Many Skeptics, Daniel Loxton and Massimo Pigliucci (So you think you’re a skeptic, don’t you?) come to mind, have discussed the need to restrict one’s public discussions in the name of Skepticism to topics within one’s area of expertise. In the absence of such expertise, we should only convey to the public a scientific consensus, if one exists. So how is a non-scientist or someone working in a different field supposed to know whether a scientific consensus exists and/or what that consensus is?

Well, that is what I had initially intended to write about today. I am afraid this post goes a little off-track, but it still covers important ground.

This post began as a set of corrections to some of the misleading statements in a recent post by Rebecca Watson in which she points out what she believes is wrong with Ben Radford’s use of an article to support his argument that images of thin women in media do not “encourage” eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa. A friend alerted me to this post, knowing that I participated in a discussion on Facebook on the matter.

In her post, Rebecca accuses Ben of cherry-picking and quoting out of context. In a response to Rebecca , Ben defends himself quite well regarding the accusations that he misrepresented the authors (there were two), but I think that there is a lot missing from the discussion that is important and, in fact, this is shaping up to be a great example of why organized skepticism is needed and why more working scientists should get involved.

First, I share Rebecca’s concern that readers will assume that Botta’s findings support Ben’s claim. Ben writes,

Rebecca is assuming that the quotes were selected as representing the conclusions of those particular studies from which they were cited. I made no such claim.

This is true, but Rebecca assumed what most laypersons are likely to assume. It is far too easy to mislead when discussing complex topics such as this one. Evidence to support one’s assertions is difficult, too, when the assertion is that a claim is untrue. I think that Ben’s argument would have been better served by a more detailed discussion of the complexity of the issue and, perhaps, a quote from a recent review of the literature. Those are difficult to come by, but they provide the “big picture” view to which he referred.

Quoting from the introductions of research reports as Ben did is never a good idea, in my opinion, because it is hearsay. However, it is also problematic when people assume that a researcher’s conclusion can support an argument; it can’t. What counts as evidence is a finding.

For example, what prompted me to participate in the Facebook conversation was Rebecca’s comment:

Study after study shows that straight women and gay men develop eating disorders because our society tells them that they must be thin and pretty in order to attract a man (eg: [link to study by Siever]), and that attracting a man should be their #1 goal in life.

The study to which she linked found correlations among disordered eating, body dissatisfaction, the importance placed on physical attractiveness, and sexual orientation by gender. How that was translated into a causal chain involving societal influences and personal goals is quite alarming, but the paper itself provides some clues. The discussion is longer than any other section of the paper, less than parsimonious, and somewhat speculative. This is one of the reasons that researchers cite and discuss findings, not the conclusions other scientists draw.

As I explained to Rebecca,

Correlation does not equal cause.

Causal conclusions are extremely difficult to draw when you cannot randomly assign subjects to conditions and you cannot randomly assign people to be a straight women or gay men. It takes massive amounts of converging evidence from a variety of studies which eliminate rival hypotheses.

So to say that “straight women and gay men develop eating disorders because our society tells them [anything]” is a very bold statement that is not supported by the evidence. It is certainly not supported by the study to which you linked.

But the confirmation bias leads people to follow their current beliefs and demand to be proven wrong. For example, Rebecca ended her post with,

In the Facebook thread, I genuinely wanted to see what evidence actually supported the idea that the link between media and body image is a myth, but I got nothing from Radford or anyone observing the thread. So, I’m forced to continue to side with what appears to be the consensus opinion: the media’s portrayal of the thin ideal most likely negatively impacts the body image of those who process those images poorly.

First, the “who process those images poorly” part is a new assertion and one that reveals her understanding (or lack of understanding) of the findings. What does it mean to “process images poorly” anyway? She initially wrote, “processing them the wrong way”. Is there are “right way” and a “wrong way”? Botta’s variable of “image processing” involves whether the individual questions the weight of characters as realistic, whether they believe they are realistic, and whether they compare themselves to the characters. There’s no right or wrong here.

What’s more important is her comment that she wanted evidence that the claim is untrue. As I explained to Rebecca on Facebook, that’s not how skepticism works. The burden of evidence is on those making the claim, not those refuting it.

This post is becoming much longer than I’d intended, so I will skip criticism of Posavac’s article and Rebecca’s misrepresentation of the findings. Instead I’d like to discuss the Botta article as it seems to be at the center of this battle. My interpretation of it is quite different from Rebecca’s.

