisted they had seen something that, in fact, they had never seen. They had, however, heard that thing mentioned while being questioned in an intentionally leading manner. For example, nearly 20% of participants claimed to have seen a barn in one of her films. In reality, there was no barn and only those who had been earlier asked a leading question about the non-existent barn claimed to have seen it. In 1999, the United States Department of Justice published guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony in criminal investigations that stemmed directly from Loftus’ research. Those recommendations call for law–enforcement personnel to avoid the use of leading questions and to place only one suspect in a line-up. Loftus’ eyewitness reliability research has been called one of the best examples of how psychological research can affect public policy (Foxhall, 2000).
Later, Loftus began to study the difference between repressed memories and false memories. Repressed memories are true memories that have become unconscious for a time and then re-appear. Repressed memories of child abuse are a common example. However, some memories that appear to be repressed are not true, they are false memories. Although false memories are not true, the person believes them to be true. After observing a link between some therapists and the subsequent revelation of incriminating memories by their patients, Loftus demonstrated that false memories could be induced in a small percentage of individuals (See Chapter 3 for a more complete discussion of this research.). Her research ignited a legal and psychological controversy. Because of the large number of criminal cases based upon repressed memories, Loftus began to testify as an expert witness on human memory at hundreds of trials including those of the Hillside Strangler, O. J. Simpson, Rodney King, the Menendez brothers, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Her success in defending people accused of crimes like murder and child–molestation has created enmity from prosecutors, their witnesses, and even the public. Because of her research, her public appearances often require security personnel to be present. Her work has caused her hardship and grief while also bringing her fame and prestige. Recently, she was named as one of the top 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century (and the top ranked woman) putting her in the company of Freud, Skinner, and Piaget.
Reference
Foxhall, K. (2000). Suddenly, a big impact on criminal justice. Monitor on Psychology, 31 Retrived September 8, 2006 from http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan00/pi4.html
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Theory in Biology
One of the early drafts of chapter 1 addressed the issue of theory in biology (a little) more deeply than the final draft of the book:
Smith gives four ways in which biological theory is different from physical theory. He also points out that none of the following features of biological theory are common in physics. Let's looks at the four features one by one.
1. Contingency: Smith uses contigency in a way similar to replication. He notes that unlike in the physical sciences, it is impossible to repeat the results of evolution by "replaying the tape." In fact, nearly everyone agrees that were the Earth to undergo a replay of the last 5 billion or so years the results would be very different. Those differences, of course, don't come from evolution or its mechanisms. (In fact, evolution itself is a product of our natural history. In any replay, there is no guarantee that evolution itself would again emerge. The smart money, most likely, would be against such a re-emergence.) Instead, the differences in the replay would come from unforeseen and unpredictable events such as meteorite impacts and other catastrophes.
2. Memory: To Smith, memory encompasses the creation of systems that can reliably reproduce the information contained within them. That mechanism, of course, is carried out by RNA and DNA and is quite remarkable in its ability to reproduce the information and to act upon the results of that information. Smith notes just how difficult it is to create memory systems that have survived for millions of years.
3. Control: In control, instructions mostly flow in one direction with incomplete feedback. In biological systems, natural selection functions as one controlling process. Only a few biological designs survive to reproduce themselves. In systems created by humans control is necessary too. However, we have had little luck as yet in constructing control systems able to repair and maintain themselves. In contrast, living systems can repair and maintain themselves while they are alive.
4. Individuality: Evolution and genetics end up creating unique individuals composed of common elements. Our 30,000 genes are shuffled to create individuals who are all different (excepting identical twins). The odds of two individuals sharing the same genetic components are incredibly small, on the order of 1 in 70 trillion. Smith notes that sheer numbers prevent biologists from looking at individuals. Instead, they seek out underlying "regularities" in living systems such as the citric acid cycle.
Biology, thus, has a different set of scientific questions than does physical or social science. One of the most profound of its questions is how life emerged from non-living processes. The nature of biology forces its theorists to adopt different modes of theorizing. Like social scientists, biologists, too, must seek their own ways to create theories and not simply ape the physical sciences.
- "Unfortunately, the nature of biological and social science is such that it is impossible to simply apply physical science’s way of theorizing to them. In biology, the problem is that natural history plays a major role. All life on Earth evolved. It is simply not possible to experiment with living systems as it is with physical systems. In social science, the main problems are consciousness and the sheer number of possible causal variables. Neither biology nor social sciences have discovered any laws similar to those of the physical sciences. Even Darwin’s theory of evolution is basically a historical account coupled with a small handful of causal mechanisms such as common descent, natural selection, sexual selection, and gradualism. In psychology, the search for ideal theories of behavior has been unsuccessful and has led to modifications to ideal theory."
- "The success of physical science and its theories has been so spectacular that biologists and social scientists naturally tried to imitate them. However, theories in biological science and social science differ considerably from the ideal theories in physical science. Unfortunately, the nature of biological and social science is such that it is impossible to simply apply physical sciences's way of theorizing. Neither biology nor social science has yet discovered any laws as universal as those of the physical sciences (p. 26-27)."
Smith gives four ways in which biological theory is different from physical theory. He also points out that none of the following features of biological theory are common in physics. Let's looks at the four features one by one.
1. Contingency: Smith uses contigency in a way similar to replication. He notes that unlike in the physical sciences, it is impossible to repeat the results of evolution by "replaying the tape." In fact, nearly everyone agrees that were the Earth to undergo a replay of the last 5 billion or so years the results would be very different. Those differences, of course, don't come from evolution or its mechanisms. (In fact, evolution itself is a product of our natural history. In any replay, there is no guarantee that evolution itself would again emerge. The smart money, most likely, would be against such a re-emergence.) Instead, the differences in the replay would come from unforeseen and unpredictable events such as meteorite impacts and other catastrophes.
2. Memory: To Smith, memory encompasses the creation of systems that can reliably reproduce the information contained within them. That mechanism, of course, is carried out by RNA and DNA and is quite remarkable in its ability to reproduce the information and to act upon the results of that information. Smith notes just how difficult it is to create memory systems that have survived for millions of years.
3. Control: In control, instructions mostly flow in one direction with incomplete feedback. In biological systems, natural selection functions as one controlling process. Only a few biological designs survive to reproduce themselves. In systems created by humans control is necessary too. However, we have had little luck as yet in constructing control systems able to repair and maintain themselves. In contrast, living systems can repair and maintain themselves while they are alive.
4. Individuality: Evolution and genetics end up creating unique individuals composed of common elements. Our 30,000 genes are shuffled to create individuals who are all different (excepting identical twins). The odds of two individuals sharing the same genetic components are incredibly small, on the order of 1 in 70 trillion. Smith notes that sheer numbers prevent biologists from looking at individuals. Instead, they seek out underlying "regularities" in living systems such as the citric acid cycle.
Biology, thus, has a different set of scientific questions than does physical or social science. One of the most profound of its questions is how life emerged from non-living processes. The nature of biology forces its theorists to adopt different modes of theorizing. Like social scientists, biologists, too, must seek their own ways to create theories and not simply ape the physical sciences.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Constraints to Theory in Social Science
In chapter 1 (page 26) we begin our discussion of theories in science by first describing the ideal theories of physical science. In the text, we characterize those theories as "laws of nature" and show how they seek laws that explain physical phenomena universally. Thus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Gravity work on Earth and everywhere else.
