GETPSYCHED | Monthly Archives: September 2013

THE IMPORTANCE OF REPLICATION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE [1/2]

Posted on September 29, 2013 by mignone

Recent controversies over the integrity of psychological studies provided cause for researchers within the field to evaluate study designs in psychological science. Other disciplines have also expressed concerns over research methods and exaggerated results. While psychology is not alone, psychological science seems centered in the cross-hairs. A team of investigators at Duke University, headed by Dr. Matthew Makel, recently reviewed 100 years of published research in the field of psychology. The study, Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur?, examined the important role and current issues of replication in psychological science.

Dr. Makel’s study may explain a major factor contributing to the concern of integrity in social science research. Insufficient replication hinders the effectiveness of research and successful validation. His review may also provide a cure, or at least the beginning of a multifaceted therapy. Dr. Makel’s team also provides an avenue for enhancing validation within psychological science by examining the rate of replication, current replication trends, and concerns about successful reproductions. Increased replication may assist the field in dismissing false findings, reducing public confusion, and preventing further scrutiny over design and the entire publication process.

NOTABLE FALSE-FINDINGS

The recent alarming concerns about psychological research practices seems warranted. Notable psychologists and peer-reviewed journals in the field have published articles later found to contain false-positive results and exaggerated significance. Some of these articles achieved enhanced public notoriety due to their topics and extraordinary claims. This notoriety may explain the greater scientific and public damnation, as vague and shoddy methodology brought forth questions of the entire peer-review process in psychology, as subsequent studies failed to reproduce the extraordinary claims of the original research.

Dr. Makel mentions Blem’s 2011 studies of extra sensory perception. Dr. Darly Blem teaches psychology at Cornell University. Dr. Blem produced studies providing evidence for precognition. He claimed his subjects’ choices were affected by future events. His studies were published by a respected peer-reviewed psychology journal, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Controversy erupted soon after the Cornell professor’s flawed research first appeared in the journal. Many damned a respected journal for publishing para-psychological research. They claimed publishing such psychological pseudoscience in a esteemed peer-reviewed journal increases public confusion over legitimate scientific studies, diminishes the peer-review process, and devalues valid psychological scientific endeavors. It serves as a disservice to psychological science, and the scientific method. It may, however, increase the perceived value of replication within the field.

Three unrelated teams attempted and failed to reproduces Blem’s findings. While there remains cause for concern over several areas of the journal process, encouraging replication remains a key method for self-correction. Does replication provide the ultimate answer for increased awareness of false-positive findings, allowing social scientist to better dismiss studies presenting extraordinary claims and misinterpreting results?

WASH, RINSE, REPLICATE

Dr. Makel presents replication as the “Gold Standard,” or “Supreme Court” of the scientific method. Replication upholds or dismisses results from the original research. Science self-corrects though replication. Reproduction assists new knowledge in gaining acceptance, and provides a more precise understanding of the information collected. Replication studies attempt to reproduce the results of the original study, either directly or conceptually. Though not without its own issues, replication strengthens validity and helps the field achieve consensus about findings, while hopefully neutralizing experimenter bias, misinterpreted data, or incorrect design procedures.

Through reproduction, the field is able to direct, or redirect future research, and funding, while strengthening the effective utilization of the research in question. But how much replication occurs, and can we rely on replication to achieve the rigorous design and perceived integrity required to uphold valid scientific endeavors within the field psychology?

STAY TUNED!

Next post: Monday, October 7 – The Importance of Replication in Psychological Science, Part 2

My next post will examine Makel’s study in greater detail, review replication in other scientific disciplines, and present course corrections necessary to reduce the uncertainty of research results in psychological science.

Follow me on Twitter @getpsychedblog

Send to Kindle

GETPSYCHED: AN INTRODUCTION [5/5]

Posted on September 27, 2013 by mignone

GETPSYCHED: AN INTRODUCTION [5/5]
EXAMINING THE HUMAN CONDITION, ONE EVIDENCE BASED STUDY AT A TIME

SCIENCE ISN’T MAGIC; PSYCHOLOGY IS SCIENCE

A love of science enriched my understanding of the world and greatly encouraged my desire to learn. I realized the benefits of scientific discovery, and the importance of observation, questioning and critical thinking.

