Social Science Research PDF

I wrote this text to help you learn about how social scientists do research and so you can conduct your own studies. I consider two main issues in this chapter: why you should learn about doing social research and the basics of what social science research is all about. Social science research i...

I wrote this text to help you learn about how social scientists do research and so you can conduct your own studies. I consider two main issues in this chapter: why you should learn about doing social research and the basics of what social science research is all about. Social science research is pervasive, and it affects your daily life as well as that of your family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Findings from social science studies appear on broadcast news programs, in magazines and newspapers, and on many Web sites and blogs. They cover dozens of topics and fields: law and public safety, schooling, health care, personal and family relations, political issues, and business activities as well as international and social trends. We use the knowledge and principles of social science research, directly or indirectly, as we engage in relationships with family, friends, and co-workers, participate in community life or public policy, and make daily decisions in business, professional life, and health care. Social research is not just for college classrooms and professors; high school teachers, parents, business owners, advertisers, managers, administrators, officials, service providers, health care professionals, and others use its findings and principles. They use them to raise children, reduce crime, manage health concerns, sell products or services, digest news events, and so forth. There is little doubt about the importance and centrality of social science research. Despite scattered criticism to the contrary, research is highly relevant for understanding social life generally and to the decisions you make each day. To see the practical relevance of social research, let us consider a couple raising a three-year-old child. One study (Wrigley and Derby, 2005) found that paid child care is quite safe but also discovered striking differences in fatality rates across various types of care. Center-based care is far safer than care provided in private homes. Another study (Bridges et al., 2007) showed that center-based care significantly raises a child's reading and math scores, but it has a negative effect on sociobehavioral measures (e.g., the child exhibits less cooperation, more aggression). Children who start at ages two to three get the largest benefit ratherthan younger or older children. Active parental involvement with a child lessens any negative behavioral consequences from child care. Another study (Love et al., 2003) showed that child care centers vary widely in quality. Quality of care makes a bigger difference than amount of time in care or whether parents or a care center is providing the care. Another study (Sosinsky, Lord, and Zigler, 2007) learned that care center quality was generally higher in nonprofit, nonreligiously affiliated centers than other types. Based on these findings, a couple may decide to look for a specific type of child care center, devote time to checking into the quality of care it offers, and make special efforts to encourage their child's social skill development. The studies are not only relevant for specific parents but also have implications for public policy and how a community addresses child care issues. Social science research yields valuable information and expands our understanding, but it is not 100 percent foolproof. It does not guarantee perfect results every time or offer "absolute truth." This may be why some people distrust research-based knowledge or why some people, including a few media commentators, even ridicule professional researchers and study results. Despite some derision, in a head-to-head comparison with the alternative ways we can learn about the world and make decisions, research readily wins hands-down. This is why professionals, educated people, and responsible leaders consistently turn to the methods, principles, and findings of social research when they want to learn more or make important decisions. This text considers both the methodology and methods of social science research. The terms may seem to be synonyms, but methodology is broader and envelops methods. Methodology means understanding the entire research process---including its social-organizational context, philosophical assumptions, ethical principles, and the political impact of new knowledge from the research enterprise. Methods refer to the collection of specific techniques we use in a study to select cases, measure and observe social life, gather and refine data, analyze data, and report on results. The two are closely linked and interdependent. Reading and doing social research can be exciting: It is a process of discovery in which we learn many new things. Doing social science research requires persistence, personal integrity, tolerance for ambiguity, interaction with others, and pride in doing top-quality work. It also requires logical thinking, carefully following rules, and repeating steps over and again. In the research process, we join theories or ideas with facts in a systematic way. We