Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2007, pp. 5--14

Psychological Research and Public Policy: Bridging

the Gap

John F. Dovidio∗Yale University

Victoria M. Esses

University of Western Ontario

Opportunities for communicating psychological findings beyond the disciplineare limited and often under-rewarded. In this article, we discuss reasons whypsychological research often fails to be communicated beyond the discipline, andwe provide suggestions for what needs to be changed in order to bridge this gap.Specifically, we identify barriers to communicating beyond the discipline, and wenote that more effectively and broadly disseminating knowledge requires a differentstyle than conveying information within the profession. We further illustrate howpsychology offers unique perspectives and information that are of considerablevalue to lay audiences and policy makers. We conclude by articulating the potentialbenefits for society and psychology of efforts and venues whose explicit intention isto understand social problems and inform policy through the psychological studyof social issues.

Psychology is a misunderstood field. When meeting a psychologist for thefirst time, the predominant reaction of members of the public is to assume thatpsychologists are all clinical practitioners who will read their minds and analyzetheir behavior for deviancies. In addition to misunderstanding the work of clin-icians, the public tends to be almost completely unaware of research conductedby psychologists on everyday human behavior, which is often directly relevantto social issues and public policy. Why is it that psychological research is sounderappreciated by the general public, and what can we do to change this?

∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John F. Dovidio, Departmentof Psychology, Yale University, 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8205, U.S.A.[e-mail: john.dovidio@yale.edu].

5

C© 2007 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

6 Dovidio and Esses

In this article we discuss some of the reasons why psychological research oftenfails to be communicated beyond the discipline, and we provide suggestions forwhat needs to be changed in order to bridge this gap. Specifically, we describe fourmain barriers to knowledge and utilization of psychological research beyond thefield, and we explain how conceptualizing and designing basic research programson psychological processes that underlie significant human problems can helpboth the general public and policymakers to improve the welfare of individualsand society as a whole (see also Dovidio & Gaertner, in press). We concludeby articulating the potential value for society and for psychology of efforts likeSocial Issues and Policy Review and the pieces that appear within its covers, whoseexplicit intention is to provide a strong scholarly foundation for considering howpsychological research and theory can inform social issues and policy.

Barriers to Public Knowledge and Influence

In the sphere of public opinion and public policy, psychology may be de-scribed as the poor cousin of other behavioral and social sciences. Even thoughpsychology is often directly relevant to understanding social issues, addressingsocial problems, and informing policy, psychology has much less impact on pub-lic policy and public opinion than other behavioral and social sciences, such aseconomics, political science, and sociology (Pettigrew, 1988). For example, psy-chological research is much less likely to be featured in the media than is researchfrom other disciplines, and psychologists only rarely play prominent roles as for-mal or informal consultants on public policy. Among the vast variety of possiblereasons for this restricted influence are ones that derive from the orientation of thediscipline itself, such as the methodology that psychology employs—the scientificmethod.

The scientific method is an especially valuable approach to gaining knowledgeabout the world. Knowledge gained through systematic scientific inquiry has led toinventions and materials that are now essential parts of everyday life. The scientificmethod has also produced findings from psychology that are directly useful andunderstandable outside the discipline. For instance, one domain of psychologicalresearch, principles of persuasion, has been well recognized outside of the fieldand, as a result, has been directly incorporated into advertising programs andpolitical campaigns (see Cialdini, 2007; Pratkanis & Aronson, 1991). The problemof communicating behavioral science is thus not inherent in the scientific methodper se but in the way it has been used and the process and results of sciencecommunicated.

Four main barriers to the utilization and communication of psychological the-ory and research more broadly are (a) the struggle to achieve internal validity (theability to draw cause and effect inferences), frequently at the expense of externalvalidity (generalizability beyond the laboratory); (b) the increasing fragmentation

Psychological Research and Public Policy 7

of knowledge; (c) the nature of the university system that places a high priorityon decontextualized basic science and expedited publication; and (d) challengesin communicating the findings of psychology, which are often summarized in theform of inferential statistics, to nonscientists.

