Does the study's method support the claim that attending arts events makes you live longer? Photo credit: agefotostock/Alamy
We'll never run out of material in the "correlation is not causation" department.
This time, a New York Times journalist led with the headline, "Another benefit of going to museums? You may live longer."
Let's check out the study behind this causal claim.
According to the journalist's summary of the empirical article,
Researchers in London who followed thousands of people 50 and older over a 14-year period discovered that those who went to a museum or attended a concert just once or twice a year were 14 percent less likely to die during that period than those who didn’t.
The chances of living longer only went up the more frequently people engaged with the arts, according to the study, which was published this month in The BMJ, formerly The British Medical Journal. People who went to a museum or the theater once a month or even every few months had a 31 percent reduced risk of dying in that period, according to the study.
a) Starting just from here–what are the two variables they've mentioned so far? Were they manipulated or measured?
b) Based on what you've read so far, is this study correlational or experimental?
c) Without reading further, think of a third variable (a "C") that is likely to be correlated with both A (going to museums or concerts) and B (being less likely to die). Any good ideas?
OK! Time for more information about the study from the journalist:
The study controlled for socioeconomic factors like a participant’s income, education level and mobility, said Andrew Steptoe, a co-author of the study and the head of University College London’s research department of behavioral science and health.
“Even if you take those things into account, we still found that there is a difference in the survival of people who are involved in the arts,” Professor Steptoe said in an interview on Friday.
Sounds like multiple regression was used here.
d) What was the criterion (dependent) variable in this study now?
e) What were the predictor ("independent") variables?
f) Sketch a little regression table similar to those in Chapter 9–put the criterion variable at the top and the predictors at the bottom. Which betas do you think were significant?
g) More importantly, was the "C" variable you thought about in c), above, controlled in their regression?
h) Even though the authors controlled for income, education, and mobility, there are likely to be additional third variables that were NOT controlled for. Think of at least one more alternative explanation.
As you learn in Chapter 9, regression does not support causation because even though it can control for alternative explanations you can think of (such as income, education, or mobility), it doesn't control for everything. If you read the Time's summary, you'll see even more variables they seem to have controlled for , such as marital status and profession. But there could still be unmeasured variables that are responsible for the relationship.
But that doesn't stop the authors from making causal speculations. In fact, here's a mediator hypothesis. i) Sketch this mediator following the diagrams at the end of Chapter 9:
The study also noted that engaging in the arts can reduce loneliness, promote empathy and emotional intelligence, and keep people from becoming sedentary — all factors that contribute to a longer life.
What kind of study would you need to conduct to test this proposed mediator?
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related Posts
