• Home
• About
• Contact

Subscribe

Online news portals get credibility boost from trusted sources

People who read news on the web tend to trust the gate even if there is no gatekeeper, according to Penn State researchers.

When readers access a story from a credible news source they trust through an online portal, they also tend to trust the portal, said S. Shyam Sundar, Distinguished Professor of Communications and co-director of the Media Effects Research Laboratory. Most of these portals use computers, not people, to automatically sort and post stories.

Sundar said this transfer of credibility provides online news portals — Yahoo News and Google News — with most of the benefits, but with little of the costs associated with online publishing.

“A news portal that uses stories from a credible source gets a boost in credibility and might even make money through advertising,” said Sundar. “However, if there is a lawsuit for spreading false information, for example, it’s unlikely that the portal will be named in the suit.”

Sundar said the flow of credibility did not go both ways. He said that reading a low-credibility story on a high-credibility portal did not make the original source more trustworthy.

The researchers, who reported their findings in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, asked a group of 231 students to read online news stories. After reading the stories, the students rated the credibility of the original source and the portal.

The researchers placed banners from Google News, which served as a high credibility portal, and the Drudge Report, which served as a low-credibility portal, on the pages. They also added banners to identify the New York Times — the high-credibility source — and the National Enquirer — the low-credibility source.

The students were significantly more likely to consider a portal credible if the source of the story was trustworthy. The credibility of the portal suffered if the source lacked trustworthiness.

Sundar said that attention to sources depended on the involvement of the reader. When readers were particularly interested in the story, they tended to more thoroughly evaluate all the sources involved in the production and distribution of that news. People who are not interested in the story base their judgments on the credibility of the portal, which is the most immediately visible source.

Sundar, who worked with Hyunjin Kang and Keunmin Bae, both doctoral students in communications, and Shaoke Zhang, doctoral student in information sciences and technology, said that the way credibility is transferred from site to site shows the complexity of the relationship between online news readers and sources.

Evaluating credibility is difficult on the web because there are often chains of news sources for a story, Sundar said. For example, a person may find a story on an online news portal, forward the information to another friend through email, who then posts it on a social network. The identity of the original source may or may not be carried along this chain to the final reader.

“With traditional media it’s fairly clear who the source is,” Sundar said. “But in online media, it gets very murky because there are so many sources.”

The Korea Science and Engineering Foundation of South Korea supported this work.

Contact: Matt Swayne
mls29@psu.edu
814-865-9481
Penn State

Republicans and democrats less divided than commonly thought

Republicans and Democrats are less divided in their attitudes than popularly believed, according to new research. It is exactly those perceptions of polarization, however, that help drive political engagement, researchers say.

“American polarization is largely exaggerated,” says Leaf Van Boven of the University of Colorado Boulder, especially by people who adopt strong political stances. And when people perceive a large gap between political parties, they may be more motivated to vote. That message emerges from analyses of 40 years’ worth of voter data and could help predict voting behavior for the 2012 presidential election, according to social psychologists presenting their work today at a conference in San Diego, CA.

Polarization and political engagement

Much of the data comes from the American National Election Studies, a large survey of American’s political attitudes and voting behaviors from 1948 to 2008 funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and from a nationally representative sample of American adults from 2008. Using a subset of 26,000 respondents from this data, John Chambers of the University of Florida and colleagues studied the degree to which people estimate differences between Republicans’ and Democrats’ attitudes. They found that the actual gap between the parties’ political attitudes has not increased substantially over time and that members of both parties have consistently overestimated the size of that gap.

Moreover, Chambers’ team found that those who perceived the greatest political polarization were more politically engaged – for example, more likely to have voted in the last election, tried to influence the vote of other voters, attended political rallies, or donated money to a party or candidate. “These findings may have important implications for election outcomes,” Chambers says. “Particularly in close or hotly-contested elections, the balance may be tipped in favor of the party whose members perceive more polarization between the two parties.”

Indeed, in the 2008 Presidential election, people who strongly supported either Obama or McCain perceived Americans as more polarized than did people whose support for either of the two candidates was more moderate, according to work by Van Boven of the University of Colorado Boulder. His NSF-funded study likewise found that people who perceived Americans as more polarized were more inclined to vote in the presidential election compared with people who perceived less polarization – independent how strongly they supported Obama or McCain.

