Fw: Fw: media and violence

[Gary_Padover]

Welcome to this discussion, Dr. Boxer. I have worked with your father in law, Dr. Goldstein for the past 11 years and know how he committed he is to well designed research. As i have commented personally to David, i respect the N=1 research he has done as a practitioner in PCT and MOL.

While PCT offers an acceptable hypothesis to certain homeostatic functions and behaviors, of which i am particularly interested in family therapy, and while organization and reorganization can be understood biologically right down to DNA and RNA, (see recent article on PCT site) there is alot of outstanding and important research in social psychology around anger and aggression, social learning, and reinforcement contingencies, of which i know you are involved.

thank you for presenting this research on this site. Research and practicing psychologists have more than assertions, to base our conclusions upon. My practice affords me rich clinical observation and i know your work in research affords well designed research studies to offer understandings of human behavior.

While correlational research is not causal, necessarily, the late Dr. Irwin Hyman, Temple University always noted in his lifelong and outstanding contributions to the field of teaching alternatives to corporal punishment in schools, how important correlational research is. Certainly, it has offered more to the field than mere assertions and dismissals of psychological findings.

take care and i appreciate your documentation of research on media, violence, and hostile aggression.

gary padover, ph.d.

···

---

Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now.

[dmg]

[Goldstein (2008.12.07.1125 EDT)]

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Boxer" <pboxer@psychology.rutgers.edu>
To: "David M. Goldstein" <davidmg@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: media and violence

Bill,

It is of course true to state that not all people who consume violent
media become violent. It also is true to state that not all people who
smoke cigarettes develop lung cancer, or that not all people exposed to
lead as children develop intellectual deficiencies. Yet I would argue that
the majority of the public accepts the established findings from public
health research linking smoking and lung cancer, and linking lead exposure
and intellectual problems. What the public fails often to accept -
unfortunately, given that the science often has been of higher quality -
is the link between violent media exposure and aggression. Particularly
vexing here is the fact that the effect size estimates for the violent
media/aggression link are higher than the lead-IQ link, and almost the
same as the smoking-lung cancer link (see Bushman & Anderson, 2001,
American Psychologist).

That being said, I should go further and note that all media violence
researchers acknowledge the obvious fact that before there were violent
media (at least in their modern manifestations), there still were violent
individuals. The history of the world is pretty much a history of
violence. But that doesn't dampen the impact violent media have today.

You are correct to suggest that violent individuals are primed in a way to
prefer violent media. Trait aggressiveness is very often shown to be a
moderator of violent media effects in experimental research -- but the
main effect still is there for violent media exposure. The longitudinal
research has shown -- clearly, and within the strictures of longitudinal
design, conclusively as well -- the following:

1) Childhood violent TV exposure leads to increases in aggressive
behavior, even while controlling childhood aggressiveness, BUT

2) Childhood aggressiveness does NOT lead to increased preference for
violent media, even when controlling childhood violent media exposure
(findings from Eron et al., 1972, American Psychologist; Huesmann et al.,
2003, Developmental Psychology).

As to the processes, cognitive or otherwise, that have been theorized to
account for these links, the research centers on social-cognitive
information processing mechanisms and structures (see Huesmann, 1988,
1998). Violent media "writes the script" for violent behavior, through
cognitive scripts and schemas that become internalized and over time
direct habitually aggressive responding.

Finally -- your allusion to "simple minded correlational studies" is a
drastic underselling of the violent media research. The studies conducted
by the top investigative teams in this area are well-controlled,
well-designed, and thoughtfully implemented. The study we most recently
published (Boxer, Huesmann, Bushman, et al., online-2008 and in press for
2009, J of Youth and Adolescence) was correlational given the target
sample (incarcerated adolescents, difficult to sample prospectively) but
included statistical controls meant to reduce the threats to external
validity by this design feature. For example, we used multi-source
confirmatory factor modeling to estimate violent and generally aggressive
behavior, and used a cumulative risk method to estimate exposure risk.

If you take even a cursory look at the broad narrative and meta-analytic
reviews of the media violence literature (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003,
Psychological Science in the Public Interest; Bushman & Huesmann, Archives
of Pediatrics), you will see that the majority of studies upon which the
general conclusion of violent media effects on aggression rests are very
well designed experimental and longitudinal investigations. And the
quality is most certainly going up, as evidenced by recent work by Polman
and colleagues (2008, Aggressive Behavior, naturalistic post-exposure
sampling of behavior), and Bushman and colleagues (Konijn et al., 2008,
Developmental Psychology, more ecologically valid exp design).

