1

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Social responsibility

Using one or more research studies, explain crosscultural differences in prosocial behaviour.
Intro:
Pro-social behaviour: every behavior benefitting others/society (eg. caring, loving, preventing aggression, refraining from driving after drinking). Unlike altruism, might be for selfish purposes. Different cultures = different values. Example of difference: Individualistic societies oriented to the individual whereas collectivistic societies give higher priority to the welfare of collective. The Diversity thesis states that different cultures have different morals. Notable that there are cultural differences in beliefs/behaviours/accepted norms; reflected for example by different laws: Europe vs. America capital punishment. Thorough research in search for cross-cultural differences in pro-social behaviour= logic; Psychologists have studied cross cultural differences in all behaviour. I will use Levine et al.s cross cultural study to explain cross-cultural differences in pro-social behaviours.

Development:
Levine et. al (1990) A: Studied one of the many pro-social behaviours: helping behaviour P: 35 American cities & 23 large world cities field experiments by staging simple nonemergency situations (dropping a pen, a blind person cross the street, giving someone change, stamp letter) F: People more helpful in small & medium sized cities, least helpful, in large cities. C: Population density best predictor for helping behaviour. Why? Overstimulation=> need for help unnoticeable/indistinguishable fake vs. genuine needed help? Larger= deindividuation factors pluralistic ignorance or diffusion of responsibility. Cost?(smaller cities have less anonymity making it shameful not to help someone) => guilt. More sense of community. No clear relation between individualistic vs. collectivistic societies. =>Although it was expected individualist cultures less helpful, (and many were) some Collectivist societies less helpful towards outsiders than individualists.

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Lead Levine et. al to speculate: Exceptions because some Collectivists classify stranger more of out-group less worthy of help? Probably several collectivist & individualist society subtypes. Anyways, most helpful were individualist & collectivist cultures that emphasized social responsibility /Sweden, Denmark, Austria & Latin America. Other F: -tive correlation between helping behavior & economic situation. Low purchasing power per capita cities more helpful than cities with high purchasing power per capita. Helping rates also higher in cities when less stressed people (measured by average walking speeds). (Maybe people had less time to notice help needed when brisk walk; maybe because arousal makes focus on own survival) Also: Suggested conformity to the cultural norms of area they live in. South Americans less helpful in New York & New Yorkers more helpful in Rio de Janeiro. As the saying goes, When in Rome, do as the Romans do. In conclusion, the findings demonstrate that cross-cultural differences in helping depend on a multitude of factors; such as cultural norms, population density, economic factors, and stress levels.

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Examine factors influencing bystanderism.

Intro: Bystanderism: not helping someone who is in need of help even though one is able to. (Soo Hoo, 2004) Antisocial as opposed to helping (prosocial) behaivour. From attribution theory (Heider 1959), behaviour attributed to two factors: Dispositional factors: individual responsible; behaviour from internal situations- (personality, ability or mood) Situational factors: social situation & circumstances experienced by the individual responsible; behaviour stem from external influence- (environmental factors, other people, or chance.) Behaviour of bystanderism-> situational and dispositional factors Type of bystanderism: Bystander effect = people not offering help in emergency situations when others are present. Social influence on bystanderism first hypothesized after famous Kitty Genovese: murdered 38 witnesses over 35 minutes & no one inferred / called police. Another more recent case (October 2011) is the one of a 2 year old in Foshan city ran over by 2 cars & 18 witnesses over 6 min. (only trash collecting lady informed police). 2 situational factors said to influence bystander effect: degree of pluralistic ignorance & diffusion of responsibility. Pluralistic ignorance: first coined by Catz & Allport (1931) situation where majority group members think other people accept a norm while they privately reject it. Its a type of conformity; people look how other act -> reaction. Pluralistic ignorance bystander effect factor as individuals may desire to help BUT choose to conform to the bystanderism group norm. Diffusion of responsibility: large sized group phenomenon as responsibility for problem is unclear & more anonymous. tendency of individuals to refrain from responsibility by expecting/believing other people will act. In the case of the bystander effect, people may think help already offered/ someone more competent/ that knows them should help. Examine effect of n observers/ witnesses as situational factor & capacity for close relationships/ empathy as a dispositional factor influencing the bystander effect influenced by pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility, both closely linked to bystanderism. Development: Diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance suggest bystander effect increases with number of people present

