Here is the link to the article that you have criticized, but not read.

I am a graduate student in the Psychology Department and I know Dr. Goldenberg and Nathan Heflick quite well. And unlike you, I've actually read the study. I'm surprised that you had so much trouble finding. Even Ben Smith, a political blogger at Politico.com, who presumably doesn't spend much time searching psychology databases, was able to find the link.

The one and ONLY camera interview the authors gave was interview done by Bill O'Reilly last night. Here is the YouTube clip. In fact, she did give a brief outline of the study at the beginning of the interview. Bill O'Reilly was obsessed with the finding that participants rated Jolie more competent than Palin. That comparison was not an important finding. Because the two women operate in two different domains--acting and politics--they can't really be compared. The meaningful finding, as Dr. Goldenberg explained to deaf ears (yours included, apparently) was that when attention was directed to the women's (both Jolie and Palin in this study) physical appearance, participants rated them as less competent.

The findings in this study wouldn't support your take away message that women shouldn't dress sexy for a job interview. You would know that if you had read the study before pontificating about it the right-wing talking head you worship on Fox News.

Dr. Peele raises a very good point. Often, psychologists are asked to present their findings to the media. Many times, many of these reports get distorted because the message was not conveyed very clear. However, I found it very disappointing that someone as respected as Dr. Peele, would make such seemingly personal attacks in his piece. He seemed to put all of the blame on Dr. Goldenberg. She might not have been as articulate as she could have been due to many factors unrelated to her “lack of knowledge” about her study (e.g., being nervous about being interviewed on Fox news is an obvious one). Does Dr. Peele really think she doesn’t know “anything” about the study? What a ridiculous assertion made about a professor at a major research university (especially given that he was basing his argument on 2 minutes of t.v. footage). Further, the footnote about her wearing “a revealing top” was very disappointing. What is the point of making that remark (except possibly as an attempt to discredit her intelligence), especially considering there wasn’t anything unusual about what she was wearing? My guess is that very few researchers have had the opportunity to hone their interviewing skills as much as Dr. Peele has had in his career, and that many other psychologists would have acted like Dr. Goldenberg acted if they were interviewed by Mr. O’Reily (I don’t watch him, but he seems very intimidating).

To be clear, I agree with Dr. Peele’s message and will take his advice. As someone who is about to start his career as an academic psychologists, I will definitely be sure to prepare for all that “can go wrong” if I am ever asked to give an interview on a major t.v. channel. However, as an addictions researcher, who has honestly been greatly influenced by Dr. Peele’s work, I can’t help to feel disappointed by the pettiness (and ignorance) that was displayed in this particular blog.

Ok, so I am the other researcher of this study. I assume you are a fairly intelligent person (despite the first half of what you wrote in this blog), so hear me out.

As a psycholgist, you know all about the fundamental attribution error right? And you know about the power of the situation, right? So in what world do you think that O'Reilly doesn't have a HUGE advantage in how this works. He has all the power.

Honestly, anyone that is remotely objective could figure out what Jamie was trying to say when she kept getting cut off. If you watch the clip of the interview, she is still talking when he cuts to commercial. I can't say what Jamie heard in her earpiece without her permission, but it wasn't "Let's hear her out and let her clarify some things."

O'Reilly had an agenda. Jamie didn't. O'Reilly wanted her to fit his agenda based on how he understood the study. When O'Reilly realized she wasn't going to say what he wanted her to say to help his ratings, he cut the chord so to speak--just like he does with 95% of his guests that aren't arch conservative Ann-Coulter types.

In closing, if you watch the clip and ignore O'Reilly, the design of the study is clear. It is a 2 (person: Palin, Jolie) X 2(appearance focus, personality focus) between subjects design with participants randomly assigned to one of those 4 groups. The DVs were participants ratings of competence and humanity for whoever they wrote about. And in Palin's conditions, there was also the voting question.

Participants first wrote about Jolie or Palin (appearance OR personality) and then did the ratings. It isn't rocket science, and she covered 95% of this on the show, if you listened objectively.

And what the heck was that off hand remark about her clothes? How was she dressed "sexy" at all?

If anyone is causing psychology to not be taken seriously in this instance it is you, not her or I. How a PhD level researcher can be so off when it comes to understanding something, and jumping to conclusions about it, is incredibly disheartening. I expect it from a lot of people without your background, but for you, it is just shameful.

If you want to actually have a clue about the study, feel free to email me before you post any more blogs like this. And feel free to try and be remotely objective.

To end on a positive note, I do agree that there is a schism between media and academics. But O'Reilly types do not but CRUSH that potential link. Although, a few reporters have done well with this story (like Tom Jacobs), the majority have been a complete joke.

Nathan Heflick

Yesterday I was feeling so disheartened about the way non-psychologist members of the media (such as Bill O'Reilly) have (1) misunderstood Dr. Goldenberg's very simple study and (2) treated her with disrespect as a result of their own failure to comprehend. Today my disappointment deepens as I discover that even a professional psychologist has done the same. It is one thing, perhaps, to offer useful feedback about how research psychologists might improve our interactions with the media, but another thing altogether to offer such hyperbole as Jamie "was incapable of explaining (a) the study’s methodology, (b) the study’s findings, (c) what the study’s results mean." I watched her appearance on the O'Reilly show, and I heard her explain the study's findings, methods, and interpretation quite clearly. So, am I to believe that you really didn't understand the details of her study? Really? Your tendency to blame the study's author for your own inability to understand is both unprofessional and sad.

Tammy Bruce said it correctly - it was social conditioning of the students for a long period of time. Besides O'Reilly wasn't rude either. They just wanted to use Sarah Palin to make their silly sexist point. There was nothing substantial to this silly study.