To assert that the media violence research is "simple minded" is wrong and
degrading, and to summarize all the work as "correlational" is factually
incorrect.

Paul

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2008.12.07.1030)]

Goldstein (2008.12.07.1125 EDT)

Hi David. I take it this is Paul’s reply to Bill. Mind if I take a crack at it?

It is of course true to state that not all people who consume violent

media become violent. It also is true to state that not all people who

smoke cigarettes develop lung cancer, or that not all people exposed to

lead as children develop intellectual deficiencies. Yet I would argue that

the majority of the public accepts the established findings from public

health research linking smoking and lung cancer, and linking lead exposure

and intellectual problems. What the public fails often to accept -

unfortunately, given that the science often has been of higher quality -

is the link between violent media exposure and aggression. Particularly

vexing here is the fact that the effect size estimates for the violent

media/aggression link are higher than the lead-IQ link, and almost the

same as the smoking-lung cancer link (see Bushman & Anderson, 2001,

American Psychologist).

These are group level findings and they are fine for making policy level decisions. I think the PCT complaint about such studies would be that they don’t help you understand behavior (like aggression) at the individual level. This research is fine as sociology or policy research; but I think it’s worthless as an approach to understanding individual human behavior.

That being said, I should go further and note that all media violence

researchers acknowledge the obvious fact that before there were violent

media (at least in their modern manifestations), there still were violent

individuals. The history of the world is pretty much a history of

violence. But that doesn’t dampen the impact violent media have today.

Sure, at the group level there may be some detectable “effect” of violent media on the incidence of aggression. But then someone (policy makers, government leaders) have to decide what to do about it. There are trades. Do we keep violent media – stuff like the Old Testment, The Illiad, Grimm’s Fairy Tales, just to mention some of the most grisly – away from children in the hopes of reducing the incidence of aggression a bit or do we allow access to these media and try to reduce aggression using other means – like by reducing poverty, another variable that is known to have a group level statistical association with aggression.

The longitudinal

research has shown – clearly, and within the strictures of longitudinal

design, conclusively as well – the following:

1. Childhood violent TV exposure leads to increases in aggressive

behavior, even while controlling childhood aggressiven or

violent media, even when controlling childhood violent media exposure

(findings from Eron et al., 1972, American Psychologist; Huesmann et al.,

2003, Developmental Psychology).

What are the r squared values? If they’re not close to .99 these group level results are not useful at the individual level.

As to the processes, cognitive or otherwise, that have been theorized to

account for these links, the research centers on social-cognitive

information processing mechanisms and structures (see Huesmann, 1988,

1998). Violent media “writes the script” for violent behavior, through

cognitive scripts and schemas that become internalized and over time

direct habitually aggressive responding.

This is an individual level theory. And it’s an open loop causal theory, which is consistent with the general linear model of statistics that is used to test it. If the results of these statistical tests don’t produce consistently high r squared (goodness of fit) values then the model should be rejected. We have a better alternative: closed loop control theory.

Finally – your allusion to “simple minded correlational studies” is a

drastic underselling of the violent media research. The studies conducted

by the top investigative teams in this area are well-controlled,

well-designed, and thoughtfully implemented. The study we most recently

published (Boxer, Huesmann, Bushman, et al., online-2008 and in press for

2009, J of Youth and Adolescence) was correlational given the target

sample (incarcerated adolescents, difficult to sample prospectively) but

included statistical controls meant to reduce the threats to external

validity by this design feature. For example, we used multi-source

confirmatory factor modeling to estimate violent and generally aggressive

behavior, and used a cumulative risk method to estimate exposure risk.

It’s still correlational. And it’s “simple-minded” only in the sense that it’s an open-loop model which doesn’t take the obvious feedback connections involved into account. For example, what one views has an effect on what one does while, at the same time, what one does has an effect what one views. We live in a closed-loop of cause and effect. PCT explains why behavior in this closed loop can appear to be caused.Your father-in-law can explain it to you, if he can ever tear himself away from playing with those adorable grandchildren;-)

If you take even a cursory look at the broad narrative and meta-analytic

reviews of the media violence literature (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003,

Psychological Science in the Public Interest; Bushman & Huesmann, Archives

of Pediatrics), you will see that the majority of studies upon which the

general conclusion of violent media effects on aggression rests are very

well designed experimental and longitudinal investigations. And the

quality is most certainly going up, as evidenced by recent work by Polman

and colleagues (2008, Aggressive Behavior, naturalistic post-exposure

sampling of behavior), and Bushman and colleagues (Konijn et al., 2008,

Developmental Psychology, more ecologically valid exp design).

