Argument Essay - Illegalize Alcohol Essay Example for Free

Argument Essay Illegalize Alcohol Essay Our country is facing a growing problem. It is a problem of moral decay. The legal and open use of alcohol is an unnecessary vice that is enjoyed and accepted by a majority of the United States population, unfortunately, it leads to social and moral downfalls. Alcohol should be held to the same standards as other illegal mind and body-altering substances, as alcohol is addicting and has no medical value. Lawmakers and active voters should put an outright ban on alcohol. The revenue that is generated from the manufacturing, distributing, and sales of alcohol is a major source of taxable income that is a benefit. As of 2007 the U. S. Government was collecting $5. 6 billion dollars annually from the taxation of alcohol (joshritchie). This revenue has tended to increase each and every year. Although the revenue is important, the question must be asked, is it moral? Is it moral for our government to profit off the sale of a frivolous vice that causes fatalities and creates addicts? The revenue that is made from the taxation of alcohol could be lost, and would simply increase our never-ending national debt by a miniscule amount. Through out history our country has faced several social epidemics that have resulted in many people becoming substance abusers. Though these times our government has stepped in and enforced laws to restore the moral and social fabric of the infected areas. The current epidemic that we are facing is the abuse of alcohol. It is widespread and available almost everywhere in our country. â€Å"According to the Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) tool, from 2001–2005, there were approximately 79,000 deaths annually attributable to excessive alcohol use. † (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) Beyond the number of the deaths that are related to alcohol every year, a staggering number of people in the United States are alcoholics. According to the National Library of Medicine, â€Å"nearly 17. 6 million adults in the United States are alcoholics or have alcohol problems†. (U. S. National Library of Medicine) We need to completely ban alcohol so that we can start working on decreasing the number of addicts in our country rather than encourage the use to every single person just as he or she turns a certain age. The United States government has already tried to ban alcohol in the past, it was a complete failure and subsequently repealed. This attempt resulted in a spike in organized crime and was an obvious failure. Eventually the government conceded and re-legalized the use of alcohol. I too will concede that it was a failure on the part of our government in enforcing the prohibition of alcohol. Even today we are fighting the exact same battle by the DEA with the Controlled Substances Act. There is already a long list of illegal substances that are given priorities and schedules and are subsequently enforced. It would not be a stretch to incorporate alcohol into this list of illegal drugs. Many would assert that it would be difficult to enforce the mere consumption and manufacturing of small amounts of alcohol by individuals in there own homes. It is a very simple process to either brew low alcohol content drinks or to distill higher alcohol content spirits. The enforcing of these laws would be similar to current laws of cannabis cultivation. These laws would seem just as hard to enforce, yet they are enforced. The manufacturing of homemade alcohol could be given the same fear of punishment and could be enforced on incident-to-incident bases. Alcohol has the tendency to increase the probability of someone committing a violent crime. If alcohol were banned and harder to get a hold of this number of crimes would greatly diminish. The National Center for Victims of Crime has referenced the U. S. Department of Justice concerning drug and alcohol related crimes. The report states, â€Å"The U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey asks the violent crime victims who reported seeing their offenders whether they perceived the offender to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. According to the 1999 survey, over a quarter of the violent crime victims could make such a determination. About twenty-eight percent (28%) of those reported that the offender was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. The most common substance identified was alcohol alone. About sixteen percent (16%) reported that the offender was under the influence of alcohol alone (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001). † (The National Center for Victims of Crime) This only takes into account the victims that were able to see their offender; this means that there are possibly more unaccounted for alcohol related crimes. The legal and open use of alcohol as a vice is leading to the downfall of our society. It is creating addicts while not offering a single practical medical benefit. The United States Government has already invested time, money, and effort to enforcing its Controlled Substances Act. Alcohol should be held to the same standards as all other physically altering substances are held to. Alcohol poses the risk of dependence and has no beneficial medical value. In order to start the moral fabric of our country we need to do away with the crime inducing substance alcohol. Lawmakers and active voters, it is our duty to hold our selves to higher standards and completely abolish the manufacturing, sale, and use of alcohol. Works Cited Alcoholism: MedlinePlus. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. 25 Aug. 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. http://www. nlm. nih. gov/medlineplus/alcoholism. html. CDC Alcohol and Public Health Home Page Alcohol. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 16 Nov. 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. http://www. cdc. gov/alcohol/. Drug Related Crime. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2008. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. http://www. ncvc. org/ncvc/main. aspx? dbName=DocumentViewerDocumentID=32348. Joshritchie. How Much Is the Government Making Off of Alcohol? | Tax Break: The TurboTax Blog. Tax Break: The TurboTax Blog | Its All about the Refund. 5 July 2010. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. http://blog. turbotax. intuit. com/2010/07/05/how-much-is-the-government-mak

