Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Comments on Academic Article Paper
For the 1st draft, I only used two articles and I really focused on each author's theory. And I explained their theories in depth; my 1st draft was very long and I had a lot of run on sentences. What i did differently was I found another article and I explained the authors theories, but it a more condensed way. I tried to break up my run on sentences, and although I went over 750 words in my final draft, I think it was more concise and organized than my first draft. My final draft also correlated each article in a logical order and the paper as a whole flowed together better than the first draft.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Academic Article Paper (1st Draft)
Effects of Horror Movies on Children (1st Draft)
It is apparent that horror movies affect a child’s psychological development. A child’s mind is prone to absorb what is displayed on screen. Studies and surveys both have agreed that horror movies do indeed affect a child’s psychological development. Most studies concentrate on the short term effects horror films have on children, but very few focus on the long term effects it may have on young children. In the article “Tales from the Screen: Enduring Fright Reactions to Scary Media” from Media Psychology (1999), Dr. Kristen Harrison, begins her essay with the story of two young boys that were severely traumatized by a scary TV program that aired in Britain Oct. 1992. Dr. Harrison reported that one of the young boys was affected to the point that he had to be admitted to a hospital for 8 weeks. She also wrote that he “…suffered panic attacks, refused to go upstairs alone and slept with the bedroom light on. He had nightmares and daytime flashbacks and banged his head to remove thoughts of ghosts. He became increasingly clingy and was reluctant to go to school or to allow his mother to go out without him.”
This example of a documented, long term clinical case is rare. However, Dr. Harrison does mention what she calls anecdotal observations not clinically documented of which we are all aware. She mentions a friend who cannot shower without watching the door after seeing the movie “Psycho” 25 years before. She also mentions a colleague that still can’t swim in the ocean after seeing the movie “Jaws” twenty years earlier.
In studying the phenomena of lingering effects of scary media stimuli, Dr. Harrison quoted a study that found a number gender differences in the reactions between males and females. One of the differences in the study by Sparks (1989), “…found that half of the females and one-quarter of the males in his sample reported enduring fright effects after viewing scary media.” Dr. Harrison’s study showed no significant difference in gender other than a reluctance to participate in the study by males.
Dr. Harrison’s study was very detailed and was conducted at two Midwestern universities using student volunteers. One example of the amount of scientific detail involved is in the area of coding. Dr. Harrison reports, “Coding was done on the basis of both the open-ended description (Part I) and the structured questionnaire (Part II). Responses were coded for immediate symptoms, enduring effects, duration of effects, stimulus types, and coping strategies.”
Her conclusion is that 90% of her volunteers had lingering effects from scary media stimuli. Dr. Harrison validates her study by the fact that a number of her statistical findings using college students match closely with another study of parent interviews concerning their children’s exposure to scary media. Dr. Harrison states, “Comparing our convenience sample of reports to Cantor and Nathanson's (1996) random sample of parental reports further validates our data.”
The article was very interesting and compelling and indicates the need for more study and perhaps more content ratings to warn parents of possible lingering effects. At the very least, it points to a need for a much more serious attitude toward the exposure of young children to scary media and a change from the very casual attitude we seem to have today.
The second article is entitled; “The Psychological Effects of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents” by Joanne Cantor, Ph.D. Dr. Cantor begins her article by stating that the effects of media violence on children are misunderstood by the general public. In her article she states three major arguments for this. The first reason is that the effects cannot be simply induced and studied as with animal studies. The second reason is that in her words, “…most public discussions of the problem focus on criminal violence and ignore the other unhealthy outcomes that affect many more children.” The third reason is that the media, including movie and video game producers as well, in her opinion have been less than forthright about revealing the true content of their products, and any research about harmful effects.
After dealing with the public’s misconception about the harmful effects of media violence on children, she then begins to break down her analysis into four basic categories: Aggression, Desensitization, Interpersonal Hostility, and Fears/Anxiety.
Under the heading of aggression, she mentions one behavior in children that she calls “copying”, in which children imitate aggressive behaviors they’ve seen in media. She sites one case in Israel, where numerous injuries were reported by school principles immediately following the airing World Wrestling Federation (WWF) programming. Many of these cases involved children who were old enough to know that the content was fake and potentially dangerous but that did not stop them from imitating the behavior anyway.
In the category of desensitization, which is commonly mentioned as a negative effect of media violence on children, Dr. Cantor indicates two striking examples of desensitization. She states that children exposed to more media violence are less likely to call an adult when there is an altercation between peers and they are less likely to feel sympathy for victims of abuse.
In the area of hostile feelings, the article mentions a argument by those arguing against the creation of hostile feelings by violent media. The argument states that increased hostility in those that view more violent media simply indicates a predisposition to hostility in those individuals to begin with. However, the article sites two case studies to the contrary and Dr. Cantor states that hostile feelings can be produced to the extent that “…media violence can cause interference in the ability to interact in interpersonal relationships.”