Upon re-reading The Arrow of Time, I noted that Layzer described laws and constraints thusly:
Initial conditions will constrain much of what a social science theory can explain or what interventions can be made to a social system. My colleague, Tommy Milford (a social worker), is especially sensitive to the description and implementation of initial conditions in his work because he realizes how important initial conditions are. Well thought out interventions, for example, may fail if they are applied without regard to initial conditions.
In physical science, boundary conditions may reflect a number of possible solutions, typically associated with different, corresponding differential equations. In social science, however, boundary conditions are more likely to be akin to the natural boundaries we describe in law-oriented theories (p. 28). Law-0riented theories are highly restricted by those naturally-occurring boundaries so that, for example, theories in cognition are not likely to shine much light on the area of personality. Furthermore, theories that attempt to address issues is such disparate areas are likely to be weaker than theories that stick to their knitting within their natural boundary conditions.
The discovery of symmetry in physical science is key to any argument for universality. If phenomenon is symmetrical, then it is true regardless of the observer's point of view. In social science, questions of symmetry revolve (again) around natural boundaries. We speak of gender, culture, class, and race as examples such natural boundaries (or symmetries). Social science data that transcend those boundaries are more universal than data that are not. Often, (think of culture) we are unable to break out of the prison imposed by our asymmetrical view of the world, often leading to tragic results. (Assuming, for example, that American troops would be greeted as liberators.)
To conclude, considering initial conditions, boundary conditions, and symmetry conditions is important in social science theorizing. The real world often imposes those constraints. Failing to see them or to account for them can lead to deficient theorizing.
Upon re-reading The Arrow of Time, I noted that Layzer described laws and constraints thusly:
- "Laws and constraints are complementary aspects of the physicist's description of nature. Laws describe the regularities underlying phenomena; they are few in number and each applies over a wide domain. Constraints serve to select from the set of all events governed by a given law the particular phenomenon of interest. The laws define what is possible, the constraints what is actual or relevant. (p. 58-59)"
Initial conditions will constrain much of what a social science theory can explain or what interventions can be made to a social system. My colleague, Tommy Milford (a social worker), is especially sensitive to the description and implementation of initial conditions in his work because he realizes how important initial conditions are. Well thought out interventions, for example, may fail if they are applied without regard to initial conditions.
In physical science, boundary conditions may reflect a number of possible solutions, typically associated with different, corresponding differential equations. In social science, however, boundary conditions are more likely to be akin to the natural boundaries we describe in law-oriented theories (p. 28). Law-0riented theories are highly restricted by those naturally-occurring boundaries so that, for example, theories in cognition are not likely to shine much light on the area of personality. Furthermore, theories that attempt to address issues is such disparate areas are likely to be weaker than theories that stick to their knitting within their natural boundary conditions.
The discovery of symmetry in physical science is key to any argument for universality. If phenomenon is symmetrical, then it is true regardless of the observer's point of view. In social science, questions of symmetry revolve (again) around natural boundaries. We speak of gender, culture, class, and race as examples such natural boundaries (or symmetries). Social science data that transcend those boundaries are more universal than data that are not. Often, (think of culture) we are unable to break out of the prison imposed by our asymmetrical view of the world, often leading to tragic results. (Assuming, for example, that American troops would be greeted as liberators.)
To conclude, considering initial conditions, boundary conditions, and symmetry conditions is important in social science theorizing. The real world often imposes those constraints. Failing to see them or to account for them can lead to deficient theorizing.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Self-selection?
In chapter 7 we introduce the extraneous variable of selection. Self-selection is a form of selection that occurs when people choose to do one thing and not another. A good example is when high school students choose to drop out of school.
An uniformed or naive researcher might draw the wrong conclusion when presented standardized test scores of 9th graders and 10th graders if a large proportion of the students dropped out of school when they turned 16 years of age. Assume that the 16 year olds who dropped out had lower standardized test scores and also assume that the law required them to attend school until they turned 16. In that scenario, the 10th grade AVERAGE scores would rise because the scores of the students who dropped out would no longer be included.
However, if a researcher did not know that the 9th and 10th grades were different to start with because of self-selection, he or she might look for another explanation. Using this example as an introduction, look at this recent news story from the Boston Globe about self-selection by gender in scientific, engineering, and technical fields.
This article examines a controversial area in contemporary culture, the relative imbalance of males over females in scientific, engineering, and technical fields. This imbalance may have many causes. As a recent New York Times article noted, gender discrimination and sexual harassment (both quid pro quo and hostile environment) are much more common in scientific, engineering, and technical fields.
The Boston Globe story, however, highlights the research of an economist, Joshua Rosenbloom of the University of Kansas. He decided to study men and women in the area of information technology. He and his co-authors found that men and women who enjoyed working with tools or machines were the most likely to choose a career in information technology. Also, people who enjoyed working with people turned out to be less likely to choose a career in information technology. His research, with co-authors Ronald A. Ash, Brandon Dupont, and LeAnne Coder was published in the Journal of Economic Psychology. They concluded that self-selection was the main reason for the paucity of women in information technology positions.
Of course, self-selection is not the only factor operating here. The interesting new finding is that self-selection may play a large role than previously imagined in the career choices of men and women. Also mentioned in the Boston Globe article is the research of Susan Pinker. She has found that in societies with the greatest amount of personal freedom, women opt for jobs not typically held by men, thus contributing to the disparity in occupational choice. Paradoxically, the proportions of women working such jobs is highest in countries with lower levels of individual freedom, and yes, in those societies the disparity in the jobs between men and women is less. Here is a link to a New York Times review of her book: The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap.
Gender studies are a fertile field for social scientists and present them with many opportunities for conducting research and for teasing out the interactions between multiple sources of causation. However, some of those sources may be due to internal factors such as personal preference.
An uniformed or naive researcher might draw the wrong conclusion when presented standardized test scores of 9th graders and 10th graders if a large proportion of the students dropped out of school when they turned 16 years of age. Assume that the 16 year olds who dropped out had lower standardized test scores and also assume that the law required them to attend school until they turned 16. In that scenario, the 10th grade AVERAGE scores would rise because the scores of the students who dropped out would no longer be included.
However, if a researcher did not know that the 9th and 10th grades were different to start with because of self-selection, he or she might look for another explanation. Using this example as an introduction, look at this recent news story from the Boston Globe about self-selection by gender in scientific, engineering, and technical fields.
This article examines a controversial area in contemporary culture, the relative imbalance of males over females in scientific, engineering, and technical fields. This imbalance may have many causes. As a recent New York Times article noted, gender discrimination and sexual harassment (both quid pro quo and hostile environment) are much more common in scientific, engineering, and technical fields.
