On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Rod Hetzel went: > Is there any research to support the idea that the behavior of > children is influenced by what they watch on television or movies?
To avoid repeating myself, let me try expressing my answer in a different way. The evidence that links viewing to behavior is similar to the evidence that links tobacco smoking to lung cancer. First I'll explain how, then I'll explain why I think that the viewing/behavior link requires a higher standard of evidence. 1) In controlled, randomized experiments, there is evidence for an causal relationship between viewing of violent material and acute increases on laboratory measures of aggression. (Similarly, there is evidence for a causal relationship between tobacco-smoke inhalation and the formation of carcinogen-DNA adducts in the lungs.) 2) In epidemiological studies, there is evidence for a correlation between long-term viewing of violent material and a greater likelihood of aggressive behavior. (Similarly, there is epidemiological evidence for a correlation between long-term smoking and the likelihood of lung cancer.) Here's why that isn't good enough: 1) The presence of carcinogen-DNA adducts in the lungs is (I think) highly predictive of the subsequent development of lung cancer. The same cannot be said for transient increases in laboratory measures of aggression and subsequent aggressive behavior throughout the lifespan. 2) In the absence of tobacco smoking, the base rate of lung cancer is negligible. The same cannot be said for the base rate of violence in the absence of mass-media exposure. 3) There is no reason to suspect that people with a predisposition toward lung cancer are thereby predisposed toward cigarette smoking. The same cannot be said for predispositions toward violent behavior and violent viewing. > I was thinking about this the other day when I was talking to my > students about spring break programming on MTV, which shows kids > binge drinking, stripping off their clothes in public, engaging in > sexual behavior with strangers, etc. I can't imagine that this does > not serve as a model for our students who are watching this kind of > programming. But do you think that the kids who choose to watch spring-break programming on MTV are comparable to those who don't? > If we argue that kids are not influenced by watching binge drinking > and sexual promiscuity on television, wouldn't it be consistent to > also argue that they are not influenced by programming designed to > decrease racism or homophobia? I hope they're influenced by the latter, but I'd want to see evidence. Random assignment, long-term follow-up. Why was this task abandoned after a decent start in 1971? It's fascinating to see how many TIPsters seem to be saying (almost in so many words), "There's just got to be a causal association. I can't imagine that there isn't. There's just got to be." By the way, Rip mentioned that advertisers spend a lot of money to influence behavior through viewing. But advertisers know that Watson was mistaken--that you can't elicit every behavior from everyone. So they target their ads. Toy manufacturers advertise during Saturday- morning cartoons rather than during _Friends_, even though the audience for _Friends_ is far larger. Doubleclick tries to put cookies on your hard disk as you navigate the Web--so they can show you ads that were specially selected on the basis of your browsing history. If advertisers reach an audience that isn't predisposed toward the product, they're wasting money. On the rare occasions when they really get it wrong, we get an Edsel or a "New Coke." --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
