‘Intrigue and entertainment value has to be balanced against people’s wellbeing’

Can you remember the moment that you realised that television was a route that you wanted to explore?

This isn't a domain that I was trained in. Clinical psychology, counselling… media psychology is not on any of those courses. You come to it initially, I would say, blind. This is not a path that most of my peers would even consider as a career opportunity. I haven't driven this forward – it fell upon me by chance through a request from one production company. 

Of course, there's an attraction to work amongst the magic of TV and film… to make my parents proud to see my name on an occasional credit! The industry is populated by freelancers, and as they move on to new projects, they take my details with them, which creates more opportunities to work on a broad spectrum of productions. And this gradually became the dominant interest and occupation. 

Because media psychology is not part of that training, or a career that anyone really talks about at university, can it all still be integrated? For example, do you use evidence-based psychological techniques when you're doing your media work? 

It depends on where you are in the lifespan of a TV project, from the development of a production – can it work, is this something that we can make? – all the way through to casting actors or members of the public, making the programme itself, the aftermath of it, and the programme going out. There are different stages where a psychologist might get involved, and you'll be using different disciplines within the psychology profession at those stages.

An example would be in the initial formulation of a TV project. Here, production companies might employ a psychologist to consider risk factors, the academic aspects of what somebody might be faced with psychologically. If we're doing a project that's associated with a child's development, then we're looking at the psychological theories around that. If it's a competition-type programme, perhaps with a challenge element to it, we'd be leaning on behavioural psychology, social psychology, looking at group dynamics. So we are often looking back at the literature, at the theory, and thinking about how that might be implicated in the development of a project. 

When it comes to casting, then we'll be leaning more on psychological formulation from a clinical psychology perspective, looking at risk factors, mental health, and that will carry right through to a programme being made as well. It's making sure that people are safe enough to be part of a project where they can be supported. This is never about ruling people out of a project – more than anything, it's about inclusion, and what can we do to make sure there is an equal opportunity for everybody to be part of a programme as much as possible. 

And how is that psychological input received?

Well, there is another element here, which is that many people who work in the media industry are still very unaware of the difference between a psychologist, a psychotherapist, and a psychiatrist. So a lot of what we do is about not just educating about the role of psychology across the discipline… educational, occupational, clinical, counselling, educational… it's about educating them in psychological practice and theory.

That doesn't mean that we have to offer a highbrow perspective. We're not talking to other academics or other psychologists. We are talking to members of the public, predominantly lay people. When we do a project associated with autism, for example, we're trying to educate an audience around autism, and to use terminology that is accessible. I think a lot of my role is about educating, and flying the flag for psychology.

How do you balance a contestant's wellbeing with what the production company want? There are always moments where contestants are at their weakest, and that can make 'good TV'. As a psychologist, you're there looking out for their wellbeing, so how do you manage that?

From a psychological perspective, when we're looking at risk, it is a dynamic lens. If I assess somebody before they get involved in a project, what we see at that point might be different to how they perform as the project progresses. If they're working on a challenge project, with elements of elimination, the closer they get the prize, the fewer people that they are competing against, the greater the pressure. That risk is not static or linear. 

I'll also say that there's often this public perception that reality programmes are leaning towards more extreme content to tempt viewers. I do think viewers are more voyeuristic, they're hungry, increasingly attracted by the schadenfreude. But that intrigue and entertainment value still has to be balanced against people's wellbeing. 

It's also worth noting that people who contribute to TV programmes are generally becoming more aware of what they might have to get themselves into, to be above the rest. So, if you were participating in one of the more common reality dating programmes, you know there might be an expectation to behave and perform in a certain way in order to attract a certain audience and the additional funding that goes with that exposure. A primary goal of my involvement in a project may be to help push back against such boundaries, to ensure that the duty of care is being adhered to, and that the risk to contributors is being recognised, minimised and contained. 

It's almost the Hippocratic mantra as a code of conduct for production companies – 'do no harm'. Putting somebody on screen shouldn't be adding to that person's difficulty. Now, that's particularly difficult if a programme is associated with a theme around strain, for example, eating disorders, self-harm. What we're trying to do is to minimise that risk in the first place, but also minimise the risk for the viewing audience. If a contributor will come to harm in the process of a treatment, then we're likely doing something wrong and need to rethink and make sure we're putting the right support in place to minimise any such risk. 

Is consent an important part of that?

Yes, and again that's not necessarily static. A participant might consent initially to being part of the programme, but then the real element of the programme is revealed. Or somewhere through the process, they lack capacity to consent through being under the influence of alcohol, or participating in a particular project where they might be sleep deprived. Then what can we do is ask that they re-consent after filming where they've got greater insight.