Handguns in America: To Ban or Not to Ban Essay -- argumentative, persu

Handguns in America: To ban or not to ban. Americans should be able to have, own and carry handguns if they feel the need to protect them. It’s a statement that is a topic of major debate and has been for years. There are proponents and oppositionists with regards to handgun laws and rights. Both sides have strong, seemingly valid arguments. In the end, we should have that choice. One of the strongest arguments for banning handguns: An increase in the availability of handguns equals an increase in crimes using handguns. â€Å"Handguns were used in murder more than all other weapons combined.† Page 75 (Every handgun is aimed at you) Josh Sugarman is for banning handguns arguing, the higher number of handguns, and the higher number of crime. That fact may be accurate according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. However, who is to say about the likely hood of the murder occurring regardless if the gun was available or not. If someone has a gun, they are more likely going to use it. But if someone is murder-minded, they will commit the murder, regardless of the weapon. To argue this point further, John R. Lott Jr. in his book The Bias Against Guns, mentions a study from 1977 to 1992. The research showed that the states that adopted right to conceal laws had a decrease in crimes with guns immediately following the passing of those laws. (pg 228 the bias against guns) Suicide and handguns: â€Å"†¦.the ready availability of handguns in the moments of despair takes thousands of lives each year.† (page 35 Every handgun is aimed at you) The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention states that: â€Å"Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides. Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.† Just as the murder-minded individual h... ...ection of this site, deals specifically with statistics on firearms and suicide rates. Sowell, Thomas. "RealClearPolitics - Judges, the Constitution & Gun Control Laws." RealClearPolitics. Creators Syndicate Inc., 29 June 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. The author is a general columnist and writes political articles including publishing weekly articles in Forbes magazine. He is a respected top economist. His article shows the author’s view on how stricter laws will increase gun violence. Sugarmann, Josh. Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns. New York: New, 2001. Print. The author is the executive director/founder of Violence Policy Center. He has published two books on the subject of guns and has written many articles for several newspapers across the country. This book looks at gun violence in America and why we should completely ban handguns.

Does violence on televison lead to violence in real life? Essay

The debate on television violence has been on going for many years now and has produced a wide and varied set of views and research results. Many well established psychologists have attempted, through various types of experiments and observations, to either support or negate a link between violence on television and the violent episodes in â€Å"real† life. These sets of data have thrown up some interesting views and personal conclusions regarding the subject of television violence, and we will show the varying views and conclusions that some of these psychologists have reached; and by using a respected and well known system we will try to show the views of a small section of our community. Previous research into the link between violence and television Over the years numerous psychologists have produced thousands of experiments and or research to support or negate the link between violence and television. In 1987 a psychologist named Cumberbatch produced data on the actual amounts of violence found to be in British television programmes. He concluded that 30% of the programmes contained some form of violence, with an overall frequency of 1.14 violent acts per programme and 1.68 violent acts per hour. Each act of violence lasted an average 25 seconds leading to violence occupying just over 1% of total television airtime. His research showed that in 26% of violent acts death occurred, but in 61% no injuries were shown and the victim was portrayed as being in pain or stunned. In 83% of cases, no blood was shown as a result of a violent act, and considerable blood and gore occurred in only 0.2% of cases. Cumberbatch also revealed that most perpetrators of violent acts were more likely to be portrayed as â€Å"baddies† rather than â€Å"goodies†, and violence occurred twice as frequently in law breaking than in law-upholding contexts. His research, although neither for or against violence on television, gives us an idea of the amount of violence on television we are exposed to. Howitt and Cumberbatch in 1974 analysed 300 studies of television violence and it’s direct effect on children’s behaviour, they played down the link between television violence and the children’s behaviour. A further study into the relationships between the media and violence carried out by Eron 1987and Phillips 1986 found a different conclusion. They concluded that a positive correlation between the amount of aggression viewed at 8 and later aggression at 30 could be seen. George Gerbner (1989) researched television