4 Latan & Darley:

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

A: Investigate the effect of increasing number of witnesses on bystander effect. P: Subjects told to wait in a room before participating in an experiment. When female experimenter left room, participants heard her fall and cry out loud in next room. Then everything went quiet. F: The participants more likely to react more often and more quickly when alone than if sitting with a stooge who was showing no sign to offer help & did not react to noise. C: Support hypothesis that helping behaviour is affects by number of people in laboratory setting. C:Ecological validity (Heather 1976); younger people not affected by group size if in pairs (correlation could be done between degree of conformity & strive for acceptance and bystanderism?- research) Dispositional rather than situational? Staub (1970s-1980s) Many experiments A: Investigate effects of witnesses on bystander effect of children. P: Kindergarten & 1st grade children more likely to respond to sounds of distress in an adjoining room when in pairs rather than alone. C: Contrary to adults, children helping behaviour increases with number of people & bystander effect decreases. Still situationally affected; might be dispositional=> Children more open about inner feelings & feel stronger when they collaborate while helping? At the moment, no more studies on the bystander effect in larger groups of children. Research on bystander effect through ages might give clues on factors. Some field experiments have failed to demonstrate effect of group size on bystanderism in real life situations. Piliavin et al. (1969) (Arousal Cost Reward-ACR model) A: Investigate the effect of group number on bystander effect P: New York subway: confederates as strangers in need of help. Acted as men with canes who appeared ill or drunk. While faked falling unconscious subway car floor other researchers measured speed of help from people present in subway car. F: NO differences in group size & help almost instant in most cases. People faster in helping when cane than drunk. The helper tended to be of the same ethnicity of the victim &, as observed in many other studies on emergency situations, men more likely help than women. CC: Methodological problems: sample not representative- opportunity sample; experimenter bias as gathered by observed data (Rosenthal & Fode 1963). However sampl size = 4,450 limiting sample bias possibility & 2 observers along with quantitative data reducing experimenter bias.

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Piliavins et. al (1969) study => many possible factors affecting helping behavior & therefore bystander effect. (ACR)Helping/helping is function of emotional arousal & analysis of helping costs and rewards. Person will act on fewest net arousal costs (cost of acting embarrassment during help/physical cost & cost of not acting guilt, distress).

Factors that influence cost: Identification with victim; Perception of emergency

Latans & Darleys experiment included ambiguity person really needed help? = The murder of Kitty Genovese; 1 witness, claimed they believed it domestic quarrel (Gansberg, 1964). Maybe more apparent that the person was in need of help in subway. Participants also physically closer to the victim in Piliavin et al. study compared to participants in Latanes and Darleys experiments. Another situational factor to investigate? (Participants were in the same subway car as the victims in the Piliavins, Rodins & Piliavins while Latanes & Darleys investigations someone in need of help different rooms/booths.). Number of people affecting pluralistic ignorance & diffusion of responsilibity situational explanations of bystanderism, however certain dispositional additional factors can be observed within studies (age). Dispositional factors: Oliner and Oliner (1988) A: Investigate factors affecting helping behaviour and bystandersm P: Interview over 400 who rescued Jews during WW2 & compared with 100 non-rescuers. F: Rescuers seemed to have greater capacity for more extensive relationships & stronger sense of attachment to others. felt more responsible of the welfare for others. Norms seemed taught childhood, often from parents who displayed tolerance, care, and empathy toward children & people different from themselves. C: Empathy & home values/environment built personality (dispositional), helping behaviour influenced bystanderism. C: Based on self report - may have had an inbuilt response bias. But the findings bystanderism not only situational: individual, dispositional differences. Because of their disposition, some people are more likely to help in emergency situations than others. Conclusion: Bystanderism behaviour to situational factors of pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility alone = oversimplifying issue of complex interaction of factors, as shown by the effect of other dispositional factors (eg. age, gender, identification with victim, perception of emergency & emotional proximity with victim). Dependent on people that react to situation? Still difficult to predict likelihood of bystanderism in specific situations but the factors examined in this essay certainly influence this behaviour and should be considered when doing such predictions. Furthermore, having a better understanding of this behaviour might lead to better security and more useful allocation of police agents; placing them in areas of high risk of aggression accompanied by high bystanderism.