On the subject of fears and anxiety Dr. Cantor indicates that it is a much ignored area of study. She states, “Although most of researchers' attention has focused on how media violence affects the interpersonal behaviors of children and adolescents, there is growing evidence that violence viewing also induces intense fears and anxieties in young viewers.” She mentions a study of third graders where as the number of television viewing hours increased so did the prevalence of symptoms of psychological trauma.
I agree with Dr. Cantor’s statement in which she says, “The research I’ve described above provides overwhelming evidence that growing up with unrestricted access to media violence is, in the least, very unhealthy for young people.” Dr. Cantor ends her article with suggestions about what can be done to reduce the effects of media violence on children.
It is apparent that horror movies affect a child’s psychological development. A child’s mind is prone to absorb what is displayed on screen. Studies and surveys both have agreed that horror movies do indeed affect a child’s psychological development. Most studies concentrate on the short term effects horror films have on children, but very few focus on the long term effects it may have on young children. In the article “Tales from the Screen: Enduring Fright Reactions to Scary Media” from Media Psychology (1999), Dr. Kristen Harrison, begins her essay with the story of two young boys that were severely traumatized by a scary TV program that aired in Britain Oct. 1992. Dr. Harrison reported that one of the young boys was affected to the point that he had to be admitted to a hospital for 8 weeks. She also wrote that he “…suffered panic attacks, refused to go upstairs alone and slept with the bedroom light on. He had nightmares and daytime flashbacks and banged his head to remove thoughts of ghosts. He became increasingly clingy and was reluctant to go to school or to allow his mother to go out without him.”
This example of a documented, long term clinical case is rare. However, Dr. Harrison does mention what she calls anecdotal observations not clinically documented of which we are all aware. She mentions a friend who cannot shower without watching the door after seeing the movie “Psycho” 25 years before. She also mentions a colleague that still can’t swim in the ocean after seeing the movie “Jaws” twenty years earlier.
In studying the phenomena of lingering effects of scary media stimuli, Dr. Harrison quoted a study that found a number gender differences in the reactions between males and females. One of the differences in the study by Sparks (1989), “…found that half of the females and one-quarter of the males in his sample reported enduring fright effects after viewing scary media.” Dr. Harrison’s study showed no significant difference in gender other than a reluctance to participate in the study by males.
Dr. Harrison’s study was very detailed and was conducted at two Midwestern universities using student volunteers. One example of the amount of scientific detail involved is in the area of coding. Dr. Harrison reports, “Coding was done on the basis of both the open-ended description (Part I) and the structured questionnaire (Part II). Responses were coded for immediate symptoms, enduring effects, duration of effects, stimulus types, and coping strategies.”
Her conclusion is that 90% of her volunteers had lingering effects from scary media stimuli. Dr. Harrison validates her study by the fact that a number of her statistical findings using college students match closely with another study of parent interviews concerning their children’s exposure to scary media. Dr. Harrison states, “Comparing our convenience sample of reports to Cantor and Nathanson's (1996) random sample of parental reports further validates our data.”
The article was very interesting and compelling and indicates the need for more study and perhaps more content ratings to warn parents of possible lingering effects. At the very least, it points to a need for a much more serious attitude toward the exposure of young children to scary media and a change from the very casual attitude we seem to have today.
The second article is entitled; “The Psychological Effects of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents” by Joanne Cantor, Ph.D. Dr. Cantor begins her article by stating that the effects of media violence on children are misunderstood by the general public. In her article she states three major arguments for this. The first reason is that the effects cannot be simply induced and studied as with animal studies. The second reason is that in her words, “…most public discussions of the problem focus on criminal violence and ignore the other unhealthy outcomes that affect many more children.” The third reason is that the media, including movie and video game producers as well, in her opinion have been less than forthright about revealing the true content of their products, and any research about harmful effects.
After dealing with the public’s misconception about the harmful effects of media violence on children, she then begins to break down her analysis into four basic categories: Aggression, Desensitization, Interpersonal Hostility, and Fears/Anxiety.
Under the heading of aggression, she mentions one behavior in children that she calls “copying”, in which children imitate aggressive behaviors they’ve seen in media. She sites one case in Israel, where numerous injuries were reported by school principles immediately following the airing World Wrestling Federation (WWF) programming. Many of these cases involved children who were old enough to know that the content was fake and potentially dangerous but that did not stop them from imitating the behavior anyway.
In the category of desensitization, which is commonly mentioned as a negative effect of media violence on children, Dr. Cantor indicates two striking examples of desensitization. She states that children exposed to more media violence are less likely to call an adult when there is an altercation between peers and they are less likely to feel sympathy for victims of abuse.