also use our creativity. To conduct a study, we must organize and plan. We need to select research methods appropriate to a specific question. We must always treat the study participants in an ethical or moral way. In addition, we need to communicate to others how we conducted a study and what we learned from it. In this chapter, we consider some alternatives to social science research and why research is preferred. We next examine how the enterprise of scientific research works, including the steps in doing a research study and types of social science studies. ALTERNATIVES TO SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH In this section, we look at four commonly used alternatives to social science research that many people rely on to acquire knowledge and make decisions: Personal experience and common sense Experts and authorities Popular and media messages Ideological beliefs and values Knowledge from Personal Experience and Common Sense If something happens to us, if we personally see it or experience it, we probably accept it as true. Personal experience or "seeing is believing" is a powerful type of knowledge. Unfortunately, it can also lead us astray. Something similar to an optical illusion or mirage can occur. What appears to be true actually is due to an illusion, yet the power of immediacy and direct personal contact is so strong that we easily fall for illusions without even realizing it. This is why many people insist on believing what they personally experience rather than what they learn by reading a carefully conducted research study that was designed to avoid the errors of personal experience. This is especially true when research studies contradict what personal experience or common sense tell us. Moreover, errors of personal experience reinforce each other. A few people even purposely use the distortions of personal experience to mislead others through propaganda, cons or fraud, magic tricks, political manipulation, and advertising gimmicks. Entire subfields of research are devoted to uncovering the ways we misjudge, over- or underestimate, and make mistakes. Here is an example: Women tend to stick with skin creams that do not work. Moreover, the less effective a beauty product or treatment, the more likely they will keep using it. These are the findings of a study of 300 women, ages 27 to 65, who were trying to achieve a more youthful appearance by using creams, vitamins, and other beauty treatments. The findings were not what we might expect: The women were most loyal to products and treatments when they didn't work! Among women who felt that the treatments were not working, 27 percent stopped using them. Among women who felt the treatments were successful, 55 percent stopped using them. The researchers think the women keep doing something that did not work because when people don't feel good about themselves, fear is a more powerful motivator than success. Fear about looking older spurred the women to keep trying even when products don't work.1 While studies that uncover our tendency to misjudge are fun to read, they point to a general principle: Everyday reasoning and perceptions are imperfect and subject to error. More significantly, we rarely notice or catch such errors right away if at all. Knowledge from personal experience, common sense "facts," and reasoning might be correct, but they can lead us astray (see Expansion Box 1, What We Think We Will Do and What We Actually Do). For example, common sense says that distributing free condoms in high schools will encourage teens to engage in sexual activity or that imposing harsh punishment, such as the death penalty, decreases violent crimes---yet numerous studies suggest that both of these beliefs are false. Most people think an eyewitness account of a crime is ideal, but studies show they are highly inaccurate. Many of us worry about tragic accidents and horrific events, such as a plane crash or a school shooting. However, we tend to worry about the "wrong" things because our estimates of something happening are far from actual probabilities based on careful studies. Likewise, we can be misled by surface appearances. Many people purchased a large, powerful-looking SUV for its safety at a time when crash tests and accident records showed SUVs to be less safe than many meeker looking cars.2 Erroneous "common sense" misperceptions have real consequences. Moreover, the media often repeat and spread the misperceptions, schools or businesses make decisions based on them, and lawmakers and politicians advance new laws or policies founded on them. We often make the following EXPANSION BOX 1 What We Think We Will Do and What We Actually Do Social scientists note a paradox: Most people strongly condemn overt racism, yet acts of blatant racism still occur. To examine this, Kawakami and associates (2009) conducted an experiment. They thought perhaps people inaccurately estimate what they would feel and do if they were to witness racism. To examine this, they asked non-Black students how they would feel and what they thought they would do if a racist act occurred. Most predicted that they would be very upset. However, when the researchers staged a racist act in front of them, most of the students showed little distress. Most said they would avoid a person who made a crude racist comment, but again what