_________________________________________________________________ VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL March 1999 -- AN ONLINE PUBLICATION -- _________________________________________________________________ SECTION H: LETTERS 1/2 -------------------------------------------------------- Note: This section features readers' responses to Dr. John Grohol's article in the PsychNews 3(4), December 1998, and a reply by the author. The original article can be accessed at: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/FTP_3_4/PN3_4_D.HTM -------------------------------------------------------- MEDIA POLLS REFLECT WHAT THE POLLSTERS WANT US TO BELIEVE Dr. Grohol's comments are right on the mark. This is an issue I can't understand why more people don't realize what's going on! Media polls are a serious detriment to living in a democracy, reflecting only what the pollsters want us to believe. Questions can be phrased in ways which can influence the results one way or another. This is nothing new, but I'm glad to read someone else upset by these biases. Anna Roust anna_roust@hotmail.com =========================================================== ACCURATE ASSESSMENTS OF PUBLIC OPINION [...] What a lot of gibberish. Dr. Grohol's article is certainly off the mark. Without going into a wildly meandering, disorganized dissertation such as the one I have just muddled through, suffice it to say, polls are pretty damn good indicators. In general, respected professional pollsters (excluding those affiliated with extremist political organizations) endeavor to ask questions in such a way as to draw an accurate assessment of public opinion with respect to the question or questions at hand. The psychometrics involved are not static. They are constantly refined. The purpose for this refinement is to gain increased accuracy. While opinion can surely be incorrectly colored by the way in which a question is framed, such dishonesty in poll taking is contrary to the mission of the pollsters, and to assume that the pollsters regularly or willfully engage in such skewed information gathering practices strikes me as a somewhat paranoid perspective.. C. Kirton, D.C., D.A.C.B.R. clif.kirton@sev.org =========================================================== WHERE ARE THE DATA? I begin to read the piece ["A slice of media psychology: On impeachment, the media, and polling"] by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. [and] I find statements such as: "Americans are an odd lot. We thrive on the media, largely television, for its entertainment and informational value. When new polls are taken, the new polling finds these influenced opinions. An opinion snowball effect can be created by this regression. What is problematic is most media's lack of insight into this phenomenon. The media move from simply reporting events which take place to trying to shape and influence their outcome." I [...] ask: Is this writing an example of psychology, or is it the wanderings of a passionate observer? Where are the data to support these statements? What established psychological principles does the writer use to explain these observations? What psychological principles are elaborated by these speculations? [... T]he writer [poses another version of an impeachment question to ask in polls and] says:" That is a much more fair question, giving a lot more information about the consequences of the word "impeachment" in this context. First: On what basis can the writer make the claim that this is the more fair question. I would like to see a study on whether or not a question induces more or less bias toward one or another response. I would bet about 5,000 dollars that this question would bias the respondent to reject impeachment. But that is not the point of my observations. What concerns me? Is this psychology, or is this the effort of the writer to propagandize about the slovenly thinking of people who try to put together meaning our of the arrays of information and disinformation of the people who respond to polls. I, for one, certainly hope that no one will come to this material, (offered in a forum assumed to be a reflection of the work of psychologists), then read this material; and, from it, judge that psychologists are some kind of scholars who do this kind of thing. [...] James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology University at Albany =========================================================== REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR JOHN GROHOL C. Kirton misses the point. It is not whether or not polls reflect appropriate scientific methodologies and rigor (for in most cases, they do). It is whether or not pollsters (and the media who commission and report their findings) are creating their own media-influenced trend. It is also a question of whether there is any awareness among the media and the professional pollsters of this possible self-feeding relationship. Psychometrics cannot control for the media's focus on a particular issue, or for a certain media outlet's "spin" on a 1% or 2% change in the polls numbers (a change which is usually well within the margin of error of these polls, which is increasingly not even being reported). These are legitimate areas of concern. James Mancuso appears to confuse my article with a peer-reviewed article appearing in a scholarly journal. PsychNews International is a newsletter, not a peer-reviewed journal, so we have the latitude to publish essays such as this one. I was offering one possible explanation of what appears to me to be a disturbing trend in polls and on the reporting of a poll's results by the media. These trends often have questionable validity. The fact remains that the questions asked of respondents on complex issues are often so general and without the appropriate grounding in background material, any response is largely meaningless. While my question wasn't meant to be the ultimate "fair" question to put to respondents, it does begin to address some of the complexity inherent in such an emotion-laden, arcane political term such as "impeachment." I am certain that a more objective question could be written. Without ensuring that a respondent has sufficient knowledge (and knowing what a particular poll defines as "sufficient knowledge") on the issue in question, however, polls will continue to be a tool increasingly misused by the media and their results misunderstood by the public. John M. Grohol, Psy.D. Associate Editor PsychNews International ________________________________________________________________