When I searched the web today, I found a batch of stories with headlines like "Study: Teenage brain lacks empathy," and "Teen Brain: It's all about me."
These stories describe a brain scan study, but key facts are incorrectly reported. Contrary to the headlines, the study didn't actually measure empathy. Nor did researchers observe any differences in attitude between adults and teens. And the brain? In direct opposition to the popular claims, researchers found that the medial frontal cortex -- a brain region associated with empathic processing -- was more active in teenagers, not less.
How did these errors spread? The misunderstanding is symptomatic of a widespread problem in the way that research is covered in the media. Too often, new agencies publish claims before fundamental criteria have been met. Does the reporter understand how the study was designed and executed? Is the reporter familiar with related studies, and capable of putting the results in context? Does the reporter appreciate what logical requirements must be met before we can draw conclusions about causation?
These criteria seem like common sense, and good science journalists meet them. But nowadays it's common for media outlets to pass along a story without the analysis of a science journalist. In some cases, publishers simply lift the entire story--verbatim--from a press release. And that can lead to major problems.
What's wrong with relying on press releases?
Press releases are like
advertisements. They promise that a study delivers certain results, and
they may include enthusiastic quotes from investigators who are swept up
in the excitement of an apparently new, important discovery.
Some university press officers do outstanding, careful work. But press releases don't often explain the research in detail. They may fail to describe important aspects of a study's design, or leave out information that would help the reader understand the study's limitations (Woloshin and Schwartz 2002; Woloshin
et al 2009). In addition, it's not unusual for press releases to publicize research that is still in progress. The study in question may not have submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journal yet -- let alone accepted for publication. That’s crucial to understand, because preliminary findings can be deceptive. In some cases, a study heralded in a press release never gets published at all.
And then there are the everyday mix-ups -- misunderstandings that arise between
the researcher and the person writing the press release.
Put it all together, and it's no surprise that many press releases contain errors -- sometimes really big errors.
False claims about empathy and the teenage brain
Consider the coverage that an fMRI study got a few years ago.
Researchers asked volunteers to think about what they would do in certain
hypothetical situations, e.g.,
“What would you do if you were at the cinema and had trouble seeing the screen? Would you move to another seat?"
subjects answered these questions, their brain activity was recorded.
Intriguingly, the pattern of brain activity differed for adolescent and
adult subjects (Blakemore et al 2007).
The full details were
published in 2007. But six months before the study was published, a
press release was circulated about the results.
Headlines went up around the web: “Teenage brains lack empathy."
popular stories claimed that, compared with adults, teenagers
“underuse" the medial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain associated
with empathy, guilt and social decision making.
One version of
the story, posted on WebMD.com and CBSnews.com, began with this way :
“It may be a "me first" world in the typical teen brain. Brain scans
show that teen's brains may still be developing when it comes to
sensitivity to other people's feelings."
Another version began
with this claim “If you ever sense teenagers are not taking your
feelings into account, it's probably because they're just incapable of
Well, first of all, it’s a big leap
to assume that because teens and adults process information
differently, one group is more empathic than another. And I’m skeptical
about the idea that teenagers are somehow less sensitive to the pain of
So that’s what bothered me when I first saw the popular
headlines. But when I actually read the study, I discovered these
surprising facts (Blakemore et al 2007).
1. The study didn’t really have anything to do with empathy. It
was about asking people to anticipate their intentions. Just to be
sure, I checked with the principal investigator. She confirms that the
hypothetical scenarios presented in the study were “devoid of emotional
2. There was no difference in the way that teens and adults answered the questions. In terms of behavior, both groups performed the same way.
3. Contrary to the popular story that teens “underuse" the medial frontal cortex, the study actually established the opposite pattern .
Teenagers showed more activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, not less.
right. The teens used the medial prefrontal cortex--the part of the
brain associated with empathy and social decision making-- more than adults did.
That’s not clear. Possibly, it reflects efficiency. In general, adult
brains have more streamlined neural networks, making them faster and
more efficient processors of information. Teen brains might have to work
harder to get the same answers. They may need more oxygen or energy to
power their neural circuits (Burnett and Blakemore 2009).
experiences might play a role, too. I’ve had a lot of experience making
decisions about where to sit at the cinema. Ask me a hypothetical
question about it, and I don’t have to deliberate to give you an answer
about what I would do. For teens, answering such questions might require
more conscious thought (Burnett and Blakemore 2009).
teenagers—who are notoriously self-conscious and concerned about how
others respond to them—are more likely to view changing seats in a
theater as a social problem.
But whatever the explanation, the fact remains: The widely-reported story about teen brains “lacking empathy" is entirely bogus.
The study found an interesting difference in the ways that teens
processed information, but the difference did not demonstrate that teens
are less empathic than adults.
Yet major news organizations--including WebMD, MSNBC and CBS--printed the distortions on their websites. And it wouldn’t have happened if reporters had waited to read the study—or simply asked some pertinent questions.
The “teen brains lack empathy" story is a rather extreme case. But
there are plenty of other examples of research that gets the wrong spin.
Recently, I saw headlines proclaiming that “TV causes learning
lag in infants." In reality, the research in question suggested that
babies develop better language skills when they get lots of conversation
time with adults. To the degree that TV time displaces conversation
time, it hurts baby language development. There may be lots of reasons
to restrict TV time for young children. But these studies didn’t find
that TV is intrinsically damaging to language development.
Of course, the problem isn’t limited to research about kids.
Misleading press releases about medical research
In 2009, Steven Woloshin and colleagues examined press releases from 20 different academic medical centers.
The findings are disturbing. Of the 200 press releases randomly selected for analysis
• 19 presented unpublished results, but only one of these stories cautioned the reader that the research was unpublished
53 reported on correlational studies (e.g., “x is linked with y"), but
only 6 of the releases included a caution about possible confounding
• 6 press releases reported on uncontrolled studies, but only one included a caution about the lack of controls
195 press releases included a direct quote from the investigator, but
in many cases (51 press releases) the quote was “overly enthusiastic"
about the study’s implications
Overall, about 30% of the press releases overstated the validity or scientific importance of the original research.
might wonder if these results reflect a skewed sample. But Woloshin and
colleagues limited their study to press releases from institutions that
made the top 52 (of 125) rankings in U.S. News and World Reports. As a
result, they suspect their findings represent a “best case scenario"
(Woloshin et al 2009).
What we can do
Clearly, the people who tell us about science need to be more cautious.
• Press officers need to be more selective and critical of the research they promote.
• Researchers need to be more circumspect about what they say to the press.
• Journalists need to do their jobs, and not simply pass along information without checking the facts.
readers have to be critical, too. In general, you should be skeptical
about any science that is presented as “breaking news" in the popular
press. Real analysis—by researchers and by journalists--takes time.
More information about the development of empathy
Want to know the real (evidence-based) story about empathy? Check out
these articles, which feature my analysis of the published research: