### Learning Objectives

Describe the role of random sampling and random assignment in drawing cause-and-effect conclusions**Figure 1**. Generalizability is an essential research consideration: The results of research studies with extensively representative samples are an ext likely come generalize come the population.

One limitation come the study mentioned previously about the babies picking the “helper” toy is the the conclusion only uses to the 16 babies in the study. Us don’t recognize much around how those 16 infants were selected. Expect we want to choose a subset of people (a **sample**) indigenous a lot larger team of individuals (the **population**) in together a method that conclusions native the sample have the right to be **generalized** to the bigger population. This is the question faced by pollsters every day.

You are watching: What conclusion can you draw from this data

**Example 1**: The general Social survey (GSS) is a survey on societal trends carried out every various other year in the united States. Based upon a sample of about 2,000 adult Americans, researchers make claims about what percentage of the U.S. Population consider themselves to it is in “liberal,” what percentage take into consideration themselves “happy,” what portion feel “rushed” in their daily lives, and many other issues. The crucial to making this claims about the larger populace of all American adult lies in how the sample is selected. The goal is to pick a sample the is representative of the population, and a common means to attain this score is to select a **random sample** that provides every member the the populace an equal possibility of gift selected because that the sample. In its most basic form, arbitrarily sampling requires numbering every member that the population and then utilizing a computer to randomly select the subset to it is in surveyed. Many polls nothing operate precisely like this, yet they execute use probability-based sampling methods to select individuals from country representative panels.

In 2004, the GSS reported that 817 that 977 respondent (or 83.6%) shown that they constantly or occasionally feel rushed. This is a clear majority, but we again need to think about variation as result of *random sampling*. Fortunately, we have the right to use the same probability design we go in the previous instance to inspection the probable size of this error. (Note, we deserve to use the coin-tossing model when the actual populace size is much, much larger than the sample size, together then we have the right to still consider the probability to be the same for every separation, personal, instance in the sample.) This probability design predicts the the sample result will be in ~ 3 percent points of the populace value (roughly 1 end the square root of the sample size, the **margin the error**). A statistician would conclude, through 95% confidence, that between 80.6% and also 86.6% of every adult american in 2004 would have actually responded the they periodically or always feel rushed.

The key to the margin the error is that when we usage a probability sampling method, we have the right to make claims about how regularly (in the long run, with recurring random sampling) the sample an outcome would loss within a details distance indigenous the unknown populace value by opportunity (meaning by arbitrarily sampling variation) alone. Vice versa, non-random samples are frequently suspect come bias, an interpretation the sampling technique systematically over-represents some segments that the populace and under-represents others. We additionally still need to take into consideration other resources of bias, together as people not responding honestly. These resources of error room not measure by the margin the error.

## Cause and Effect

In many research studies, the main question the interest concerns differences between groups. Then the inquiry becomes exactly how were the groups created (e.g., choosing people who already drink coffee vs. Those that don’t). In part studies, the researchers actively kind the groups themselves. But then we have actually a comparable question—could any type of differences us observe in the teams be an artifact of that group-formation process? Or maybe the distinction we watch in the teams is so large that we can discount a “fluke” in the group-formation procedure as a reasonable explanation because that what we find?

**Example 2**: A psychology study investigated whether civilization tend to display much more creativity when they room thinking around intrinsic (internal) or extrinsic (external) motivations (Ramsey & Schafer, 2002, based upon a examine by Amabile, 1985). The topics were 47 human being with comprehensive experience with creative writing. Subjects started by answering survey questions around either intrinsic motivations for creating (such together the pleasure of self-expression) or extrinsic motivations (such as public recognition). Climate all topics were instructed to write a haiku, and those poems to be evaluated for creative thinking by a dashboard of judges. The researchers conjectured forward that subjects who to be thinking around intrinsic motivations would display an ext creativity than subjects who to be thinking around extrinsic motivations. The creative thinking scores from the 47 subjects in this study are shown in number 2, where greater scores indicate much more creativity.

**Figure 2**. Imagination scores be separated by type of motivation.

In this example, the crucial question is whether the kind of an ideas *affects* imagination scores. In particular, carry out subjects that were asked around intrinsic motivations have tendency to have greater creativity scores than subjects who were asked around extrinsic motivations?

