What journalists get wrong about social science: full responses

Vox:

I recently asked several psychologists and social scientists a simple question: “What do journalists most often get wrong when writing about research?”

Here are their responses.

…

W. Keith Campbell, professor, University of Georgia

Given the tight deadlines and the complexity of much of the work, I think the media generally try to and mostly succeed at covering psychology well. Short, fast turnaround stories are generally hyped or set into a narrative. But it is supposed to be news/entertainment and not a scientific journal. And, frankly, it is often we psychologists and our university media people who (over)simplify and hype the research in the first place.

…

Dave Nussbaum, adjunct assistant professor of behavioral science, University of Chicago, Booth School of Business

One very common mistake in the media is to treat a single published finding as definitive. It’s an easy trap to fall into — psychologists themselves frequently fall prey to it themselves — but no single study can say very much on its own.

…

Jay Van Bavel, assistant professor, New York University

The media is too focused on simple effects (e.g. does money increase happiness), but human behavior is far more complex.

Most scientists I know are focused instead on the conditions under which something happens (e.g. money does increase happiness if you’re poor). Add one or two simple qualifier like this provides much more explanatory power and allows us to get beyond silly debates.

Read the whole story: Vox