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Distinguish between altruism and prosocial behaviour.

Prosocial behavior: Every behavior that benefits others or society (such as preventing aggression, refraining from driving after drinking) Altruism: Helping and sharing behavior, a type of prosocial behavior. Non selfish helping. An evolutionary definition of altruism: Every behavior that reduces the fitness of the helper but increases the fitness of the person receiving help

Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans.

Intro:
Prosocial behavior: behavior that benefits others/society (caring, loving, helping, empathy) Altruism: type of prosocial behavior, helping & sharing behavior. Non selfish helping. Evolutionary Altruism (theory): behavior reducing fitness of altruistic individual while increasing fitness of help receiver (Okasha, 2008). -> seems unlikely natural selection would lead species to adapt to that according to evolution. Adaptations: features especially important for animals survival; passed on to generation when adapted survives. => Evolutionary psychs believe many behaviours/ functions are adaptations. It is believed by evolutionary psychologists that many psychological functions are adaptations. For our survival altruistic behaviour reducing our fitness should not be passed on by genes! Altruism = challenge evolutionary theory. Nevertheless behavior explanation attempts from all psychological perspectives. Contrast the theory of Reciprocal Altruism (RA) developed from a biological point of view & the more cognitively oriented Empathy-Altruism hypothesis (EA) explaining altruism in humans

Development:
Reciprocal Altruism (RA)- Trivers (1971). Individuals will behave altruistically if they believe they might need someone elses help later. More likely to act altruistically if expect to meet need help person again. Griffiths et. al (1999) Prairie dog colony individuals will give alarm calls if they see a predator approaching in spite of risk. => could be explained by RA callers might need to be warned in future (cooperate) Wilkinson (1984) - Reciprocal Altruism in Bats:

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Vampire bats feed on blood; can share it mouth to mouth to bats- failed hunt on given night. Necessary as begin starving after 48 hours without blood. Most do some even outside clans. F: Wilkinson saw many saviours & saviours more likely to be saved by those they had fed = RA Explanation: Individuals in vampire bat groups expect hunt failure once in a while share blood -> receive the same favor infuture. Empathy Altruism Hypothesis (EA) Batson (1990s) People help out of self interest (anxiety/fear/material) BUT often empathy. >Carol Study: A: Investigate relationship between Empathy and Altruism P: Participants listened interview of car accident girl (Carol) after in a car accident, both legs broken.

Independent variable A: Empathy level Condition 1: Participants asked to focus on Carols feelings (High empathy condition) Condition 2: Participants not asked to focus on Carols feelings (Low empathy) Independent variable B: High or low cost conditions Condition 1: High cost. Carol would be in the class. It would be embarrassing to deny her lecture notes Condition 2: Low cost. Carol not in class. Shed finish at home. Not as embarrassing to deny her lecture notes. F: -High empathy group equally likely to help in either condition -The low empathy group more likely to help Carol in the high cost condition
C: If helping behaviour influenced by pure self interest, both situations affected by likelihood of seeing her. Not the case in empathy condition -> Empathy motivate in helping.

Discussion: 1st distinction between theories: Altruism?

