I agree, Annette,this is not really new. I remember listening to a paper, Perhaps 20 years ago at EPA. The authors used patients in therapy as subjects. All were instructed to discuss a recent incident that they found annoying, unpleasant, distressing. But 1/2 of the subjects were instructed to speak softly & slowly (i.e., calmly) while the other half were instructed to speak loudly & rapidly. Subjects were later asked to rate how distressing they found that incident. The subjects speaking calmly rated the incident as much less distressing & those instructed to speak in an "angry" voice reported that the incident had distressed them much more.
Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania Home page: http://home.comcast.net/~epollak/ Editor of "Ed's Bluegrass Newsletter" at http://home.comcast.net/~epollak/bgnews.htm Husband, father, grandfather, bluegrass fiddler & biopsychologist............... in approximate order of importance Subject: RE: Analyses support theory that Botox might alleviate depression From: Annette Taylor <tay...@sandiego.edu> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:00:45 +0000 X-Message-Number: 1 This is actually pretty old news. I heard these reports going back several years. Granted, this is a meta-analysis that includes studies that go back several years, I'd imagine (it was an orally presented paper presentation and I assume is not yet in print? Or was rejected for publication?) You can also read about it here: http://www.botoxfordepression.com/research-botox-for-depression/ and here: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/health/Botox-May-Help-Alleviate-Depression-116730639.html The latter goes back to 2011. So, if this is so effective why is treatment with botox not far more widespread? But what struck me in the link provided below is this set of sentences: For botulinum patients versus placebo patients, the odds ratio for a response was 8.3, with a 95% confidence interval from 3.4 to 20.3. Similarly, the odds ratio for a remission was 4.6, with a 95% confidence interval from 1.6 to 13.1. Now, if I'm a lay person, or even a modestly educated person about statistics--I've had the one class required for the major in psych, for example, I have no idea what this is telling me. I know the move is towards using CIs to report stats but I'd still want to see something more than this as a result. How would a stats expert interpret these two sentences? (Certainly not me!) I think it's pretty meaningless to a lay person who might think it's very important just because it's couched in such scientific sounding language. Annette ps: I favor the facial feedback hypothesis ;-) ________________________________ This e-mail message was sent from a retired or emeritus status employee of West Chester University. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=45217 or send a blank email to leave-45217-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
