by clicking the "Next" arrow.
by clicking on the page.
the page around when zoomed in by dragging it.
the zoom using the slider when zoomed-in.
by clicking on the zoomed-in page.
by entering text in the search field, and select "This Issue" or "All Issues"
by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the print button.
displays sections with thumbnails and descriptions.
displays a slider of thumbnails. Click on a page to jump.
allows you to browse the full archive.
about your subscription?
Mindful : June 2017
The latest findings in psychology—about our deep-seated thoughts, emotions, and behaviors—get a lot of media attention. Unfortunately, they often turn out to be flawed or false. Whether you are an avid reader of psychol- ogy news or just a casual one, you’ve probably run across a plethora of fascinating findings about human behavior, thought, and emotion. This barrage of findings isn’t surprising. Unlike studies in, say, molecular biology, psycholog y research has a lower barrier to entry: Plan your experiment, get funding and approval, recruit participants (often, handy undergraduates, or even volunteers in cyberspace), and you’re good to go. No complicated cell cultures or care-in- tensive lab animals required. Unfortunately, consumers of psychology research—all of us who find it captivating, even revelatory, because it tells us about how we are put together—would do well to be as critical as the many Amazon customers who carefully scruti- nize their order and send back anything that falls short. Why? Because psychology is in the midst of a “replication crisis,” meaning that when a second lab tries to reproduce research findings, the exact same experiment produces different results. In 2015, for instance, the first round of attempts by the “Reproducibility Project” to redo 100 prominent studies got the same results as the original for only one-third. That doesn’t mean what the original researchers reported (that, for example, students learn more effectively if they’re taught in the “learning style” that matches theirs) didn’t really happen. It could simply be that what was true for the participants isn’t true of many, or even most, other people. The replication crisis made me look back over my columns for Mindful to see if I’ve misled you, however inadvertently. So far, I’ve been lucky (and I emphasize lucky: I don’t claim any superior ability to sniff out problematic find- ings): I was glad to see that I warned against → True, False, or Hmm? Sharon Begley is senior science writer with STAT, a new national health and medicine publication. She is also author of Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain and Can’t Just Stop: An Investigation of Compulsions (2 0 17, Simon & Schuster). 18 mindful June 2017 brain science ILLUSTRATIONBYMINDFULSTAFF