I was going to try to refrain from responding to this thread, but since my
only alternative is grading papers here goes:
The two phrases that seem to be missing in this debare are 1. effect size
and 2. amount of variance accounted for. While I haven't seen any
evidence that persuades me that mere exposure to violent or salacious TV
is harmful I would suggest that even the studies which *DO* make such an
assertion show a very weak effect. Rather than wondering whether to tell
parents to monitor their kids TV viewing you might advise them to be much
more concerned about 1. the level of economic disparity in the culture and
2. the prevalence of hand guns. Let's remember that the US and Canada are
both exposed to nearly identical TV and yet the rate of US homicide is ten
times (per capita) what it is north of the border. When I start seeing
data that suggests that the effect of TV violence approaches this level
then I'll get interested in the debate.
So in answer to your question I would suggest that you tell parents to
worry about what their kids watch on TV only after they have made the
strongest possible effort to 1. eradicate poverty and 2. control guns.
Of course, a lot of people would prefer simpler solutions and it's a lot
easier to blame the TV than to look for real causes.
-Don.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Rod Hetzel wrote:
> Rod Hetzel wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> David Epstein responded:
>
> > > But do you think that the kids who choose to watch spring-break
> > > programming on MTV are comparable to those who don't?
>
> It might be that they are comparable. Perhaps they're not. When I taught at a
>large private university in New York, the majority, if not all, of my students were
>very familiar with MTV and watched it on a regular basis. But even here at a smaller
>church-affiliated school, a large number of students watch this kind of programming
>on a regular basis. Perhaps more college students watch this kind of programming
>than do other people not attending college. Regardless, your point is well-taken
>that there could be other variables that influence behavior other than the variable
>of interest.
>
>
> > 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."
>
> Well, I think it is certainly understandable that anyone could make such assertions
>when one has theoretical justification and anecodotal evidence to "support" such
>conclusions. After all, psychological theory and anecdotal evidence can provide
>sufficient justification for designing appropriate experimental designs. The
>question is whether or not there is any *experimental* support for the hypothesis
>that viewing media aggression has an influence on children's behavior. Your are
>suggesting that there are no studies that show causation, although there are some
>that show correlation. It would be interesting to have random assignment and
>prospective research designs to further study this issue. In the absence of these
>kinds of studies, however, I wouldn't state to people that viewing media aggression
>has no influence on children's behavior. Rather, I would state that we don't have
>scientific evidence to support the idea that viewing media aggression *causes*
>children to be aggressive. Of course, the lay public generally doesn't understand
>the distinctions between correlation and causation. And when they hear psychologists
>spouting off that watching violent tv shows does not make their kids more violent,
>they fail to understand the subtlety of the argument and instead just discount the
>psychologist (and sometimes the profession)...
>
> The implications of the current state of science on this issue is also interesting.
>If we don't have any experimental evidence to show that watching aggressive tv shows
>causes children to be more aggressive, does that mean that we would recommend to
>parents that they should not worry about what their children watch on television
>because there is no evidence to support that it causes them harm? Should we advise
>parents that there is no reason to be concerned if their school-aged children are
>watching sexually-explicit programming on MTV or HBO or just about any cable channel
>(joke!) because there is no evidence showing that watching sexually explicit
>television programming will cause their children any problems. We had a discussion
>recently about science and values and at some point someone had mentioned that all of
>their positions and beliefs were based on scientific evidence alone. If there is no
>scientific evidence suggesting that watching aggressive or sexually-explicit
>television shows causes any kind of harm to children, then wouldn't that mean that as
>parents we shouldn't be concerned about what our kids watch? If my 8-year-old child
>wants to watch a racy movie on HBO or MTV Undressed, then, as long as they don't
>appear to be immediately distressed by what they are watching, we shouldn't be
>concerned. Right? These are more than just hypothetical questions. As a practicing
>clinical psychologist, parents will often ask me these kinds of questions.
>
> ______________________________________________
> Roderick D. Hetzel, Ph.D.
> Department of Psychology
> LeTourneau University
> Post Office Box 7001
> 2100 South Mobberly Avenue
> Longview, Texas 75607-7001
>
> Office: Heath-Hardwick Hall 115
> Phone: 903-233-3312
> Fax: 903-233-3476
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Homepage: http://www.letu.edu/people/rodhetzel
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/2002
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
********************************************************************
Don Allen email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept. of Psychology voice: (604)-323-5871
Langara College fax: (604)-323-5555
100 W. 49th Ave.
Vancouver, B.C.
Canada, V5Y 2Z6
********************************************************************
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
