Tma_04

TMA 04 Compare and contrast the approaches taken by Huesmann et al. (2003) and Hall et al. (1978) to explaining social disorder. When looking at social disorder, it can have many different definitions but in this instance both studies are specifically looking at violence and crime. Each study gives a central role to the media but differ in the relationship observed between the correlation of media influence and social disorder. Both have similarities but produce different results and use different methods to prove their hypotheses which, looking at both together and analysing them individually as well as comparing and contrasting, can give a full view on the different effects that the media can have on social disorder. Hall et al (1978) focused on an area that had previously been brought to attention by Cohen (1973) which looked at fighting between youths in the 1960s- ‘Hall et al. accepted that street violence existed but are much more concerned with how it became defined and amplified through media’ (Kelly and Toynbee, 2009, p.372) so they carried on the hypothesis that the exposure of violence in the media influenced others to partake in crime or created a panic among the public about the increase in crime and conducted his own study which analysed street crime in the 1970s. Hall took a naturalistic observational approach and took into consideration all social factors as well as the factors affected by the influence of the media which gives the study good external validity and makes it very generalisable to other decades and places. Huesmann et al (2003) looked solely at the direct effects that media had on the public. He used a different approach which was a longitudinal study- this involves using a test group and makes the study less externally valid but more internally valid as Huesmann proved his hypothesis. The study concludes that there was a positive correlation between direct media influence and violence but does not take into consideration the social factors that could incur within the 14 years gap from the initial study and the follow up study. The study also has low generalisability as the sample group which was involved in the follow up study could lack some of the main characteristics that are usual of everyday life but involve those of troubled individuals as ‘it might have been the case that the aggressive adults in the study were already aggressive as children’ (Kelly and Toynbee, 2009, p.373) so it cannot represent the wider public due to extraneous variables. The focus of the study’s differ in theory and in the people that they observed; in Hall et al’s study, they look at the general public in the 1970s when there was a significant rise in street crime. They observe how the media affected the rise and how they mediated the social disorder and studied how this affected the people. Whereas in Huesmann et al’s study, they have a control group of children from as young as 4 in which they interviewed and then followed up the study 15 years later when the children originally studied were now in their early 20s and he also interviewed their parents and significant others for a broader view on their behaviour. Hall et al’s study would provide more reliability as there was no time between conducting the initial experiment and following it up and the natural approach would mean that there was no manipulation of the truth. The media takes on different roles within both studies though both represent its input as a negative influence. Huesmann et al have a strong focus on early exposure of negative media such as violent television programmes and examine the direct effect that this exposure has on children through to early adulthood. Hall et al centre their study on the panic that is created by the media when there is a rise of crime and the effect that this has on the amount of crime and the anarchy that is created through the media popularising the negative situation. With focusing on one effect like Huesmann et al have it limits the conclusions that can be drawn from their study whereas Hall et al could observe a lot of different effects that the media had purely through coincidence and this broadens their conclusions that they are able to draw from their study. Factors that are considered as part of the study play a vital part in gathering conclusive evidence that proves or disproves the hypothesis that is set out at the start of the experiment. If extraneous factors are ignored or in any way pushed to the side, this can damage the credibility and validity of the study- in Hall et al’s study on street crime the chance of extraneous variables was very minimal as it was a naturalistic study in which they were observing people from all kinds of backgrounds in everyday situations but in Huesmann et al’s study, these unexpected, extraneous variables could play a major role in the study’s ability to be generalised to the population in general as in the control group there could be people that were inherently violent or susceptible to influence from others. These social factors were not included in the final conclusions of Huesmann et al’s study and they focused on the media’s influence entirely whereas in Hall et al’s experiment, the social factors such as inequality, social crisis and the interest of the state were all credited to play a part. Although both studies are looking at the effect that media has on violence, they are observing different types of violence under different circumstances which makes it difficult to compare their findings. Hall et al observed violence which was taking places due to a rise in street crime and the publicity that this caused as well as the panic that emphasised this. Whereas Huesmann et al looked at violence from a young age that could have taken place in any circumstance and at any time which could be anything from a one off fight to consistently being violent throughout their lives. So although both studies show a correlation between the media and violence, they are focusing on different main factors which for Hall et al was the current affairs taking place and for Huesmann et al was the long term effect which did not centre upon any event or specific incident. The main difference between the two studies conducted is the questions that are asked within the initial hypotheses- this is a vital part of the study as it outlines what will be observed in close detail and what the study will focus on. The hypothesis will be in great detail and include such things as the method that will be used and what the overall findings that are hoped to be found are. The two studies would ask different questions as Hall et al were looking at street crime within the 1970s and Huesmann et al were looking at violence and aggression in adulthood- they would have different key factors that they would want to explore as it would be specific to each study and as they took a different approach from one another. Analysing both studies together gives a full view on how the media effects violence on a wide scope of people as Huesmann et al look at childhood to adulthood and Hall et al look at all different ages and this, although a difference in the studies, helps to understand how much the media can affect any given age. The studies are similar in what they are hoping to answer although ‘mediation of social problems like anti-social behaviour is complex’ (Kelly and Toynbee, 2009, p.376). The main difference between them being the method used to answer their hypotheses- this makes it easier to compare their results and assess the validity of their outcomes. Both conclusions stated that there was a clear correlation between media influence and a rise in violent and aggressive behaviour and although they may not be able to be generalised to everybody, the correlation shows a plausible conclusion. Word Count: 1325 References Kelly, B. and Toynbee, J. (2009) ‘Making disorder on the street’ in Taylor, S., Hinchcliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University Staples, M., Meegan, J., Jefferies, E. and Bromley, S. (2009) DD101 Introducing the Social Sciences, ‘Learning Companion 2’, Milton Keynes, The Open University Open University (2009) DD101 Introducing the Social Sciences, ‘Online Activity 25. Constructing a social science argument: working with theories’ [online], http://learn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php'id=569333 (accessed 27th May 2013) Self Reflection I am quite confident in my study skills although I need to focus on detail a lot more and I feel like I need to improve, again, on my referencing and point making.