Tag Archives: children

When ‘consensus’ doesn’t mean what you think it means

14 Oct

Tom-And-Jerry-Picture

I’ve just started teaching my new cohort of students, and this week used my favourite example of questionable peer-reviewed research, in which conclusions are drawn from self-report data on penis size ! As ever, even though the student were one-week into a three year degree programme they were well able to see that the paper, although published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, was clearly nonsense. I was therefore really please to receive another great example this week from our brilliant librarian Ian Clark.

Last week saw a lot of reporting of a paper from ‘Psychology of Popular Media Culture’ suggesting that there was a consensus view that media violence leads to childhood aggression. The general tone of the reporting can be seen in this article from Time magazine. This example is in many ways far better that my favourite ‘penis-size’ paper, in that at first glance it looks entirely sensible and is published in a peer-reviewed journal from the august body that is the American Psychological Association. However, a few interesting points appear when one starts to delve:

  • The paper uses the words ‘broad consensus’ In it’s title, yet it appears that 69% of the participants agreed that media violence led to aggression. I may be a raging pedant, but when I see the phrase ‘broad consensus’ I was expecting something rather higher than 69% !
  • The study is essentially an opinion poll, none of the participants appear to have been asked if they have any evidence to back up their view. Whilst opinion polls are interesting, I’m not sure a peer-reviewed scientific journal is the place for them.
  • Even if one doesn’t think that the above two points are an issue, the fact that 36% of the participants in the survey had no further qualification to comment on the topic than that they were parents is truly worrying. Surely, a peer-reviewed journal ought to be soliciting the views of those who have conducted evidence-based research on the question to hand.

One final point, that I won’t dwell on here, but is very intriguing is the second  footnote that appears on page four of the paper:

 

The version of this manuscript initially submitted and

accepted was based on a different analysis, with communication

scientists and media psychologists combined in one

group as media researchers and identifying consensus as a

significant difference from the midpoint in groups’ average

responses. In reviewing an earlier draft of this manuscript,

the authors of a comment on this article (Ivory et al., in

press) correctly pointed out that these results could not be

interpreted as consensus. The editor gave us permission to

conduct a new set of analyses using a different operational

definition of consensus.

 

All in all this seems like a great way to demonstrate to students the necessity of reading beyond the headlines, even when reading a reputable peer-reviewed journal !

 

 

Are ‘screens’ really damaging our children ? I’m not convinced

26 Aug

I’ve written before about the idea that electronic devices are damaging children’s development, and this week has seen the reporting of another study that seems to suggest that electronic devices are cause harm to our children. Uhls etal report in a study published in ‘Computers in Human Behaviour’ that depriving children of interaction with electronic devices improves their ability to read facial emotions.

Put simply, this study looks at a group of children in a five-day residential camp where no ‘screens’ are allowed, and finds that their ability to discern facial emotion improves after the five days of screen-denial. On the face of it this seems like an interesting finding, in that is compares with a control-group of kids not at the camp. But I’ve got real misgivings about this, as I’m not convinced that this is a genuine control group.

It seems to me that the logic of this study is that if you give participants five days of practice at X (using the time that they would usually be engaged in Y), then performance on X will improve after five days. In this case X is face-to-face interaction and Y is ‘screen time’. I’m not clear why the cause of the improved performance is the five days of practice, rather than the denial of screen time.

If you truly wanted to test the hypothesis that the issue lays with the ‘screens’ would you not want to replace ‘screen time’ with some other solitary activity (i.e. reading a book). Of course, the conclusion that reading a book damages the ability to read facial emotions might not be quite the one people are looking for.

These sorts of study seem to be to be a great example for slightly more advanced students, in that they need to apply their rational thinking skills to seemingly plausible stories, rather than one’s that intuitively seem flawed.

%d bloggers like this: