The Wedding of Psychology and the Media

The Wedding of Psychology and the Media:
Taking a Look at the Ethical Imperative

by Artemio Allan Martin II, Doctoral Candidate
Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary

Abstract:
The involvement of psychology in a variety of media formats is evident in contemporary culture. Mental health professionals participate in newspaper advice columns, in magazine self improvement articles, in psychology books, on radio call-in shows, in talk show appearances, as featured experts on the TV news, and as consultants for films and television give a few examples of media involvement. The purpose of this paper is to begin with the development of media psychology, particularly in radio and television, and use this initial history as a platform to discuss the ethical issues involved. Finally the paper concludes with guidelines advocated by the American Psychological Association (APA) for media psychology and stresses the importance of ethical development in the age of psychomedia.

The Wedding of Psychology and the Media:
Taking a Look at the Ethical Imperative

Psychology's involvement with the media has become increasingly conspicuous with mental health problems and professionals being involved in a wide variety media communication formats (Canter & Breakwell, 1986). Newspaper advice columns, magazine self improvement articles, psychology books, radio call-in shows, talk show appearances, featured experts on the TV news, and consultants for films and television shows enumerate the many arenas where psychology and the media have been wed (Bouhoutsos, Goodchilds, & Huddy, 1986; Paterson & Blashko, 1985).

Among the intriguing examples of "psychomedia," are proposals for psychological services to be made available through cable television. Turkat (1983) notes the possibilities and benefits of utilizing an interactive video-computer cable (IVCC) system to provide therapeutic services and programs directly to clients' homes. Turkat proposes IVCC systems could allow quicker access to mental health services and allow a broader community participation.

Another example of media use for psychologists, suggested by Maloney, Fixsen, and Phillips (1985), focuses more on the marketing value of media and its ability to sell mental health services as a "product." Their study found that how-to-do books and videotapes were more visible to the general public than more traditional means of communication, such as journal articles and textbook chapters. Maloney et al. emphasize that such communication venues are of special importance to nonacademic pscyhologists and that communication skills are of vital necessity to thrive in nonacademic arenas.

A final example is the use of the television news format to provide psychological information (Frank, 1983). Utilization of psychologists as expert commentators for local and national news programs allows opportunities for helping professionals to provide primary prevention and referral services to a mass audience (Frank, 1983; McCall, Gregory, & Murray, 1984; Zimmerman, 1983). Zimmerman (1983) emphasizes how involvement in broadcast media roles, like television news, allows psychologists to guide the public to a better understanding of personal, community, and cultural values and behavior. Canter and Breakwell (1986) urge psychologists to take the initiative and pioneer these opportunities to bring the value of psychology into public awareness.

Although media psychology is most prevalent in the United States, other countries, including Taiwan, Puerto Rico, France, Israel, Australia, and Germany, have broadcast programs as well (Raviv, Raviv & Yunovitz, 1989). The age of psychomedia is clearly on us (Klonoff, 1983).

With the rise of psychomedia in popular culture, the consequences of this new stardom for psychologists and their discipline must be closely examined. Bumpass & Cody (1985) admonish therapists, who make public appearances, to be cognizant of the possible transference issues that arise for their private practice clients. In a study of family experts making appearances on television talk shows, Robinson (1982) found that neither professional nor lay family experts held to accepted standards of scholarship when discussing family issues on television. Robinson noted that such lack of adherence to professional standards has a detrimental effect on the credibility of the profession. She recommends the educating of the public and producers in regards to specific standards that should be maintained by mental health professionals appearing in the media.

The emergence of psychology into the public eye calls helping professionals to do careful internal scrutiny of ethical principles and legal standards. Pallak and Kilburg (1986) note the problems with psychology's public image and recommends a corporate effort by professional associations and private practitioners to establish a credible public presence. Kessler (1983) recommends standards enforcement and proactive ethical action strategies to address the new challenges of media psychology. As psychomedia continues to rise in popular culture prominence, the dynamics of ethical principles for the mental health profession need to evolve as well.

The purpose of this paper is to begin with the development of media psychology, particularly in radio and television, and use this initial history as a platform to discuss the ethical issues involved. Finally the paper will conclude with guidelines advocated by the American Psychological Association (APA) for media psychology and stress the importance of ethical development in the age of psychomedia.

The Development of Media Psychology:

How did the relationship between media and psychology begin? Where are the origins of media psychology? Bouhoutsos et al. (1986) cite the radio call-in psychology program as the "catalyst for this burgeoning blend of media and psychology" (p. 408). Since the 1950s, with the radio program by the Los Angeles Popenoe Institute of Family Relations, psychological problem exploration have been on the airwaves.