The Boston Globe story, however, highlights the research of an economist, Joshua Rosenbloom of the University of Kansas. He decided to study men and women in the area of information technology. He and his co-authors found that men and women who enjoyed working with tools or machines were the most likely to choose a career in information technology. Also, people who enjoyed working with people turned out to be less likely to choose a career in information technology. His research, with co-authors Ronald A. Ash, Brandon Dupont, and LeAnne Coder was published in the Journal of Economic Psychology. They concluded that self-selection was the main reason for the paucity of women in information technology positions.
Of course, self-selection is not the only factor operating here. The interesting new finding is that self-selection may play a large role than previously imagined in the career choices of men and women. Also mentioned in the Boston Globe article is the research of Susan Pinker. She has found that in societies with the greatest amount of personal freedom, women opt for jobs not typically held by men, thus contributing to the disparity in occupational choice. Paradoxically, the proportions of women working such jobs is highest in countries with lower levels of individual freedom, and yes, in those societies the disparity in the jobs between men and women is less. Here is a link to a New York Times review of her book: The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women, and the Real Gender Gap.
Gender studies are a fertile field for social scientists and present them with many opportunities for conducting research and for teasing out the interactions between multiple sources of causation. However, some of those sources may be due to internal factors such as personal preference.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Another Batch of Research Ideas
My Experimental Psychology (PSY 402) students at Texas A&M University-Texarkana (where I occasionally serve as an adjunct instructor) have come up with the following ideas for research and completed prospectuses for them. I thought I'd share them with you:
- Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Among Iraqi War Veterans Completing One or More Tours
- Is There any Difference Between African-American and Caucasian Women in Weight and Health Consciousness?
- Education Level and Occurrence of Mental Illness Among Veterans: An Archival Study
- Domestic Violence: Women Violated by Men
- Who Faces More Job Stress, Correctional or Police Officers?
- Effortless Learning? Memory Capability in Sleep
- Religion and Infidelity Among African-American and Caucasian-American Males
- Effect of 8-Session Hypnosis Training on Chronic Pain Levels
- Effects of Childhood Sexual Abuse on Later Adolescent and Adult Sexual Functioning
- What Causes People to Physically Harm Themselves?
- Gender and Religion: Effects on Support of Capital Punishment
- Likelihood of Abused Children Becoming Child Abusers
- College Students' Self-Diagnosis of Depression: Results fromPsychology, Nursing, Business, and English Majors
- Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Prevalence in Rural and Urban Populations
- Presence of Music and Exercising Effort in Traditional College Students
- Does Perception of Old Age Change over the Lifespan?
- Likelihood of Suicide Among Adolescents Taking Prescription Antidepressant Medications
- Education Within a Correctional Facility: Does it Reduce Recidivism?
- Do People with Dyslexia Share the Same Personality Traits?
- Abused Children: Levels of Aggression Following Counseling
- Will Employees Quit Their Jobs if Employer Becomes a Tobacco-free Facility?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Concrete or Abstract?
Concrete examples or abstract examples? I have struggled with this issue in lectures and in writing. Usually, I opt for concrete example first followed by the more general, abstract case.
My rationale for this approach has been the results from the Wason Selection task. That logical problem (If P then Q, if Not P then Not Q is the solution to both cases) is solved much, much more often in its concrete form (~75% of the time) than in its abstract form (~5% of the time). Here is a site that explains this problem.
However, recent research from the Ohio State University (as reported in the New York Times) in mathematics education suggests that teaching the abstract first is far superior to teaching the concrete first in mathematics problems. This research was recently reported in the journal Science. The authors are Jennifer A. Kaminski, Vladimir M. Sloutsky, and Andrew F. Heckler.
To me, the discrepancy between the Wason Selection data and the Kaminski et. al data indicates that further research is needed. I agree that flying by the seat of one's pants is not a good idea here. It would be nice for teachers to know, once and for all, which strategy is best.
By the way, I sometimes use an abstract first strategy. Recall my earlier post on the Mastermind game. There I use an abstract first-first strategy to teach about main effects and interactions.
My rationale for this approach has been the results from the Wason Selection task. That logical problem (If P then Q, if Not P then Not Q is the solution to both cases) is solved much, much more often in its concrete form (~75% of the time) than in its abstract form (~5% of the time). Here is a site that explains this problem.
However, recent research from the Ohio State University (as reported in the New York Times) in mathematics education suggests that teaching the abstract first is far superior to teaching the concrete first in mathematics problems. This research was recently reported in the journal Science. The authors are Jennifer A. Kaminski, Vladimir M. Sloutsky, and Andrew F. Heckler.
To me, the discrepancy between the Wason Selection data and the Kaminski et. al data indicates that further research is needed. I agree that flying by the seat of one's pants is not a good idea here. It would be nice for teachers to know, once and for all, which strategy is best.
By the way, I sometimes use an abstract first strategy. Recall my earlier post on the Mastermind game. There I use an abstract first-first strategy to teach about main effects and interactions.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Kilo in Crisis
Here's a recent story from the Los Angeles Times.
It tells about how the various standard kilograms around the world are no longer standard. When these kilogram weights were checked against the standard kilogram in Paris (made of platinum-iridium), they no longer weighed the same.
Here is a link to a picture of the standard kilogram. The kilogram is the last physical standard that is still defined in reference to a physical object. Originally, the kilogram was defined as the mass of a cube of water with sides equal to 10 centimeters. No one knows why the standard kilograms are losing weight, but the loss has led to a search for alternative standards. One approach is to construct a very sensitive magnetic balance, another is to actually count the atoms of a particular element.
All other standard units are defined in other ways, without reference to physical objects. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines the other standards. CLICK HERE to see all of their definitions and the historical context that led to the definitions. The NIST's definitions of the meter, the second, and the candela are reproduced below.
"The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second." Originally, the meter was defined as 1/10,000,000 of a quarter of the earth’s circumference.
"The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cesium 133 atom." Originally, the second was defined as 1/86,400 of the mean solar day.
"The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 x 1012 hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1/683 watt per steradian." Originally, the candela was the light given off by a standard candle (candela is Latin for candle).
One of the fundamentals of science is measurement. As sciences became more and more developed, the need for precision became more acute. So, redefining the kilogram is a real crisis is science.
It tells about how the various standard kilograms around the world are no longer standard. When these kilogram weights were checked against the standard kilogram in Paris (made of platinum-iridium), they no longer weighed the same.
Here is a link to a picture of the standard kilogram. The kilogram is the last physical standard that is still defined in reference to a physical object. Originally, the kilogram was defined as the mass of a cube of water with sides equal to 10 centimeters. No one knows why the standard kilograms are losing weight, but the loss has led to a search for alternative standards. One approach is to construct a very sensitive magnetic balance, another is to actually count the atoms of a particular element.
All other standard units are defined in other ways, without reference to physical objects. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines the other standards. CLICK HERE to see all of their definitions and the historical context that led to the definitions. The NIST's definitions of the meter, the second, and the candela are reproduced below.
"The meter is the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second." Originally, the meter was defined as 1/10,000,000 of a quarter of the earth’s circumference.
"The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cesium 133 atom." Originally, the second was defined as 1/86,400 of the mean solar day.
"The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 x 1012 hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1/683 watt per steradian." Originally, the candela was the light given off by a standard candle (candela is Latin for candle).
