I consider myself a very lucky person. I am lucky in the sense that all of my essential needs are taken care of, I have food, water, and shelter. I am also lucky in the sense that unessential needs are taken care of, I go to an amazing school, I have a loving family, wonderful friends ect. But even more so, I am lucky in the sense that many times a week I am presented with the strange and fortunate coincidences that I can only describe as, well, lucky. For example, I will run late to class on the days that my profesor is running even later, or on days where I have a ton of homework and a little amount of time, mandatory meetings or events that took up my time will get cancelled or postponed. On the terms of fortunate coincidences, last week was an extremely lucky week for me and made me wonder why is it that certain people are luckier than others?

Well, Dr. Richard Wiseman was curious about the same thing and ran an experiment to try to find out if specific people were lucky, if charms were lucky, or if luck is just a myth in general. Dr. Wiseman gathered 400 men and women of different ages, race, and socioeconomic status, to participate in his study. Over the years he had these volunteers keep diaries, complete questionares and intelligence tests, and even participate in laboratory experiments. His final conclusion was that people are not born lucky or unlucky. He states, “Instead, although lucky and unlucky people have almost no insight into the real causes of their good and bad luck, their thoughts and behavior are responsible for much of their fortune” (Richard wiseman).

Dr. Wiseman’s research discovered that there are four general principals that lucky people unintentionally follow. He states that, “They are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities, make lucky decisions by listening to their intuition, create self-fulfilling prophesies via positive expectations, and adopt a resilient attitude that transforms bad luck into good”. He goes into the idea that lucky people fill their life with variation in their schedule and routine. For example, Wiseman states, that people are generally luckier when they choose a different route to work everyday. Why? Because seeing a variety of different people, passing different places, and doing different things are going to give a person many more opportunities for good fortune in ones life. In Dr. Wiseman’s personality tests he found that people who consider themselves to be unlucky tend to be more stressed. But Dr. Wiseman did not provide statistics for this fact, so I got to thinking about the correlation between stress and unluckiness. The correlation in the study could be due to various different things, but one thing I took into account was reverse causation. It is very likely that a person can be presented with what is seen as an unlucky situation and become stressed over it. Also, third confounding variables could come into play because if one is stressed and a minor negative occurrence happens, they’re stress will amplify and they will feel unlucky. Whereas, if someone who is relaxed happens to be presented with a the same negative situation, they are not likely to become as emotional about it because they were not stressed already and therefor would not consider themselves to be unlucky.

The conclusion that can be reached from Dr. Wiseman’s study is that luckiness is almost always subjective. What one may see as an occurrence due to their unluckiness, another may look at as a minor set-back. So, the most effective lucky charm is a positive outlook and willingness to add variation into ones life.

Works Cited:

http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/The_Luck_Factor.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7312412.stm

Whenever I am completing homework, studying, or doing any sort of task I constantly sing throughout the process. Although I am a horrible singer, I find that it lessens my annoyance and stress with the work at hand. As I was doing homework in the library wishing I could singing to some of my favorite tunes, I wondered it singing can scientifically reduce stress.

At the Abant Izzet Baysal University in Turkey, researchers conducted an experiment to try and show how singing in a choir can help lower anxiety levels. In the experiment 35 people were split into two control groups, one of the groups could do whatever they pleased for that time and the other group would partake in an hour of choir singing. The huffington post states, “Researchers analyzed their positive and negative affect, as well as their levels of anxiety and salivary amylase (amylase is an enzyme that is often used as a

marker for inflammation)”. After analyzing this information the researchers found that the anxiety and stress levels of the people in the choir control group lessened significantly whereas the group of people who spent there time doing whatever they pleased reported the same or higher levels of anxiety.

This experiment is a good start to seeing the general effects of singing on a group of people, but there are many third variables that could cause discrepancy between the correlation between singing and decreased anxiety. First off they did not say where the non singing was located or the conditions of the room. If they were in a room that was hot and stuffy then there stress levels were bound to increase because of the room condition, and not because of their idleness. Second, the report did not state whether the control groups were randomized. If the subjects got to choose whether or not they wanted to sing, then it would be clear that the singers stress levels would go down because they already know the effect singing has one them. Meaning, if they know singing is a hobby of theirs than even before the experiment it can be inferred that singing will have a positive effect on them.

Although singing was shown to have significant impact on the choir group, we do not know if this experiment was randomized nor do we know the conditions of the room for the non singing group therefor it is difficult to say that the correlation in this experiment is accurate. While many studies have researched this topic, Abant Izzet Baysal University’s experiment personally did not convince me that singing reduces stress scientifically.

