Study: Watching TV Increases Teen, Adult Aggression (1 Viewer)

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Mar28.html
The study will be in tomorrow's issue of Science a very well respected peer review journal.

"People think the correlation is trivial," said Brad Bushman, a professor of psychology at Iowa State University at Ames. But "the correlation between violent media and aggression is larger than the effect that wearing a condom has on decreasing the risk of HIV. It's larger than the correlation between exposure to lead and decreased IQ levels in kids. It's larger than the effects of exposure to asbestos. It's larger than the effect of second-hand smoke on cancer."

Wow.

 

[MikeAlletto]

I don't buy it. Who funded this study? I've been watching tv more than 3 hours a day for 27 years (ok...maybe 26...i don't remember much when I was only months old ) and I'm not a violent person. I'd also like to know what they consider a violent act. Throwing the remote at the tv because your team lost? Getting frustrated in traffic? Or shooting someone in the street. They only followed 700 people also. I wouldn't call only 700 people a huge representation of the american public. How many males? How many females? Only 157 of them were agressive after 1-3 hours and only 201 were after more than 3 hours. Fun with percentages.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

The fact that it was published in Science usually indicates that it is a legitimate study. I don't have the entire study but usually studies that get published in Science are ones where the conclusions are drawn first and the data is found to support those conclusions.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Holy moses, that is the most vague thing I've ever read.

"It's larger than the effect of second-hand smoke on cancer."

Sure, because there is not proof of correlation between smoking and cancer, so the statement makes no sense. And what is "larger" anyway? If this is science, where are the numbers?

And why is it that when these "studies" get published, they are completely over-simplified with gross assumptions made about cause-and-effect? Is it watching TV that makes kids aggressive, or is it other reasons (lack of parental attention, frustration at school, not being challenged or engaged) that both cause agression and result in kids watching more television. That is, why assume that TV makes the kids violent, when it is equally, if not more, plausible to conclude that violent kids watch more television? I'll tell you why: saying the latter doesn't win elections, get funding, or find scapegoats and shirk responsibility. As long as people have these motivations, science will continue to be misrepresented.

 

[Butch C]

I'll tell you why: saying the latter doesn't win elections, get funding, or find scapegoats and shirk responsibility

Last I checked, saying TV is the culprit doesnt get you elected...ask Al Gore and Lieberman.

I know we all love TV and movies but come to grips with it...the shit is rotting childerns brains like candy on teeth

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Will this mean that the next time the cops arrest a kid/s for a gang shooting that in addition to picking up the gun, they will go back to the house and pick up the TV also as a lethal weapon?

 

[Brian Perry]

While I don't necessarily believe that watching violence on TV (or movies) causes agression in the viewer, I do think it is logical to say the following:

If art has the potential to educate and inspire, it can also corrupt. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

MORE PLAUSABLE! Thats like saying Chernoble didnt cause cancer in Russia...just alot of people with cancer happened to live near Chernoble!

The difference being that there is undeniable proof about Chernoble. There is no proof that TV makes people violent. Perhaps smarter people find better things to do with their time. Perhaps parents stick their kids in front of a TV screen as an alternative to raising them. Perhaps violent people have fewer responsibilities taking up time, leaving more time for TV. I just don't see how some force could come out of a TV and alter someone's brains to make them more violent. I agree with Mike. TV is merely a symptom, not the problem.

 

[CaptDS9E]

I watch a lot of tv/movies and im far from a violent person. Until they get it in there heads that kids become violent for other reasons other then tv/video games these studies are crap.

capt

 

[Brad_V]

I remember some previous studies on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon and how many violent acts per hour it had. A "violent act" included things such as tossing a piece of pizza at someone in a joking manner.

 

[John Bonar]

Nothing has been said about causality. People naturally assume causality in the presence of correlation, especially when the relationship makes a degree of sense. The question that needs to be asked is, "What is the difference between the children that watch TV for 3+ hours a day and those who do not?" The relationship exists. The statistics of the study were sound. The operational definitions were simple, namely they measured daily TV viewing. They made no qualitative distinctions as to what type of TV viewing. With a correlation, one must always ask what is driving the relationship.

To attack correlational studies as "crap" is not fair. It is the press that either feigns a misunderstanding of the process to get headlines or is truly stupid.

 

[John Bonar]

"They only followed 700 people also. I wouldn't call only 700 people a huge representation of the american public. How many males? How many females? Only 157 of them were agressive after 1-3 hours and only 201 were after more than 3 hours. Fun with percentages."

700 is actually a rather large n size. Also, issues of statistical significance/clinical significance play a role here. If 201 were aggressive after 3 hours, within a 700 person sample, that's a good sized relationship.

Science to some degree is about statistics. Did you know that within the medical field, it is necessary to prove the efficacy of medication against a placebo effect? Did you know that the placebo effect is often times responsible for a greater percentage of a drug's power than the active ingrediant in the drug?

 

[RogerB]

there is not proof of correlation between smoking and cancer

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

The only thing that I want to state again is that Science is a peer-review publication. This means that this paper was reviewed by scientists who found the method satisfactory.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Oops, I meant to say that there is no link between second-hand smoking and cancer.

John, you're right, they didn't specifically discuss causality. But almost everybody who reads that will make that link. This sort of thing is published and draws attention because it simplifies and sensationalises a situation. Seriously, who hear didn't make that connection? This is the kind of "data" that will be inevitably misquoted and misrepresented by people who benefit from that sort of thing. I'm not blaming the journalists (although it could have been more responsible to specifically state that there is no causality).

 

[John Bonar]

A link like that would be published period. The reason it gets attention is because of the journalists. The media often butchers these types of things. Along the social science end of things, schizophrenia has been popularized incorrectly for so long that people believe that it means multiple personalities. That Crowe flick helps things a bit on that I suppose.

On a statistical note, I think we should be railing against the media's blatant misuse of poll data to suit whatever nefarious whim they might have.

 

[Shayne Lebrun]

Ice Cream sales increase in the summer. Crime rates also increase in the summer.

Therefore, either performing crimes causes one to crave ice cream, or eating ice cream causes people to commit crimes.

Bhagi, I'll direct you to your own signature.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The question that needs to be asked is, "What is the difference between the children that watch TV for 3+ hours a day and those who do not?" The relationship exists. The statistics of the study were sound.

There's no doubt that the statistics are sound. It's the inferences made from the statistics that are not. Violent people watch more TV is a sound inference. TV makes people more violent is not.

 

[MarcS]

Peer review is overrated, one only need look at NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) or JAMA--as they have strayed from "pure" medicine into the cultural and sociological areas of "research", they have published controversial articles with little merit--but they were peer reviewed...

It's not a secret that fewer and fewer MD's are becoming AMA members due to the political nature of the AMA, and the way it affects the type and quality of journal articles published.

And, as others have mentioned, a correlation doesn't mean cause and effect. Unless other factors were controlled for, or at least simultaneously gathered/measured--there is little conclusion that can be drawn from the results...

I'm surprised Consumer Reports hasn't published "research" like this...but that's a whole other can of worms...

 

[John Bonar]

In the human sciences right now, the political correctness movement is running roughshod over everything. I know I'm pushed to publish on diversity (defined very narrowly I might add) issues and my area of focus is brain/behavior relationships. It doesn't make a lot of sense. We'll be a lot better off, in my humble opinion, once this diversity agenda dies. I think it will as it just isn't supported very well (by any form of logic I practice anyway).