In the rapidly changing context of twenty-first-century psychology, graduate students and early career professionals have many options for career development. While membership in professional associations has historically been an unquestioned step to career development, that is no longer true. According to the 2019 Membership Marketing Benchmarking Report, the number of membership associations still growing dropped 7 percent in the last 10 years, and about 26 percent saw a decrease in membership in 2019 (Reference ScottScott, 2019). So, the question remains, should graduate students and early career professionals join membership organizations? The authors enthusiastically answer this question in the affirmative. It is our belief that psychological organizations foster personal and professional development, professional networking, and opportunities to serve the discipline and society at large. Since the late 1800s, psychologists around the world have been organizing themselves into psychological associations to promote clinical, research, or personal interests. The great variety of psychological associations that exist today offer unique opportunities to network, share research, exchange ideas, and learn about critical developments in the field. This chapter will briefly describe relevant aspects of psychological organizations and provide some examples of specific opportunities they offer to graduate students and early-career psychologists.
1. Professional Organizations in Psychology
Professional associations seek to advance the body of knowledge in their fields, keep their members informed of professional developments, and provide a variety of services to their members and to the public at large (Reference Fowler, O’Donohue and FisherFowler, 1999). Joining an association can be a critical aspect of career development for new professionals. As far back as 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville noted the tendency of Americans to join together to form voluntary associations. “Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations,” he noted, “They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds” (Reference de Tocqueville1835). De Tocqueville’s assessment continues to be true. With over 23,000 national organizations and 141,000 regional, state, and local organizations and chapters to choose from, 70 percent of American adults belong to at least one association, 25 percent belong to four or more, and 20 percent belong to a professional organization (Reference Ernstthal and JonesErnstthal & Jones, 2001; Reference Purcell, Smith, Rainie, Purecell and SmithPurcell & Smith, 2011). Psychology contributes its fair share to this proliferation of organizations. Because the American Psychological Association (APA) is the world’s largest psychological organization, many examples will be drawn from that organization, but APA is only one piece of the discussion.
1.1 National and International Psychological Organizations
As early as 1889, psychologists had begun meeting with colleagues from other universities and cities at international congresses (Reference Pickren, Fowler, Weiner and FreedheimPickren & Fowler, 2003). By 1892, the first national psychological organization, the APA, was founded. Since then, psychological associations have been founded in every continent but Antarctica, and national organizations for psychologists exist in over 80 countries (Reference Pickren, Fowler, Weiner and FreedheimPickren & Fowler, 2003; International Union of Psychological Science, 2021a, 2021b). This expansion created both broadly focused national psychological organizations and more narrowly focused societies specializing in specific professional concerns (see Table 21.1). The latter organizations are comprised of psychologists with similar research interests (e.g., Society of Experimental Social Psychology), applied interests (e.g., Association of Practicing Psychologists), administrative responsibilities (e.g., Society of Psychologists in Management), and employment settings (e.g., National Organization of VA Psychologists) (Reference VandenBosVandenBos, 1989). Other organizations are based not just on the members’ professional responsibilities, but also on their demographic characteristics and how they identify themselves. These include organizations for students (e.g., the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students, APAGS), ethnic minorities (e.g., Society of Indian Psychologists), and geographic locations (e.g., California Psychological Association, Middle Eastern Psychological Network). Finally, many psychologists participate in organizations whose membership includes other disciplines, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) or the English Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry (ACPP).
Table 21.1 Illustrative list of psychological associations
1.2 The Function of Professional Organizations within Psychology
All organizations have a mission statement governing their activities. APA’s mission statement, for example, is “Advancing psychology to benefit society and improve lives,” while the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP)’s mission is “to promote the science and practice of applied psychology and to facilitate interaction and communication among applied psychologists around the world” (APA, 2021a; IAAP, 2021). Most psychological associations adhere to a similar mission of advancing the field to benefit science and society. How they pursue these missions, of course, varies tremendously. APA, for example, recently outlined a strategic plan to describe its vision for implementing its mission (Table 21.2).
Table 21.2 American Psychological Association Strategic Plan (www.apa.org/about/apa/strategic-plan)
One of the primary means of advancing the profession is through the advancement of knowledge. To that end, most organizations sponsor regular conferences that serve as opportunities to exchange information about recent advances in practice and research. Both IAAP and the International Union of Psychological Sciences (IUPsyS), for example, hold meetings every four years, while the European Federation of Professional Psychology Associations (EFPA) meets every other year (Reference Fowler and KazdinFowler, 2000). Other organizations, such as APA, hold yearly conventions. During the 2020–2021 COVID-19 pandemic, many organizations experimented with virtual conferences or extended webinar series as a substitute for face-to-face meetings. By and large, these new formats permitted members who might otherwise not have been able to travel to participate in an in-person event to benefit from the rich content.
Journals also advance the knowledge of the field through their role in exchanging information. Nearly every national organization publishes a journal tailored to the interests of its members. These organizational journals are typically available in virtual or print formats with several additional journals being online only. Like conferences, these journals provide an opportunity for members to share their own expertise and to benefit from the expertise of others as well as to contribute to the literature of the discipline. For instance, APA’s Division 44, Society for the Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, publishes Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, a quarterly scholarly journal dedicated to the dissemination of information and research that impacts practice, education, public policy, and social action related to LGBTQ+ issues.
In addition to their journals, many organizations offer hard copy and virtual newsletters containing information in a more succinct and readable format. Whether they take the form of magazines, like the APA Monitor on Psychology, a more traditional newsletter format or a topical approach like the Society for Research in Child Development’s (SRCD) Social Policy Report Briefs, these newsletters serve a vital information-sharing function. Without newsletters, journals, and conferences, no psychologist, regardless of their training, would remain competent in the field for more than a few years after completing graduate school.
Beyond information sharing, psychological organizations serve several other critical functions. As Reference Pickren, Fowler, Weiner and FreedheimPickren and Fowler (2003) point out, these organizations serve several “gatekeeping” functions. They may determine who can call themselves psychologists or identify themselves as experts in a subspecialty of the field. Through accreditation of continuing education classes, they can influence what people study after completing their degrees, and what they can get credit for studying. In many countries, membership in the national psychological organizations is a prerequisite for licensure. Their journals and conferences also determine what information is communicated to the field and how credible it will be when it is disseminated. Fortunately, most organizations exercise this power wisely, because they are themselves governed by the psychologists who make up their membership. In addition, most societies have a complex system of checks and balances that help the system function fairly and democratically (Reference Fowler, O’Donohue and FisherFowler, 1999).
2. Why Join? Benefits of Psychological Organizations for Individuals
2.1 A Professional Home
Professional associations, quite simply, provide psychologists with a way to remain current in the field and to develop their professional identity. Without them, psychologists would function in a vacuum. Beyond those global benefits, however, professional associations provide many less obvious ones. In the first place, they provide a place where like-minded psychologists can come together to focus on the issues of most importance to them. Many associations are organized around the unique characteristics and interests of their members. Examples include the Association of Black Psychologists, the Asian-American Psychological Association, the Association of Lesbian and Gay Psychologists, and the Association of Women in Psychology. The 60 state, provincial, and territorial associations affiliated with APA represent a vital home for many psychologists. Other associations organize themselves around topics of interest, such as the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors or the Association for Jungian Psychology. APA’s 54 divisions also reflect a wide array of interests from experimental psychology to psychological hypnosis to the study of sexual and gender identity. In all cases, people choose to affiliate with these specialized groups to find a professional home. Professional associations and their divisions and affiliates serve that function.
2.2 National and International Cross-Pollination
In addition to providing a professional home, these associations can create unique networks for cross-national and even international collaboration. The APA, for example, has initiated the MOU (memoranda of understanding) Partner Program, which promotes collaborative relationships with national psychology associations around the world to share resources, develop opportunities for discussion and exchange, and foster a productive alliance. This program provides opportunities to build international partnerships and create opportunities for APA and APAGS members to be exposed to organized psychology outside of the US through attending conferences, workshops and other activities hosted by MOU partner associations. In recent years, the program has sent delegations to Colombia, Mexico, South Africa, Ireland, Portugal, England, and Germany (APA, 2020). These cross-pollination opportunities strengthen the field by creating international linkages and compelling psychologists to look at issues from the perspectives of different nations and cultures. The cognitive behavioral approach so dominant in the US, for example, is less-favored in many other countries, so collaboration engenders broader perspectives on methodology and theory as well as application.
2.3 Interaction with Leaders and Potential Mentors
Interaction with colleagues is a vital component of professional development. Professional organizations offer an excellent opportunity for emerging psychologists to associate with other psychologists and develop their own professional identity. Through that interaction, graduate students and early-career psychologists gain access to content experts and potential mentors while developing a sense of belonging within their discipline. Only at national conferences are young professionals likely to interact with renowned researchers and have the opportunity to hear them speak. The leaders in the field, regardless of the specific domain or subdiscipline, typically belong to national organizations. After all, it is primarily through the mechanisms organizations provide, such as journals, conferences, and online interactive webinars, that leaders in the field emerge.
These meetings provide one additional benefit to young psychologists and graduate students. At most of the conferences sponsored by professional societies, students can be part of panels or can present their research at poster sessions. In this way, they contribute to the meetings as well as benefiting from them.
2.4 Resources
Many organizations offer a wealth of resources to their members. In addition to the primary journals that are usually a benefit of membership, many organizations offer additional journals for more specialized interests. In addition to the American Psychologist, which goes to every APA member, APA publishes over 60 hard and virtual journals. Publishing with APA, for example, provides a valuable link to a community of hundreds of Editors and Associate Editors, and more than 70,000 editorial board members and reviewers who select and publish approximately 5000 articles each year (APA, 2021b). Other informational resources include newsletters, books, electronic information databases such as PsychINFO, and web-based resources.
The resources offered by these national organizations extend far beyond what may typically come to mind. The Ethics Office at APA, for example, provides guidance through written materials, websites, and staff members who are subject matter experts on ethical questions that arise in research and practice settings, as well as other dilemmas that may occur during graduate school (i.e., harassment or dual-role questions). Several organizations also provide guidance on issues regarding human subjects and animal research. Another resource at APA is the Office of Testing, which serves as a source of information about the use of tests and assessments in clinical, counseling, educational, and employment settings. In yet another example, the APA Center for Workforce Studies conducts ongoing studies that provide timely statistics on students entering and graduating from psychology doctoral programs, psychologists’ salaries, employment settings, marketplace trends and more (see www.apa.org/workforce). Other resources available through psychological organizations range from employment assistance to financial assistance for students.
2.5 Fellowships, Awards, Scholarships, and Grants
Many national organizations provide unique opportunities for their members to receive various fellowships, scholarships, grants and awards. For example, each year APA’s graduate student group, APAGS, grants competitive scholarships to graduate students in psychology and awards of excellence to graduate students, mentors, and psychology departments (see www.apa.org/apags). Many other student scholarships, grants, and awards of recognition are sponsored by various national, state, and local psychological associations, as well as divisions of larger organizations (for other examples within APA, see www.apa.org/students). In addition, organizations such as APA and SRCD sponsor fellowships for doctoral-level professionals to come to Washington, DC for a year and participate in the policymaking process through work at federal agencies, congressional offices, or a national organization’s policy office (www.apa.org/about/awards/congress-fellow). These Fellowships are open, but not limited to, early-career psychologists, who often compete successfully for these positions.
3. Benefits of Psychological Organizations to Society
3.1 National Initiatives
Many individual psychologists have something to contribute to our social welfare and wish to do so, but lack a mechanism for sharing their knowledge or time. National organizations are well positioned to develop initiatives that can impact society at a broader level. Two recent APA projects serve as examples of the kind of initiatives only a large organization can undertake. In 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, APA launched “Equity Flattens the Curve.” This initiative was “based on the assumption that to combat the pandemic we must tackle the bias, stigma, and discrimination at the root of inequities and ensure that all strategies and solutions are delivered equitably.” The initiative focused on four common goals:
1. Reduce bias, stigma, and discrimination related to the COVID-19 pandemic to advance health equity.
2. Connect voices in health equity, public health, and psychology to educate policymakers and leaders about how centering equity can flatten the curve.
3. Promote social cohesion, inclusion, and equity to slow the spread of the virus.
4. Promote policies and practices that reduce inequity and address public health needs of diverse populations now and in the future.
This initiative encompassed many actions including information sharing opportunities for APA members, a virtual resource center, expert working groups, and a networking platform to facilitate community engagement.
In 2020, APA also established a Climate Change Task Force for the purpose of strengthening the role of psychology in addressing global climate change. These kinds of initiatives leverage association resources to address large-scale challenges in ways that would be impossible for individual psychologists, no matter how talented. Plus, they provide ways for early-career psychologists to engage in topics of national and international significance.
