Free Research Papers for Psychology
There are a myriad of politics and a-political practices encompassing the psychological arena generally and psychological research arena specifically (Albee, 2002). These `politics of psychology' influence such things as what research gets done, what results get published and what can and can not be said in psychological publications. The guiding principles and outcomes of the politics of psychology stem from various sources. Some of these include; psychology itself (as a discipline), media (that is, broadcast news and popular programming) and policy-making (for instance, local, state and national politics). It is at this point, when discussing information publication and release that the capricious triad of; psychology, the media and policy-making meet in varying ways and with varying degrees of success and cooperation. This essay explores each of these three factors with a focus on what happens when these three conceptually distinct viewpoints meet (for better or for worse). When talking of the implications and effects each of these hold for each other, Dobson (1997) stated that adequate academic freedom (that is; the freedom to explore questions about human nature and behaviour without outside or external influence) is essential to psychological research, but that freedom is sanctioned and tempered with both academic responsibility and a-political agendas. This sentiment will be explored further in this paper however both of these assuaging functions are clearly observable around and within the psychological arena and have important implications for the nature of psychological research and publication.
Before focussing on the interactions between the three sides of the psychology, media and policy making triad it is important to clarify what is meant by `media' and why this is important. In this paper the term `media' refers to any publicly available or broadcast forum through which mass population is touched and/or affected. Media exists as a function gathering ratings and viewers and therefore profiting through sponsorship (Zinkhan, 1997). As such, media is fundamentally different to psychology insofar as its foundation is based not primarily in human interest and scientific knowledge but in programming designed to raise ratings and viewer fan base. Through various practices and guises, media affects society members on many levels and in multiple ways throughout daily life. This can be clearly seen through the sheer pervasiveness and lived experience of media and media outlets (for example; the abundance and potential intrusiveness of television, radio, printed media and lectures/seminars to name a few). Through these multiple outlets, media maintains a high level of contact with the population while also employing various means affect and manipulate the viewing/listening/reading public (Zinkhan, 1997). These can include various advertising techniques employing specific means to increase consumerism or it might take the form of editing of information in order to produce an emotional reaction or response from the audience.
The outlets of media are pervasive and have the potential to reach audiences in many private and social situations (for example; homes, cars and/or offices). It can be seen that media employs various techniques to affect and manipulate audiences for various purposes while providing entertainment. However, just how effective is the media in manipulating and affecting target audiences? This question was asked by Simon Armando (1989) who discussed techniques, moral/ethical concerns and effectiveness of various forms of media (television) manipulation, especially in relation to violence. They found that through selected practices of information editing, item sensationalism and advertising techniques, audiences were invariably affected by the media broadcasts they were exposed to. It was found that media manipulation could evidence not only behavioural change, but also changes in basic beliefs and ideologies. This is a simplified account of Armando's findings. However it demonstrates the effectiveness of media in affecting audiences to varying degrees. As such, coupled with the pervasiveness of media generally, it seems inherent that media is of vital importance in considering potential ramifications for broadcast, publication and public awareness of psychological research findings and their implications for the general population.
With the pervasiveness and effectiveness of media broadcast in mind it is important to examine why psychology (as a discipline) should use/need the media. Deborah Phillips (2002) stated that the media is essential to psychology as one of the main tenants of psychology is the ability to make a difference in the lives of the population at large. As such media fills a vital and role as a means of reaching the population en-mass with psychological findings and information. George Albee (2002) further iterated the point that psychology needs the media to make a difference in society. By this Albee meant that the underlying hope of many practicing psychologists is that the scientific psychological approach will influence media and politics to the extent of having a psychologically informed public and governmental policies based on important and scientifically valid research. Examples of this interaction can be seen where psychological research and media relations or governmental relations interact (for instance; many major media publications have psychologically trained staff and advisors available to edit/publish/comment on such research). This shows the vital link between psychology and the media and the ways in which psychology uses media in order to reach society at large. While psychology to various extents needs the media, the point of contact between media and psychology are not always in accordance and the effectiveness of this contact varies from situation to situation.