people said did not match their actual behavior. Study results suggest that one reason racism continues is that many people who believe they would feel upset or take action actually respond with indifference when an act of racism actually occurs. Apparently, we are not good at predicting how we will act in real situationfive errors in our everyday decisions, but the research process tries to reduce such errors. Overgeneralization Selective observation Premature closure Halo effect False consensus 1\. Overgeneralization occurs when we have some believable evidence and then assume that it applies to many other situations as well. Note the word "over." Generalization can be appropriate but it is limited. We can generalize a small amount of evidence to a broader situation but only if we do so with great care. Unfortunately, many of us tend to generalize far beyond what is acceptable with limited evidence. We often generalize from what we know to unknown areas. For example, over the years, I have personally known five people who are blind. All of them were very outgoing and friendly. Can I conclude that all people who are blind are friendly? Do the five people with whom I had personal experience fully represent all people on the planet who are blind? 2\. Selective observation is slightly different than overgeneralization. It occurs when we take special notice of certain people or events and then generalize from them. Most often we focus on particular cases or situations, especially when they fit preconceived ideas. We also tend to seek out evidence that confirms what we already believe. At the same time, most of us tend to overlook the entire range of cases. We often dismiss contradictory information as being an exception we can ignore. For example, I believe people who are overweight are more outgoing and friendly than thin people. My belief comes from stereotypes learned from my parents and media sources. I observe people who are overweight and, without being aware, pay more attention to their smiling, laughing, and so on. I notice thin people more when they are looking serious, distracted, or angry. Without realizing it, I notice people and situations that reinforce my preconceived way of thinking. Studies also document our tendency to "seek out" and distort memories to make them more consistent with what we already think. 3\. Premature closure operates with and inforces the first two errors. It occurs when we feel we have the answer and no longer need to listen, seek information, or raise questions. For practical purposes, at some point, we need to stop gathering information and come to a decision. Unfortunately, most of us are a little lazy or get a little sloppy. We gather a small amount of evidence or look at events for a short time and then think we have it figured out. We look for evidence to confirm or reject an idea and stop after getting a small amount of evidence and jump to conclusions. 4\. The halo effect occurs when we overgeneralize from what we believe to be highly positive or prestigious. We give a halo to, or a positive reputation to, things or people we respect. This halo "rubs off" on other things or people about which we know little. Thus, I pick up a report by a person from a prestigious university, say, Harvard or Cambridge University. I assume that the author is smart and talented, and I expect the report to be excellent. I do not make the same assumption about a report written by someone from Unknown University. I form an opinion in advance, and I do not approach each report on its own merits alone. Perhaps a celebrity or person I trust endorses a product or political candidate about which I know little. I use my positive feelings as a substitute for doing the work of finding out for myself or as a shortcut when making decisions.5. False consensus is a psychological effect documented by dozens of studies (Marks and Miller, 1987). It suggests that we are not good at distinguishing between what we personally think and what we think most other people believe. In short, we tend to see the views of most other people as being similar to our own views. This is not a matter of purposely conforming to and copying a crowd perspective. Rather, most of us feel that our own views are "normal" or "ordinary" in comparison with others. While this might be true, we greatly overestimate how much our views match those of other people. In terms of social events and issues, studies suggest that most of us are not very good at judging the thoughts of people around us. Social research helps address the errors of personal experience. Research standards, rules, and principles are designed to reduce the misjudgment, bias, and distorted thinking that frequently occurs with personal experience. Knowledge from Experts and Authorities Most of what we know probably comes from our parents, teachers, and experts as well as from books, film, television, the Internet, and other media. Often we accept something as being true because someone with expertise or in a position of authority says it is so or because it appears in an authoritative, trusted source. This is using authority as a basis of knowledge. In many ways, relying on the wisdom of experts and authorities is a quick, simple, and inexpensive way to learn something. An expert may spend a great amount of time to learn