and its influences on human behaviour and said: † Television influences human behaviour because there are â€Å"routes† or mechanisms whereby the content of television can have an effect on what we do, and how we act. Thus, part of televisions influence comes about because of how we learn (by observation and imitation), because of how we respond to certain kinds of story material (arousal/desensitisation), and because of the structure of our inhibitions and the way television provides the kind of stimulation necessary to release them (disinhibition). I called these behavioural mechanisms, because for the most part the influence was shown on some activity† (p128 The Psychology of Television) Aletha Huston (university of Kansas 1989) studied the effects of television violence on children’s behaviour and stated: † Children who watch violent television programmes, even ‘just funny’ cartoons, were more likely to hit out at their playmates, argue, disobey class rules, leave tasks unfinished, and were less willing to wait for things than those who watched the non violent programmes.†(p 142 The Psychology of Television) We can see from the varying studies, different results and opinions of these psychologists just how hard it can be to support or negate a link between violence on television and in real life. How the questionnaires were prepared in class In a classroom environment we produced a questionnaire on peoples opinions relating to the link between television violence and real life. The class split into small groups of three or four and discussed possible questions to add to the questionnaire, trying to have a balance of pro television and anti television questions. The individual group questions were discussed and eight questions picked to make up the actual questionnaire, these questions consisted of four pro television and four anti television, the questions were set out so an anti television was followed by a pro television question. The obvious reason for the split into pro and anti television is to try and produce a questionnaire that will give the people taking part a non-biased set of alternate answers. The questions we decided on where as follows: 1. Violence on TV causes certain people to copy those actions in real life 2. People understand TV is not real life and have no wish to copy what they see 3. Children often act out violence from TV especially cartoons 4. Violence in playgrounds is not influenced by TV 5. Violence is sensationalised in TV soaps to boost ratings 6. Violence in soap story lines is vital to keep viewers interested 7. News programmes use to much graphic violence 8. Graphic violence is needed in the media to show reality in news stories To measure these results we required a scale, this scale is known as the Likert questionnaire scale and was devised in the 1930s, and it works on the principle of asking the question and then giving the subject five possible answers, strongly agree, moderately agree, unsure, moderately disagree and strongly disagree (the first two and last two can be reversed) Questions one, two, five and six were prepared using the answer scale, 1: strongly agree, 2: moderately agree, 3 unsure, 4: moderately disagree and 5: strongly disagree. Questions three, four, seven and eight were prepared using the answer scale, 1: strongly disagree, 2: moderately disagree, 3: unsure, 4: moderately agree and 5: strongly agree. The reason for this is to prevent untrue answers and is explained in the next section. Why are there anomalies in preparation and analysis When preparing the questionnaire we realised that we could possibly encounter problems in the way people would answer the stated questions, the Likert scale is specifically designed to prevent this. For example we could encounter people who would pick only their favourite number and pay no attention to the questions being asked, or people would stick to the left side or right side of each column. The way the scale is set out at the moment both someone who is anti and someone who is pro television would both score the same, 24, and somebody who is unsure of every question asked would score 24 as well. Also a person who sticks to only one side of the scale, say the right side, would score a maximum of 40. This would not form a very interesting conclusion and people’s true views would be unknown so we have to alter the scale to produce interesting results, we alter only the scale and not the actual answers. To alleviate these problems the scale has to go through slight changes when we have all the necessary data, but we must emphasise that only the scores are changed and not any of the actual answers given by the participants After we have made these changes it can be seen that we now have a set of interesting results with definite pro and anti opinions and the people who have not completed the questionnaire correctly have no bearing on the result. How the data was analysed To analyse all the data collected from the questionnaires we needed to produce a graph of all the answers. This table would show in detail how the subjects of the questionnaire answered our eight questions and, when we alter the scale, would provide us with evidence of the pro and anti television feeling. The graph shows all the answers to the questionnaire and also shows the changes made, the numbers in red show how we have altered the value for the actual answer e.g. question 1 answer 1 has now become question 1 answer 5 etc Summary results of questionnaire To find the pro and anti television views of our subjects we needed to work out the over all percentages, these were found by the mathematical processes below: 1. Strongly pro television: value 1 (79) divided by the number of participants (520) multiplied by 100 to give us 15.19% 2. Moderately pro television: value 2, 113/520 x 100 = 21.73% 3. Unsure: value 3, 45/520 x 100 = 8.65% 4. Moderately anti