Science doesn’t exist to simply provide understanding of complex ideas. Understanding science provides opportunity. The principles of the scientific method expand an individual’s ability to conceptualize each aspect of every encounter we have with the world. By developing critical thinking and empirical analysis, we can construct a more accurate narrative of our surroundings. Scientific thought assists individuals in constructing a strong foundational framework for actions. More importantly, this framework augments adaptability and cultivates discriminative responses when encountering unanticipated events. It generates individuals able to critically and skeptically approach each and every task—mundane, exceptional, and in between.

Many higher learning institutions express the same core values—values based in the scientific model. Their mission statements describe a desire to enrich their students, providing a holistic development and fostering critical thinking and abstract analysis. Institutions promise to produce independent, life long learners.

Unfortunately, the rigid structure of formal education often contaminates an institution’s expression of these core beliefs. Learning isn’t rote memorization, teaching to a test, or providing a certification. Institutions should facilitate learning by teaching pupils how to think, how to find information, and how to develop independent solutions. Students should learn how to account for observable evidence, and how to best act, based on observation. Students should act because of evidence-based information, not because of assumptions or personal beliefs.

I study psychology to better understand the nature of human behavior. How and why do we adapt? In what ways do we learn? What fosters development? What prevents growth?

I chose a program that specified the importance of empirical research and critical thinking. Without careful observation and evidence-based practice, it is impossible to determine relationships within research, and exclude coincidence or unaccounted variables. The field provides outlines, diagnostic books, therapeutic techniques, and guidelines for practice. I want to question and verify these techniques and guides. I wanted more than an understanding of the history, methods, and therapies. The field has evolved, and continues to evolve. The majority today maintain a healthy distance from the pseudoscientific framework of historical psychology. Most research is based on observable, empirical practices. Much of the field adheres to the principles of science. There remains room for improvement.

Despite sixty years of corrective adjustments towards scientific and ethical practices, the field remains plagued by assumptions, often deceptively presented as scientific discovery. Because of this, many otherwise well informed individuals misunderstand the nature of science-based psychology, and empirically-based therapies.

In a recent discussion on the AcadmeicPsychology sub-reddit, the original poster asked “What scientific laws govern psychology?” After reading some of the post, I explained the basic theory of behavior and behavioral science: All organisms respond to their environment; a response to environmental stimuli-a behavior-increases or decreases due to immediate consequences. I received this response:

Redditor: I wish it were this simple. There are internal and external stimuli all competing in a seeming entropic environment, the brain, where 100,000 different chemical reactions are occurring each second.

Me: “Behavior modification and applied behavior analysis are empirically valid methods, tested in controlled environments and applied in practice.”

Redditor: “Please, do tell of these magical techniques that can so reliably change behavior. With them we can eliminate any need to imprison people, cure all the mentally ill and drug users, make all workers 100% efficient, and solve every other problem that is a consequence of abnormal behavior. “

Science isn’t magic. Psychology is science. Psychology doesn’t claim to cure all persons, extinguish all maladaptive behaviors, predict the consequences of all actions, and change all wrongs in the world. Nothing is 100%. By definition, a scientific study must be falsifiable! No scientific hypothesis, theory, law or practice may claim 100% certainty, let alone effectiveness. Psychologist deal with individuals. Any attempt to improve conditions of mental health or behavior vary vastly from person to person. Psychologist attempt to predict, analyze, or modify individual or group behavior and interactions. They analyze different precendental influences and indicators of actions or events. They attempt to better understand human behavior.

GET READY… GETPSYCHED!

The science of psychology confronts assumptions. By eliminating assumptions, psychology may provide some understanding as to the nature of human existence. Past and present science communicators championed scientific achievements and created an awareness for their own fields of study. Influenced by these past personalities, I created GETPSYCHED to explore the field of psychology from a science-based perspective.

Evidence-based research must be championed, providing distinction from pseudopsychology. Communicators cannot increase public consciousness alone. Researchers and practitioners must also adhere to scientific, evidence-based practices, and encourage colleges to maintain ethical guidelines. Academic instructors and students must understand and maintain these practices.

The field of psychology has come a long way since Breuer and Freud provided the foundations for psychodynamic theory. Psychology is a young science. The field still needs to shake the shackles and readjust resilient public memories of psychology’s pseudoscientific origins. Through GETPSYCHED, I will contribute to the public understanding of psychological science, clearly relay contemporary practices, and address popular misconceptions.

