Null results are important. “We tried to find something, and it twerent’ there.” But “nothing there” results rarely get reported, which is a shame. I can certainly see how positive results are more exciting — we gave group x a natural supplement consisting of purified essence of apple seeds (a cyanide compound), than they all died! Contrast that with a recent study into the use of Gingko Biloba and memory preservation in old age that produced this — we found nothing, no measurable response to the herbal supplement. Finding nothing just doesn’t capture our imaginations.

But in terms of science and becoming better informed, these “nothing” findings are important. An analogy might be the master car mechanic talking to the shop apprentice busy attempting to fix a difficult, persistent problem. The very first thing the master mechanic will ask is, “Well, what have you tried so far?” He wants to know what has thus far produced null results. For it is important information.

The following are two illustrations of the importance of frequently un-reported null results from the field of psychology.

1. In, Choosing a university degree is not linked to personality we learn that . . . well, the title told it but it’s worth re-telling.

The results indicate that personality does not have an influence when choosing a professional career.

Why is this discovered non-relationship important, if it stands up to analysis and replication? For one, many colleges and universities use personality measures to help guide students to their ideal career.

Admittedly, I was somewhat surprised by this finding, for I had assumed — assumed — that the trait of introversion/extroversion would likely influence what type of career a person pursued. I can picture introverts working in a science lab more than I can extroverts. And I can picture extroverts being more drawn to teaching. But it doesn’t seem to be the case.

Of course, the finding is about the choice of a degree, not the success an individual later experiences.

Another noteworthy null result was this:

The data obtained reconfirmed that “the sex of the individual is not an important variable in the connection between personality traits and general preference for topics studied at university”.

This “no connection” tells us something important about gender behavior today. It seems that on college campuses, in the least, men aren’t from planet medicine and women from planet English lit.

Thanks to that bit of null result I can sharpen the lense of my view of the world. Null results help trim away distortions in our thinking. Or, at least, they can shake the confidence with which we hold presuppositions.

2. Here’s another title that tells it all: IU study finds no consensus in definitions of ‘had sex’

A new study from the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University found that no uniform consensus existed when a representative sample of 18- to 96-year-olds was asked what the term meant to them.

How is this important? In the least, when formally questioning individuals about their sex lives, you’ve got to get more specific in how you word the questions. You can’t assume that your concept of “had sex” is the same as another person’s. For instance, does oral sex count? Anal sex? Are those “having sex?” It depends who you ask.

In the area of gender, another null finding was produced.

Responses did not differ significantly overall for men and women.

Good to know. Certainly there are some average differences between the sexes. But being informed about when none are discovered plays an important role in honing our understanding.

Reporting and heeding null results is good science.

Technorati Links: gender, psychology, science

The transition is underway. To read my latest Almighty Alpha post, “The Gearbox to a Revolutionary Rank and File,” please check out the entry at my new blog.

Many people find it ironic and/or startlingly hypocritical when men, or women, who have risen to high places are discovered to have committed lowly behavior. Other people, myself included, may think something along the lines of, “What do you expect, they are still human beings.”

New experimental research out of Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University has revealed that people in high places may actually be more likely to engage in what we call moral transgressions. When in a position of power, subjects tended to be both stricter in their judgments of others while being more lenient in their view of their own behavior [source].

While I guess this certainly can be classified as hypocritical if the person in question had gone on record condemning the behavior that he/she subsequently engaged in, I also believe that the perceived hypocrisy reflects our own psychological naiveté.

How so? First, we tend to hold idealistic morals. That something is absolutely wrong or right. More realistically, there are degrees of wrong and right-ness, determined in part by the motive and particular context the behavior occurred in. For example: Is killing an animal wrong? More wrong would included killing an animal for pleasure. Less wrong for food. Even less wrong, as self-defense. Etc. Also under consideration would be the social and emotional factors that may have played a role in the “decision.” Yes, it is often expedient and smart to judge guilt strictly, as if each us had a totally free will. But that isn’t the case. Motivations don’t grow on trees and are than consciously selected by those under their influence.

The other manner in which this perceived hypocrisy may be naive (and even the article title and the research paper title itself used the term “hypocrisy”) is the expectation that our current standards of right and wrong would be reflected in the behavior of all people, regardless of their social position.

But study the behavior of all the other primate species and you will discover that — gee, equality isn’t the norm. Not only does social position influence the behavior of primate individuals — from the extremely subordinate to the most dominant — but it also influences their expectations of the behaviors to anticipate from individuals in differing social positions.

Would we say it is absolutely wrong for one non-human primate male to mate with more than one female, more than “his share?” Actually, in terms of evolution, it may be more right. For often the more dominant individuals are stronger, more aggressive and fearless (great feature when needing protection) and even healthier than the less dominating individuals. While we may like to pretend that all primates, whatever species, are created equal, they are not.