something, and we can benefit from that person's experience and efforts. Relying on experts has limitations, and it is easy to overestimate someone's expertise. Authorities may speak on fields they know little about; they can be plain wrong. Someone with expertise in one area may extend his or her real authority to an unrelated area. Using the halo effect, an expert on one area may illegitimately act as an authority in a different area. Have you ever seen commercials in which a movie star or football hero tries to convince you to buy a product? Who decides who is or is not a genuine expert or authority? A person might become a "senior fellow" or "adjunct scholar" in a private "think tank" with an impressive name, such as the Center for the Scientific Study of X. Some think tanks are legitimate research centers, but many are fronts for wealthy special-interest groups who want to engage in advocacy politics. No regulations control the titles of think tanks, and anyone can become a "scholar" in the group. Think tanks enable an "expert" to make authoritative statements to the mass media, giving the impression of being neutral and knowledgeable. Such people may lack real expertise and make statements based on opinion or ideology, not on research.3 Later in this chapter, you will read about how the scientific community operates and how it determines who is a genuine expert. Even if we locate legitimate experts in a specific field, they may disagree. Perhaps you have heard the dozens of contradictory and confusing researchbased recommendations about health and diet. You might ask what is so great about research if there is so much disagreement. This situation happens because much of what fills the mass media using the words "research" or "scientific" does not involve scientific research. Unfortunately, the media often use "research" when technically no real research backs a statement. Nonetheless, scientists or experts do not agree 100 percent of the time. In many areas---the best diet, health practice, public policy, or climate change---there is some disagreement. Later in this chapter, you will read about the principles of science and the operation of the scientific community and see how disagreement arises and is resolved as part of the process of scientific research. More than finding an expert, it is important for us to learn how to think independently and evaluate research on our own. Always relying on experts and authorities is not consistent with the principles of a free, democratic society. Experts might promote ideas that strengthen their power and position. We lose the ability to decide for ourselves if we follow only the authorities. This is a reason to learn about research and acquire the skills so we can evaluate strong from weak studies Knowledge Based on Popular and Media Messages Beyond relying on common sense, personal experience, and experts, we may try to extend our knowledge by talking to others and picking up what we can from the media. This is a good idea, but it has serious limitations. Talking to others may be helpful, but studies have found that most people are weak with regard to scientific literacy, geographic knowledge, and clear, logical thinking. This is true even in a rich, advanced, and educated country like the United States in the twenty-first century. (See Expansion 2, Scientific Literacy Discussion later in this chapter.) Our ability to use advanced technology (an iPhone, geographic positioning system, or car with advanced equipment) does not mean we generally think in a rational, scientific way. A 2006 survey of young men and women ages 18--24 found about half could not locate the states of New York or Ohio on a U.S. map (50% and 43%, respectively) and a majority (63%) could not find Iraq on a map of the Middle East despite nearly constant news coverage since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Large proportions of the U.S. population believe in phenomena that science rejects, such as UFOs (34%), horoscopes and astrology (31%), ghosts and goblins (51%), witches (34%), or a devil (61%).4 Average levels of formal schooling have risen, but many people lack factual knowledge, rely on inaccurate information, or cling to nonlogical thinking. Some people go through schooling but learned little or do not continue to apply the knowledge, skills, or thinking they acquired in their school years later in their daily life or in job decisions. Also, many people "follow the herd," or rely on mass opinion. The mass media often echoes mass opinion without serious evaluation. As you know well, just because most people believe something is true does not make it true. However, many of us just follow "what most other people think" even thought it might be wrong. Many of us rely on the mass media (i.e., film, television, newspapers, magazines, and Internet sources) for information. Unfortunately, the media tend to jumble together different types of statements---ones that are based on sound research and ones without real backing. In addition, the media can distort social issues. The media tend to perpetuate the cultural myths or create "hype" that a serious social problem exists when it may not. We may hear of a terrible problem in the mass media, but with closer inspection and a little research, we may learn that it was seriously overstated. Road Rage