David,
I find your argument faulty on at least two points. First, in your
first section, you compare randomized studies on violence to correlational
studies on cigarette smoking and cancer. We may interpret the cigarette
smoking and cancer findings as causal only at the usual risk of confusing
correlation for causation. The violence data, on the other hand, comes from
randomized trials, and, for those who don't mind using causal language, can
be argued to represent causation.
Second, you apparently believe that the base rate of violence
differs from the base rate of lung cancer in the absence of smoking. I
would argue otherwise. Most people go through decades without exibiting
violent behavior (depending on one's definition of violence, of course).
The base rate of violence in the general population is very low; acts of
violence are vivid, but not common.
I don't think it is a matter of wishful thinking. If you found in
the laboratory that exposure to material depicting rape increased short term
tendencies toward rape behavior, and then saw a culture that, compared to
other western cultures similar to it, was awash in rape media, would you be
surprised if the rates of rape in that culture were many times higher than
in the comparison culture? Would it be so hard to believe in a causal
connection?
Joe Hatcher
Ripon College
Ripon, WI 54971
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------
> From: David Epstein
> Reply To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 9:36 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
> Subject: RE: Media and TV
>
> 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]
>
>
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
