You are here: Home / 2010 / Archives for August 2010

Using the evidence: TV-time in our family

August 31, 2010 By 1 Comment

We have written about the topic of screen-time for children several times on this blog.  It’s a sign of our society today. As kids have more multimedia options than ever before, researchers are continually trying to assess the long-term effects of technology on children. And many parents, myself included, are trying to assess what all of that means for their own household rules.

In our family, my nearly-two-year-old son loves Sesame Street. He’s happy to watch it quietly for up to an hour at a time, which is a very tempting when I need to accomplish something without any toddler “help.” 

But I worry about what that means for his development. Am I ruining his ability to focus, or creating problems that will surface later in school?

When Rachel Dunifon, associate professor of human development at Cornell, posted a comment in our previous post about TV-watching, I was anxious to read her opinion.

Dunifon shared a study published earlier this year in the journal Child Development, which reexamined more than 1,000 mothers’ reports of television-viewing for 1- to 3-year-olds, and the assessed those children’s attention problems at age 7.

The study found, among other things, that watching TV is only associated with a higher risk of attention problems in children who watch seven or more hours a day.  It also suggested the effect of television may depend on the “quality” of viewing. Children who watch educational television have actually shown higher school readiness and language skills compared with children who viewed general programming.

Those results made me feel a lot better about the TV rules in our house. For now, our son is allowed to watch a half-hour a day of a recorded, educational show. That gives me a little extra time to jump in the shower or get dinner on the table, and it gives him a little down time to relax as well.

–        Sheri Hall

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, In The Media, Youth Development Tagged With: , , , ,

The evidence on living a good life

August 26, 2010 By Leave a Comment

For centuries, medical and social research has focused on human illness and dysfunction. But over the last decade, there is a growing cadre of researchers who are looking into specific factors that lead to social and emotional well-being.

A center at the University of California-Berkley called the Greater Good Science Center is focused on just that – the scientific research into social and emotional well-being, and how to help people apply this research to their personal and professional lives.

The center sponsors its own research, and also publishes on on-line magazine to disseminate the latest information to parents, educators, community leaders, and policy makers.

So, what really does make people happy?  A recent article on the Greater Good site summed up the evidence about specific actions that everyone can take to improve their own happiness.

  • Make time for quality, social interactions. The dominant finding in happiness research is that that social connections are key to bliss. Some research also shows that it’s the quality of our social interactions that really matter, not the quantity.
  • Learn forgiveness. New research show that when we forgive those who have wronged us, we feel better about ourselves, experience more positive emotions, and feel closer to others.
  • Be grateful. Studies show that simply counting listing things you are thankful for on a regular basis leads to more optimism and greater satisfaction.
  • Foster generosity. A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that people reported greater happiness when they spent money on others than when they spent it on themselves, even though they initially thought the opposite would be true.
  • Exercise.  Studies show that regular physical activity increases happiness and self-esteem, reduces anxiety and stress, and can even lift symptoms of depression.
  • Sleep enough. Research has consistently reduced amounts of sleep to reduced amounts of happiness.
  • Be mindful. Studies show that being aware of our thoughts, feelings and circumstances reduces hostility and anxiousness, and leads to greater life satisfaction.
Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, In The Media Tagged With: , , , ,

Evidence-Based Living Never Takes a Vacation: Resistance to Science

August 24, 2010 By Leave a Comment

While hanging with my large and boisterous family on the Massachusetts shore this week, the conversation turned to people’s resistance to scientific information. Now this is not actually all that surprising, because my extended family includes an unusual number of individuals who either are or were practicing scientists. Indeed, the gathering over the week involves several psychologists, a research dietician, a sociologist, two young budding researchers (one studying mood disorders, the other conducting research in a business school), a physician, and a historian.

