1.21 Reading ahead

I read the BBC article about surfing improving the wellbeing of brain injury survivors. The study was conducted by a researcher at Swansea University’s school of psychology. She interviewed 15 brain injury survivors and found that surfing increased their confidence and improved their wellbeing. However, this study was done with a small group (15 people). It is not stated whether the participants had ever surfed before, prior to their brain damage. However, if the study included a wider range of participants, it may have been found that surfing did not increase well being in participants who do not enjoy being in the water or surfing.

I read the child psychologist article. She believes in not criticising yourself in front of children because they may internalise it. She is speaking from her experience working in this profession, but does not appear to present any other source to back this opinion up. Others may argue that children can reason and are not going to necessarily internalise the beliefs of their parents or other adults around them. There may be other contributing factors.

I read the Guardian article about whether humans and farm animals should be treated the same. The study was conducted by a number of psychology researchers at Exeter University and used a large sample size of 479 participants which was fairly gender equal. However, this study only explores the moral views of children age 9-11 and adults age 18+, so doesn't include any views of the adolescent age group. The sample is of an 80% white group of people from south England so doesn't account for ethnic and cultural differences. Also, 71% of participants aren't religious so the findings may not be generalisable to people of all religions. However, if the sample had a greater diversity of religions then this could skew the findings of people valuing farm animals less as they go through adolescence due to some religions viewing animals and cattle as sacred, for example.

I read the BBC article on how surfing improves the wellbeing of brain injury survivors. The study was only carried out on 15 participants and so there may be individual differences that if done with a larger sample may not have supported the hypothesis that surfing improves the wellbeing of brain injury survivors. There are many factors that could play a role in affecting this conclusion such as age, gender, background and individual personality traits such as the 15 participants may enjoy sport more especially before their brain injury and thus felt more positive effects that others may not have felt. The researcher at Swansea University is a trusted source as she is well informed as she is experienced and has great insight within this field. I disagree with this conclusion because I feel that it must be replicated and supported for more reliability before meaningful conclusions can be drawn from it due to the sample being so small.

The article about whether surfing improves the wellbeing of brain injury survivors only had a sample of 15 people, this is quite a low sample size and potentially not large enough to establish consistent effect with results. Additionally it cannot account for participant variables as much either. So if the researcher had a larger sample size, or replicated the same standardized experiment, then the same outcome may not have been reached due to the individual differences (such as age, nationality, gender, whether they enjoy being in the water or like surfing for example) playing such a key role in the data. However, the University of Swansea, where the research was conducted, is a trustable source.

I read the BBC article about how surfing can improve the wellbeing of brain injury survivors. The sample size for this study was quite small, consisting of just 15 participants. This may be difficult to draw accurate conclusions from as individual differences could affect the findings. We do not know if the participants had experience surfing prior to their brain injury. The researcher at Swansea University is a trusted source as she is knowledgeable and professional in her field.

The study of unlimited wants reported by the Guardian article used a concept of an ‘absolutely ideal life’ lottery, where participants were asked to choose which hypothetical lottery to enter based on its prize amount (US$10,000 – US$100 billion) only. The study had a reasonably large participant size (N= 7860 from two studies), with participants from 42 countries. Results showed that lottery selection was bimodal, with the most common answers being between US$1 million and US$10 million, and US$100 billion – participants were categorised as a Limiteds and Unlimiteds based on these modes. While the proportion of Unlimiteds was highest in the United States (32%) in the first study, the article depicts an American monolith stating that Americans, as a whole, “say they need at least $100m, and frequently insist on $100bn” – the study itself stresses that people with unlimited wants were a minority (32%).
The Guardian article reasonably uses the study to address anti-consumerism and sustainable practices, stating that the study supports the idea that people do not desire accumulation of excessive amounts of wealth and therefore policies and social messaging should reflect this – the study report itself suggests a wealth tax could be a positive governmental priority (as “wealth taxes of US$10 million or more would have no impact on the ability of most people to achieve their absolutely ideal economic lives”). However, the article fails to address that having limited wants was not positively correlated with valuing ‘pro-social’ outcomes for others; additionally, at a country level, valuing group welfare was associated with countries with more Unlimiteds. This suggests that the article’s presentation of a wealth tax being “popular” is perhaps an oversimplification. Equally, the article does not include other evaluations of the study – for example, it does not note that no distinction was made in the study’s design between money used to fulfil personal wants and money used for altruistic wants, meaning that participants may have been responding to different hypotheticals based on their interpretation of the ‘absolutely ideal life’ lottery concept. Social desirability bias could have also contributed to participant responses so further research would be needed to clarify people’s limited/unlimited wants, which the article does not highlight.

The BBC Wales News study by Charanpreet Khaira does not include information on which week of brain recovery each of the 15 participants was in after their injury. The study only tests the effects of surfing as a new learning experience. However, it’s possible that other new experiences might have had a similar impact and it’s not necessarily just surfing that is beneficial. The small control group could be a limitation, and it might be useful to include an experimental group as well. The hypothesis that trying out new things and accessing natural environments is beneficial is a good one and could serve as a useful introduction to the study. The research seems credible, coming from reputable researchers at the University.

I read the BBC article on how "surfing improves wellbeing of brain injury survivors". The study was led by researcher, Katie Gibbs and her team of clinical psychologists at the Swansea University's School of Psychology. As she is a researcher at a prestigious school and has a team of clinical psychologists, I would trust their views and findings on the improvement of wellbeing. However, a small sample size of 15 brain injury survivors may not be representative of the wider population who also have suffered brain injuries. This is because the sample may include people that already enjoy water sports or outdoor activities and so the findings of improved wellbeing from surfing may not generalise to those who do not enjoy these activities. Despite this, some participants like "Dave Jones" stated he did not find the appeal but once into the activity he felt "euphoric". Therefore, I can agree with the conclusions made in this article, but to make the findings more generalisable, it would be best to replicate the study with a larger sample.

The BBC article detailing brain injury survivors wellbeing improvements after participating in surfing is a very small sample size that would require further investigation. Other details of participants lives are not taken in to account, such as whether they have always been active or this is the first time for them. The researcher could be projecting their own pre-conceived ideas on the results as they may have wanted to find this link. I agree with the conclusion that more research in to nature-based interventions is needed.