Pretty much any programme that I have worked on, even two or three days before transmission, if an individual has wanted to withdraw consent, irrespective of what they've signed on the document, if they've got good reason to withdraw consent, the programme has complied. In the majority of situations, TV companies do hold themselves responsible, particularly when it's on mental health grounds.

So do you think that the world of media has actually become more caring over time?

I'd like to think that the TV and media industry has become much more psychologically minded and mental health aware. Whether that's based on governance and guidance from Ofcom, or charities and psychologists like myself educating production companies, they are doing more to protect contributors. They've created new roles, for example a Welfare Producer, specifically responsible for the welfare of contributors. So they are becoming more aware and more proactive. 

But that's not for everyone. Some programmes do push people to their limits. Take SAS Who Dares Wins, which I have worked on, where we see people being purposely sleep deprived, pushed physically and mentally. It should be acknowledged, though, that on those kinds of programmes the contributors are actually very aware of what they're letting themselves in for. There's a lot of time spent on making sure they have that insight and that they have a baseline robustness to cope with it. There are lots of checkpoints to make sure they remain in a safe place and with capacity. They are monitored 24 hours a day to make sure that they are safe, they are offered a lot of decompression, and reverse culture shock support to make sure that their return home is managed safely, and there are follow ups before and after transmission. Whilst the viewer might not necessarily see it, a lot of programmes that hold that amount of risk also hold a lot of support.

I'm also reminded that there isn't much research out there about this. There's research around how TV affects audiences and behaviour. But the impact on contributors, and the support needed, that needs more attention. With every new format and production, this is new ground and new challenges, and therefore a new area. We might know about how people behave day-to-day, and there's lots of research around social behaviour. But when we're putting people into alien environments, it becomes less predictable. So I would always go back to the research to do some background reading to understand what might present itself, but I also have to prepare for the unexpected!

Which has been your favourite of all the TV programmes that you've worked on?

I've been very fortunate to work across a broad range of projects, from heart-warming projects – one of them being The Undateables, where it all started for me – to more factual, observational documentaries, like Roman Kemp's The Fight for Young Lives or Inside Autistic Minds, where there's a sense that the programme may have really supported a contributor, or offered a life-changing intervention, or educated an audience. A programme can offer a legacy, where the learning can support an audience's education rather than the more typical disposable TV. 

I also like programmes where there's an opportunity for me to meet exciting, interesting people, to travel, to bear witness and to educate and inform an audience. Those are my favourites. I much prefer to work on documentaries where I feel there's a real agency for change and information.

In terms of naming a few… SAS Who Dares Wins offers great opportunities to travel, and to meet some quite incredible people and follow them along a journey where they really go through a process of learning about themselves and becoming much stronger as an outcome. So that would be up there as one of my favourites. 

What else have you worked on recently?

This year, I worked on an incredible project called Banged Up, which offers new access to understanding what happens inside a prison to a viewing audience. We recreated a prison experience using ex-offenders, prison officers, and celebrities. That was probably the most challenging project I've ever done, based on the number of risk variables we were holding… but the insights that were gained were incredible. I feel privileged to hear people's individual stories, and to understand the strains and struggles currently in the prison service, why people end up there and what enables people to be rehabilitated. 

We have the research that tells us about mental health risks in the incarcerated community and what happens after they leave prison. We have the research that tells us about previously undiagnosed brain injury, or neurodiversity, within the incarcerated community. But to hear the voices directly, for them to be able to tell some of their stories… that was an important legacy of the project.

If you were to work on any other TV programme, what would it be? 

Perhaps training in animal psychology or comparative psychology may have allowed the prospect of working with Sir David Attenborough!

Despite having consulted in the media industry for 17 years, I still see it as a privilege to work on each and every project. It's a coup to have gained access to an industry that is still learning about psychology and to support them to make their products better, safer for contributors, and for the crew, and to improve their credibility and the industry standards and duty of care. Through meeting with production teams and broadcasters directly, I feel I've had an influence on their compliance role and 'production Bibles'… they think in more detail about how they support their contributors, and how to make a programme ethically with regards to the psychological leanings.

And how about learning going the other way – what can psychology as a discipline learn from its involvement in media psychology? 

I see every project that I work on as a bit of a case study. We're bringing in new people to every project, and every person brings their own story. Every project is trying to look for different things, potentially pushing boundaries to try a new format. So we're constantly learning and evolving… and in that sense, you never know, watching Big Brother might be CPD!

But psychology, the divisions and subgroups, need to become more involved in the programmes. It's a public service to help disseminate information, to ensure that psychology is offered a greater voice, and to help raise the profile of the discipline. As a Clinical Psychologist, there's a personal objective to ensure that mental health, neurodevelopment and neurodiversity content is communicated in an accurate, credible and accessible manner, and to highlight the needs of services out there. 