Discussions emerged about issues of barefoot running (see previous post) and athletes’ use of steroids (this trumped our usual Yankees versus Red Sox debate for a while). Niece Julianna then posed the following question: Why are people so resistant to scientific evidence on some issues? Indeed, why does their resistance often approach the first-grade tactic of putting fingers in the ears and singing “I can’t hear you?” Several family members noted that when they have suggested, in the course of an argument, that the scientific evidence be consulted they get responses like: “I don’t care, I just know this is right.”

Of course, scientists haven’t left a topic like that alone. There is a body of research about why individuals reject even what the scientific community views as fundamental facts. An interesting article by Yale psychologists Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg provides a useful review. They begin by noting the prevalence of erroneous beliefs, including the curious finding from a Gallup poll that one-fifth of Americans believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Bloom and Weisberg suggest that a primary reason “people resist certain scientific findings, then, is that many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive.” Further, science involves asserted information (so we believe that Abraham Lincoln was a U. S. president, even though we can’t validate that information personally). There are few scientific findings we can validate directly – e.g., whether vaccines cause autism, whether natural selection operates, or whether repressed memories exist.

In sum, the data Bloom and Weisberg review suggest that people resist science when:

  • Scientific claims clash with intuitive expectations
  • Scientific claims are contested within society
  • A non-scientific alternative explanation exists that is based in common sense and is championed by people who are believed to be trustworthy and reliable.

A recent study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology provides additional explanation. In a series of experiments, Gerald Munro found that when presented with scientific information that contradicts one’s beliefs, people invoke the “impotence of science” hypothesis; that is, they argue that it’s a topic that science can’t effectively study.

When people have very strong beliefs about a topic, research has shown that scientific evidence that is inconsistent with the beliefs has little impact in changing them. But even more problematic, Munro’s research suggests that this inconsistency between beliefs and scientific conclusions actually reduces people’s overall faith in science.  

All this provides interesting challenges for proponents of evidence-based living. We need not only to get scientific information out to the public, but we also need a much better understanding of how beliefs create resistance to information that might improve people’s lives.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, policy, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , ,

What is translational research?

August 18, 2010 By 3 Comments

Today, we’re talking with Elaine Wethington, associate professor in the Departments of Human Development and Sociology at Cornell. Wethington is a medical sociologist and an expert in the areas of stress and social support systems. She’s also one of the nation’s leading experts in translational research methods.

Cornell’s College of Human Ecology is pursuing a translational research model to better link social and behavioral science research to extension and outreach, creating a more seamless link between science and service. But the question arises: What is “translational research?”

Evidence-Based Living sat down with Wethington to talk about the growing field of translational research.

To start off, what exactly is translational research?

Many definitions have been given for translational research, but the definition I like best is that it is a systematic effort to convert basic research knowledge into practical applications to enhance human health and well being. 

Translational research was designed for the medical world.  It emerged in response to concern over the long time lag between scientific discoveries and changes in treatments, practices, and health policies that incorporate the new discoveries.

What is applied research, and how does it differ?

Translational research is broader than the traditional term “applied research.”  Applied research is any research that may possibly be useful for enhancing health or well-being. It does not necessarily have to have any effort connected with it to take the research to a practical level. 

For example, an applied research study might analyze longitudinal data that tracks participants’ health and social relationships.  The researchers would report their findings in an academic journal.

But in translational research, the same study would include some “action steps.”  The researchers would partner with a community and ask for ideas about how their findings might apply there.  Together, they would come up with an intervention plan that would also include scientific evaluation of its effectiveness. 

Why are social science researchers slower to adopt these models compared to the medical community?

I think the answer to this question is that researchers have followed where the money has been allocated. The opportunities for social and behavioral scientists have not been established as rapidly.

More recently, three major government institutions have been funding projects that emphasize public health outreach using translational research – the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging.  All three have been establishing translational research centers across the country, primarily focused on underserved communities and health disparities.

Thus, social scientists are only now being encouraged to take part.  More recently economic stimulus funds dispersed the National Institute of Health funded a number of translational research projects headed by social scientists, including three funded at Cornell.  I predict that soon there will be social scientists engaged in translational research across the country, not just at funded centers.

