On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Richard Pisacreta, Ph.D. went: > If media sells products, which it does, or advertisers wouldn't spend > billions on commercials, how can we then say that the show content has no > lasting effect? I don't think that you can have it both ways.
Applying that argument-by-analogy more specifically to the issue of video-game violence, you could end up with an assertion like this: "If people who played a lot of Pac-Man in the '80s showed no lasting increase in their propensity to consume cherries, strawberries, and bananas (the fruits whose consumption is rewarded in Pac-Man), how can we then say that people who play a lot of violent video games will show a lasting increase in aggression? I don't think you can have it both ways." If you reject my Pac-Man comparison but continue to stand by your comparison to commercials...well, I don't think you can have it both ways. :) So...data, anyone? I've pointed out that there have been no relevant randomized trials since Cameron & Janky (1971), and no one on TIPS has refuted that. (Lindsay Holland had written "If you want a couple of studies, e-mail me backchannel," but I did, and I got no response.) --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reference: Cameron, Paul; Janky, Christine. The effects of TV violence upon children: A naturalistic experiment. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 6(1): 233-234, 1971. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
