Discussing the Costs, Benefits, and Potential Solutions to Popular Psychology

Grace Denney 20722687 Psych 336 Dr. Seeds April 7th, 2020 Assessing Popular Psychology

Popular Psychology (Pop Psychology) is described by the Cambridge Dictionary as

“theories and advice about people’s behaviour that are easily understood and intended to help people improve their lives” (2020). The concept of Pop Psychology, according to this definition, can be traced back to the earliest American psychologists and their efforts for their research to be more accessible to the general American public. In 1892, William James published “Psychology:

The Briefer Course” as a follow up to his text The Principles of Psychology, which was intended to allow the public to read and understand his psychological works (Burkhardt, Bowers, &

Skrupskelis, 2020). In the time since James’ publication, Pop Psychology has remained a compelling topic of interest to the general public, and in many cases, has been used in the entertainment industry to engage consumers. What are the potential costs of taking and shaping scientific findings to entertain, rather than purely inform? Is there any benefit to be gained through this entertainment usage? Throughout this review, the negative effects of Pop

Psychology will be discussed, as will the potential benefits that can be gleaned from the phenomenon, concluding with a discussion about potential strategies to manage and reduce the negative effects, and promote the positive effects.

Negatives of Pop Psychology in Media

Disproportionate Representation

One way that Pop Psychology can impose harm is in the misrepresentation of the rate of occurrence of mental health concerns. In a 2013 study by Rasmussen and Ewoldsen (both of whom have a PhD in communications and the latter a PhD in social and cognitive psychology), it was found that overall, the Pop Psychology resources Dr. Phil and Psychology Today did not cover mental health concerns in a proportionate manner. Major depressive disorder (MDD) was the only condition with proportionate coverage, at 23.3% of mentions in Dr. Phil episodes and

1

Assessing Popular Psychology

26.7% Psychology Today; the lifetime incidence of MDD is close to 25% of women in America

(2013). The next most covered disorder was anxiety disorder, which was disproportionately presented at more than twice the statistical lifetime prevalence in the general population (8.7%-

10% in the media compared to a lifetime prevalence of 5.7%) (2013). Rasmussen and Ewoldsen found that all other mental disorders covered in these outlets had disproportionate representation; autism, schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorders were over-represented, while panic disorder, PTSD, and bipolar disorders were underrepresented. This disproportionate coverage is a drawback of Pop Psychology, as it could be causing individuals to self-diagnose at exceptional rates due to over-coverage and those with under-covered conditions may be left struggling for longer due to not having the information available to them (Rasmussen and Ewoldsen, 2013).

Accumulation Effect of Negative Portrayals

Another danger of Pop Psychology is how the public perceives mental illness through the lens of the media. In a study by Vogel, Gentile, & Kaplan (2008), researchers focused on how cultivation effects can occur through repeated exposure to portrayals of health service workers.

They found that negative portrayals of workers would accumulate in the individual’s mind, and be expanded to real-life practitioners. Individuals who consumed higher amounts of drama and comedy television believed there was low benefit from a psychological therapist even if they were facing mental health concerns (Vogel et al., 2008). Vogel and colleagues determined that this decrease in therapy-seeking behaviour was due to the negative representations of those with mental health concerns and psychological practitioners in these media (2008). Pop Psychology can now easily be traced to a potential increase in self-diagnoses over non-symptoms/symptoms that would not qualify as a disorder, increased stigma around those with mental illness due to sensationalized representations, and a decreased belief in the effectiveness of therapy.