Example Americans hear a lot about road rage. Newsweek magazine, Time magazine, and newspapers in most major cities have carried headlines about it. Leading national political officials have held public hearings on it, and the federal government gives millions of dollars in grants to law enforcement and transportation departments to reduce it. A California psychologist now specializes in this disorder and has appeared on several major television programs to discuss it. The term "road rage" first appeared in 1988, and by 1997, the print media were carrying more than 4,000 articles per year on it. Despite media attention about "aggressive driving" and "anger behind the wheel," there is no scientific evidence concerning road rage. The term is not precisely defined and can refer to anything from gunshots from cars, use of hand gestures, running bicyclists off the road, tailgating, and even anger over auto repair bills! All of the data on crashes and accidents show declines during the period when road rage reached an epidemic. What instead happened was that media reports fueled perceptions of road rage. After hearing or reading about road rage and having a label for the behavior, people started to notice rude driving behavior and engaged in selective observation. We will not know for sure until it is properly studied, but the amount of such behavior appears not to have changed. It may turn out that the national epidemic of road rage is a widely held myth stimulated by reports in the mass media. Holiday Havoc Example Newspapers and television reports are filled with dire warnings about the many traffic accidents that occur on holidays. Thus, the Fourth of July weekend holiday in the United States is presented as very deadly with an average of 161 people killed each year, yet the holiday period may be no more dangerous than other times and may even be a bit safer! How can this be? After a careful comparison with other weekends and accounting for the extra amount of driving, the holiday's accident rate is not very different. Safety advocates publicize and distort statistical information in the media to encourage people to drive more safely. Lesson Road rage and holiday havoc are hardly unique situations; misrepresentation happens with many social issues. "Problem promoters," especially in the broadcast media, highlight dramatic cases or selectively use statistical information to generate attention and agitate the public about a social problem. The media reports are not so much wrong as they are misleading. They are more effective for public persuasion than is giving a carefully documented presentation of the entire picture. If we rely on mass media reports to learn about the social world, major trends, or serious problems, we can easily be misled (Best, 2001; Fumento, 1998; and Wald, 2004). Studies have documented poverty, crime, and many other concerns shown in film, on television, and in magazines do not accurately represent social reality. The writers who create or "adapt" real life for television shows and movie scripts often distort reality. This is rarely done intentionally; rather, they repeat misinformation they have picked up, and their primary goal is to entertain. For example, about only 5 of 400 films that portray psychiatric treatment do so accurately. Likewise, media reports on the size of the Muslim population in the United States are two to three times more than scientifically based estimates suggest. African Americans were 62 percent of all poor people shown in newsmagazine photos and 65 percent on television news, yet in the true racial mix of poor people, only 29 percent are African Americans. What we see on television or visually in photos strongly shapes our views on social issues. Media distortions mean that if we rely on the media for knowledge of the social world, we will often have inaccurate knowledge.5 In addition to informing and entertaining us, the media provide a forum in which competing interests try to win over public support. Those for or against a cause will mount public relations campaigns and use the media to shape public thinking. As mentioned earlier, advocacy think tanks sometimes have false "experts" to discuss topics in the media. Also, in recent years, the number of video news releases (VNR), also called "fake TV news," has grown dramatically. A VNR is the result of a major company or advocacy group that pays to create sophisticated video that looks just like an independently produced news report. In a VNR, an actor or actress plays an independent reporter. The "reporter" presents what appears to be neutral information or news. In reality, it is a public relations or a promotional statement. Most TV stations show the VNRs without informing viewers about the source. A news report on television might be a type of sophisticated propaganda designed to influence our views on a topic or product. We need to be careful before accepting the mass media as an authority.6 Many earnest science writers and serious journalists try to deliver accurate research-based information. However, they can be overshadowed by the volume and prominence of other media messages. As you will see later in this chapter, the mass media are not the best sources to learn about research studies. Instead, rely on the scientific community's communication system that is available