I think this blog just peaked. Why? I'm giving you a way to use the Cha-Cha-Slide ("Everybody clap your hands!") as a tool to teach basic descriptive statistics. Here is a list of the most frequently banned-from-wedding songs: Most Intro Stats teachers could use this within the first week of class, to describe rank order data, interval data, qualitative data, quantitative data, the author's choice of percentage frequency data instead of straight frequency. Additionally, Hickey, writing for fivethirtyeight , surveyed two dozen wedding DJs about banned songs at 200 weddings. So, you can chat about research methodology as well.  Finally, as a Pennsylvanian, it makes me so sad that people ban the Chicken Dance! How can you possibly dislike the Chicken Dance enough to ban it? Is this a class thing? 

In my stats classes, we talk about the replication crisis. When introducing the topic, I use this  reading from NOBA . I think it is also important for my students to think about how science could create an environment where replication is more valued. And the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research has come up with a solution: It is providing grants to nine groups to either 1) replicate famous findings or 2) reanalyze famous findings. This piece from Science details their effort s. The Dutch Organization for Scientific Research provides more details on the grant recipients , which include several researchers replicating psychology findings: How to use in class: Again, talk about the replication crisis. Ask you students to generate ways to make replication more valued. Then, give them a bit of faith in psychology/science by sharing this information on how science is on it. From a broader view, this could introduce the idea of grants to your undergraduates or get yo...

This NPR story is about reproducibility in science that ISN'T psychology, the limitations of expert intuition, and the story is a summary of a recent research article from PLOS Biology  (so open science that isn't psychology, too!). Thrust of the story: Cancer researchers may be having a similar problem to psychologists in terms of replication.  I've blogged this issue before. In particular, concerns with replication in cancer research, possibly due to the variability with which lab rats are housed and fed . So, this story is about a study in which 200 cancer researchers, post-docs, and graduate students took a look at six pre-registered cancer stud y replications and guessed which studies would successfully replicate. And the participants systematically overestimated the likelihood of replication. However, researchers with high h-indices, were more accurate that the general sample. I wonder if the high h-indicies uncover super-experts or super-researchers who have be...

This NPR story discusses research  detective work published JAMA . The JAMA article looked at a very influential NEJM review article that investigated the link between diet and Coronary Heart Disease. Specifically, whether sugar or fat contribute more to CHD. The article, written by Harvard researchers decades ago, pinned CHD on fatty diets. But the researchers took money from Big Sugar (which sounds like...a drag queen or CB handle) and communicated with Big Sugar while writing the review article. This piece discusses how conflict of interest shaped food research and our beliefs about the causes of CHD for decades. And how conflict of interest and institutional/journal prestige shaped this narrative. It also touches on how industry, namely sugar interests, discounted research that finds a sugar:CHD link while promoting and funding research that finds a fat:CHD link. How to use in a Research Methods class: -Conflict of interest. The funding received by the researchers from th...

Full disclosure: I have no chill when it comes to Harry Potter. Despite my great bias, I still think this pscyometrically-created (with help from psychologists and Time Magazine's Chris Wilson!) Hogwart's House Sorter is a great example for scale building, validity, descriptive statistics, electronic consent, etc. for stats and research methods. How to use in a Research Methods class: 1) The article details how the test drew upon the Big Five inventory. And it talks smack about the Myers-Briggs. 2) The article also uses simple language to give a rough sketch of how they used statistics to pair you with your house. The "standard statistical model" is a regression line, the "affinity for each House is measured independently", etc. While you are taking the quiz itself, there are some RM/statsy lessons: 3) At the end of the quiz, you are asked to contribute some more information. It is a great example of a leading response options ...

This is a nice, concise hand out from APA that touches on the main points for evaluating research. In particular, research that has been distilled by science reporters. It may be a bit light for a traditional research methods class, but I think it would be good for the research methods section of most psychology electives, especially if your students working through source materials. The article mostly focuses on evaluating for proper sampling techniques. They also have a good list of questions to ask yourself when evaluating research: This also has an implicit lesson of introducing the APA website to psychology undergraduates and the type of information shared at APA.org. (including, but not limited to, this glossary of psychology terms .)

How much do our personalities change when we're drunk? Not as much as we think. We know this due to the self-sacrificing research participants who went to a lab, filled out some scales, got drunk with their friends. For science! Here is the research, as summarized by the first author .  Here  is the original study. This example admittedly panders to undergraduates. But I also think it is an example that will stick in their heads. It provides good examples of: 1) Self-report vs. other-report personality data in research. -Two weeks prior to the drinking portion, participants completed a Big Five personality scale as if they were drunk. So, there is the self-report of Drunk!Participant. And during the drinking session, participants had their Big Five judged by research assistants coding their interactions with friends, allowing a more object judgment of the Drunk!Participant. The findings: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/personality-may-change-whe...