The 1960s brought another program, _The Private Line_, to radio where Gil Henry, the radio announcer, had guest mental health professional refer callers to agencies or professional associations available to help the caller with an identified problem (Bouhoutsos et al., 1986). These early forms of media psychology were viewed as a public service and no advice was given over the air because of the ethical code prohibition (Klonoff, 1983).

The 1970s found the radio call-in format to be a popular media niche for psychology with shows springing up throughout the country. Although popular demand and mental health demographics yearned for psychology to take a more interactive role in the media, the 1977 American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics was very clear in prohibiting "personalized advice" through radio or television (Bouhoutsos, 1983; Bouhoutsos et al., 1986; Klonoff, 1983).

Raviv et al. (1989) noted the opening of a window of opportunity for psychomedia with the revision to the APA Code of Ethics in 1981 permitting "personal advice," but not "therapy," on the air. The ambiguity between personal advice and therapy led to, and continues to spark, much controversy, but also gave interpretive latitude for a new genre of media psychology.

In 1982, the syndication of radio call-in programs by KABC allowed psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers and other mental health professionals to enter homes across the country from their Los Angeles stations (Bouhoutsos et al., 1986). An estimated additional 50 call-in local programs were being aired in various parts of the nation. Schwebel's study (cited in Levy, 1989) estimates a listeners range from hundreds of thousands to millions.

Parallel the positive response psychology was receiving from the radio media, television was quickly joining the psychomedia bandwagon. Klonoff (1983) notes that during 1980s "mental health problems and practitioners have become the new wave of media stars" (p. 847). Even TV game shows, such as Couples and Getting Personal, took on a psychological flavor with interactive roles for audience, the mental health professional, and the individual or couple with a psychological or relational problem.

Zimmerman (1982) cites the growing range of roles psychologist now play in television broadcasting. Psychologist involvement ranges from media consultants, expert interviewees, interviewers, producers, and reporters. From doing the talk show circuit, to doing news features, to hosting documentaries, psychologists are finding a variety of television venues to participate in (Frank, 1983; McCall et al., 1984; Robinson, 1982; Zimmerman, 1983).

Television talk shows are making continual, daily use of the mental health professional (Robinson, 1982). McCall et al. (1984) describe a project where developmental psychologists worked jointly with television producers to create 20 news features, each approximately one to two minutes in length. These features were utilized on the local news of TV stations across the United States. McCall et al. also suggested television documentaries as another viable means to share developmental psychology reserach findings. On any given day, one could find a therapist, psychologist, or some other mental health professional gracing the television airwaves.

Henricks and Stiles (1989) note the emergence of professional support to coincide with the overwhelming popular response to media psychology. The Association for Media Psychology (AMP) was formed in 1982, and 1987 saw media psychology come of age with divisional status (Division 46) in the APA. Bouhoutsos (1983), who played an instrumental role in the formation of the AMP, cites the involvement of psychologists is evolving and including more media arenas.

Ethical Issues for Media Psychology:

The revision of the APA's Code of Ethics, while providing much latitude for media psychology to develop, has also sparked much controversy. "Although individual diagnostic and therapeutic services are still confined to the context of a professional relationship, personal advice is given through public lectures, newspaper and magazine articles, mail, and broadcast media is allowed, as long as the psychologist uses current, relevant data and exercises a high level of professional judgement" (Raviv et al., 1989).

There are obvious problems with the new codes. Often it is unclear whether the concepts of diagnostic and therapeutic services can be distinguished from personal advice (Kessler, 1983). For example, the term "depression," while used in everyday language, is also a psychodiagnostic term; thus, it could be misinterpreted as an official diagnosis when the intent was to communicate in layman's terms.

Another difficulty is the use of relevant data. Isolated findings can support nearly any point a person would like to prove. Psychologists must produce data to substantiate any claims and make only responsible statements about research, knowing that the results of improper research can potentially damage the listeners or viewers (Robinson, 1982).

Further, it is very difficult to police psychologists' use of professional judgement, since members of the mental health profession are asked to regulate themselves (Bouhoutsos, 1983). When self-regulation is not adequate, reports of ethical violations are left mainly in the hands of the public, and often the public is not educated enough to know when and how a violation has occurred, or even to whom they can complain (Bumpass & Cody, 1985). If a mental health professional is a member of the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatry Association, then reports are made to their respective ethics committees (American Psychiatric Association, 1977). When it is proven that infractions of standards have occurred, the perpetrator could be reprimanded on the state or national level, and possibly lose membership in the association. Yet, if the perpetrator is not a member of these associations, then he/she is responsible to no governing board, and is therefor irreproachable.

