Abigail Trafford (The Post)

• Health Talk Archive • Recent stories by Abigail Trafford • Health Section • Talk: Health news message boards • Live Online Transcripts • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more

Warning! Watching television can be hazardous to your and your children's health.

A new study shows that watching as little as one hour a day of television can lead to aggressive behavior later in life. The link between television viewing and violence is "a small, but often statistically significant, long-term relationship between viewing television violence in childhood and later aggression." (Surgeon General's Report on Youth Violence in 2001)

Join Post Health columnist Abigail Trafford and her guest Delbert Elliott, director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado, to discuss the effects of television on children.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Delbert Elliot: Hello everybody. We're going to start momentarily. What do you watch on television? What's the worst type of violence that you see on TV? Do you think watching television makes you more aggressive? Send us your comments and questions. We're live.

Abigail Trafford: Hello and welcome, Delbert Elliott. You are the scientific editor of the Surgeon General's
report on Youth Violence, which has a chapter on the the role of the media. How does this latest study linking
TV viewing and subsequent violence fit in with previous research?

Delbert Elliot: This latest study is consistent with the earlier findings in most respects, so it fits in well and adds confidence to the findings reported in the Surgeon General's report.

Abigail Trafford: How strong is the link? There are other causes of violence. What are they and how does
television viewing compare with these other causes?

Delbert Elliot: Compared to the other knkown risk factors for involvement in serious violence, exposure to violence in the media is a relatively modest factor. It is an important factor, but not one of the stronger conditions that leads to the onset of violent behavior. Unfortunately, this study did not actually measure exposure to violent TV and film, just how much time was spent watching TV, and that is a qualification that should be noted,

Takoma Park, Md.: Was watching more TV actually a cause of aggression, or was it correlated with more aggression? Is it possible that the more aggressive kids are the ones watching more TV, and the less aggressive kids are watching less TV?

Delbert Elliot: It is difficult to make a causal interpretation, but the findings are certainly consistent with a causal interpretation. There is a body of research that does support a causal connection between exposure to violent media and short term aggressive behavior. But this research involves relatively minor forms of violence, like pushing and shoving, hitting, etc., within an hour or two after watching. The evidence for longer-term effects is much less compelling and does not allow us to argue for a causal effect. It is the case that aggressive kids do watch more violent TV, but the studies in some cases take that into account and still find that those watching lots of violent TV are more agggressive (minor forms of violent behavior).

Delbert Elliot: How strong is the link? There are other causes of violence. What are they and how does television viewing compare with these other causes?

Delbert Elliot: The "effect size", i.e., the strength of the effect, is modest. Other conditions like living with parents who are antisocial, using drugs, being in a gang or delinquent peer group, commiting other illegal acts, being highly aggressive, are mush stronger predictors of violence,

St. Mary's City, Md.: Did your study analyze the effects of watching different types of TV programs? Did it matter whether the families studied watched a lot of PBS or pro wrestling?

Delbert Elliot: Good question. The studies we examined in the Surgeon General's Report did make the distinction between violent and non-violent programs and sometimes looked at other breakdowns, like whether there were negative consequences shown for the violence. But in general, we don't know a lot about different levels or forms of violent content. To my knowledge, these studies did not consider parent watching patterns.

Silver Spring, Md.: Looking beyond tv and violence? What are the major causes of serious violence? What can be done about them?

In regard to several apparently major causes of violence:

I understand that the "war against drugs" has lead to the involvement of youth, especially African American inner city youth, in the drug distribution business, and thereby drawn them in to a culture of guns and violence. What might be done to reduce this cause of serious violence?

I also understand that chronic revidivistic offenders often have lower verbal IQs or have sociopathic personality features. What can be done to prevent or better manage the risks presented by the lower verbal IQs? the sociopathic personality features?

More generally, What is the most powerful one thing that could be done to reduce violence?