In the area of hostile feelings, the article mentions a argument by those arguing against the creation of hostile feelings by violent media. The argument states that increased hostility in those that view more violent media simply indicates a predisposition to hostility in those individuals to begin with. However, the article sites two case studies to the contrary and Dr. Cantor states that hostile feelings can be produced to the extent that “…media violence can cause interference in the ability to interact in interpersonal relationships.”
On the subject of fears and anxiety Dr. Cantor indicates that it is a much ignored area of study. She states, “Although most of researchers' attention has focused on how media violence affects the interpersonal behaviors of children and adolescents, there is growing evidence that violence viewing also induces intense fears and anxieties in young viewers.” She mentions a study of third graders where as the number of television viewing hours increased so did the prevalence of symptoms of psychological trauma.
I agree with Dr. Cantor’s statement in which she says, “The research I’ve described above provides overwhelming evidence that growing up with unrestricted access to media violence is, in the least, very unhealthy for young people.” Dr. Cantor ends her article with suggestions about what can be done to reduce the effects of media violence on children.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sara Johnson
9/21/09
There are many similarities and differences between the two speakers, Godin and Shirky, on Ted.com. I noticed a few comparisons jumped out at me regarding two speakers; both of their speeches were about how the internet brings people together. Technology was used during their presentations. Images, music, and animations were both used to draw the audience in. Most people are visual learners and both Godin and Shirky played into it. There were also a few physical similarities. Both were male, Caucasian, bald and wore glasses.
Similarities were displayed although Godin’s speech was different from Shirky’s speech because Godin’s speech was inspirational, light-hearted and funny. He used the art of comedy to draw the audience in. His speech regarded the internet in a different light, as a phenomenon and the power people have to create movements. He spoke about planned groups or tribes: clusters of people that have similar interests. Godin briefly spoke about specific groups and ideas; his overall speech was very general. He did not nail specifics, but covered the whole realm of the internet and how it brings people together. Shirky, was very specific. He drilled down to specific subjects in a serious and confident message.
Shirky’s speech was about the history of the internet. He spoke regarding how the internet was a luxury to have, but now it is a necessity. People of all ages, creeds, and nationalities use the internet to communicate and connect with old and new friends. Social media outlets are used as well for connecting a large amount of people with each other. Shirky continued to speak in depth about earthquakes in China and how the internet is a metamedia (media about media). He also talked about things that happen, that the government can’t control. He also used specific case studies in his presentation. Both speeches were very interesting and enlightening about how the internet has changed how we communicate in our society but how our world communicates with one another.
9/21/09
There are many similarities and differences between the two speakers, Godin and Shirky, on Ted.com. I noticed a few comparisons jumped out at me regarding two speakers; both of their speeches were about how the internet brings people together. Technology was used during their presentations. Images, music, and animations were both used to draw the audience in. Most people are visual learners and both Godin and Shirky played into it. There were also a few physical similarities. Both were male, Caucasian, bald and wore glasses.
Similarities were displayed although Godin’s speech was different from Shirky’s speech because Godin’s speech was inspirational, light-hearted and funny. He used the art of comedy to draw the audience in. His speech regarded the internet in a different light, as a phenomenon and the power people have to create movements. He spoke about planned groups or tribes: clusters of people that have similar interests. Godin briefly spoke about specific groups and ideas; his overall speech was very general. He did not nail specifics, but covered the whole realm of the internet and how it brings people together. Shirky, was very specific. He drilled down to specific subjects in a serious and confident message.
Shirky’s speech was about the history of the internet. He spoke regarding how the internet was a luxury to have, but now it is a necessity. People of all ages, creeds, and nationalities use the internet to communicate and connect with old and new friends. Social media outlets are used as well for connecting a large amount of people with each other. Shirky continued to speak in depth about earthquakes in China and how the internet is a metamedia (media about media). He also talked about things that happen, that the government can’t control. He also used specific case studies in his presentation. Both speeches were very interesting and enlightening about how the internet has changed how we communicate in our society but how our world communicates with one another.
Friday, September 11, 2009
- Composing changes shape in digital spaces, because it is faster to type papers as opposed to writing them out. Less paper is used, because if someone makes a mistake while writing a paper, they might throw the whole page away or they might use white out and make the paper look sloppy. But when someone makes a mistake typing a paper they can just hit “backspace” or “delete”. Another reason typing is better is that you have the choice of choosing any font you want to type in, and if you have horrible handwriting you can type nice neat papers with perfect spacing. Typing also helps the teacher read and grade your papers better.
- I think the internet will be better by making it faster, safer and having better content filtering. There should be more restrictions on information that is posted, the internet should also migrate world libraries into one official site. There should be software to block fault e-comers and websites posting illegal content should be fined and closed down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)