On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, tasha howe went: > You might find this interesting for the question related to TV and > behavior. There seem to be gender differences in its effects
Thanks for the reference; I don't have immediate access to the journal in which it's published, but the abstract looks interesting, as does the following on-line article by the same authors: http://www.cyfc.umn.edu/television.html. It still seems to me that this body of research cries out for random assignment to viewing conditions over long periods. Otherwise, it's terribly confounded by viewer preference. You've probably heard the finding that 90 minutes of observation of 3-year-old children can predict their likelihood of depressive and antisocial-personality disorders at age 21 (Caspi et al., Archives of General Psychiatry 53: 1033-1039, 1996). So once kids are old enough to change the channel, might their viewing choices serve mostly as markers for behavioral predispositions that would have emerged anyway? Even before they're old enough to change the channel, there are other "third variable" problems to consider. According to the authors you cite, one of the main determinants of children's viewing choices is their immediate family's viewing choices (http://www.cyfc.umn.edu/television.html). Seems to me that this confounds exposure to violent TV with a host of genetic and environmental factors. > since it has been well documented (and confirmed here) that > educational TV affects behavior and grades positively, it makes > sense that violent TV could also have effects. Hmm. OK, with regard to the educational TV, we actually have a longitudinally designed experiment with random assignment; the independent variable was encouragement to watch _Sesame Street_ (Ball & Bogatz, 1970; Bogatz & Ball, 1971; cited in http://www.cyfc.umn.edu/television.html). That seems convincing to me. (By the way, it makes sense to me that educational TV can affect grades and behavior positively: educational TV imparts facts and skills whose deployment in daily life is likely to be rewarded. Such rewards will be available even in the grittiest environment; for example, there are benefits to being able to count your change.) But I don't see how it logically follows from there that violent TV will increase the long-term real-life propensity toward violence in viewers who weren't already so inclined. So I searched PsycInfo for a "violent TV" homolog to the Ball & Bogatz experiment. Crossing "television" (and similar keywords) with "violence" and "aggression," I got almost 1000 hits. Limiting these to citations whose abstracts contained the text string "random" (as in "randomized trial"), I found myself down to *23* hits! Most weren't relevant. One of them, I admit, gave me pause: Cameron, Paul; Janky, Christine. The effects of TV violence upon children: A naturalistic experiment. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 6(1): 233-234, 1971. Abstract To explore the possible effects on children of viewing violence on TV, 254 kindergartners' TV viewing while-at-home was controlled by their parents over a 3-wk period. After division by sex, Ss were randomly assigned to 4 conditions: (a) 3 wk. of violent TV, (b) 2 wk. of violent followed by 1 wk. of passive TV, (c) 2 wk. of passive followed by 1 wk. of violent TV, and (d) 3 wk. of passive TV. Parents were interviewed after each of the 3 wk. and after the conclusion of manipulation. Parentally-reported behavioral changes were weighed and t tests between the groups performed. Generally, although all 4 groups tended to become more pathologic, children on a violent TV diet displayed more behaviorally-pathologic changes than those on the passive diet. That's a nice start, although it would be nicer if the size of the effect were indicated. Have there been any more such long-term randomized studies since 1971, or is that as good as it gets? --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
