> If you are seriously interested in helping parents you > don't want to play the game of choosing between > 1. there is no effect and 2. there is not yet evidence of an > effect. This simply distracts from the real issue which is: > If there is an effect of TV violence it is trivial at best and > pales in comparison to known *REAL* threats to children > and society. Have there been well-designed experimental studies showing that there is no causal relationship between watching television violence and engaging in aggressive behavior? If there have been, then perhaps we would have sufficient justification for telling parents that they have no reason to be concerned about what their children watch on TV. One of the main themes of this thread, however, is that there have not been enough well-designed experimental studies for us to conclude that there is a causal relationship. It thus does not seem that we have sufficient evidence for us to tell parents that there is no effect or that "it is trivial at best." We don't have consistent experimental evidence to back up that statement. > 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. You are suggesting that we should not even address the issue of television viewing with parents because there is not sufficient experimental data to show causation. I assume then that there have been been well-designed experimental studies showing that economic disparity and the prevalence of hand guns causes our children to become more violent? Please forward those reference to me. I would be interested in taking a look at any study showing that higher homicide rates in the US versus Canada are caused by the level of economic disparity and the prevalence of handguns in the US. I'm not a sociologist, but I'm pretty sure that there are more than two factors that are responsible for the different homicide rates in these two countries. I'm also pretty sure that we don't have studies that conclusively show causation. > 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. Have randomized clinical trials been conducted to show that eradicating poverty and controlling guns will reduce the violent behavior in our children? If we have not conducted this kind of research to show that these "treatments" are effective, then should we be recommending them to parents? I think that this thread highlights a very important issue. How should practicing psychologists interpret and apply this kind of scientific research? What is the practical application of this kind of research when we are working with individual clients or families? Do we only rely on the results of experimental studies and ignore the often larger body of correlational studies? If there have been no experimental research showing that watching violent television shows causes our children to become more aggressive, do we tell our clients that there is no effect, or do we tell them that causality has not been sufficiently studied in the literature. Is there any clinical value or usefulness to the correlational studies showing an association between watching violent television programs and engaging in violent behavior? Perhaps this is also a statistics question. Can we predict individual behavior based on group data? I would submit that correlational studies can be used to guide case conceptualization and clinical treatment, but that each practitioner should think scientifically with their clients to rule out alternative hypotheses and reach logical conclusions. This would mean that practitioners could tell parents that there is no data conclusively showing causality between watching violent television shows and childhood aggressiveness, but that there is evidence suggesting some kind of association between these two variables. It would then be up to the practitioner to collaborate with the parents to discover the reasons for the aggressiveness of their child. After ruling out other factors, they may indeed find that the child is aggressive because he or she witnesses models on TV shows being reinforced for violent behavior. Given that most behavior is multidimensional, it is also likely that there will be other causal factors that can be addressed. Just some thoughts during a bout of insomnia... Rod
<<winmail.dat>>
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
