18
Mar 23

Media Violence and Desensitization

When it comes to media violence and aggressive thoughts, it is public knowledge or “talk” that watching, listening, or engaging in anything relative to violence would lead to aggressive behavior. We have seen this be talked about for years through news channels, blogs, and social media. With claims like “if your child plays violate video games, they will be aggressive in the future” or even older claims such as “if your child listens to rock, they will be aggressive”. For example, the textbook references a study from Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2007 mentioning that people who are exposed to a violent TV clip are more likely to think aggressive thoughts. (Gruman et al., 2016). Of course, there are more factors and variables involved in whether a child will grow up to have aggressive thoughts or show aggressive behaviors, such as their environment, and temperament. But the textbook does support the idea of consuming media violence and the aggressive thoughts that could stem from it.

According to Berkowitz’s (1984) neoassociationistic model of media priming, the presence of something representing or creating violates would increase the likelihood that one would have aggressive thoughts (Gruman et al., 2016). This relates to the idea of Network models of memory because there becomes a connection in our memory, associating these together. The example used in the textbook was that node in our memory links “gun” with “crime” so these could affect our behavior when fired.

My question is, currently is there still a correlation between media violence and aggressive thoughts or even behavior? Could it change in the future? The reason I came to this question is because of the exposure to media violence everyone gets (or has access to) with social media. With platforms such as Twitter and Reddit, where it doesn’t take much to see traumatic and inappropriate images and videos, many people are aware that they have become desensitized to violent imagery. For many, scrolling through their feed and seeing violent media wouldn’t really insight a reaction out of them or disrupt their day-to-day routine. We are also living in a time where hearing about violent acts, from news channels, social media, and even our community, is so common it many believe it is our “norm” now. So, the question rises, when hearing about and seeing so many violate acts, do the nodes in your memory change? For example, can the node for “gun” change from a link to “crime” to a link to “normal”? Is this possible?

The textbook covers this question by referencing experiences from Drabman and Thomas (1974), and Engelhardt, Bartholow, Kerr, & Bushman (2011). Many of these experiments conclude that “Desensitization to violence increases people’s tolerance of violence and decreases their motivation not to act aggressively, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will act violently” (Gruman et al., 2016). And when continuing my own research into this topic, I found the article Emotional Desensitization to Violence Contributes to Adolescents’ Violent Behavior, by Mrug, Madan, and Windle. This article is another experiment that shows the effect of exposure to violence and how it can be linked with emotional desensitization, especially in adolescents. They found that “emotional desensitization to violence in early adolescence contributes to serious violence in late adolescence” (Mrug et al., 2016). These experiments answer my question about the present, but I still wonder if this can change in the future.

Unfortunately, it is typical for people, especially heavy social media users, and adolescents, to find something violent, disturbing, or heartbreaking while scrolling through their feeds. Some may even interact with the post, like, comment, or even repost it. So, I wonder if all this media violence exposure could affect how we see violence, and how we react to it and engage with it. Based on research from the textbook and my own findings; desensitization will only lead to more aggressive thoughts and behaviors. Meaning if the node for “gun” gets linked to “normal”, in our society, it will still be attached to “crime”, so increased aggression may be due to “normal”, and “crime” inherently being linked together. But I still wonder if so, much desensitization could remove the crime entirely and just have “normal” as our main link. Is this possible? What could happen to get our society there?

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Publications, Incorporated

Mrug S, Madan A, Windle M. Emotional Desensitization to Violence Contributes to Adolescents’ Violent Behavior. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2016 Jan;44(1):75-86. doi: 10.1007/s10802-015-9986-x. PMID: 25684447; PMCID: PMC4539292.


19
Oct 21

Technology is Taking Over

As technology evolves, more advantages and disadvantages are being discovered of its effects. The ongoing debate if children should be exposed to technology is still being discussed, so it is important that awareness is raised. The use of technology amongst children can be excessive and can lead to many difficulties that can be almost impossible to control. Technology can emotionally, socially, academically, and physically effect a child in their development. The safety and health of children who use sources of technology, such as tablets or computers, are raising many concerns. Parents, caregivers, and teachers should take in account both the helpful and damaging aspects of technology.