2

Assessing Popular Psychology

Miscommunicating Scientific Research for Higher Appeal

Additionally, Pop Psychology is notorious for miscommunicating the findings of a study, whether intentionally or not, to get a sensational and appealing story. When a research paper’s findings are “summarized” and shared via media, the conclusions are usually over-generalized and sensationalized, devaluing the integrity of the original research. Ferguson (2015) states that over-zealous generalizing by Pop Psychology has also resulted in over-emphasis of when psychologists having opposing stances, which can result in the public having decreased faith in the psychological research community. While Ferguson is knowledgeable in psychology, having taught psychology at the University of Florida with a PhD in clinical psychology, other

(unrelated) articles of his have a trend of diminishing the importance of findings in other studies, such as studies warning against the use of physical punishment (Larzelere, Gunnoe, Ferguson, &

Roberts, 2019). It may be his bias to be hyper-critical of the psychological process and how psychology is portrayed through media, which extends to his sentiment of “death by press release”: how Ferguson refers to the dilemma of reduced scientific rigour through sharing findings with the media. However, being particularly firm about the ways individuals can be harmed by Pop Psychology is essential, otherwise there may be avoidable damage caused.

Underestimation of Psychology’s Scientific Value

The decrease in public confidence from research conflict (outlined by Ferguson, 2015) can result in split public opinion surrounding psychological research funding, and psychology’s general value to society. In a critique by Lilienfeld (2012), he commented that although a majority of the public supports the notion of the federal government increasing funding to psychological research, 29% of respondents in the sample disagreed with the idea, a further 13% saying that the government should be spending less money on psychological research than it is

3

Assessing Popular Psychology

currently. This sentiment mirrors larger government statements in the past when justifying defunding psychological research; David Stockman, under President Regan, referred to psychology as a “pseudoscience” when explaining why he was planning to cut funding to behavioural psychology research in the United States (Benjamin, 2003) . This sentiment is mirrored in the views of individuals from other majors in post-secondary education, of whom a majority feel psychology is not a “true” science, with a significant number of participants feeling that psychology is less valuable to society compared to other sciences, and generally lacking

“scientific vigour” (Lilienfeld, 2012). This misunderstanding of psychology’s scientific value has resulted in public perceptions such as that psychology is “merely common sense” (Lilienfeld,

2012). However, it can be clearly demonstrated that certain psychological findings contradict common sense. For instance, a classroom activity proposed by Timothy Osberg (1993,

Department of Psychology at Niagara University, NY) drew on research by Festinger and

Carlsmith (1959) and asked students to vote if a participant would find a boring, hour-long task more rewarding if they received $1 for their “work” or $20. Osberg reports that the entire class said that those who received $20 would find the task more rewarding, referencing “common sense”. However, Festinger and Carlsmith’s research indicates that individuals who received $1 felt significantly more rewarded by the work. While it is a simple example, it neatly sums up why it is important to avoid equating psychological science with common sense, since the two are not the same.

Positives of Pop Psychology in Media

Parasocial Relationships formed through Media

It is beneficial to assess the positives of Pop Psychology as well. Rasmussen and Ewoldsen performed a follow-up to their 2013 study in 2016, focusing on how parasocial relationships that

4

Assessing Popular Psychology

are formed by the viewer to Dr. Phil, host of the television program Dr. Phil, impact the viewer’s willingness to seek psychological help for themselves or their child. Those who frequently watched Dr. Phil were found to have a stronger parasocial relationship with Dr. Phil, to have stronger beliefs of the effectiveness of therapy, and were more likely to say that they would consider seeing a professional for mental health issues in themselves or their children (2016).

While these findings may seem to contradict the earlier findings of Vogel and colleagues, it is valuable to remember that Vogel explored how fictional representations of psychologists (and mental illness) impact treatment-seeking behaviours. In contrast, while one cannot speak for the truthfulness of the conditions seen on the show, psychotherapy is the single most recommended treatment in Dr. Phil according to Rasmussen and Ewoldsen (2013), which would result in frequent viewers (including those with a parasocial realtionship to Dr. Phil) repeatedly seeing psychotherapy suggested as an appropriate and efficient solution to mental health struggles.