Again, these are probably fine as the basis for policy decisions regarding what should be broadcast during prime time. But they don’t help us understand human behavior very well. Indeed, when these group results are used as a basis for discussing individual behavior they lead to rather prejudicial conclusions, like that exposure to violence causes aggression. It doesn’t. In fact, external events never cause behavior in a closed-loop system. PCT shows that external events are just potential disturbances to controlled inputs. If a person is controlling a variable that is disturbed by the external event, they will react (to prevent the disturbance from pushing the variable from its reference) and it will appear that the external event has caused the reaction. But that’s not what is actually going on. In the case of aggression, a violent image will appear to cause aggression in people who are controlling for things like imitating an adult model. People who are controlling for other things, like treating people with respect, will react to aggressive images in a very different way, if at all.

To assert that the media violence research is “simple minded” is wrong and

degrading, and to summarize all the work as “correlational” is factually

incorrect.

“Simple minded” was probably a poor choice of words. I can see that it might sound degrading but I it’s certainly not wrong. And most of this stuff is correlational (statistical controls do not an experiment make) but the real problem is that , if the research is aimed at understanding individuals, it is based on the wrong model – the open loop causal model of statistics. The fact that this is the case is proved by the fact that the fit of the model to the data (measured by r squared and equivalent measures of the proportion of variance in the data accounted for by the model) is typically about .3 and rarely greater than .5. I thinkit’s about time that the basic model underlying research on media violence – indeed, the basic model underlying all research in psychology, which is the general linear model of statistics – is what is wrong and should be rejected. It’s time to try PCT.

Best regards

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2008.12.07.0959 MST)]

Bill,

It is of course true to state that not all people who consume violent
media become violent. It also is true to state that not all people who
smoke cigarettes develop lung cancer, or that not all people exposed to
lead as children develop intellectual deficiencies.

I'm sure your father-in-law will be happy to tell you how annoying I can be about statistical studies, but we're still good friends anyway. I hope the same will be true of you and me.

These are different cases, because as far as I know, lung cancer and smoking, or lead poisoning and brain damage, do not have any plausible common causes. But violence arises in many ways, and I think a common cause of generating violent behavior and viewing violent media is highly likely.

You say, "You are correct to suggest that violent individuals are primed in a way to prefer violent media. Trait aggressiveness is very often shown to be a
moderator of violent media effects in experimental research -- but the
main effect still is there for violent media exposure."

I'll stipulate that -- but "violent media exposure" is not something the environment does to a passive individual: the individual initiates and maintains the exposure by looking and continuing to look. You're saying that a person who chooses violent media to look at may end up becoming even more violent. I can accept that, but I still say that this doesn't explain why the person is so violent in the first place. Maybe sometimes a parent who thinks violence is good for a kid to look at turns the TV on and selects the channel and makes the kid sit down and watch, but I'd wager that most of the time it's the kid who turns on the TV and selects the show. So the exposure is a consequence of seeking it out, not a cause. That leaves seeking it out unexplained.

Yet I would argue that
the majority of the public accepts the established findings from public
health research linking smoking and lung cancer, and linking lead exposure
and intellectual problems. What the public fails often to accept -
unfortunately, given that the science often has been of higher quality -
is the link between violent media exposure and aggression.

These are not comparable cases, and I suspect that the reasons for a good part of the failure to accept the evidence about the effects of violent media is quite different from the reasons for my lack of acceptance. Many people like violence and reject anything suggesting it be reduced or removed from the media. That's certainly not my reason. My reason is that I don't think people are stimulus-response devices, and in addition I can see many plausible ways for violent behavior and seeking out violent media to have the same root etiology. This is important because if I am right, then merely suppressing violent media will not have the beneficial effects implied by supporters of the findings. There might be some effect from the communication of disapproval, but that has never been terribly effective in the past. I think the roots of violence have to be tracked down to their origins before we can do anything about it.

Here's how I would approach the subject, from the angle of PCT.

Violence is one point on a scale of actions aimed at achieving satisfaction of goals. The larger the goal discrepancy, whether caused by a large disturbance or anything else, the harder a normal person will try to overcome the discrepancy. People learn, however, that discrepancies which are large enough call for so much effort to correct them that the result is considered excessive, by others and sometimes by themselves. Also, some people are excessively sensitive even to small discrepancies, reacting with far more energy that is actually needed. Either way, the excessive degree of action is called "violence," and is a problem for other people.

