Yes, with the notable exception of Detroit, it seems to be climate related: less crime where it is colder. You might think SF is also an exception but, as Mark Twain noted: The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.
Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Box 3055 x7295 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jbu.edu/academics/hss/faculty/rfroman.asp Proverbs 14:15 "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps." -----Original Message----- From: Don Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:22 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: RE: [tips] Computer games to get cigarette-style health warnings - Times Online I tried to send this yesterday, but I had exceeded the 3 post limit. Well, I certainly agree that violent behaviour is multiply determined. However, before I started getting concerned about violent media I'd look at the statistics comparing the US and Canada in terms of Violence. Here is some recent date which compares major US and Canadian cities: Crime Rates - Selected North American Cities (per 100,000 population) Cities Homicides Robberies Baltimore, MD 43.5 638.5 Detroit, MI 42.1 596.2 Washington, DC 35.8 552.3 Atlanta, GA 25.8 724.6 Philadelphia, PA 22.2 657.4 Dallas, TX 20.1 607.5 Miami, FL 17.9 614.5 Chicago, IL 15.5 552.0 Minneapolis, MN 14.1 597.5 San Francisco, CA 11.6 399.9 Boston, MA 10.5 418.6 Vancouver, BC 3.0 149.0 Toronto, ON 2.0 108.5 Hamilton, ON 2.0 39.0 Montreal, QC 1.5 147.5 Ottawa, ON 1.5 88.0 Sudbury, ON 1.0 53.0 Guelph, ON 1.0 60.0 Source: The Geographic Reference Report 2007 (3/2007) http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooql_602.asp Given that all of the kids in these cities watch pretty much the same TV, the same movies, play the same video games and listen to the same Rap music it would seem to me that there are some other factors out there that are a lot more worrisome than violent media. -Don. Don Allen Dept. of Psychology Langara College 100 W. 49th Ave. Vancouver, B.C. Canada V5Y 2Z6 Phone: 604-323-5871 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bourgeois, Dr. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:05 pm Subject: RE: [tips] Computer games to get cigarette-style health warnings - Times Online To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > I'd be curious to hear why you think that any single cause of > violent behavior, which is obviously multiply determined (as is > virtually everything we study), would account for more than 10% of > the variance. And as far as the "less than 10% of the variance" > criticism, I'll adapt an example from Rosenthal and Rosnow: > imagine a design in which a researcher compared kids who played > violent vs. nonviolent video games to see whether they became > school shooters, and found the following results: > > nonviolent games > violent games > did not become shooters 66 > 34 > became shooters 34 > 66 > > What percent of the variance do you thnk playing video games > accounted for~ If you said 9%, you're right (r = .30). Is this a > trivial effect~ > > > ________________________________ > From: Don Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:11 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: [tips] Computer games to get cigarette-style health > warnings - Times Online > > > Hi Mark- > > I just re-read the Carnagey and Anderson paper and I'm still not > impressed. In the Method section re Exp. 2 they say, " The > participant also rated the video game on various dimensions > (difficult,absorbing,action-packed, arousing, boring, enjoyable, > entertaining, exciting, frustrating, fun, involving, stimulating, > violent, and addicting)." However in the Results section they > merely say, "Note that the effect of violence was obtained even > though the violent and nonviolent games were equally arousing and > all games were competitive." without providing any data whatever. > A strange omission don't you think? Then in Exp. 3 they say, > "Also,several video-game ratings (absorbing, > boring, enjoyable, entertaining, exciting, fun, involving, > stimulating, addicting) predicted aggressive behavior, Fs(1, 134) > = 4.75, ps <.05". Doesn't that just make my case? Even if this > one study did stand up it has not (to my knowledge) been > replicated by an independent lab. The studies on the Mozart Effect > looked good on their own, but replication proved to be a problem. > > As far as the Anderson and Bushman study; it's just the old > "bundle of sticks" argument. Each study may be too weak on its own > to prove the case, but if we take them all together then they must > constitute a proof. As far as I'm concerned a bunch of weak > studies is just that; a bunch of weak studies. > > More importantly, even if all of Anderson's assertions were true > he is still only accounting for less than 10% of the variance. If > you are really concerned about violence then focus on important > issues like economic disparity and prevelence of handguns. > > I still remain in the skeptics corner. > > -Don. > > > > Mark A. Casteel wrote: > > Hi Don. For a good study that (in my opinion) satisfies your > requirement for a high-action no-violence group, take a look at > Carnagey and Anderson (2005). Ps played either a violent version > of Carmageddon 2, a version where violence was punished (points > were lost for killing people/hitting objects, and a no-violence > version (same game) where violence wasn't possible. Aggressive > affect, cognition, and behavior all differed in the reward > compared to the no-violence group, and aggressive cognition and > behavior differed between the reward and the punishment groups. > > Also, what about the meta-analysis done by Anderson and Bushman > (2001), which found no gender diffs and no diffs as a function of > experimental vs. correlation studies? Granted, the rs were all in > the range of .16-.27, but as the authors note, the average effect > size was the same as that between condom use and the prevention of > HIV. Do we take that association seriously? > > -- Mark > > At 02:06 PM 3/27/2008, you wrote: > > > It's this kind of junk science that really gets my goat. It is > highly reminiscent of Frederick Wertham's "Seduction of the > Innocent" which set off a frenzy for banning comic books because > they were corrupting our children. For those of you who are too > young to remember this era you can find a good discussion of it here: > > http://art-bin.com/art/awertham.html > > I have reviewed the literature that purports to show a causal link > between media violence and violent behaviour in children and I > remain highly unimpressed. Most of the studies are correlational > and even there the correlations are weak (.20 to .30). The studies > that actually attempt to manipulate exposure to violent media are > all badly flawed. They merely compare children who watched a > violent video (or played a violent video game) with children who > watched a non-violent version. What's wrong with that? Well, for > one thing the violent media were also action-packed while the non- > violent comparitors were dull as dishwater. Since violence and > action are confounded in these studies you need a third group > (high action-no violence) to determine which component produces > the effect. So far, I have been unable to find a properly > controlled replicated studies that clearly establishes a causal > link. Until I see one I'll remain in the skeptics corner. > > -Don. > > Christopher D. Green wrote: > > > Check out this Times (of London) article on British efforts to put > warning labels on video games. > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3628894.ece > > Chris Green > York U. > Toronto, Canada > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > > > > > -- > Don Allen > Department of Psychology > Langara College > Vancouver, B.C., Canada > V5Y 2Z6 > > 604-323-5871 > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > ********************************* > Mark A. Casteel, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Psychology > Penn State York > 1031 Edgecomb Ave. > York, PA 17403 > (717) 771-4028 > ********************************* > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > > -- > Don Allen > Department of Psychology > Langara College > Vancouver, B.C., Canada > V5Y 2Z6 > > 604-323-5871 > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