A MANIFESTO?

My introduction this week expressed my intent for GETPSYCHED. Over the next few months, I’d like to establish GETPSYCHED as a platform. As I expand my understanding of psychology, GETPSYCHED provides an outlet to share that learning, and new and exciting research. By exploring the importance of evidence-based practices, and by analyzing the evidence behind these practices, I hope to increase understanding of psychological science, and confront pseudoscience and misconception.

Whatever the outcome, this will be a learning experience…as B.F. Skinner once said:

“A failure is not always a mistake, it may simply be the best one can do under the circumstances. The real mistake is to stop trying.”

So stay tuned, get ready, and GETPSYCHED!

Find me @getpsychedblog on Twitter

Coming soon! The GETPSYCHED sub-reddit

Next Post: Monday, September 30th, a review of the recent Duke study about replication in psychology!

Send to Kindle

GETPSYCHED: AN INTRODUCTION [4/5]

Posted on September 26, 2013 by mignone

GETPSYCHED: AN INTRODUCTION [4/5]
EXAMINING THE HUMAN CONDITION, ONE EVIDENCE BASED STUDY AT A TIME

EX UNO PLURES

Ultimately I hope to develop a community with GETPSYCHED. I want to mold a group narrative, instead of remaining a singular voice. Community support and networking will expedite information discovery, quickly and efficiently vet information, and increase the site’s ability to reach out to broader and varied audiences.

The internet is big. Really big. The information is vast. Capturing more than just bits and pieces becomes less likely each day. A once gentle stream and steady broadcast of information now threatens to push past the levees. A brief vociferous response loses tangibility, drowned and muddied by the vast, rapid stream of information. A singular bulb no longer penetrates, and instead we need a beacon.

A world increasingly connected through online services needs to exponentially expand scientific communication. The internet provides nearly free, instant access to the growing abundance of unfiltered information. While scientific communicators offer a filter, and clear and consistent voice for evidence-based information, communicators no longer need to rely upon singular voices accessed through older mediums. The answer is not a great singular beacon. The answer lies with many smaller lights illuminating en masse.

A line in the sand needs to be drawn. With sufficient voices, a small community dedicated to observable validation might provide enough volume to defend empirically based discovery, inference and practices from mere assumption, misinformation, and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience encouraging ineffective or dangerous treatments and therapies. In order to achieve a proper volume, and emerge with prominence from the banks of the online information stream, scientific communication requires a community. These communities champion science-based narrative, and assist the communicator in providing understanding.

Community support provides assistance, increases impact and improves understanding for many different areas, across many different platforms. Forums and sub-reddits provide social communities for websites. Many communities self-monitor and vet information, in a collaborative development model. Users gain rewards when they contribute and provide useful information. The collaborative process allows the r/World News sub-reddit to provide information with greater speed than traditional media, or other social medias. Twitter far outpaces traditional media and most other form of media in providing access to current events (as well as a great deal of superfluous information). Sites like Wikipedia, stackoverflow, and XDA, present user provided information, and facilitates assistance and (hopefully) a means for developing greater independence. Many sites develop community forums to share information, gather opinion, and provide an open-exchange for topic discussion.

I see a need in the field of psychology for communicating science. This need exsists as long as the public remains rife with misinformation and misunderstanding of psychology as a science. By developing a GETPSYCHED community, I hope to establish an authoritative voice, increasing informed decisions promoting of science-based psychology.

STAY TUNED and GET PSYCHED!

Next Post: Friday, September 27th, 09:00 EST
An Introduction, Part 5: SCIENCE ISN’T MAGIC / PSYCHOLOGY IS SCIENCE

Find me @getpsychedblog on Twitter

Coming soon! The GETPSYCHED sub-reddit

Send to Kindle

GETPSYCHED: AN INTRODUCTION [3/5]

Posted on September 25, 2013 by mignone

GETPSYCHED: AN INTRODUCTION [3/5]
EXAMINING THE HUMAN CONDITION, ONE EVIDENCE BASED STUDY AT A TIME

SCIENTIFIC JOURNALISM

A JOURNALISTIC ENDEAVOR

Thousands of blogs serve as personal journals, mere extensions of Facebook and other social media. Others offer op-eds, or attempt to communicate information, but provide expositions with inconstant or inaccurate information. One downside of instant access though: the death of journalistic integrity, and scientific journalism.