What are the benefits of moving toward translational research?

For researchers, there is benefit to being affiliated with a center that provides seed funding for projects, methodological assistance, advice on developing proposals and experience in getting community input into research projects.

For universities, translational research centers provide a tactical advantage for attracting more funding.  Translational research centers also provide a way for universities to meet public service goals in their strategic plans.

For communities, translational research provides opportunities to make a difference in their own communities.  As part of one of the Cornell centers, we engaged public service agency directors in events where they could contribute to our research agenda.  With a stake in the research, communities feel that they are making a valued and important contribution.  We heard over and over from the community members that this was a real source of pride and accomplishment for them.

How can extension programs participate?

One way local extension programs can participate in translational research is to take part in community stakeholder groups that meet with researchers who are designing intervention and prevention research programs.  Typically, a wide variety of stakeholders need to be engaged.  County Cooperative Extension offices have many collaborative relationships in their counties and can work with researchers to make contacts.

Typically, local extension professionals do not have time to engage in research themselves.  Yet they have valuable experience that can be shared.  This makes Cooperative Extension an ideal contributor for implementing programs.

Filed Under: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Evidence-Based Living, policy, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , , ,

The science behind barefoot running

August 12, 2010 By 1 Comment

Humans have been running long distances for millions of years, well before the advent of the modern running shoe. In fact, it’s only in the past three decades that athletic companies have developed cushioned, supportive shoes for runners.

Recently, a movement of runners have gone back to their roots – forgoing shoes for running barefoot or with minimal footwear. Why the heck would they do that? Thanks to sports historian Michael Civille for posing this question, and we’ll take a look at the evidence here.

There is some evidence that barefoot running reduces the amount of force on the foot and knee joints. Daniel Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University, studies the biomechanics of barefoot running and how early humans survived by evolving the ability to travel long distances to hunt.

His work – which has been published twice in the journal Nature – has shown that experienced, barefoot runners tend to land in the front or middle of their feet, compared to runners with shoes, who tend to land on their heels. These forefoot and midfoot strikes do not generate the sudden, large impacts that occur with heel strikes. Therefore, barefoot people can run more easily on hard surfaces without discomfort from landing.

Lieberman, who runs barefoot once a week himself, is the first to admit there is no evidence on whether running barefoot causes fewer or more injuries than running with shoes.  (There is also no evidence that running shoes reduce injuries either.)

How about speed?

There is some evidence that barefoot running uses about five percent less energy because runners use the natural springs in their feet and calf muscles to store and release energy.  

But runners with forefoot or midfoot strikes don’t seem to be any faster than runners with heel strikes, according to a Japanese study.  In it, researchers took photographs of elite runners foot strike positions midway through a half-marathon. Seventy-five percent of the runners were landing on their heels, 24 percent landed at about near the arch of their shoe, and only four landed on their forefoot. And they weren’t the four fastest.

The take-home message?  The jury is still out on barefoot running. One thing is clear:  If you want to try barefoot running, start slowly. One thing all of the experts agree on is that the body does take some time to adjust.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, In The Media Tagged With: , , , ,

Texting while driving: Clearly dangerous

August 10, 2010 By 3 Comments

Multitasking has become a way of life in this digital age, where most people can access their e-mail, their calendars and make phone calls from a mobile device they keep in their pockets or purse. While communication-on-the-go certainly can make us more efficient, it can have dire consequences as well.

Some 200,000 car accidents each year are caused by texting while driving, according to a report from the National Safety Council, a nonprofit group recognized by congressional charter as a leader on safety.

The scientific literature backs up the report.  A 2009 study of long-haul truckers by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found drivers were more than 23 times more likely to experience a safety-critical event when texting. The study also found that drivers typically take their eyes off the road for an average of four out of six seconds when texting, during which time he travels the distance of a football field without their eyes on the road.