Morality drives people to the polls

In another analysis from the 2008 election, moral conviction also significantly predicted the likelihood to vote, even when statistically controlling for people’s ideology, says G. Scott Morgan of Drew University. His research team surveyed 827 US residents about their political orientation, intentions to vote, and degrees of moral conviction on several issues, including abortion, same-sex marriage, tax cuts, and healthcare reform. They found that no party holds a monopoly on moral conviction.

The study counters the notion that conservatives’ political views and behaviors might be more greatly shaped by morality than those of liberals, Morgan says. Indeed, during the 2012 political campaign, he says “liberals and conservatives seem similarly likely to feel moral conviction about the issues that are important to them.”

Moral convictions change factual beliefs

Other researchers are investigating how people view morally controversial political issues. They are finding that people’s moral sensibilities shape their perceptions of facts.

Brittany Liu and Peter Ditto of the University of California, Irvine, tested how people’s perceptions of the costs and benefits of capital punishment changed when they read essays advocating either its inherent morality or immorality. The essays changed not only participants’ perceptions of the inherent morality of capital punishment but also beliefs about whether capital punishment deterred future crime or led to miscarriages of justice. “Changing participants’ moral beliefs led to corresponding changes in factual beliefs,” Liu says.

Related survey work found a similar pattern of results across many different issues, including forceful interrogations, stem cell research, abstinence-only sexual education, and global warming. The results help explain some of the major impediments to bipartisan cooperation, Liu says. “For both liberals and conservatives, there is no clean separation between moral intuitions and factual beliefs,” she says. “This affects how politicians and partisans interpret scientific and economic data, making compromise difficult as both sides hold drastically different beliefs about the relevant facts and data.”

A press conference on this research “Political Ideology: Red v. Blue in a Presidential Election Year” takes place on Jan. 27, 2012, at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP). More than 3,000 scientists are in attendance at the meeting in San Diego from Jan. 26-28 (http://www.spspmeeting.org).

SPSP promotes scientific research that explores how people think, behave, feel, and interact. With more than 7,000 members, the Society is the largest organization of social and personality psychologists in the world (http://www.spsp.org).

Contacts:

Lisa M.P. Munoz, SPSP Public Information Officer
spsp.publicaffairs@gmail.com
703-951-3195

John Chambers, University of Florida
jrchamb@ufl.edu
352-273-2162

Leaf Van Boven, University of Colorado
vanboven@colorado.edu
720-771-2261

G. Scott Morgan, Drew University
smorgan@drew.edu
973-408-3970

Peter Ditto
phditto@uci.edu
949-824-8168

President Obama calls for sustained investment in research

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama presented the nation with a new economic blueprint which includes maintaining our commitment to funding research and development that can improve our quality of life. Noting that “innovation also demands basic research,” the President urged Congress not to gut investments in the nation’s research budgets. He also pointed out that students come from all over the world to train at American research institutions. “Don’t let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the internet,” he stated.

Joseph C. LaManna, PhD, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) responded, “We enthusiastically support the President’s emphasis on innovation and join him in urging Congress to maintain the federal commitment to research. It is abundantly clear that research-based innovation has dramatically improved the quality of life for Americans and people around the world. Sustainable budgets allow scientists to pursue new ideas and address scientific challenges with increased sophistication. Our best hope for future progress remains a strong commitment to science and technology.”

LaManna also praised the President for acknowledging that public research dollars have helped develop advanced technologies. “Basic research funded by the federal government is at the heart of medical progress, but it is the kind of investment that no individual or private business could afford to undertake. If we do not have public support for the investigation of fundamental scientific principles, this work would not be done,” stated LaManna.

FASEB sincerely appreciates President Obama’s commitment to maintaining the nation’s research enterprise and will soon launch a new campaign to encourage biomedical scientists and engineers to become more involved in advocacy for science.

FASEB is composed of 26 societies with more than 100,000 members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. Celebrating 100 Years of Advancing the Life Sciences in 2012, FASEB is rededicating its efforts to advance health and well-being by promoting progress and education in biological and biomedical sciences through service to our member societies and collaborative advocacy.

Contact: Lawrence Green
lgreen@faseb.org
301-634-7335
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

President Obama and leading GOP presidential candidate support health research

Research!America’s new national voter education initiative, Your Candidates-Your Health, features responses from President Obama and Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on important health research and prevention issues. Among the highlights: both Obama and Gingrich agree that research to improve health and prevent disease is part of the solution to rising health care costs, and boosting investment in medical research creates jobs that benefit a wide variety of industries. Their positions on embryonic stem cell research differ.

