Very interesting data and thanks much Don. I would appreciate seeing a comparison of child abuse and/or use of corporal punishment by parents per location. Yes, all behaviors are multi-determined but the evidence is quite convincing that becoming a violent person starts in the home.
Joan [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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])
