Conflict of interest statement: I am slightly shorter than the average American woman. But I'm adorable, so I score low on the Dark Triad?? This blog post started with me giggling at click-bait headlines, but THEN I realized this is one of those rare articles that use data analyses that we teach in Psych Stats. The journey began when I saw this on Twitter: Hilarious, right? Not to be outdone, the NY Post ALSO needed to cover this study:   https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2023/02/27/short-people-more-likely-to-be-psychopaths-study/amp/ I'm wheezing. Immediately, this was a great example of clickbait reporting. The research used The Dark Triad as the theoretical underpinning, and The Dark Triad is like what Mindfulness was 10 years ago in psych research. It is just everywhere. BUT...then I realized this is a very easy-to-read study that you could share with advanced UGs, no problem. What does the original research state? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

 I found this Tweet, which leads to a brief report on BBC. A recent report from the World Obesity Federation shows COVID death rates are higher in countries where more than half the population is overweight. Cause and effect, or bad statistics? @TimHarford and @d_spiegel explore - with some maths from me. You can listen on @BBCSounds https://t.co/hevepmz8RC — stuart mcdonald (@ActuaryByDay) March 14, 2021 The BBC has a show called "More or Less," and they explained a recent research finding connecting obesity to COVID 19 deaths.  Here is the original research study . Here is a pop treatment of the original study . For more stats news, you can follow  "More or Less" on Twitter . And they cram, like, a half dozen lessons in this story. It is amazing. I've tried to highlight some of the topics touched upon in this story. How can you use it in class? I think it would be a good final exam question. You could have your students listen to the story, and highlight ...

One of my big pedagogy concerns, as a psychologist who teaches psychology majors, is this: Are we explicitly drawing the links between psychological science and ALL of the other sciences, and the fact that many of the lessons they learn in their psychology classes apply to other sciences?  I think this is an issue in statistics. I always emphasize that I do not simply teach statistics for psychologists: I am teaching them statistics, full stop. I think we also have to emphasize to our majors that the psychology research process is, in many ways, just the broad research process use in science. As such, our lessons aren't just teaching them major-specific content, but we are teaching them information that leaves them better prepared to interpret scientific research they encounter.  This includes a potential ugly part of the research process: Bad science reporting via over-hyped research press releases.  As such, I present this great piece from CNN, "Science by press release...

This is a fine example of using misleading statistics to try and make an argument. USA Today tweeted out this graphic , related to some data that was collected by some firm. There appear to be a number of method issues with this data, so a number of ways to use this in your class: 1) False Dichotomy:  Survey response options should be mutually exclusive. I think there are two types of muddled dichotomies with this data: a) What is "essential"? When my kids were younger, I had an online subscription for diapers. Those were absolutely essential and I received a discount on my order since it was a subscription. However, according to this survey dichotomy, are they an indulgence since they were a subscription that originated online. b) Many purchases fall into multiple categories. Did the survey creators "double-dip" as to pad each mean and push the data towards it's $18K conclusion? Were participants clear that "drinks out with frien...

In my Honors Statistics class, we have days devoted to discussing thorny issues surround statistics. One of these days is dedicated to the disconnect between science and science reporting in popular media. I have blogged about this issue before and use many of these blog posts to guide this discussion: This video by John Oliver is hilarious  and touches on p-hacking in addition to more obvious problems in science reporting, this story from NPR demonstrates what happens when a university's PR department does a poor job of interpreting r esearch results. The Chronicle covered this issue, using the example of mis-shared research claiming that smelling farts can cure cancer (a student favorite), and this piece describes a hoax that one "researcher" pulled in order to demonstrate how quickly the media will pick up and disseminate bad-but-pleasing research to the masses . When my students and I discuss this, we usually try to brain storm about ways to fix this problem. Pro...

This study, which found a link between maternal Tylenol usage during pregnancy and ADHD, has been making the rounds, particularly in the Academic Mama circles I move in. Being pregnant is hard. For just about every malady, the only solution is to stay hydrated. With a compromised bladder. But at least pregnant women have Tylenol for sore hips and bad backs. For a long time, this has been the only safe OTC pain reliever available to pregnant women. But a recent research article has cast doubt on this advice. A quick read of this article makes it sound like you are cursing your child with a lifetime of ADHD if you take Tylenol. A nd this article has become click-bait fodder. But these findings have some pretty big caveats.  Harris published this reaction piece at NPR . It is a good teaching example of media hype vs. incremental scientific progress and the third (or fourth or fifth) variable problem. It also touches on absolute vs. relative risk. NOTE: There are well-documente...

This hilarious video is making the rounds on the Interwebz. Kudos to John Oliver and his writing team for so succinctly and hilariously summarizing many different research problems...why replication is important but not rewarded, how research is presented to the public, how researchers over-reach about their own findings, etc.  I Tweeted about this, but am making it cannon by sharing as a blog post. Note: This video has some off-color humor (multiple references to bear fellatio) so it is best suited to college aged students. I will use this in my Online and Honors classes as discussion prompts. Here are some of the prompts I came up with: 1) In your own words, why aren't replications published? How do you think the scientific community could correct this problem?  2) In your own words, explain just ONE of how a RESEARCHER can manipulate their own data and/or research findings. It should be one of the methods of manipulation described in the video. Also, don't just na...

In my Honors Statistics course, we have discussion days over the course of a semester. One of the discussion topics involves instances when the media has skewered research results (for another example, see this story about  fitness trackers ,) Jezebel writer Caroline Weinberg   describes a  modest study  that found that people who have at least one previous tattoo experience a boost in their immunity when they get subsequent tattoos, as demonstrated via saliva samples of Immunoglobulin A. This is attributed to the fact that compared to tattoo newbies, tattoo veterans don't experience a cortisol reaction following the tattoo. Small sample size but a pretty big effect. So, as expected, the media exaggerated these effects...but mostly because the researcher's university's marketing department did so first. Various new outlets stated things like  "Sorry, Mom: Getting lots of tattoos could have surprising health benefits"  and  "Getting multip...

http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 This story demonstrates how easy it is to do crap science, get it published in a pay-to-play journal, and market your research (to a global audience). Within this story, there are some good examples of Type I error, p -hacking, sensationalist science reporting, and, frankly, our obsession with weight and fitness and easy fixes—also, chocolate. Here is the original story, as told to io9.com by the perpetrator of this very conscientious fraud, John Bohannon . Bohannon ran this con to expose just how open to corruption and manipulation the whole research publication process can be ( BioMed Central scandal , for another example), especially when it just the kind of research that is bound to get a lot of media attention ( LaCour scandal , for another example). Bohannon set out to "demonstrate" that dark chocolate can contribute to weight loss. He ran an actual study ( n = 26). He went on a ...

Taylor, writing for Mashable , describes what happens when carefully conducted public health research (published in the  Journal of the American Medical Association ) becomes attention grabbing and poorly represented click bait. Data published in JAMA (Case, Burwick, Volpp, & Patel, 2015) tested the step-counting reliability of various wearable fitness tracking devices and smart phone apps (see the data below). In addition to checking the reliability of various devices, the article makes an argument that, from a public health perspective, lots of people have smart phones but not nearly as many people have fitness trackers. So, a way to encourage wellness may be to encourage people to use the the fitness capacities within their smart phone (easier and cheaper than buying a fitness tracker). The authors never argue that fitness trackers are bad, just that 1) some are more reliable than others and 2) the easiest way to get people to engage in more mindful walking...