It can be seen how psychology (as a discipline) needs and uses media and there are several ways/places that the two social institutions interact. There are two broad sites for the meeting of psychology and media. Firstly, `popular psychology' (pop-psychology) has a very large fan-base and notoriety (Thomas, 1999). Pop-psychology refers to cases where psychologists (and quasi-psychologists) offer advice and/or notions to the general population on how to improve their lives and/or achieve happiness (Justman, 2005). Instances of pop-psychology are wide-spread; for example, `Men are from Mars Women are from Venus' was a very popular and widely distributed bestselling book on relationship happiness and satisfaction (Gray, 1992). However these facets of psychology tend to be rather innocuous in nature, centring as they generally do on the pursuit of happiness and personal betterment (Thomas, 1999). The second major point of contact between media and psychology is through broadcast of psychological findings. This can occur in two primary ways. Firstly, findings can be broadcast as news/current affairs stories on their own merits. This refers instances when psychological findings are interesting, important or controversial enough to warrant news/current affairs/human interest stories in their own right. The second instance of psychological news broadcast is where psychological findings/information are used to serve another's purpose or agenda. This refers to the misuse or change-of-context of psychological findings to suit or bolster other agendas other than those intended by the psychologist or researcher.
The fact that non-psychological agencies can bring psychological information and research to public attention (through various media outlets and for various purposes) highlights the need to look at political and economic forces which may affect research, findings and/or publication. As psychological research does not exist within a social-vacuum and is, by definition, a scientific inquiry, the potential for other agencies to adopt a `psychologically valid' stand to further own ends is evident (Hughes, 1999). Newcombe (2002) wrote if this when defining the need for psychological writings to be published in such ways as to limit uses the information can be put to, outside of those intended by the author/s. This argument refers to economic and/or political forces which can attempt to influence scientific findings to make them conform to pre-existing values or systems, thus furthering own agendas. An example of this is given by Keen (1998), highlighting how standard psychological experimentation and language is used to explain the `need' for specific mood-altering drugs in order to combat mental disorders/conditions. What is not mentioned however (as explored by Keen) is that these disorders/conditions are highlighted and brought to public attention by the drug companies' themselves. Further, often not mentioned in research done by these companies is; the type of control or non-control groups used, other findings that may have contradicted their positive results and the length/depth of studies. What can be seen here is the use of psychology (as a scientific discipline) for the purpose of consumerism.
While psychological research, findings and approaches are clearly employed by economic forces (that is, industry and business), the availability of psychology for use by specific political forces is two-fold. Firstly, political agendas can dictate what research gets done and by whom. Brian Baird (2002) discussed this when describing the means by which funding grants are issued and `hot political topics' investigated. DeLeon, Loftis, Ball and Sullivan (2006) stated that this leads to the use of psychology to further the political ends of certain political parties and agendas. The point is made that, despite the potential for negativity, at least psychological research is getting done and published. This however leads to the second major point of political intervention in psychological research; that of censorship and alteration/omission of research findings. Albee (2002) wrote on the ways in which certain topics (especially controversial topics) are considered `taboo' by political agencies and therefore `untouchable'. Albee offers the example of his ambition to research repercussions to homosexual stigmatization and segregation (several years ago) which was consistently denied funding as no political body wanted association with the (then controversial) topic. Finally, after eventually obtaining funds for the research, findings were denied publication by the funding body as morally inconsistent with their public ideals. This shows the ways in which political influences can dictate what types of psychological research gets done and published.
The push from political and economic sectors to make psychology available to reinforce conventional ideals is countered in the psychological arena by the ever-present and underlying desire of scientific research for academic freedom. This means there is a need for psychological research and writings to be able to exist and function free from `outside' political/economic pressure. In 1992, Rodgers explored this idea when writing of the need for psychology to `make allowances for' social factors affecting the nature of psychological research. More recently, Sternberg (2002) stated that it is impossible for psychology to actuate complete academic freedom as psychology itself does not exist within a social vacuum and thus cannot put aside `outside' influences (such as political/economic pressures) or even internal regulations governing the nature and types of research conducted. However, Sternberg also argued the despite the fact that psychology cannot escape breaches in academic freedom, the attempt to obtain as much freedom as is reasonably possible is vital. So while it is impossible to reach total freedom, striving to achieve a balance between `absolute' academic freedom and `outside' influences is essential.