Delbert Elliot: The strongest predictors for serious violence are being involved in other forms of illegal behavior, substance abuse, being male, family poverty, having antisocial parents, being male, having weak social ties to other conventional kids and adults, being in a gang or delinquent peer group. The good news is that we do have programs that are quite successful in preventing violence and addressing these risk factors. These programs are identified in the SG report. There is evidence that the violent epidemic of the late 1990's was related to the introduction of guns into the drug distribution systems in our large cities. This is one of the most violent social contexts we know of. The dramatic drop in homicide and violence more generally is also related to a decline in gun carrying by youth and a stabilization of the drug markets. Getting guns out of the hands of violent youth is a key to reducing the seriousness of the violence and the risk of injury and death.
The most effective things that can be done are to provide for better caregiving in early childhood (parent effectiveness programs work), better monitoring and supervision in a nurturing environment, and keeping kids out of delinquent peer groups and gangs, and preventing the emergence of these types of groups during adolescence. Being in a gang or delinquent peer group is the strongest immediate predictor of the onset of violence.

Washinton D.C.: Dr. Elliott,

Thanks for being on-line today. Is the link between TV and violence a correlation or a causation? Also, do you have an opinion what types of violence (or what types of shows) on TV are most harmful?

By the way, Ms. Trafford, since the Post owns a couple of TV stations, what is the Post's view on TV and violence?

Abigail Trafford: The Post does own a couple of TV stations--and they are very separate from the Newspaper. I'm not aware of any editorial by the Post on this latest study. But personally, what did I do with my children? I monitored what they watched and tried to limit the amount of tv. But parents don't have absolute power.. . . and it's hard to prevent children from being exposed to senseless and disturbing violence on tv.

Delbert Elliot: The link with aggression ( hitting, pushing, verbal comments) is causal for short-term aggressive behavior. For other relationships, e.g., long term serious violent behavior, the findings are correlations. We don't have the experimental evidence for claiming a causal connection for long term violence. The research shows that violent programs that fail to show realistic consequences of the violence, involve the hero commiting violent acts, for example, are more harmful than those that show consequences and where the villian is the offender.

Fairfax, Va.: I was wondering if anyone has investigated a possible link between families that allow children to watch violent movies and violence in the home. If you are using violence regularly to control your children or resolve problems, wouldn't you be less likely to screen it out of your children's viewing habits?

And I've known there was a link between violent behavior and violent media since I was 8. Inevitably after my brother watched a Rambo or martial arts movie or even a Western, I would end up karate chopped or punched.

Delbert Elliot: Good question. There is indeed a link. But being directly exposed to violence in the home is a good predictor by itself and is probably a stronger predictor than the violent TV.

Reston, Va.: OK, I am all for this kind of movement, to reduce the amount of TV watching (it's healthier anyway) and to try to change the culture of TV that allows so much violence. I guess I am interested in the data -- do animated programs have the same impact as live action? Is there a correlation between daytime programs and violence or prime time programs -- I mean do kids react the same or differently to violence on the "Power Rangers" vs. "Walker Texas Ranger," which was the most violent show on TV for awhile? Are there studies that show that increased consistent exposure to non-violent programs -- maybe watching more PBS or documentaries, etc. -- leads to less aggressive behavior later in life -- countering the data you are touting here? Thanks.

Delbert Elliot: Other things being constant, animated and live action programs both have negative effects. I don't know of studies that address the other questions. We do know that when the hero commits the violence or consequences are not shown, that the effects are more pronounced.

Ashburn, Va.: I am concerned not only about television violence, but about video game violence. I recently found out that my 10-year-old son had been playing a game called Grand Theft Auto at a friend's house. When I found out it was rated M for Mature, I watched it while he played it and I was horrified. The "hero" gets points for hijacking cars and running people over on the sidewalk. There are special prizes such as a baseball bat that he can find to inflict more damage on innocent passers-by. With the global escalation of violence against civilians and innocent bystanders, I was really upset by this video game. Are there any comparable studies related to video violence?

Delbert Elliot: We don't know as much about video and internet violence. The early evidence does show a modest effect of violent videos, but we need more research here.

Takoma Park, Md.: The most violent stuff I see on TV now is on the news -- the fighting in the Middle East. I can only take so much of it before I change the channel.
Fiction -- I regularly watch "Enterprise" and CSI. CSI usually has a dead body, and Enterprise has some fighting in it (and a few deaths, as well, but not too bloody). I'm a "Star Trek" fan going way back, so I expect some violence from the clash of human and alien cultures.
I turned out OK!

