Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!dyer@vaxuum.DEC (This did not happen to/Pablo Picasso)
From: dyer@vaxuum.DEC (This did not happen to/Pablo Picasso)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Rape - Another Solution
Message-ID: <7@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 14:23:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.7
Posted: Mon Aug 19 14:23:43 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 22:42:28 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 46

Re: Rape - Another Solution_____________________________________________________

> It's important to remember that it has never been shown that vicarious viol-
> ence (movies, books, etc.) causes violent behavior[.]

	100% Wrong.  Psychologists deal with a lot of uncertainties, but there
is one thing that has been demonstrated again and again:  observing aggressive
behavior results in increased aggressive behavior.
	Most of us, when hearing the results of psychological reasearch, have
a vague distrust (or, if it clashes with our prejudices, a not-so-vague dis-
trust).  This is especially true when other research yields opposite conclu-
sions (see previous flame about poor psychology research in my "Innate Sexual
Differences" article).
	As for the issue at hand, aggressive behavior resulting from observation
of same, I find the most people I've met think that psychological research is
fuzzy in this area.  It is not.
	Starting with Bandura's Bobo Doll experiment, every valid study that has
been done has shown a relationship between observed agressive behavior and mod-
elled agressive behavior.  No valid study has shown otherwise.
	There is, as you say, controversy.  Some of it has to do with the defin-
ition of "aggressive."  Some of it has to do with individual differences:  you
can demonstrate that a group of schoolchildren will become twice as aggressive
after viewing aggressive behavior, but you can't demonstrate that Pat hit Sandy
because of a certain episode of The A-Team.

>> Who advertises on violent TV shows?  How many auto companies? Why would the
>> auto companies support this - in spite of the protests of parents' groups?
>> Because as long as the streets and public transportation are not safe, we
>> have to depend on private automobiles.  If the streets were safe, why not
>> ride the subway or a bicycle at night?
>> 
>  I find it more reasonable to believe that the greedy auto companies want to
>  sell a lot of cars, and therefore advertise on shows that are watched by a
>  lot of people.  But your theory is original, I must admit.

	Both theories are reasonable.
		<_Jym_>

:::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer
::::'  ::  `:::: Dracut, Massachusetts
::'    ::    `::
::     ::     :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
::   .::::.   :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer
::..:' :: `:..::
::::.  ::  .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not
:::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.