Reciprocal Altruism (RA) -> altruistic behaviour related to likelihood of future needed help Empathy Altruism -> Altruistic behaviour related to degree of empathy in situation. -RA more based on rational self interest compared to EA;

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

-RA arguably more reductionist than EA (focuses on -future-self interest). -EA = act on self interest dependent on empathy induced by situation (sometimes). - EA more purely altruistic if RA were altruism for increasing actors fitness not

altruism. 2nd difference:

EA: experimental on humans; RA naturalistic observations on animals (based on humans only partly) RA in humans: Prisoners dilemma. Cooperation game between two players: Best interest to cooperate in game, but lack of trust & cost of not accusing => participants not collaborate => lose collectively. Nash equilibrium. Axelrod & Hamilton (1981): F:If players play more times, they gain trust more cooperative (coherent with RA): Individuals tendency more helpful towards those they anticipate meeting again (reiterated games) Likelier cheating people not expected future meet (single games)

3rd Discrepancy: Validity

Arguable: EA higher human validity than RA: - Contrast to RA, EA more based on humans: more applicable (Hackman et al. 2006) Ecological validity of EA higher than RA-in humans (Heather 1976) -Carol scenario more realistic than prisoner. More evidence challenging RA: -Examples of RA in animals have alternative explanations (dogs may call out for distraction of predator increasing chances of running away) BUT other variables could affect EA too. Alternative explanations: - It might be guild caused by the distress of knowing feelings and not helping. (mirror neurons)/ Better explained by Arousal-Cost Reward (Piliavin 1969) - Alternative explanation to RA includes Kin selection theory (help based on genetic similarity) (Hamilton, 1964). Wilkinsons data suggested Kin might be true (help relatives more)

Conclusion:
EA seems more valid than RA; BUT methodological weaknesses of studies supporting either. Mix of factors; Basing beliefs based on only one =reductionist. May depending on situation & time; they both still increase our understanding of altruism & may lead to other, more elaborate, well rounded theories.

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Violence

Evaluate sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence.

Aggression: any sequence of behaviour in which the goal is to dominate or harm another individual Violence: an aggressive act in which the actor or perpetrator abuses individuals directly or indirectly Examples of violence verbal, physical, psychological, may be inflicted by individuals, groups, institutions, Social Learning Theory or nations - Assumes humans learn behaviour through observational learning - Relationship between actions and consequences are observed, and expectations are formed, which are used to control behaviour - SLT involves factors: attention, retention, motivation and motor reproduction Bandura (1963) Social learning of aggression A: To determine the extent to which children will imitate the aggressive behaviour observed in adults Research method: Laboratory experiment P: - Young children were shown film on adults behaving aggressively towards an inflatable Bobo doll (always bounced back when knocked down) Aggressive acts included throwing doll in air, kicking it across room and hitting it with a mallet - Three conditions: Control condition children were shown the film with the adult behaving aggressively towards the Bobo doll Model-rewarded condition film was shown to children, but after, a second adult appeared in the film to reward the aggressor with sweets Model-punished condition same as the model-rewarded condition, but the second adult told off the model for behaving aggressively - All children were then taken individually into a playroom with several toys (including Bobo doll & mallet) where behaviour observed for 10 minutes & aggressive acts were noted F: - Control & model-rewarded groups showed an equal level of aggressiveness (2.5 acts) - Model-punished condition was associated with fewer acts (1.5 acts) - Children asked to reproduce observed behaviour & rewarded for each act all 3.5 acts Strengths of Study Easily replicable Controls set throughout Triangulated (control & experimenter check) Strengths of Findings Has relevant applications (i.e. children watching violence on TV) Shows clear cause and effect relationship Can be generalized to both genders Limitations of Study Children immersed in aggressive/violent environments Long term effects are unknown of subjects History of aggression (family) not taken into account Limitations of Findings Low ecological validity (behaviour of children is unknown in real life with real people as opposed to a toy doll) Low cross-cultural validity Ignores biological factors

Strengths of SLT Explains why behaviours may be passed down in a family or within a culture Explains why children can acquire some behaviours without trial-and-error learning