television: value 4, 181/520 x 100 = 34.81% 5. Strongly anti television: value 5, 102/520 x 100 = 19.62% These results show that 54.43% of the people who participated in our questionnaire are moderately or strongly anti television, compared to 36.92% who are moderately or strongly pro television. Other theories for the cause of aggressive behaviour Although the debates still continue on the links between television and aggressive behaviour, other links have been researched and their findings well documented. Probably the most well known person to document his findings on aggressive behaviour was Sigmund Freud (1856-1939); he had a psychoanalytical approach and stated that we all have innate instincts in the form of something called Eros (the seeking of pleasure and self-preservation) and Thanatos (a tendency to self destruct) He tells us that this tension can often lead to the Thanatos being projected outwardly and onto others. Freud stated that the need for displaying aggression comes as naturally as the need for food, drink and sex. The aggressive instinct can be displaced through cathartic activities such as sport. Megargee (1966) supported Freud in his findings and found that crimes are often committed by over controlled individuals who, over a period of time, have repressed their anger. Another approach to this topic was Lorenz’s ethological approach, his hydraulic model claimed that ‘aggressive energy builds up gradually over a period of time and needs to be released periodically.’ Lorenz (1966) stated that aggression is connected with our need to be adaptive, to fit in and survive within our environment. Dollard et al (1939) adopted a very different approach, the frustration-aggression hypothesis. This hypothesis claimed that aggression is always a consequence of frustration and the existence of frustration always leads to aggression. Dollard et al view aggression as innate and in doing so agree with the findings of Freud and Lorenz, but, say it would only take place in particular opportune circumstances. Aggression could possibly be delayed or it could be aimed at a third party, a scapegoat. It is as if the mind thinks things through and only acts when the time is perceived to be right, or is advantageous. Another view is that of Berkowitz (1966) who says we rely on certain cues to trigger our responses. Frustration leads to anger, which is different from actual aggression, the frustration cues a readiness to act. Then only an environmental cue will actually trigger aggression. This theory is somewhat similar to the frustration-aggression hypothesis but it has the intermediary response that takes the form of anger, something has to come along that tips us over the edge. Bandura (1961, 1963, 1965, 1973, 1994) produced a theory on social learning. He claimed that aggressive behaviour was learned through observation, imitation and reinforcement of aggressive models. Even non-tangible reinforcements such as the words † be tough† can have the same effect. Bibliography Course notes R Walters & P J Daly 2003 The psychology of Television John Condry

Does violence on televison lead to violence in real life? Essay

The debate on television violence has been on going for many years now and has produced a wide and varied set of views and research results. Many well established psychologists have attempted, through various types of experiments and observations, to either support or negate a link between violence on television and the violent episodes in â€Å"real† life. These sets of data have thrown up some interesting views and personal conclusions regarding the subject of television violence, and we will show the varying views and conclusions that some of these psychologists have reached; and by using a respected and well known system we will try to show the views of a small section of our community. Previous research into the link between violence and television Over the years numerous psychologists have produced thousands of experiments and or research to support or negate the link between violence and television. In 1987 a psychologist named Cumberbatch produced data on the actual amounts of violence found to be in British television programmes. He concluded that 30% of the programmes contained some form of violence, with an overall frequency of 1.14 violent acts per programme and 1.68 violent acts per hour. Each act of violence lasted an average 25 seconds leading to violence occupying just over 1% of total television airtime. His research showed that in 26% of violent acts death occurred, but in 61% no injuries were shown and the victim was portrayed as being in pain or stunned. In 83% of cases, no blood was shown as a result of a violent act, and considerable blood and gore occurred in only 0.2% of cases. Cumberbatch also revealed that most perpetrators of violent acts were more likely to be portrayed as â€Å"baddies† rather than â€Å"goodies†, and violence occurred twice as frequently in law breaking than in law-upholding contexts. His research, although neither for or against violence on television, gives us an idea of the amount of violence on television we are exposed to. Howitt and Cumberbatch in 1974 analysed 300 studies of television violence and it’s direct effect on children’s behaviour, they played down the link between television violence and the children’s behaviour. A further study into the relationships between the media and violence carried out by Eron 1987and Phillips 1986 found a different conclusion. They concluded that a positive correlation between the amount of aggression viewed at 8 and later aggression at 30 could be seen. George Gerbner (1989) researched television and its influences on human behaviour and said: † Television influences human behaviour because there are â€Å"routes† or mechanisms whereby the content of television can have an effect on what we do, and how we act. Thus, part of televisions influence comes about because of how we learn (by observation and imitation), because of how we respond to certain kinds of story material (arousal/desensitisation), and because of the structure of our inhibitions and the way television provides the kind of stimulation necessary to release them (disinhibition). I called these behavioural mechanisms, because for the most part the influence was shown on some activity† (p128 The Psychology of Television) Aletha Huston (university of Kansas 1989) studied the effects of television violence on children’s behaviour and stated: † Children who watch violent television programmes, even ‘just funny’ cartoons, were more likely to hit out at their playmates, argue, disobey class rules, leave tasks unfinished, and were less willing to wait for things than those who watched the non violent programmes.