Studies?

liah

I'm sort of a study collector. I'm not really looking for anything specific as my interests are ridiculously broad, but does anyone have any links to studies they've found online (reputable sources with large control groups only please, nothing blogspot or the like) that they found particularly interesting?

Topics like evolutionary science, political/cultural/humanitarian leanings in regards to belief, utilization of types of intelligence in relation to belief, differences in location of brain activity between believers/non-believers, etc. type of things are more or less what I'm after, but honestly I'll look at anything if it's interesting or groundbreaking enough.

Bloody Nipples

http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/turnbaugh/Turnbaugh_HMP.pdf

It's been discovered that the make-up of the microbial community in our GIT can have dramatic implications for our health, can cause/prevent obesity, can serve as a biomarker for IBD and can protect us from the onset of diabetes.

sponsoredwalk

Great thread idea!!! Honestly can't think of anything other than this
right now but I've read some good ones I wanted to show to people
before, I'll post them will when they come back to me.

From the early 1930s until the modern story broke in 2004, the
newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the
practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times
characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and
The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast,
from 2002-2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to
waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding
torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The
Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street
Journal characterized the practice astorture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%).
USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture.
In addition, the newspapers are much more likely to call waterboarding
torture if a country other than the United States is the perpetrator. In The
New York Times, 85.8% of articles (28 of 33) that dealt with a country
other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or
implied it was torture while only 7.69% (16 of 208) did so when the
United States was responsible. The Los Angeles Times characterized the
practice as torture in 91.3% of articles (21 of 23) when another country
was the violator, but in only 11.4% of articles (9 of 79) when the United
States was the perpetrator.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/torture_at_times_hks_students.pdf

strobe

I haven't been able to access the full study through google, but it is definitely there, I have read it before.

Here is the abridgment: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1936-01332-001
Conformity etc...(early work on the topic)

The original studies are linked at the bottom of the wiki page here for Asch's more indept experiments in the same vein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Actually here is the video that put me on to the second study;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrNIuFrso8I

sponsoredwalk

The "Welfare Queen" Experiment: How Viewers React to Images of African-American Mothers on Welfare
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/17m7r1rq#page-1

(some background)

sponsoredwalk

strobe wrote: »

The original studies are linked at the bottom of the wiki page here for Asch's more indept experiments in the same vein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF6oiNU-POw

The guy's face around 03:00 is priceless :P

Galvasean

Good thread. Nice to see it bumped

I can offer a link to the Palaeontology Forum's peer reviewed papers thread.
Nothing but the top science
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056317758

sponsoredwalk

On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type
This is the famous "Ternate essay" introducing natural selection that
Wallace sent to Charles Darwin in February of 1858. This paper, along
with excerpts from two unpublished writings by Darwin, was read before
a special meeting of the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858, and
published on pages 53-62 of Volume 3 of that Society's Proceedings
series. It should thus be noted that, frequently seen comments to the
contrary notwithstanding, Wallace did not "publish a paper describing
natural selection before Darwin did"--in fact, there is conclusive
historical evidence1 that even Wallace's own paper had not been
intended for publication in the form in which it was sent to Darwin.
http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S043.htm


The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism - Robert Trivers
http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/trivers_1971_recip.pdf
In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an
organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while
increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the
other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. The concept
was initially developed by Robert Trivers to explain the evolution of
cooperation as instances of mutually altruistic acts. The concept is
close to the strategy of "tit for tat" used in game theory.
link


"Studies on the Chemical Nature of the Substance Inducing Transformation
of Pneumococcal Types: Induction of Transformation by a Desoxyribonucleic
Acid Fraction Isolated from Pneumococcus Type III"
http://jem.rupress.org/content/79/2/137.full.pdf+html
The Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment was an experimental demonstration,
reported in 1944 by Oswald Avery, Colin MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty, that
DNA is the substance that causes bacterial transformation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery-MacLeod-McCarty_experiment
http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Gene-James-Watson/dp/080539592X

sephir0th

The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted from August 14–20, 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University.[1] It was funded by a grant from the US Office of Naval Research[2] and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps in order to determine the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.

BBC DOCUMENTARY:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_huJo9FOkI

Movies based on the experiment:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250258/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0997152/

Improbable

Acquiescence to authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

IRWolfie-

May be of interest for studies, systematic reviews of medical research:
http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews

such as the efficacy of prayer:
http://www.cochrane.org/search/site/Prayer

sonicthebadger*

I have a very specific request for a study if anyone can help, google has not been my friend. Two very good friends of mine, claim that gay people should have less rights (I know, even typing it makes me cringe) in the adoption process than hetero couples due to a study done into the wellbeing of children in families with one parent compared to two parents*.

Their argument goes thusly: study says traditional family unit is best for child.

My argument goes thusly: said study actually compares single and paired parent families without controlling for the gender of the parents or investigating the effect of more than two parent poly relationships or closeness to grandparents, parent's siblings, adult family friends etc. Therefore said study can not be used as an argument to prefer hetero couples in the adoption process.

I also think there may have been a study which suggests that two parents are better than one regardless of the genders of the parents.

Anyway, back to Google for me, I would be thrilled if someone here could help.


*It's not their fault, they're Catholics. One of the few things I have faith in in the world is the ability of people I call my friends to listen to reason.

Corkfeen

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I have a very specific request for a study if anyone can help, google has not been my friend. Two very good friends of mine, claim that gay people should have less rights (I know, even typing it makes me cringe) in the adoption process than hetero couples due to a study done into the wellbeing of children in families with one parent compared to two parents*.

Their argument goes thusly: study says traditional family unit is best for child.