One of the fundamentals of science is measurement. As sciences became more and more developed, the need for precision became more acute. So, redefining the kilogram is a real crisis is science.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
2009 Regional Psychology Association Meetings
In chapter 12 we discuss scientific meetings and more specifically, the meetings of the regional psychology associations.
Martha Boneau at APA just sent me the 2009 dates and locations of those meetings. Here they are:
2009 Meetings of the Regional Psychological Associations (sorted by date)
Feb 18-21, 2009
Southeastern Psychological Association (SEPA)
New Orleans, LA
http://www.sepaonline.com/
March 5-8, 2009
Eastern Psychological Association (EPA)
Pittsburgh, PA
http://www.easternpsychological.org/
April 2-4, 2009
Southwestern Psychological Association (SWPA)
San Antonio, TX
https://www.swpsych.org/
April 16-18, 2009
Rocky Mountain Psychological Association (RMPA)
Albuquerque, NM
http://www.rockymountainpsych.org/
April 23-26, 2009
Western Psychological Association (WPA)
Portland, OR
http://www.westernpsych.org/
April 30 - May 2, 2009
Midwestern Psychological Association (MPA)
Chicago, IL
http://www.midwesternpsych.org/
Oct 9-10, 2009
New England Psychological Association (NEPA)
Worcester, MA
http://www.nepa-info.org/
Martha Boneau at APA just sent me the 2009 dates and locations of those meetings. Here they are:
2009 Meetings of the Regional Psychological Associations (sorted by date)
Feb 18-21, 2009
Southeastern Psychological Association (SEPA)
New Orleans, LA
http://www.sepaonline.com/
March 5-8, 2009
Eastern Psychological Association (EPA)
Pittsburgh, PA
http://www.easternpsychological.org/
April 2-4, 2009
Southwestern Psychological Association (SWPA)
San Antonio, TX
https://www.swpsych.org/
April 16-18, 2009
Rocky Mountain Psychological Association (RMPA)
Albuquerque, NM
http://www.rockymountainpsych.org/
April 23-26, 2009
Western Psychological Association (WPA)
Portland, OR
http://www.westernpsych.org/
April 30 - May 2, 2009
Midwestern Psychological Association (MPA)
Chicago, IL
http://www.midwesternpsych.org/
Oct 9-10, 2009
New England Psychological Association (NEPA)
Worcester, MA
http://www.nepa-info.org/
Statistics: Then and Now
I must in a retrospective and nostalgic mood. I remember how I used to have to compute statistics back in graduate school. During my first year, I recall when the statistics class first walked into the department's calculator room. Imagine a room full of calculators that looked like the one below.
This is a Monroe brand rotary calculator. I doubt that I could use one today, but back then I learned to be pretty good at it. The calculations had to be recorded on large pieces of paper. I still have some of those calculations in my files. (But then, I also still have my first grade report cards too. I'm a bit of a pack rat.)
On the first day in the calculator room, we were all warned not to divide by zero. Recall that dividing any number by zero yields infinity. If a Monroe calculator was set to divide by zero, it would continue to chug until someone pulled the plug.
Before I went to graduate school, I invested in my own calculator, a Texas Instruments SR-10 model. It cost me $149, plus tax. The beauty of the SR-10, was that it could calculate square roots. Interestingly, I had to return my first SR-10; it had a missing decimal point in the display between the 1,000s and 10,000s. My roommate, an engineer, and I discovered the faulty decimal display when I could not figure out why my homework problem kept coming out wrong. Here is a picture of the SR-10. Note the square root button. The display was red LEDs. Here's a link to more information on the SR-10.
My roommate, the engineer, was an early adopter of a more expensive early calculator, the HP-35. He paid nearly $400 for it. The HP calculators used a different method for accepting numerical input: RPN or reverse Polish notation. I never liked having to use that system because it required me to learn a new way to think about math problems. Here is a link to a page on the HP-35.
The Texas Instrument calculators, on the other hand, used familiar algebraic rules for inputting data. I'm sure that alone led to many sales compared to the HP family.
Today, these calculator are only seen in museums. Statistical calculators, too, appeared and are still available today, but at much cheaper prices. Most statistical calculations now, however, are made on specific computer applications. SPSS, SAS, R, and Statistica are commonly used statistical computer applications.
It's interesting to me how quickly students (and faculty) adapt to new technologies. However, it seems that students are remarkably blasé about past technologies. So, I guess part of my job is to remind them.
This is a Monroe brand rotary calculator. I doubt that I could use one today, but back then I learned to be pretty good at it. The calculations had to be recorded on large pieces of paper. I still have some of those calculations in my files. (But then, I also still have my first grade report cards too. I'm a bit of a pack rat.)On the first day in the calculator room, we were all warned not to divide by zero. Recall that dividing any number by zero yields infinity. If a Monroe calculator was set to divide by zero, it would continue to chug until someone pulled the plug.
Before I went to graduate school, I invested in my own calculator, a Texas Instruments SR-10 model. It cost me $149, plus tax. The beauty of the SR-10, was that it could calculate square roots. Interestingly, I had to return my first SR-10; it had a missing decimal point in the display between the 1,000s and 10,000s. My roommate, an engineer, and I discovered the faulty decimal display when I could not figure out why my homework problem kept coming out wrong. Here is a picture of the SR-10. Note the square root button. The display was red LEDs. Here's a link to more information on the SR-10.My roommate, the engineer, was an early adopter of a more expensive early calculator, the HP-35. He paid nearly $400 for it. The HP calculators used a different method for accepting numerical input: RPN or reverse Polish notation. I never liked having to use that system because it required me to learn a new way to think about math problems. Here is a link to a page on the HP-35.
The Texas Instrument calculators, on the other hand, used familiar algebraic rules for inputting data. I'm sure that alone led to many sales compared to the HP family.
Today, these calculator are only seen in museums. Statistical calculators, too, appeared and are still available today, but at much cheaper prices. Most statistical calculations now, however, are made on specific computer applications. SPSS, SAS, R, and Statistica are commonly used statistical computer applications.
It's interesting to me how quickly students (and faculty) adapt to new technologies. However, it seems that students are remarkably blasé about past technologies. So, I guess part of my job is to remind them.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Taking Care of Rats and Pigeons: 1972-3
My last post reminded me of my undergraduate days and when I had the responsibility for the rat and pigeon lab at the University of Baltimore. The lab is no more, and that space is now an administrator's office, seems fair :-)
Our lab housed about a dozen albino rats and half as many pigeons. I was (and still am) allergic to rat dander, so I had to wear a filter mask. My job was to feed and water the animals and to clean up after them. For that, I earned minimum wage which was $2.40 an hour.
A couple of incidents still come to mind. One was the only day I was ever bitten by a rat. That happened on the day the experimental psychology class first came to meet their rats. In retrospect, it seems obvious what happened. The rats were all nervous, probably in response to the students' own anxiety, and one took it out on me. He got my left index finger. Fortunately, his upper teeth hit my fingernail, so only his lower teeth broke the skin. For a few seconds, I had a half pound white rat attached to my finger while blood streamed everywhere. After he let go and fell, I caught him and put him back in his cage. Then, I got some first aid.
