The thing about my way of teaching stats is that my cool, novel examples get old really fast. Like, pop culture is on a thirty-day cycle. Anyway, YEARS ago, 2014 to be exact, I blogged about illustrating bimodal data distributions using baby name data from the Social Security Administration. Specifically, when an older name comes back into vogue, it has a bimodal distribution when you plot time on the X axis. I stand by this example. However, all of the data illustrations come from 2014. When our traditionally aged college students were 6 or 7. Which makes this example feel a little stale. However, here is some data, courtesy of Redditor fevaah , showing old names that are back in vogue through 2025 ! And Eleanor, Violet, Nora, and Hazel are here, illustrating bimodal distributions for a new generation. If you used my old baby-name data, this is a quick, easy refresh for your lectures (or a fun new addition if you didn't). If this idea was help...
Here is a great example of several different topics, featuring an engaging, interactive map created by Time magazine AND using data from a Journal of Personality and Social Psychology article.
Essentially, the authors of the original article gave the Big Five personality scale to folks all over the US. They broke down the results by state. Then Time created an interactive map of the US in order to display the data.
How to use in class:
1) The website is interactive in two ways:
a) It includes the short-form version of the Big Five scale. If you complete it, it returns both your results as well as the state that best matches your personality (I match with Indiana).
b) If you cursor over any state in the map, it presents you with the average score on each of the Big Five for that state. It also presents you with n-size for the sample used for that state as well how that state-ranked for each personality trait in comparison with all fifty states. This gives you a chance to review rank order and sample size as well as mean.
2) Turn this into an ANOVA example. Yes, the color-coding on the map suggests some regional differences, but do they actually pan out when one conducts an ANOVA? Below, I've provided neuroticism data by region so you can use it in class. It is coded such that 1 = West, 2 = South, 3 = Northeast, 4 = Midwest.
Essentially, the authors of the original article gave the Big Five personality scale to folks all over the US. They broke down the results by state. Then Time created an interactive map of the US in order to display the data.
 |
| http://time.com/7612/americas-mood-map-an-interactive-guide-to-the-united-states-of-attitude/ |
How to use in class:
1) The website is interactive in two ways:
a) It includes the short-form version of the Big Five scale. If you complete it, it returns both your results as well as the state that best matches your personality (I match with Indiana).
b) If you cursor over any state in the map, it presents you with the average score on each of the Big Five for that state. It also presents you with n-size for the sample used for that state as well how that state-ranked for each personality trait in comparison with all fifty states. This gives you a chance to review rank order and sample size as well as mean.
2) Turn this into an ANOVA example. Yes, the color-coding on the map suggests some regional differences, but do they actually pan out when one conducts an ANOVA? Below, I've provided neuroticism data by region so you can use it in class. It is coded such that 1 = West, 2 = South, 3 = Northeast, 4 = Midwest.
PS: Here is the data, with my regions added, in JASP, SPSS, Excel, and .CSV formats.
Spoiler alert: It is statistically significant, but not all regions vary from all other regions. Additionally, there is some marginal significance in the post-hocs that you can discuss.
5) If you want to ease your statistics babies into a fo' realz, peer-reviewed article after they play around with the pretty, interactive data, here is the original publication:
Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D., Jokela, M., Stillwell, D. J., Kosinski, M., & Potter, J. (2013). Divided we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, social, and health correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 996-1012.
Spoiler alert: It is statistically significant, but not all regions vary from all other regions. Additionally, there is some marginal significance in the post-hocs that you can discuss.
| State | Regions | Neuroticism |
| California | 1 | 39.1 |
| Nevada | 1 | 44 |
| Utah | 1 | 30.4 |
| Oregon | 1 | 39.5 |
| Washington | 1 | 36.9 |
| Idaho | 1 | 44.2 |
| Florida | 2 | 40.8 |
| Georgia | 2 | 38 |
| Alabama | 2 | 48.7 |
| Mississippi | 2 | 52 |
| Louisiana | 2 | 60.4 |
| Arkansas | 2 | 56.2 |
| Tennessee | 2 | 49 |
| Pennsylvania | 3 | 61.4 |
| New Jersey | 3 | 56.4 |
| New York | 3 | 62.7 |
| Connecticut | 3 | 53.4 |
| Massachusetts | 3 | 63.8 |
| Vermont | 3 | 55.8 |
| Illinois | 4 | 51.2 |
| Indiana | 4 | 59.3 |
| Iowa | 4 | 49.1 |
| Minnesota | 4 | 43.4 |
| Nebraska | 4 | 41.6 |
5) If you want to ease your statistics babies into a fo' realz, peer-reviewed article after they play around with the pretty, interactive data, here is the original publication:
Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D., Jokela, M., Stillwell, D. J., Kosinski, M., & Potter, J. (2013). Divided we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, social, and health correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 996-1012.