Balancing Internal and External Validity

Psychology places a premium on research that permits clear and definitivecausal inferences. In pursuing internal validity, research is typically an iterativeprocess of developing and verifying theories through a sequence of studies thathone in on the hypothesized causal relations. Thus, psychology emphasizes aparticular application of the scientific method that involves abstracting the princi-ples underlying complex phenomena in a reductionist way and then testing theseprinciples in a relatively sterile laboratory environment that only vaguely resem-bles the circumstances surrounding the problem that stimulated the work. Theprocess of theory development, testing, and revision is time-consuming, and eachiteration is often more distant from the “real-world” event and context that ini-tially brought the question to the public and researcher’s attention. In contrast,as Pettigrew (1988) observed, other disciplines often focus on explanations ofparticular social problems (e.g., inflation) in a way that captures public interestwith its obvious relevance to current affairs.

Fragmentation of Knowledge

One consequence of reductionism in pursuit of internal validity is a steadyincrease in attention to microlevel, relative to macrolevel, processes in the field.Microlevel processes include physiological mechanisms such as the influenceof hormone levels (e.g., amount of testosterone) on activity of certain parts ofthe brain (e.g., the amygdala), which can result in aggressiveness. Microlevelprocesses can also refer to social mechanisms, such as the way that the aggressivebehaviors of others may reduce a person’s social inhibitions and facilitate violentbehavior. In contrast, macrolevel processes may link broader social conditions,such as poverty, with violence and aggression. Macrolevel processes, comparedto microlevel processes, are typically more easily recognized and understood bylay audiences, and therefore they may be perceived as more directly relevant toimmediate social issues by the public and policymakers.

In addition, when processes are “disassembled” in basic science they tendnot to be built up again and reconnected to overriding theories or to practicalsituations in ways that would facilitate application. Instead, new subdisciplinesare usually spawned (e.g., social-cognitive neuroscience), which potentially fostersfurther fragmentation of knowledge and barriers to communicating even withinthe discipline.

8 Dovidio and Esses

Academic Psychology and Research Incentives

Psychology also affects policy less than do other disciplines because of theculture that has evolved within academic psychology departments and the focuson scientific methodology. Although practical relevance still motivates many psy-chological researchers, its role is not always central. As Pettigrew (1988) noted,methodological rigor and theory are valued more within scientific cultures thanapplication. Pettigrew attributed this emphasis in psychology to the greater sta-tus that “pure science” has enjoyed within academics in North America. As aconsequence, the most prestigious journals in psychology, the ones that are oftenweighed most heavily in decisions of tenure, promotion, and merit, place primaryemphasis on the magnitude of the theoretical contribution of the work and littleon immediate practical application. In addition, in order to be productive duringthe limited pretenure probationary period, psychologists commonly rely on con-venience samples, mainly college students in introductory psychology courses.Research restricted to this population can raise questions about the external valid-ity and applicability of the work. In general, the academic rewards are greater forpublishing a paper in a specialty journal for psychologists than for communicatingthe findings to nonpsychologists.

The Challenge of Communicating Psychological Research to the Public

Still another reason why psychology may influence public opinion and policyless than do other disciplines is that one of the fundamental tools used in psycho-logical research is statistics. Statistics relies on probabilistic inference. Thus, in asuccessful experiment with noteworthy findings, it is still the case that the statisticsmerely indicate the probability that the effect obtained did not occur by chance.As a result, even when a study yields the golden fleece of inferential statistics, astatistically significant effect: p < .05, researchers can conclude with only 95%certainty (the p < .05 means that there is at least a 5% uncertainty) that the ob-served effect is real. Such apparently tentative conclusions of statistical analyseslead psychologists to talk about probabilities of particular effects occurring, andto use terms such as “in general,” “overall,” and “tendencies” when describingtheir results. This can severely undermine confidence in psychological findings.

In addition, when communicating findings to the public and policymakers,psychologists often tend to focus on details that may not be of primary interest tolay audiences. For example, details about the size of the research sample and thespecific independent and dependent measures may not be meaningful to lay audi-ences, and may detract from the take-home message. Furthermore, psychologistsoften contrast their findings with those of other researchers, leading to additionaluncertainty among members of the public as to what is actually true. Psychologistsalso tend to caution about “the need for further research” in ways that suggest to

Psychological Research and Public Policy 9

nonscientists that their information is not any more reliable or appropriate to a sit-uation than that from other sources, such as family anecdotes or religious doctrine.Moreover, general audiences often perceive the detailed quantitative analysis thatpsychologists tend to present as being too abstract and less compelling than vividpersonal stories from case studies, a common methodology in other disciplines.

