Misrepresentation in Media: The Correlation and Causation Dilemma

The other day, my younger brother told me that his academic grades have shown an unprecedented rise since our mother stopped berating him “for petty things”. While such a correlation may funnily work to benefit many school-going kids, likely, both the incidents- him scoring more and our mother reprimanding him less were influenced by a third variable at work: him studying more for a change! These instances of casually mistaking a correlation (a directional relationship between two things) for causation (the idea that a particular action is the reason for a separate occurrence) are pretty common.

Also Read: Exaggerated Headlines in Today’s Media Landscape

As we also see in the widely loved sitcom- “How I Met Your Mother”, Ted Mosby is seen wearing gloves while driving his car. Upon being asked about such unusual behavior, he says that studies suggest “in 99.9% highway accidents, the driver was not wearing gloves”. (Sarcasticbing341) Casting no doubt on the reliability of such studies, they don’t really prove to us that it was the mere absence of gloves that caused the road accidents.

While many, including Ted Mosby’s insight on correlation, are undoubtedly humorous, some thought-provoking contemporary issues must be voiced. With so many correlations in everyday life, it can be puzzling when determine which ones truly matter. The media reports research while research depends on the media’s reach to report findings. However, one may wonder what happens when research results get lost in translation. What happens when the focus shifts from reporting to hooking readers?

Media’s Impact On Causation & Correlation

Media articles aim for the highest engagement amusing the reader by adding a flare of fascination towards the subject at hand. Within the field of psychology, when the article’s reach is prioritized over authenticity, pseudo-psychology often spreads as a result of misinterpretation of actual psychological research. This is especially because it deals with sensitive subjects that may be prone to societal stigma such as relationships and divorce. One example of misrepresented research was John Gottman’s study on “the four horsemen” which are four behaviors that include contempt, criticism, stonewalling, and defensiveness (Gottman et al.). These behaviors were strongly correlated with divorce in marriages. While gathering considerable merit, the study proved a correlation that could only guarantee a 94% accurate prediction for divorce (Gottman et al.).

Also Read: West Bengal Board Class 10 question paper images leaked on social media

However, this did not prevent media outlets from embellishing these results in order to tempt vulnerable readers. These articles suggested how to make one’s marriage “divorce-proof” and taught people to avoid these four behaviors. (Barrowman; SheSaid) This suggests a causational relationship between these behaviors and divorce, leading the audience to perceive it as factual. These emotionally grappling phrases are often used within titles of media articles to hook the audience which blurs the lines between correlation and causation.

Causation Misunderstandings In Film And Advertising

Apart from divorce, the construct of attraction and the thrill around decoding is ever prevalent in reports of psychological research in the media. Many films depict women fawning over a man and his sweaty t-shirt popularly shown in rom-coms and dramas. This popularization extends from unrealistic romcoms to even real-life examples of partners exchanging hoodies as a social trend. The “boyfriend t-shirt” as we call it today is widespread to the extent that the style has even been adopted into a fashion statement.

The origin of the phenomenon can be traced back to another study on human relationships and attraction, Wedekind et al (1995). The study required women to smell the men’s smelly t-shirts and rate their attractiveness based on the smell. The study claimed a correlation between the attractiveness of men’s scent to women suggesting that women prefer the scent of MHC dissimilar men. (Wedekind et al.)

However, words like “major histocompatibility” can be technical, but intimidating to the majority of the audience. Although the conclusion is made regarding MHC dissimilarity, many cite this paper as evidence for pheromones.

Also Read: A Report released by WHO on the youngster’s mental health & digital media

Pheromones are chemical substances released by animals to communicate with the same members of the species. While there is proof that pheromones are present in animals, they have not been proven to be present in humans. Despite this, many cite Wedekind et al (1995) as causational proof of pheromones being present in human beings. How might an average reader find out such intricacies without thorough research though?

From Screen to Reality

Movies and advertisements have considerably used Wedekind et al (1995) as proof that smell causes attraction even when one may not cause the other. Popular media sources such as PBS cite the study and go on to use animal studies examples to explain the causation between pheromones and attraction. (PBS) This misrepresentation is also exaggerated in popular movies such as Oceans 13 and Black Widow, suggesting that misunderstanding between causation and correlation is rather common and can result in widespread misrepresentations of information. (idle Stoev; VideoClubRandom)

Also Read: How the media influence aggression?

Misconceptions in Media and Research

While correlational studies may raise concern in terms of reliability, their importance in research is undeniable. The misrepresentation of research results conducted by Gottman and Wedekind proves that while some correlations may entice us to believe a certain phenomenon, it does not necessarily mean one factor influences the other. In terms of relationships, media articles can create a slippery slope leading to absurd generalizations while dealing with sensitive subjects. With rapid globalization and reliance on media for information, it is increasingly essential for readers to be aware of the distinction between correlation and causation.