The rise of the pop psychologists
BMJ 2012; 344 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e3541 (Published 29 May 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e3541All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
McCartney's (1) observations regarding "pop psychologists" and the media spark a couple of thoughts:
(a) What attracts the media's attention is not always predictable, so contributions may have to be made "on the hoof";
(b) As part of this process, some simplification will likely be necessary for the wider public. Not many will have been immersed in the expert commentator's area of interest.
I am an academic psychologist who occasionally contributes to the media under the auspices of the British Psychological Society. One of my areas of interest concerns road-transport and, in particular, the competing demands of motorists on one hand and pedestrians and cyclists on the other hand. This, I suggest, is hardly a "pop" topic. Nor does it fall within the remit of mental health as generally construed.
Nonetheless, some years ago I acquired quite widespread media reporting regarding my thoughts on the less-than-predicted effectiveness of seatbelts, an issue that had been recognised by some in the academic community in the late 1980s after the wearing of seatbelts had become compulsory in the UK (3). I gather that the topic had not received much attention in the media. At an annual conference of the British Psychological Society, I offered an explanation for the relative ineffectiveness in terms of the driver's visual and kinaesthetic perception in conjunction with behavioural modification (2). Of necessity, I had to simplify my explanation in addressing the media.
The interface between academia and media can be tricky to negotiate. To be sure, there must be guidelines. Equally, for academia to over-restrict interaction runs the danger of aloofness - something which has often been to the disadvantage of the public's attitude to science in the past.
(1) McCartney M. The rise of the pop psychologists. BMJ 2012;344:e3541 doe:10.1136/bmj.e3541.
(2) Adams J. 1995. Risk. London, UCL
(3) Reinhardt-Rutland AH. Seat belts and behavioural adaptation: The loss of looming as a negative reinforcer. Safety Sci 2001; 39: 145-155.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dr McCartney notes the solution to the problem of the 'pop' psychologist in her article but it's worth emphasizing. Members of the British Psychological Society (BPS) are not permitted to stray beyond their area of expertise and anyone can submit a complaint if one does so. Moreover, a responsible editor/producer choses a practitioner psychologist registered with the HPC and should be wary of anyone who is not listed in their directory, or that of the BPS.
Interestingly, there is a similar issue with regards to physicians. All the media seem to require is a basic degree and that is often sufficient to comment on almost any disease. I have no problem with GPs explaining what a condition is and how a GP can treat it, but if they tend to refer, the relevant specialist should be there to provide additional information.
Given the expertise around (the BPS have a Press Office who can quickly provide any journalist with a suitably qualified psychologist), our media retains its fondness for the 'agony aunt' whose only qualifications appear to be an attractive face and an eventful (not defined) life. I once challenged a diagnosis made by one such lady on 'This Morning' but the producers had no interest in accuracy. Consequently, those watching the item in question would have been left with the impression that men can develop post natal depression when a more likely diagnosis might have been adjustment disorder. It responds well to counselling and tends to have a positive outcome. (To avoid ending up with another meaningless term, the diagnosis of post natal depression should be reserved for the mood disorder that develops after childbirth, and where there are no other explanations for the anxiety and depression, e.g. still-birth, partner deserting the mother, etc).
The article made me think of what we expect from the media. Ultimately, if we don't mind a nice, elderly lady analyzing people's psychological or medical problems, and if we fail to ask producers why they leave it to a GP to evaluate the latest treatments for bowel cancer, rather than a consultant gastro-enterologist, then we only have ourselves to blame. As someone else said, 'we get the media we deserve'.
This is not just about pop psychology, it's about the reliability of information on health in general. Let us insist that we be guided by individuals with knowledge and expertise, not just an attractive face or connection to a celebrtity.
Ellen Goudsmit PhD FBPsS
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: The rise of the pop psychologists
I am a Forensic Psychologist, registered with the HCPC and BPS. I have a BSc, MSc and PhD as well as over 15 years experience working with police forces, offenders and victims. I don't often feel the need to list my qualifications, however as there appears to be a pattern of critiquing professionals' qualifications I wanted to put mine out there.
I currently work both as an academic and a practitioner and believe in evidence based practice - this in fact features in my job. Thus, I agree with previous comments in that we need evidence, we need regulation and we need to ensure the public are given accurate information and work within our areas of expertise. However, I think the critique offered and behaviour exhibited by some professionals is often unjustified and inaccurate. Moreover, to remove or distort another person's qualifications from a public forum is in itself unprofessional and in some instances could be described as bullying. Critical evaluation is if course acceptable, peer review is essential in the development of research and practice.
I myself used to be very cynical about appearing in the media as an 'expert'. However, I have recently changed my opinion and believe done the correct way it is invaluable and can help more people than is ever possible in practice. I have been involved in a TV series with Emma Kenny examining cases of family crime. I am the expert forensic psychologist commenting on the offenders and Emma comments on the victims. This is something she is qualified to do. She is a colleague of mine and has a degree in psychology, a masters degree in counselling, ad dip in counselling and is registered with the BACP. In addition she has 16 years experience of working in the area of mental health and I have seen her achieve fantastic results and change people's lives through her counselling. Emma only ever makes comments about people's emotions, feelings, life experiences etc. and this she is most certainly qualified to do. In my work I have often referred patients to GP's or clinical psychologists for treatment. But when it comes to therapy I would not hesitate to refer to Emma. So, please let us all remember we have our areas of expertise and we also have our skills - some of us bring research to life and can reach the public in ways others can't. Some prefer to remain anonymous whilst producing ground breaking work. Professional, critical review and comment is always welcomed, personal attack (particularly misleading the public by removing someone's qualifications) should never be welcomed. Dr Keri Nixon
Competing interests: No competing interests