TL/DR –
A study from the University of Michigan recommends that media coverage should include the numerical magnitude of research findings they report on to avoid misinterpretation of the findings’ significance. The study found that without knowing the magnitude of effect sizes, participants were as likely to endorse interventions with unreported effect sizes as those with large effects, indicating a significance bias. Researchers assert the importance of clear communication in disseminating scientific findings and stress the need to build trust with the public through accurate reporting.
A New Study Emphasizes the Magnitude of Research Findings
A recent study from the University of Michigan strongly recommends that media coverage should clearly present the numerical magnitude of research findings. Misunderstandings can occur if the true significance of the findings is not clearly communicated.
The study’s lead author, Audrey Michal, a U-M psychology assistant research scientist, initiated the study following a student’s revelation about college students’ lack of awareness of false claims in journalistic reports.
Michal noted that people often fail to consider the magnitude of findings, especially if they don’t have a scientific background. She emphasized that many may assume a causality between two variables that are merely relationally related.
Michal’s study compared two online studies measuring U.S. adults’ endorsements of costly interventions described in media reports. She discovered that without knowing the magnitude, participants were just as likely to endorse interventions with unreported effect magnitudes compared to interventions with large effects. This suggests a significance bias.
The Importance of Accurate Representation
Adriene Beltz, an associate professor of psychology, stated that researchers need to ensure the media accurately represents their studies. She proposed that providing numerical information about the size of their effects in ways that make sense in everyday life is one way to achieve this.
Pam Davis-Kean, a professor of psychology and research professor at the Institute for Social Research, highlighted the importance of making complex scientific information digestible for the general public. She explained that sharing findings in an easily consumable way can facilitate better decision-making by the public.
The Challenge of Media Interpretation
Beltz added that interpreting results in the media is challenging as there’s typically no baseline comparison. She urged the public to ask critical questions like ‘Less than what, significance at what cost?’ when reading scientific reports.
Davis-Kean stressed the importance of understanding scientific findings accurately to build trust between science and the public. She mentioned that terms like “statistically significant” may not always convey meaningful information, depending on the context.
The Role of Language in Scientific Reporting
Wenshan Yu, a student at the Institute for Social Research, recognised the importance of language in scientific reporting. He made a distinction between significant findings and practically meaningful findings. Yu emphasized that communicating science effectively is crucial, not only to fellow scientists, but also to the general public.
—
Read More US News