I'm taking a bit of a different tact this time, in that the paper I'm discussing isn't a research paper. It's not quite a standard review paper, either, but it draws on psychology research to present ideas for application. It's also a great paper for showing the effect that psychology can have on different fields, and vice-versa. Economics, public policy, public health, and sociology all contribute to the understanding of the problem of youth violence. Research from all the different areas of psychology – developmental, cognitive, abnormal, etc. -- touch on similar areas as these other disciplines, and examining the intersections of these fields.So this paper is about a very serious topic, youth violence. However, just reading the title of this paper it might seem to be somewhat trivial. I mean, coming up with metaphors for what youth violence is like? That's not science, right? Does that even matter? However, if you've read the paper (and I hope you have) you'll see that Dodge tries to make the case that finding an accurate metaphor, or the right frame, for a problem is critically important from a public health and policy standpoint. Psychologists know a lot about what contributes to youth violence and what doesn't, but that really doesn't make a difference unless that information ends up in the hands of people who are in a position to make changes to the root causes.
Obviously not everyone is a scientist, and even if you are a scientist that doesn't mean you're always objective and thorough in evaluating evidence. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky are some of the major names when it comes to theories behind how people use (or don't use) reasoning to think about issues. For instance, they developed what's called “Prospect theory,” which looks at how people view gains and losses in making decisions. Instead of being purely rational systems, which would decide whichever way had even a slight shift towards a net gain, Kahneman and Tversky found that people view a loss as being much more significant than a comparable gain, and will make decisions accordingly. In fact, it appears that people aren't comfortable making a risky decision unless the potential for a gain is two times the potential for a loss.
Which brings us back to framing: how you set up an argument has a major influence on whether or not someone accepts and acts on a position. Dodge lists several failed metaphors – metaphors that either inaccurately portray youth violence or haven't gained traction in the public mind – as well as four recommendations of his own for metaphors that might be more successful. A critical aspect of his suggested metaphors is that most of them accentuate the potential losses if the problems aren't addressed; if you don't take preventative measures to lower your blood pressure, you are likely to develop heart disease, for instance.
This isn't the only issue, of course. Dodge describes several other considerations that stem from psychological theory and research, such as analogical transfer and comprehension, but I'll let you read about those on your own. Here's a question to think about, though: do you think that a single metaphor is adequate to capture and describe a complex phenomenon like youth violence for the public? For instance, cultural and subgroup differences might be important in determining whether or not a frame is accepted or rejected. On the other hand, it may be that presenting multiple frames has unintended consequences, such as reduced confidence in any solutions that are presented.
No comments:
Post a Comment