Some background that I found interesting: Botta is not a psychologist, but a professor of communications. Now, expertise can come from many places. Formal education in an area is not a guarantee that one is an expert (although, given no other information, it is much more likely that someone with a PhD in a given area knows that area well than someone without a PhD in that area). Likewise, one can gain expertise through years informal study and practice. My point, though, is that we should not assume that Botta is an expert on eating disorders.

What is more telling about this particular article is the journal in which it was published: the Journal of Communication. It is not published in the psychological literature where psychologists are likely to see and criticize it. A communications journal is not an inappropriate venue for this article, however, because it is not about eating disorders.

This 11 year old study is about body image.

In fact, Botta used the EDI (Eating Disorder Inventory), a well-established, valid, reliable inventory of disordered eating. However, she chose to use only those sub-scales related to body image disturbance, thus making generalization to disordered eating impossible. She did include a measure of “bulimic behaviors”. It’s really very puzzling. I cannot think of an explanation for this, but one would not be relevant. What is relevant: she did not measure disordered eating with the exception of “bulimic behaviors” and references to other eating disorders as a conclusion to this study would be a GROSS overgeneralization.

There are many, many studies regarding both immediate and long-term effects of media exposure on body image and the findings are not consistent, particularly those examining television viewing. Of course, the quality, methodology, and generalizability of those studies are not consistent, either. As always, null findings are likely to be underreported.

There is no scientific consensus that “ideal thin” media is a direct causal factor in body dissatisfaction. Skepticism of any claim to this effect is certainly warranted.

This area of research is fraught with methodological problems similar to the study of acupuncture and psychotherapy. Body image measures rely on self-report and studies involving media imagery make hypotheses obvious to the participants. What’s more, most studies involve short experiments from which generalizations about real-world effects are extremely difficult.

What the massive body of literature on body image suggests: person variables (characteristics of individuals) such as self-esteem (Jarry & Kossert, 2007), attachment orientation (Greenwood & Pietromonaco, 2004), neuroticism (Daily & Buunk, 2009), and even other components of personality (Roberts & Good, 2010) have direct effects on body image and/or mediate/moderate the relationship between media and body image. In other words, any relationship which exists between media exposure and body image is complex and, at the very least, indirect.

But that is not even what Ben was talking about in his original piece, nor is it what Rebecca started to discuss (given the title of her post). The topic was the question of whether the “popular view” that exposure to images of thin women promotes eating disorders is myth.

Even a surface treatment of that question has me scratching my head a bit given the nearly equally accepted “popular view” that there is an epidemic of obesity in this country.

While body image is highly correlated with eating disorders – it is even one of the diagnostic criteria – there is no evidence that poor body image, or even the desire to be thin, causes eating disorders. Stating that eating disorders are a direct result of wanting to be thin is a lot like saying that obsessive-compulsive disorder is the result of wanting to be organized or clean. Assuming a causal link exists, the direction of cause could easily be the opposite of what people think.

But let’s assume that what we’re really talking about is body image and not eating disorders. Do Botta’s findings really refute Ben’s assertions? Given that he did not discuss the study in detail, I am not sure if Ben knows, but let’s take a look.

Botta’s study is a complex analysis of a number of self-report measures which involves a large number of statistical tests. As such, some significant relationships are likely to occur by chance and it is important to consider the specific hypotheses when interpreting them. I’ve noted where Botta reported significant relationships that I believe should be considered with caution. That said, here is a list of what she found:

Factors in whether participants endorsed a thin ideal

What did NOT predict endorsement of a thin ideal:

• total television exposure
• exposure to “thin dramas” [shows like Melrose Place and Beverly Hills, 90210 – did I mention this study was more than decade old?]
• the extent to which participants reported questioning characters’ bodies when watching television

What DID predict endorsement of a thin ideal:

• the extent to which participants compared themselves to the characters
• the extent to which participants viewed the characters as realistic

Factors in body dissatisfaction

What did NOT predict body dissatisfaction:

• total television exposure
• exposure to “thin dramas”
• the extent to which participants reported questioning characters’ bodies when watching television
• the extent to which participants viewed the characters as realistic

What DID predict body dissatisfaction:

• Body Mass Index
• endorsement of the thin ideal
• the extent to which participants compared themselves to the characters

Botta also reported a significant interaction of endorsement of a thin ideal and total television exposure, but with a p-value of .03. Given the large number of tests produced in this kind of analysis, it pays to be a little more conservative and consider only those less than .01 as significant. Likewise, she reported that ethnicity predicted body dissatisfaction, however, she only reports the p-value as less than .05.

