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.