You are here: Home / Archives for In The Media

How to promote creativity among kids

July 29, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Did you know there’s an evidence-based way to measure creativity? 

In the 1950s, a psychologist named Ellis Paul Torrance developed a series of tasks to measure creativity and gave them to 400 Minneapolis children. 

Scholars have followed the children since then and recorded all of their creative accomplishments – patents, research papers, art exhibits, business innovations, books, musical scores, and so on. Sure enough, the children who scored high on the tests showed the more creativity as adults as well. If fact, the correlation of test scores to lifetime creative accomplishment was more than three times stronger for childhood creativity than childhood IQ.

To date, the Torrance test has been taken by millions of people worldwide in 50 languages.  But recently, one researcher identified a disappointing trend. Kyung Hee Kim, a professor of Educational Psychology at the College of William and Mary, analyzed nearly Torrance scores of nearly 300,000 children and adults.  She found the scores had been steadily rising until 1990. Since then, creativity scores have consistently fallen every year. (Her work was famously documented in an article in Newsweek magazine in 2009.)

When Kim says creativity is declining, she’s not just talking about artistic ability, but a range of skills such as the ability to produce original ideas, see things from a different angle, elaborate upon ideas  and synthesize information.  (She explained all of the measures to Encyclopedia Brittanica.)

What does this mean?  Kim is the first to point out there’s more research needed.  But , based on her body of research on creativity, she does suggest some steps that parents and teachers can take to foster creativity among children.

  • Take the time to try to find the answer children’s questions and teach how to find their own answers.
  • Don’t always emphasize getting the “right” answers, but instead encourage inventiveness.
  • Encourage spontaneous and even silly play.
  • Foster independence.
  • Introduce children to different experiences including different places, cultures, food, languages, and people.
Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, In The Media, Youth Development Tagged With: , , , ,

Leadership stereotypes: Men still dominate

July 26, 2011 By 1 Comment

Over our most recent decade, women in the U.S. have made great strides in taking on new leadership roles. We’ve had our first female presidential candidate and our first female Speaker of the House. In 2011, 13 Fortune 500 companies were run by women and – get this! – those companies outperformed the overall stock market by 28 percent, according to an analysis by Forbes magazine.

But, alas, a new meta-analysis shows that our society still views leadership as a male trait.

The study, out of Northwestern University, found that women are hampered with two forms of prejudice when it comes to taking on leadership roles:  They are viewed as less qualified in general. And when they assume traits we associate with leadership, such as assertiveness or decisiveness, their behavior is viewed as inappropriate. (One Huffington Post columnist uses a less appropriate but more colorful word.)

But there is a silver lining. The analysis found that masculine views of leadership are less extreme today compared to when researchers began studying the culture of leadership traits in the early 1970s.

So what’s a woman to do?  Personally, I agree with Huffington Post columnist Laura Hibbard. The best thing we can do is to take on more leadership roles more often. The culture shift has already begun. Now we just need to make sure it continues.

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

Serious business: The evidence on heat waves

July 20, 2011 By 2 Comments

A massive heat wave is drifting across the United States, extending all of the way from Texas to the Canadian border.  So far in July, nearly 1,000 daily high temperature records were tied or broken in cities across the nation, including 12 all-time highest temperature records.

What does this mean for all of us?  Yes, it’s time to crank up the air conditioner and hit the swimming pool. But more importantly, it means we need to be on the look-out for heat-related illnesses.

Keith Tidball is a senior extension associate in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell and the coordinator for the New York State Extension Disaster Education Network.  

These days, it’s his job to educate people about how to stay safe in the heat. But he also learned a heck of a lot on the topic as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army. “I saw my share of strapping young guys become injured – sometimes permanently – from heat-related illness,” he said.