Efforts to capture an ever distracted and fleeting audience lead to misrepresented or inaccurate information. While the intent is not always to deceive, forgiveness and correction falls on def ears, as readers follow focus on new information, and follow click bait from the original misinformation.

I hope to distinguish GETPSYCHED from the many thousands of blogging sites by providing consistent, relevant and accurate information. Posts will examine psychological topics from varied sources, though a science-based perspective. GETPSCHED begins a journalistic blogging endeavor: my attempt to provide an objective voice, and present contemporary research, issues and interests within my field.

VALIDATING THE WHOS, WHATS, WHERES, WHENS, AND WHYS?

Journalistic development and integrity declined as the internet provided platforms freely and quickly delivering information—often in real-time. In order to remain relevant and retain readership, journalists and reporters needed to adapt, they needed to be quick, be first, and to do so requires a disregard for accuracy. Haste makes waste by severely limiting fact-checking.

Scientific journalism followed suite, also restricted by staffing reductions. Once writers clearly communicated objective, detailed information of scientific research. Today, many “science journalists” will rewrite press releases for technology and scientific studies, and fail to vet information in order to save time. Quick posts prevent journalists from becoming lost in the continuous stream of information, and allows them to best capture the ever shrinking attention span of their reader-base.

Traditionally, science journalists develop a narrative of a scientific endeavor, clearly illustrating the process and information to a public audience of non-experts, and providing the source of the information and examining the validity of the topic. In addition to hasty releases, many science journalists today also ignore evidence—or their sources’ lack of evidence or evidence-based procedures. They develop a contrived narrative. Their subject is no longer the science. To reach a wider audience of less-informed individuals, many articles present mislead or misrepresented information on their subject, and relay extraordinary claims. Journalists present unbalanced information and focus on human interest, maverick practitioners with miracle cures, and extraneous warnings. Journalists highlight practitioners relaying personal, anecdotal experiences about treatments or disease, who develop unfounded causation, and disregard current consensus or the need to develop future empirical research testing their claims and personal observations.

Steven Novella, a Yale academic clinical neurologist, science communicator and skeptic, writes about his interaction with a such a journalist on his blog, Neurologicablog . The journalist in question published an article about a newly developed therapy for brain injury. This journalist, traditionally a sports writer, presented the information with an unbalanced narrative. He explains, in depth, how the developers of the treatment believe their treatment works. He discusses the patients’ anecdotal reports of success. He fails to adequately inform readers that this potential treatment still requires extensive research, proof of effectiveness, and FDA approval.

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE

Rather than providing a vector for public discovery of new science, mass media agencies convey validity of untested therapies or previously unrecognized “dangers” from common items or behaviors. They sensationalize perceived dangers, increasing fear, misunderstanding, and superstitions. These services often attempt to attract viewers though hyperbole.

“Tune in later! Find out what common household item could be killing you right now!”

These hyperbolic attempts to increase ratings underlay a pervasive—sometimes reckless—fear mongering and disregards journalistic integrity. This lack of integrity muddies public perception of scientific validity and research.

A few months ago, I was watching the local evening news. The health report featured the “a dangerous new trend with a common household item.” The report featured a young woman with breast cancer, and her physician. This woman was diagnosed at twenty-one, an unusually young age for a breast cancer diagnosis. Like many women her age, she used her bra to carry her cell phone. The young woman and her doctor believe carrying her cell phone in her bra contributed to her illness. A summary of the report can be found here: http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/22910787/pa-woman-convinced-keeping-cell-phone-in-bra-caused-breast-cancer

Shortly after, I noticed posts of this report on Facebook and videos on YouTube. The news presented an unbalanced narrative, and warned women of the risk of carrying a cell phone in their bra. The opinions of other experts were not discussed. They failed to mention that extensive studies presenting no relationship between cancer and cell phone use. The report failed to report other reasons a person may develop cancer at such a young age. Was this young woman genetically predisposed? Did she express genetic mutations on one or both of the BRCA genes? Was she exposed to other environmental factors previously recognized and indicated as a contributing factor in the increase or occurrence of breast cancer?

Her doctor attributes this unusual occurrence to an extraordinary claim. His only other evidence: one other patient that also carried her cell phone in her bra. Using reason, if that same doctor has treated hundreds of other patients with breast cancer, and these patients did not keep their cell phones in their bras, perhaps instead, carrying a cell phone in your bra prevents cancer?