“For too long, patients and families have suffered from debilitating, incurable diseases and we know that stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans across the country. I am committed to supporting responsible stem cell research now, and in the future,” said President Obama in his response to the questionnaire.

“I strongly support adult stem cell research,” said Gingrich. “I will oppose at every turn any process of destroying embryos.”

In the area of global competitiveness, Gingrich said, “Considering today’s American tax and regulatory systems, it is increasingly likely that the full implementation of the new [scientific] knowledge will first occur outside the United States and be imported by us. This will be tragic for Americans in lost health opportunities, lost jobs and prosperity, and unnecessarily higher healthcare costs.”

“To compete for the jobs and industries of our time, we have to make America the best place on earth to do business and out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world,” said Obama. “I have called for a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race and sent budgets to Congress that helps us meet that goal.”

Obama and Gingrich also responded to questions about support for the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, science, technology, engineering and math education, and government investment in health research for military veterans. www.yourcandidatesyourhealth.org. All presidential candidates were invited to participate.

The responses from Obama and Gingrich largely reflect public sentiment on federal support for research. In new public opinion poll data, a vast majority of Americans (86%) believe investing in health research is important for job creation and economic recovery and (54%) say research is part of the solution to rising health care costs. Seventy-seven percent believe the U.S. is losing its global competitive edge in science and innovation. However, 60% say they are uninformed about their representatives’ positions on medical, health and scientific research.

“Unfortunately, many elected officials and candidates have failed to elevate these issues in their campaigns,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America. “The poll underscores Americans’ willingness to make research a high priority to address our economic and health challenges.”

In other polling data, most Americans say it’s important to increase funding for federal health research agencies — (86%) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), (79%) for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and (75%) for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“Americans realize that massive spending cuts for federal agencies like the NIH would move our country in the wrong direction,” said Research!America’s chair, former Illinois Congressman John Porter. “A strong investment in research will yield more scientific discoveries, boost our global competitiveness and help lower health care costs. We need elected officials who will aggressively support and expand research and development.”

Additional findings from the public opinion poll include:

• 85% think research and innovation is important to their state economy.
• 48% say there is not enough government investment in health research for the benefit of military veterans and service members.
• 82% say it’s important to conduct medical or health research to eliminate health disparities.
• 73% believe the federal government should place more emphasis on increasing the number of young Americans who pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
• 61% favor expanding federal funding for research using embryonic stem cells.

About the Poll: Research!America commissioned JZ Analytics to conduct an online survey of 800 adults nationwide in October 2011. The sample is representative of the nation’s demographics, including geography, gender and ethnicity, with a theoretical error of ±3.0%. The full results can be found at http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/December2011PollRelease.pdf

For more information about Your Candidates – Your Health, visit www.yourcandidatesyourhealth.org. Supporting partners include the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Alzheimer’s Association, Pfizer, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American Association for Dental Research, Assurant, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, Charles Drew University, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Food Allergy Initiative, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Lovelace, National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, New York-Presbyterian, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Society for Neuroscience, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina School of Medicine and Washington University School of Medicine.

About Us: Research!America is the nation’s largest not-for-profit public education and advocacy alliance working to make research to improve health a higher national priority. Founded in 1989, Research!America is supported by member organizations representing 125 million Americans. Visit www.researchamerica.org.

Contact: Suzanne Ffolkes
sffolkes@researchamerica.org
571-482-2710
Research!America

A vaccination against social prejudice

Evolutionary psychologists suspect that prejudice is rooted in survival: Our distant ancestors had to avoid outsiders who might have carried disease. Research still shows that when people feel vulnerable to illness, they exhibit more bias toward stigmatized groups. But a new study in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science suggests there might be a modern way to break that link.

“We thought if we could alleviate concerns about disease, we could also alleviate the prejudice that arises from them,” says Julie Y. Huang of the University of Toronto, about a study she conducted with Alexandra Sedlovskaya of Harvard University; Joshua M. Ackerman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Yale University’s John A. Bargh. The group found that the sense of security derived through measures such as vaccination and hand washing can reduce bias against “out” groups, from immigrants to the obese.