Keith offered three facts to help everyone stay safe during a heat wave:

  1. Heat illnesses can quickly become life-threatening. In fact, according to the National Weather Service, heat is the number-one weather-related killer in the United States.
  2.  Your body is 50 to 70 percent water, and heat causes that water to evaporate. So staying hydrated is the most important thing you can do for your body during heat waves. Water is best, but anything without alcohol or caffeine helps. The best way to know if you’re hydrated is to check the color of your urine. If it’s clear or light-colored, you’re in good shape.  If it’s bright or dark yellow, you need to drink a lot more water.
  3. Prevention is key. Once you’ve had a heat-related injury, you’re more susceptible to the next one. “In the military, you would have to wear a red tape around your uniform to indicate you’d had a heat-related illness in the past,” Keith explained.

He also offered a host of resources from universities and federal agencies about ways to cope with the heat.

The bottom line: If you’re urine is not clear when it’s hot out, you’re in danger. So, go ahead, take a break right now and drink some water.

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

Foods that lead to weight-gain – and other new evidence about staying slim

June 30, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Hungry for a snack?  Go for fruit and yogurt over a bag of chips.

There is new evidence that eating specific foods – like potato chips (surprise!) – on a regular basis leads to weight gain. Researchers at Harvard University conducted three prospective studies involving more than 120,000 people followed over the course of 20 years to learn more about dietary and lifestyle choices that impact weight gain.

The study published in the New England Journal of Medicine offers data about a lot of assumptions many people have about weight gain.

The most striking finding was that people who ate specific foods – among them potato chips, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages and red meats and processed meats – were more likely to gain weight.  Increased consumption of other foods – including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, yogurt and nuts – was associated with less weight gain.

The take-home message:  It matters what you eat, not just how much.  Eating healthier carbohydrates in place of sweets and refined grains leads to less weight gain over time, as does avoiding highly-processed foods.

“These findings underscore the importance of making wise food choices in preventing weight gain and obesity,” said Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard and senior author of the paper. “The idea that there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ foods is a myth that needs to be debunked.”

The study also found that getting too much or too little sleep, consuming alcohol on a daily basis and watching TV lead to weight gain.

You can see the lead author, Professor Dariush Mozaffarian, discussing his findings and learn more about the study in this Atlantic article.

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

MyPlate: A healthy diet in a glance

June 14, 2011 By 7 Comments

MyPlateYou may have noticed that the federal government launched a new food icon called MyPlate last week. The diagram is as part of a new, evidence-based initiative to improve the diets of Americans that we’ve written about before here on EBL.

The plate is a graphic representation of new dietary guidelines based on an extensive review by 13 nationally-recognized experts in nutrition and health.  While that sounds good, we wondered what the nutrition experts at Cornell think about the new icon.

Senior extension associate, Jennifer Wilkins, Ph.D., R.D., is the community coordinator for Cornell’s Dietetic Internship Program and director of Cornell’s Farm to School Research and Outreach program. On the whole, she’s a fan of the MyPlate graphic.

For one, the plate does a better job of conveying proportionality, she says.  “Advice to ‘make half of your plate fruits and vegetables’ couldn’t be clearer,” Wilkins said. And there’s clear evidence that taking this step alone will lead to a healthier diet.

The guidelines issued along with the plate – such as avoid oversized portions and sugary drinks – are simply worded and convey important steps to take to improving Americans diets.

But there is one aspect missing from the new icon, Wilkins said.

“The important reality is that food quality varies dramatically within each group,” she said. “ It really does matter how much of the grains are whole grains. It matters how, and to what extent fruits and vegetables, and grains are processed. And it matters if chicken is a breast or McNuggetized.”

The bottom line: MyPlate is a step in the right direction, but Americans should make sure they gather even more evidence about a healthy diet.

You can read more of Wilkins’ ideas about MyPlate and healthy eating in her column published in the Albany Times-Union.

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

The royal wedding and the dieting bride

May 4, 2011 By 1 Comment

Okay, we admit it. EBL wanted somehow to join in the frenzy over the royal wedding. But where would scientific evidence come in? Maybe: Does research show that two kisses are better than one? Or: What’s the effect of differences in status between two partners on long-term survival of  a marriage? But no evidence-based approach to William and Kate surfaced.