3.2 Advocacy for Psychological Research and Practice
Legislation and regulation have a significant impact on all areas of psychology. Many national organizations have Washington-based policy offices that advocate on behalf of psychological research and practice. Given the constant battle for recognition of the value of behavioral and social science research, these efforts are critical to the field of psychology. Psychologists and psychology graduate students who have received funding for their research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Science Foundation (NSF), or other federal agencies probably have the policy staff of a professional organization to thank for their money. National organizations with practitioner members also focus a great deal of effort on issues of interest to clinicians, such as parity in insurance coverage between mental health and physical health. These efforts may also include special attention to the needs of graduate students. In this regard, APA lobbies actively for funding for the Minority Fellowship Program, which supports graduate students of color, and for other loan reimbursement and scholarship programs for psychology graduate students. The voice of national psychological organizations is critical in these efforts, as most of these programs focused exclusively on medical professions and excluded psychology until recently.
Although much of this advocacy provides direct benefit to psychologists and psychology graduate students, that is not always the aim. Some organizations, such as APA or SRCD, also advocate for programs and services benefiting the populations psychologists serve and research. As an example, APA and SRCD have both been highly involved in the reauthorizations of the federal Head Start and Elementary and Secondary Education programs. Although these programs do not necessarily benefit psychology directly, the work of psychologists is critical to the understanding of both social and cognitive development. For that reason, these organizations were willing to allocate resources to inform policymakers about relevant research so that federal policy might reflect current knowledge from the field.
It is not only paid advocacy staff who effect policy change. National organizations provide opportunities for their members to become involved in the process as well. Following the Columbine shootings, for example, nearly a dozen psychologists were invited to testify before the Senate Commerce and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committees, the House Judiciary Committee, the Congressional Children’s Caucus, and at a special closed briefing for members of Congress and their staff convened by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) through the auspices of the APA. In recent years, psychologists representing various national organizations have testified before Congress on issues such as child maltreatment, women’s health, terrorism response, and the COVID-19 pandemic. These testimonies can have great influence on the congressional committees developing federal initiatives.
While testifying before Congress is an exciting opportunity, it is also a rare one. Many other opportunities exist, however, for psychology graduate students and psychologists to become involved in policymaking. Most national organizations have electronic listservs, newsletters, and other vehicles for keeping their members informed about current policy issues affecting their work and providing them with information about how to get involved on a particular issue. Many State Psychological Associations also have advocacy initiatives they are promoting at the state and local level. These include parity initiatives, questions about independent licensure, and other issues of local interest. Typically, any member of a society can get involved in these efforts by signing up for an electronic of fax list.
4. Getting Involved
Most of the discussion above focuses on what organizations do for their members or do on behalf of their members. It is important to remember that there is also a great deal that members can do to engage with their organizations. For example, most organizations have multiple opportunities for members to get involved in and influence the leadership of the organizations. The decisions of members, whether expressed directly or through elected representatives, set the policies and direction of their associations. Because organizations need the participation and guidance of their members to function, most organizations have multiple boards, committees, and councils to govern their activities. These groups are made up of members of the association who are elected by the general membership, elected by a subset of the membership, or selected by other members of the association because of the unique contribution they can make. To illustrate further the variety of opportunities and mechanisms for involvement, it may be helpful to examine one organization in more detail. Because of their familiarity with the organization, the authors have chosen to use APA for that purpose.
4.1 APA: A Case Study
Many psychologists find professional organizations to be a vital part of their careers. With over 121,000 members and affiliates, APA is the largest association in the world representing organized psychology. APA members are primarily doctoral-level psychologists, about a third of whom are employed in educational settings, a third in private clinical practice, and a third in other settings such as hospitals, clinics, business, industry, and government (Reference FowlerFowler, 2002), and psychology graduate students. Affiliates include high school teachers of psychology, master’s level mental health professionals, psychologists in other countries, and others.
After beginning as an academic-focused organization, APA reorganized in 1945 to incorporate several smaller psychological organizations, evolving into a new organization with a mission that included both professional and scientific issues, as well as the application of psychology to the public interest (see Table 21.2). Over time, a multifaceted structure that included divisions and state psychological associations developed, reflecting the diversity of the field and APA’s members. Today, APA has approximately 500 employees, publishes a number of highly respected journals, has a respected book publishing arm, holds an annual convention attended by 8000–12,000 people, provides a monthly magazine to members, and houses multiple offices to address a variety of issues with the goal of advancing psychology as a science and profession in the legislative, public, academic, and research realms (Reference Fowler and KazdinFowler, 2000; APA 2021b).
4.2 Divisional Involvement and Officers
Beyond the activities mentioned above, psychological associations such as APA offers many other benefits to its members. For example, students may participate in a variety of meetings and conferences, including the annual APA convention, or join any of APA’s 54 divisions, enabling them to associate with psychologists and student colleagues who share similar professional interests. Divisions range in size from 300 to 7500 members, with each focusing on a clinical or research interest, or some personal or other factor. Often the personal and research interests overlap – for example, APA has divisions on school psychology, developmental psychology, and child clinical psychology – so these categories are clearly not exclusive. All the divisions have officers and executive committees (sometimes referred to as boards). These committees provide excellent opportunities to learn about association leadership and to influence the direction of the division. Furthermore, a majority of the Divisions include a graduate student representative on the executive committee, with the depth of graduate students increasing yearly. All Divisions also have newsletters that frequently welcome articles from the membership, providing opportunities for students and early-career professionals to contribute to scientific, although not necessarily peer-reviewed, publications. Some divisions also have divisional journals or other publications that provide information on the domain of interest to the members and provide additional publishing opportunities. Detailed information about APA’s divisions are linked through www.apa.org/divisions.
Much of the work of the Association is completed by member volunteers who serve on APA’s various Boards and Committees. These groups report to the Council of Representatives, APA’s most powerful governance group. Boards and Committees carry out a wide range of tasks as evidenced by their names (see Table 21.3) and may frequently have student members or liaisons. Association activities and interests are not limited to the topics of the various continuing Boards and Committees. APA Task Forces and Ad Hoc Committees are formed to address time-limited or newly identified issues that are important to APA members and to psychology in general. Some examples of recent Task Forces and Ad Hoc Committees include: the Ad Hoc Committee on Early Career Psychologists, the Task Force on Psychology in Early Education and Care, the Advisory Committee on Colleague Assistance, the Work Group on Professional Practice Issues in Telehealth, the Working Group on Children’s Mental Health, the Electronic Resources Advisory Committee, the Task Force on Serious Mental Illness/Severe Emotional Disturbance, the Joint Committee on Testing Practices, and the Task Force on Statistical Inference, just to name a few. Members of these groups can usually be self-nominated or nominated by peers, and graduate students should not be reluctant to nominate themselves for graduate student slots on these committees. Early-career professionals should also consider volunteering to serve on these groups as well.
|
5. APAGS – The American Psychological Association of Graduate Students
The discussion above only provides a few of the opportunities for involvement that exist at APA. For graduate students, of course, there is a specific avenue for greater involvement. The American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS) was organized in 1988 and has become the single largest constituency group in the Association (see Table 21.4 for the APAGS mission statement).
Table 21.4 The mission statement of the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS)
|
The APAGS Committee shall:
|
APAGS initial membership of 18,000 has grown to approximately 35,000 members in its 23 years of existence, representing one third of the current APA membership. Over the years, the list of APAGS activities has lengthened tremendously and its level of integration into the Association has substantially increased. Through participation in governance initiatives and policies, APAGS provides direct student contact and support, develops resources to meet the information and advocacy needs of students, provides leadership opportunities, and offers special convention programming and other distinct training for students.
5.1 Involvement in APAGS
There are numerous opportunities for students to become actively involved in APAGS and develop their leadership talents. Students can run for an elected position on the APAGS Committee, or on one of APAGS subcommittee. Some of the past subcommittees have included the Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs; the Committee on Students with Disability Issues; the Convention Committee; the Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns; and the Advocacy Coordinating Team (ACT), which focuses on national and state legislation that impacts psychology.
5.2 APAGS and Career Development
APAGS offers programs and information on topics such as: the business aspects of psychology; internship; post-doctoral training; completing your dissertation; finding a mentor; balancing work and career; negotiating job offers; presenting and publishing research; and various career paths in psychology. In addition, APAGS information is accessible through the APA website and there is a plethora of resources to help students and early career psychologists prepare for licensure, understand basic business strategies to build an independent practice, get on insurance panels, obtain grants, and pursue the tenure track (see www.apa.org/earlycareer/ and www.apa.org/apags).
6. Conclusions
The authors believe strongly that participation in a psychological organization is a vital part of developing and maintaining a career in psychology. These organizations offer psychologists professional benefits through their journals, conferences, employment assistance, guidance on ethical standards, and other resources. They offer personal benefits though opportunities for networking, finding mentors, and receiving scholarships, fellowships, and other awards. Furthermore, these organizations offer an avenue for psychologists at any stage of their careers to make a contribution to the field. They contribute in a global sense by supporting an organization that is furthering critical national initiatives and advocacy efforts. More importantly, they provide opportunities to contribute at an individual level by becoming involved in leadership positions, speaking or presenting posters at conferences, contributing to journals and newsletters, or becoming an advocate. Different benefits will be most salient to different people, but all of them together provide ample evidence that membership in a psychological organization is an investment that yields rich dividends.
Winston Churchill famously declared, “Americans will always do the right thing … after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.” This statement may be even truer in today’s hyper partisan political environment. Churchill’s comment points to the role of advocates in helping policymakers to select and implement effective solutions. Psychologists, as members of a helping profession, are naturally drawn to advocacy on behalf of public well-being and have the skills to succeed as advocates. Yet, many perceive advocacy as “confrontational,” “irrational,” or “unseemly” and, as data presented later will show, psychologists are more averse to political giving than others among health professions.
One of the messages of this chapter, however, is that advocacy takes many forms, most of which are well-suited to the skillsets of psychologists. This chapter gives a brief overview of the motivations and methods of policy advocacy, and helps students and early career psychologists identify ways to engage and integrate advocacy into core professional duties. As professionals serving the public well-being within a representative system, advocacy is one our most important responsibilities to society, the profession, and ourselves.
1. Why Advocate?
Advocacy is the process of influencing policymakers when they make laws and regulations, distribute resources, and make other decisions that affect peoples’ lives. The principal aims of advocacy are to establish, reform, and manage policy implementation. Bruce Reference JanssonJansson (2003) describes three rationales for advocacy that can be categorized as societal values, analytical (or scientific), and political. Given the intellectual underpinnings of psychology training, many psychologists are naturally drawn to societal and scientific motivations, but the political are just as important, if not more so. Ideals and top-notch research are inadequate without action, and political processes (e.g., legislative, regulatory, and other policy-making institutions) are the means to drive change. Integrating societal, scientific, and political considerations toward a common objective can result in powerful contributions to policy making. The societal, scientific, and political rationales are described below within the context of psychology (Figure 22.1).
Figure 22.1 Effective policy advocacy combines societal, scientific, and political rationales for change.
1.1 Societal Rationales
Psychologists are obligated by professional ethics principles and codes of conduct to protect and enhance the wellbeing of individuals and groups. Principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, integrity, and respect for people’s rights and dignity underlie a fundamental responsibility of psychologists to inform and improve public institutions, laws, and cultural influences. Psychologists may engage in advocacy to address issues of individual and professional autonomy, freedom, equality, due process, and societal or collective rights, and to enact visions of a just, humane society.
1.2 Analytical (Scientific) Rationales
Psychologists are trained to evaluate and use empirical data to guide careful and considered decision making. Our ethics code compels psychologists to avoid endorsing or perpetuating assumptions, stereotypes, and falsehoods that harm clients and society. Many psychologists regularly engage in analytical advocacy through research and publishing, as well as debating and dialoguing with others in scientific communities, civic organizations, and the media.
1.3 Political Rationales
Living in a representative government requires an acceptance and awareness that power is unequal and often biased towards special interests groups, corporations, and institutions that have the ability to influence policymakers through large amounts of money and time. Ignoring this reality and failing to engage the political process cedes power to those interests, and allows decision making to be driven by narrow, often short-term, interests that do not support the values and well-being of society.
2. Overview of Advocacy Process
2.1 Identify Problems, Pressure Points, and Solutions
The above rationales provide the foundation to outline and develop an effective advocacy strategy. Societal, scientific, and political considerations should be outlined to evaluate the causes, determine the pressure points, and delineate possible policy solutions. Thinking broadly and flexibly about the causes will help to identify a range of solutions to the policy issue that will be advantageous at different points in the advocacy process. As will be discussed below, opportunities to influence policy making are typically indirect, disjointed, and build upon each other over time to construct a cohesive policy solution. It is critical to thoroughly identify the multitude of factors impacting the policy issue in order to effectively prioritize advocacy activities, and to be prepared for planned and unexpected opportunities (Figure 22.2). Table 22.1 provides a list of questions to consider when outlining the policy problems and needs.
Figure 22.2 Model for developing advocacy plan.
Table 22.1 Outline policy issues
3. Frame the Issue in Simple Terms, then Support with Data
Mark Twain said, “There are three kinds of lies – lies, damned lies and statistics.” Today, it seems we are inundated with another kind of lie: half-truths. Media, interests groups (including professional societies), lobbyists, and politicians abound with half-truths. Debates over policy frequently get stuck on problem assessment and defining the “facts” of the issue. The consequence is that policymakers tend not to move toward problem-solving or proposing solutions when unsure of the facts or key issues to address. Information overload and misuse increasingly overwhelm policymakers and their staff, and paralyze decision-making bodies as interests groups and leaders willfully exacerbate confusion about the problem or the solution. In the meantime, the public suffers the consequences – failing schools; large numbers of uninsured and underinsured; increasing threats to environmental sustainability; and disgust and distrust of public institutions.