Then, beyond the commentary and consultation, some projects undertaking social experiments – The Secret Life of Four- Five- Six-year-olds, for example – offer great insights. We can certainly encourage greater grounding in evidence-based research and valid methodology. 

So certainly, there is scope for what we can do, and we should do more. Psychologists might be more vocal on social media these days, but generally we may fear judgement and evaluation by our professional peers. But it's really important to be involved, to have our voice heard. There are common interests – we can share our curiosity for human behaviour, we can observe dynamics and try to get the best outcome for the people that we work with. We can use our skills in different environments. We should have the confidence to talk to our audiences beyond our clinical or academic settings, because we can educate.

Amazing. Do you have any tips for someone planning to get into media psychology?

Don't be scared by representing yourself in the media, whether it's on screen or behind the screen. Particularly when it comes to public broadcasting, and educating around mental health, social issues, behaviour, education, I think we have a lot to offer. We shouldn't be fearful. But I'll also say, stay within your area of expertise. 

In terms of working with the media, this isn't a discipline that Psychologists are typically trained in. You therefore need to learn by experience, supported by a supervisor. Being adequately supervised is really important. As is taking the time to go on to the set and to really observe what's happening whilst they're filming, to understand the pressures. It's also worth seeking out podcasts and newspaper articles talking about working in the media, whether it's from a contributor perspective, or from a mental health perspective. That is useful CPD.

It seems like such an interesting line of work.

It is. But it's also increasingly risky. Production companies and audiences are hungry for the next thing. The audience is hungry for something which is a riskier, potentially a darker story. We want to lift the lid on that, and that itself creates the risk. We need to be aware of how much risk we're holding. 

The idea of starting off in this profession is very exciting, with the lights, cameras, and potentially being on location. There's an eagerness to please. But actually, we need to be very aware of who it is that we're supposed to be protecting and representing. With clinical practice, the risk that you're holding often ends when the case closes. But the risk in the media doesn't necessarily go away, for two reasons. Firstly, the programmes that we work on now are going to be around forever – on a streaming service, on YouTube, somewhere. So the risk potential is around forever too. Secondly, progammes may be made and yet not broadcast for a year, two, or three years later, where contributors' circumstances and lifestyles may change, and therefore more risk can emerge. 

There's another risk too. You might be a lone practitioner, working amongst a sound team, a lighting team, a film crew. It can be hard to feel that your voice is being heard or listened to. So make sure you represent yourself well. Have the confidence to raise your voice when you think something isn't right, even if it means whistleblowing.

Surely the fact everyone's getting media psychologists on their TV programmes means you're doing a good job?

Well, that's another risk. Unfortunately, 'Media Psychologist' is not a protected title. Anybody therefore can call themselves a Media Psychologist or TV Psychologist. Our role is to help educate production companies to what it means to be a Chartered Psychologist or an HCPC-registered practitioner psychologist. There is a standard of skill that can be offered there, and the accreditation means something. 

I'm happy to encourage people to join this profession, but I want to make sure that they go into this with their eyes open. Yes, it's exciting, but that has to be balanced against the risk that we are holding. Behind the scenes, the risk is much greater than it looks. You watch Gladiators, you watch SAS, you watch Squid Games, you watch The Traitors, and it all looks fun. The amount of work that goes on behind the scenes to keep this safe is more than people expect. It really is quite demanding. Your clinical work might be a nine to five job, but when you work in the media industry, it's harder to maintain boundaries around your work time, because it's all hours of the day. 

So when you do knock off for the day, will you be tuning into The Traitors final? Has there been anything psychologically distinctive about working on that, or any insight you have into its popularity in psychological terms?

I should note that I had the pleasure of working alongside a wonderful colleague and friend on this project, which brought the benefit of professional peer support and comradery. I may have the opportunity to watch some projects prior to broadcast, to further help consider risk and containment. There is also some pleasure in seeing how the production teams make the magic happen in the final edit. 

The Traitors is fascinating because it taps into the thrill of espionage and betrayal. The characters grapple with trust, moral dilemmas and ambiguity, and their own identities, making it psychologically rich. The constant suspense and uncertainty keep you on the edge, and you find yourself questioning the contributors' motives. The realistic portrayal of power struggles, secrets, and internal conflicts adds depth, making it relatable and thought-provoking. It's like peeling back layers of intrigue and understanding the complex web of human behaviour in the world of political manoeuvring, loyalty, cognitive dissonance and power dynamics. A definite watch!

- Find more about Dr Howard Fine via his website.
Florence Plant, an undergraduate Psychology student at the University of Sheffield, is on an internship with The Psychologist.