Abigail Trafford: My memories go back to September 11. I was glued to the TV. And then I just couldn't watch it anymore. I agree with you that some of the most violent scenes take place on news shows. Andrew Weil, the guru of Integrative Medicine, advises people to take "news vacations" and just not watch the news for a while. At the same time, the violence in news reports is in the context of real events. Dr. Elliott, does that put the violent scenes in perspective for the viewer? {And P.S., I'm a "Star Trek" fan, too!)

Delbert Elliot: And you are not alone. Remember, the critical issue is the cumulation of risk factors. No one risk factor, like watching violent TV or movies, produces a high risk for violence. But when you add this to poverty, antisocial parents and involvement in a gang or delinquent peer group, now you have a real risk for violence. If parents are doing a good job of monitoring and supervising their childrens behavior, watching violent TV will not have much of a long term effect.

Washington, D.C.: Hello:

One hour is not a realistic viewpoint.

This is not going to change, let's give a more realistic view point and what about what kind of things they watch? What about working parents who leave their children with Mr. TV, because they can't afford a sitter or after care. There is no way to defeat this. Also what about the cable industry's, what about the movie industry's (actually a movie last three hours)? What about the company's that manufacture TVs? How would these people respond to such an announcement.

Honestly, I hope this wasn't a government-funded study, because it was a real big waste of a study. I'm sorry but announcing One Hour of TV is a very BIG JOKE on the behalf of the Academic who took the time to come up with such an analogy.

Delbert Elliot: There are other ways to approach this. Parent effectiveness programs help teach parents how to regulate TV, encouraging children to be involved in outside activites has many positive effects ( exercise, social skills, etc.) and providing opportunities for these kind of activities is known to influence TV watching.

Washington, DC: I work for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a trade association representing the cable television industry. NCTA, on behalf of the industry, advocates responsible television viewing, and is a partner with Cable in the Classroom and the National PTA in the Taking Charge of Your TV Project.
This positive approach to media literacy (critical viewing workshops in local communities taught by trained PTA and cable partners), teaches parents and teachers how to help children become savvy tv watchers, in effect helping families "go on a television diet and reduce exposure to violence and sex in the media."
I have not been able to access the report in Science magazine, and would like to know if the researchers considered tools such as this, rather than simply advocating that viewers turn off the television.
Thanks!

Delbert Elliot: Yes, these were recommended solutions. You will find them in the appendix to the chapter on risk factors.

Fairfax, VA: Could I deviate from the media's influence into the area of parenting. In particular, I've noticed many parents smacking, shaking and beating their children. One of the sickest things I've seen is a mother who hit her kids and then said she was hitting them because she loved them (that would really mess a mind up).

From what I've seen, these children have brains that develop under very stressful conditions and, as a consequence, have behaviorial problems (sometimes extremely aggressive) that they carry through life. I've heard that there are several studies demonstrating a correlation between behavioral problems and parental beatings, would you be able to refer me to some of them?

Delbert Elliot: The effects of good parenting involve both their modelling of good, positive behaviors and providing a warm nurturing, monitored and supervised upbringing. Child abuse is a risk factor, but not a particularly strong one for later serious violence, and neglect is a slightly stronger predictor. But there are other serious negative consequences for child abuse than later violence. Parent efects that appear strongest are the monitoring and supervision they provide. The SG Report does identify sources and references to studies in this area.

TV Land: TV viewing makes you more violent? It relaxes me, I tell you, RELAXES ME, RELAXES, RELAXES, I TELL YOU.
Is there any indication if it matters what types of programs are viewed, or is it the act of being moribud with the brain shut off that causes this violent tendancies? I NEED TO KNOW, honestly.

Delbert Elliot: This is a good question. Unfortunately, the study we are talking about did not make this distinction and that is a serious limitation of it. We know that there are positive learning outcomes for watching educational TV and I personally ( but don't know of studies) agree with you that it can be relaxing and entertaining. But it is also important that TV watching is not the only source of relaxation and entertainment.

Abigail Trafford: Our time is up. Thank you Delbert Elliot. Thank you all for your questions and comments. We could have gone on and on and on. Join me next week!

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

National Geographic Photographer Steve McCurry at 2 p.m. EDT
Author on Basic Training for Entrepreneurs at 2 p.m. EDT
Musician Sophie B. Hawkins at 3 p.m. EDT

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

   |      |