The absence or slow development of children who are exposed to technology is a big concern that society has. Children learn that a tablet or computer will always be there for their needs, so they become attached. Once the child is attached, it is hard for them to adapt to an environment without technology. An environment, such as school, may not have technology incorporated into their curriculum and a child might feel isolated and confused. Due to isolation, a child could refuse to communicate and fall behind on developing social skills. Good social skills are key to success because people need to be able to work together and it is the only way to create relationships. Without developing social skills, a child might form a strained relationship with their parents or caregiver because they will not know how to appropriately express their emotions. Along with family related relationships, the child will fail at building friendships, such as classmates. It is important that a child possesses these skills at a young age because it will be difficult to gain them as they get older. Along with emotional and social development, a child can also experience physical effects of technology that can possibly be long-term.

The physical symptoms from technology are sometimes overlooked but they are just as relevant as the other developmental effects. The physical complications that can be caused by technology can become long-term if they are not taken care of as soon as possible. Addiction is the biggest concern amongst children who use technology because they will rely on it more than necessary. Once they are addicted to using a tablet, computer, etc., it will be incredibly difficult to get them to adjust to a routine that does not involve technology. Addiction to a tablet can lead to sleep deprivation and the child will act out in anger and become hostile. “Research by psychologists L. Rowell Huesmann, Leonard Eron, and others starting in the 1980s found that children who watched many hours of violence on television when they were in elementary school tended to show higher levels of aggressive behavior when they became teenagers. By observing these participants into adulthood, Huesmann and Eron found that the ones who’d watched a lot of TV violence when they were 8 years old were more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for criminal acts as adults” (American Psychological Association). Acts of violence is one of the many effects that technology can have on children that become long-term. Other setbacks include dyslexia, an increase of mental illness, obesity, and high levels social anxiety which can also be long-term and impossible to reverse. It is critical be aware of these effects because if they go unnoticed, it can limit a child’s successes.

All in all, technology has made a huge impact on the world, regardless of if it is generally good or bad. Although technology has many advantages, the disadvantages of technology is what we need to focus on. By focusing on the disadvantages, there will be a higher demand for more research to be done and there will be more answers to this reoccurring issue. Once there is more definitive research, more people will become aware of how technology could be life-threatening for not just children, but for everyone. Technology is going to continue to grow, so it is best to stay updated and to resolve these concerns once they appear for the safety of children, and for the future.

Reference

American Psychological Association. (2013, November 1). Violence in the media: Psychologists study potential harmful effects. http://www.apa.org/topics/video-games/violence-harmful-effects


26
Mar 20

Is it news, or are we all playing telephone?

Telephone

Do you remember as a child playing the game “Telephone”?  Where you share a message and have to pass it on to your friend and they pass it on to their friend and keep it going?  By the end of the last person, the message is all mixed up from the original context?

In this day and age, communication gets more easily misconstrued.  With so much of communication and the media being today’s preferred choice in how things are relayed via technology.

The newer generation (Generation Z) seems to have been brought up with Ipads and cellphones and has a more difficult time understanding social cues and confusion can more easily arise.  It is the day and age of emojis and text messages and DM’s on social media.  The facial messages are left out, and up to the receiver to decide how they perceive the message or the call or the email they received.  (Forbes)

http://https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianvigo/2019/08/31/generation-z-and-new-technologys-effect-on-culture/#4007b1445c2a

The newer generation prefers digital and electronic modes of communication via technology.  (Forbes)  Older generations prefer the face-to-face connections.

There are advantages to both forms, and more advancements utilizing media and the new technology available to us all now, but misunderstanding can definitely take place a bit more easily like in the old childhood days of playing telephone.

References:

Vego, Julian.  Forbes.  “Generation Z and New Technology’s Effect on Culture.”  August 31, 2019.  www.forbes.com/julianvigo/2019/08/31/generation-z-and-new-technologys-effect-on-culture/#4007b1445c2a.  Accessed March 26, 2019.

 

 


27
Oct 18

Get off your phone!