Limitations of SLT Ignores biological factors (such as hormones, neurotransmitters and genetics) Does not explain why some never learn a behaviour, while others do

10

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Culture of Honour - Culture where all perceived insults must be met with violent retribution - Form of violence considered a social interaction (compensates for self-esteem loss & shows group membership) Violent retribution is often used as a way to achieve a social/ material outcome to maintain status/ respect Cohen et al. (1996) The Culture of Honour A: Is there difference in readiness to commit acts of violence between north & south USA citizens? P: Laboratory experiment 83 university students (42 north & 41 south) -> fill out questionnaire & take it to table at end of long, narrow hallway Confederate working at filing cabinet down the hall pushed them in drawer as participant walked past On the way back, confederate pushed them again in drawer, with more force call them asshole as they bumped Control: confederate used but no bump into/insult participants Participants emotional reactions rated by two observers by looking for anger & amusement After incident, participant had to guess the emotion on pictures of faces & do a story-completion exercise involving emotional scenarios Findings: - Northerners were rated as more amused when bumped & tended to project happiness onto the faces shown - Insulted southerners more likely to end scenario in violence 75% ended the scenario with injury or threat of injury Strengths of Study Easily replicable Participants were debriefed with survey regarding their feelings about the experiment Triangulated later to consider hormonal effects Strengths of Findings High ecological validity situation is likely to occur naturally Shows clear cause and effect relationship Can be generalized to both genders Strengths of Cultures of Honour Considers the role of culture in determining the origins of violence Explains why some cultures demonstrate higher levels of violence than others Limitations of Cultures of Honour Reductionist approach ignores biological and cognitive factors Encourages the process of stereotyping as it creates a common level of aggression for all individuals within a culture Limitations of Study Procedure may have inflicted physical and/or psychological harm Reductionist approach biological and cognitive factors ignored Limitations of Findings Low cross-cultural validity only valid in USA Only university students were used cannot be generalized to various age groups

11

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans Social Identity Theory- Tajfel (1970-80s)

- Assumes individuals strive to improve self-image by enhancing their group self-esteem - Strive makes them stand to social norms (sets of rules based on socially or culturally shared beliefs of how individuals are supposed to behave) -> regulating behaviour in group Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment A: Understand the formation of Violence & the influence of conformity in group situations P: 75, mostly Caucasian, male volunteers (students). Chose 22 male, middle class students through stratified sampling allocated roles of prisoner or guard- uniforms established roles fictional setting. Recorded both in video and audio, participants additionally given interviews & Questionnaires. F: Start normal, over time prisoners & guards took roles (pathological reactions) => Experiment only 6 days, aborted. Prisoners Pathological prisoner Syndrome: passivity followed by rebellion (rage fits, acute anxiety) - Learned helplessness Seligman (1975)- induced by the felt lack of control over situation Guards Pathology of Power: enjoyment of power -> abuse & dehumanization of prisoners. Not all took action but none contradicted- wanted to belong. C: High sociocultural role influence on the origin of violence. Supports SIT as participants behaviour was highly related to given role for self esteem and peer support. C: Lack of ecological validity ( Heather, 1976) artificial setting BUT still simulated real prison & (arguable) subjects took role beyond artificial setting (personal). Not all participants took roles (other factors genetics, predisposition to behaviour must have influence & Sample bias- only males (Wilkinson 1991) Biggest flaw is ethical given traumas & violent experiences to participants. Still suggests SIT influence on Origin of violence. Strengths of SIT Provides explanations for real world behaviour Can be applied usefully to reduce prejudice by using common in-group identities (include rather than exclude) by making everyone in-group Limitations of SIT Overly simplistic Ignores dispositional factors

Conclusion! Other non-sociocultural factors have been related to violence (from 962 prison inmates; higher salivary testosterone levels= more aggressive/ higher misbehaviour Dabs et al. (1995)), demonstrating along with the general limitations of the previously mentioned studies that predicting violence onset through sociocultural level of analysis alone or attributing the origins of violence to isolated factors would be a reductionist approach to the behaviour. Therefore, sociocultural explanations for the origins of violence should be complemented/ completed with theories and research from other areas of psychology, in order to have a well rounded understanding of the various factors affecting the onset of the behaviour. Furthermore, critical times and interactions between factors and behaviour could be investigated to have a clearer quantitative idea of the factor interactions that create violence.