The other incident involved a pigeon. I learned how to catch a loose pigeon. The lab was windowless by design, so I could control the amount of light in the room. So, one of the pigeons got loose one day and was flying around the room. Fortunately, I remembered my mentor's advice, "Wait for him to land, then turn out the lights, sneak up on him and grab him." So, I watched and when the pigeon landed on the lens of the overhead projector, I turned off the lights and slowly approached. Slowly, I placed my hands around where I imagined him to be and closed the distance between dexter and sinister (my right and left hands for the Latin-impaired) and grabbed him. Back to the light switch, one pigeon nabbed.
Pigeons, possessing eyes with cones only, are effectively night blind. So, once the lights go out they are very unlikely to move. Ahh, the good? old days.
Our lab housed about a dozen albino rats and half as many pigeons. I was (and still am) allergic to rat dander, so I had to wear a filter mask. My job was to feed and water the animals and to clean up after them. For that, I earned minimum wage which was $2.40 an hour.
A couple of incidents still come to mind. One was the only day I was ever bitten by a rat. That happened on the day the experimental psychology class first came to meet their rats. In retrospect, it seems obvious what happened. The rats were all nervous, probably in response to the students' own anxiety, and one took it out on me. He got my left index finger. Fortunately, his upper teeth hit my fingernail, so only his lower teeth broke the skin. For a few seconds, I had a half pound white rat attached to my finger while blood streamed everywhere. After he let go and fell, I caught him and put him back in his cage. Then, I got some first aid.
The other incident involved a pigeon. I learned how to catch a loose pigeon. The lab was windowless by design, so I could control the amount of light in the room. So, one of the pigeons got loose one day and was flying around the room. Fortunately, I remembered my mentor's advice, "Wait for him to land, then turn out the lights, sneak up on him and grab him." So, I watched and when the pigeon landed on the lens of the overhead projector, I turned off the lights and slowly approached. Slowly, I placed my hands around where I imagined him to be and closed the distance between dexter and sinister (my right and left hands for the Latin-impaired) and grabbed him. Back to the light switch, one pigeon nabbed.
Pigeons, possessing eyes with cones only, are effectively night blind. So, once the lights go out they are very unlikely to move. Ahh, the good? old days.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Animal Research: Then and Now
You may have noticed that we say very little about animal research in our text. That is strange because we both come from animal research backgrounds. Much has changed in animal research over the course of our careers. There is much less animal research going on in psychology than there was 40 years ago.
There are several reasons why animal research is less common now. The most obvious, perhaps, is the rise of the animal rights community, notably PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and similar groups. I attended the 1990 APA convention where PETA exhibited a float outside of the Washington Hilton Hotel depicting the horrors of animal research. At that same meeting, demonstrators disrupted presentations, including one by Neil Miller at which I was in the audience.
Another reason for the decline of animal research in psychology is money and still another is more outside regulation. The price of animals has risen as has the price of housing and caring for them. In addition, new regulations (which we cover in chapter 3) have made it more difficult to maintain existing animal facilities and nearly impossible to start new ones.
Sally Boysen's chimpanzee research is an apt example. (See this link to Scientific American Frontiers for more information.) Her research, valuable as it was, ended up a victim to costs, regulations, and more. Her university closed down the lab and sent the animals to Texas. Boysen chained herself to the door of the lab before the move, but that action, dramatic as it was, changed nothing. Here is a news story about the closing of her lab.
The impetus for this post, however, is an upcoming book: The Animal Research War by P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker, to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in May 2008. Here is a link to the publisher's page about that book. Here is an link to an excerpt, you may have to register (for free) before being allowed to read it. If you are interested in animal research, I recommend the excerpt highly.
All things change, including psychology. Animal behavioral research is still valuable, I think. Certainly, the assault from PETA and others forced changes too. Some of those changes were probably needed. For instance, undergraduates taking physiological psychology courses probably don't need to sacrifice and dissect a rat's brain in order to learn how brains work. Obviously, graduate students in physiological psychology do need to learn such techniques. The winds of change blow and we usually don't know what kinds of changes they will bring. Less animal research in psychology was one of them however.
There are several reasons why animal research is less common now. The most obvious, perhaps, is the rise of the animal rights community, notably PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and similar groups. I attended the 1990 APA convention where PETA exhibited a float outside of the Washington Hilton Hotel depicting the horrors of animal research. At that same meeting, demonstrators disrupted presentations, including one by Neil Miller at which I was in the audience.
Another reason for the decline of animal research in psychology is money and still another is more outside regulation. The price of animals has risen as has the price of housing and caring for them. In addition, new regulations (which we cover in chapter 3) have made it more difficult to maintain existing animal facilities and nearly impossible to start new ones.
Sally Boysen's chimpanzee research is an apt example. (See this link to Scientific American Frontiers for more information.) Her research, valuable as it was, ended up a victim to costs, regulations, and more. Her university closed down the lab and sent the animals to Texas. Boysen chained herself to the door of the lab before the move, but that action, dramatic as it was, changed nothing. Here is a news story about the closing of her lab.
The impetus for this post, however, is an upcoming book: The Animal Research War by P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker, to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in May 2008. Here is a link to the publisher's page about that book. Here is an link to an excerpt, you may have to register (for free) before being allowed to read it. If you are interested in animal research, I recommend the excerpt highly.
All things change, including psychology. Animal behavioral research is still valuable, I think. Certainly, the assault from PETA and others forced changes too. Some of those changes were probably needed. For instance, undergraduates taking physiological psychology courses probably don't need to sacrifice and dissect a rat's brain in order to learn how brains work. Obviously, graduate students in physiological psychology do need to learn such techniques. The winds of change blow and we usually don't know what kinds of changes they will bring. Less animal research in psychology was one of them however.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Participant Observation vs. Undercover Investigations
Whenever I teach about participant observation (chapter 10), I nearly always get a question about how participant observation research compares with police undercover investigations.
The first thing I say is that the goal of research is to collect empirical data for scientific purposes. Whereas the goal of an undercover investigation is to collect evidence of a crime. Thus, at the outset there is a big difference in the goals of each.
In participant observation, an IRB must first review the prospectus of the research and decide whether any ethical problems exist. If ethical problems exist, the IRB must provide some guidelines on how to handle them. I like to tell the story of Jim Quinn, a member of the Department of Rehabilitation, Social Work, and Addictions at North Texas State. For his PhD research, he joined the Bandidos motorcycle gang in Miami. That research was also reported in his article:
Quinn, J. F. (1987). Sex roles and hedonism among members of`outlaw' motorcycle clubs" Deviant Behavior, 8, 47-63.
He had to cut his research short because he became convinced that if he remained in the club he would become party to a crime. Ethically, a scientist cannot use the conduct of research as an excuse to participate or be party to criminal acts.
Let's now look at undercover investigations. Recall, the goal here is to find evidence of criminal activity and to, later, prosecute it. Ethics is a concern here too. What are the permissible activities that an undercover officer may participate in? Can the officer smoke a joint? Obviously, officers must lie in order to establish a relationship with a criminal. In sex crime cases, like prostitution, how far can an officer allow sexual contact? Can an officer threaten someone into committing a crime? Can an officer continually offer criminal temptation to a potential criminal? The ethical line seems fuzzier and broader to me here than in participant observation.