As the holidays approach, I always think about the number of parents planning to buy their children cell phones as gifts. Every year it seems that more and more children younger than teen years are receiving gifts that can keep them connected to the internet and their friends 24/7. I didn’t receive my first cell phone until I was in high school, and I only got one because I was taking school trips and my mom wanted to be able to get a hold of me.  Nowadays you see kids walking around with phones, watching iPads in restaurants, and ignoring everything around them with earbuds in and eyes planted to screen. While I’m sure most parents don’t see a problem with this, some research has shown that the 24/7 use of technology can actually turn into ABUSE and is connected with bullying.

Nasaescu, Marin-Lopez, Llorent, Ortega-Ruiz, and Zych (2018) researched how Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) were linked to bullying, and other adolescent communication and emotional development. The idea behind their study was that bullying victimization, as well as perpetration, are connected to avoidance of face-to-face relationships and interactions (Nasaescu et al., 2018). With that idea in mind, it’s plausible to think that technology use and abuse are connected to bullying because it is easy to be a bully when you can send a terrible IM or email, or troll someone on the internet for others to see and participate in.

The results of the study did show a link between technology abuse and bullying, especially for perpetrators (Nasaescu et al., 2018). This link could be related to low social and emotional competencies, for perpetrators and victims, so futures studies should focus on programs that can be implemented to combat competency issues (Nasaescu et al., 2018).   I think this type of research is important not just for scientists, psychologists, and future social psychologists but also for parents. Is the abuse of technology causing low social and emotional competency? Do children that have low competency skills simple abuse technology more? Either way, bullying is a very serious matter in school, and it could be that giving our kids technological devices too young is leading to lower competencies and higher levels and more opportunities to bully.

References:

Nasaescu, E., Marín-López, I., Llorent, V. J., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Zych, I. (2018). Abuse of technology in adolescence and its relation to social and emotional competencies, emotions in online communication, and bullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 114-120. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.036


31
Mar 18

The Technological Community

Today’s communities aren’t the same as what they were 25 years ago or more.  In today’s technological environment along with the newest generation that is taking over is more deeply involved in the online world than anywhere else.  As a “90’s child”, that is, someone who was born well before the 1990’s and spent my childhood and teenage years through the 1990’s I have had the both the burden and gift in seeing what the world was before the implementation of the internet and technology and seeing how it has changed our communities.

As child going out and spending time with friends was always a priority, mainly because it was the most interesting thing to do.  Supporting this was always a communal environment supporting this.  Whether it was activities that brought children together, such as sports, group events like scouts, or parents working together to get their kids out of their hair, there was always something going on outside the house and in a direct person-to-person interaction to arrange these events.

While I am not saying that scouting, sports, and parent collaboration doesn’t exist anymore, the communal environment that it takes place in has changed drastically.  Instead of going door-to-door, posting up flyers on the billboard at the grocery store, or putting an article in the newspaper, now events and news are shared among electronic message boards such as Facebook.  The place an environment of our community has changed, some may say for the worse, others for the better.

Looking at what the internet has to offer and the Community Values that are viewed as important it isn’t surprising that this would occur though.  The internet offers a high amount of the sense of community that people are seeking, by being able to seek out others that share their viewpoints and offer quick and encouraging responses that increases our sense of belonging.  This also plays an impact on our sense of Ecological Perspective, the perceived fit between the person and their online “community”.  By seeking out websites, forums, groups, chats, and other online applications that are parallel to our interests we achieving that perfect fit we all desire and thanks to the unlimited variation in website types we are all able to find that perfect fit we all desire (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).

Other major factors on our sense of belonging to community are also fulfilled through the internet.  Such as our ability to cause social action through the click of a mouse or a tap of the finger.  Previously, if someone was hurt and a fundraising campaign was started there would be forms to fill out, bake sales were planned, flyers put up, phone calls were made, and articles taken out in papers, nowadays we just start a gofundme page.  It used to be if a journalist said something we didn’t agree with letters were wrote, angry phone calls were made, and general griping among friends occurred over drinks or dinner, nowadays journalists are fired because a tweet is trending or a Facebook post receives a large amount of likes.  While I’m not saying that our newfound community is necessarily a bad thing, I am saying that it has changed.  Instead of going out and directly interacting with others in our proximal community face-to-face, instead our community is more indirect, over a vast distance, and to a degree less personal all while achieving the psychological fulfillment that we crave.