Increased Information available to the Public

Another positive element of Pop Psychology is that it provides a degree of accessible information to the public. Consider the first definition of Pop Psychology described in this paper; information that “is intended to help people improve their lives” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020;

Griffiths, 1995). Although Pop Psychology has caused concern, especially highlighting the points mentioned earlier, the idea of popular psychology itself stems from applied psychology and William James’ hope to make psychological research more accessible to the public so that they can use it in their own life (Burkhardt et al., 2020). This can extend back to the research conducted by Rasmussen and Ewoldsen in 2013; while Dr. Phil was presenting information about certain psychological illnesses at disproportionate rates, it was still scientifically correct information, and there were proportionate rates for MDD. When psychological research is

5

Assessing Popular Psychology

properly “translated” into a manner that is understandable by the layman, it can serve to improve the quality of life of an individual. Of course, this relies on a journalist’s abilities to properly paraphrase and simplify, which can be a challenging task.

Solutions to Improve Pop Psychology in Media

A Need for a Responsible Representative

The most recommended solution in the literature reviewed is the idea of having a competent, friendly member of the psychology community stand as a visual representative of trusted psychological associations (Lilienfeld, 2012; Rasmussen & Ewoldsen, 2016; Vogel et al., 2008).

While there have been several television programs that aim to share psychological information with the public, such as the National Geographic series “Brain Games”, there is yet to be a program in psychology with a consistent face that leaves an impression on a viewer in the way that Dr. Phil does. Consider the phenomenon of Bill Nye; an individual with a degree in mechanical engineering, who had experience in the field and a genuine passion for helping people of all ages learn about scientific concepts with humor. While it may be difficult to directly apply Bill Nye’s trajectory to the psychological sphere, there is something to be said about how he continues to be a recognizable, positive, and impactful face for the generations of students who learned scientific ideas from him. Perhaps it would be beneficial to model a similar program for psychology; providing a “one-stop-shop” series that covers various psychological facets including different mental health disorders, using a benevolent, trustworthy, and educated spokesperson.

Planning “Counter-Advertising”

In conjunction with having some sort of program that has a reliable psychological representative, it has also been proposed by Vogel and colleagues that psychological

6

Assessing Popular Psychology

organizations should target commercial breaks for drama and comedy shows, which have been identified through research as having a highly negative influence on the perceived benefits of seeking therapy (Vogel et al., 2008). The researchers proposed that this “counter-advertising” would quickly reduce the impact of negative portrayals in sensational programs (2008). By immediately providing an opposing, positive representation of professional psychological help, even if it does not sway the viewer in the direction to immediately consider getting help (if needed), it would serve as a reminder that real psychologists are not the same as the ones in the fictional program. In this way, psychological associations can try to reduce any potential damage from fictional shows.

Psychologists Actively Working against Pop Psychology

It is also crucial to consider steps that psychological researchers themselves can do to try and mitigate the harmful impacts of Pop Psychology, while maintaining its inherent ability to provide information to the public. Lilienfeld points out in his 2012 review that “academics have typically stayed out of the fray, preferring to concentrate on their research, grant seeking, and teaching”.

He goes on to say that this failure to confront false statements in Pop Psychology is understandable considering the current academic climate: there is ever-increasing pressure to publish articles and obtain funding (2012). Unfortunately, this has resulted in a deft blow to psychology’s public image (Lilienfeld, 2012). One suggestion is for educational boards to reward those who take time to share psychological science with the general public (Chabris & Simons,

2010; Lilienfeld, 2012). At this point in time, there is no unanimous support for researchers who work solely to disprove pseudoscience, which is a cost to the perceived integrity of psychological associations and their members (Lilienfeld, 2012). If researchers were given support by academic establishments to disprove Pop Psychology claims, especially in a manner

7

Assessing Popular Psychology

that is understood by the pubic, the psychological community would be well-positioned to reinstate itself as a trust-worthy, accesible source of information that the public is looking for in pop psychology.