Figure 2 reveals the both an inspiration groups saw substantial variability in creativity scores, and also these scores have significant overlap in between the groups. In various other words, it’s certainly not constantly the situation that those v extrinsic motivations have greater creativity than those through intrinsic motivations, however there may still it is in a statistics *tendency* in this direction. (Psychologist Keith Stanovich (2013) describes people’s difficulties with thinking around such probability tendencies together “the Achilles heel of person cognition.”)

The mean imagination score is 19.88 because that the intrinsic group, contrasted to 15.74 because that the extrinsic group, which supports the researchers’ conjecture. However comparing only the means of the 2 groups falls short to consider the variability of imagination scores in the groups. We have the right to measure variability v statistics using, because that instance, the typical deviation: 5.25 for the extrinsic group and 4.40 because that the intrinsic group. The standard deviations tell us that most of the imagination scores are within about 5 points of the mean score in each group. We see that the mean score for the intrinsic team lies within one typical deviation that the mean score for extrinsic group. So, although there is a tendency for the imagination scores come be higher in the intrinsic group, on average, the difference is not very large.

We again desire to consider possible explanations for this difference. The research only associated individuals with extensive creative writing experience. Back this borders the populace to i m sorry we deserve to generalize, the does not describe why the mean creativity score to be a bit larger for the intrinsic group than because that the extrinsic group. Possibly women have tendency to receive higher creativity scores? here is where we need to emphasis on exactly how the individuals were assigned come the an ideas groups. If only women to be in the intrinsic an ideas group and only men in the extrinsic group, then this would present a problem because we wouldn’t know if the intrinsic group did better because the the different kind of an ideas or due to the fact that they were women. However, the researchers guarded against such a trouble by randomly assigning the people to the an inspiration groups. Choose flipping a coin, every individual was just as likely to it is in assigned come either type of motivation. Why is this helpful? because this **random assignment** tends to balance out all the variables connected to imagination we deserve to think of, and also even those us don’t think the in advance, in between the 2 groups. So us should have actually a comparable male/female split in between the two groups; us should have actually a similar age distribution between the two groups; us should have actually a similar distribution of educational background in between the 2 groups; and also so on. Arbitrarily assignment should produce groups that are as comparable as feasible except for the form of motivation, i beg your pardon presumably eliminates every those various other variables as feasible explanations because that the observed tendency for higher scores in the intrinsic group.

But does this always work? No, so by “luck the the draw” the teams may it is in a small different prior to answering the an ideas survey. So then the concern is, is it possible that an unlucky random assignment is responsible because that the observed distinction in creativity scores between the groups? In various other words, intend each individual’s poem was going to acquire the same imagination score no issue which team they to be assigned to, that the kind of an inspiration in no method impacted your score. Climate how regularly would the random-assignment process alone lead to a distinction in mean creative thinking scores as large (or larger) 보다 19.88 – 15.74 = 4.14 points?

We again desire to apply to a probability model to approximate a **p-value**, yet this time the model will it is in a little different. Think of writing everyone’s creative thinking scores top top an index card, shuffling up the table of contents cards, and also then dealing the end 23 come the extrinsic an ideas group and 24 to the intrinsic motivation group, and finding the distinction in the team means. We (better yet, the computer) deserve to repeat this procedure over and over come see exactly how often, as soon as the scores don’t change, arbitrarily assignment leader to a difference in means at least as large as 4.41. Number 3 reflects the results from 1,000 such theoretical random assignments for these scores.

**Figure 3**. Differences in group method under arbitrarily assignment alone.

Only 2 the the 1,000 simulated random assignments developed a distinction in group way of 4.41 or larger. In other words, the almost right p-value is 2/1000 = 0.002. This little p-value indicates that it would be really surprising because that the arbitrarily assignment process alone to produce such a huge difference in group means. Therefore, as with Example 2, us have strong evidence that focusing on intrinsic motivations often tends to increase creativity scores, as contrasted to thinking about extrinsic motivations.