†(p 142 The Psychology of Television) We can see from the varying studies, different results and opinions of these psychologists just how hard it can be to support or negate a link between violence on television and in real life. How the questionnaires were prepared in class In a classroom environment we produced a questionnaire on peoples opinions relating to the link between television violence and real life. The class split into small groups of three or four and discussed possible questions to add to the questionnaire, trying to have a balance of pro television and anti television questions. The individual group questions were discussed and eight questions picked to make up the actual questionnaire, these questions consisted of four pro television and four anti television, the questions were set out so an anti television was followed by a pro television question. The obvious reason for the split into pro and anti television is to try and produce a questionnaire that will give the people taking part a non-biased set of alternate answers. The questions we decided on where as follows: 1. Violence on TV causes certain people to copy those actions in real life 2. People understand TV is not real life and have no wish to copy what they see 3. Children often act out violence from TV especially cartoons 4. Violence in playgrounds is not influenced by TV 5. Violence is sensationalised in TV soaps to boost ratings 6. Violence in soap story lines is vital to keep viewers interested 7. News programmes use to much graphic violence 8. Graphic violence is needed in the media to show reality in news stories To measure these results we required a scale, this scale is known as the Likert questionnaire scale and was devised in the 1930s, and it works on the principle of asking the question and then giving the subject five possible answers, strongly agree, moderately agree, unsure, moderately disagree and strongly disagree (the first two and last two can be reversed) Questions one, two, five and six were prepared using the answer scale, 1: strongly agree, 2: moderately agree, 3 unsure, 4: moderately disagree and 5: strongly disagree. Questions three, four, seven and eight were prepared using the answer scale, 1: strongly disagree, 2: moderately disagree, 3: unsure, 4: moderately agree and 5: strongly agree. The reason for this is to prevent untrue answers and is explained in the next section. Why are there anomalies in preparation and analysis When preparing the questionnaire we realised that we could possibly encounter problems in the way people would answer the stated questions, the Likert scale is specifically designed to prevent this. For example we could encounter people who would pick only their favourite number and pay no attention to the questions being asked, or people would stick to the left side or right side of each column. The way the scale is set out at the moment both someone who is anti and someone who is pro television would both score the same, 24, and somebody who is unsure of every question asked would score 24 as well. Also a person who sticks to only one side of the scale, say the right side, would score a maximum of 40. This would not form a very interesting conclusion and people’s true views would be unknown so we have to alter the scale to produce interesting results, we alter only the scale and not the actual answers. To alleviate these problems the scale has to go through slight changes when we have all the necessary data, but we must emphasise that only the scores are changed and not any of the actual answers given by the participants After we have made these changes it can be seen that we now have a set of interesting results with definite pro and anti opinions and the people who have not completed the questionnaire correctly have no bearing on the result. How the data was analysed To analyse all the data collected from the questionnaires we needed to produce a graph of all the answers. This table would show in detail how the subjects of the questionnaire answered our eight questions and, when we alter the scale, would provide us with evidence of the pro and anti television feeling. The graph shows all the answers to the questionnaire and also shows the changes made, the numbers in red show how we have altered the value for the actual answer e.g. question 1 answer 1 has now become question 1 answer 5 etc Summary results of questionnaire To find the pro and anti television views of our subjects we needed to work out the over all percentages, these were found by the mathematical processes below: 1. Strongly pro television: value 1 (79) divided by the number of participants (520) multiplied by 100 to give us 15.19% 2. Moderately pro television: value 2, 113/520 x 100 = 21.73% 3. Unsure: value 3, 45/520 x 100 = 8.65% 4. Moderately anti television: value 4, 181/520 x 100 = 34.81% 5. Strongly anti television: value 5, 102/520 x 100 = 19.62% These results show that 54.43% of the people who participated in our questionnaire are moderately or strongly anti television, compared to 36.92% who