What a twit that Dr Goldenberg is. She seemed so utterly confused about how the study was conducted, it's purpose, and what the results meant. She was not even that attractive and I was still diappointed in her ability.
Is this study a publicity stunt trumped up to make a name for some obscure researcher using the populaity of Governor Palin?? If so,it's only making them look inane. Governor Palin is a competent politician, and the liberal bias media did their best to destroy here while hiding the gaffes and errrors of King Obama. That's why King Obama is now partying in the white house every Wednesday, while the peasants suffer and the country dies. Time for a tea party revolution.

What most social psychologists won't admit publicly is that many of these really neat "findings" are nothing more than Type I errors. Social psychology research is easy and fast, meaning that one can conduct tens of studies each year and thousands of statistical analyses, while perhaps publishing the 10% or so that actually "work" creating an enormous file cabinet effect. Considering this, it should not be surprising that social psychologists sometimes have trouble explaining their own findings. Many of them are nothing more than meaningless statistical flukes. Very sad state of affairs.

I teach communication skills and psychology at the University of California, Irvine. From my perspective, Peele is right.

1). I was utterly confused by Goldenberg's description in her interview with O'reilly. If I didn't understand the study, I'm sure O'reilly's audience didn't either.

2). Communication is a no-excuses activity. Every situation, whether TV or an academic conference, requires a unique approach. Dr. Goldenberg didn't adapt to the situation of a televised interview. Words like "objectification" and "tendency" have deeper meanings beyond even a well-informed viewer's understanding. On TV, you have a few seconds to explain the study and a few more to explain the relevance. I get the feeling that academics scoff as those constraints as beneath their intellectual integrity.

**Unfortunately, its that unrealistic mindset that cages useful research into an echo chamber of isolated academics.**

I'm in no way saying this Dr. Golderberg's fault. Rather, its emblematic of a graduate education that deprioritizes communication skills or the practical application of research. As psychologists, if we want our trade to reach mainstream acceptance, the psychological community has to make a more concerted effort. If anyone's interested, email me,
gferenst at /uci/ edu

Mr. Steele, Nathan was on the radio today. If you email him, I'm sure he can give you the clip and you can see if he meets your "standards" of effective communication. Of course, with only an audio clip, you won't be able to comment on his appearance.

Have you had any luck finding the article? I just taught my undergrads how to use PsychINFO to find articles. If you need any help, I'll send you a PDF of the presentation so you can figure it out.

I have audio of myself on The Micheal Smerconish Radio Show talking about this if anyone is interested.

And Stanton:

I know your credentials, which makes your comments at the beginning and your inability to get the study even scarier.

I saw several cites linked to your article with headings like "Peele debunks this stupid study." I realized you can't control what others write. But your point was to raise the problem of ineffective communication between researchers and the media, right? It wasn't to bash the article. This being said, why not make a short follow up blog to this making that distinction clear?

I still think your comments about her looks, ironic as they were, were out of line. The top wasn't revealing at all. Someone reading this expecting that would be really disappointed in what they see in the clip (ooh...some arm..lookie here). And it misrepresents Jamie to the readers, who in all my time of knowing her, has never worn anything close to revealing.

Objectively though, you have some good points about the media and researhcers and improving communication. Unfortunately, I know many researchers who now are less inclined to do media stuff because of this very article. So that also is quite ironic.

Nathan Heflick

ps...looking forward to your email to get the audio of my appearance on the show.

Ok one more thing.

This is my take on you.

1. YOu have a useful and important idea about media and researchers needing to communicate better. Academics play a role in this and should be trained a bit.

---------so far so good------------------------------------

2. You see an interview on O'Reilly. Your confirmation bias puts you on hyper attention for academics not doing well communicating in the media.

3. You get all excited because here is your chance to prove your point.
----Your intentions are good, I think------------------

4. You are so excited by your "chance" that you lose your sense of tact and deceny by attacking someone without any regard for her feelings or people in her life (She has a young child, for instance) reading your comments. You failed to realize (or ignored) the fact that she isn't you, and thus, doesn't have the same experience being criticized on such a level (and over something she has no experience with).

5. Instead of doing something like, "she did ok in parts, but she could have improved on X Y and Z", you made a sensationalist piece for whatever reasons (more viewers oor something).

Tell me this isn't accurate or where I am wrong.

Nathan heflick

There's been a lot of good solutions offered. I agree with Dr. Peele that writing courses should be integrated into the curriculum.

But, if we don't take the initiative, we should not expect someone else to take up the cause. Everyone else in academia is already inundated with their own research and commitments to take on a new project.

Here's two things that need to happen
1. A working curriculum that integrates communications and psychology. I am co-teaching such a course next quarter. But, there needs to be a menu of different models from which teachers can choose.

2. The APA and other such organizations need to make it a priority. Does anyone know people responsible for graduate education who would be interested?

Greg
gferenst at /uci/ edu

Stanton:

I assure you she did not think it was beneath her at all. She was just very, very nervous.

I also think it is odd that O'Reilly has escaped criticism here for his journalism. Surely, he has some responsibility to prep himself, right? If his guest stumbles a bit, should he not steer them back in the right direction? Or, he should at least let them finish reporting the findings when they are 5 seconds away from doing so (the words and we found that were already out of her mouth when he interrupted). And be honest, he didn't get the study, and it isn't that hard. It would take 5 minutes for someone to read the abstract that is available online and if O"Reilly doesnt have the time, surely one of his interns would or someone and they could fill him in.

Ok that is all.

Nice article. You have made a point there. To present a study it is very important that you should be able to present it will and explain with sense about the study.