Until I saw reference to the work of Cornell Professor of Nutrition Jeff Sobal in the context of William and Kate’s nuptials! Apparently (as you royal watchers will know), Kate lost a lot of weight prior to her trip down the aisle in Westminster Abbey, raising the eyebrows of the media. Is this common, many asked, or is something up with Kate?

As reported in the Boston Globe and other media outlets, Prof. Sobal has done ground-breaking work on the topic of obesity, and has written extensively on the topic of “weight and weddings” (including this book chapter).

In one widely-read article, Sobal and a colleague conducted a descriptive survey that looked at weight management behaviors among women getting ready for their weddings, as well as their ideals for body weight. Most of the soon-to-be brides were overweight and planned to lose pounds before the big day. Some purchased a smaller-sized wedding dress as a motivator. So Kate is well within the norm by slimming down before tying the knot.

EBL has only one question: Did the new Duchess of Cambridge follow an evidence-based diet? Now that she’s an example to the British and the world, we hope so!

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

A move toward evidence-based criminal justice

March 17, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Earlier this month, the state of Illinois abolished its death penalty, the fourth state in the U.S. to remove the sentence in the past decade.  Among public leaders, consensus has grown slowly to support the decision not due to questions of morality, but of accuracy. Since 1973, nearly 140 death row inmates across the nation have been found innocent and released from prison before they were executed. 

Case reviews have found some common reasons why inmates are wrongfully-convicted such as eyewitness error, police and prosecutor misconduct, mishandled evidence, faculty testimony by another inmate in exchange for a reduced sentence and false confessions.

The increasing awareness that our criminal justice system doesn’t always get it right has spurred universities and non-profits across the country to reopen investigations for inmates who claim their innocent.  Cornell’s own Death Penalty Project is among the groups that work on such cases.

Maybe more importantly, publicity about wrongful conviction cases has created a movement toward evidence-based crime policy – using research on criminal justice issues to put policies into place that help to ensure our criminal justice system gets it right the first time around. For example, one systematic review of eyewitness testimony procedures found that high levels of stress negatively impact the accuracy of eye-witness testimony.

Researchers at the College of Human Ecology have partnered with Cornell faculty members in psychology and law to conduct basic research on some of these topics relevant to these issues including false memory, child testimony and jury decision-making and offer classes to students interested in this type of research.

The Campbell Collaboration – a clearinghouse for systematic reviews on social policy issues – has a crime and justice group that is working to broaden the information available on criminal justice issues. And other institutions, such as George Mason University, have created centers aimed at translating this research into policies and practices that local law enforcement officials are use in the field.

It’s a good start on a topic that should be pursued vigorously until changes are made.  In many cases our police officers, judges and juries are making life-or-death decisions about people’s lives.  If there’s ever a time to rely on evidence-based practices, this is it.

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

Stroke or migraine? Serene Branson’s case makes people wonder

February 22, 2011 By 1 Comment

The video of reporter Serene Branson suddenly speaking incomprehensibly as she tried to report on the Grammy Awards brought out a fascinating – in in the digital age, typical – response. The first reaction on the part of many people was to think it was very funny. How often does one see a well-coiffed reporter saying what sounds like: “A very, very heavy birtation tonight, a very derri-derrison.”

But the public response quickly changed from laughter to deep concern. And then, the concern lightened a bit, as new information came in. Comments on these videos followed the public’s reaction. In response to one Youtube “remix” of her garbled speech, viewers wrote in this order:

“Hilarious!”

“Oh man she had a stroke…not funny.”

“She didn’t have a stroke, just a migraine.”

And in fact, the medical diagnosis turned out to be a “complex migraine,” and not a stroke.

All of this probably left many people wondering: How would I know if it’s a stroke or a complex migraine? This is a very important question, because stroke is a huge health problem in the United States: it’s the third leading cause of death and the primary cause of disability among adults. Medical treament of stroke is getting better and better, but all the experts agree that speedy treatment for stroke is extremely important.