My argument goes thusly: said study actually compares single and paired parent families without controlling for the gender of the parents or investigating the effect of more than two parent poly relationships or closeness to grandparents, parent's siblings, adult family friends etc. Therefore said study can not be used as an argument to prefer hetero couples in the adoption process.

I also think there may have been a study which suggests that two parents are better than one regardless of the genders of the parents.

Anyway, back to Google for me, I would be thrilled if someone here could help.


*It's not their fault, they're Catholics. One of the few things I have faith in in the world is the ability of people I call my friends to listen to reason.

To the best of my knowledge this study does so. Can't open right now as i'm on my phone. It's peer reviewed etc.
http://www.lgbt.org.ar/blog/Matrimonio/archivos/wainright_2004.pdf

The Mad Hatter

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I have a very specific request for a study if anyone can help, google has not been my friend. Two very good friends of mine, claim that gay people should have less rights (I know, even typing it makes me cringe) in the adoption process than hetero couples due to a study done into the wellbeing of children in families with one parent compared to two parents*.

Their argument goes thusly: study says traditional family unit is best for child.

My argument goes thusly: said study actually compares single and paired parent families without controlling for the gender of the parents or investigating the effect of more than two parent poly relationships or closeness to grandparents, parent's siblings, adult family friends etc. Therefore said study can not be used as an argument to prefer hetero couples in the adoption process.

I also think there may have been a study which suggests that two parents are better than one regardless of the genders of the parents.

Anyway, back to Google for me, I would be thrilled if someone here could help.


*It's not their fault, they're Catholics. One of the few things I have faith in in the world is the ability of people I call my friends to listen to reason.

I think you're referring to the study brought up by Al Franken in this rather brilliant video from the US senate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyAueltLsa4

Looking for it now, but I'm not really sure where to find these things.

Coriolanus

I think its this part of a Us dept of health and human services study.

acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport8/chapter07/chap07.htm

Turtwig

Abstract wrote:

In this article, we accomplish two things. First, we show that despite empirical psychologists’ nominal endorsement of a low rate
of false-positive findings (! .05), flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting dramatically increases actual false-positive
rates. In many cases, a researcher is more likely to falsely find evidence that an effect exists than to correctly find evidence
that it does not. We present computer simulations and a pair of actual experiments that demonstrate how unacceptably easy
it is to accumulate (and report) statistically significant evidence for a false hypothesis. Second, we suggest a simple, low-cost,
and straightforwardly effective disclosure-based solution to this problem. The solution involves six concrete requirements for
authors and four guidelines for reviewers, all of which impose a minimal burden on the publication process.

Study.

Abstract says it all really. Steven Novella's thoughts on it here.

In their paper Simmons et al describe in detail what skeptical scientists have known and been saying for years, and what other research has also demonstrated, that researcher bias can have a profound influence on the outcome of a study. They are looking specifically at how data is collected an analyzed and showing that the choices the researcher make can influence the outcome. They referred to these choices as “researcher degrees of freedom,” choices, for example, about which variables to include, when to stop collecting data, which comparisons to make, and which statistical analyses to use.

Both are well worth a read, but the blog is the far easier read.:)

sonicthebadger*

Fantastic folks, thank you thank you thank you!

Turtwig

Ok, now this one is one for the keepers I'd imagine. Science at its curious and perhaps bizarre best.

Vampires are feared everywhere, but the Balkan region has been especially haunted. Garlic has been regarded as an effective prophylactic against vampires. We wanted to explore this alleged effect experimentally. Owing to the lack of vampires, we used leeches instead. In strictly standardized research surroundings, the leeches were to attach themselves to either a hand smeared with garlic or to a clean hand. The garlic-smeared hand was preferred in two out of three cases (95% confidence interval 50.4% to 80.4%). When they preferred the garlic the leeches used only 14.9 seconds to attach themselves, compared with 44.9 seconds when going to the non-garlic hand (p < 0.05). The traditional belief that garlic has prophylactic properties is probably wrong. The reverse may in fact be true. This study indicates that garlic possibly attracts vampires. Therefore to avoid a Balkan-like development in Norway, restrictions on the use of garlic should be considered.

mikhail

That sounds ripe for an ignobel prize.

robindch

Jernal wrote: »

Garlic has been regarded as an effective prophylactic against vampires.

While I've never heard it mentioned elsewhere, so take this with a pinch of garlic, but my brother's always believed that this was because vampires were territorial and it was said that one vampire couldn't therefore stand the sight of another.

The world for "another" in this context in Latin is "alius", while the word for "garlic" is "allius" -- one up for bad spelling?

Turtwig

Link to abstract. (Full Text may require subscription for )

Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: A self-sustaining worldview comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated in endorsement. In Study 1 (n = 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n = 102), the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general.

muppeteer

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/10/3616.abstract

How Christians reconcile their personal political views and the teachings of their faith: Projection as a means of dissonance reduction
The present study explores the dramatic projection of one's own views onto those of Jesus among conservative and liberal American Christians. In a large-scale survey, the relevant views that each group attributed to a contemporary Jesus differed almost as much as their own views. Despite such dissonance-reducing projection, however, conservatives acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to “fellowship” issues (e.g., taxation to reduce economic inequality and treatment of immigrants) and liberals acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to “morality” issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). However, conservatives also claimed that a contemporary Jesus would be even more conservative than themselves on the former issues whereas liberals claimed that Jesus would be even more liberal than themselves on the latter issues. Further reducing potential dissonance, liberal and conservative Christians differed markedly in the types of issues they claimed to be more central to their faith. A concluding discussion considers the relationship between individual motivational processes and more social processes that may underlie the present findings, as well as implications for contemporary social and political conflict.

Woe is my life without a university library subscription, bloody paywalls.