Support for Psychologists to work with Media to Properly Communicate Findings

Lastly, to address challenges with sharing findings with the public, there should be increased encouragement for psychologists to work with journalists to help write articles that discuss psychological findings. While the American Psychology Association’s website has a page dedicated to aiding journalists to properly communicate findings with the press (Stambor, 2006), psychologists face peer pressure to not engage in these collaborations, at the risk of inciting ridicule from colleagues (Ferguson, 2015). To address this, there should be stronger support from psychological associations for researchers to work with the press on public communications of their findings, considering the risks that could occur if it is left to the reporters to do on their own.

Conclusion

One should note that tools with great influence can be ill-used; popular psychology is no different. Starting from an honest intent to allow the public to learn, this sentiment can be maintained if the appropriate steps are taken to reduce the harm of Pop Psychology and magnify its benefits, including psychological researchers themselves becoming more active in the defence of their scientific practice. As long as psychology continues to research, popular psychology will continue to exist, and it is crucial that the scientific psychological community guides it in a beneficial direction.

8

Assessing Popular Psychology

References

Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (2003). Why can't psychology get a stamp? Journal of Applied

Psychoanalytic Studies, 5(4), 443–454. Retrieved March 31, 2020.

Burkhardt, F., Bowers, F., & Skrupskelis, I. K. (Eds.). (n.d.). The Works of William James.

Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://www.hup.harvard.edu/collection.php?cpk=1162

Chabris, C., & Simons, D. (2010). The invisible gorilla: And other ways our intuitions deceive

us. New York, NY: Crown.

Ferguson, C. J. (2015). “Everybody knows psychology is not a real science”: Public perceptions

of psychology and how we can improve our relationship with policymakers, the scientific

community, and the general public. American Psychologist, 70(6), 527–542. https://doi-

org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1037/a0039405

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal

of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.

Griffiths, M. (1995). "Pop" Psychology. The Psychologist, 445–447. Retrieved from

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/1970686/Psychologist_Pop_1995.pd

f?response-content-disposition=inline;

filename=Griffiths_M.D._1995_._Pop_psychology._Th.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-

HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A/20200312/us-

east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20200312T003932Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-

Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-

Signature=f59b109c25a226534b936cf585fcaa32210c5617f2a5af772ff55f392e8c7bae

Larzelere, R. E., Gunnoe, M. L., Ferguson, C. J., & Roberts, M. W. (2019). The insufficiency of

the evidence used to categorically oppose spanking and its implications for families and

9

Assessing Popular Psychology

psychological science: Comment on Gershoff et al. (2018). American Psychologist,

74(4), 497–499. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1037/amp0000461

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study

of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67(2), 111–129. https://doi-

org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1037/a0023963

Osberg, T. M. (1993). Psychology is not just common sense: An

introductory psychology demonstration. Teaching of Psychology, 20(2), 110–111.

POP PSYCHOLOGY: meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1,

2020, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pop-psychology

Rasmussen, E., & Ewoldsen, D. R. (2013). Dr. Phil and Psychology Today as self-help

treatments of mental illness: A content analysis of popular psychology

programming. Journal of Health Communication, 18(5), 610–623. https://doi-

org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1080/10810730.2012.743630

Rasmussen, E. E, & Ewoldsen, D. R. (2016). Treatment via television: The relation between

watching Dr. Phil and viewers' intentions to seek mental health treatment. Journal of

Health Communication, 21(6), 611–619. https://doi-

org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1080/10810730.2015.1114054

Snyder, L. B., Hamilton, M. A. (2003). A meta-analysis of U. S. health campaign effects on

behavior: Emphasize enforcement, exposure, and new information, and beware the

secular trend. In R. Hornik, (Ed.), Public health communication: Evidence for behavior

change (pp. 357-383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stambor, Z. (2006, February). Reporters give psychologists advice on communicating with the

press. Retrieved March 9, 2020, from https://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/press

10

Assessing Popular Psychology

Vogel, D. L., Gentile, D. A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2008). The influence of television on willingness

to seek therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(3), 276–295. https://doi-

org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1002/jclp.20446

11