Professor Stern conducted a survey to test the hypothesis that spending

time outside is correlated with psychological well-being. To measure “time spent outside,” she asked participants the following: how much time they spent outside on a typical week day, how much time they spent outside on a typical weekend, how much time they spent in nature every week, and how much time they spent exercising outside every week. To measure “well-being,” she asked participants the following: how happy they were, how satisfied with their lives they were, and how many sick days they had in a typical semester. She looked at all possible relationships between her 4 “time spent outside” measures and her 3 “well-being” measures and found one statistically significant result: time spent in nature correlated with life satisfaction. She concluded her hypothesis was supported. Why might this conclusion be a false positive?

A. She tested her hypothesis in a number of different ways and selectively concluded it was supported based on one analysis
B. She used a survey, which is prone to bias
C. She did not use valid and reliable measures of “well-being” so she cannot know if she fully captured that variable
D. She didn’t experimentally manipulate “time spent outside,” so she cannot conclude it is correlated with well-being