With discussion of academic freedom and the need to strive for balance between `absolute' freedom and `outside' influences it is easy to get lost searching for ways to improve the freedom that researchers and academics inherently crave. However it must be remembered, academic freedom is tempered by and countered with academic accountability and the need for caution (Dobson, 1997). This refers to the need for researchers and academics to communicate findings in socially and academically appropriate ways. This must include accounts of potential social implications and academic concerns underlying research and presentation must be in an academically appropriate manner and language. This was discussed by Favreau (1997) who stated there must be careful consideration of the language used so as to make findings and their ramifications as obvious as possible. This is to clearly establish what conclusion/s adequately can and can not be drawn from research. The importance of this pertains to the potential for misuse, misunderstanding and misappropriation of researcher's findings and writings, both by other academics and by various sectors in society generally. Dobson (1997) stated that this consideration should incorporate three fundamental questions. Firstly from the writings, what conclusions can be drawn by other psychological researchers and academics? Secondly, what conclusions can be drawn by the public at large? And thirdly, what conclusions can be drawn by specific interest groups in society? In answering each of these questions, to the researcher's satisfaction, the potential for misunderstanding and misappropriation is greatly reduced. (The potential for misuse however proves more difficult to reduce, depending on the exact nature of the research findings/writings).
There are two prominent examples of the ways in which finding balance between academic freedom and influencing pressures can become problematic. The first shows potential consequences and repercussions of academic writing which is insufficiently clear, succinct and/or pointed, especially in relation to socially controversial findings and topics. The well known article by Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998) sparked controversy and public outrage when findings of a meta analysis were published stating that repercussions of child sexual abuse have been continually over-stated and over-represented in previous research and by society at large. A sub-point to this article voiced a need for more refined definitions of child sexual `abuse' based on how detrimental the outcomes were for the child in question. Many academics, researchers and public institutions condemned the article (Garrison & Kobor, 2002). References from the article appeared on national radio programs (in the United States) and the journal in question was criticized for publishing the article (Garrison & Kobor, 2002). While the methodology of the study was also called into question most concerns were pointed at the language used to express findings. That is; the validity of the findings was essentially lost behind the sentiment expresses and the language used by the researchers (Ondersma et al., 2001). The public outrage sparked by this article and the ramifications endured by both the authors and the publishing journal show the potential hazards of not finding the appropriate balance between academic freedom and outside influencing forces.
A second example can be used to highlight the influencing power of internal processes (that is, internal to psychology as a discipline), as a direst result of outside political pressure. In Lilienfeld (2002a) submitted an article for publication, written about the events and effects of the Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998) article. This piece was strongly critical of the publishing body and their response to the controversy. Part of the critique focussed on the political pressure the publishing body seemed to bow-down to in order to reduce the detrimental ramifications of the article (which had reached U.S. congress). The Lilienfeld article was initially accepted by the publisher and then rejected with the note that it would be considered for re-submission if the critical and seemingly defamatory sections were removed (Lilinenfeld, 2002b). This in turn served to deepen the controversy surrounding the Rind, Tromovitich and Bauserman article and responses to it, highlighting internal problems and repercussions for psychology itself. This is an example of the ways in which political (and social) pressures impinge upon the freedoms available for academics and the potentially widespread consequences of not striking the correct the balance between academic freedom and outside influences.
It can be seen that the effects of finding balance between academic freedom and `outside' influences can mean the difference between scientific acceptance/popularity and social or academic disparagement (in various forms). These effects, stemming from both `outside' the psychological arena (that is; media and policy making) and those arising from within (for instance; the standards of academic or socially responsible language) constitute and define the politics of psychology. By this is meant, what gets said, by whom and how. Once again it bears remembering that psychology (as a discipline), media (in all its various guises) and policymaking (for example, local, state and federal politicians) each expound differing virtues and originate from distinctly different standpoints. The search of scientific insight, the search for ratings and the search for voter popularity/recognisability do not necessarily work in productive or congruent ways. However, as these three institutions of the social world are inexorably tied together, it seems inherently important to remember that while academia may not be able to remove itself from the social world (nor should it), it is the recognition of this triad and the potential consequences of each aspect of it that is vital in maintaining academic integrity and social responsibility.