Summary

Despite the substantial potential of psychology for enhancing the public’sunderstanding of social issues, for addressing social problems, and for guidingpublic policy, it is a promise that has not yet been significantly fulfilled. Someof the barriers to communicating beyond the discipline that psychology faces arefundamental to the science itself, such as the use of the scientific method andinferential statistics, and are unlikely to change. Thus, psychologists need to findways of strengthening their communications to nonscientists within these param-eters to increase the influence of research findings on the public and public policy.In the next section we discuss ways that psychologists can better communicateknowledge from psychology to the media, public, and policymakers.

Meeting the Challenges of Disseminating Knowledge from Psychology

It is quite possible and especially valuable to both science and society forresearch to be empirically sound with strong internal validity while also havingexternal validity, which can facilitate its influence beyond the discipline. A goalthat is feasible and socially responsible, therefore, is to work toward accumulatinga converging body of knowledge that is high on both internal and external validityso that scientific integrity is not compromised for practical utility and socialrelevance is not sacrificed entirely for experimental control. There is no simpleroadmap for developing such research programs. However, there are three mainelements: (a) choosing the research domain, (b) developing a research base, and(c) communicating beyond the profession.

Choosing the Research Domain

Having an impact on public opinion and policy typically requires aligning acoherent body of scientific work that is relevant to—but not necessarily directlyon—contemporary social issues and events about which psychological theoryand research can provide new insights. At times the research may be directlyon the phenomenon of interest, as in Gentile, Saleem, and Anderson’s review ofresearch on the effect of media violence on children’s aggression in the currentvolume. However, research can also be brought to bear on issues for which itwas not specifically designed. For example, both Maio et al.’s paper on social

10 Dovidio and Esses

psychological factors in lifestyle change and Penner, Albrecht, Coleman, andNorton’s discussion of factors leading to Black-White health disparities rely onresearch on related topics to derive explanations and proposed solutions for thephenomena of interest. Sometimes, as in the work described by Derks, van Laar,and Ellemers and by Bugental and Hehman in the present volume, social issuesand problems can stimulate a line of empirical research. Alternatively, as theresearch by Leyens et al. shows, theory-driven programs of inquiry can producenovel insights into social problems that can inform interventions. In all of thesecases, policy-related conclusions are based on strong theoretical and empiricalwork.

Developing a Research Base

Because of the nature of many phenomena of interest in psychology andof relevance to social policy, psychologists often have particular challenges inbridging science and application. The experiment is the “gold standard” of theempirical process in psychology because it yields cause-and-effect inferences.The problem for psychologists is that many social problems are inherently com-plex. Indeed, their complexity is one of the reasons that they are not easilysolved. This complexity also makes the topic difficult to study in laboratoryexperiments. Although it is possible, and in fact common, to study more thanone independent variable in an experiment, it is rare that more than three orfour are manipulated at one time. As a consequence, attempts to isolate vari-ables of interest under the controlled conditions of an experiment may makethe work appear less relevant to the real-world social problem that stimulatedit. When the focus is a single study, therefore, gaining scientific credibility maycome at the expense of accessibility and impact with lay audiences, includingpolicymakers.

Thus, there are several fundamental qualities of a research base that areespecially likely to promote the application of psychological knowledge to real-world problems. First, in order to be valuable for addressing real-world socialissues, the research should be programmatic; it should consist of accumulated andconverging evidence from a systematic set of studies that collectively model thecomplexity of the real world. Second, the work should be solidly grounded intheory, both because of the importance of theory for guiding decision making andfor avoiding disconnected and fragmented findings. Finally, although laboratoryexperiments contribute to our knowledge of cause–effect relations, research shouldalso be conducted that attempts to take into account the environments in whichthe behaviors of interest actually occur.

All of the articles in this inaugural issue of Social Issues and Policy Reviewsummarize bodies of research that converge on credible conclusions. They allexplicate the theoretical basis for the hypotheses that were tested and the relation

Psychological Research and Public Policy 11

of research findings to the theory. And finally, in all of the articles of this issue,the reader will find examples of both highly controlled laboratory experimentsand of field studies that attempt to examine behavior in its naturally occurringenvironment.