Works Cited:

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/08/0305735613477181.abstract?papetoc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/choir-singing-anxiety-_n_3147861.html

http://sciencenordic.com/choir-singing-improves-health-and-work-environment

Last weekend, I took my first trip visit home for the weekend to surprise my siblings and visit my family and friends that would be home for fall break. Upon first seeing all my loved ones I was greeted with a overwhelming slew of emotions and a record amount of bear hugs. Feeling great about being in the comfort of my own home, I began to think about how there is nothing like a hug from your parents, and how weird it was that I thought that. What is it about hugs that is so satisfying?

Dr. Tiffany Field, director of the Touch Research Institute at the University of Miami in Florida, reports on the physical benefits of human contact in our lives. In the Bottom Lines Daily Health news, Dr. Fields research was clarified. Doctor Field explained to the news that the major benefit that comes from touch is the decrease in stress levels, controlled by a hormone called cortisol. Cortisol is the hormone released when a person is under stress. Dr. Field states, “touching with moderate-pressure (a firm handshake) stimulates activity in the vagus nerve, one of the 12 cranial nerves in the brain, which in turn slows the heart and decreases the production of stress hormones including cortisol”. So, a likely reason I find hugs from my parents so comforting is because chemically, it lessens my stress level to a certain degree.

Looking into this research more I came across an experiment that tested the affect of hugs and human contact on couples. At the school of medicine in University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, a study was ran on adults with spouses or long-term partners. The scientists asked 100 adults to hold hands with there partner while watching a pleasant ten minute video, and then hug their partner for twenty seconds. Another group of 85 adults were asked to just sit and watch the pleasant video without their partner. After they watched the video the scientists asked the subjects to recount a time that made them angry or stressed. The recounting of these moments usually results in significant increase of blood pressure and heart rate. When both groups expressed their stressful story, the scientists found significant differences in blood pressure and heart rate between the two groups. They stated, “Blood pressure soared in the no-contact people. Their systolic (upper) reading jumped 24 points, more than double the rise for huggers, and their diastolic (lower) also rose significantly higher. Heart rate increased 10 beats a minute for those without contact compared with five beats a minute for huggers”(USA today).

This experiment is interesting because of the drastic difference between the two groups, but there are a few aspects that made me question the experiments accuracy. For example, when asking to recount a maddening story, it is possible that some people rather than others are more emotionally affected by the story. Meaning, some of the adults may not have reacted as strongly to something that angered them recently because they may have had time to come to terms with them. Also, some subjects could interpret “a recent time” as an occurrence that happened months ago, while others may recount something that might have happened hours before the experiment. The more recent the event, the more likely the subjects are to be physically affected by them. If the scientists were more specific about the time the subjects got frustrated the experiment could have had greater accuracy.

Although this flaw could have a great effect on the results of the experiment, I believe that the results that they gathered are so drastic and conclusive that it is hard to believe that the final hypothesis could be solely due to chance, but that cannot be guaranteed either. University of  North Carolina’s experiment and Tiffany Field’s research had similar hypothesis’ both expressing the significant benefits of hugging and human contact on ones mental health. Through the extensive experimentation acquired on this topic and the research I discussed previously I have come to the conclusion that, although my parents hugs are one of a kind, hugs in general should not be given sparingly as they provide significant benefits to ones mental health.

Work Cited:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/touching.makes.you.healthier.health/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/27/health-benefits-of-huggin_n_5008616.html

https://www6.miami.edu/touch-research/TRI%20Press/The%20Magic%20of%20Your%20Touch.pdf

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cortisol

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-03-09-hug-usat_x.htm

Climate change and global warming has been an issue of great debate in today’s society. With new scientific practices such as ice cores and the GASPer, AIR (Areas Immediate Reading), it is now public knowledge that the quality of air is one of the leading causes of climate change. High carbon footprints released through the combustion of fossil fuels from cars and machinery has sent scientists and innovators into a frenzy trying to find a way to stop these large emissions. On the other hand, there are many people that believe Climate Change is simply a myth, and that the toxins that we have released into our atmosphere are not an issue nor effect our lives. Well, when those people find out that scientists have recently found a link between air toxins and autism spectrum disorders, I think they will join in on the frenzy to stop these toxic emissions as well.

Dr.P.H. Evelyn Talbott from the University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences, was the lead investigator of the examination of air toxins and their affect on the emergence of autism. Talbott began the study because within the last two decades, their has been an increase of eight times in the amount of reported cases of autism spectrum disorders. As any thorough experiment should, the research included other possible factors that may link to this enormous increase. Dr. Talbott stated, “While previous studies have shown the increase to be partially due to changes in diagnostic practices and greater public awareness of autism, this does not fully explain the increased prevalence” (Science Daily). 