With this view of what violence is, we can see that the violence itself is only a symptom of underlying problems, and that simply trying to prevent violence per se does not address the problems. The real question is, "Why is this person so sensitive to small discrepancies, and why does this person continue to escalate efforts to correct discrepancies when the actions are not working?" With this view in mind, it seems clear that direct opposition to violence will simply make discrepancies, or as we call them in PCT, "error signals", larger and lead to even more extremes of action. We then get Charleton Heston standing before the NRA declaring that his gun will be taken away "over my dead body."

Particularly
vexing here is the fact that the effect size estimates for the violent
media/aggression link are higher than the lead-IQ link, and almost the
same as the smoking-lung cancer link (see Bushman & Anderson, 2001,
American Psychologist).

But that does not rule out a common cause; in fact it tends to support that hypothesis just as much more strongly as it does the causal hypothesis.

That being said, I should go further and note that all media violence
researchers acknowledge the obvious fact that before there were violent
media (at least in their modern manifestations), there still were violent
individuals. The history of the world is pretty much a history of
violence. But that doesn't dampen the impact violent media have today.

Nor does it support it. Don't get me wrong, I'm as much against violence as you are and certainly don't want to put a damper on any effort to reduce it. But agreeing about the importance of the problem is not the same as agreeing to a particular proposal for a solution, the suppression of violent media. As I see it, the real problem is that some people love the violent media and expose themselves to it whenever they can, filling in with live football, boxing, wrestling, and academic seminars when they can.

Finally -- your allusion to "simple minded correlational studies" is a
drastic underselling of the violent media research.

A lot of the issues here relate to my arguments with David G. I think that in general statistical studies in psychology and other fields settle for correlations that are far, far too low. My objection to that isn't just fussiness. It's that the kind of "fact" obtained from such studies is too unreliable to be used in any reasoning process of any complexity. Observations that a few more mothers hold babies on the left side than on the right side, in a population of mothers, gets reported as "Mothers hold their babies on the left," when in fact 40 out of 100 don't (I made up that 40, since I don't know the real number). If you then draw any conclusions based on this fact, you will be wrong 40% (or whatever) of the time. If your conclusion requires two or more facts of this nature to be true at the same time, the probability of being correct plummets below chance: it is probably wrong.

So my objection is that accepting facts of this quality leads to poor science and wrong conclusions. A little investigation will show you that if your correlations fall much below about 0.9, the probability of the effect appearing in any given individual goes unacceptably low. The more individuals you have to study to get a given significance level, the less likely it is to be true of the next person you meet.

I'm no statistician; I've tried to get someone to do these probability-of-being-correct calculations for me at various levels of correlation, but the only one actually to do it was Richard Kennaway, and all he got for his trouble was a chorus of objections that statistics were OK anyway. So I realize that what I'm saying is unpopular and unsettling. but nobody has shown me that it is, in addition, wrong.

To assert that the media violence research is "simple minded" is wrong and
degrading, and to summarize all the work as "correlational" is factually
incorrect.

OK, I stand corrected and apologize for using a degrading term. To echo a popular slogan I have seen pinned on academic bulletin boards, "I may disagree with what you are saying, but I will respectfully defend your right to say it even if you are a raving space loon."

Just kidding. You'll get used to me.

Best,

bill p.

···

At 11:28 AM 12/7/2008 -0500, Paul Boxer wrote:

[Tracy_Harms]

[from Tracy B. Harms (2008-12-09 20:24 Pacific)]

[From Rick Marken (2008.12.07.1030)]
...
These are group level findings and they are fine for making policy level
decisions. I think the PCT complaint about such studies would be that they
don't help you understand behavior (like aggression) at the individual
level. This research is fine as sociology or policy research; but I think
it's worthless as an approach to understanding individual human behavior.
...

I agree with the objections I've seen detailed, by you and others, of
the attempts to construe the research in question as useful in
accounting for the behavior of individuals. I think you have
underestimated the strength of that criticism, in that you said "group
level findings ... are fine for making policy level decisions." They
don't go from being inadequate, for lacking in the explanatory value
they sought, to adequate, with results being applicable at a different
level. The absence of explanation is a genuine limiting factor on the
potential for sound application, period.

Tracy