www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 332 13 MAY 2011 791 799 COMMENTARY LETTERS I BOOKS I POLICY FORUM I EDUCATION FORUM I PERSPECTIVES 793 Of neurons and ethics Regeneration C R E D I T : F O T O S E A R C H edited by Jennifer Sills LETTERS Counting India?s Wild Tigers Reliably THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTED A 16% increase in tiger numbers over the past 4 years (News of the Week, Around the World item ?Tiger numbers up? Maybe,? 1 April, p. 18). This implies an average increase of 49% in local tiger densities, despite the reported range contraction of 22%. Yet these asser- tions cannot be veri? ed because details of tiger photo-captures at sampled locations, as well as of spatial extrapolations from these data, are incomplete (1?3). Reported tiger numbers were based on calibrations of tiger sign encounter rates against estimated local tiger densities (2), but the recently released values of correlation coef? cients were much higher than have been reported previously (4, 5). Moreover, the extrapolation of tiger numbers to wider regions is reportedly based on standard methods of sampling and estimation (1), but it is not clear from reports (1?3) whether the survey protocols used actually match these standard practices (6, 7). A recent global analysis (8) showed that 70% of wild tigers survive in 42 ?source popula- tions? that occupy a mere 6% of remaining habitat. Although such source populations may suffer annual losses of more than 20%, studies of tiger population dynamics show that high recruitment rates compensate for these losses when there is adequate prey and protection (9, 10). Therefore, future efforts to reverse tiger declines must focus on reliably monitoring tiger numbers, as well as survival and recruitment rates, in these threatened source populations. There is a scienti? c consensus that monitoring should be conducted annually?within 30 to 45 days to avoid population ? uctuations?and cover an area of more than 500 km 2 , at inten- sities of more than 500 trap-nights per 100 km 2 (11). The monitoring protocol for India?s national animal requires a major overhaul if it is to generate transparent, reliable measures of tiger conservation successes (or failures) in the future. K. ULLAS KARANTH, 1,2 * ARJUN M. GOPALASWAMY, 1,3 N. SAMBA KUMAR, 1,4 MOHAN DELAMPADY, 5 JAMES D. NICHOLS, 6 JOHN SEIDENSTICKER, 7 BARRY R. NOON, 8 STUART L. PIMM 9 1 Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, 560042, India. 2 Wildlife Conservation Society?Global Conservation Program, Bronx, NY 10460?1099, USA. 3 Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Department of Zoology, Uni- versity of Oxford, Tubney, Abingdon, OX13 5QL, UK. 4 Wildlife Conservation Society?India Program, Bangalore, 560 070, India. 5 Statistics and Mathematics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore Centre, Bangalore, 560059, India. 6 Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Laurel, MD 20708?4017, USA. 7 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC 20013?7012, USA. 8 Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80521?1474, USA. 9 Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ukaranth@gmail.com References 1. Y. V. Jhala, R. Gopal, Q. Qureshi, ?Status of the tigers, co-predators, and prey in India? (National Tiger Conservation Author- ity, Government of India, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 2008). 2. Y. V. Jhala, Q. Qureshi, R. Gopal, J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 14 (2011). 3. Ministry of Environment and Forests, ?India tiger estimate 2010? (Government of India, National Tiger Conservation Author- ity and Wildlife Institute of India, 2011). 4. J. E. Hines et al., Ecol. Appl. 20, 1456 (2010). 5. K. U. Karanth et al., J. Appl. Ecol., 10.1111/ j.1365-2664.2011.02002.x (2011). 6. K. H. Pollock et al., Environmetrics 13, 105 (2002). 7. D. I. MacKenzie et al., Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence (Elsevier, San Diego, CA, 2006). 8. J. Walston et al., PLoS Biol. 8, e1000485 (2010). 9. K. U. Karanth, J. D. Nichols, N. S. Kumar, W. A. Link, J. E. Hines, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 4854 (2004). 10. K. U. Karanth, J. D. Nichols, N. S. Kumar, J. E. Hines, Ecology 87, 2925 (2006). 11. A. F. O?Connell et al., Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses (Springer, Tokyo, 2011). Practical Implications of Test Anxiety Tools IN THEIR REPORT ?WRITING ABOUT TESTING worries boosts exam performance in the classroom? (Reports, 14 January, p. 211), G. Ramirez and S. L. Beilock showed that letting students write about their worries for 10 minutes before an exam substantially diminishes the link between test anxiety and test performance. Their second study rep- licates and extends our previous work, in which we showed that letting students write down attributes of successful problem- solvers for 10 minutes diminishes the rela- tionship between cognitive test anxiety and test performance (1). We differ regarding the theoretical interpretation of the relationship and the resulting practical implications. Although Ramirez and Beilock?s intervention is not identical to ours, the fundamental mecha- nisms are similar. Ramirez and Beilock argue that the effect is mediated by a state of worry during the test situation, but they did not test this proposition. In one of our investigations, we tested this idea and found no support. Instead, we found cognitive test anxiety to affect situational task engage- ment: Students who have high cognitive test anxiety do not engage in the task because they underestimate their probability for suc- cess and consequently do not fully engage in solving the problems at hand. This idea Published by AAAS o n M ay 1 2, 2 01 1 w w w .s ci en ce m ag .o rg D ow nl oa de d fro m 13 MAY 2011 VOL 332 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 792 LETTERS C R E D I T : I S T O C K P H O T O is in line with engagement-disengagement theories (2). An implication of applying engagement-disengagement theories is that the performance of students with low cogni- tive test anxiety should suffer from priming/ writing interventions. We found empirical support for this idea (1). Our studies were larger and con- sequently had more statistical power for detecting an effect than the study by Ramirez and Beilock. In addition, Ramirez and Beilock?s Fig. 3 provides some descrip- tive indication that the interaction effect in the study partly resulted from students with low test anxiety performing worse in the expressive writing group. We therefore recommend that priming/ writing interventions should only be used after screening recipients for cognitive test anxiety. Students with low test anxiety should not be the recipients of interventions of this type because there is theoretical and empirical evidence that their performance will suffer. JONAS W. B. LANG 1 * AND JESSICA LANG 2 1 Department of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands. 2 Institute for Occupational Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Pau- welsstra?e 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jonas.lang@maastrichtuniversity.nl References 1. J. W. B. Lang, J. Lang, Psychol. Sci. 21, 811 (2010). 