 

Schneider, F.W, Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012).  Applied Psychology (2nd ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.


29
Jun 14

Stimulus Poverty In Deed

”Are We Living in Sensory Overload or Sensory Poverty?,” by Diane Ackerman

Milgram’s concept of stimulus overload is quite intriguing. As was cited by Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts (2012), stimulus overload is the idea that our society today is much too much for our hunter-gatherer nervous systems. We weren’t ancestrally prepared to deal with booming cities, overly crowded schools and the bombardment of the world at our swiftly moving thumb tips. So what did we do? Did we adapt and overcome? Of course we didn’t! We developed apps for that. We have cell phones, I pods, I pads, mp3 players, wireless headphones, and Google glass. There is no need to feel overloaded because we have found ways to take the world in at moderations that we (at times) can control. However, Diane Ackerman wrote to the New York Times proposing a very fair question. Are we today still facing stimulus overload or are we subjecting ourselves to stimulus poverty? If you have taken a psychology course, you may be familiar with concepts such as conditioning, and if you have taken any courses in anthropology, you may be familiar with concepts about evolution along with learned behavioral traits. Basically, we see, we learn, we pass it on. Do it often enough and it becomes second nature. So why did we as a species not adapt to the growth of stimuli in our surroundings? Was it growing faster than we could to evolve in order to handle it? Darwin could argue that technology has allowed for the survival of the weak. Perhaps the generations of watching our elders swoon in fascination over fast past technologies has led us to be the monkeys that saw and now do. I often catch my son happily sitting next to me, Mario game in hand while I myself am playing a game. But are we hurting ourselves by using stimulus overload as an excuse to continue living socially withdrawn? Is this what we are going to use for the answer to, why don’t we talk anymore? Maybe if we looked up at the world with our hands devoid of any devices and our ears free from plugs, we would find by the end of the day that the world isn’t all that overwhelming after all. We just might like it.

References

Ackerman, D. (2012, June 10). Are we living in sensory overload or sensory poverty?. New York Times. Retrieved June 27, 2014, from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/are-we-living-in-sensory-overload-or-sensory-poverty/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.


23
Jun 14

“Booth or table? Smartphone section or other?”

Study 1, article 1

So here are two links to a quick little article and its study I found online about cell phone users and our perceived concepts of privacy. In a lesson given by Professor Yarwood of Penn State’s World Campus Psych424 Applied Social Psychology class, the point that cell phone use in public has compromised the level of privacy for others was made. It is true that “privacy in public” can be in the eye of the beholder, or the eye of the smartphone-holder. According to a study done by Tel Aviv University, a fair majority of smartphone users will say that their devices provide them with plenty of privacy. But most of us know this is not true. Just the other day I was picking up a pizza order and the women behind me was on her cell phone. I can tell you this about her and her life.

  • She got caught lying about where she just was, then again lying about whose house she was staying at.
  • Her brother doesn’t feed his children.
  • If it wasn’t for her courageous, covert trip to the pizza shop, her nieces and nephews would starve.

There I was, waiting for pizza, and my ears were being forcefully violated with someone else’s business. That woman and many other smartphone users seem to be oblivious to the reality of their so called public privacy. I’m not sure she would have had that same conversation with complete strangers. So why did she have that conversation where complete strangers can hear her? Should I have to forfeit the rights of my ears in public because smartphone users can’t confine their own privacy to themselves? Do these smartphone users really expect others to respect their privacy when it isn’t being handled in a private way at all? Well at the end of the first link I provided, the author suggests an idea, which was also brought up in the original study that could lend my ears some relief. Imagine walking into a restaurant and being asked, “Booth or a table?” Now imagine the hostess’ next question being, “smartphone or other?” Well the researchers from the university anticipate the possibly of the public being redesigned around communications technology, the way it was years ago for smokers and non-smokers. One problem with this though. I am a smartphone user. Yikes. Will I have to be categorized before I make myself more aware of the reality of my own privacy in public? I hope not. I already worry about bad seating options in restaurants and airplanes just for having a child!