12

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Discuss the relative effectiveness of two strategies for reducing violence

Intro: World Health Organization-Violence: the international use of physical force/power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community that wither results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. Eg.suicide, terrorism, child abuse, rape & bullying. Violence: Leading cause of worldwide death & disability - affects low & middle income country => economic & social impact. Deaths>4000 per day. Strategy essential to reduce impact. Discuss relative effectiveness of changing norms vs. changing behaviour whilst providing better opportunities. Development: Way 1: Change social & cultural norms promoting/glorifying violence. Many studies shown can increase the incidence of violence. ->The American south have a culture of honor: men dont accept others insults/improper conducts against them=> resort to violent retribution for honor/reputation maintenance. American south violence> American north. C: Due to economic differences & guns? Violence still prevalent in south if variables controlled. Cohen & Nisbett- Media & Violence P: Field experiment. Employers sent letters from job applicants whod killed someone in honour related conflict. F: South & west response more likely understanding & cooperative Safe Dates program: A: prevent/reduce violence in adolescent dating Foshee et al- evaluation of Safe date program. P: 14 schools in rural US community randomly allocated to treatment condition. Participants attitudes to adolescent dating violence through questionnaires before & after program; control group=more abuse & sexual violence than treatment. F: Effects by changes in dating violence norms, gender stereotyping & awareness of services. Strategy worked!

13

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

C: Results self-reported & not actual behaviour. Education for reduction of adolescent dating violence seems to work. Evidence for efficacy of modifying cultural values & norms limited: Arguable that campaigns changing norms=> secondary positive effects (victims informed about protection services / aggressors about treatment) = awareness effect rather than treatment. + Campaigns address other issues related to violence (alcohol consumption) Violence in every cultures norms to different degrees; maybe impossible to eradicate previous habits/cultural beliefs completely: proneness to violence may be evolutionary/genetic Stephen Pinker- Violent behaviour can change: Humans less violent now than Stone age= violence cultural influence too. However, arguable that genetics/physiology also changed (development of the neo-cortex). Way 2: Changing behaviour & providing oportunites Important for institutions important for media and school to be aware of their influence on norms of violence. High levels of impulsiveness & low empathy in children/adolescents related to violence. Increase cognitive behavioural skills, training & social development => increase empathy, reduce impulsiveness, antisocial & aggressive behaviour. Improve social skills/behaviour. Through school setting & anger management courses (behaviour modification; social perspective, moral development, social skills in solving social problems/conflicts) They show promise & effective showing children how to deal (not dealing for them) Review of effectiveness of programs educating/providing opportunities: Trained children reduced violent & delinquent behaviour 10% compared to controls. Most effective program: cognitive skill behavioural training (25% decrease in delinquency) Academic enrichment programs enhancing opportunities: Help high risk youth/young adults for violence to complete schooling & pursue high education & vocational training. Programs show promise in reducing violence in youth & adults but more evidence is needed to confirm they prevent violence & aggressive behaviour. Strategies similar: both aim at reducing violence through intervention & education programs in youth. BUT 1st strategy= changing norms focus; 2nd strategy= changing behavior / providing better opportunities. Both seem to have effect BUT latter more effective although research needed to determine effectiveness. Currently research= none completely eradicates/prevents violence. Combining them with other (eg. gun control/reduction of alcohol, may help reducing)

14

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Discuss the effects of shortterm and longterm exposure to violence.