QUOD GRATIS ASSERITUR GRATIS NEGATUR

The focus of scientific journalism should be the science. Presenting unsupported therapies, danger, and “mavericks authorities” encourages superstition and misunderstanding. Perhaps a greater danger, inaccurate reporting provides an enhanced volume and even grounds for unsubstantiated information, ideas and arguments. It muddies public perception of science, and lifts pseudoscience to an equal footing.

Science journalists should focus on the science, and at least construct a narrative relaying accurate information. Studies should be examined for their importance to society, future research, or generalized impact. They should increase public awareness of research, examine potential applications of developing science, and question claims requiring further research.

Like science communicators, science journalists should enable public awareness of science. Journalists should fact-check, understand their subject, and be aware of speculation. They must provide a balanced report and examine areas of weakness in design and evidence. Traditional and long-form journalism provides a platform for analysis, fact-checking and independent interpretations on a subject or narrative. GETPSYCHED will provide a more traditional journalistic styling. Quality of information supersedes speed of delivery. Posts examining research will critically analyze the information provided and the information not provided. Posts will discuss the impact of future research, and examine other areas and issues from an evidence-based perspective.

STAY TUNED and GET PSYCHED!

Next Post: Thursday, September 26th, 09:00 EST
An Introduction, Part 4: EX UNO PLURE

Find me @getpsychedblog on Twitter

Coming soon! The GETPSYCHED sub-reddit

Send to Kindle

GETPSYCHED: AN INTRODUCTION [2/5]

Posted on September 24, 2013 by mignone

GETPSYCHED: AN INTRODUCTION [2/5]
EXAMINING THE HUMAN CONDITION, ONE EVIDENCE-BASED STUDY AT A TIME

These scientist ignite(d) the imaginations of their audience, and crafted an endearing public presence. They are not simply scientists, they are science communicators. They bridge the gap between the esoteric world of scientific endeavor with the wide world of popular entertainment. They popularize and champion imagination, discovery, and critical thinking.

PART 2: SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

Like many, I am enamored by the endeavors of scientists like Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. These scientist ignite(d) the imaginations of their audience, and crafted an endearing public presence. They are not simply scientists, they are science communicators. They bridge the gap between the esoteric world of scientific endeavor with the wide world of popular entertainment. They popularize and champion imagination, discovery, and critical thinking. Science communicators enhance public awareness of the sciences and through this increased awareness, they encourage understanding, generate public interest, increase funding for research, and inspire a new generation to wonder, and pursue carriers in the sciences. They fostered my imagination as a youth, and continue to inspire me today.

Early science communicators, like Carl Sagan, were confined by very limited access to very limited media. These traditional media—television, radio and print—limited outreach, and provided little or no audience interaction. Today, the internet provides many new and varied methods for outreach, and facilitates direct and indirect audience interaction. With increased consumer choice, a varied approach reaches a larger audience and provides a greater avenue to interact with this audience. The formation of relationships and communities assist communicators with the dissemination of ideas, values, and information.

Today’s science communicators convey scientific information by embracing multiple avenues of this new and varied online media. Communicators use the internet as an inexpensive method to reach hundreds of thousands. Communicator like Steven Novella, a Yale clinical neurologist, prolific blogger, podcaster, and president of The NESS; Phil Plait, the “bad” astronomer, former discovery channel host, and blogger; and Kiki Sanford, a podcaster, trained neurophysiologist, and also a blogger. They employ many methods—blogging, podcasts, YouTube, and social media like Twitter and Reddit—to increase awareness and promote community involvement and interaction.

Early science communicators, like Carl Sagan, were confined by very limited access to very limited media. These traditional media—television, radio and print—limited outreach, and provided little or no audience interaction.

The availability, low costs, and near instant access of online socially interconnected media afford new science communicators an opportunity to develop a relationship with their audience not available to previous communicators utilizing traditional media. By providing an interactive platform, communicators promote enriched discussion, interaction, and information discovery. The new media facilitates independent learning, and reinforce their efforts to develop an audience of independent science enthusiast.

