<p>What if a haunted house makes your date look hotter? This week we dive into the infamous Scary Bridge Study — the 1970s classic that launched a thousand pop-psych takes on fear and lust. It’s the one with the swaying bridge, pretty “research assistant,” and phone number scrawled on torn paper. The study became legend, but how sturdy were its stats? We retrace the design, redo the numbers, and see how many math errors it takes to sway a suspension bridge. Along the way we find an erotic-fiction writing exercise, Adventure Dudes choosing their own experimental groups, and snarky replicators who tried (and failed) to make fear sexy again. We wrap with what the latest research says about when fear really does boost attraction — and when it backfires spectacularly. A Halloween story of danger, desire, and unconscious sexual drive. </p><p>This episode has a video version! <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2coWoS_3460">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2coWoS_3460</a></p><p><br><strong>Statistical topics</strong></p><ul><li>Arithmetic checks</li><li>Chi-square test</li><li>Confounders</li><li>GRIM test</li><li>Inter-rater reliability</li><li>Meta-analysis</li><li>Negative control</li><li>Randomization</li><li>Replication </li><li>Sample size</li><li>Signal vs. noise</li><li>Statistical sleuthing</li><li>Subjective measurement</li><li>T-test<p></p></li></ul><p><strong>Methodological morals</strong></p><ul><li>“Those who don't verify their numbers dig their own statistical graves.”</li><li>“Famous doesn't mean flawless.”</li></ul><p><br></p><p><br><strong>References</strong></p><ul><li>Brown, NJ, Heathers, JA. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550616673876">The GRIM test: A simple technique detects numerous anomalies in the reporting of results in psychology</a>. <em>Social Psychological and Personality Science</em>. 2017; 8(4):363-369.</li><li>Dutton DG, Aron AP.<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4455773/"> Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety</a>. <em>J Pers Soc Psychol</em>. 1974;30(4):510-517. doi:10.1037/h0037031</li><li>Foster CA, Witcher BS, Campbell WK, Green JD. <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/74/1/86.html?uid=1997-38342-007&amp;casa_token=YtqP2g5ZaioAAAAA:iw7Y2ALkShaB9ONhTfjfBIiaDVIEnPtHOyUWh50v7aXoAN-6rOugc4HZ_MQrYk6-_0DmHsi_cm5x6J_gg0WmESoS">Arousal and attraction: Evidence for automatic and controlled processes</a>. <em>J Pers Soc Psychol.</em> 1998;74(1):86-101.</li><li>Kenrick DT, Cialdini R, Linder D. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014616727900500312">Misattribution under fear-producing circumstances: Four failures to replicate.</a> <em>Pers Soc Psychol Bull.</em> 1979;5(3):329-334.</li><li>van der Zee T, Anaya J, Brown NJL.<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32153834/"> Statistical heartburn: an attempt to digest four pizza publications from the Cornell Food and Brand Lab.</a> <em>BMC Nutr</em>. 2017;3:54. Published 2017 Jul 10. doi:10.1186/s40795-017-0167-x</li><li><a href="http://www.prepubmed.org/grim_test/">http://www.prepubmed.org/grim_test/</a></li></ul><p><strong>Kristin and Regina’s online courses: <br></strong><br></p><p><a href="https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-xche0033-demystifying-data-modern-approach-statistical-understanding">Demystifying Data: A Modern Approach to Statistical Understanding</a>  </p><p><a href="https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-xche0030-clinical-trials-design-strategy-and-analysis">Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis</a> </p><p><a href="https://online.stanford.edu/programs/medical-statistics-program">Medical Statistics Certificate Program</a>  </p><p><a href="https://www.coursera.org/learn/sciwrite">Writing in the Sciences</a> </p><p><a href="https://online.stanford.edu/programs/epidemiology-and-clinical-research-graduate-certificate">Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program</a> </p><p><strong>Programs that we teach in:</strong></p><p><a href="https://online.stanford.edu/programs/epidemiology-and-clinical-research-graduate-certificate">Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program</a> </p><p><br></p><p><strong>Find us on:</strong></p><p>Kristin - <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristin-sainani-642b5914/"> LinkedIn</a> &amp;<a href="https://x.com/KristinSainani"> Twitter/X</a></p><p>Regina -<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/reginanuzzo/"> LinkedIn</a> &amp;<a href="https://www.reginanuzzo.com/"> </a><a href="http://reginanuzzo.com">ReginaNuzzo.com</a></p><p><br></p><ul><li>(00:00) - Intro: Fear and Flirtation on a Suspension Bridge
</li>
<li>(05:40) - A Classic 1970s Experiment with No IRB to be Found
</li>
<li>(11:15) - Adventure Dudes Choose Their Own Bridge
</li>
<li>(17:00) - The Sexy Story Scale
</li>
<li>(22:20) - Cool Factor and the Negative Control
</li>
<li>(28:54) - Grim Reaper Math
</li>
<li>(36:29) - T-Tests, Chi-Squares, and Shaky Results
</li>
<li>(42:44) - Electric Shocks and Damsels in Distress
</li>
<li>(50:49) - Replications and Rejections
</li>
<li>(58:39) - Wrap-Up, Methodological Morals, and a New Sexy Rating Scale
</li>
</ul>