While some believe that psychology's involvement in the media has done more good for the profession than any previous movement (Bouhoutsos, 1983; Canter & Breakwell, 1986; Zimmerman, 1983), others see this involvement as unethical and a disgrace to the profession, and many have written especially about the potential hazards of radio call-in programs (Bumpass & Cody, 1985; Henricks & Stiles, 1989; Pallak & Kilburg, 1986; Raviv et al., 1989). For example, Raviv et al. (1989) pointed out that there are no simple answers when dealing with people's problems, and the media psychologist may not be able to obtain complete information, and thus could not give sufficient advice. Also, the psychologist may find it difficult to avoid becoming involved in the sensationalism, exaggeration, or superficiality to which the media are prone (Raviv et al., 1989).

Though governed mainly by Principle IV of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists (Keith-Spiegel & Koocher, 1985), nearly all of the ethical principles are called upon when considering the role of the media psychologist: responsibility, competence, participant welfare, conflict of interest, moral and legal standards, welfare of the consumer, and confidentiality. The limelight of being in the media can be very appealing, as well as helpful in building a private practice, but for the psychologist to remain within ethical standards, professionalism and integrity should come first (Zimmerman, 1983).

APA Guidelines for Professional Media Involvement

Keith-Spiegel and Koocher (1985) offer suggestions for media psychologists to clarify ethical conflicts and to assist in the practice of public advice-giving:

1. Refrain from handling topics beyond their competence--bring in expert guests.

2. Do not offer suggestions requiring radical life changes or decisions.

3. Screen potential participants, give referrals to those who are not suitable for media exposure.

4. Callers should be informed of some of the risks of exposing their personal problems.

5. Resources should be provided for follow-up.

6. Media psychologists should maintain a peer review board.

7. Do not put distressed callers on hold.

8. Tapes should not be re-run without the consent of the participants.

9. Media psychologists should never read commercials or news stories and should not air inappropriate advertisements.

10. Media psychologists should not air promotional messages about their private practices.

11. Frequent disclaimers about misperceptions should be made.

12. Never belittle or make jokes about participants.

13. Do not speak for all psychologists.

14. Do not criticize the competence of other mental health professionals.

These guidelines obviously cannot solve all problems associated with media psychology, but hopefully can help to reduce ethical blunders and educate those involved.

Because psychologists are looked upon as experts in the field of human interactions, they are also often interviewed by journalists representing non-professional journals to shed light on a particular issue, incident, or area of interest (Frank, 1983). This can become a problem as information is often presented superficially in the media due to time demand or space limitations, and thus a psychologists' statements may be misinterpreted or presented inaccurately. Psychologists should make efforts to insure that reports accurately reflect the material they present, both ethically and with integrity (Zimmerman, 1983). The following suggestions offered by Keith-Spiegel and Koocher (1985) could prove helpful:

1. Find out the purpose of the story, if it sounds exploitive, consider waiting for another opportunity to make your material public.

2. Give the reporter a written statement, if possible, to reduce the chance of misquotes.

3. Invite the reporter to call you back if questions arise, or for an editorial review.

4. Refuse comment on an area where you have insufficient knowledge, and, if possible, make a referral to an informed source.

5. Call back if you believe you made an error.

6. Qualify all salient or dramatic remarks, and avoid making offhanded comments.

7. Do not speak for the profession as a whole.

8. Admit when you do not have an answer, rather than formulating an ill-informed one.

9. If the topic is controversial, suggest that the reporter contact other colleagues as well.

10. Offer only possibilities when asked to comment on situations on which no solid data exists (e.g. a hostage situation).

11. Psychological evaluations about newsworthy individuals should be avoided, confidentiality should be observed at all times.

12. If you are dissatisfied about the final product, let the reporter know in a constructive way.

The ethical discussions continue in a variety of arenas (Bouhoutsos, 1983; Henricks & Stiles, 1989; Klonoff, 1983). Studies continue to be published investigating the effectiveness of media psychology and the attitudes held towards it by the public and the mental health professional (Bouhoutsos et al., 1986; Henricks & Stiles, 1989; Levy, 1989; Raviv, Raviv & Arnon, 1991; Raviv et al., 1989).