It is also the case that an increasingly recognized way of developing a moremeaningful and useful research base is to explore broader approaches, whichinclude multidisciplinary perspectives (see van Lange, 2006). Phenomena aretypically multidetermined with influences occurring at several levels of anal-ysis. For instance, racial discrimination is the result of historical events (e.g.,the consequences of slavery), economic forces (e.g., the effects of poverty),social forces (e.g., institutional racism), and psychological processes (e.g.,stereotyping, prejudice, and personal discrimination; see Dovidio & Gaertner,2006).

Multidisciplinary work may involve a single researcher who is knowledgeableabout work in several disciplines or, as is becoming more common, by teams ofscholars from different disciplines or subdisciplines working collaboratively. Theintegration of disciplinary perspectives and knowledge that is required for mul-tidisciplinary enterprises reflect the complexity of human problems and operateto assemble fragmented information for more complete and meaningful scientificanalysis. In addition, multidisciplinary research works against the fragmentationand decontextualization of knowledge that can result from increasing specializa-tion within the field and thereby contribute to a more coherent understanding ofhuman behavior.

There are also very pragmatic benefits to a multidisciplinary approach. Em-bedding psychological research in multidisciplinary approaches is likely to en-hance the reception with which it is received by members of the public andpolicymakers. Psychological research is often viewed as artificial, based on smallsamples of university students who are considered unrepresentative of the generalpublic, and thus limited in external validity. Presenting psychological research inthe context of converging evidence from historical, economic, and sociologicalanalyses, for example, can help to make a more compelling case to the publicand policymakers. Thus, a multidisciplinary approach may be used to increasethe credibility of psychological research (see Esses, Semenya, Stelzl, Dovidio, &Hodson, 2006).

A useful way of narrowing the chasm between professional demands andsocial impact is by considering more seriously the advice of Kurt Lewin. Lewin(1946) encouraged action research. One type of action research involves apply-ing psychological principles illuminated in the laboratory to practical settings.As we observed earlier, most psychologists rely on convenience samples of col-lege students for their research, and they have little experience conducting fieldresearch. However, the profession is essentially collaborative; on average, thereare three or more authors on empirical psychological articles. Thus, to facilitate

12 Dovidio and Esses

bridging basic research and application, professional organization might sponsorworkshops or meetings that bring academic researchers and practitioners togetheraround common problems and goals.

Bringing academic researchers and practitioners together has benefits beyondsimply translating theory into pragmatic interventions. A more intimate under-standing of practical needs can help inform and influence theory developmentamong basic researchers toward issues of broader public interest and immedi-ate value. Lewin also emphasized how field research and application can informtheory development.

Communication to Nonpsychologists

Another way to bridge basic scientific work and application does not requiremodifying one’s research program but instead involves translating research intoforms suitable for general audiences. Implied in our discussion up to this point isthat communicating effectively beyond the profession requires learning to presentknowledge from science in understandable, useful, and engaging ways. However,the scientific community in psychology has a particular culture, one that is notshared by other organizations or by society as a whole. Understanding psychologyin this light leads us to provide a two-part framework for considering the obstaclesand opportunities of disseminating knowledge from social psychology.

First, disseminating information beyond psychology is essentially intergroupcommunication, and therefore naturally occurring opportunities for this com-munication are limited. Research on social networks amply demonstrates thatwhereas people regularly and freely give and accept communications within theirgroup, communication across group lines is much rarer and more challenging (seeHarwood & Giles, 2005). In addition, it requires effort, support, and skill. As aconsequence, researchers need to take extra initiative to make their work morewidely available and accessible to general audiences. Some of the most directroutes for disseminating knowledge beyond the profession are public talks, pressreleases, editorials, and webpages and other internet tools. Of course, the initiativefor communicating psychological information can come the other way. Journal-ists, policymakers, and members of other professions (e.g., lawyers) may seek theexpertise of psychologists, but psychologists must be open to this communicationfor it to be fruitful.