A helpful review recently appeared in The Journal of Family Practice called “Is It Stroke, or Something Else?” Drs. Konrad Nau, Todd Corcco, Johanna Biola, and Hollyn Larrabee note that rapid response is crucial in cases of stroke, but it is complicated when people have conditions that mimic stroke.

One of these is complex migraine, which Serene Branson apparently suffered. Complex migraine can mimic stroke symptoms, including hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body), vision loss, and aphasia (language problems). It’s the latter that was so obvious with reporter Branson. Usually a migraine comes on more slowly than a stroke and there is often a migraine “aura” that occurs prior to the episode. Age is also a factor: The average age for stroke is around 70, whereas complex migraines usually develop before age 40.

An easy-to-read article on the differences between stroke and complex migraine can be found here.

So what should we do? Fortunately, the answer is an easy one: All the experts say that if you have any of these symptoms (weakness on one side of the body, sudden trouble speaking, vision loss), seek medical attention immediately. This is one case where we can’t try to figure it out ourselves – get to your doctor or emergency room right away.

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

Does diet soda cause strokes? Nope!

February 10, 2011 By 8 Comments

I am guessing that many families reading the paper at breakfast today had this happen: Somebody said to someone else: “See, I told you drinking diet soda was bad for you!”

And that is because of a study reported widely in the media regarding the relationship between consumption of diet soda and stroke. Strokes are very bad things, often devastating the person to whom they occur, so a finding about anything that might increase our risk for stroke is worthy of notice.

 At Evidence-Based Living, one of the most fun things we do is to track back from the media coverage to the actual research findings. In so doing, we hope to help people figure out the nature of the evidence and whether we should immediately change our behavior. This was an unusually big story, and so we ask: Believe it or not?

First, let me say that media coverage was a little more measured than usual. Some news outlets did use headlines like that from Fox News: “Diet Soda Drinkers at Increased Risk for Stroke” which make it sound like a firm finding (and probably led to some of the heated breakfast-table conversations). But many other outlets included the all-important “may” in the headline, and the articles themselves included qualifications about the study. 

So let’s take a look at this finding, using some of the key questions EBL recommends you always employ when you are trying to figure out whether a scientific finding should change the way you live. 

1. What kind of a study was this? Was it a good one?

 This is what scientists call an observational study. It was not a randomized, controlled experiment in which some people were asked to drink diet soda and others were not. It uses a longitudinal study called the Northern Manhattan study (or NOMAS). And yes, it is a very good study of its kind. It looks at stroke risk factors across white, black, and Hispanic populations living in the same community (northern Manhattan). It is a large and representative sample, followed up annually to determine if people suffered a stroke (verified by doctors on the research team). Many publications in top referred scientific journals have been published from the study (some of which are available for free on the website). 

2. Where did the information in the media come from? 

Here, in EBL’s opinion, is the first problem. The results were presented at a scientific conference this week (the American Stroke Association). This is not the same as being published in a referred scientific journal. In addition, we cannot follow an EBL cardinal rule: Go to the original article. The only information that is available on the study is from a press release issued by the association and subsequent interviews with the study’s lead author and other experts. So we need to wait until the results are published before we even think of changing our behavior in response to them. 

3. Are the results definitive?

No, no, and again no. There are some good reasons not to drink diet soda (including possible increased risk of diabetes and osteoporosis), but these findings do not “prove” that diet soda leads to strokes.  

Some reasons why this is a very tentative and preliminary finding include the following: 

  • All the data are self-report, so we are dependent on people remembering their diet soda consumption. 

  • It’s the first study to show this association. EBL readers know that we need multiple studies before we even begin to think about recommending behavior change.

  • It’s not all diet soda drinking: It looks like only people drinking diet soda every day show the association with stroke, suggesting that lower consumption may not increase risk. 

  • The study is not representative of the U. S. population. First of all, you had to be over 39 years old in 1990 to get in the study and the average age of the sample now is in the late 60s, so the results can’t be generalized to younger people. Further, the sample for this study included 63% women, 21 % whites, 24 % blacks and 53 % Hispanics. In the U.S as a whole, 51% of the population are women, 77% are white, 23% black, and 16% Hispanic. So it’s a very different group from what a random sample of Americans would get you.