2. C. S. Carver, M. F. Scheier, On the Self-Regulation of Behavior (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1998). Response CONTRARY TO LANG AND LANG?S ASSERTION that the performance of students lower in test anxiety was harmed by expressive writing, students with lower test anxiety performed just as well on their ? nal exams in the writ- ing and control conditions (Experiments 3 and 4 in our Report). Lang and Lang showed that having stu- dents imagine a person successful at solv- ing scienti? c problems and write about the qualities of this person (i.e., priming compe- tence) improved test performance of those higher in test anxiety, but harmed test per- formance of those lower in test anxiety (1). Although both our expressive writing and Lang and Lang?s competence exercise are designed to enhance test performance, they are very different interventions. In expressive writing, students write about their feelings regarding the upcoming test. In the competence exercise, students write about the qualities of a successful test taker. In their study, task engagement explains the impact of the competence intervention on the test performance of students lower and higher in test anxi- ety. In contrast, we show that the extent to which one writes about negative thoughts and worries accounts for the ben- efits of expressive writing (our Experiment 2). Given the different mecha- nisms, it is not surprising that the two interventions affect students with lower test anxi- ety differently. Whereas Lang and Lang?s exercise primes competence and thus leads to less engagement for these students, our writing exercise need not relate to competence or engagement in this way. In support of this idea, in Exper- iment 1, we had some students expressively write before taking a low-pressure math test. If expressive writing primes competence, which in turn alters task engagement, then writing should hurt students? performance in a low-pressure situation. This is because stu- dents should approach a low-pressure test with high self-perceived competence (espe- cially after succeeding on a similar pretest). Thus, priming competence further should lead to less effort and worse performance. However, we found that writing had no impact on low-pressure test performance. We suggest that writing allows students to express their negative thoughts and worries, which reduces the tendency to ruminate dur- ing the test. This expression is not necessary for those in a low-pressure situation or for students with lower test anxiety; thus, their performance is neither enhanced nor harmed by expressive writing. Lang and Lang do correctly point out that we do not provide direct evidence that expres- sive writing alleviated negative thoughts and worries during test performance. However, our intervention was guided by previous research showing that performance drops in high-pressure situations are accounted for by negative thoughts and worries (2) and that writing about worries alleviates the ten- dency to ruminate (3). If worries lead to poor test performance and writing helps allevi- ate these worries, then giving students the opportunity to express themselves should enhance test performance?especially for those highest in test anxiety. This is exactly what we found. Our evidence supports the counterintui- tive idea that writing about worries bene? ts the performance of the most test-anxious students without compromising the per- formance of students lower in test anxiety. Thus, we see no need to screen people for test anxiety before they engage in expres- sive writing. SIAN L. BEILOCK AND GERARDO RAMIREZ Department of Psychology and Committee on Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: beilock@uchicago.edu References 1. J. W. B. Lang, J. Lang, Psychol. Sci. 21, 811 (2010). 2. M. S. DeCaro, K. E. Rotar, M. S. Kendra, S. L. Beilock, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63, 8 (2010). 3. K. Klein, A. Boals, J. Exp Psychol. Gen. 130, 3 (2001). CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS Reports: ?pH-Dependent gating in a FocA formate channel? by W. L? et al. (15 April, p. 352). In addition to his af? liation with the Lehrstuhl f?r Biochemie, Oliver Einsle is af? liated with the Center for Biological Signaling Studies (BIOSS), Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t Freiburg, Hebelstrasse 25, 79104 Freiburg, Germany. The af? liation has been added in the HTML version online. Cover Caption: (8 April, p. 139). The caption stated that a magnet was levitating above a superconducting ceramic yttrium barium copper oxide disc, when in fact the disc was levitating above the magnet. Books et al.: ?The immortalist? by M. Shermer (1 April, p. 40). The title of the review is ?The immortalist,? not ?The immoralist.? Also, in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph, ?absolutely? should be ?absolute.? The HTML version online has been corrected. News & Analysis: ?Japan?s research facilities down but not out? by D. Normile (25 March, p. 1509). The name of physi- cist Youhei Morita, KEK?s press of?cer, was misspelled. Letters to the Editor Letters (~300 words) discuss material published in Science in the past 3 months or matters of gen- eral interest. Letters are not acknowledged upon receipt. Whether published in full or in part, Let- ters are subject to editing for clarity and space. Letters submitted, published, or posted elsewhere, in print or online, will be disquali? ed. To submit a Letter, go to www.submit2science.org. Published by AAAS o n M ay 1 2, 2 01 1 w w w .s ci en ce m ag .o rg D ow nl oa de d fro m