The experiment was population based, meaning Dr. Talbott took 217 families with children who have Autism and compared them to two separate sets of comparison families without children with Autism. The families and children compared were born during the same time period and lived in the same “six- county” area. The scientists used the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) for each family to check for the presence of thirty different pollutants that are known to cause endocrine disruption or neurodevelopmental issues. The results were significant as the research states, “Based on the child’s exposure to concentrations of air toxics during the mother’s pregnancy and the first two years of life, the researchers noted that children who fell into higher exposure groups to styrene and chromium were at a 1.4- to two-fold greater risk of ASD, after accounting for the age of the mother, maternal cigarette smoking, race and education”(University of Pittsburgh).

Another interesting piece of this experiment is the toxic chemicals that are hypothesized to be causing autism. The study lists the chemicals and where they come from in todays society. It states, “Styrene is used in the production of plastics and paints, but also is one of the products of combustion when burning gasoline in vehicles. Chromium is a heavy metal, and air pollution containing it typically is the result of industrial processes and the hardening of steel, but it also can come from power plants. Cyanide, methylene chloride, methanol and arsenic are all used in a number of industries or can be found in vehicle exhaust.” All of these chemicals, that scientists believe are causing autism, are thought to be coming from human innovation and machinery. These toxic chemicals may be coming directly from our industries and means of transportation, and poisoning our youth.

What I found convincing about this argument was how Dr. Talbott and the team produced results after taking into account many reasonable and likely third variables. They stated that after measuring things likes race, education, and exposure to cigarette smoke, they made their definitive conclusion. Even though the results are not proven to be one hundred percent accurate and minimal experimentation has been done on this topic, I believe that this study should evoke more research from scientists and innovators and more concern from the public. Specifically, I think that if this correlation were to be studied further, the people who do not believe in climate change, or the effort to slow down carbon emissions, would join the scientists and innovators in their frenzy to create cleaner air.

Work Cited:

http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/education-and-outreach/additional/science-focus/locus/index.shtml/amateur_guide_for_air_quality_000.shtml

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.VEkRz0tH1FI

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141022103546.htm

http://climatechange.umaine.edu/icecores/IceCore/Ice_Core_101.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-10/uops-aba102214.php

As Andrew announced that around 40% of the class did not participate in the first blog period, I instinctively slouched in my seat and avoided any kind of eye contact with classmates in the room. Yes, I was one of the 40%. I won’t go into details as to why I made this decision, the root of it, as I am sure is the same with all of my other classmates in the 40% category, is procrastination.

Psychology Today, along with numerous other studies, notes that there are many reasons as to why one procrastinates but one of the largest correlations was between procrastination and low self esteem. The physiologists’ at University of Alberta say that one is more likely to procrastinate if they lack in the belief that they can complete this task. They state that self esteem and self efficacy is one of the most common and prominent forms of correlations to procrastination, but due to the class poll I questioned this statement.

When Andrew posted our class poll asking students why they did not participate in blog period one, only 4 students claimed that they did not do the blogs because they did not understand, or lacked the belief that they could complete it. This small scale experiment greatly opposes the claim that scientists made, which also made me look at their experimentation behind this claim. In 2008, Robert Klassen and psychologists from the University of Alberta ran a 465 student study on procrastination and its correlation with self esteem and self efficacy. The study claims that, “Results reveal that although other self variables are related to procrastination, self-efficacy for self regulation is most predictive of the procrastination tendencies”. In the studies they measured the students self efficacy through multiple surveys questioning students on their level of confidence and examining the grade point averages of these students. After thorough experimentation they came to the conclusion that students with low self esteem and self efficacy are more likely to procrastinate.

Although the psychologists do not state that all people with low self esteem are procrastinators, the correlation that they made leaves out a few possible explanations as to why procrastination correlates so heavily to low self esteem. First, there could be many third confounding variables in cases where students with low self esteem, tend to push off work. For example, in the psychologists’ report they did not say whether or not the students remained in good health during the semester. I know that one of the main reasons I did not participate in blog period one was because I was ill and sleep deprived. I believed that I would work on the blogs after being restored to good health, as physical health is a huge factor in whether a student can preform well academically and stay on task. If students who consider themselves to have low self esteem catch a nasty sickness, like the ones traveling around PSU currently, then the direct correlation between self esteem and procrastination can be dismissed. Even if one considers themselves to have very low self esteem, there physical health will be a stronger factor on whether or not they push off doing work.

