Very good points, Don, and well worth thinking about, especially the last one, which I don't think I have thought about as much as I should have. I think I'll pass this on to my Peace Studies class, if you don't mind.
Joe Hatcher Ripon College Ripon, Wi 54971 > ---------- > From: Don Allen > Reply To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 6:42 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Subject: RE: Media and TV > > 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] > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