Framing the issue, preferably with a human interest angle, is critical to focusing the conversation on the desired policy goal. The above analysis of the policy, community, and political environments provides important information on the motivations and pressure points of key stakeholders. Interest groups and lobbyists succeed when they focus policymakers on what is and isn’t relevant to the issue at hand, bringing clarity to complexity. A powerful vision of the ideal outcome also helps direct the conversation, constrain misuse of data, and filter conflicting information from interests groups and lobbyists.
Within the legislative setting, research data are rarely the final impetus for decision-making but, instead, are more frequently used to support decisions based on other factors. Understanding this basic difference between the role of research data in science and the policy world is an uncomfortable but very important lesson for many psychologists. If psychologists want to put research findings “into play” for policy deliberation, data need to be introduced, explained, or framed in the context of current political exigencies. Through relationship building and persistent engagement, psychologists can begin to educate legislative and executive branch staff on the importance and long-term benefit of data-based decision making derived from quality data. This is a long-term process that underscores the value of fostering a responsive, credible, and steadfast relationship with legislators and administrators so that they will think of and turn to psychologists for assistance in developing and implementing health policy. Data alone almost never motivates change, but when presented within the right framework or vision, data can provide the reassurance and additional justification to change.
3.1 Identifying Spheres of Influence
Psychologists advocate through multiple levels of government to protect and advance the interests of the profession and the populations we serve. Advocacy at local and state levels can be sufficient to address immediate issues of the community, but it is often necessary to engage federal legislative and regulatory processes to address systemic or long-term policy issues. It is helpful to differentiate between primary and secondary target audiences for advocacy activities. Primary audiences include government officials (elected, political appointees, and civilian employees) who have direct decision-making authority, whereas secondary audiences are individuals who can influence the activities of the primary audience. Secondary audiences include lobbyists, interest groups, business leaders, friends, family, or anyone who can provide a way to reach the primary audience that may not be directly available to you. Secondary audiences can include policymakers as well, such as members of Congress who lobby colleagues on key committees or an elected official with oversight and strong connections to an Executive agency.
Table 22.2 provides a framework for identifying key individuals at the local, state, and federal levels. Delineating primary and secondary individuals for each of these areas will help prioritize efforts, identify a timeline for known opportunities, and be ready for unexpected opportunities at different levels of government and community engagement.
Table 22.2 Sample table for documenting key policymakers
| Local | State | Federal | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legislative branch | |||
| Executive agencies | |||
| Courts | |||
| Allied organizations, foundations, coalitions | |||
| Consumers, public opinion | |||
| Media, PR firms | |||
| Interest groups, lobbyists | |||
| Organized political groups (PACs, unions) |
3.2 Process is Important, but Relationships are Essential
There are an average of 11,000 bills per year introduced in each Congress over the past 45 years, with less than 5 percent becoming law, on average (www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics) and the number of bills passed has declined over the past two decades (Reference TaubererTauberer, 2011), in part because of the increasing use of omnibus legislation to combine multiple measures into one bill. Omnibus legislation is compiled by Congressional leadership in closed-door meetings and the content can be disparate and sweeping. Measures can also be attached as riders to popular or expedient legislations. For example, the recent Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 was signed into law, after a decade of advocacy (Reference RovnerRovner, 2008), when it was attached to the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (division A), which also included the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (division B), and two tax relief acts. In contrast, the number of ceremonial bills (naming post offices and other federal buildings) has risen dramatically, as has the number of bills introduced as a way of establishing a public position on an issue or making a symbolic gesture.
A basic high school civics lesson on how a bill becomes law is clearly insufficient to effect substantive, timely policy change. In fact, most legislators spend a great deal of time finding ways to subvert or work around the process. Psychologists should certainly understand the legislative, regulatory, and judicial processes and timelines (see valuable policy resources below that describe important decision points), but knowing the specific agenda and styles of key policymakers is often more important than the process. Maintaining existing and accessible relationships with legislators is critical to moving policy forward at the right time and place.
Policymakers are human beings, not institutions, and accordingly, personal connections are essential to being heard in advocacy. Fortunately, psychologists are uniquely trained to establish supportive working relationships, to work with individuals across a diversity of perspectives, and to understand the need for compromise. However, being a cerebral profession, there is often a failure to appreciate that it is not the intellectual strength of an argument, nor the persuasiveness of a white paper or written testimony, that will carry the day with legislators. Rather, with all politics being local, nurturing ongoing, productive relationships with policymakers is extremely important. Relationships with key policymakers cannot be forged by one visit to the legislators’ offices, one appearance before a legislative committee, or only engaging with policymakers during times of crisis and need. For our expertise to be appreciated, psychologists must regularly engage in policy debates, participate in political process, and be active in community and media activities that influence policymakers.
3.3 Vision and Persistence
A vision of your ideal state of affairs serves as a driving and reinforcing inspiration for your advocacy activities. Advocacy is rarely linear, and progress is often experienced as a series of victories and setbacks, or more typically, a series of modifications and interpretations of policies by different levels of government and private-sector organizations. Change can also be unsettling, and advocates should expect resistance from policymakers and institutions, even from colleagues. As a result, advocates cannot always perceive personal or even tangible benefits in the outcomes of their efforts (Reference DeLeon, Loftis, Ball and SullivanDeLeon et al., 2006).
In addition to serving as a meaningful framework to make sense of data and how to motivate policymakers, having a long-term vision provides insights on when to apply pressure and share expertise. It is also important to develop a vision for both personal and professional activities in order to identify advocacy strategies that can be incorporated comfortably and reliably into professional duties and sustained over the long haul. Advocacy works best when it is integrated into core roles and responsibilities.
Psychology has been at the forefront of healthcare integration for decades, well before recent reform initiatives ballyhooed integration as a means to simultaneously improve outcomes and reduce costs. The “health and behavior” (H&B) Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, established in 2002, illustrate the profession’s commitment to advancing the practice of psychologists in service of the public well-being. H&B codes allow psychologists to bill for behavioral, social, and psychophysiological services provided to patients with physical health (rather than mental health) diagnoses. Before these codes were implemented, reimbursement was limited in the general health care sector for psychological work with patients without a mental health diagnosis. Developing these new codes involved the combined efforts of the American Psychological Association and the Interdivisional Healthcare Committee (IHC), representing APA divisions 17, 22, 38, 40, and 54. The number of H&B claims submitted by psychologists to Medicare increased over 625 per cent from 64,000 claims in 2002, the first year they were available, to almost a half million claims for H&B services in 2010, rising from $1.56 million in reimbursement for these services to $8.1 million. As a result of many years of advocacy to Medicare and the American Medical Association (which owns and oversees code development for the CPT), these codes constitute a milestone in the recognition of psychologists as health care providers. Further, the codes have positioned psychologists to play a central role in defining and implementing evidence-based practices and integrated care models.
3.4 A Note on Political Gift-Giving
Elections are expensive, and getting more expensive every year. Despite promises of cheaper social networking technologies, grassroots networks still require significant financial investment in order to successfully impact elections. Moreover, campaign advertising is an effective and proven method for winning elections, even more so as access to good and bad information has increased exponentially during the internet age. Representatives campaign and fundraise continuously during their two-year terms, perhaps more than they have time to legislate. Many work nights and weekends, sometimes going weeks without seeing loved ones, to fundraise and meet with constituents. As a result, they kindly remember and feel ingratiated to individuals who help elect and re-elect them. This is likely to remain true regardless of fixes to campaign finance reform, redistricting, term-limits, etc. In a free market society, money will always play a large role in elections.
It is an extreme disadvantage, then, that psychologists rank toward the bottom of professionals that support campaigns, even among healthcare professions with fewer members. Table 22.3 compares political gift-giving among healthcare associations (Government Relations Office, American Psychological Association Practice Organization, personal communication, December 20, 2011). Although the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Association for the Advancement of Psychology (AAP) have made significant strides in this area, the table demonstrates that the profession could be a much stronger player if more psychologists donated to political campaigns, and even more so if the average donation increased only five dollars.
Table 22.3 Comparison of political giving among healthcare professions
| Profession | 2018 PAC ContributionsFootnote 1 | Median Pay |
|---|---|---|
| American Psychological Association | $170,515 | $88,350Footnote 2 |
| American Speech–Language–Hearing Association | $451,920 | $79,120Footnote 3 |
| American Occupational Therapy Association | $358,135 | $84,950Footnote 3 |
| American College of Surgeons | $973,647 | $547,830Footnote 2 |
| American Psychiatric Association | $483,716 | $306,100Footnote 2 |
| American Physical Therapy Association | $1,169,679 | $89,440Footnote 3 |
| American Chiropractic Association | $237,355 | $85,010Footnote 3 |
| Society of Interventional Radiology | $137,600 | $553,330Footnote 2 |
| American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists | $1,240,908 | $233,610Footnote 3 |
| College of American Pathologists | $432,005 | $351,900Footnote 2 |
| American Academy of Ophthalmology | $1,130,121 | $203,450Footnote 3 |
| Society of Thoracic Surgeons | $315,678 | $603,770Footnote 2 |
| American Society of Plastic Surgeons | $349,737 | $548,070Footnote 2 |
| American Association of Neurological Surgeons | $434,205 | $882,990Footnote 2 |
| American College of Radiology | $2,479,437 | $63,120Footnote 3 |
| American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons | $2,641,958 | $688,370Footnote 2 |
| American Academy of Dermatology Association | $1,440,651 | $467,350Footnote 2 |
Source:
1 = Federal Election Campaign data, www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/2018;
2 = 2020 Medical Group Management;
3 = Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 2019 Occupational Outlook Handbook, www.bls.gov/ooh/ (all sites accessed December 15, 2020); PAC = Political Action Committee.
Even with the most compelling issues and best data, psychologists first need to get in the room and build the relationship. While legislators certainly value expert input, legislators are more receptive to those who can also alleviate the time and energy devoted to campaigning. Dismissing this reality as corrupt or unseemly is neither accurate nor helpful. Legislators want to make a difference and contribute to society, but first they have to get in and stay in office. Referring back to the three rationales for advocacy, psychologists are widely respected for our academic credentials, science-based discipline, and commitment to the public good, but psychologists do not have a good track record of demonstrating political will.
4. Getting Started
4.1 Partnerships
Although Hollywood glamorizes the power of forceful individuals who change the system, our political system is constructed to respond to groups of people. This is truer today as policymakers struggle with information overload. A groundswell of public support will always be more compelling than one vocal citizen.
Joining professional associations and interest groups is an ideal way for students and early career psychologists (ECPs) to become active in local and national advocacy. The APA with 54 divisions and 60 affiliated state, provincial, and territorial associations (SPTAs), as well as the Association for Psychological Science (APS), all provide a variety of ways for students and ECPs to engage in advocacy. These associations support grassroots networks; organize Hill Days for psychologists to lobby legislators; host annual leadership conferences that provide advocacy training and facilitate relationships with legislators; and produce e-newsletters to update members on recent policy activities and opportunities to participate. Several societies also offer Congressional and Executive fellowships for ECPs, including the APA, Society for Research in Child Development, and American Association for the Advancement of Science.
APA Divisions and SPTAs are also a great way to participate in advocacy focused on specific issues of direct personal and professional relevance. The APA website provides links to the SPTAs and divisions, as well as regional organizations. APA also supports advocacy networks focused on specific areas of psychology, such as the Federal Education Advocacy Coordinator (FEDAC) grassroots network. In addition, APA, APS, and many SPTAs are affiliated with 501 (c)(6) organizations that can support advocacy networks, engage in fundraising activities, and have expanded capabilities to pursue policy activities (see web resource below for links).
Almost all of these associations also publish online advocacy guides that outline the legislative and regulatory processes relevant to psychology and provides guidance on different advocacy tools. APA has a central advocacy site that lists APA’s current priorities and provides examples of advocacy by letter writing, emails, phone calls, and media interviews (www.apa.org/advocacy).
4.2 Student Advocacy
The American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS) Committee is charged with assuring the “student voice” is heard within the APA governance system. As the world’s largest organized group of psychology graduate students, APAGS leadership is comprised of both elected and appointed committee members who are responsible for advocating on behalf of the APA student membership. Its governance structure (see www.apa.org/apags/governance/index.aspx) provides a variety of opportunities for involvement, including a Campus Representative program and an Advocacy Coordinating Team (ACT) that supports graduate student participation in federal and state legislative advocacy through collaboration with the APA Services, Inc., a 501 (c)(6) organization focused on advocating for the profession of psychology.
5. Policy-Relevant Resources
5.1 APA Services, Inc. (www.apaservices.org/advocacy)
A 501 (c)(6) companion organization to APA that advocates on behalf of the entire discipline and profession of psychology, supports candidates who have demonstrated their commitment to psychology and psychologists, and promotes psychology-informed federal policy, legislation and research.