Normal Curves: Sexy Science, Serious Statistics

Regina Nuzzo and Kristin Sainani

Scary Bridge Study: Can fear make you horny?

OCT 20, 202564 MIN
Normal Curves: Sexy Science, Serious Statistics

Scary Bridge Study: Can fear make you horny?

OCT 20, 202564 MIN

Description

What if a haunted house makes your date look hotter? This week we dive into the infamous Scary Bridge Study — the 1970s classic that launched a thousand pop-psych takes on fear and lust. It’s the one with the swaying bridge, pretty “research assistant,” and phone number scrawled on torn paper. The study became legend, but how sturdy were its stats? We retrace the design, redo the numbers, and see how many math errors it takes to sway a suspension bridge. Along the way we find an erotic-fiction writing exercise, Adventure Dudes choosing their own experimental groups, and snarky replicators who tried (and failed) to make fear sexy again. We wrap with what the latest research says about when fear really does boost attraction — and when it backfires spectacularly. A Halloween story of danger, desire, and unconscious sexual drive.

This episode has a video version! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2coWoS_3460


Statistical topics

  • Arithmetic checks
  • Chi-square test
  • Confounders
  • GRIM test
  • Inter-rater reliability
  • Meta-analysis
  • Negative control
  • Randomization
  • Replication 
  • Sample size
  • Signal vs. noise
  • Statistical sleuthing
  • Subjective measurement
  • T-test

Methodological morals

  • “Those who don't verify their numbers dig their own statistical graves.”
  • “Famous doesn't mean flawless.”



References

Kristin and Regina’s online courses: 

Demystifying Data: A Modern Approach to Statistical Understanding  

Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis 

Medical Statistics Certificate Program  

Writing in the Sciences 

Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program 

Programs that we teach in:

Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program 


Find us on:

Kristin -  LinkedIn & Twitter/X

Regina - LinkedIn & ReginaNuzzo.com


  • (00:00) - Intro: Fear and Flirtation on a Suspension Bridge
  • (05:40) - A Classic 1970s Experiment with No IRB to be Found
  • (11:15) - Adventure Dudes Choose Their Own Bridge
  • (17:00) - The Sexy Story Scale
  • (22:20) - Cool Factor and the Negative Control
  • (28:54) - Grim Reaper Math
  • (36:29) - T-Tests, Chi-Squares, and Shaky Results
  • (42:44) - Electric Shocks and Damsels in Distress
  • (50:49) - Replications and Rejections
  • (58:39) - Wrap-Up, Methodological Morals, and a New Sexy Rating Scale