Sunday, April 21, 2002
|
Sunday, April 21, 2002 |
|
About 'research' By MARY JANE HOLT
One of the major networks reminded me once more, just recently, how much of our money is spent on research that defies description. It has always amazed me that conclusions could be reached about the human race by investigating, questioning or "following" as few as ten individuals. As I recall news releases that have crossed my desk over the past decade or so, the numbers are usually more than a hundred but considerably less than a thousand. However, a "conclusive study" of 15 or 20 is not unheard of. While scanning a number of news releases this morning, concerning recent research programs, I found news of an unusual national experiment on American emotions conducted by Carnegie Mellon University scientists that reveals a national psyche deeply influenced in opposite ways by anger and fear and enormously impacted by media coverage of events post 9-11. The scientists, all experts in studying the way people think and behave, were able to quickly pull together an experiment that studied the emotions and perceptions of the risks of terrorism of nearly 1,000 American women, men and teens following the terrorist attacks on America. I understand the experiment results may have implications for better understanding of consumer behavior, the role of the media, and public support for the war on terrorism. According to one of the researcher, the emotional responses of Americans "clearly influence everything from future support for military action to decisions to travel." (Really, now?) It seems the Carnegie Mellon team drew four major conclusions from its study: 1) Americans who experience anger are more optimistic about the future, less likely to take precautionary actions, and more likely to favor aggressive policy responses than those who experience fear. (Yeah?) 2) Individuals see themselves as less vulnerable than the "average American," while still perceiving strikingly high personal risk in the wake of September 11. (Does this tell me something?) 3) Men experience more anger about terrorism than women, leading them to be more optimistic than women. (Remember, a sampling of less than 1,000 individuals led to this conclusion.) 4) Media portrayals of the terrorist attacks strongly influence emotional responses, producing anger in some instances and fear in others. (Surprised?) I don't know whose money was spent by the Carnegie Mellon researchers, but look for a few tax dollars to go in this research direction soon since, scientifically, the experiment plows new ground. Scientists say that this is the first time that the effects of emotion have been studied in a national sample, using the random assignment to conditions of fear or anger. The experiment also underscored the profound impact that media coverage has on the American public. (Imagine that!) Because emotions often affect economic decisions and the formation of policies, research team members stressed the importance of undertaking further studies like this one. (See what I mean?) "Citizens need to understand these processes in order to apply their hearts and minds to what might be a protracted struggle with the risks of terror," said Carnegie Mellon University Professor of Social and Decision Sciences Baruch Fischhoff, a member of the scientific team. Such conclusions were reached after this national field experiment with almost 1,000 American citizens, ages 13 to 88. Using WebTVs supplied by the research corporation Knowledge Networks, the project initially asked respondents about their reactions only nine days after the attacks. Eight weeks later, using TV imagery and newspaper reports from major media organizations broadcast on the Web TVs, the researchers surveyed the same people again. For this second survey, half of the sample was exposed to a fear-inducing media clip, while the other half was exposed to an anger-inducing clip. Carnegie Mellon researchers found that Americans randomly assigned to the "fear condition" perceived greater risks from terrorism, while those in the "anger condition" perceived less risk. Brief reminders of media stories elicited emotions that shaped Americans' perceptions of their own level of risk. Stories that induced fear increased their perception that they would be hurt in a terrorist attack, while stories that induced anger reduced their perception of personal risk. Fear and anger not only produced different risk perceptions, but also different precautionary responses and different policy preferences. The scientific team contends that these findings have important implications for the health of the U.S. economy and public support for the war against terrorism. (Tell me, do you think such research takes place in order to better understand the human mind, or to be better able to manipulate it? Or maybe there is just a lot of money out there that folks are looking for unique ways to spend?)
|
||