5.2 A Psychologist’s Guide to Federal Advocacy (www.apa.org/advocacy/guide/federal-guide.pdf)
This guide, published by the APA, provides general guidelines for advocacy by psychologists, including an overview of the legislative procedures and committees relevant to psychology.
5.3 Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law (www.bazelon.org)
This site is a rich source of information for those psychology students interested in the interface of mental health and the law.
5.4 Directory of State, Provincial and Territorial Psychological Associations (SPTAs) (www.apa.org/about/apa/organizations/associations)
APA Services, Inc. works with its 60 affiliated SPTAs on a broad range of issues affecting the professional practice of psychology.
5.5 National Council for Behavioral Health (www.thenationalcouncil.org)
The National Council represents over 3300 behavioral health organizations (e.g., Community Mental Health Centers) and has an active advocacy agenda supporting recovery and inclusion for individuals with a wide range of addiction and behavioral health disorders.
5.6 PsycAdvocate (www.apa.org/ed/ce/resources/psycadvocate)
Highly interactive advocacy training modules that are available for continuing education credit. Information is in a dynamic learning format that includes interactive Q&A, demonstrations and links to key policy resources.
5.7 Thomas: Legislative Information on the Internet (http://thomas.loc.gov/)
The Library of Congress sponsors this site, and it is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in understanding federal legislation. The site contains clear descriptions of the legislative process, detailed information on roll call votes, listings of the composition of all House and Senate Committees, and easily accessible links to the home pages of all members of Congress. Students can also look up the status of individual bills, searching by number or key words (for example, typing in “Psychology” as a key term will pull up all bills in which the profession and practice of psychology is specifically addressed).
5.8 USA.gov (www.usa.gov)
As the official web portal of the United States federal government, this site is designed to improve the public’s interaction with the US government by quickly directing website visitors to the services or information they are seeking, and by inviting the public to share ideas to improve government.
Editor’s Note: This interview was conducted in 2000 and edited by Dr. Zimbardo in 2021. Dr. Zimbardo was a pioneer in the field through his work with the media and his commitment to educate the public about psychological science, long before it had become popular to do so. His responses in this interview are still remarkably relevant today.
1. Psychology and the Media
By disseminating findings from psychological research and promoting psychological services to the public, the media serves an important function benefiting the public and our field. Psychologists early in their career can serve an important role as consultants to trade media, community media outlets, or even national/international media conglomerates. We asked Dr. Phil Zimbardo to discuss his vision for the role of the media in psychology, his advice for psychologists who are contacted by the media, and also to discuss his own ground-breaking experiences with the media on behalf of psychology over the years.
2. Importance of Media Involvement among Psychologists
Interviewer (MJP): What do you think is the current public image of psychology as a field?
PGZ: I think that the incident and experiences around September 11th have helped to create a more positive and accurate image of psychology for the public. The public has become more aware of psychologists contributing their services as therapists in New York and Washington and elsewhere. I know the APA website was used very extensively by the general public at this time. The whole concept of posttraumatic stress disorder and the important effects of stress and anxiety in our lives really became salient after 9–11, and I think psychologists have responded expertly and admirably in response to these events.
But, prior to that time, and generally, I think the public has had either a null or somewhat negative image of psychology. I don’t think the general public knows the difference between psychiatry and psychology. It has been apparent to me that the media is often unaware of the sub-disciplines within psychology. There is some awareness that psychologists do research and some psychologists do engage in clinical practice, but how the two are related is still often vague. It is rare that the research foundation of practice is apparent to the public. Indeed, it is likely the average person does not know the difference between psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. As a psychologist who has always been concerned with making psychology relevant to the goals of society, it is clear that the media plays a critical role at the interface between what we know, what we do, what we want the public to know, and how to utilize our knowledge and our expertise to help society. So far, this has not really happened in a very productive way. Psychologists and the media could and should have a greater synergy than they currently do.
Interviewer: How does the image of psychology compare with the image of other sciences or related mental health disciplines?
PGZ: I think the public better understands media stories from other sciences such as biology and from medical research, the reason being that newspaper science writers who write about medicine and biology are usually much better trained than the science writers who write about other areas. There are workshops that train journalists in these areas, and those journalists often have had biology or premed courses in college. They want to get the story right. One of the problems with many stories about psychological research is that most reporters don’t have a psychology background and they don’t get the story right. For example, they don’t appreciate what a control group is all about or they will emphasize only one part of a research investigation without understanding its broader context. My feeling is that biology and medicine are better understood and appreciated by the general public than is psychology. I think the media does not clearly differentiate psychology from psychiatry either in terms of practice or in terms of research, or for that matter, from other social sciences. One clear exception can be seen in the articles written by Erika Goode, the New York Times behavioral sciences columnist, who studied for an advanced degree in social psychology at University of California, Santa Cruz. She interviews enough of the right people, does her homework, gets dissenting views as well as supporters of the issue being presented, and crafts it all in an accessible style.
Interviewer: How do you think psychologists’ involvement in the media could be helpful to the public?
PGZ: Our field offers much of value that can improve everyday functioning and quality of life, with clear implications for preventive healthcare. Our field could have a dramatic influence on learning and training in the fields of education, law, and business. The media are the gatekeepers between the public and us. It is our job to learn how to open those gates more fully.
In 1969, APA president George Miller startled the American Psychological Association by saying we should give psychology away to the public. It was a startling statement because until that time psychologists gave psychology away to each other. Most psychologists were totally unconcerned about the public. The whole notion of being “relevant” was akin to “selling out” to the proles. We were saying that we’re not pop psychologists, we are serious scientists, and we shun the media because it is part of the commercial establishment. Psychologists did research, and we wrote about it in our journals, and we talked to each other. George Miller was an experimental/theoretical psychologist, so coming from him, this statement was very profound. Unfortunately, not as much has been done since then as might be to actually make psychology relevant to the public concerns.
It is a growing trend among psychologists to say that we ought to be able to demonstrate that what we have done makes a difference in people’s lives. In more recent years, most funding agencies have asked that researchers indicate how their research could conceivably have societal applications. I think that at a deeper level there are more and more psychologists who believe that research – even basic research – could have meaningful application. Now I should say that one of the reasons psychologists have not been interested in giving psychology away is because many psychologists are very modest, saying: “We’re not sure we have anything worthwhile to give away.” Other psychologists go on record saying, “We don’t know how to give psychology away.” “We don’t know what of all of our psychology people would want.” And then the question becomes what is the process for any psychologist to give psychology away to the public? And for me, one idea, not addressed by George Miller, is a clearer understanding of how we as psychologists can discover how to share information with the public. The media is the secret to how we can give away what we do and know. The media decides which of the information they will pass onto the public, and in what form.
3. The Future of Psychology in the Media
Interviewer: What do you think are some of the most important messages that we should be giving away?
PGZ: There are many important messages. My primary APA presidential initiative was to help demonstrate whether and how psychological research has made a significant difference in people’s lives. I believe that the answer is of course, “Yes – it has in many ways.” My presidential initiative has started collecting the database, but we will continue doing so for a number of years. We are starting in the United States and it will hopefully be expanded to many other nations’ psychological societies. We have been conducting a survey asking APA members to nominate research that demonstrates a significant impact on individual learning, education, financial behavior, health status, organizational behavior, and more. We are literally identifying hundreds of individual studies or programs of research that demonstrate how psychology has had an impact, and has been translated into public policy, or practice within schools, hospitals, clinics, and organizations. We are just now collecting that information and ideally, we will have a compendium of psychologists’ most valuable impacts compiled within a year or two. We will post this list on the APA website to demonstrate that we have made a difference, and we will make this compendium available to the media, to legislatures, and to the general public. It seems to me that this is something that psychology should have done a long time ago to demonstrate that what we do makes a difference in people’s lives. APS has also agreed to collaborate with APA in gathering similar data from its members, one of the first collaborative efforts between the two societies.
We are getting some excellent examples of the impact of psychology in making significant changes. For instance, in the area of safety, researchers in the field of perception have made a difference in airline safety by redesigning commercial airline cockpits to correct for a visual illusion that was causing accidents. Other researchers were instrumental in the decision to change the color of emergency vehicles from red to lime green because you can see lime green in dim light better than you can see red. This is basic psychophysics being applied. Another example pertains to social psychologists and psychologists working in the area of psychology and law. Here, researchers have demonstrated the conditions under which testimonies can be biased or eyewitness accounts are fallible. Psychologists such as Elizabeth Loftus, Gary Wells, and a number of others have had such a substantial impact on the criminal justice system that former Attorney General Janet Reno arranged to have psychologists work with her staff to develop guidelines on reliable and valid eyewitness testimony. This is an indication that basic research on eyewitness identification by social psychologists has had a direct impact on influencing our legal system.
Another example pertains to research on posttraumatic stress. Terry Keane at the Boston VA is one of the pioneering researchers who have identified, diagnosed, and developed various treatment programs for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder – initially with regard to Vietnam veterans before they realized that this was a general phenomenon. Anyone who’s experienced extreme trauma – rape victim, victims of various kinds of natural disasters, victims of terrorist attacks on September 11th – have benefited from this work.
One of the potentially most valuable instances of psychological theory making a difference is the application of Al Bandura’s social-cognitive theory of modeling. A Mexican TV producer has developed it in creative ways by weaving different kinds of social models into soap operas. These long-running programs are watched by millions of viewers daily and they see powerful examples of the need for family planning, for raising the status of women through education, for safe-sex practices in preventing AIDS, and other vital messages. An international communications agency has extended this approach to develop similar soaps for many other countries worldwide. A critical component of this project is systematic independent evaluation of its effectiveness with solid behavioral outcomes.
Interviewer: Your initiative sounds like an important step towards the giving away of psychology and should be very helpful in educating the public about psychology. Why do you think this has not happened earlier?
PGZ: One problem with the interface between psychology and the public is the ever-present disdain for “pop psychology” – that is, of promoting unscientific psychology for commercial gain. It is important to realize that psychology is unlike any other discipline. Our work in academic psychology spans an enormous range of topics, from the most intricate details of the functioning of the nervous system, witnessed by the current excitement being generated by cognitive neuroscience, all the way to understanding issues such as the cultural construction of the self, conflict and peace, health and spirituality. Psychologists are working at very micro levels of analysis up to the broadest macro level. There is no other academic discipline that has our breadth and range. Moreover, psychology also has an effective, evolving practice component, which is also unique among the behavioral sciences. In addition, we have a built in, intrinsic popular component because we have something to say about virtually every aspect of human nature, how to understand it, and even how to improve it. Because of our breadth of focus, and overlap with yoga, meditation, spiritual awareness, religion, and personal effectiveness, we are the core of the “self-help” industry. Some for the better of society, some for society’s schlock pile. One of the big dangers of psychology, especially among academics and scientists, is that some psychologists have over-popularized it and have pulled it out of the context in which psychology means anything specific to the general public. So we lose our uniqueness and sacrifice what is special, our research foundation, to self-proclaimed gurus peddling contemporary versions of snake oil to the public.
Interviewer: So, it sounds like there might be some ways that our interactions with the media could endanger our reputation or inhibit us from appropriately conveying the kind of work we do as psychologists. Could our involvement with the media also be helpful to the field … how do you think this would happen?
PGZ: My strong sentiment is that we need the media and that the media needs us. Psychology is one of the most interesting fields of intellectual inquiry. Psychologists are doing so much that is exciting and interesting to the general public. The media needs our stories and we need the media to convey them to the public. Without the media, the only outlets for people to learn about psychology are through college and high school courses, or by reading our journals. Magazines, newspapers, TV, radio, and now the Internet are really the major outlets to reach what I’m calling the “general public,” that is, the less well-educated public unlikely to read our primary sources of research. If you want to reach teenagers with a message about depression, suicide prevention, or bullying, where else do you go than a public service spot on MTV? We have to become more sophisticated in seeding our important information in media venues most likely to reach the audiences we want to influence.
When I visit congressional offices in Washington during my trips to APA central office, every single office is constantly tuned in to television news; members of congress all have the local newspapers and current magazines available. The point is that legislators have to be tuned into the media. Legislators are the people who vote for funds to support our research, our education, training, and determine how practice dollars will be spent. If our stories get out into the media – such as onto CNN, public television, NPR, and radio talk shows, the New York Times, USA Today – any place where legislators will read or hear about our work, it will help create a positive image of what psychologists do in the minds of those in positions of power. The power to help society work better, as well as the power to provide resources to help psychology function more effectively.
Interviewer: Any risks in working with the media?
PGZ: Let’s talk about what the media means. At one level, the media is this huge conglomerate. The media is made up of money-making corporations – ever-larger concentrations of companies dominating multiple media outlets. The bottom line for all of these companies is a profit motive. The media has to present shows on television that will get good ratings, so they can charge more for advertising, which oils the media machine. That’s the bottom line. It’s the same thing with radio, newspapers, and magazines. If these outlets cover stories that attract more readers or viewers, then the media is going to want more of them. We, as psychologists, have stories to tell that the media will want to report on because people want to see, hear, or read about what other people do, and what they might do differently or better. The popularity of “reality TV” is based on the public’s fascination with observing other people behaving in a variety of settings. As an aside, however, there is little reality in these shows because they are so obviously staged, but more importantly, what they lack is some type of psychological analysis of what the behavior means.