All of the questions above are not really part of a typical psychology research course. However, many of the activities that participant observers and undercover investigators take part in are similar. Just remember that their goals are quite different.
The first thing I say is that the goal of research is to collect empirical data for scientific purposes. Whereas the goal of an undercover investigation is to collect evidence of a crime. Thus, at the outset there is a big difference in the goals of each.
In participant observation, an IRB must first review the prospectus of the research and decide whether any ethical problems exist. If ethical problems exist, the IRB must provide some guidelines on how to handle them. I like to tell the story of Jim Quinn, a member of the Department of Rehabilitation, Social Work, and Addictions at North Texas State. For his PhD research, he joined the Bandidos motorcycle gang in Miami. That research was also reported in his article:
Quinn, J. F. (1987). Sex roles and hedonism among members of`outlaw' motorcycle clubs" Deviant Behavior, 8, 47-63.
He had to cut his research short because he became convinced that if he remained in the club he would become party to a crime. Ethically, a scientist cannot use the conduct of research as an excuse to participate or be party to criminal acts.
Let's now look at undercover investigations. Recall, the goal here is to find evidence of criminal activity and to, later, prosecute it. Ethics is a concern here too. What are the permissible activities that an undercover officer may participate in? Can the officer smoke a joint? Obviously, officers must lie in order to establish a relationship with a criminal. In sex crime cases, like prostitution, how far can an officer allow sexual contact? Can an officer threaten someone into committing a crime? Can an officer continually offer criminal temptation to a potential criminal? The ethical line seems fuzzier and broader to me here than in participant observation.
All of the questions above are not really part of a typical psychology research course. However, many of the activities that participant observers and undercover investigators take part in are similar. Just remember that their goals are quite different.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Earliest Memories? The phenonenon of childhood amnesia
Here's a research question that has long intrigued me, a person's oldest memory. My oldest memory is from about three years of age. We lived in Bogota, Colombia at the time. I remember looking out the window at the stairway landing at a distant Andean peak that, apparently, was only visible every now and then because of the weather.
As a parent, I have informally tested my children from time to time about their memories. Once, I asked my oldest if he remembered visiting the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum a year after his last visit. He was about five years old at the time and he did not remember. I probed, and asked if he remembered what animal was just inside the main doors in the museum's rotunda. He still did not remember.
Here is what he did not remember, the giant elephant:
When discussing memory in class, I often ask students to recall their oldest memories. Sometimes the answers are quite extreme. Some students claim to recall salient events before they turned two years of age, while others are at a loss to recall anything before age five.
With the above as introduction, I found Wang's recent article quite apropos. Its title is: Where Does Our Past Begin? A Sociocultural Perspective on the Phenomenon of Childhood Amnesia. Here is a link to it.
Wang summarizes the data on childhood amnesia. Looks at theoretical attempts to explain it and proposes that childhood amnesia may vary socioculturally.
As a parent, I have informally tested my children from time to time about their memories. Once, I asked my oldest if he remembered visiting the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum a year after his last visit. He was about five years old at the time and he did not remember. I probed, and asked if he remembered what animal was just inside the main doors in the museum's rotunda. He still did not remember.
Here is what he did not remember, the giant elephant:
When discussing memory in class, I often ask students to recall their oldest memories. Sometimes the answers are quite extreme. Some students claim to recall salient events before they turned two years of age, while others are at a loss to recall anything before age five.With the above as introduction, I found Wang's recent article quite apropos. Its title is: Where Does Our Past Begin? A Sociocultural Perspective on the Phenomenon of Childhood Amnesia. Here is a link to it.
Wang summarizes the data on childhood amnesia. Looks at theoretical attempts to explain it and proposes that childhood amnesia may vary socioculturally.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Arkansas Symposium for Psychology Students
The Arkansas Symposium for Psychology Students (ASPS) will hold its 24th annual meeting on April 18-19, 2008 at Arkansas State University and our own Chris Spatz will be the keynote speaker.
ASPS was founded in 1984 by Randy Smith and Ralph McKenna. The germ of their inspiration came while walking down Bourbon St. during the 1983 meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association. The first meeting was held at Hendrix College in 1984 followed by a second meeting at Ouachita Baptist University the following year. See below for a list of the locations where ASPS has been held over the years.
That second meeting was where Chris and I first met. In fact, we roomed together. So, we have been working together for a long time now.
Here are the previous sites and keynote speakers of the Arkansas Symposium for Psychology Students:
McKenna and Smith envisioned a low-stress, collegial conference where students and faculty could come together and celebrate research in psychology. At ASPS, all papers are accepted and there are no competitions, all in the service of friendly gathering and a good time.
ASPS was founded in 1984 by Randy Smith and Ralph McKenna. The germ of their inspiration came while walking down Bourbon St. during the 1983 meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association. The first meeting was held at Hendrix College in 1984 followed by a second meeting at Ouachita Baptist University the following year. See below for a list of the locations where ASPS has been held over the years.
That second meeting was where Chris and I first met. In fact, we roomed together. So, we have been working together for a long time now.
Here are the previous sites and keynote speakers of the Arkansas Symposium for Psychology Students:
1985 | Hendrix College | March 29-30 | |
| 1986 | Ouachita Baptist University | April 11-12 | Steve Davis |
| 1987 | Southern Arkansas University | April 3-4 | Arthur J. Riopelle |
| 1988 | Arkansas Tech University | April 8-9 | Richard Dana |
| 1989 | Arkansas State University | April 7-8 | E. John Capaldi, Michael Prince |
| 1990 | Henderson State University | April 6-7 | Nate Azrin |
| 1991 | University of Arkansas-Fayetteville | April 5-6 | Elizabeth Loftus |
| 1992 | Hendrix College | April 3-4 | Charles Brewer |
| 1993 | Ouachita Baptist University | April 2-3 | Mark Ware |
| 1994 | Southern Arkansas University | April 8-9 | Bill Hill |
| 1995 | University of Arkansas-Monticello | April 7-8 | Richard Miller |
| 1996 | Arkansas Tech University | April 12-13 | Craig Carson |
| 1997 | University of Central Arkansas | April 11-12 | Mark Ware |
| 1998 | University of Arkansas-Fayetteville | April 3-4 | Phillip Costanzo |
| 1999 | Harding University | April 16-17 | Dave Myers |
| 2000 | Arkansas State University | April 7-8 | Sarah Boysen |
| 2001 | Hendrix College | April 6-7 | Charles Brewer |
| 2002 | Ouachita Baptist University | April 12-13 | Ludy Benjamin |
| 2003 | Southern Arkansas University | April 4-5 | Elizabeth Yost Hammer |
| 2004 | University of Arkansas-Fayetteville | April 4-5 | Brett Pelham |
| 2005 | Arkansas Tech University | April 8-9 | Sharon Roberts |
| 2006 | University of Central Arkansas | April 7-8 | John Harsh |
| 2007 | University of Arkansas-Monticello | April 13-14 | no invited speaker |
| 2008 | Arkansas State University | April 19-19 | Chris Spatz |
McKenna and Smith envisioned a low-stress, collegial conference where students and faculty could come together and celebrate research in psychology. At ASPS, all papers are accepted and there are no competitions, all in the service of friendly gathering and a good time.
