[https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/health/hugs-stress-study-wellness/index.html]
I'm kind of hoping this study is baloney.
Assuming that out of the 76 people studied, half were males, I’m guessing that the 38 male subjects studied were from prison, where any sign of emotional comforting display will earn you a label as food in the yard.
76 isn't a very big sample size for something like this, so wouldn't put too much stock in their findings.
I agree with Zundar. That is a weak study.
Even the scientists admit that the fact they did not see the same reaction in men doesn't mean it's not there.
In addition to what is very likely an insufficient sampling, I question that they used the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST), which is known to have different effects on persons dependent on their sex, sex hormones, sexual orientation, etc... Without further knowledge of the participants' demographics, I couldn't put much weight in their findings. Study on the TSST, below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5314443/
Allen AP, Kennedy PJ, Dockray S, Cryan JF, Dinan TG, Clarke G. The Trier Social Stress Test: Principles and practice. Neurobiol Stress. 2016;6:113-126. Published 2016 Nov 12. doi:10.1016/j.ynstr.2016.11.001
I thought they were interchangeable?
@DaringSprinter
❤️ You're awesome and so is this meme!!
It's an excellent meme, isn't it, @CuddleDarlyng! I saw it for the first time on Tumblr and thought, Ooooh. Well spotted, @Darshan1: this study is indeed no good.
@DaringSprinter (Slow Clap) Well done, GREAT meme!
Hugging amongst the general population is not as common as it would be in a place like CC.
@PeopleLikeUs Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. We are definitely outliers amongst the greater population. I imagine if I were to 'offer free hugs' to everyone at a CC get-together, I'd be met with greater approval than if I were to do the same in Times Square. Sure, I'd have the occasional person accept a hug (likely while giggling), but I think the societal norm doesn't see hugs acceptable unless between people in close relationships. Here at CC, we're fine with hugging, THEN becoming good friends...
I wouldn’t poo-poo the study altogether as they said it was a small study but it was expertly done. Small well executed studies usually lead to larger studies after grants and donations are made. I think there are two significant pieces of information we need to acknowledge—that it was physically measuring chemical levels and context. The cortisol levels are indisputable given the conditions of the research test. You are simply measuring the level. But in future tests they should recognize the social aspect built into the responses which is trickier to ascertain. Men do have that social conditioning of publicly showing affection and how it is perceived and this can produce anxiety which can increase cortisol levels. Would it be the same in private? In nature? These are interesting questions that deserve to be researched more. This is how we move forward scientifically in better understanding ourselves and our world.
So the study is productive in sparking questions for further research.
A better study would be nice. One with more couples; and more than just heterosexual couples, where the default social set up isn't the man being expected to comfort and be strong for the woman.
I'd like to see the results of a better study. I think that'd be really cool.
@DaringSprinter I don’t think it is fair to say “better” because studies are limited by financial support. I think “expanded” studies would be apt. Ideas and knowledge start small and build. This is a good example.
@FunCartel: All right. Let's say, then, that since they did the best they could with what they had, I'd like to see them have more, and (therefore) do better.
Poker table: “I'll see your baloney and raise you nincompoop nonsense”
Ahh, but better is not the goal. Truth and accuracy are the ultimate goals and if future studies prove that the original study was correct then they weren’t better, but were repetitive confirmations which are good as well. If science was to apply the term better then that introduces bias into the equation because you are assigning subjective value.
@FunCartel: I tend to think accuracy is good, and more accuracy is better. And replacing accidental accuracy with deliberate accuracy is (in my mind) best of all.
Bigger sample sizes (for instance) reduce inaccuracy, and are therefore better than smaller sample sizes.
But if you are confirming what was already produced, it is not better, it is the same. Are you looking at science or trying to semantically win an argument?
Bigger sample sizes, smaller deviations, and so on, reduce the probability of inaccuracy (or accidental correctness), and increase the odds of intentional accuracy.
I think that's better, is all. That's why I used the word "better."
Besides the small sample size, the study only looked at hugs which I assume were a few seconds long. Different than several hours of cuddling.
@jon5821 Correct, and that was probably defined in the study which was probably several pages long and condensed down to 500 words or less.
One of the big problems is the media leaving out key qualifiers and definitions when reporting on science. For example, I recently saw my cardiologist and I scratched off aspirin off my medication chart. He asked me why and I cited a study on tv that aspirin really doesn’t prevent heart disease and it can actually do harm. My doctor became unglued. He said “I have been dealing with this with my patients. That study was grossly misreported. If you do not have heart issues aspirin does not do anything for you and could cause ulcers, but if you are a heart patient it can prevent a fatal episode. There is a huge difference!”
Oh. Did people not— The study is linked to in the article. This is the study:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266887
This is an article from a CNN radio report. They link in print but not on radio and tv. That is the point I am making. In addition, for every one person that goes to the link there are 100 others who do not for a variety of reasons. Website metrics will bear this out in a lot of situations. So how the results are presented in the press report matter.
When I saw "probably defined in the study," I scrolled back up and saw people saying things like "Assuming that out of the 76 people studied, half were males, I’m guessing that the 38 male subjects studied were from prison," and "I assume [the hugs] were a few seconds long."
Which led me to believe people here had missed the link to the study. It is an embedded link. I know people often overlook those. So I posted it here in plain URL form, for those who might want to read it, but had missed the embedded link in the article.
I'm not trying to attack you, @FunCartel. I like you.
@singh951 LOL.
Yeah I'm calling BS on that. I was in tears back in High School dealing with the stress of my Great Grandmother's declining health, the fact that she had a seizure right in front of me. I had a class mate who also had seizures and started having an attack in the middle of class which gave me flash backs and I went into a panic attack at the same time. I was suffering in silence for a long time and finally broke.
A girl I didn't even really know came up to me and started hugging me and talking to me and she held me for a while while we talked until I finally calmed down. So yeah BS that hugging doesn't help men, I don't know what would have happened if Rebecca hadn't showed up when she did. I still had a rough time dealing with everything the pain never completely goes away but having dealt with things on my own at times and having someone to help me once... things would be a hell of a lot easier if I had that more often.
I have stuffed animals on my bed I cuddle with. Some people might think I'm too old for that but damn it I'm stressed and I don't care!
FAKE NEWS 🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂
This is an old thread, but since someone else has already resurrected it, I'll comment:
I consider essentially every study that roughly falls under the umbrella of psychology to be completely worthless. As a science, the field of psychology is completely broken, and its practitioners do not know or do not care how to design experiments, analyze data, and reach reasonable conclusions.
More specifically, the journal this study was published in, PLOS One, does not have a great reputation. See here where statistician Andrew Gelman calls it "a great place to put some shaky empirical work paired with some speculative conclusions."