Another important aspect of the media is that the decision of what gets accepted, how it gets accepted, and how it gets presented often rests on a single person (e.g., the editor, the production supervisor, or even a higher up). That one person may have a point of view or a particular bias that can affect the story they want to tell, and how they tell it, or reject it. This is one of the dangers of the media. Sometimes a given media source has a prearranged story that they want to get across. They are looking for psychologists that will give them either their expert opinion (without data necessarily) or some supporting data to promote their point of view. This is where psychologists often get trapped – we get misrepresented, misquoted, or quoted out of context because reporters may not be really listening to our whole stories. In some cases, they don’t want the whole story; they just want information that will support a particular perspective that they already have in mind. I got trapped once in such a mess, a story I will share with you later on in this interview.
4. Getting Involved
Interviewer: How can psychologists get more involved in working with the media?
PGZ: One important problem is that psychologists have very little training in how to deal with the media. Suppose you conduct a study and reveal very interesting findings with important applications. So, what do you do with that? You can write it up for publication, submit it, and it may take a year to two years before it is published – or revise and resubmit endlessly. Mostly other psychologists will read the research. Now if the research is really “hot,” that is, the research is touching on some issue of national or regional significance, then you want to make sure that the public is informed about your findings ASAP. What do you do?
One thing you can do is to issue a press release. Not many psychologists know how to write a press release. Some major universities have news services that will do it for you or help you write one. APA also writes press releases each week on articles that it thinks could be of media interest, but again, people don’t have to wait for APA. Certainly any researcher should be doing this kind of self-promotion if they really believe the research is important. You can work with the news service of a university, if you have one, or if not, you ought to learn how to write one – one page leading with the significance and then highlighting the kind of research foundation for the finding you are promoting.
The second thing you can do – we all should be doing more of – is to write op/ed pieces. An op/ed piece in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Times, LA Times, or Herald Tribune reaches millions of people instantly. You can have more impact with 500 words in one of these media outlets than you can by writing several books. The Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association has a website (www.apa.org/science/editorial.html) with some examples of good op/ed pieces. Early career psychologists can begin by writing op/ed pieces for the local, city, or regional newspaper, or even for a school newspaper if you’re an academic.
You can also write a book. A book has the potential to reach many people in the public. Trade paperbacks are like monographs on a single topic, written for the public in an engaging, accessible style. But, if your publisher or you privately arrange a publicity tour for your book, then it has the potential to reach a much wider audience. There are author’s agents who can arrange such tours for a fee. For textbooks, publishers hire sales representatives for promotion. But for trade books, you are the sales representative. It is expected that the author will do an author’s tour of self-promotion, if the book is judged to be a potential big seller and the author is personable – marketable. Depending on estimates on how well the book will sell, the publisher will organize a tour for you, or will help to support a tour. You might have to hire your own press agent and spend at least a couple of weeks on the road with the media promoting your book. If you are an academic, this is a huge burden, because it is time away from research and teaching. Whereas if you consider yourself primarily as a writer, it is delightful because it is two weeks traveling around the country meeting people, friends, making fans. An ideal author tour might include 7–10 cities, including appearances on television networks or guest spots on AM radio. You might appear on some evening program or a call-in radio and/or television program. Several newspapers and/or magazines might interview you. In some cases, you go to a city, do two or three interviews, go to a new city and be in the Green room by 6 am the next morning. Your comments on a radio call-in will be very different than when making a brief presentation on a morning news show. You cannot have any notes; it must all be well rehearsed. In contrast, newspaper interviews can last an hour or two and be very detailed. But you must keep in mind that you are selling a product, your book, the topic, and you.
Book writing and book promotional tours are not activities we usually think about as psychologists. But recently, psychologists doing interesting basic research are now repackaging their work as trade books. This is important for summarizing a body of research in a domain that the public and the media will think is interesting. It can also be a lucrative activity. One of the best ways to earn money as a psychologist these days is to be an author or co-author of a trade book or textbook.
One way to get access to publishers for a possible future as a co-author of a text is to volunteer to do text chapter reviewing for the publisher in your domain, and then write brilliant reviews that will catch their attention. That is how I got chosen to replace Floyd Ruch, author of the best-selling Psychology and Life introductory psych text, only they asked me to do the review in hopes I might adopt the edition for my course.
Lastly, you can work directly with television. For this approach, it is important that you utilize different kinds of media in your research that can be used on television. Let’s say you do an experiment and you have some interesting results. If you called your local TV station to tell them about your research, the very first thing they are going to ask you is if you have any videotape. If you are doing research on topics that might have popular appeal and might lead to media interest, then you must videotape the sessions. Of course, you need to obtain the appropriate consent and human subjects’ approval to do this. As psychologists, we’re trained to focus primarily on results, so when you go to a convention and do a talk we often rush through the procedure and simply describe the findings. The media is interested in the procedure, however, and it is important for them to show this to the public on videotape. Process is as important as results for visual media.
This is one of the most important things I have learned about interacting with the media. Two examples: Stanley Milgram’s research and the Stanford Prison Experiment. The reason those two studies have had enduring value is because they are on video. Milgram was way ahead of his time in the 60s by filming part of his research, and that film is still being shown now – 30 years later. Incidentally, I believe that the flak he got about the ethics of his blind obedience research was due largely to seeing the participants showing so much stress in deciding whether to continue to step up the shock levels. That does not come across in the same dramatic way from just reading his article or book. I did something similar with the Stanford Prison study. We videotaped our procedure both as part of our data collection and for future teaching purposes. But because we had this archival material available in a day-by-day chronology of events, the research became more accessible to the media. Thirty years later (the Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971), NBC will show (in 2002) an hour-long documentary on the Stanford Prison Experiment, partly because we have so much video material available to share with them.
Indeed, the Stanford Prison study, in a way, was a forerunner of Reality TV. I have two strong feelings about Reality TV. On the one hand, it’s wonderful because it demonstrates that the general public is fascinated with observing human behavior – and that’s what we get paid for – that’s what psychology is all about. Observing human behavior, trying to make sense of it, trying to explain it, trying to influence it in a positive direction, trying to predict it. Reality TV is popular because it’s fascinating for people to simply observe other people in various settings, as I mentioned earlier. On the other hand, Reality TV does not offer any explanation of the behavior – it is raw behavior undigested. What I would want to add is a psychological component. Psychologists have the understanding of non-verbal behavior, of interpersonal dynamics to explain the significance of people’s behavior to the public. Second, because of the media ratings, Reality TV has become more and more corrupted – it is hardly reality. It’s all staged, and highly edited and hyped to be more appealing to audiences. The enduring popularity of the Milgram study and of the Stanford Prison study was simply having available a film document of what the experience was like from the perspective of the subject. In essence, that is really what Reality TV is all about. That was the gift of Candid Camera, and the genius of Allen Funt, an intuitive social psychologist.
The best of reality television in my biased opinion was a program called “The Human Zoo.” It was produced in 2000, in London by Granada Media, London Weekend Television (in conjunction with Discovery Channel). It was a study of the fundamental psychological principles involved when a dozen strangers meet for the first time in a lodge in the Lake District of England – a remote area where they lived together for a week. It includes essentially the most basic ordinary psychological and social psychological processes. For instance, people making a first acquaintance, people getting to know one another, people forming impressions of others, making their own impressions on others, forming dyads, forming friendships, organizing into groups, groups dominating one another, etc. What differentiates this from other reality television programs is that a British psychologist and I are commenting from time to time on the process while it is happening. We are making predictions about who will be friends and who will be enemies based on the same evidence the audience has of verbal and non-verbal behavior. And then you can see whether or not we are correct. Throughout the program, there are cutaways from the psychological phenomenon exhibited by the 12 participants to mini experiments and demonstrations that illustrate comparable concepts from a psychological perspective. For instance, we see people making first impressions as they initially meet one another, and then there is a cutaway to a demonstration of research on job interviewers’ formations of first impressions within the first 15 seconds of a meeting. Unfortunately, the Discovery Channel decided to show only two of the three programs. The last program did not air, and the station is not distributing videos. That is part of my frustration with the media; in this case, some stupid executive making the decision that American audiences won’t appreciate programs with people who have British accents. Do they not know about the popular British shows on PBS?
Interviewer: What would you say to graduate students or early career psychologists who may be interested in working with the media?
PGZ: Psychologists should always be aware of their reputation within their department and their reputation within the field. And departments vary considerably in terms of their acceptability quotient for media portrayals of research. There are some departments that do not like to see young professors quoted in the media, or promoted in the media; in other departments, it’s just the opposite. Certainly universities benefit when, for instance, it is reported that findings come from “a study done by a Yale researcher.” This instantly gives Yale credit for important work, and the alumni love to see this. But, there is always tension between colleagues who may be envious of you for the media attention. Also, some colleagues may feel somehow that working with the media is commercializing or popularizing psychology inappropriately. After all, psychology should be a basic scientific enterprise – you do not often see theoretical physicists hocking their wares. Many people believe that media coverage cheapens the research, and if senior colleagues hold this position strongly, then working with the media could be held against you. Indeed, one way I have dealt with this tension was to be sure I always had a sound scientific study to balance against my more popular work, to keep my science colleagues happy, and accepting of me.
On the other hand, in terms of promotion of the field, I have always believed from the time I was a little assistant professor without tenure, that media involvement is crucial to help create a positive image of the field to people outside of psychology. If you have something important to say – if you’ve done something that’s meaningful and you want people to know about it – then your colleagues and certainly your administration should be pleased to have you reach out beyond the confines of the traditional academic distribution channels. (If not, send me their names and cousin Gino will pay a friendly visit to them.)
But again, the danger is that no one controls the media. You can’t control what the media will say or what the media will do. You can’t control it even by giving the media your documentary video – they may elect only to show a minute or two of the video, and perhaps not the most important or cogent part from your perspective. Psychologists are often frustrated because we are used to exercising control over our product – our product is usually an article we’re writing, or a book project that allows us to negotiate with the editor before making changes. With the media, once they have the material, they control it – they can change it virtually any way they want. Also if it falls under the heading of “news,” then there is no editorial control at all for authors of research.
Interviewer: Given these risks and the loss of control, what advice would you have for early career psychologists who are contacted about their work?
PGZ: Well, you don’t want to passively sit and wait for somebody to ask you. There are many sources that can help early career psychologists promote their work. Publishing in Scientific American or Psychology Today are sources that will help you reach millions with your research. The APA Monitor is another great source. If you have a study that you think is newsworthy and is of interest to psychologists broadly or the public, contact the Monitor staff, and if you can convince them of its value, they may have a staff research reporter do a story on it.
The media may contact an early career psychologist directly, but typically this is because a colleague has mentioned your name. Networking in psychology is very important – early career psychologists should try to know people in different areas of the field. Go to conventions, present posters, give talks, make yourself visible, give constructive feedback to colleagues, give compliments when appropriate, schmooze with your colleagues. But know your limits. You may be contacted for a story that falls outside your area of expertise. Suppose you are contacted by a local reporter to comment on a story pertaining to child molesters or adultery that happens to be in the news at that time. If you are not an expert, indicate that immediately and if possible refer the reporter to colleagues who are. This is important, even if you are asked only for a quote – a single sentence, refuse if you are not comfortable being quoted as The Expert. That is where your colleagues will bristle. Reporters are not really interested in you as an Individual; rather it is you as part of a larger category of relevance to their readers. They will attach your quote to the reputation of your university – for instance, they want to be able to say, “A Stanford professor says … ” or a “Psychological researcher believes … . ”
Overall, if the media contacts you, it is really important to think about the experience as a negotiation. Most young psychologists are extremely flattered that someone from the local newspaper, radio, or TV station thinks that what they have to say is important. But you must establish guidelines: What is it exactly that they want from you? What is the theme of the piece? What are they searching for? What’s the conclusion? How much time or space do you have? Do they just want a quote? You don’t want to talk for an hour when, in fact, they just want a sentence or simple conclusion statement. It’s the same thing if you appear on a television program. It’s critical to ask how many minutes you will be allotted. It is common for psychologists to plan on communicating several important points, but because they were unaware of the length of the edited interview, they talk too long about only the first point and the others never make the final cut. So you start out by saying, “There are three important features of Z: A, B, and C. A is special because … .” That way, it is clear you have a proper overview of what is important, but have had time only to develop point A. Also, be sure to ask about others that have been consulted on this topic, and always suggest other experts, even after you’ve spoken.
Interviewer: How did you first get involved with working with the media?
PGZ: My very first experience with the media was when I was a graduate student at Yale University. I did a study in 1957 on the effects of caffeine and chlorpromazine on the sexual behavior of the male white rat. I did it with Herbert Barry, a fellow graduate student and we published it in Science. I was the senior author and it was a hot topic. Chlorpromazine had just become available, so this was one of the very first studies on this drug that revolutionized treatment of schizophrenia. What we found simply was that chlorpromazine depressed sexual behavior, and caffeine accentuated and enhanced the sexual behavior of the male white rat. Well, we published it and people were mildly interested.