Second, the study is completely based upon the assumption that all 465 students being observed answered honestly on the survey. The survey consists of hypothetical situations and phrases that the students are asked to rank from 1 to 7. 1 meaning “not at all true of me” and 7 meaning “very true of me”. The phrases and situations created by the psychologists consists of statements such as “I am confident” and “I am confident I can understand the most difficult material presented in the readings in my classes”. This entire experiment is not anonymous, therefore the psychologists know exactly who ranks that they are not confident, and who ranks that they are very confident. This is an issue because it is not likely that all 465 students being observed feel totally comfortable with admitting to their confidence or lack of confidence. The accuracy of the survey is questionable because it is based upon the hope that all of the students  ranked themselves truthfully and accurately.

The strong correlation between self-esteem and procrastination continues to be researched, but through our class poll, third confounding variables, and the questionable accuracy of the surveys, I do not believe self esteem directly correlates with procrastination in this particular study.

Work Cited:

http://www.academia.edu/1230805/Academic_procrastination_of_undergraduates_Low_self-efficacy_to_self-regulate_predicts_higher_levels_of_procrastination

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201204/the-paradox-procrastination

My dad has always told me that there is absolutely nothing worse then a baby’s cry. Lucky for him, when I was born I developed colic. This means I had severe stomach pain and what my dad describes as “three months of nonstop screaming crying”. An interesting new study  by the University of North Carolina has found that the similar acoustics in the cries of rat pups and babies may be used to expose the dangerous effects of cocaine use during pregnancy on the development of an infants nervous system. (UNC news)

In the study the scientists collected data on the cries of infants and the cries of rat pups. The scientists first recruited pregnant women and mothers of young infants from drug rehabilitation centers, and separated their children into three groups. PCE infants, whose mothers used cocaine during pregnancy, SC infants whose mothers did not use any drugs during pregnancy, and PPE infants whose mothers used marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, antidepressants, or opium during pregnancy (but not cocaine). The infants crying was caused by placing them on a cold scale kept at twenty degrees celsius. Each cry was recorded for thirty seconds and its peak, amplitude, and decibels were recorded. 24 of the infants did not cry so there was a total of 107 infants whose cries were analyzed. The rat pups were separated into three control groups as well. To form a PCE group scientists injected pregnant rats with cocaine hydrochloride two times a day throughout gestation. To form an SC group pregnant rats were treated twice daily to a saline solution, and the scientists formed another untreated group where the mother would not have any injections during gestation. The randomly selected pups were given temperature variation challenges, meaning drastic changes in temperature, to elicit cries. The pup’s cries were recorded with the same technology as the infants.

Many significant comparisons were made in the research for example the study states, “Further, experimental evidence of the effects of PCE were found on a measure of rat pup USVs that has a similar acoustic structure to that of hyperphonation in human infant cry sounds. These studies provide the first known direct translational examination of similar acoustic structures of vocalizations of two species in the detection of effects of a similar adverse prenatal condition” (UNC study). This evidence is stating that the rats and humans whose mothers were both exposed to cocaine during pregnancy had very similar acoustic structures when the recordings were analyzed.

Although the similarity in the acoustics of the infants and pup’s PCE groups was significant, there are a few issues with this correlation. The first thing that has to be questioned is whether humans and rats react the same to cocaine. It is likely that a rat’s body does not react exactly to cocaine as humans. Also, the amount of cocaine given to the pregnant rats is important because it needs to directly correlate to the amount the infants might have been exposed to. Another issue that was addressed in the study, was the method of internalizing the cocaine and the timing of the cocaine use during pregnancy. These factors are important because if the rats were given a different amount of cocaine at different times during gestation, and do not process the drug the same, then the experiment can no longer be valid.

But no matter how cocaine affects the cry of an infant, or whether or not it correlates directly to a rat pup, cocaine has detrimental effects on women and can be extremely dangerous to fetuses. There has been enormous amounts of research on the threatening effects of cocaine; the drug should be avoided at all costs.

Works Cited:

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/understanding-colic-basics

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141022143601.htm

http://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2014/october/baby-cries-show-evidence-of-cocaine-exposure-during-pregnancy

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0110349

Hi Everyone!

My name is Maggy McCarthy and I’m a freshman currently majoring in Broadcast Journalism. I am taking this class because I have never really loved science, and the course description said something like “a science course for students who don’t like science”. So I decided to give it a go! I am not a science major because I have never been a strong student in science and math, and I have always wanted to work as a news anchor Here’s a pic I took of my dog being cute!