In reading the methodology I am concerned about some facts
- There was no sub-sample group that did not participate in the election at all. A null control group. If the null control group experiences no change in testosterone and the "N" was large enough to be representative, then this study might, just might, have some validity.
- The saliva was collected in an uncontrolled environment
- Some of the participants were drinking alcohol during the study
- Comparisons were made (and conclusions also made) with the results of the female test despite:
Quote:
|
It is more difficult to measure salivary testosterone accurately in women than in men, and this could have contributed to the null finding in women
|
and
Quote:
|
Moreover, the biological mechanism that mediates males' rapid testosterone changes (via the testes) in response to winning and losing does not have a well-researched parallel mechanism in females (via the ovaries and adrenal glands) . In combination, these factors may explain the null finding in women from both methodological and biological perspectives.
|
And their conclusion?
Quote:
|
To conclude, the present results suggest that male, but not female, voters respond with testosterone changes to the outcome of presidential elections as if they had personally fought to ascend a social dominance hierarchy.
|
I could just see the expression on my faculty member's face if I gave her this.
I am finishing up my Doctorate. If I want to make a simple survey, I have to jump through so many academic control gates to ensure statistical and academic integrity it drives you nuts.
Then I read so some "study" where the "N" is 183 and the collection of the data is unsupervised/uncontrolled and more than half of the test subjects may be biologically unmeasurable and they are making conclusions.
I am in the wrong school. I gotta transfer to Duke for the easy grades.