The next week there was an article in Joyce Brothers’ column, which said something like “ladies, if you want to revive your spouse’s bedroom vigor, give him an extra cup of coffee.” Our research was dealing with the male white rat and high doses of pure caffeine, and she’s making this extension completely out of context. It was actually humorous. Dr. Brothers also reported it on the popular Tonight Show, and I was inundated with reprint requests. It highlights the point that the media are looking for a story. Remember, every day the media has to fill thousands of pages of newspapers and magazines, and thousands of hours of airtime on radio and television channels. The media is desperate for stories, and we have stories to tell. That was my first experience learning about the media’s interest in stories from psychological research, albeit from a somewhat distorted perspective.
I also got involved in news media from other research I had done as a graduate student at Yale, and published in the first volume of Psychology Today. It was an analysis of the psychological tactics used by the police in extracting confessions from suspects – sometimes powerful enough to induce false confessions. I was invited to defend the research at a national law enforcement conference, and it got picked up and distributed by the New York Times. I guess I have tended to work on topics that have broader appeal than some of our more typical psychology subjects, like shyness, evil, cults, violence, and madness.
A bizarre incident occurred when I first arrived at Stanford University. I received a call from a New York Times reporter, John Leo (who has since become quite famous), on a deadline for a story on women using profanity. I explained that I did not know anything about this topic. Remember, you should make it clear when you are not an expert. But also remember, that they will never give up if they have to meet a deadline. So, this reporter said that he had a tight deadline the next day, and he needed just one quote. I asked about why he was interested in this story, and he said that his editor was cursed out at a cocktail party and he wanted to know whether it is a general phenomenon that women are using more profanity, or whether it was just this woman personally cursing him out. And I said, “Well I can’t help you.” He asked, “Are there any psychologists who are studying this?” “Well as far as I know there are no psychologists studying profanity in women,” I told him, “there are a lot of areas that psychologists just never study, that they’re not interested in.” He asked, “Can you think of anything in your experience where you’ve noticed women using profanity?” “Now that you mention it, yes.” Mistake – he sucked me in to the black hole I should not have entered. I told him, “When I was taking an abnormal psychology graduate student course that met at Middletown State Hospital, we visited the back schizophrenic wards. Women patients were typically more expressive than male patients. That is, they often exhibited themselves, cursed, and did other dramatic things, more so than did males.” This was 1956, before antipsychotic medication, and patients’ psychoses were much more florid. Now obviously these are not controlled observations, I likely noticed women being more overtly expressive because of the greater deviation for the usual baseline of women not being so publicly demonstrative. Regardless, the reporter thanked me and said a cordial goodbye.
Hold the presses. Next day, the New York Times felt it was fit to report a new trend sweeping America. A front page article exclaimed, something like, “Women are using more obscenities from swanky cocktail party matrons to mental patients on hospital wards – according to psychological researchers” – only ME! The story was distorted to indicate that I had observed over many years that female mental patients were very obscene. Notice the changes in timing and lifting of my restricted observations and the special population that I had casually noticed. The story was picked up by news services and spread literally around the globe. I became a very embarrassed world’s leading expert on female obscenity, but did turn down talk show offers.
What you may find interesting is that I actually used this anecdote in Psychology and Life, the textbook I wrote in 1971, as an instance of how research gets distorted and how an instant authority is created and should not be believed just because the New York Times says so. Sometimes all the news is not fit to print, even in the New York Times.
Interviewer: How did you get involved with the Discovering Psychology Series, Candid Camera, and now NBC News?
PGZ: A PBS station in Boston, WGBH-TV, was interested in doing a series on psychology. Some people at the station had taken a few psychology courses, and realized that despite the limited public perception at the time, psychology was about more than the brain and Freud. And so they approached the Annenberg CPB foundation with a proposal to fund a PBS series on psychology. Annenberg officials agreed, stipulating that the series should be geared towards remote learning/adult education. They did a search for a host, who would also be the chief scientific advisor. They wanted someone who had written a textbook, who was doing current research, and had a good media presence. A number of psychologists were “screen tested.” I gave some lectures at Swarthmore, attended by WGBH staff, and won the job, undoubtedly on charm points.
I essentially created the series. Originally, it was going to be 13 one-hour programs, and I decided that it would be better to have 26 half-hour programs. I wanted to make sure that we would have something that would be good for PBS viewers, something that would be good for adults and Telecourse learners via videotape, but then also something good for high school and college students to have as an in-class resource. So as not to dominate the 50-minute class hour, I decided the half-hour format would serve best. Essentially I laid out what would be a good introductory psychology course, with one program on each of the major topics in psychology. Then I was in the position of selecting the psychologists who would be interviewed, and I shaped each program. In the process, I essentially trained the entire WGBH production staff in basic psychology. For each program I wrote 25–50 pages of background on the topic, including the basic principles, the historical background of each topic, who were the key research contributors, who were the current people who I thought would be the most interesting on camera. Then I would block out the program, deciding on the format and sequence for each episode. I was aided enormously by a team of 10 advisors that I selected to represent a broad range of psychology and education. We started filming in 1989 and finished in 1990–1991, and the series has been a huge success. It has aired continuously since 1990. The series has been shown in most colleges, virtually all high schools, and 10 different countries worldwide. They have sold thousands of videos; it is one of the most popular series in the Annenberg program. I have just revised the series in 2001. We have three all-new programs – cultural psychology and cognitive neuroscience – that did not exist a decade ago, and applied psychology. For 17 of the original episodes, we have filmed new interviews or revised old material. That project has been my most enduring, and probably most positive impact via the media, because I had a lot of control of the procedure, process, and outcome. I was the chief scientific advisor, as well as co- writer and creator of each series. As the host, I was able to really influence the way that many people teach introductory psychology. Unfortunately, the series never made it to prime time or the basic PBS station. Because it was only a half hour, it was always on the second PBS station, which is really the community college station. It is not reaching the general public as much as it should because it’s really a very good series. I should say in passing that I don’t receive any royalties or residuals for the Discovering Psychology series. I did it only for my love of psychology and teaching. The new program on cognitive neuroscience just won an Emmy for instructional television, as external justification for my efforts.
Candid Camera, in a sense, was kind of the prototype for Reality TV. The show looked at ordinary people in either natural or contrived situations. Years ago, I wrote to Allen Funt saying I would love to have access to his material in order to create videos for teachers and students of psychology. I wanted to prepare a video for introductory psychology and one for social psychology courses. I worked hard to convince him to work together with me on that project. He initially refused, but I was not deterred. As President of WPA in 1983, I invited him to give a keynote address in San Francisco, which he did brilliantly. Then, I invited him back later on for me to do a “pull piece” interview with him for Psychology Today magazine. I wined him and dined him, and we became friends. The key, however, was convincing Funt that he was more than an entertainer, he was an educator – that viewers could learn while they laughed. He finally succumbed to this persuasive pressure allowing me to work with him reviewing hundreds of candid camera episodes. We identified 16 programs that I felt were most interesting for introductory psychology teachers and 16 other programs that were interesting for social psychology teachers. McGraw Hill publishers distributes the videos and laser discs, and I wrote a study guide with Allen Funt to accompany the videos. (I do not receive any royalties from the Candid Camera series or study guides either; more doing it for the love of psychology and teaching.)
Another opportunity to work with the media came from the Stanford Prison study. That has been a big media event; the research itself is a dramatic piece. It is really like a Greek drama – what happens when you put good people in an evil place? There is a stage-like setting, costumes, actors, auxiliary actors (i.e., the police, the parents, a public defender, a Catholic priest). There is deep dramatic focus in the story. Do good people win over evil situations or do evil situations corrupt good people?
I am always thinking about how to communicate research findings in my teaching, so during the study, I took video, audio, and slides as the experiment progressed. Afterwards, I prepared a tape narration synchronized with the presentation of 80 slides that I distributed at cost for many years to teachers and community groups. Now that presentation is available on a free website now (www.prisonxp.org) along with some video clips from our documentary video. This fine website, created with the assistance of Scott Plous, has had more than 6 million unique page viewers over the last two years. This is astounding to me that my little study should reach so many people so many years after its debut.
Then, working with undergraduates at Stanford, primarily Ken Musen (now a film maker), I created a video of the Stanford Prison study using the original black and white archival footage. We updated this with interviews of some prisoners and guards in 1989. It is titled: “Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment.” This version has been distributed to colleges, high schools, and criminal justice groups. That video has been influential in a number of ways to help others get a sense of what the experience was like. We distribute it from my office at Stanford, with ordering information in the website.
Recently, a German film company produced a film called Das Experiment, which was based on the Stanford Prison study. It was produced with an outstanding cast and one of the leading directors of Germany. Unfortunately, it is a terrible movie for the image of psychology, and I have debated publicly the screenwriter and lead actor and done interviews deploring it. The first part of the movie documents the procedure used in my research, but then the second part is a fantasy sequence with extreme violence and graphic sex scenes that, of course, had nothing to do with the original experiment. Guards kill prisoners and rape the female psychologist-researcher, and prisoners kill guards! Sadly, the movie ends in a shambles with no debriefing, no explanation of why the study was conducted, and no sense of which part of the movie was real and which part was fiction. All the promotion of the film features references to my study, our website, and to the research publications with Craig Haney and Curt Banks – but then they say it is a fantasy exercise. It is a sad example of the worse kind of exploitation of psychological research for purely commercial purposes. Recent research in Germany shows that viewer attitudes toward psychology are more negative after watching this awful film. And that is very distressing to me.
Lastly, on the prison study, the BBC recently did a recreation of the study with volunteers for a week and shown on prime time over 4 hours. I refused to be a paid consultant on the program because it was now clear the study was unethical and because I felt it would suffer from the Heisenberg effect. A made for prime time TV experiment would alter the behavior being studied by the very act of obviously recording it to get good sound and video close-ups. The participants would be aware at most times of being under surveillance and would want to look good for the home audience when it was all over. And that is indeed what happened. The prisoners wore lapel mikes at all times and often held them while talking to each other. Then there were “confessional” breaks when guards, prisoners and the two British experimenters each spoke at various times to the camera. The essence of my study was creating an intense cauldron of behavioral dynamics that soon lost the sense of being an experiment and became a prison run by psychologists. The BBC experiment was always an “experiment,” and always a TV show to the participants, and so lost the essential intensity created in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Interestingly, in that recreation, the prisoners won over the guards – with hardly any external validity to prisons of which I am aware.
Currently, I am the psychological consultant for NBC News. NBC has asked me to help them develop programming ideas that have psychological content, psychological relevance. As I said earlier, one of the programs is going to be an hour-long documentary of the Stanford Prison study in the fall. We are trying to generate other kinds of ideas for how to get good psychology into NBC programming, into the Today Show, to NBC News. Also NBC Dateline creates programs for other networks, like the Discovery Channel. We just did a pilot show for Discovery, called “Only Human,” that sadly they did not buy for a season series. In large part they rejected further shows because the host-comedian, whom they chose, got terrible ratings. The concept is a good one, that I hope to push further, a series of interesting or funny skits each based on a psychological theme, like compliance, conformity, the burden of keeping secrets, invasion of other’s personal space – but with some psychological analyses after each one, by me or relevant experts. If done right, it can’t miss.
Interviewer: You have certainly been our field’s leader in helping to educate the public about psychology. Was this initially one of your career goals?
PGZ: When I think back now, my primary experience with the media has really come about mostly through my teaching, but also through my research. In my teaching, I’ve always used videos, film, audiotapes, newspaper or magazine articles – anything to help me breach the barrier between the classroom and everyday life. The media has always been an integral part of my teaching. As I mentioned earlier, my research tends either toward the dramatic or the appealing mundane – as with my research on shyness in adults and children. But mainly, the media has always been part of what I teach. In my first edition of Psychology in Life, I included a section on how to be a wise consumer of research. Essentially, this is for the average student who is not going to be a psychologist – 95 percent of students who take introductory psychology are not going on to even major in psychology. However, they will be consumers of our research, as physicians, lawyers, business people, and legislators, so we want them to know what psychology has to offer. My work educating the public about psychology has been an extension of my commitment to teaching.
Aside from the content of psychology we have another unique message – our experimental research message – our focus on controlled observation, systematic variation, and our sensitivity to human bias. No other discipline has this to the same extent. This makes psychology able to talk to the general public about matters of value to them, and to teach them about dangers in misleading advertising allegedly based on “research shows that … .” Thus, we have an important contribution to make – and young psychologists should be taking over from us old farts and leading the way to promoting psychology, to giving it away to the public in the right ways.
In conclusion, I have enjoyed sharing these random reflections of my career as a media maven, or media buff, and hope the basic message gets through to the next generation of psychologists.
As a fitting ending of this interview, I was just notified today that I would receive a special award from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents for my media and textbook work. It is the Carl Sagan Award for Improving the Public Understanding and Appreciation of Science. It puts me in a rather select group of previous winners, among them: Carl Sagan, E. O. Wilson, National Geographic, NOVA-TV, Scientific American, and the NYT-Science Times. Wow! Now I will have to redouble my future efforts to live up to such an honor, and hope to be able to do so. Thanks for your attention.
