reading review for comm

reading review for comm - A) Harrison and cantor: Know each...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
A) Harrison and cantor: Know each (memorize as written) 4 research questions as close as possible, pg 100 1) how prevalent… Hypotheses: 1) is there developmental differences in what is recorded as scary? -Different for different ages 2) people at younger age will be more scared by things that are concrete and visual Methods: 1)send home questionnaires to college students, people can see no and still receive credit, 2) 2 nd questionnaire asked specific questions to what frightened them Answer to research questions: 1) pg 104. prevalence and durations of fright effects: a. there was a fright reaction and 138/153= reported fright reaction b. lasting effects for more than a year= 26.1% c. half = negative attitude changes, over half= disturbed 2) symptoms reported a. choking, chest pains and tantrums= not reported b. most frequently reported= crying and screaming, trembling/shaking, nausea. 3) could there responses be categorized by the DSM a. about 98% could be categorized by the 5 b. most prevalent= blood injection and injury, disturbing sounds and distorted images, situational stimuli c. younger participants were effected for longer 4) which types has longest effects and why: a. reason for watching= someone else wanted to watch it= elevated fear b. younger participants affected by blood and injury because they were programs they didn’t seek out themselves. Hypothesis 1) Did data support hypothesis? a) yes, younger children are frightened by concrete stimuli but so were older children, blood reported most by older groups=partial support for hypothesis. Hypothesis 2) Younger children would use behavioral coping, older kids would use cognitive strategies. B) Linz et al (method is most important!!) What are central questions? Effects of emotional desensitization to violent content toward women?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Does it spill over into real world context? Method: Subjects: college aged males, 156 from univ of Wisconsin (Replicated these findings with women as well though) - pretest= tested their violence and aggression, filled out series of scales on aggression and hostility and removed those who scored high on these tests, so findings are conservative, intellectual men= less aggressive to begin with - film conditions= exposed students to 3 different types of film o X-rated, non-violent o R-rated non-violent o R-rated violent (slashers often juxtapose sex and violence) - how many films did they see? Some saw low dose, some saw more (2= low dose, 5=high dose) o When last film wasn’t presented (they singed out for 6) they were called from law school to participate in trial regarding date rape, then joined by control group men who hadn’t been exposed to any content (control group) to see the difference between viewing date rape trial - Debriefing after films were watched: o Most extensive debriefing in media effects, multiple phases (GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID WITH THE MEN) to ensure that they did not leave with more aggressive tendencies after watching films - focus on results in
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/29/2008 for the course COMM 203 taught by Professor Smith during the Fall '06 term at USC.

Page1 / 9

reading review for comm - A) Harrison and cantor: Know each...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online