The researchers conducted three experiments. The first two (with 135 and 26 participants, respectively) looked at people’s reactions to threats of the flu. In the first, some participants were already vaccinated, others not. Half the subjects – including members of both groups – read a cautionary passage about the flu. In experiment 2, all the participants had been vaccinated. They read a similar text, but some of them read one with a section saying the vaccine is effective; the others received only an explanation of how it functions. In both experiments, participants answered questionnaires assessing their level of prejudice – in the first, particularly toward immigrants, in the second, toward numerous groups, including crack addicts and obese people.

The findings: In experiment 1, among those who read the text – and were thus reminded of the disease threat – the vaccinated showed less anti-immigrant sentiment than the unvaccinated. There was no significant difference among those who didn’t read the passage. In experiment 2, those who got assurances of the vaccine’s effectiveness showed less disease-related bias. “Even when everyone is actually protected,” comments Huang, “the perception that they are well protected attenuates prejudice.”

In the third experiment, with 26 undergraduate participants, half used a hand wipe to wipe their hands and the keyboard of a computer they were using. The others didn’t. The text they read included the statement that anti-bacterial hand wipes help protect against contagion. These students were assessed for their nervousness about germs – a signal of feeling vulnerable to disease – and their feelings toward seven out-groups and two in-groups (undergraduates and their families). As expected, among those who did not wipe their hands, germ aversion correlated positively with aversion to stigmatized groups. But the germ-averse hand-wipers didn’t express prejudice. None showed bias toward people like themselves and their loved ones.

The study – which is unique in uniting evolutionary psychology, social cognitive psychology, and public health – holds promise for reducing physical and social maladies at once. Write the authors, a public health intervention like vaccination or hand washing could be a “modern treatment for [an] ancient affliction.”

For more information about this study, please contact: Julie Y. Huang at julie.huang@rotman.utoronto.ca.

The APS journal Psychological Science is the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. For a copy of the article “Immunizing Against Prejudice Effects of Disease Protection on Attitudes Toward Out-Groups” and access to other Psychological Science research findings, please contact Divya Menon at 202-293-9300 or dmenon@psychologicalscience.org.

Contact: Divya Menon
dmenon@psychologicalscience.org
202-293-9300
Association for Psychological Science

Study shows medical marijuana laws reduce traffic deaths

A groundbreaking new study shows that laws legalizing medical marijuana have resulted in a nearly nine percent drop in traffic deaths and a five percent reduction in beer sales.

“Our research suggests that the legalization of medical marijuana reduces traffic fatalities through reducing alcohol consumption by young adults,” said Daniel Rees, professor of economics at the University of Colorado Denver who co-authored the study with D. Mark Anderson, assistant professor of economics at Montana State University.

The researchers collected data from a variety of sources including the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System.

The study is the first to examine the relationship between the legalization of medical marijuana and traffic deaths.

“We were astounded by how little is known about the effects of legalizing medical marijuana,” Rees said. “We looked into traffic fatalities because there is good data, and the data allow us to test whether alcohol was a factor.”

Anderson noted that traffic deaths are significant from a policy standpoint.

“Traffic fatalities are an important outcome from a policy perspective because they represent the leading cause of death among Americans ages five to 34,” he said.

The economists analyzed traffic fatalities nationwide, including the 13 states that legalized medical marijuana between 1990 and 2009. In those states, they found evidence that alcohol consumption by 20- through 29-year-olds went down, resulting in fewer deaths on the road.

The economists noted that simulator studies conducted by previous researchers suggest that drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to underestimate how badly their skills are impaired. They drive faster and take more risks. In contrast, these studies show that drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to avoid risks. However, Rees and Anderson cautioned that legalization of medical marijuana may result in fewer traffic deaths because it’s typically used in private, while alcohol is often consumed at bars and restaurants.

“I think this is a very timely study given all the medical marijuana laws being passed or under consideration,” Anderson said. “These policies have not been research-based thus far and our research shows some of the social effects of these laws. Our results suggest a direct link between marijuana and alcohol consumption.”

The study also examined marijuana use in three states that legalized medical marijuana in the mid-2000s, Montana, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Marijuana use by adults increased after legalization in Montana and Rhode Island, but not in Vermont. There was no evidence that marijuana use by minors increased.

Opponents of medical marijuana believe that legalization leads to increased use of marijuana by minors.

According to Rees and Anderson, the majority of registered medical marijuana patients in Arizona and Colorado are male. In Arizona, 75 percent of registered patients are male; in Colorado, 68 percent are male. Many are under the age of 40. For instance, 48 percent of registered patients in Montana are under 40.