Communications technologies appear to be changing our social behaviors and the way we interact (or don’t interact) with others (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). We interact with each other differently and avoid each other in new ways. We let voicemail and auto responses like, “I’m driving” reject others, instead of just taking incoming calls. We are letting entire lobbies full of strangers know, you want pizza for dinner, and that you’ll be late because you have to pick up that cream from the pharmacy for that thing you got. Well as interesting as all that sounds, some of us would rather fresh, crisp silence than have clouds of pesky, private conversations be blown into our ears. Perhaps further research, like those being done at Tel Aviv University surrounding the behavioral habits of communications technology users will bring the public to a more communication-conscious state of public awareness.

 

References

American friends of tel aviv university; smart phones are changing real world privacy settings. (2012). Telecommunications Weekly, 1038. Retrieved from         http://search.proquest.com/docview/1015615980?accountid=13158

Perry, D. (2012, May 14). Smartphone Users Less Aware of Lack of Privacy in Public. Retrieved June 21, 2014, from http://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphone-privacy-study-smartphone-users-public,news-15182.html

PSU 424. (2014). Applied Social Psychology. Lesson 9: Media/ communications     Technology. Retrieved June 20, 1014, from       https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych424/001/content/10_lesson/02            _page.html

 


15
Jun 14

Technology in the Workplace

The use of computers and other technology has become so common in the workplace that people fail to realize that these devices can sometimes actually hinder one’s intellectual abilities and competence, as well as deskilling users. In the modern world of technology, computers are heavily relied on day in and day out. Technological devices are used in jobs such as retail, healthcare, construction, and financial services to name a few. Despite these technologies being used to enhance job performance and efficiency, they are actually making society dumber and may be harming businesses.

For example, users have developed a huge dependence on these devices. Technology may be used for research, production, transportation, etc. (PSU WC, 2014). Users who depend on technology to complete work-related tasks lack certain skills that people generations ago would have been better-equipped with, including writing skills. In today’s society computers encourage the use of programs such as Microsoft Word and Email. Not only are humans relying on Microsoft Word for formatting their writing, they also rely on this program’s ability to detect spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors for them (PSU WC, 2014).

The use of Email not only reduces users’ writing and social skills by discouraging face-to-face contact between individuals or groups of people, the common technology also leads to miscommunication between users (Kruger et al., 2005). Email may be a fast way to communicate, however, that does not mean it may be used to communicate effectively. Businesses who rely heavily on Email communications may experience problems regarding encoding and decoding messages (Kruger et al., 2005). This in turn creates havoc. When messages are misconstrued, businesses may experience several problems (i.e. unhealthy work relationships, financial problems, etc.).

In one of my classes that I took last semester, we discussed how technology is taking over the business world. Workers used to be skilled and masters at what they did. Now, however, workers are being replaced by machines and as a result, workers are becoming incompetent and deskilled (PSU WC., 2014). In some cases, technology is even taking worker’s jobs away from them. In factories, for instance, heavy machinery is used to produce products that would have taken several workers to make. Unfortunately, these factors decrease job satisfaction and work motivation in workers (Schneider et al., 2012). Employers may also place blame on workers for errors that were beyond their control, such as problems with machinery (i.e. fundamental attribution error) (Schneider et al., 2012).

Overall, technologies used in the workplace decrease thinking for oneself and discourages problem-solving abilities. It is clear that businesses rely very heavily on these technologies which is in turn weakening the skills and abilities of the individual. Unfortunately, these problems come at a major cost to businesses. Do you think that businesses should rely so heavily on technology? Should technology use be limited in certain workplaces?

 

References

Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925-925-936. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925

PSU WC. (2014). PSYCH424: Lesson 6, Intergroup Relations. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych424/001/content/07_lesson/01_page.html

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1412976381


Skip to toolbar