Ciao.
In his presidential address to the American Psychological Association in September 1969, George A. Miller, PhD, challenged the discipline to do something it had never before attempted:
I can imagine nothing we could do that would be more relevant to human welfare, and nothing that could pose a greater challenge to the next generation of psychologists, than to discover how best to give psychology away. … When we have accomplished that, we will really have caused a psychological revolution.
That call has been cited many times since 1969 by psychologists heeding that challenge through the news media. Mainstream media offer psychologists a chance to reach audiences of massive proportions, well beyond those who attend psychological meetings and conventions or who read scholarly journals – and certainly far greater than the number of students in their classrooms. Mainstream media can deliver psychological science to everyday people in language they understand. Having reporters explain psychology to their readers, viewers, and listeners can confer legitimacy, as they are often representatives of respected communications companies or storied newspapers or TV shows.
They also can royally screw up what the research says, as they rarely possess advanced degrees in science, let alone advanced degrees in communications. They may misquote the people they interview or take their ideas out of context.
And yet, when good journalists get it right, the influence can be enormous.
Working with the media “is one of the MOST important things we do,” says Kim Gorgens, PhD, a professor in the Graduate School of Professional Psychology at the University of Denver. “I always think that if you don’t talk about an issue on air, then someone else who is less well-informed, less empathic or less genuine will jump at the chance. In that way, you can see there is a cost to forfeiting the chance to use that platform” (Reference MillsMills, 2018).
If you aren’t prepared, the experience of working with the media can be harrowing, as it was the first time child psychologist Alan E. Kazdin, PhD, of Yale University, was interviewed by a reporter (Reference MillsMills, 2016). “The topic was corporal punishment and it went horribly,” he recalls. “The TV interviewer wanted to chat about his dad and how he was beaten.”
Yet many others describe positive experiences, such as Frank Farley, PhD, of Temple University, who does scores of media interviews a year, which he describes as fun (Reference MillsMills, 2016), and Mary Alvord, PhD, a psychologist in private practice in Maryland, who says she enjoys speaking to reporters about stress and other everyday psychological issues (Reference MillsMills, 2018).
“I like speaking with health reporters about stress and psychological issues since they have a good grasp of the material,” she says. “In addition, because I always prepare a few journal articles for the interview, I offer to email those to them if they would like the info. Many are interested” (Reference MillsMills, 2018).
There are, of course, other more serious reasons for psychologists to engage with the media:
TO HELP: Many psychologists enter the profession because they wish to help people. Conveying evidence-based psychological research results and advice to people who need it is an important task that can be fulfilled through the media.
TO DISPEL MYTHS: Using the media to explain psychological science, practice and education can open the public’s eyes to the reasons for human and animal behavior, demystifying in the process and correcting misinformation.
TO ELEVATE PSYCHOLOGY: While we know through polling that the public has a positive view of psychology overall, they don’t see psychology as a STEM science (Reference MillsMills, 2009). The more psychologists can describe the rigor that goes into their research, the likelier it is that more of the public will come to understand that psychology employs the same stringent scientific methods as the so-called hard sciences.
TO BENEFIT SOCIETY, IMPROVE LIVES: Psychology offers possible solutions to some of society’s intractable problems, such as violence, poverty, racism, serious mental illness – the list is virtually endless. Working toward these goals is fundamental to the mission of the American Psychological Association and, by extension, all of psychology.
TO RAISE YOUR PERSONAL PROFILE: Despite the pressures on many psychologists to publish in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals and to speak to august societies, being interviewed on CNN or having an essay or op-ed published in The New York Times can also be beneficial to your reputation and career.
And it’s never too early in your career to start thinking about how to leverage mainstream media. Whether you are still a student or fresh out of grad school, you can start by building a social media presence, following journalists you like and respect and even reaching out to promote your research or offer story ideas.
1. Who Are The Media?
You might think this is an obvious question, but as the media universe evolves and expands, there may be outlets you’ve never heard of that could be good venues for you to approach or work with. “The media” are no longer limited to newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, thanks to the information revolution that has occurred since the advent of the Internet (Reference Barthel, Mitchell, Asare-Marfo, Kennedy and WordenBarthel et al., 2020).
Today’s media include:
Newspapers – national, local and “specialty,” such those that cater to an African-American, Latino or LGBTQ audience, for example
News services, such as the Associated Press, Bloomberg and Reuters
Magazines – on practically any topic you can imagine
Trade publications – While there are few in psychology, such as the National Psychologist or New England Psychologist, don’t forget publications covering higher education, such as Inside Higher Education and the Chronicle of Higher Education
Television – local, regional, and national
Radio
Podcasts
Internet-only publications – e.g., Vox.com, Mashable.com, Axios.com
Social media – Reporters extend their reach via social media; psychologists can do so as well.
As you are thinking about media to approach – or if you are approached by reporters – be aware that some outlets are better avoided because they may be too small and not worth your time; too much on the fringe or in a small niche; or too biased, whether leaning to the far left or far right. On the other hand, a niche publication may reach a small but important audience. And just because you may not have heard of the outlet does not mean it isn’t legitimate. It’s important to check into them first.
2. Breaking into the Media
Step one toward becoming a media spokesperson is to have something interesting and relevant to say. If you are a researcher, are you studying an area that would intrigue a general audience? If you are a practitioner, can you offer advice and tips based on your experience (without jeopardizing your patients’ confidentiality)? Think about how your work as a psychologist might apply to the news of the day. There is a psychological angle to almost everything in the world.
Elaine Ducharme, PhD, a licensed clinical psychologist in Connecticut, says more than 10 years ago, she reached out to a local newspaper “and asked if they had any interest in having a mental health column – and they did. So for a while, I wrote, maybe, I think it was probably monthly, a column on something having to do with mental health” (Reference CalkinsCalkins, 2019).
Ramani Durvasula, PhD, a professor of psychology at California State University-Los Angeles and a private practitioner, became interested in media when she saw a psychotherapist on TV offering inaccurate information on an important topic (Reference CalkinsCalkins, 2019).
“I thought, who gets to do this? Who even makes this decision?” she said. After she got a chance to appear on a TV show about group therapy after another guest dropped out, she started to get interview requests. Today, she is regularly consulted by all manner of media. She blogs, has a podcast, produces videos, and has become a veritable brand, popularly known as “Dr. Ramani.”
To cultivate relationships with reporters, start by following their work. Read what they write or watch/listen to their broadcasts. That will help you better understand what a particular reporter looks for to create a story. It will also avoid the embarrassment of pitching a reporter on a story that he or she has already covered, or a story on a subject they don’t cover at all. If you see a story or a report you particularly like or admire, leave a comment on the outlet’s webpage saying so. Share the story on your social media channels – you should have a social media presence yourself – and don’t forget to tag reporters in your tweets so they will be notified that you shared their work.
1. Follow them on social media. Follow reporters you admire and wish to cultivate on social media. Reporters will often tweet about their work and that of other journalists – which is another way for you to become familiar with their work. Many reporters crowdsource stories on Twitter and other social media channels, which could provide other inroads for you to pitch ideas or offer yourself as a resource. Retweet their good work.
2. Don’t forget podcasts. Many journalists have podcasts in addition to the other reporting they do. Listen to the podcasts of those you wish to cultivate. Offer yourself as a guest, if appropriate.
3. Understand the culture of journalism. Don’t waste reporters’ time. Most reporters lead hectic, deadline-driven professional lives. They are often working on several stories simultaneously, with calls and emails out to numerous sources. Many of them work different shifts because newsrooms function around the clock. Some reporters have specific beats, or areas that they focus on exclusively, while others are on general assignment. Look up reporters before you work with them to find out what they cover. Check up on the media outlet where they work so you know if it has a political bent. Often, it’s best to pitch story ideas to reporters via email. That way, they can read your idea when they have time.
4. Compliment good work, correct mistakes. If you work with a reporter on a story that turns out well, make sure to drop a note letting him or her know you appreciated the piece. By the same token, if you see an error in a story, or if you are misquoted, try to get the mistake corrected during the live news cycle, if possible, but certainly no later than the next day.
5. Remember that good reporters are always working. As you become friendlier with journalists, it’s easy to let your guard down. Be careful not to say anything to a reporter that you would not want to see on tonight’s TV news or read in tomorrow’s newspaper. Even if you try to establish a ground rule that what you are saying is off the record, not all reporters will respect that agreement.
3. APA’s Media Referral Service
The Public Affairs Office within APA’s Communications Department has many longstanding relationships with journalists across the country, and even around the world. Reporters and producers contact APA daily looking for psychologist experts who can comment on or explain a broad range of topics. To assist these journalists, APA keeps a database of several thousand member psychologists who have indicated an interest in talking to media. These psychologists contact APA and fill out a form (www.apa.org/news/press/referrals) on which they indicate their areas of expertise, relevant publications and how much experience they have in working with journalists. This system enables APA to refer literally thousands of psychologists to reporters every year, resulting in news articles that reach a potential audience of billions annually.
4. How to Make an Interview a Success
If a reporter or producer contacts you for an interview, first you need to triage the request. This involves getting some basic information that will help you determine if this is an interview you want to do. You don’t need to say yes or no right away. Here’s what you need to find out first:
What is the name of the media outlet?
What is the name of the reporter? If you have been contacted by a TV or radio producer, find out who exactly would be interviewing you.
What is the story angle? If a journalist gives a very broad topic, such as, “I want to talk about mental health,” dig a little deeper. What aspect of mental health? Is there something happening in the news that is prompting the request to talk to you?
What is the reporter’s deadline?
If the medium is TV or radio, would you be live or pre-recorded? Will there be other guests and if so, who are they? For radio, is it a call-in show in which listeners can telephone to ask on-air questions? How long will the interview be?
Who else is the reporter talking to for the story?
Grant a request for an interview only if you want to give the interview. And don’t feel pressured to do it immediately; ask for some time so you can be prepared. You should be knowledgeable about the topic; it should be an area where you have professional expertise. Make sure to check into the outlet and determine that it’s reputable and has a reasonable audience size.
Your answers to these questions will also help you determine whether you should do the interview:
What do you want to accomplish with this interview?
What do you want to say about this subject?
What do you have to gain by doing it?
It’s often a good idea to ask a journalist for questions in advance. Not every reporter will agree to this, but it doesn’t hurt to try. For print reporters, you might be able to conduct the entire interview by email. This is often preferable, especially if the topic is complex or controversial. Providing written answers can minimize the chance that you will be misquoted or taken out of context – but remember to keep your answers brief and avoid jargon.
Once you have decided to do the interview, respond swiftly – within an hour, if possible. Reporters – especially in TV and radio – work on very tight deadlines, and they will often have requests out to multiple sources. If you are slow to reply, you are likely to lose the opportunity to be part of the story.
If you decide to decline, let the reporter or producer know this as soon as possible. All you need to say is, “No, thank you.” If it’s an area outside your expertise, say so – and recommend a colleague if you know someone who would be better suited for the story. You can also refer reporters to APA’s Public Affairs Office at [email protected] or 202 336–5700.
4.1 Know Your Message
Before you start an interview, know what you want to say on the topic. Prepare three to five points you want to make – and remember, they need to be succinct. Write them down and practice saying them. You might try them out on a colleague or friend if you have enough time.
Anecdotes or case studies are useful to support a point, but remember to keep them very short.
Put your conclusions first, and then use your supporting evidence. One way to help ensure that your main point(s) get used is to tee them up with phrases such as, “But what’s really important … ” or “What many people don’t know about X is … .”
If there are any controversial or easily misinterpreted aspects of your work, frame your answers in these areas beforehand.
Avoid jargon or terms that would not be immediately understood by a layperson. If you must use a technical term, be sure you define it as part of your answer.
For TV interviews, keep in mind that the average soundbite is about 9 seconds.
5. The Pre-Interview: Working with Radio and TV
Radio reporters will often telephone and want to do an interview right then and there. However, there will be a few minutes of preliminary talk between you and the reporter before he or she actually begins to record your comments (the reporter will let you know when the recording will start).
These preliminary few minutes are your pre-interview. They are your opportunity to find out from the reporter what the questions will be and to think about your answers.
Set up a mutually convenient time for the reporter to call you back and record the interview.
When you receive a call from a television producer, consider your conversation a pre-interview because the producer is effectively listening to hear if you are articulate, succinct and “give good quote.” It’s also important to find out if you will need to go to a TV studio, if the reporter and crew will come to you, or if the outlet wants to conduct the interview online, via applications such as Skype or Zoom.
6. Identifying Yourself
Establish how you want to be identified. If you want to be referred to as Dr. Smith, consistently refer to yourself as that. Most media representatives will try to accommodate you, but understand that some print publications have style rules that they follow (e.g., The Associated Press stylebook excludes psychologists from being identified as “Dr.” on first reference). You may ask the reporter to identify you as a psychologist first and then subsequently as doctor.
For TV appearances, it is fine to ask that the “super,” or “lower third” – which is what they call the on-screen text that identifies the speaker – call you Dr. So-and-so. TV reporters are far more amenable to this request but they might not think of it unless you ask.