Of course the contemporary human environment is very complex and different than that of our distant ancestors. I would be naive myself to apply, say, chimpanzee morality to human beings. But I do believe it bears keeping in mind that a one-size-fits-all morality is idealistic versus realistic. And that while our present moral standards — our thoughts — can be fully modern, the roots of our behavior may be much, much older.

Technorati Links: evolution, morality, psychology

What is the identity of the above image? The correct answer to that question could be considered scientific: a precise location (name for it).

As a former psychology professor, I have seen how many students prefer fill-in-the-blank type questions vs. true/false or multiple choice.

What?! There is one correct answer?! Don’t I get credit for thinking, period?

True, simply parroting “the answer” is not indicative or a deeper type of learning. But to simply string words together in a longer answer that seems familiar to the instructor (resembling his/her own word strings) . . . ? Is that a higher learning, or just clever?

Hmm.

[photo of Devil's Tower thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: education, NASA

Two recent studies from the psychological sciences have perfectly illustrated the problem of variable correlation: Why we can’t jump to the conclusion of causation when we find an association between two measures.

1. Long-time cannabis use associated with psychosis

The finding of this study:

Young adults who have used cannabis or marijuana for a longer period of time appear more likely to have hallucinations or delusions or to meet criteria for psychosis, according to a report posted online today that will appear in the May print issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. [bold mine]

How much more likely, the inquiring mind would like to know. Fortunately, this article actually provided the information. A pleasant surprise.

[Y]oung adults who had six or more years since first use of cannabis (i.e., who commenced use when around 15 years or younger) were twice as likely to develop a non-affective psychosis and were four times as likely to have high scores on the Peters et al Delusions Inventory [a measure of delusion]. [bold mine]

Thank you for that precision in reporting.

In a study such as this, having potentially important cultural and political implications, I’d like to see not only the inclusion of a control group — to put things in an absolute perspective, so to speak — but also of a comparison group of alcohol users — to put things in a relative perspective, you could say.

That said, the point I wanted to make is that this finding was not the product of an experiment. No, researchers didn’t randomly assign youth to groups and one of these or more instructed to smoke X amount of marijuana. That type of study would generate results one could be confident about a causal relationship between the variables. But good luck getting a research grant for it. And getting it past the ethics board!

And the authors acknowledged the problem with the nature of their finding.

“The nature of the relationship between psychosis and cannabis use is by no means simple,” they write. Individuals who had experienced hallucinations early in life were more likely to have used cannabis longer and to use it more frequently…..[T]hose individuals who were vulnerable to psychosis (i.e., those who had isolated psychotic symptoms) were more likely to commence cannabis use, which could then subsequently contribute to an increased risk of conversion to a non-affective psychotic disorder.” [bold mine]

Exactly! Kudos to them for keeping that in mind and pointing it out.

Actually, do they deserve kudos for such an elementary level of critical thinking? Because it at least seems relatively rare, at least in the material provided to the more popular media, I’ll applaud it when I find it.

2. Teens with more screen time have lower-quality relationships

In a study on computer and video-game usage and quality of relationships, an association between variables was discovered.

Teens who spend more time watching television or using computers appear to have poorer relationships with their parents and peers, according to a report in the March issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.

Again, the skeptical mind wants to know “how much poorer” and “how measured”?

The answer to the latter is “confidential questionnaire” as well as “an assessment of their attachment to parents and peers.” What kind of an assessment and by whom?To the former — kudos again! — the authors provide some numbers, such as:

The researchers also assessed interview responses from 976 individuals who were age 15 years in 1987 to 1988. Among these teens, more time spent viewing television was associated with lower attachment to both parents and peers. For every additional hour of television, teens had a 13 percent increased risk of low attachment to their parents and a 24 percent increased risk of low attachment to peers.

Conducting controlled experiments on lab rats and mice will only get you so far. And mice are notoriously bad video game players, so that would certainly be a confounding factor . . . . Could an experiment be conducted on this topic, with humans? I wonder.

Fortunately, as with the first study listed, these authors too, highlight the hazard of correlational findings by speculating about alternative explanations for theirs:

“However, it is also possible that adolescents with poor attachment relationships with immediate friends and family use screen-based activities to facilitate new attachment figures such as online friendships or parasocial relationships with television characters or personalities,” the authors write.

Exactly! And there are other possibilities.

So, do we conclude that the psychological sciences are worthless? No, not at all. But at the same time, we need to recognize the weak nature of much of the data generation and should refrain from making too much of non-controlled-experiment generated results.

Technorati Links: correlation, psychology, research

Imaginary, stupid poll: Do you like nature?

Imaginary results: Yes – 99%.

No – 1% (It contains snakes!)

2nd imaginary poll: Do like to learn about nature?

Imaginary results: Yes – 70% (particularly if I can by watching television)

No – 30% (Learning? That requires effort!)

3rd Imaginary poll: If science were described as a careful way to learn about nature, would you say science is a good thing?

Imaginary results: Yes – 50%

No – 50% (Science? Science is always bad because the people I know pronounce the word as if a snake were hissing.)