Notice that the ahead statement suggests a cause-and-effect connection between an inspiration and imagination score; is together a solid conclusion justified? Yes, because of the random assignment provided in the study. That must have balanced out any other variables in between the 2 groups, so currently that the small p-value convinces us that the greater mean in the intrinsic team wasn’t just a coincidence, the only reasonable explanation left is the distinction in the kind of motivation. Deserve to we generalize this conclusion come everyone? no necessarily—we might cautiously generalize this conclusion to individuals with substantial experience in an imaginative writing similar the people in this study, yet we would still desire to know an ext about how these individuals were selected come participate.

## Conclusion

**Figure 4**. Researchers employ the scientific technique that entails a an excellent deal of statistical thinking: generate a hypothesis –> design a study to test that theory –> conduct the examine –> analyze the data –> report the results.

Statistical thinking requires the careful design of a research to collect coherent data come answer a concentrated research question, detailed analysis of patterns in the data, and also drawing conclusions that go past the observed data. Arbitrarily sampling is paramount to generalizing results from ours sample come a larger population, and random assignment is crucial to drawing cause-and-effect conclusions. V both kinds of randomness, probability models assist us assess how much random variation we deserve to expect in our results, in bespeak to recognize whether ours results might happen by possibility alone and to calculation a margin of error.

So whereby does this leave us v regard come the coffee study discussed previously (the Freedman, Park, Abnet, Hollenbeck, & Sinha, 2012 found that males who drank at the very least six cups of coffee a day had a 10% lower chance of dice (women 15% lower) than those who drank none)? We can answer numerous of the questions:

This to be a 14-year study performed by researchers at the nationwide Cancer Institute.The results were published in the June problem of the*New England journal of Medicine*, a respected, peer-reviewed journal.The research reviewed coffee behavior of an ext than 402,000 people ages 50 come 71 from 6 states and also two metropolitan areas. Those v cancer, love disease, and also stroke to be excluded at the begin of the study. Coffee consumption was assessed as soon as at the start of the study.About 52,000 human being died during the course of the study.People who drank between two and also five cups of coffee everyday showed a reduced risk as well, however the amount of reduction enhanced for those drinking six or more cups.The sample sizes to be fairly huge and so the p-values are fairly small, also though percent reduction in hazard was not extremely big (dropping indigenous a 12% opportunity to about 10%–11%).Whether coffee was caffeinated or decaffeinated did not appear to influence the results.This was an observational study, therefore no cause-and-effect conclusions deserve to be drawn in between coffee drinking and increased longevity, contradictory to the impression conveyed by plenty of news headlines about this study. In particular, it’s feasible that those v chronic diseases don’t often tend to drink coffee.

This study needs to it is in reviewed in the larger context of comparable studies and also consistency that results throughout studies, through the constant caution the this was no a randomized experiment. Conversely, a statistical analysis can tho “adjust” for various other potential confounding variables, we space not yet persuaded that researchers have established them all or totally isolated why this to decrease in fatality risk is evident. Researchers can now take it the result of this study and develop more focused researches that address new questions.

### Think that Over

Find a current research short article in your field and answer the following: What was the primary research question? exactly how were individuals selected to participate in the study? Were review results provided? How solid is the proof presented in favor or against the research question? Was arbitrarily assignment used? summary the key conclusions from the study, addressing the problems of statistical significance, statistics confidence, generalizability, and also cause and also effect. Do you agree v the conclusions attracted from this study, based upon the research design and the results presented?Is it reasonable to use a arbitrarily sample of 1,000 people to draw conclusions about all U.S. Adults? describe why or why not.### Glossary

**cause-and-effect: **related to whether us say one change is causing alters in the other variable, versus other variables that might be concerned these two variables.**generalizability**: regarded whether the results from the sample have the right to be generalized to a bigger population.**margin the error**: the intended amount of arbitrarily variation in a statistic; often identified for 95% trust level.**population**: a bigger collection of people that us would prefer to generalize our results to.**p-value**: the probability that observing a specific outcome in a sample, or more extreme, under a conjecture about the larger population or process.**random assignment**: making use of a probability-based method to divide a sample into treatment groups.**random sampling**: making use of a probability-based an approach to select a subset of people for the sample native the population.

See more: Charleston Sc To Atlanta Ga Driving Time, Distance Between Atlanta, Ga And Charleston, Sc**sample**: the collection of people on i m sorry we collect data.