1990s suggested technologies (computer games/ internet/TV) may be removed, but still watching TV regularly. Wartella et al. - 2003 P: Telephone Survey >1000 parents of toddlers & preschoolers. F: 73% of children under 6 watch TV regularly. 42% below 2 watched TV & 74% of all toddlers had watched TV before 2. Average 1 hour per day. C: Those that had phones at all more likely to have a TV. National Television Violence Study: A: watching TV, childrens risk of exposure to violence? P: Content analysis of >9000 programs over 3 years found approx. 60% of programs contain some physical aggression. Typically TV hour = 6 different violent incidents. Effect 1: Increased aggression Common knowledge that children imitate TV; likely to imitate what they observe-> Banduras Social Learning theory: Bobo doll experiment (1963) Children watched clips of aggressive adults toward a bobo doll. Later observed imitating behaviour; More recent study elementary school children exposed to episode of Power rangers = more intentional aggression (hitting kicking & choving) than control (not watch); In another experiment 5-6 y/o children watched violent movie & were observed playing together; physical assault much more while playing together than control. =>> Demonstrate short term effect of TV violent exposure on behaviour. HOWEVER, aggressive behaviour copied from TV may not have been dangerous to other kids. Most know difference between fiction & reality. Hitting toys might even be positive as aggression outlet no hurt. Some more negatively affected than others & most violence in adult channels (children better protected if not allowed adult TV). Effect 2: Scare Children can be scared by media. Younger children frightened by characters & events that seem scary (monster); older children frightened by injury scenes, violence & personal harm. Because older children more responsible & distinguish between real/fictional threat. (eg. Older children frightened by TV news younger)

15

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

Repeated exposure may increase childrens fear of victimization: Smith & Wilson: Primary school children watching news tend to believe more murders in nearby city than those no news watch. Smith & Wilson controlled grade level, gender, exposure to fictional media violence & overall TV watch. Effect also observed in adults. Feschbach (1976): Realistic violence seems to have more detrimental effect than fictional Current research support short time effects of TV violence (imitation/anxiety). Difficult to establish long term effects Eron & Huesmann (1986) - TV in childhood & adult aggression A: Exposure to TV violence in childhood related to aggression? P: researchers controlled for childs initial level of aggressiveness, IQ, education by parents, parents TV habits, & parents aggression. F: Exposure to TV violence in childhood positively related to adult physical aggressions. C: Possible child watching more TV disposition more aggressive than those less TV violence. No evidence TV introduction increases violent crime. Gunter & Hannah (2002) - St. Helena introduction of TV on aggression A: TV effect on violence crime. P: Longitudinal case study on introduction of TV in St. Helena F: no increase in crime, or in children violence. C: TV has no effect. We live in a relatively non-violent time in history. Earlier societies no TV & more aggressions; children may misconduct more from less parental involvement in child rearing -> leaving to TV instead of interacting, not TV violence. Most short/long term effect of TV violence exposure on correlational/laboratory studies correlational data cause effect & lab no ecological validity (Heather 1976) Could say that TV violence->some short term effects: increase in aggressive display & fright Not worrying if aggressive is not dangerous to others/actor (mild role play isnt all bad- water fights, paintball, pretending to be hero fighting villains= harmless in ordinary childhood) Differences in how children affected by TV violence: Stereotyping in media & genetic differences= boys more imitate aggressive than girls. Evidence developmental & individual differences on extent for which TV influences. ADHD symptom children/ TV children watching more extent more at risk & children influence also more negative from realistic vs. fantasy violence.

16

IB Psych: Relationship Essay Plans

True established short term effects of TV violence exposure, long term effects less evident. TV may impact aggression & psychological distress BUT other factors Obvious real violence exposure = greater psychological distress (eg. bullying/ abuse) more detrimental than exposure to TV violence. HOWEVER, parents should control childs TV watching habits (time & channel/program content) to some degree. Risk children (socio-cultural/economic factors) should be educated on making of programs distinguish real from fake as such attempts have showed positive effects on disturbed children (Kant et al. 1988)