Keep science from becoming a bad word! Be sure to smile whenever you say it! Why? Because polls of your average American numbskull are important!

On a serious note, if you enjoy learning about nature, I suggest checking out these two excellent blog carnivals, recently posted:

Scientia Pro Publica 22

Carnival of Evolution #21: The Superstar Edition

To science! Seriously.

Technorati Links: science, semantics

A new research finding lands a blow to lazy parents everywhere. It seems you can’t just plunk your young child in front of a television screen and they will learn. In a test of the effectiveness of educational DVDs, for one, the results came back negative. Maybe even worse than negative!

Researchers at University of California, Riverside did this:

…studied vocabulary acquisition among 96 children age 12 to 24 months. Participants were tested on measures of vocabulary and general development, and their primary caregivers (77 mothers, seven fathers and four others) answered a series of questions about their children’s development and previous exposure to educational media. Half of the children were then given an educational DVD to watch in their homes. [source]

The Negative Result:

When additional tests were conducted after six weeks, there was no evidence children learned the words specifically highlighted in the DVDs, and watching the DVDs was unrelated to measures of general language learning. [bold mine]

“Negative” in a scientific sense, simply means not. As in “not related.” How could the results then be worse than “not related.’

The Worse Than Negative Result:

While watching the DVD was not related learning new words, the researchers did find a relationship between age when parents began use of educational media for their child and score “on a test of vocabulary knowledge.”

As is expressed in the news release, this could simply be a case of a non-causal correlation. Rather than the DVD exposure causing the relative delay, parents may resort to educational DVDs when they have a sense the child already needs additional help. Or something.

Some futurists have envisioned a time when all learning is done in separate cubicles, with media tailor-fit to the individual’s present capabilities. But while human beings can be described as learning sponges, we tend to sop up certain types of information better. We also tend to attend better to certain sources of information. At least for children, I really wonder whether anything could replace face-time with a real living and breathing tutor, whether that tutor is mom, dad, grandma, or a caring professional.

—

Addendum: Got to give kudos where they are due.  Just noticed the title — “Infants do not appear to learn words from educational DVDs.”

Do not appear.  Excellent.  For this is only one study.

Technorati Links: education, psychology

One week from today this blog ends. Oh my.

But with it will come rebirth. At another home. 360 Skeptic (dot com). Hold onto your hats. The winds of change are blowing.

(Okay, maybe it’s more of a puff a change.)

—

[Original photo thanks to David Stowell via Wikimedia]

This just in: NASA’s Cassini space probe has found no evidence of gods in our solar system. Hmm. I wonder why that is….

Why is science seemingly hostile to religion? (Any hostility exists in how the results are received.) Because science refuses to place a finger on the scale when weighing the evidence for gods. Honest science, anyway. Objectivity doesn’t favor the existence of gods. The inkblot of subjective experience, however — well hell, anything can be made of that.

Yes, I’m an atheist. No, don’t take my word for it. Look at the evidence. Good evidence. And what you will find is that Saturn is devoid of evidence of a god. And a quadrillion other things are likewise devoid of gods and/or their influence.

Speaking of devoid of gods, I invite you to check out the latest godless blogging carnival: Carnival of the Godless, No. 136 – Revolutionary Communist Edition!

—

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: atheism, religion, science

In a recent post, Human Sexuality and How Questionnaires Can Fail, I concluded this way:

To the philosophical dictum “know thyself” I would thus add, “and realize there are limits to your self-knowledge.”

Well darn. Should I have five points deducted from my post’s score for going a bit cliché? At least I ended with that bit of over-used Socratic tidbit. A news release out Washington University in St. Louis used it in their first line:

Since at least the days of Socrates, humans have been advised to “know thyself.”

Minus ten for them. But maybe not. For the idea was central to their announcement: Others may know us better than we know ourselves, study finds. Summarizing research results that appeared in the February 2010 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the article states:

Simine Vazire, Ph.D., Washington University assistant professor of psychology in Arts & Sciences, has found that the individual is more accurate in assessing one’s own internal, or neurotic traits, such as anxiety, while friends are better barometers of intellect-related traits, such as intelligence and creativity, and even strangers are equally adept as our friends and ourselves at spotting the extrovert in us all, a psychology domain known as “extroversion.”

Interesting. Of course, as a hard-core skeptic, I’d like some numbers to go along with my study results, please. The only number I found was for the number of subjects: 165 volunteers. This Certainly makes it a preliminary finding/study. But what I really want to know is the degree of difference. How much better are we at gauging our internal states? How much better are others at gauging our intelligence and creativity?

Can we know something of ourselves? Sure. But perhaps we should keep in mind (as should psychotherapists everywhere) that what we know is not so much ourselves as it is our perceptions of ourselves. And not only does our power of perception have limits but it can be altered and skewed. Perhaps even mistaken.

Technorati Links: perception, psychology