  • We don’t know the reason for the association. The lead author, Hannah Gardener, is open about this: “It’s reasonable to have doubts, because we don’t have a clear mechanism. This needs to be viewed as a preliminary study,” By “clear mechanism,” she means that even if this relationship exists between diet soda and stroke, we don’t know why. 

There’s more we could say, but our main point is this: It doesn’t take very long for you to “deconstruct” what the actual evidence is behind a news story. With a basic understanding of how studies are done and access to the Web, you can often find out as much as you need to know. In this case, the media have reported the first highly tentative findings of an association between two things. Now other scientists need to test it again and again to see if it holds up, as well as finding out why the association exists.

 I go for sparkling water instead of diet soda because of other problems mentioned earlier with diet beverages.  But regarding stroke risk, the data just aren’t there yet. 

   

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

What we know about gay teenagers

February 9, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Over the past year, the news has been filled with stories of the suicide among gay teenagers who’ve suffered bullying from their peers.  The stories are tragic. And there’s no doubt that some gay teenagers suffer more emotional distress than straight ones. But what do we really know about their lives?  Is the discrimination overplayed in the news media?

Ritch Savin-Williams, professor of Human Development at the College of Human Ecology and director of Cornell’s Sex and Gender Lab, has written a book that covers these topics called The New Gay Teenager.

In the book, Savin-Williams makes the point that it is much easier to get grants to study clinical problems and treatment, meaning that gay teenagers without health or emotional problems have fallen under the radar of most academic studies.

“We hear only the negative aspects from research. We don’t hear about normal gay teens,” he told the New York Times for an article earlier this year.  “It’s hard to get studies published when researchers don’t find differences. A large number of studies found no group differences between gay and straight youth, but these have not been published.”

Hi main concern is that the media presents a negative picture to teenagers who are questioning their sexuality.

“I’m concerned about the message being given to gay youth by adults who say they are destined to be depressed, abuse drugs or perhaps commit suicide,” he said. “I believe the message may create more suicides, more depression and more substance abuse. I worry about suicide contagion. About 10 to 15 percent are fragile gay kids, and they’re susceptible to messages of gay-youth suicide.”

More recent studies have found that straight youths are just as much at risk of being bullied if they exhibit atypical behavior.

“Bullying is less about sexuality than about gender nonconformity,” Dr. Savin-Williams said. “There are straight youth who are gender-atypical and they suffer as much as gay kids. But whether there’s a direct link between bullying and suicide among gay teens has not been shown.”

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

Weird science reporting: My Saturdays with USA Weekend

February 5, 2011 By 3 Comments

On Saturday mornings, my wife and I take turns getting the paper and the morning coffee, and we relax with it for a half hour before starting the weekend routine. My spouse has become used to my reaction when I turn to the magazine that comes with our paper: USA Weekend. Or more accurately, she has become used to covering her ears. When I put my Evidence-Based Living hat on, I believe that USA Weekend’s science reporting could at least enter any “worst of the year” contest.

But then I realized: This may be a “teachable moment” for me and others! On the positive side, it’s nice that relatively heavy coverage is given in USA Weekend to scientific findings. Their health and lifestyle articles are filled with “a recent study shows…” And they make many recommendations regarding nutrition, much of it supposedly based on science. There is even a celebrity panel called “The Doctors” who purport to answer your health questions.

Ah, but the road to you-know-where is paved with good intentions. And what you get from USA Weekend is almost the opposite of good evidence-based advice: It’s a mish-mash of simplistic inferences from individual studies mixed in with folk wisdom and anecdote – and it’s nearly impossible for the lay reader to tell the difference. As such, it’s a great example of exactly the kind of “science journalism” you should avoid taking too seriously. Let me give you a few examples of where the scientific advice provided in USA Weekend should have the label “Let the Reader Beware.”

