Sensational Science

So . . . as a consumer researcher, I tend to notice items in the news that relate to behaviour and psychology.  The newspapers seem to love to print articles about scientific research results, and even I have had the pleasure of getting my name in the paper (I won't be so crass as to post a link; simply Google "Eric Dolansky Deal or No Deal" or "Eric Dolansky magical thinking" to find the numerous articles about me and my fabulous work.  Eh, I should have just posted links, so here they are.  Yes, I am that shallow).  But lately I have found more and more problems with this.  Sure, it's great to expose the public to research, but a lot of the time the newspapers just, well, miss the point.  Here are a couple of examples.

Now, to be fair to our journalist friends, it's not always them.  A friend posted this article on Facebook, and it's pretty clear that it's the institute sponsoring the research that is in the wrong, not the reporter.  A simple case of confusing correlation (statistical relationship between variables) with causality (one variable causing a change in another).  In this case, there is a correlation: those teens who use social networking also are more likely to smoke, drink, and indulge in the demon weed.  A bold claim, to say the least, and definitely worrying to parents.  But let's look a little closer.

Could it be that a third variable is causing the other two (use of social networking and 'bad' teen behaviour)?  Maybe, just maybe, teens with more active social lives are more likely to do both.  I bet that teens who spend time on social networking sites also text and talk on the phone more, too.  By the reasoning in the article, limiting or removing Facebook use would lower teen drinking and smoking.  But for that to be true, we would have to somehow reconcile the fact that smoking and drinking existed prior to Facebook and Twitter (I have the same issue with research that "shows" that violent movies and TV cause violent behaviour - and if you try to take my violent movies away from me, I will cave in your skull with a meat-tenderizing mallet).

But back to the central point today: newspapers claiming that research says what it doesn't.  Today there is an article in the Globe and Mail that says that Spongebob Squarepants is bad for kids.  Reading the article we learn that a) it's not Spongebob specifically (hey, I like Spongebob; he lives in a pineapple under the sea) and b) it's not that he's bad for kids as much as he overstimulates them.  The research cited in the article actually shows that when tested immediately after watching Spongebob, kids do worse (worse than kids who watched a less-rapidly-edited show or kids that didn't watch TV).  The researcher says in the article that he believes that it is because the brain is tired after watching such a frenetically-paced show (in other words, they become like Patrick from Spongebob).  Oh, and by the way, he says that there is no evidence that it is long-lasting.

But "Don't Watch Spongebob Right Before a Test" is not as eye-catching a headline as "Why Spongebob Is A Bad Influence."  It could be argued that watching Spongebob is beneficial: just as we exercise by pushing the limits of our muscles, we could exercise the brain by overstimulating it regularly so that it can deal with the faster flow of information (that's why I watch it so much).  Is this the case?  I don't know, I haven't tested it.

If it's a question of reporting the science sensationally or not at all, I think I would have to opt for not at all.  There's a reason why the research, review and publication process is so rigorous; we are claiming we know something new.  And we have to be very careful about how we claim what we know.  If I find an effect amongst people within a certain age range, it is okay for me to generalize it to everyone?  These newspaper articles are not only presenting "information," but also showcasing the researchers.  I would not want to be seen as someone who has done substandard research so that I can be featured in an article.

Newspapers are supposed to be interesting, exciting, and sensational.  Academic research papers, on the other hand, are not known for their flair or zing.  For journalists, try to be careful about how you report things, and at least stay on point and don't make up generalizations that don't exist.  For researchers, be careful about how your work is presented.  And for everyone, take this stuff with a grain of salt.

But not too much salt - studies show that it will kill you.  Or save you.  Depending on the article.