The Scientist : NewsBlog Print: Just in: Fake ID linked to drinking
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Just in: Fake ID linked to drinking
Posted by Alison McCook
[Entry posted at 2nd August 2007 05:37 PM GMT]

One of our notebooks in the August issue takes a close look at press releases about research, and why some press offices choose to cover seemingly obvious research. We only mentioned one university-based press office, but it's not just Ohio State University that "sells the self-evident," as a press release that landed in my inbox last week demonstrates.

"Mizzou study shows that possessing a fake ID results in more drinking by underage college students," the University of Missouri-Columbia release reads. The study, from professor of clinical psychology Kenneth Sher and his colleagues, showed that owning a fake ID increased the risk of drinking among students in their first two years of college. Also, students who belonged to fraternities or sororities were more likely to own a fake ID.

"The biggest finding is that having a fake ID is a risk factor for additional drinking -- drinking that might not otherwise be occurring," Sher said in the release. "Basically, being a heavy drinker predicts the likelihood that someone will obtain a fake ID, and having a fake ID predicts that someone will be a heavy drinker."

Um, yeah. Am I missing something?

The study, which asked 3,700 in their first four semesters of college about their drinking habits, was published in the American Psychological Association journal, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

Seen any other examples of painfully obvious study findings? Tell us about them.


 

Rate this article

Rating: 2.67/5 (6 votes )





What?
by Michael

[Comment posted 2007-08-02 14:04:18]

Whatever happened to correlation does not equal causation?

The authors should have taken random people and given them fake IDs, compared to random people who weren't given fake IDs, to see if that predicts heavier drinking. People who already have fake IDs are a biased sample and this study is a poor utilization of the scientific method.

Did grant money actually pay for this?





Comment on this blog