at no cost to anyone with some knowledge of research and who devotes the time to explore it. Knowledge Subordinated to Ideological Beliefs and Values Despite the strength and availability of social science research, some managers and decision makers consciously reject it and instead promote and defend actions based on their political, religious, or ideological beliefs. For example, in 2001, the U.S. federal government began to fund "faith-based" social programs. Studies questioned the effectiveness of such programs, yet they replaced programs that were supported by research. At the same time, knowledgeable scientists serving in government agencies were replaced by political appointees, persons committed to certain ideologies. Respected research findings that contradicted ideological views were removed from official health or environmental public information.7 At one time, leading U.S. government officials promoted antiscience beliefs. One top aide to President George W. Bush claimed to reject "the realitybased community," defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality" (Suskind, 2004). For an example of how the alternatives would explain an aspect of social life, see Table 1. WHAT RESEARCH INVOLVES: A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH Social science research is central in a "reality-based community." It relies on people carefully studying experiences, events, and facts in social reality. While social research helps us answer questions about the social world, it also raises new questions and may change how we look at the world as well. It relies on the process and evidence of science as such, and it can differ from casual observation, common sense reasoning, and other ways to evaluate evidence, including pure logical-rational reasoning (mathematical or philosophical proof) or legal-judicial procedure. We next examine science in the context of doing social science research. Science When most people hear the word "science," the first image that comes to mind is likely to be a lab with test tubes, electronic equipment and microscopes, exotic space ships, and people in white lab coats. These outward trappings are a part of science. The physical and biological sciences---biology, chemistry, physics, and zoology---deal with the physical and material world (e.g., rocks, plants, chemical compounds, stars, muscles, blood, electricity). These natural sciences are at the forefront of new technology and receive a great deal of publicity. Most people first think of them when they hear the word "science." The social-cultural sciences (such as anthropology, economics, human geography, psychology, political science, and sociology) involve the study of human social-cultural life: beliefs, behaviors, relationships, interactions, institutions, and so forth. Just as we apply knowledge from the physical and biological sciences in related, more pragmatic fields (such as agriculture, aviation, engineering, medicine, and pharmacology), we apply social science knowledge to practical concerns in related applied areas (such as counseling, criminal justice, education, management, marketing, public administration, public health, social work, and urban planning). Some people call social sciences "soft sciences." This is not because the fields lack rigor but because their subject matter---human social life--- is highly fluid, formidable to observe, and difficult to measure precisely. The subject matter of a science (e.g., human attitudes, protoplasm, or galaxies) shapes the techniques and instruments (e.g., surveys, microscopes, or telescopes) it uses. Science is a human invention. Today's science emerged out of a major shift in thinking nearly 400 years ago. It began with the Age of Reason or Enlightenment period in western European history (1600s--1700s). The Enlightenment Era ushered in new thinking that included logical reasoning, careful observations of the material world, a belief in human progress, and a questioning of traditional religious and political doctrines. It built on past knowledge and started by studying the natural world. Later it spread to the study of the social world. A dramatic societal transformation, the Industrial Revolution, spread scientific thinking. The advancement of science and related applied fields did not just happen on its own---it was punctuated by the triumphs and struggles of individual researchers. It was also influenced by significant social events, such as war, economic depression, government policies, and shifts in public support. Before scientific reasoning grew and became widespread, people relied on nonscientific methods. These included the alternatives discussed previously as well as other methods less accepted today (e.g., oracles, mysticism, magic, astrology, and spirits). Such systems continue to exist, but science is now generally accepted. We still use nonscientific methods to study topics defined as outside the scope of science (e.g., religion, art, literary forms, and philosophy). Science refers to both a system for producing knowledge and the knowledge that results from that system. Science evolved over centuries and continues to slowly evolve. It combines assumptions about the world; accumulated understandings; an orientation toward knowledge; and many specific procedures, techniques, and instruments. The system