E
DITOR'S PET PEEVE
How media mangles research
Doug Sanderson, an old friend from college and a lawyer in the
Washington, D.C., area, recently sent me an article from The New York
Times that claimed that "early maternal employment has negative effects
on children's intellectual development." I surprised him by replying that
the study cited in the article showed no such thing, and a rousing e-mail
debate ensued. In legal proceedings, judges and juries must render
verdicts, and they must even do so "speedily." We pronounce O. J. Simpson
innocent and Andrea Yates guilty, and that's that, no matter what really
happened. All that matters is that we bring the proceedings to an end.
Twenty years from now, DNA tests might show that we erred, but, hey,
those are the breaks.
Science, properly practiced, is a much more conservative
enterprise. Scientists are content to withhold judgment indefinitely
until extremely high standards of proof are met. Sometimes,
unfortunately, individual scientists make unwarranted claims about their
research. But even more disturbing is the way scientific research is
reported in the media. The public wants to know-right now-how to raise
kids, lose weight and save a relationship; and journalists routinely
accommodate by misinterpreting research.
The
Timesstudy was "correlational," not "experimental,"
and correlational studies don't shed light on causes. This study merely
showed a statistical relationship between the number of hours moms spent
working during the first nine months of their children's lives and the
scores those children received on a test at age 3. Scores were slightly
better for those children whose moms stayed at home, but not necessarily
because they stayed at home.
Unfortunately, when the press misinterprets research, millions of
people change their practices prematurely, in some cases doing far more
harm than good. For the record, we are fanatical at PT about interpreting
research studies accurately and conservatively, and we'd be happy to
share our expertise with
The New York Times.
SHOELESS IN SAN DIEGO
Roadblocks on the way to love
This afternoon, just as I was about to take my children to the
park, a reporter from a British tabloid knocked on the door of my home in
southern California. Notebook in hand and pen poised, he said that he had
just interviewed three women who had made several allegations about my
behavior, the most serious of which seemed to be that I wasn't
sufficiently "romantic." One of these women was a former girlfriend with
whom I simply was not compatible, and the other two had vigorously
proposed themselves as partners for my personal love experiment, but I
had politely turned them down. I told the reporter that he might want to
think twice about the credibility of his sources. I also told him
this:
His presence on my doorstep showed how easily good intentions can
go awry. In my June editorial, "Editor as Guinea Pig: Putting Love to a
Real Test," I suggested a simple, sane approach to mating and said that I
was going to try it out: With help from counselors, I'd work with someone
I barely knew to master essential relationship skills and create lasting
love. I was seeking personal happiness and hoped to help others along the
way. Since then, women have turned up seeking publicity or money, but
very few seem to have a sincere interest in either me or my concept. And,
it seems, a few women with grudges are determined to prevent me from
trying my experiment at all-unless, of course, it's with them.
His visit, I told him, also highlighted another problem. When I
made my proposal, I naively assumed that if anyone paid attention, it
would be to the concept, not to me. But my privacy has now all but
disappeared, and it isn't certain that I or my family can cope, or that a
would-be partner would want to. Others are now trying the Love Contract.
Will I be able to, as well, or will this shoemaker go shoeless?
Robert Epstein is editor in chief ofPsychology Today
, university research professor at the California School of
Professional Psychology at Alliant International University and director
emeritus of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies. He earned his
Ph.D. in psychology at Harvard University.
Tags:
Andrea Yates,
correlational studies,
ditor,
dna tests,
doug sanderson,
e mail,
Editor in Chief Robert Epstein writes on the media,
first nine months,
intellectual development,
journalists,
legal proceedings,
mangles,
o j simpson,
old friend,
pet peeve,
research and his love life.,
statistical relationship,
those are the breaks,
twenty years
