A new study has been making the rounds. It suggests that Facebook is evil (surprise, surprise). Or, more accurately, that users of Facebook have lower GPAs.
Critically and uncritically reported across the interwebs, it's been noted that:
Recently, many news sources have cited Karpinski’s findings when making the claim that Facebook itself is a cause of lower academic performance. But Karpinski’s data only demonstrates correlation, not causation.It takes a lot of correlation before you can tentatively suggest causation. In terms of initial plausibility, however, the claim seems reasonable, but is also a reason for some initial caution as well. The claim is one we've heard before.
Comic books were once considered evil as well (according to the link the Canadian Gov. even enacted legislation to combat the evil comic book threat). We all know how that turned out (aka "graphic novels", and literary praise). Then video games were considered evil. Now, Facebook is that thing kids do that might also be evil. As I read recently on a blog:
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."Or was that Socrates? The youth has been a favorite scapegoat for a long time, so having someone jump to this favorite conclusion would not be entirely unexpected.
So the study certainly deserves a close look before being repeated, and reported. The first surprising revelation? That they actually found anybody, at all, that didn't have a Facebook account.
The researchers surveyed 219 students at Ohio State, including 102 undergraduate students and 117 graduate students. Of the participants, 148 said they had a Facebook account. The study found that 85 percent of undergraduates were Facebook users, while only 52 percent of graduate students had accounts. (link)
Hmmm. So out of 102 graduate students, only 15% didn't have Facebook? Why are we even reporting that in %? IT'S ONLY 15 STUDENTS!
Look, I'm sure nobody is going to quibble with the idea that those who study more, achieve higher, and if people Facebook (I love verbing nouns!) more and study less, it could have an effect.
How is this study unique or interesting? Its sample size is small, not much indication that there were controls (I'll be interested once there is access to the full study), and it's correlation rather than causation. This is acknowledged by the author:
Karpinski emphasized that the results don't necessarily mean that Facebook use leads to lower grades. "There may be other factors involved, such as personality traits, that link Facebook use and lower grades," she said. (link)
Sure. And that's the point. It's a small study. It happened to mention the phenomenon Facebook. So the media picked it up, mostly uncritically, and ran with it.
The problem with science reporting is rarely with the scientist, but the reporting. Even CNN agrees.
Double-checking isn't just for exams.
Cheers,
Ron Neufeld
Canada's Best Boarding School
Posts