1. No access to the original research. I am willing to be corrected on this, but nowhere on the USA Weekend site could I find any citations to the original studies. Evidence-Based Living always recommends you go back to the original scientific articles before believing the media, but so little information is given in a typical USA Weekend story that I couldn’t even determine what research was being referred to. If you can’t find the article, how do you know if the finding is real or not?

2. Reliance on a single study (or two). Regular readers of Evidence-Based Living know one cardinal rule: Never believe a single study (or a couple studies). Very often, articles in USA Weekend state: “Swedish scientists have found…” “New Research Shows…” “Two studies found,” “According to research presented at the American Chemical Society.”

What do we really need? All together now, EBL-ers: Systematic reviews of all available research leading to evidence-based practice recommendations. We need to see a finding replicated over and over, using rigorous scientific methods. We want those findings peer-reviewed by other scientists. And we want to know that they work outside of a controlled study. A couple of studies never prove a point, so we should not base our health-related behavior on the findings of a single study (and that’s what almost all scientists tell you at the end of their articles).

Just to give one example, USA Weekend reports that snoring is related to metabolic syndrome. In the closest article to this assertion I could find, the scientists qualify the finding extensively, including that the study is limited by the measures it used, by a small subsample, and by the cross-sectional (one-time) nature of part of the study. Where’s that information, USA Weekend?

3. Quick and confusing generalizations. The Doctors in USA Weekend make the somewhat astonishing recommendation: “Stop counting the calories (if you’re a woman over 65)” and they go on to suggest that it may be better for you stay at your current weight, because “Older women who lose weight can double their risk of hip fracture.” Now try as I might, I couldn’t find the exact reference, although there is research suggesting that weight loss can affect bone density negatively. But this says nothing about the total picture. Should a morbidly obese, diabetic person not lose weight because of a potential increase in hip fracture? Probably not, because the other obesity-related health problems can trump the increase in hip fracture risk.

Here’s a study idea for you: I wonder how many women read that comforting advice and dropped their diet, even if they are very overweight and at no particular risk of hip fracture. That’s why simple generalizations about studies do more harm than good usually.

What’s the lesson here? These snippets of information won’t necessarily do you any good unless you know where they come from, how the study was done, and how it applies to you. Does it fit with other scientific research? We’re told in this week’s issue that we should “sprinkle on the cumin” because “In a scientific study from India, cumin was found to be just as effective as an anti-diabetes drug in controlling diabetes in lab rats.” Does that apply to you? Who knows?

So go to the source whenever you can, and take your Saturday paper’s science reporting with a grain of salt!

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

Do gun control laws prevent violence?

January 31, 2011 By 10 Comments

Gun control laws are in the media spotlight once again in the wake of the Arizona shooting that killed six people and injured 13 including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.  Already, the Arizona Legislature has introduced two new bills that would loosen gun controls on college campuses. But what do we really know about gun control laws?  Is there evidence that they reduce violence?

As unsatisfying as it sounds, the answer is that we just don’t know.  One of the only systematic reviews available on this topic was published by the Community Guide, a resource at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control for evidence-based recommendations on improving public health.  It reviewed more than 40 studies on gun control laws ranging from bans to restrictions to waiting periods.  (You can read a summary of the report here.)

The conclusion:  “The evidence available from identified studies was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed singly or in combination.” 

Essentially, the review concludes that there is a lack of high-quality studies that evaluate specific gun control laws.  One challenge is that information about guns and who owns them is limited to protect the privacy of firearms owners.

So what do we know about firearms in the U.S.?

We know that firearms are present in about one-third of U.S. households, and that there are handguns in about half of those homes.

We also have a National Violent Death Reporting System, which collects information from death certificates, medical examiner reports and police reports in 19 states. According to the reporting system, 66 percent of all murders and 51 percent of suicides are committed with guns.  But that doesn’t tell us much – like whether the murders and suicides would occur by other means or, given stricter gun control laws, whether the perpetrators would find a way to obtain guns illegally.

The bottom line is that researchers and government officials need to step up to conduct more research and find a proven way to prevent gun violence from taking the lives of innocent citizens.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, In The Media, policy Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »
Skip to toolbar