Soapbox for Media Psychology

The posting August 13 (Defining Media Psychology) is part of a longer discussion on creating a definition for and enhancing the awareness of the emerging field of Media Psychology as part of a group project at Fielding Graduate University. (I might add that Fielding is the first university in the country to offer a Ph.D. in Media Psychology.) This goal has arisen for two primary reasons. The first is the difficulty of trying to explain “media psychology” to anyone not in the program without waxing on for an indeterminate amount of time and risking the glazed-eye effect. The second is to increase the acceptance of media psychology as a legitimate specialization of psychology and a rigorous academic program within our own institution. We frequently feel that even our own clinical psych faculty and students view the media psych doctoral program as “psychology-light” and/or associated solely with broadcast media.

This group is developing a simple questionnaire to attempt to measure the perceptions and awareness of media psychology, its breadth, applications, misgivings, etc. and whether these perceptions are localized or more broadly held. We hope to solicit participation from within Fielding as well as APA Division 46 (Media Psychology). We hope, also, to be able to compare some of the results with the results of the 1998 Division 46 Task Force Report on Media Psychology by Bernie Luskin and Lilli Friedland.

I agree with a colleague that a field is often defined by what those in it do. Interestingly, it is probably because of the power of media that the perception of media psychologists as working in the broadcast area is more popularly held than, say, developing education software or media-based therapeutic aids. I also agree that many in communications are already working solidly within the field of psychology. (Ah, but did they have to take Theories of Personality or Psychological Assessment?) It could, and has been, argued that it is impossible to do any form of mediated communicating without involving psychology. And as well-known scholars note, we have nothing to lose and much to gain by opening our minds to other concepts and theories no matter their academic or experiential origin. Too much of the world suffers from solipsism much to our detriment, in my opinion.

Our goal in this particular project, I think, it to learn and understand the current metaphors, so we can develop an approach to tell a bigger story. Media psychology is an emerging field. Technology and communications, or however you want to describe the far reaches of media, are becoming the foundation of the global economy. Peter Drucker’s knowledge workers are only part of it. These changes will impact the way the entire world lives and works. Knowledge is fluid. Computers will be the new wrench because technology is the only way to increase productivity, conserve oil, and create a growing career path workers not only in the U.S. but in all countries. (China knows this and is investing in technology and education. The U.S., however, spend its time in the FCC regulating technology and fighting over who gets to charge the consumers for internet content, totally missing the point.) Opportunities around the world will be visible to people who have never seen them before. Who better than psychologists to play a central role in the broad ramifications and applications of this evolving media? They, at least, will consider how people learn, think, and act before designing everything from products to policy. But only if the role of the media psychologist is better understood.

I was, perhaps, somewhat flip in my appraisal of Div. 46 name change. My reaction centered on my belief that psychology is fundamental to communications and interactive technologies, not separate from them. I want to see media psychology elevated in stature and public awareness so that people think of it as broadly applicable and serious training for understanding (or trying to) human behavior and mental processes as we go about our lives in this media-rich environment.

Appearing in popular media is a double-edged sword; it can be both publicly validating as well as leaving one slightly suspect. Is it jealousy? Do we have such a low opinion of content on broadcast media that it rubs off on us? Whatever it is, if that taint of popular media co-opts or restricts the working definition of media psychology, and hence its application, we all lose.