THERE’S MOVEMENT ALL OVER THE PLACE

Newer efforts do not focus solely on increasing public awareness scientific discovery. Today, science communicators attempt to develop critical thinking and encourage independent learning. Newer communicators encourage healthy skepticism of all information. The same media utilized by new communicators has also provided easy access to misinformation.

We are exposed to vast amounts of information each day. Misinformation, contradictions and pseudoscience runs rampant online—and traditional media. Science communicators must not only reveal the dangers of pseudoscience, but teach their audiences how to differentiate between valid, evidence-based knowledge, and unsubstantiated, anecdotal information.

New communicators help to filter biased information by providing a clear message, supported by observable facts. The need for science communication increases exponentially as more people gain access to online services. The internet provides nearly instant access to a growing abundance of misinformation, from misrepresent, invalid or contradictory sources.

Like these communicators, I will provide an objective analysis of psychological science. GETPSYHCHED will present a psychology focused science communication, filter erroneous findings and unreliable information, and provide clear, consistent, evidence-based reflections on contemporary research.

STAY TUNED and GET PSYCHED!

Next Post: Wednesday, September 25th, 09:00 EST
An Introduction, Part 3: SCIENTIFIC JOURNALISM

Find me @getpsychedblog on Twitter

Coming soon! The GETPSYCHED sub-reddit

Send to Kindle

GETPSYCHED: AN INTRODUCTION

Posted on September 23, 2013 by mignone

GETPSYCHED: AN INTRODUCTION [1/5]
EXAMINING THE HUMAN CONDITION, ONE EVIDENCE-BASED STUDY AT A TIME

An Oprah effect(1) skews public understanding of psychological research and psychotherapy. The persuasive—and revivalist-esque—nature of therapeutic talk shows, and shelves of self-help mantras and methods, provide nothing but a wide variety of snake-oils—vitamins become a cure-all, fighting the common cold, and relieving depression. You cannot cure cancer by bleeding with leaches, and a thousand anecdotal testimonials do not provide evidences of effectiveness.

PART 1: I’M PSYCHED: WHY YOU SHOULD BE, TOO!

I run. I run naked. To clarify—I run without headphones, music, or other forms of distraction. Long runs leave me alone with my thoughts and often provide an ample opportunity to develop ideas—weaving many “what ifs” as the miles pass. This blog is one such idea. GETPSYCHED developed last February, between the third and forth mile of a midnight run. Over the course of a few months, I refined and focused my goals for GETPSYCHED.

As I begin my graduate studies in clinical psychology, this site serves a dual-purpose: increasing my personal awareness of contemporary psychological research, and providing an outlet for my skeptical voice. I will attempt to clearly present contemporary research, and address media (mis)representations and public perception. Though ambitious, I’d like to improve public perception of psychology as a respected and established science.

GETPSYCHED developed from a desire to provide objective, science-based communicates of contemporary issues in psychology. Popular opinion regards the field with gross misunderstanding, media misinterpretation burdens psychology, and other science-based endeavors.

An Oprah effect(1) skews public understanding of psychological research and psychotherapy. The persuasive—and revivalist-esque—nature of therapeutic talk shows, and shelves of self-help mantras and methods, provide nothing but a wide variety of snake-oils—vitamins become a cure-all, fighting the common cold, and relieving depression. You cannot cure cancer by bleeding with leaches, and a thousand anecdotal testimonials do not provide evidences of effectiveness.

GETPSYCHED will examine popular conceptions of psychology, contemporary views within the field, and provide a critical analysis of contemporary research. I will examine validity and explore extraordinary claims.

I hope to encourage discussions, and an informed audience able to critically examine psychology, scientific research, and generally question what they hold as truth. Let the evidence construct a narrative. I hope disseminating reliable information will help to curb misrepresentation of psychological research and psychotherapy.

Ultimately, I hope GETPSYCHED develops into a psychology focused, scientific communication platform, extending from blog content to though other social medias—like Twitter and Reddit—with interesting blog content; encouraging enriched, informed discussion and participation. So stay tuned, get psyched, and let’s get started…

STAY TUNED and GET PSYCHED!

Next Post: Tuesday, September 24th, 09:00 EST
An Introduction, Part 2: SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

Find me @getpsychedblog on Twitter

Coming soon! The GETPSYCHED sub-reddit

(1) Bell, A. V. (2014). “I think about Oprah”: Social class differences in sources of health information. Qualitative health research. PMID: 24623661

Send to Kindle