7. Ethical Considerations
It is important to use your best judgment and to refer to APA’s Code of Ethics (www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx) in considering interview requests. While reporters have their own ethics codes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards), they are quite different from the canons followed by psychologists. Following are several common ethical challenges you may encounter in working with media and recommendations for handling:
1. Requests to interview or discuss your patients. As a general rule, APA discourages psychologists from engaging in these practices. Among the reasons: you cannot control what the media might ask or be sure the patient understands his/her right to refuse to answer or ability to consent. Even if a patient gives informed consent to participate, how might that affect your professional relationship? Rather than discussing a specific patient, you can speak generally based on clinical experience. Another alternative is to refer the reporter to a consumer or patient advocacy organization such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness or Mental Health America.
2. Interviews in relation to a high-profile or celebrity story. As you are presumably not treating the person in question, it’s important not to offer diagnoses or other opinions. (And if you were treating the person, you could not discuss him/her either because of confidentiality and HIPAA rules.) If you decide to do such an interview, explain up front that you would be speaking generally on the topic and not about the individual in question.
3. Appearances on reality TV or requests to record a therapy session. Similar to challenge 1 above, consider very carefully how this might affect the patient(s) and your professional reputation. If you are seriously considering such a request, it is advisable to consult with your professional liability carrier, as well as the APA Ethics Office and/or Public Affairs Office.
4. Paying to appear in print or on TV. While most media requests come from reporters or producers, you might be approached by the advertising department of a media outlet. If they suggest you buy space in their publication for an “advertorial” or that you will receive editorial coverage as a result of paying for advertising, consider the relevant portions of APA’s Ethics Code: “Psychologist do not compensate employees of press, radio, television or other communications media in return for publicity in a news item” and “A paid advertisement relating to psychologists’ activities much be identified or clearly recognizable as such” (American Psychological Association, 2017, Standard 5.02).
5. Radio or TV call-in shows and on-air diagnoses. This is another area that can veer into danger as it could appear to create a client/therapist relationship during the interaction. In such circumstances, it is advisable to make clear that you are not offering treatment or a diagnosis. You can offer general advice and tips and, where appropriate, encourage listeners or viewers to see a licensed psychologist or other licensed mental health professional.
8. Avoiding Other Pitfalls
8.1 “Off the Record” and “On Background”
It is almost never a good idea to try to go off the record with reporters. The phrase means that the reporter cannot use the information – but he or she is free to go hunting for someone who will confirm what you said on the record. The best advice is to say only what you want to see in print, and keep confidential information confidential.
Information offered on background can be used but the reporter cannot attribute to the source by name. You will often see news stories where facts are attributed to “a highly placed White House source” or “an official with knowledge of the situation,” for example. Again, it is probably best to stick to statements and information that you would be comfortable seeing in print with your name attached as the source. This is particularly true if you are inexperienced in working with the media.
9. Answer the Question You Wish You Were Asked
Sometimes, reporters will ask you questions you don’t wish to answer – not merely because you don’t know the answer, which is fine, but because the topic is sensitive or controversial or because answering it could create a problem for you either professionally or personally. These are times where you need to bridge away from the topic. In these cases, you can use certain proven phrases to redirect the conversation. These include:
“That’s an interesting thought, but what’s really important is … ”
“The real issue is … ”
“The bottom line is … ”
“Yes, but let’s get back to the main point, which is … ”
If you do not know the answer to a question, it’s fine to say so. If it’s a print interview and you need to look up the data or other information to answer the question, indicate that and let the reporter know you will get back to him or her with a response.
If a reporter asks you to provide them a client who is willing to be interviewed for a story, you are under no obligation to do so. Let the reporter know that you cannot violate patients’ confidentiality as it would be unethical and a violation of HIPAA (the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act).
Don’t repeat negatives or let reporters put words in your mouth. Reporters will sometimes ask questions in the negative (“Isn’t it true that you falsified the data in this study?”) to get you to repeat their accusation in denying it (“No, it is not true that I falsified data.”). Those types of answers often end up leading news stories and making the interviewee sound defensive. A better approach is to deflect and not buy into the supposition: “I have 20 years of experience doing psychological research and my work has been published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals.”
Don’t nod along or say, “Uh-huh” as reporters ask you questions. If you do, you will appear to be agreeing with something that possibly you don’t. Especially in radio and TV interviews, little sounds of agreement end up seeming like needless interruptions.
Don’t speculate. If you aren’t sure about a fact or figure, don’t guess. Even saying, “I think such-and-such” can get you in trouble. Stick to what you know.
Don’t respond, “That’s a great question.” This phrase is usually a stall for time. It is trite and over-used. A better strategy is to pause for a moment to collect your thoughts. Keep in mind that reporters are supposed to ask great questions, even if they often do not.
Ask to have your quotes read back to you. Print reporters will virtually never let you see their stories in advance, but many will agree to read your quotes to you before publication to make sure they are correct and in context. Especially if the topic is complicated, it can’t hurt to ask the reporter if he/she will run the quotes past you.
Don’t whiff on the softballs. If a reporter closes by asking, “Is there anything you would like to add?” take that opportunity to repeat your main point, or add something of substance. In other words, don’t just say no. Especially with TV interviews, that last question is sometimes the one where you give your most polished answer.
10. Building a Social Media Presence
An estimated two thirds of Americans say they get some or all of their news from social media (Reference Shearer and MatsaShearer & Matsa, 2018), making social media platforms an attractive option for psychologists trying to get their messages out. Unlike traditional media where you often need to rely on a reporter, editor, or producer to interview you and develop a story that includes your work or viewpoint, social media allows you to speak directly to your audience. The trick to success is to invest the time and effort to build a following and regularly post information that will keep them interested and engaged.
Having a social media presence can also make it easier for reporters to find you.
Some general guidelines to keep in mind when using social media:
Be brief yet clever. We live in an age of short attention spans. Make your message stand out with catchy phrases and images or video.
Be relevant. Think about the audience you are trying to reach. Does your message affect them? Tailor your content to appeal to their interests and behaviors.
Post often. Social media sites need to be updated regularly if you wish to build a following.
Reach out. Social media requires socializing, so don’t be afraid to engage with your audience, make connections, and network.
Be patient. Don’t expect instant results. It takes time to cultivate a network and following.
Build the audience you wish to reach. If you are interested primarily in reaching fellow psychologists, go where they are and talk to them as colleagues. If you want a more general audience, go where they are but tailor your messaging to keep them engaged. Find and use common hashtags to make your content findable by others.
11. Other Options: Op-Eds, Letters to the Editor
Op-ed is newspaper shorthand for opposite the editorial because, traditionally, opinion pieces have been printed on the page opposite the newspaper’s editorials. Op-eds are not news pieces, they are the writer’s opinion, usually on a timely topic and in an area where the writer has expertise or special knowledge. If you have an interesting opinion to share and can express it clearly and persuasively in about 750 words, you may reach millions of people, change minds, and perhaps even reshape public policy. Keep in mind that timeliness is everything in the news business so try to capitalize on what’s happening in the world – or your state or town – right now.
Have a news hook. News outlets are much more likely to accept a piece about a topic that’s in the news. Readers want your perspective on something they’re already reading about, so try to tie your topic to something already in the public eye.
Tailor your op-ed to the news outlet’s audience. If you’re submitting to a local newspaper, they’re typically looking for op-eds that are relevant to their community, so include local influences on or consequences of the issue. You can also emphasize your personal connections – many op-ed editors prefer authors who live locally or who have other local connections.
Consider a range of outlets and read the publications you want to write for. We all want to be published in The New York Times, but the chances of achieving that goal are extremely slim, given the volume of submissions they receive. Consider a range of outlets and get familiar with where good candidates are for you to submit your op-ed. Outlets like Psychology Today and HuffPost are always looking for content. Local or regional newspapers are also looking for diverse voices. Read the outlet to which you’re submitting to get a sense of its style, voice, and tone. Most newspapers have op-ed word limits of around 750 words, so you’ll have to be concise.
How to submit an article. Almost all outlets post guidelines about how they prefer to receive op-ed submissions. In general, they provide an email address where you can submit the article electronically, but check first. Always be sure to include your contact information, and say whether you have a head shot of yourself available (and to which you have the rights).
Write simply and don’t use jargon. Make your points clearly and concisely. Use short sentences and paragraphs. Think about how you would talk to your parents, grandparents, or next-door neighbor. Ask a non-academic friend to critique your draft and make sure it is free of confusing language, abbreviations, or unfamiliar terms.
Lead with your main point. In academia, scientists lay out the groundwork that supports their ideas before they articulate their conclusions. But in an op-ed, that order is reversed. Start with your key point and then unpack it for readers. You have to grab readers’ attention from the get-go and convince them that you have something to say.
Three points are usually the limit. Considering the amount of space you have, don’t try to cram in too much. By limiting the points you are trying to make, you will increase the likelihood that your work will be used because your writing will be tighter.
Finish strong. In addition to having a strong opening paragraph to hook readers, it’s important to summarize your argument in a powerful final paragraph. That’s because many casual readers scan the headline, skim the opening, and then read the final paragraph and byline.
Don’t sweat the headline. The news outlet will probably write its own headline based on space available. You can suggest one, but don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it.
Tell stories and go light on the data. Statistics are OK in moderation, but stories capture readers’ attention – most of us remember narratives and colorful details better than numbers. Bring your examples to life. Include details – what something smelled like, looked like, felt like. Embrace personal experiences. Use the active voice. (Not “Mistakes happened,” but “I made mistakes.”) And remember: You’re not writing an academic article.
Tell readers why they should care. Offer specific recommendations/solutions. Put yourself in the place of the busy person looking at your article. Ask aloud: “So what? Who cares?” You need to answer these questions. If you describe a problem, propose a solution. Don’t be satisfied with analysis. How should your town help those in deep poverty? How can we solve the problem of racism?
Make it exclusive. Don’t submit your op-ed to multiple outlets simultaneously, thinking that this will increase your chances of getting it published. Most newspapers insist on exclusivity. If you don’t hear back from an editor within a week of submitting, follow up with an email asking if a decision has been made because you’d like to submit the piece elsewhere. And don’t get discouraged – it’s not unusual to have to submit to more than one outlet.
12. Increase Your Reach
If your op-ed is published, share it on social media. Consider sending a copy to your legislator and/or other affected parties in your state or town.
One of the most widely read sections of the newspaper is the Letters to the Editor page. A letter to the editor allows readers to express their opinion on a hot topic, add an additional point of view regarding a recent article, or correct or clarify an inaccurate or misleading story. But because letters are so popular, and space is limited, there is a lot of competition to get letters published.
Here are some tips to help you write a good letter that will attract an editor’s attention:
Find out your targeted publication’s guidelines. These are usually posted on the newspaper’s or magazine’s website. Different publications have different rules regarding what they will accept, what contact information they need, and the maximum length. Find the guidelines and follow them to avoid being immediately rejected. If guidelines are not available, shorter is better. Many publications will not run letters longer than 250 words.
Be timely. Your letter has the best chance of being published if it is in reaction to a story or column in the paper. Respond as quickly as you can – the day the story runs is ideal, but certainly within a few days of the story’s or column’s publication. Editors are most likely to run one of the first letters they receive in response to a story.
Be specific and brief. Stick to one main point. If the publication wants no more than 250 words, and you made your point in 150, it’s OK to stop writing. If you want to write something that is longer than a few paragraphs, you will probably need to write a commentary piece, or op-ed.
Follow the publication’s style. Become familiar with the types of letters the paper publishes. If your letter is in response to a specific story, cite the headline and date within your letter. (“While many people admit that they are suffering from extreme stress, as reported in ‘Americans More Stressed than Ever’ (November 27), we must also recognize that … ”).
All news is local. Your personal experiences and expertise are often worth adding. So are local statistics or any details to localize the issue.
Use your expertise. If there is psychological science behind your main point, cite it. If your being a psychologist adds heft to your views, note it. If you are responding in a professional capacity – e.g., as a psychology professor or other official – note that, as long as you have clearance from your employer to use your affiliation.
Prepare to be contacted. The publication will want to verify that you are who you say you are and that you wrote the letter. Give your name, address, email address, and phone number. Newspapers do not publish anonymous letters.
Remember to proofread. While editors can and will edit your letter to correct grammar or cut down the length, make sure you catch any typos or other errors before sending it. And don’t be offended if the publication edits your letter; it’s not personal.
And finally, a few words of wisdom from renowned psychologist and media veteran Philip Zimbardo, PhD:
We need to learn how best to utilize the different kinds of media that are most appropriate for delivering specific messages to particular target audiences that we want to reach. Psychologists need to learn how to write effective brief press releases, timely op-ed newspaper essays, interesting articles for popular magazines, valuable trade books based on empirical evidence, and how best to give radio, TV, and print interviews. …
“Media smarts” also means realizing that to reach adolescents with a helpful message (that is empirically validated), a brief public service announcement on MTV or an article in a teen magazine will have a broader impact than detailed journal articles or even popular books on the subject. Thus, it becomes essential to our mission of making the public wiser consumers of psychological knowledge to learn how to communicate effectively to the media and to work with the media.
Open access