Second, academic psychology has unique norms about communicating in-formation that must be overcome. These communication norms are shaped bytwo powerful forces: classroom teaching and academic publishing. Classroomteaching typically consists of lengthy oral communications in which the instructorleads and dictates the rules of discourse. Most often, professors speak in 50-minutelectures to a captive and hopefully motivated audience of students. Being clearand engaging are important teaching skills, but usually of primary importance is

Psychological Research and Public Policy 13

communicating information, much of it detailed and factual. Written communi-cation centers around the academic publication system, with an organization andstyle that conforms fairly rigidly to guidelines described in an over 400-pagePublication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001). Neitherlectures nor research reports are effective forms of communicating with nonsci-entists.

A challenge of communicating psychology beyond the discipline is to conveythe value of research using messages that are clear, crisp, and engaging while beingtrue to the research findings and to the nature of science. In our experience, it isimportant to convey the “story” of the research, explaining in broad strokes how aseries of studies combine to produce creative, new insights. The story opens withthe problem to be solved (a mystery) and discusses the evidence that, when takentogether, presents a coherent picture, which represents a significant step towardthe solution.

This organization remains faithful to the nature of the science. Methodsand statistical analyses are tools for obtaining and evaluating empirical evidenceand are typically of secondary importance to conveying research findings andtheir meaning to nonscientists. More important is identifying the problem to besolved and stating in simple terms what evidence has accumulated relevant tothe problem and why the conclusions being drawn from the evidence are likelyto be trustworthy. By incorporating evidence from several studies, the inherentlycumulative, uncertain, and continually evolving nature of the scientific enterprisecan be acknowledged, while the convergence of findings communicates a level ofconfidence in a conclusion that no single experiment can legitimately yield.

In summary, communicating beyond the discipline may require a differentstyle than conveying information within the profession, but it can also draw onthe same fundamental principles that govern effective communication within thescientific community. The quality of ideas, insight, and logical analysis are funda-mentally important to both, and although the conclusion of any single experimentneeds to be interpreted with caution, converging results across a set of relatedstudies can justifiably (as with formal meta-analysis) lead to more confident con-clusions. Although researchers may experience a tension between adhering toscientific principles and communicating empirical findings to the public, at theiressence the two are quite compatible.

Conclusion

In this article we have discussed the major barriers to the communication ofpsychological theory and research beyond the discipline, and presented sugges-tions for strategies to narrow the gap between psychology and its application tosocial issues and public policy. The barriers discussed include those related to thenature of the discipline, those imposed by the university system in which many

14 Dovidio and Esses

psychologists operate, and difficulties of communication. The solutions focus onchoosing an applicable research domain, developing a research base, and learningto communicate to nonpsychologists.

It is certainly the case that psychological research is at its base focused onreal-world phenomena and directly relevant to social issues. Yet opportunitiesfor communicating psychological findings beyond the discipline are limited, andare often underrewarded. In this context, we are excited to be coediting SocialIssues and Policy Review, whose mandate is to provide a venue for papers that linkpsychological research to social issues and public policy. As an official journalof the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, we hope that it willencourage and legitimate the transfer of knowledge beyond our discipline. If thearticles in this inaugural issue are any indication, we are well on our way todoing so.

References

American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological As-sociation. Washington, DC: Author.

Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). A multilevel perspective on prejudice: Crossing disciplinary

boundaries. In P. A. M. van Lange (Ed.), Bridging social psychology: Benefits of transdisci-plinary approaches (pp. 385–390). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2007). Communicating basic behavioral science beyond the discipline:Reflections from social psychology. In M. Welch-Ross & L. G. Fasig (Eds.), Handbook oncommunicating and disseminating behavioral science (pp. 93–110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Esses, V. M., Semenya, A. H., Stelzl, M., Dovidio, J. F., & Hodson, G. (2006). Maximizing socialpsychological contributions to addressing social issues: The benefits of an interdisciplinary per-spective. In P. A. M. Van Lange (Ed.), Bridging social psychology: Benefits of transdisciplinaryapproaches (pp. 403–408). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harwood, J., & Giles, H. (Eds.). (2005) Culture: Intersections of intergroup and identity theories. NewYork: Peter Lang Publishing.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.Pettigrew, T. F. (1988). Influencing policy with social psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 44(2),

205–219.Pratkanis, A. R., & Aronson, E. (1991). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion.

New York: W. H. Freeman.van Lange, P. A. M. (2006). Bridging social psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.