Monday, February 25, 2008
By JoVE, I think they've got it.
JoVE is the acronym for the new Journal of Visualized Experiments. This biological Web site displays research protocols using video, a kind of scientific YouTube.
Here is a blog entry about Moshe Pritsker, the CEO of JoVE. He discusses new deals to distribute the videos and how the cost to produce them has increased. At present, JoVE has about 200 videos. Pritsker wants to become a purveyor of biological methods videos.
JoVE is yet another example of how technology, research, and teaching interact. Video is a powerful medium. Combining video with the Web (a la YouTube) makes it possible to distribute video widely.
In chapter 12 (p. 386), we discuss another use of media as a communication medium, that is e-posters. We anticipate that many more useful applications of technology will appear over the next few years. Successful teachers and successful students will adapt to and use these new methods.
Now we need a Web site for visualizing psychological methods and protocols.
Here is a blog entry about Moshe Pritsker, the CEO of JoVE. He discusses new deals to distribute the videos and how the cost to produce them has increased. At present, JoVE has about 200 videos. Pritsker wants to become a purveyor of biological methods videos.
JoVE is yet another example of how technology, research, and teaching interact. Video is a powerful medium. Combining video with the Web (a la YouTube) makes it possible to distribute video widely.
In chapter 12 (p. 386), we discuss another use of media as a communication medium, that is e-posters. We anticipate that many more useful applications of technology will appear over the next few years. Successful teachers and successful students will adapt to and use these new methods.
Now we need a Web site for visualizing psychological methods and protocols.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Ethics Course Topics
C. Neal Stewart and J. Lannett Edwards recently taught a graduate level ethics course, Research Ethics for the Life Sciences. See The Scientist for a longer account account and for more detail on their course. See this link for a copy of their syllabus.
I thought their list of topics was instructive:
Their recommendations for teaching such a course also bear attention:
I thought their list of topics was instructive:
- plagiarism
- authorship
- grantsmanship*
- peer review
- research misconduct
- image fraud
- whistle-blowing*
- conflicts of interest
- patenting*
- women in science* (as a special topic)
Their recommendations for teaching such a course also bear attention:
- Team teach
- Use case studies
- Use practical examples
- Keep it light
- Keep class size small
- Focus on ethics not morality
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Nobel Advice from Baltimore
The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported on David Baltimore's advice to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
He said that scientists should:
In our book, we promote the unity of teaching and research and believe in creating small but realistic environments for our students to learn in. Naturally, we demand excellence too and believe in the importance of academic freedom. Concentrating resources has never been a problem for us, we have so little to start with.
He said that scientists should:
- Demand excellence
- Concentrate resources
- Create small environments
- Maintain the unity of teaching and research
- Make academic freedom crucial
In our book, we promote the unity of teaching and research and believe in creating small but realistic environments for our students to learn in. Naturally, we demand excellence too and believe in the importance of academic freedom. Concentrating resources has never been a problem for us, we have so little to start with.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Engineering: Past and Present
In chapter 1 we discuss engineering and its relationship to science. Below is a list of the 20th century's greatest engineering achievements from the National Academy of Engineering.
Great Engineering Achievements
Tomorrow's Challenges
Great Engineering Achievements
- Electrification
- Automobile
- Airplane
- Water Supply and Distribution
- Electronics
- Radio and Television
- Agricultural Mechanization
- Computers
- Telephone
- Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
- Highways
- Spacecraft
- Internet
- Imaging
- Household Appliances
- Health Technologies
- Petroleum and Petrochemical Technologies
- Laser and Fiber Optics
- Nuclear Technologies
- High-performance Materials
Tomorrow's Challenges
- Make solar energy economical
- Provide energy from fusion
- Develop carbon sequestration methods
- Manage the nitrogen cycle
- Provide access to clean water
- Restore and improve urban infrastructure
- Advance health informatics
- Engineer better medicines
- Reverse-engineer the brain
- Prevent nuclear terror
- Secure cyberspace
- Enhance virtual reality
- Advance personalized learning
- Engineer the tools of scientific discovery
Friday, February 15, 2008
Low blood sugar is deadly?
A portion of an ongoing diabetes study was recently halted when one of the groups experienced 54 more deaths than another. The group with the higher number of deaths was composed of diabetes patients who were asked to radically lower their blood sugar levels. The comparison group was also lowering their blood sugar levels, but not as much.
Nothing in the previous literature suggested that lowering blood sugar could be dangerous for diabetics, provided they did not do so abruptly.
Thus, the researchers deemed it necessary, on ethical grounds, to halt the part of the study where patients were attempting to lower their blood sugar levels to near the levels of a normal, non-diabetic person.
Read the New York Times article for more information. This study shows the necessity of monitoring data collection and making adjustments to protocols as necessary.
Nothing in the previous literature suggested that lowering blood sugar could be dangerous for diabetics, provided they did not do so abruptly.
Thus, the researchers deemed it necessary, on ethical grounds, to halt the part of the study where patients were attempting to lower their blood sugar levels to near the levels of a normal, non-diabetic person.
Read the New York Times article for more information. This study shows the necessity of monitoring data collection and making adjustments to protocols as necessary.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Get the Lead Out
Here's another one of those old wives tales, except this time it turns out to be true. The tale is: Don't drink hot water from the tap. It turns out the old wives were right, this time.
A New York Times story, details why drinking hot water is dangerous. Hot water is more likely to contain lead, even in new homes. The hot water dissolves lead and other deleterious substances found in water pipes. The story points out that the risk is small, but why take chances.
More detailed information on lead and how to prevent lead poisoning can be found at the EPA's site on lead.
A New York Times story, details why drinking hot water is dangerous. Hot water is more likely to contain lead, even in new homes. The hot water dissolves lead and other deleterious substances found in water pipes. The story points out that the risk is small, but why take chances.
More detailed information on lead and how to prevent lead poisoning can be found at the EPA's site on lead.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Metaphors for Undergraduate Research
I put a lot of stock in teaching research as a process. Planning research is an important part of the process and students often wish to begin collecting data as quickly as possible. Of course, careful planning is critical to the success of any research project and many of our students have to be reined back as they champ at the bit to start.
I used a Sisyphean metaphor for research originally, but students did not like it because it made research look like an impossible task. After they made their objections clear to me, I changed the metaphor to a more pleasant one.
Here is the original, not-so-pleasant view of research:
Like poor Sisyphus in Greek mythology, students saw their research efforts as an impossible task. The upslope represented the planning phases of research, while getting the ball to roll down the hill represented the collection and analysis of data followed by writing, presentation, and publishing.
So, I searched for a better metaphor. Something that indicated fun. Hmmmm.....
I kept the hill, but changed the task. Sledding is fun, but you have to get to the top of the hill first. On the figure on the right, I have labeled some of the specific tasks in research planning. The metaphor also reveals the timeline differences between planning research and conducting research.