Factors in drive for thinness

What did NOT predict drive for thinness:

• total television exposure
• exposure to “thin dramas”
• the extent to which participants reported questioning characters’ bodies when watching television

What DID predict drive for thinness:

• Body Mass Index
• endorsement of the thin ideal
• the extent to which participants compared themselves to the characters

Again, Botta also reported that viewing the characters as realistic was related to drive for thinness, but with a p-value of less than .05.

Factors in bulimic “action tendencies”

What did NOT predict bulimic tendencies:

• total television exposure

What DID predict bulimic tendencies:

• Body Mass Index
• endorsement of the thin ideal
• the extent to which participants compared themselves to the characters

Again, Botta also reported that exposure to “thin dramas” predicted bulimic tendencies, but not in the direction you might think. The more they reported being exposed to “thin dramas”, the LESS they reported engaging in bulimic behaviors. Regardless, with a p-value of less than .05, I don’t believe it needs to be explained as anything more than an odd finding. In addition, there was an interaction of thin ideal endorsement with the questioning of characters that was difficult to fully interpret or explain.

So, do Botta’s findings support the claim that media images cause eating disorders?

Not. At. All.

Do they suggest that media images cause eating disorders?

Nope.

Do they suggest that media images cause body dissatisfaction?

Again, nope.

Do they suggest that media images teach women that thin is best?

No.

What do her findings suggest?

The amount of media exposure, even specifically to thin characters, is not directly related to whether women think that thin is best, body dissatisfaction, drive for thinness, or bulimic tendencies.

If her findings are similar to those of other researchers (and they are), they actually kinda support Ben’s assertion [we’re still in the “what if we were talking about body image” state].

What Botta’s findings also suggest: Women who compare themselves to characters on TV are more likely to think that “thin is best” than women who do not compare themselves to those characters. Also, thin ideal endorsement and current BMI are related to body dissatisfaction (not a surprise), drive for thinness, and bulimic behaviors.

So, it seems to me that what these findings tell us, beyond “media is not the problem”, is that women who are unhappy with their bodies engage in behaviors which are likely to make them even more unhappy. They have warped views of what is ideal and compare themselves to people who, in their judgment, fit that view. How this equates to “every word of it disagrees with Radford’s assertion that media images have no relationship to body image” I don’t know.

I think it is plain, though, that the issue is complex and so is the literature about it. It is fairly easy for the average human to view this kind of literature as supporting their current view of the world. It is also human to defend that view, even when it is not supported, and to ignore explanations of why they should be skeptical. That’s one of the reasons we need Skeptics (like Ben Radford).

Some References

Botta, R. (1999). Television images and adolescent girls’ body image disturbance Journal of Communication, 49 (2), 22-41 DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02791.x

Dailey, S.E., & Buunk, A.P. (2009). Female body dissatisfaction after exposure to overweight and thin media images: The role of body mass index and neuroticism Personality and Individual Differences, 47 (1), 47-51 : 10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.044

Greenwood, D.N., & Pietromonaco, P.R. (2004). The interplay among attachment orientation, idealized media images of women, and body dissatisfaction: A social psychological analysis in The psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion. Shrum, L. J. (Ed.), 291-308 Other: 2003-88226-016

Jarry JL, & Kossert AL (2007). Self-esteem threat combined with exposure to thin media images leads to body image compensatory self-enhancement. Body image, 4 (1), 39-50 PMID: 18089250

Roberts, A., & Good, E. (2010). Media images and female body dissatisfaction: The moderating effects of the Five-Factor traits Eating Behaviors, 11 (4), 211-216 DOI: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2010.04.002

Siever, M. (1994). Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62 (2), 252-260 DOI: 10.1037//0022-006X.62.2.252

Dragon*Con is now just over three weeks away and the schedule is as solid as these things get, so I’m giving you the highlights as promised. I will be one BUSY Skeptic! [Edit: By the way, Dragon*Con will take place over Labor Day weekend, September 3rd through 6th.]

For those who have not heard of it, Dragon*Con an enormous SciFi/Fantasy convention held in Atlanta over Labor Day weekend. Skeptrack, the skeptic fan track, is the brainchild of Derek Colonduno and Robynn McCarthy (A.K.A., “Swoopy”), hosts of Skepticality. As usual, they work their butts off and many skepticism activists do their best to make that work count by participating in talks and panels designed to spread the critical thinking bug to geeks everywhere.

