Media Effects: Policy Vs. Science

Do policy statements on media effects faithfully represent the science behind them? This question has been explored by Malte Elson, Christopher J. Ferguson, Mary Gregerson, and other researchers, who examined the policy statements of professional advocacy organisations. Their findings suggest that while some policy statements are well-grounded, many do not accurately reflect the available scientific evidence, offering overly simplified or one-sided accounts. This issue has important implications for policymakers and parents, who may be misled by these statements.

Overly simplified or one-sided accounts

A scholarly review by Malte Elson, Christopher J. Ferguson, Mary Gregerson, Jerri Lynn Hogg, James Ivory, Dana Klisanin, Patrick M. Markey, Deborah Nichols, Shahbaz Siddiqui, and June Wilson, published in the journal of the Association for Psychological Science, found that policy statements on media effects tend to offer overly simplified or one-sided accounts of the scientific research. The review analysed 24 public statements from professional advocacy organisations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, covering impacts from media violence, screen time, and sexual content.

The review found that 19 out of 24 statements showed citation bias, citing evidence that supported a specific conclusion while ignoring contradictory evidence. This led to an exaggeration of the evidence for harmful effects and a downplaying of controversies in the research. For example, the statements tended to lean towards conclusions that were "scarier" than the data supported. Additionally, 22 out of 24 statements were characterised by false consistency, implying that the evidence on media effects was more consistent than it actually was. Only one statement referenced the existence of diverse viewpoints among scholars.

The review also found that 15 out of 24 statements overgeneralised results, applying media effects findings too broadly. Furthermore, most statements lacked transparency, failing to provide detailed information about who produced the statement and how the data was selected. Overall, the review concluded that policy statements on media effects often overlook scientific complexity and fail to accurately reflect the available evidence.

The researchers offered several recommendations to improve the accuracy and quality of policy statements, including acknowledging contradictory data, focusing on the magnitude of effects, soliciting balanced views, and being mindful of unintended harms.

Citation bias

In their review of 24 media effects policy statements produced by professional advocacy organisations, Ferguson and colleagues found that 19 out of 24 statements exhibited citation bias. This was one of several issues identified in the statements, along with false consistency, lack of clarity and transparency, overgeneralisation, exaggeration, insulation, and the use of non-credible sources.

The presence of citation bias in these policy statements is concerning as it can lead to an inaccurate or skewed representation of the available scientific evidence. By only citing evidence that supports their argument, the statements may give a one-sided account of the research and fail to acknowledge the complexity and nuances inherent in the field of media effects. This can have implications for both policymakers and the general public, who may make decisions based on incomplete or misleading information.

To address citation bias and improve the accuracy and quality of policy statements, Ferguson and colleagues propose a checklist of best practices. This includes acknowledging contradictory data, focusing on the magnitude of effects, acknowledging limitations of research methods, soliciting balanced views, and distinguishing between scientific and advocacy statements.

By following these guidelines and striving for comprehensive and transparent reporting, policy statements can better reflect the complexity of media effects research and provide more accurate information to inform decision-making.

False consistency

The review conducted by Malte Elson et al. highlights that false consistency is a prevalent issue in policy statements. By implying false consistency, these statements create an illusion of unanimity among scholars, downplaying the existence of diverse perspectives and ongoing debates within the field. This misrepresentation of the scientific landscape can be misleading for policymakers and parents, who may interpret these statements as a fair summary of the current research.

The researchers emphasise the importance of acknowledging and engaging with conflicting evidence and diverse viewpoints. They suggest that policy statements should solicit balanced views and acknowledge disconfirmatory data to provide a more accurate representation of the complexity and nuances within the field. This approach aligns with the scientific process, which values ongoing discussion and the consideration of alternative explanations.

Furthermore, the presence of false consistency in policy statements can have unintended consequences. By exaggerating the consistency of evidence, these statements may generate unnecessary worry among parents about media effects. This worry could be heightened if the statements suggest public health or societal impacts without adequately conveying the small or trivial size of the effects found in the research.

In conclusion, false consistency is a prevalent issue in policy statements on media effects, and addressing this issue is crucial for accurately communicating the state of the research to policymakers and parents. By acknowledging conflicting evidence and diverse viewpoints, policy statements can more effectively capture the complexity and nuances inherent in the scientific process.

Overgeneralization

The study found that many policy statements made sweeping claims about the effects of media on society, such as "media exposure increases aggression in children," without acknowledging the nuances and limitations of the research. This can be problematic because media effects are often complex and dependent on various factors, such as the content, context, and individual characteristics. By overgeneralizing the results, the statements may give the impression that the effects are universal and applicable to all individuals and situations.

Furthermore, overgeneralization can lead to an oversimplification of the issues. Media effects are rarely one-dimensional, and there are often interacting variables that influence the outcomes. By ignoring these complexities, policy statements may present an oversimplified view of the effects of media exposure. This can result in policies that are not adequately informed by the scientific evidence and may even have unintended negative consequences.

To address overgeneralization, policy statements should provide clear definitions and boundaries for the media effects they describe. They should specify the types of media, the duration and frequency of exposure, the characteristics of the audience, and any other relevant factors that may influence the outcomes. By providing this level of detail, the statements can avoid overgeneralization and provide a more accurate representation of the scientific evidence.

Additionally, policy statements should acknowledge the limitations of the research and avoid making broad claims that go beyond the scope of the available evidence. This involves a careful review of the existing studies, an understanding of their methodologies and findings, and a cautious interpretation of the results. By taking these steps, policy statements can avoid overgeneralization and provide a more nuanced understanding of media effects.

Exaggeration

The research team found that these statements often presented an overly negative view of media exposure, emphasising potential harm without providing a balanced perspective. This one-sided portrayal of the evidence could be misleading, as it fails to acknowledge the complexities and nuances inherent in the scientific research on media effects.

Furthermore, the statements tended to ignore or downplay controversies and disagreements within the research fields. By neglecting to mention conflicting evidence or alternative viewpoints, the statements presented a false sense of consensus among scholars. This oversimplification of the scientific landscape could give policymakers and the public an inaccurate understanding of the state of the research.

The exaggeration and overstatement of media effects in these policy statements highlight the need for more accurate and nuanced representations of scientific evidence. It is important that policy positions do not deviate too far from the underlying research, as this could have real-world implications and influence decision-making in ways that are not supported by robust evidence.

To address this issue, the research team proposed a checklist of best practices. They recommended that policy statements should focus on the magnitude of effects, acknowledge limitations in research methods, and solicit balanced views to avoid exaggeration and provide a more accurate portrayal of the scientific evidence.

Frequently asked questions