of science is most tangible and visible as a social institution, the scientific community (see discussion of it later in this section). The knowledge that science yields is organized into theories and grounded in empirical data. Let us examine three key terms: theory, data, and empirical. Many people confuse theory with opinion, unfounded belief, or wild guess. "Whereas a scientist understands theory to be a well-grounded opinion... the general public understands it as 'just a theory,' no more valid than any other opinion on the matter" (Yankelovich, 2003:8). For now, we can define social theory as a coherent system of logically consistent and interconnected ideas used to condense and organize knowledge. You can think of theory as a map that helps us better visualize the complexity in the world, see connections, and explain why things happen. We use data to determine whether a theory is true and we should retain it or is false and needs adjustments or can be discarded. Data are the forms of empirical evidence or information carefully collected according to the rules or procedures of science. Empirical refers to evidence or observations grounded in human sensory experience: touch, sight, hearing, smell, and taste. Scientific researchers cannot use their senses to observe directly some aspects of the world (e.g., intelligence, attitudes, opinions, emotions, power, authority, quarks, black holes of space, force fields, gravity). However, they have created specialized instruments and techniques to observe and measure such aspects indirectly. Data or empirical observations can be quantitative (i.e., expressed precisely as numbers) or qualitative (i.e., expressed as words, images, or objects). Later, you will see how we can measure aspects of the social world to produce quantitative or qualitative data. Pseudoscience, Junk Science, and "Real" Science Across the centuries, science achieved broad respect and acceptance around the globe; however, many people still lack scientific literacy (See Expansion Box 2, Scientific Literacy) or confuse real science with pseudoscience. The prefix pseudo is Greek for false or counterfeit. We face a barrage of pseudoscience through television, magazines, film, newspapers, highly advertised special seminars or workshops, and the like. Some individuals weave the outward trappings of science (e.g., technical jargon, fancy-looking machines, complex formulas and statistics, and white lab coats) with a few scientific facts and myths, fantasy, or hopes to claim a "miracle cure," "new wonder treatment," "revolutionary learning program," "evidence of alien visitors," or "new age spiritual energy." Experts in pseudoscience might hold an advanced academic degree, but often it is in unrelated academic fields or from a very weak, marginal school. In addition to experts, magazines or books offer popularized or "pop" social science. Some of these are accurate popularizations written by legitimate social researchers to communicate to a wide public audience. Others look like legitimate social science to a nonspecialist but actually present a distorted picture or a misuse of social science. These authors write the books to promote a particular political or social position in the guise of social science, but they do not meet the standards of scientific community. For example, the famous Hite Report on female sexuality was a seriously flawed study conducted by a nonscientist who seriously distorted actual social relations. Despite its weaknesses, the book became a best seller that was widely discussed on television talk shows and in newspapers. The same is true of the book The Bell Curve that made claims of African American intellectual inferiority.8 Unfortunately, books advertised on television or radio, cited in newspaper articles, or sold at a local bookstore can be filled with opinion, personal beliefs, or seriously flawed research. It is easy for an unwary consumer to be misled and confuse such inaccurate or highly opinionated books with legitimate social science. Perhaps you have heard the term junk science. Public relations firms created this term in the 1980s as a strategy to denigrate actual scientific evidence. They used the term to attack research findings that were presented in courts to document injury or abuses caused by powerful, large corporations. In press releases and public statements, such firms manipulated language to contrast junk with sound science (i.e., studies that supported their own position). Sound and junk are rhetorical and imprecise terms. More important, the quality, methodology, or precision of the research for each may not differ in quality. Publicists applied the term "junk science" to any research study, no matter how accurate or rigorous, that they opposed and "sound science" to any research study, no matter how flawed, that they used to challenge opponents. For example, the tobacco industry used junk science as a tactic to criticize research on secondhand smoke and spent millions of dollars to deny the harmful health effects of smoking.9 The goal was to confuse juries and the public and to create an impression that the scientists lacked consistent research evidence. In contrast to pseudo- or junk science, authentic science comes from the outlook, operations, and products of the scientific community (see the next section).