Dragon*Con is very different from conventions like The Amaz!ng Meeting, and not just the costumes. TAM is, at heart, a Dog-and-Pony-Show for skepticism. At Dragon*Con activists do the work of activism and education. There are a number of fan tracks, including a Podcasting Track directed by Swoopy, and Space & Science Tracks, who work closely with Derek and Swoopy. In addition to the obvious Star Wars Track, Trek Track, and Whedonverse Track, there are literature, costuming, and writing tracks. There are also two tracks related to Skeptrack: Paranormal Track and X Track.

The former is self-explanatory, I hope, and this year I will be attending a workshop on that track by Ben Radford on investigating the paranormal (details below). I am very interested in the methods used for this kind of thing as they differ a great deal from the kind of work that I do.

Last year most of Skeptrack was streamed live, but there were some problems. I believe they will try this again this year with, hopefully, fewer headaches. If so, I will provide a link on Facebook and Twitter as soon as it is available, which might be as late as the first day.

If you are attending or planning to stream it live, here is where and when you can find me:

Skepticism, Scams, & Consumerism: Ranging from psychology behind sales to consumer rights, we discuss how as skeptics we identify and challenge dodgy products and pseudosciences.
Time: Friday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I will be moderating this panel and talking about the psychology of purchasing behavior. Panelists include Matt Lowry, Rachael Dunlop, Richard Saunders, & Tom Merritt.

The Calculus Diaries – Lose Weight, Win in Vegas, Survive a Zombie Apocalypse: Fun examples of math applications in the real world and why it’s important to understand even just the basic concepts.
Time: Friday 5:30pm – 6:30pm
Location: Hilton 202
This panel is on the Science Track and will mostly be the work of Jennifer Ouellette, whose book with that title will be released August 1st, just in time for me to read it on the plane. As a statistician, I hope I can contribute something worthwhile to the discussion.

How Your Brain Works, and How to Fool It: Our perception of reality is driven more by expectation, belief, and desire than by sensory input. An examination of how we fool ourselves.
Time: Friday 8:30pm – 9:30pm
Location: Hilton 202
NOTE: This is not the original title and I think it is a little misleading. The original title was “What You See Is [not always] What You Get (or WYSInaWYG)”. The topic is not about how to fool your brain, but how your brain fools you. I believe Jason Schneiderman plans to join me and would be a welcome addition.

Skepticism and Sexuality: When do we get skeptical about sex, the media? When alien cults want to save African clitorises, this panel is here to discuss the facts.
Time: Friday 10:00pm – 11:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I will bring with me some of the most interesting myths about the psychology of sex, courtesy of my friend a colleague who teaches the best course on the topic evah. My fellow panelists include Heidi Anderson, Ben Radford, Kylie Sturgess, & Ginger Campbell. Desiree Schell will moderate.

Naturally Skeptical? The Psychology Behind Being a Skeptic: A round table discussion on the factors that do (and don’t!) contribute to becoming a questioner of the paranormal and pseudoscientific.
Time: Saturday 10:00am – 11:00am
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I will once again take the reigns as moderator and lead a discussion of the psychology of critical thinking and open-mindedness. I am very pleased that Scott Lilienfeld has decided to join us. He has written quite a bit about pseudoscience in our field, including his latest collaboration, 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior. Other panelists, who are not exactly chopped liver themselves, include D.J. Grothe, Matt Lowry, Kylie Sturgess, & Pamela Gay.

Mathematical Modeling Pitfalls: Model don’t always accurately reflect messy reality, particularly where human behavior is concerned. Algorithms can only mimic human behavior, and there is a lot of room for bias and error as a result.
Time: Sunday 11:30am – 12:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I am not actually on the schedule for this, but Jennifer Ouellete invited me to contribute when I mentioned my love-hate relationship with modeling and my frustrations in teaching that models are not what they model. If I get it together in time, I will present what I think is a cool visual of what you can do with a simple model that shows how they can be effective science. Well, I think it’s cool, anyway!

Raising Skeptical Geeks: A few known skeptical parents talk about issues and how they a raising their kids to be better rational thinkers.
Time: Sunday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton Crystal Ballroom
This is sure to be the highlight of my Dragon*Con experiences as I love to talk about my kids. I am collecting stories and funny quotes to share. I am also thrilled that fellow panelists will be three good friends and one of the geekiest dads (by all appearances) around: Daniel Loxton, Heidi Anderson, Desiree Schell, & Adam Savage.

Skepticism and Education: JREF now has a Director of Educational Programs – what else is being done out there and how can skeptics help educate the next generation?
Time: Sunday 4:00pm – 5:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Of course this is on my list of favorites as well as one of the most important of the panels on which I will serve. Other panelists include D.J. Grothe, Michael Blanford, Daniel Loxton, Pamela Gay, & Matt Lowry. Kylie Sturgess will moderate.

Women: Myths, Feminism And Skepticism: Puzzled by feminine mystique? Searching for your ‘Inner Velma’? Join investigators on gender, pop-culture and what science REALLY tells us!
Time: Monday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Oh, so many myths, so little time! This topic is rich and Heidi Anderson, Desiree Schell, Pamela Gay, Kylie Sturgess, and myself are looking forward to a fact-packed dicussion.

Skeptrack Sign-Off Wrap Up and Feedback: Join the skeptrack guests and speakers for a discussion about how things went, last minute news, and how we can make things better next year!
Time: Monday 4:00pm – 5:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Unfortunately, I will not make this discussion and also make my flight home. I am sure, though, that there will be much greatness in the room.

That wraps up my obligations. Here are just a few the events I am looking forward to attending as an audience member (if possible – the * indicates an event I cannot attend due to a scheduling conflict, but recommend):

CSI: Paranormal
Time: Friday 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Joe Nickell

*Skeptically Speaking Live!
Time: Friday 8:30pm – 9:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Desiree Schell

Skeptical Coffee Talk
Time: Saturday 8:30am – 9:30am
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: James Randi, D.J. Grothe, & Joe Nickell

Paranormal Investigation Workshop
Time: Saturday 1:00pm – 3:30pm
Location: Sheraton
Presenters/Panel Members: Ben Radford

*I Very Much Doubt That!
Time: Saturday 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Location: Hilton Crystal Ballroom
Presenters/Panel Members: James Randi

*Mystery Investigators Children’s Show
Time: Saturday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Richard Saunders & Rachael Dunlop

Monster Talk Podcast Live
Time: Saturday 4:00pm – 5:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Blake Smith & Ben Radford

Skeptic Zone Live!
Time: Sunday 7:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Richard Saunders, Rachael Dunlop, Kylie Sturgess, & Brian Brushwood

Skepticism 2.0: Blogging
Time: Monday 11:30am – 12:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Daniel Loxton, Rebecca Watson, Brian Dunning, Rachael Dunlop, & Kylie Sturgess

Martial Arts Mysticism
Time: Monday 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: John Clements

You can find the full schedules as they become available on the track websites. I hope to see you there!

Activism is not easy. It is a lot like teaching. We do not do it for the money. That would be crazy, since most of us actually pay for the privilege of being activists and teachers, well, let’s just say they’re under-appreciated. We do it because we love it. When a job is intrinsically rewarding, it is hard to know when to stop. And we still need to eat and pay our rent/mortgages, just like everyone else.

It’s the middle of conference season. This year I have not increased the number of conferences I am attending, but I have stepped up my involvement a bit. As I do every year, I attended the Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association and, although I had a terrible trip, my students were great, the research we presented was interesting, and I saw some amazing wildlife.

Coming up soon is The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 (TAM8), the annual gathering hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation – this year the Skeptics Society and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) will co-sponsor. I usually like to relax and watch the talks at TAM, but this year I’ve volunteered to help out with the Teacher’s Workshop on Thursday as part of my “duties” on a general advisory panel for JREF. To cap off the trip, I will be giving a talk during the Sunday morning session titled Skepticism as a Gateway to Science Literacy.

Since last fall I have been hoping to bring some students to TAM8 in hopes that they will discover how important, fulfilling, and fun activism can be. This meeting is the largest of its kind and very enriching for a skeptic new to the cause. It is a fantastic place to network and bond with like-minded people. However, we got a late start getting Woo Fighters off the ground and fund raising has been difficult. Students rarely have the funds to attend multiple conferences and they must attend academic ones as part of their education. So, we are asking for your help. Every little bit counts. Some very dedicated people have been extremely generous, and I am hoping that the greater community will show us that you understand the need to promote the efforts of young, qualified scientists to become tomorrow’s science communicators by donating $5 (more is welcome and needed, of course, but the gesture is significant itself) to helping these students get there this year. I think that if we can get them off the ground, they can take it from here.

Read the post, or just click on the button at the bottom of this post to help out.

Finally, I will be participating in Skeptrack at Dragon*Con again this year. The tentative schedule looks like a winner with panels on Shopping Skeptically, Skeptical Sex, and the usual science stuff. I am particularly looking forward to participating as a student in Ben Radford’s workshop on investigating paranormal phenomena.

I hope to see some of you at TAM8 or Dragon*Con this year. Please say hi if you see me!