Another study by psychologists and the University of Utah found that texting while driving is riskier than talking on a cell phone or with another passenger. In the study, people texting in a driving simulator had more crashes, responded more slowly to brake lights on cars in front of them, and showed more impairment in forward and lateral control than did drivers who talked on a cell phone or drove without texting.

The Utah study found that drivers who talked on the phone attempted to divide their attention between the conversation and driving, adjusting the priority of each activity based on what was happening on the road.  But texting required drivers to switch their attention from one task to the other, causing a substantial reduction in reaction times compared to those talking on the phone.

State governments are responding to the evidence. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 30 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, novice drivers are banned from texting in 8 states.  And President Barack Obama issued a texting-ban while driving for on all federal employees while using a government vehicle or government-issued cell phone.

The take home message: Save your text for non-driving times.

–        Sheri Hall

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, In The Media, policy Tagged With: , , , , ,

Why women leave science careers

August 4, 2010 By 3 Comments

More women than ever before are pursuing undergraduate degrees in physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and other science and technology fields – commonly referred to as STEM fields.  In mathematics, for example, women now earn 46 percent of all bachelor’s degrees.

Women also pursue advanced studies in STEM fields in increasing numbers. Even in physics, engineering, and computer science – all traditionally male fields – women now number approximately one-fifth to one-quarter of all students in graduate programs. But after they earn a Ph.D., these women begin a process of attrition that results in far fewer women at each successive level up the academic ladder.  They are less likely than men to apply for tenure-track jobs, more likely to leave these jobs, and less satisfied in their careers. Why do they drop out of their fields?

Cornell professors Wendy Williams and Steve Ceci have spent the last several years studying the reasons behind this phenomenon.  They’ve published a major study that reviews more than 400 articles and book chapters on sex differences in math, and written two books on the topic.

Their conclusion is that women tend to drop out of non-math fields not because they lack mathematical ability, but because they simply prefer more people-oriented pursuits, such as medicine, veterinary science, and biology, where they represent one-half to three-quarters of new doctorates.  The demands of childrearing and caretaking also take their toll on the already-low numbers of women in math-intensive fields. 

Now Williams and Ceci have received a $1.4 million from the National Institutes of Health to establish the Cornell Institute for Women in Science. The money is funding five large-scale studies to explore how women and men are recruited to and informally trained in graduate school, and how they are evaluated when they apply for their first tenure-track position. The grant also funds a major outreach campaign designed to increase awareness among college-age women of the demands of an academic career, so that these women can target their career planning more effectively.

The idea is to better understand, and ultimately improve, behaviors that may consciously or unconsciously lead to gender bias in math-intensive fields.

The new institute is part of a broad outreach effort focused on encouraging under-represented groups – including women and minorities – to pursue careers in science. Part of that broader effort includes the Thinking Like A Scientist program, a curriculum that encourages school-aged children to pursue careers in science.

Williams’s and Ceci’s work is a prime example of using research to learn about a problem of national proportions, and then taking action to make improvements that are based on the evidence.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Youth Development Tagged With: , , , ,

Everything you wanted to know about the aging population

August 2, 2010 By Leave a Comment

You would have to be living in total isolation not to know that American society is rapidly aging. But how rapidly? What’s happening to life expectancy, economics, health and related issues as our society “greys?”

The good news: Today’s older Americans enjoy longer lives and better health than did previous generations. These and other trends are reported in Older Americans 2010: Key Indicators of Well-Being, a unique, comprehensive look at aging in the United States from the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. This easy-to-understand report  provides an updated, accessible compendium of indicators, drawn from the most reliable official statistics about the well-being of Americans primarily age 65 and older. The indicators are categorized into five broad areas—population, economics, health status, health risks and behaviors, and health care. In addition, the site provides very nice Powerpoint slides of all charts.

No matter how old you are now, you are aging, so this information should be of interest to all of us.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, policy Tagged With: , ,
Skip to toolbar