“Although we make no policy recommendations, it certainly appears as though medical marijuana laws are making our highways safer,” Rees said.

The study is entitled, “Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption.” It can be found at: http://www.iza.org/en/webcontent/personnel/photos/index_html?key=4915

The University of Colorado Denver offers more than 120 degrees and programs in 13 schools and colleges and serves more than 28,000 students. CU Denver is located on the Denver Campus and the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colo.

Contact: David Kelly
david.kelly@ucdenver.edu
303-315-6374
University of Colorado Denver

Report: More than half of people arrested for Islamic terrorist activities were American citizens

Sixty percent of people arrested for Islamic terrorist activities between January 2009 and April 2011 were American citizens, according to a new report from Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The study of 104 people who were arrested included U.S. and non-U.S. citizens living in America or abroad.

The report, “Analyzing the Islamic Extremist Phenomenon in the United States: A Study of Recent Activity,” was authored by Joan Neuhaus Schaan, fellow in homeland security at the Baker Institute. Jessica Phillips, an intern with the Baker Institute’s homeland security and terrorism program, provided research support for the study.

Using data from international and U.S. news reports, general Internet media, public records and official court documents, the researchers set out in November 2010 to analyze information on the status of Islamic extremism in the United States. They also looked at some of the unanswered questions raised by U.S. Rep. Peter King’s Committee on Homeland Security hearing, “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community’s Response.” King, R-N.Y., and chair of the committee, held the hearing March 10, 2011.

“Providing policymakers this data can allow for a factual discussion and diminish rhetoric,” Neuhaus Schaan said. “Consequently, policy can be crafted to address current and future needs in the face of change and adaptation by those determined to bring harm to the United States.”

Other key findings from the report include:

• Of the 104 American citizens arrested for Islamic extremist activities between January 2009 and April 2011, half were born in the U.S., 22 percent were naturalized citizens and 7 percent were dual citizens.
• Of the 104, 5 percent entered the U.S. on a visa.
• Sixty-three percent of converts had a known prior criminal record.
• Of the 14 American converts with a prior criminal history, at least 55 percent had converted to Islam in prison.
• Ninety-two 92 percent were male.
• Sixty-four percent were 30 years old or younger.
• Sixty-six percent had traveled or were in the process of traveling to the Middle East, Somalia, South Asia or the Balkans.
• Of the 104, 70 percent had an association or were attempting an association with an internationally recognized terrorist organization; al-Qaida and its associated branches were cited most.
• Of the 29 persons with no known association to a group, 11 had been active on terrorist-related chat rooms and websites.
• Overall, 38 percent had been involved in this Internet activity.
• Only 10 of the 104 are what the authors would consider “lone wolves”; most in the cohort had ties to others in the group or to an organization.

Information on birthplaces and conversion to Islam was available for 77 of the 104 people arrested. The data revealed that 60 percent of the group was born outside the U.S. Of the 31 U.S.-born persons where religion of origin could be determined , 14 were born into Muslim families and 17 converted to Islam.

“The Internet and prison conversion are the two biggest new trends that policymakers need to look at more closely,” Neuhaus Schaan said. “We’ve seen a major change in how people become associated with extremist groups in the past 20 years, and we need to adapt.”

The report concludes that approximately two-thirds of those involved in extremist activity are men under the age of 34, and no single, all-encompassing profile can be made of the analysis group of 104. Neuhaus Schaan said that the Baker Institute will continue to compile data and issue an updated report annually.

To interview Neuhaus Schaan, contact David Ruth, director of national media relations, at druth@rice.edu or 713-348-6327.

Related materials:

To view the complete report, visit http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/SEC-pub-USIslamicExtremist110411.pdf.

A transcript of King’s hearing is available at http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/hearing-%E2%80%9C-extent-radicalization-american-muslim-community-and-communitys-response%E2%80%9D.

Located on a 300-acre forested campus in Houston, Rice University is consistently ranked among the nation’s top 20 universities by U.S. News & World Report. Rice has highly respected schools of Architecture, Business, Continuing Studies, Engineering, Humanities, Music, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences and is known for its “unconventional wisdom.” With 3,708 undergraduates and 2,374 graduate students, Rice’s undergraduate student-to-faculty ratio is less than 6-to-1. Its residential college system builds close-knit communities and lifelong friendships, just one reason why Rice has been ranked No. 1 for best quality of life multiple times by the Princeton Review and No. 4 for “best value” among private universities by Kiplinger’s Personal Finance. To read “What they’re saying about Rice,” go to www.rice.edu/nationalmedia/Rice.pdf.