Conclusion:

Amidst the popularity and the star-status rise of psychology in the media, important emphasis must be seriously given to ethical issues. Pallak & Kilburg (1986) stress that public policy issues are of vital importance to establishing, maintaining, and expanding a credible public presence for psychology. Kessler (1983) advocates more than a reactive response to ethical infractions. Initiating strategies in the context of ethics committees, licensing boards, peer review committees, placement or internship agencies, and clinical training facilities would provide proactive action for media involvement. As psychology takes a more active role in media, it is important for mental health professionals to take the initiative, not only in creating avenues for media involvement, but also in adhering to ethical principles well refined to meet the demands of psychomedia (Canter & Breakwell, 1986; Kessler, 1983).

Neglect of ethical standards, both in development and adherence, could prove devastatingly detrimental to all parties involved. It is apparent that the vast majority of such ethical responsibility lies on the shoulders of the media psychologist. Concerted effort should be exerted on his/her part to go beyond the mere minimal expectations of ethical conduct, and strive to promote psychology in excellence and professionalism. Continued honing of principles and standards, examination of active strategies, and dedication to professional integrity must be top priorities for ethical media psychologists. Psychologists in the media does not appear to be a passing trend. The age of psychomedia is here, and apparently it is here to stay.

The marriage of psychology and the media is a relationship that is not likely to see a divorce in our technological society. If the public insatiable desire for psychomedia is any indication (Bouhoutsos et al., 1986; Klonoff, 1983; Raviv et al., 1991), the honeymoon for media psychology is far from over. But for the wedding to be truly credible and beneficial, the importance ethical imperatives must not get lost amidst the matrimonial bliss.

References:

American Psychiatric Association. (1977, May). Guidelines for psychiatrists working with the communications media. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134(5), 609-611.

Bouhoutsos, J. C. (1983, Winter). Media psychology. The Clinical Psychologist, 36(2), 32-35.

Bouhoutsos, J. C., Goodchilds, J. D., & Huddy, L. (1986, October). Media psychology: An empirical study of radio call-in psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17(5), 408-414.

Bumpass, E. R., & Cody, V. F. (1985, April). The effect of media involvement on transference. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 39(2), 228-235.

Canter, D., & Breakwell, G. M. (1986, August). Psychologists and "the media." Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 39, 281-286.

Frank, E. (1983, Winter). Psychology at six: Presenting psychological information to a mass audience in a news format. Clinical Psychologist, 36(2), 35-37.

Henricks, W. H., & Stiles, W. B. (1989). Verbal processes on psychology radio call-in programs: Comparisons with other help-intended interactions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20(5), 315-321.

Keith-Spiegel, P., & Koocher, G., (1985). Ethics in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases: New York, Random House.

Kessler, J. W. (1983, January). Beyond the guidelines of ethical/legal standards: Update. Canadian Psychology, 24(1), 1-7.

Klonoff, E. A. (1983). A star is born: Psychologists and the media. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14(6), 847-854.

Levy, D. A. (1989, April). Social support and the media: Analysis of responses by radio psychology talk show hosts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20(2), 73-78.

Maloney, D. M., Fixsen, D. L., & Phillips, E. L. (1985, August). Marketing your product: The psychologist as communicator. American Psychologist, 40(8), 961-962.

McCall, R. B., Gregory, T. G., & Murray, J. P. (1984, January). Communicating developmental research results to the general public through television. Developmental Psychology, 20(1), 45-54.

Pallak, M. S., & Kilburg, R. R. (1986, September). Psychology, public affairs, and public policy: A strategy and review. American Psychologist, 41(9), 933-940.

Paterson, J. G., & Blashko, C. A. (1985). Media counseling: A new frontier for health professionals. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 8(1), 25-30.

Raviv, A., Raviv, A., & Arnon, G. (1991, February). Psychological counseling over the radio: Listening motivations and the threat to self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(4), 253-270.

Raviv, A., Raviv, A., & Yunovitz, R. (1989, April). Radio psychology and psychotherapy: Comparison of client attitudes and expectations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20(2), 67-72.

Robinson, B. E. (1982, July). Family experts on television talk shows: Facts, values, and half-truths. Family Relations Journal of Applied Family and Child Studies, 31(3), 369-378.

Turkat, D. (1983, Winter). Cable television and psychology: Bringing peace to the planet. Clinical Psychologist, 36(2), 40-43.

Zimmerman, J. D. (1983, April). Psychologists' multiple roles in television broadcasting. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 14(2), 256-269.