Only after coming to grips with all of the aspects of research planning and testing them (in the Pilot Study), are researchers ready to collect data and undertake the remaining steps. Like sledding down the hill, these steps come at a faster clip than the steps in planning.
Students are pleasantly surprised once they begin to collect data. That process is usually faster than they expect. Carefully planned data analysis also can happen quickly. Sometimes it only takes a few minutes after the raw data are entered into a computer program. As deadlines loom, drafting and editing also speed by. The few minutes it takes to present a research report scarcely convey the long hours it took to get there.
For students who elect to publish their data, much more work awaits them. Maybe we can think of those efforts as climbing the next hill.
I used a Sisyphean metaphor for research originally, but students did not like it because it made research look like an impossible task. After they made their objections clear to me, I changed the metaphor to a more pleasant one.
Here is the original, not-so-pleasant view of research:
Like poor Sisyphus in Greek mythology, students saw their research efforts as an impossible task. The upslope represented the planning phases of research, while getting the ball to roll down the hill represented the collection and analysis of data followed by writing, presentation, and publishing.So, I searched for a better metaphor. Something that indicated fun. Hmmmm.....
I kept the hill, but changed the task. Sledding is fun, but you have to get to the top of the hill first. On the figure on the right, I have labeled some of the specific tasks in research planning. The metaphor also reveals the timeline differences between planning research and conducting research.
Only after coming to grips with all of the aspects of research planning and testing them (in the Pilot Study), are researchers ready to collect data and undertake the remaining steps. Like sledding down the hill, these steps come at a faster clip than the steps in planning.
Students are pleasantly surprised once they begin to collect data. That process is usually faster than they expect. Carefully planned data analysis also can happen quickly. Sometimes it only takes a few minutes after the raw data are entered into a computer program. As deadlines loom, drafting and editing also speed by. The few minutes it takes to present a research report scarcely convey the long hours it took to get there.
For students who elect to publish their data, much more work awaits them. Maybe we can think of those efforts as climbing the next hill.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Erratum-Page 286
Here is the first of what we hope will prove to be a very short list of errata.
Shawn Powell of Casper College wrote:
"I have a question on a formula and significance test results shown on page 286. What was the df for MS residual and the number of levels of the IV used to arrive at the probability figures near the bottom of the page. Using the charts provided on pages 449 and 450 (which by the way are shown as "-" in the text on page 286) I used a df of 18 and an IV level of 2 and arrived at .05 = 2.97 and .01 = 4.07. If this is correct then the values to the right of the formula don't match up with the results shown."
Chris Spatz responded:
"To determine correct HSD critical values, the number of levels of the IV is the number in the original ANOVA problem rather than the number in the HSD test. Thus, for the HSD tests on page 286, the number is 3 and not the 2 in the HSD test. I'm afraid that our last paragraph on the page really needs some improving. Our only clue to you to use 3 is the word ANOVA. Upon re-reading, it is clear that the insertion of the numbers needed for the critical values (df = 18 and number of levels = 3) would improve the communication of what we actually did."
In addition, there is a typographical error in the last paragraph of page 286. The first two sentences should read:
"To interpret HSD values, use Table C.5 in appendix C. Critical values for alpha = .05 are on page 449 (missing page number in original); those for alpha = .01 are on page 450 (missing page number in the original)."
Our thanks to Dr. Powell and his sharp eyes. If anyone else spots similar issues please contact us.
Shawn Powell of Casper College wrote:
"I have a question on a formula and significance test results shown on page 286. What was the df for MS residual and the number of levels of the IV used to arrive at the probability figures near the bottom of the page. Using the charts provided on pages 449 and 450 (which by the way are shown as "-" in the text on page 286) I used a df of 18 and an IV level of 2 and arrived at .05 = 2.97 and .01 = 4.07. If this is correct then the values to the right of the formula don't match up with the results shown."
Chris Spatz responded:
"To determine correct HSD critical values, the number of levels of the IV is the number in the original ANOVA problem rather than the number in the HSD test. Thus, for the HSD tests on page 286, the number is 3 and not the 2 in the HSD test. I'm afraid that our last paragraph on the page really needs some improving. Our only clue to you to use 3 is the word ANOVA. Upon re-reading, it is clear that the insertion of the numbers needed for the critical values (df = 18 and number of levels = 3) would improve the communication of what we actually did."
In addition, there is a typographical error in the last paragraph of page 286. The first two sentences should read:
"To interpret HSD values, use Table C.5 in appendix C. Critical values for alpha = .05 are on page 449 (missing page number in original); those for alpha = .01 are on page 450 (missing page number in the original)."
Our thanks to Dr. Powell and his sharp eyes. If anyone else spots similar issues please contact us.
Monday, January 7, 2008
NHST
On page 169 in an In the Know box, we briefly discuss the history and current status of null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST). Naturally, we still teach NHST basics but we also emphasize newer methods such as exploring the data and using confidence intervals.
So, it was interesting to find what Irene Pepperberg had to say about NHST. You may recall Dr. Pepperberg as the psychologist who found and trained Alex, the African gray parrot, to communicate using a limited vocabulary. (See the earlier blog entry, "You be good, see you tomorrow..." where we covered Alex's death.)
Pepperberg was one of 165 scientists and others who had responded to Edge's 2008 question: What have you changed your mind about? Why? In her reply, she said she had changed her mind about NHST (although she does not refer to it as NHST, she calls it "the classic scientific method.")
She gives three reasons for her change of mind. The first is that she now realizes the importance of observation before forming testable hypotheses. The second is that some important and interesting questions about psychology do not lend themselves to easy conversion to testable hypotheses. The third is that she believes too many scientists, because of their methods training, end up seeking to prove hypotheses rather than testing them.
Here is the link to her full response.
Also, here are links to responses by other psychologists to the same question: David Buss, Howard Gardner, Diane Halpern, Daniel Kahneman, Stephen Kosslyn, and Martin Seligman. Many other scientists, thinkers, and celebrities also responded.
So, it was interesting to find what Irene Pepperberg had to say about NHST. You may recall Dr. Pepperberg as the psychologist who found and trained Alex, the African gray parrot, to communicate using a limited vocabulary. (See the earlier blog entry, "You be good, see you tomorrow..." where we covered Alex's death.)
Pepperberg was one of 165 scientists and others who had responded to Edge's 2008 question: What have you changed your mind about? Why? In her reply, she said she had changed her mind about NHST (although she does not refer to it as NHST, she calls it "the classic scientific method.")
She gives three reasons for her change of mind. The first is that she now realizes the importance of observation before forming testable hypotheses. The second is that some important and interesting questions about psychology do not lend themselves to easy conversion to testable hypotheses. The third is that she believes too many scientists, because of their methods training, end up seeking to prove hypotheses rather than testing them.
Here is the link to her full response.
Also, here are links to responses by other psychologists to the same question: David Buss, Howard Gardner, Diane Halpern, Daniel Kahneman, Stephen Kosslyn, and Martin Seligman. Many other scientists, thinkers, and celebrities also responded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