Contact: David Ruth
druth@rice.edu
713-348-6327
Rice University

Preferences shaped by evolution draw voters to candidates with lower-pitched voices

Voters prefer to choose candidates with lower-pitched voices, according to new findings by researchers at McMaster University.

A team from the Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behavior found that study subjects were more inclined to vote for men with lower-pitched voices, suggesting that perceptions developed long ago may be still be influencing the way we choose leaders.

“We’re looking at men’s low voice-pitch as a cue to dominance, which is related to leadership,” says graduate student Cara Tigue, lead author of the paper, published on-line today in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. “Throughout our evolutionary history, it would have been important for our ancestors to pay attention to cues to good leadership, because group leaders affected a person’s ability to survive and reproduce within a group. We’re looking at it in a present-day, 21st-century context.”

To test voice-related perceptions, the researchers manipulated archival recordings of US presidents, creating lower- and higher-pitched versions of each voice.

They played the altered recordings for test subjects and asked them to rate their perceptions of the speakers’ attractiveness, leadership potential, honesty, intelligence and dominance. They also asked subjects which version of the voice they would prefer to vote for, both in peacetime and wartime.

Though the motivations were different, in all cases they preferred candidates with lower-pitched voices.

While political strategists have long taken voice-pitch into account in presenting their candidates, the premise that voters prefer men with lower-pitched voices had never been scientifically tested until now.

While voice-pitch is not the only influence on voters, the researchers say, their study shows it is clearly part of the decision-making process.

“One of the implications of our research is that voters may take it into account when making voting decisions,” says Tigue.

Earlier research that looked at US presidential candidates between 1960 and 2000 found that in all eight elections, the candidate with the lower voice had won the popular vote.

Other studies had concluded that both men and women find lower-pitched voices more attractive.

Subjects consider men with low-pitched voices to be both more attractive and more dominant, but the new research shows that it’s the perception of dominance that has a greater influence on voting decisions.

“People think we want to vote for men with lower-pitched voices because they’re more attractive,” says David Feinberg, the McMaster psychology professor who supervised the research, “but it’s because people perceive them as better leaders and more dominant, not just because they’re attractive.”

Feinberg says future projects will look at perceptions of Canadian politicians and female politicians.

McMaster University, one of four Canadian universities listed among the Top 100 universities in the world, is renowned for its innovation in both learning and discovery. It has a student population of 23,000, and more than 150,000 alumni in 128 countries.

For more information, please contact:

Wade Hemsworth
Public Relations Manager
McMaster University
905-525-9140 ext. 27988
hemswor@mcmaster.ca

Michelle Donovan
Public Relations Manager
McMaster University
905-525-9140 ext. 22869
donovam@mcmaster.ca

Groundbreaking study quantifies health costs of climate-change related disasters in the US

Health costs exceeding $14 billion dollars, 21,000 emergency room visits, nearly 1,700 deaths, and 9,000 hospitalizations are among the staggering impacts of six climate change-related events in the United States during the last decade, according to a first-of-its-kind study published in November 2011 edition of the journal Health Affairs.

“When extreme weather hits, we hear about the property damage and insurance costs. The healthcare costs never end up on the tab, but that doesn’t mean they’re not there,” said lead author Kim Knowlton, DrPH, assistant clinical professor of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health and Senior Scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Right now, there’s a gaping hole in our understanding of the health-related costs of climate change. This report begins the work to fill that void. Only by having a clear sense of health impacts and their costs, can we work to reduce them.”

The analysis spotlights cases in six specific categories in the U.S. occurring during 2002 through 2009, including: Florida hurricanes, North Dakota floods, California heat waves and wild fires, nationwide ozone air pollution, and West Nile virus outbreaks in Louisiana (which were tied to warmer weather and changes in precipitation patterns). The study is the first to develop a uniform method of quantifying the associated health costs for extreme weather and disease events that are expected to be exacerbated by climate change.

Researchers found that the six categories of events resulted in an estimated 1,689 premature deaths, 8,992 hospitalizations, 21,113 emergency room visits, and 734,398 outpatient visits, totaling over 760,000 encounters with the health care system. Extreme climate-change related events are projected to increase in severity and frequency as climate change continues to go unchecked.

Only 13 U.S. states currently include public health measures in their climate change adaptation plans. With a better understanding of the economic impacts and health risks, as offered by the study, government agencies and key players can create effective partnerships for climate-health preparedness that aggressively limit and reduce public health damage.

“Investments in climate change mitigation at the local, state and national levels, married with analyses of the climate change health costs to inform this strategic planning, will save billions of dollars in health costs and save lives,” notes Dr. Knowlton.

This week Congresswoman Lois Capps (D – CA) proposed the Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Act. The bill would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a national strategic action plan to assist health professionals in preparing for and responding to the public health effects of climate change.

About Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health

Founded in 1922 as one of the first three public health academies in the nation, Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health pursues an agenda of research, education, and service to address the critical and complex public health issues affecting New Yorkers, the nation and the world. The Mailman School is the third largest recipient of NIH grants among schools of public health. Its over 300 multi-disciplinary faculty members work in more than 100 countries around the world, addressing such issues as preventing infectious and chronic diseases, environmental health, maternal and child health, health policy, climate change & health, and public health preparedness. It is a leader in public health education with over 1,000 graduate students from more than 40 nations pursuing a variety of master’s and doctoral degree programs. The Mailman School is also home to numerous world-renowned research centers including the International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment Programs (ICAP), the National Center for Disaster Preparedness, and the Center for Infection and Immunity. For more information, please visit www.mailman.columbia.edu

About the Natural Resources Defense Council

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.3 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Livingston, MT, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing. More information on NRDC is available at its Web site: www.nrdc.org.

Contact: Stephanie Berger
sb2247@columbia.edu
212-305-4372
Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health

The new old age – today’s pensioners are very different to yesterday’s

Old people today have more sex, are more likely to be divorced, are cleverer and feel better, reveals a long-term research project comparing what it is like to be old today with 30 years ago. “It’s time to start talking about the ‘new old age’,” says researcher Ingmar Skoog.

The number of elderly is rising worldwide, and it is estimated that average life expectancy in Europe will reach 100 by the end of the century.

At the same time, old age and what we expect from it are changing. An extensive research project at the University of Gothenburg’s Sahlgrenska Academy has spent a number of years comparing the elderly of the 1970s with those of today. The project, known as the H70 study, reveals that old age has changed drastically in a number of ways.

For example, the proportion of elderly with schooling beyond secondary level has risen from 14% to almost 40% for both genders. This is reflected in a better performance in intelligence tests by today’s 70-year-olds than their counterparts back in the 1970s.

The proportion of married people has increased, as has the proportion of divorcees. The elderly are also now more sexually active, and the number with sexual problems such as impotence has fallen.

The results of the long-term study can also be contradictory, not least when it comes to social networking:

“The H70 study shows that the elderly are more outgoing today than they were in the 1970s – they talk more to their neighbours, for example – yet the percentage of elderly who feel lonely has increased significantly,” says professor Ingmar Skoog from the University of Gothenburg’s Sahlgrenska Academy, who leads the study.

Old people’s mental health does not seem to have changed, however. Dementia disorders are no more prevalent today than they were 30 years ago, and while more old people consider themselves to be mildly depressed, more severe forms of depression have not become more common. Meanwhile the elderly are coping better with everyday life: the number needing help with cleaning has fallen from 25% to 12%, and only 4% need help taking a bath, down from 14% in the 1970s.

“Our conclusion is that pensioners are generally healthier and perkier today than they were 30 years ago,” says Skoog. “This may be of interest both in the debate about where to set the retirement age and in terms of the baby boomers now hitting retirement age.”

The H70 study in Gothenburg began back in 1971. More than 1,000 70-year-old men and women born in 1901-02 were examined by doctors and interviewed about their lives to obtain a picture of diseases in elderly populations, risk factors and their functional capacity and social networks. The participants were examined again at the age of 75 and then at regular intervals until the final participant died at the age of 105. The year 2000 brought the start of a new study of 70-year-olds born in 1930, who were examined using the same methods, making it possible to follow a specific generation through life and compare different generations.

Contact: Ingmar Skoog
ingmar.skoog@neuro.gu.se
46-031-343-8640
University of Gothenburg

Next Page »

• Great Resources

  Apartment listings anywhere in the United States

Copyright © 2007 - 2011 ChattahBox News Blog