are moderately or strongly pro television. Other theories for the cause of aggressive behaviour Although the debates still continue on the links between television and aggressive behaviour, other links have been researched and their findings well documented. Probably the most well known person to document his findings on aggressive behaviour was Sigmund Freud (1856-1939); he had a psychoanalytical approach and stated that we all have innate instincts in the form of something called Eros (the seeking of pleasure and self-preservation) and Thanatos (a tendency to self destruct) He tells us that this tension can often lead to the Thanatos being projected outwardly and onto others. Freud stated that the need for displaying aggression comes as naturally as the need for food, drink and sex. The aggressive instinct can be displaced through cathartic activities such as sport. Megargee (1966) supported Freud in his findings and found that crimes are often committed by over controlled individuals who, over a period of time, have repressed their anger. Another approach to this topic was Lorenz’s ethological approach, his hydraulic model claimed that ‘aggressive energy builds up gradually over a period of time and needs to be released periodically.’ Lorenz (1966) stated that aggression is connected with our need to be adaptive, to fit in and survive within our environment. Dollard et al (1939) adopted a very different approach, the frustration-aggression hypothesis. This hypothesis claimed that aggression is always a consequence of frustration and the existence of frustration always leads to aggression. Dollard et al view aggression as innate and in doing so agree with the findings of Freud and Lorenz, but, say it would only take place in particular opportune circumstances. Aggression could possibly be delayed or it could be aimed at a third party, a scapegoat. It is as if the mind thinks things through and only acts when the time is perceived to be right, or is advantageous. Another view is that of Berkowitz (1966) who says we rely on certain cues to trigger our responses. Frustration leads to anger, which is different from actual aggression, the frustration cues a readiness to act. Then only an environmental cue will actually trigger aggression. This theory is somewhat similar to the frustration-aggression hypothesis but it has the intermediary response that takes the form of anger, something has to come along that tips us over the edge. Bandura (1961, 1963, 1965, 1973, 1994) produced a theory on social learning. He claimed that aggressive behaviour was learned through observation, imitation and reinforcement of aggressive models. Even non-tangible reinforcements such as the words † be tough† can have the same effect. Bibliography Course notes R Walters & P J Daly 2003 The psychology of Television John Condry

Does violence on televison lead to violence in real life? Essay

The debate on television violence has been on going for many years now and has produced a wide and varied set of views and research results. Many well established psychologists have attempted, through various types of experiments and observations, to either support or negate a link between violence on television and the violent episodes in â€Å"real† life. These sets of data have thrown up some interesting views and personal conclusions regarding the subject of television violence, and we will show the varying views and conclusions that some of these psychologists have reached; and by using a respected and well known system we will try to show the views of a small section of our community. Previous research into the link between violence and television Over the years numerous psychologists have produced thousands of experiments and or research to support or negate the link between violence and television. In 1987 a psychologist named Cumberbatch produced data on the actual amounts of violence found to be in British television programmes. He concluded that 30% of the programmes contained some form of violence, with an overall frequency of 1.14 violent acts per programme and 1.68 violent acts per hour. Each act of violence lasted an average 25 seconds leading to violence occupying just over 1% of total television airtime. His research showed that in 26% of violent acts death occurred, but in 61% no injuries were shown and the victim was portrayed as being in pain or stunned. In 83% of cases, no blood was shown as a result of a violent act, and considerable blood and gore occurred in only 0.2% of cases. Cumberbatch also revealed that most perpetrators of violent acts were more likely to be portrayed as â€Å"baddies† rather than â€Å"goodies†, and violence occurred twice as frequently in law breaking than in law-upholding contexts. His research, although neither for or against violence on television, gives us an idea of the amount of violence on television we are exposed to. Howitt and Cumberbatch in 1974 analysed 300 studies of television violence and it’s direct effect on children’s behaviour, they played down the link between television violence and the children’s behaviour. A further study into the relationships between the media and violence carried out by Eron 1987and Phillips 1986 found a different conclusion. They concluded that a positive correlation between the amount of aggression viewed at 8 and later aggression at 30 could be seen. George Gerbner (1989) researched television and its influences on human behaviour and said: † Television influences human behaviour because there are â€Å"routes† or mechanisms whereby the content of television can have an effect on what we do, and how we act. Thus, part of televisions influence comes about because of how we learn (by observation and imitation), because of how we respond to certain kinds of story material (arousal/desensitisation), and because of the structure of our inhibitions and the way television provides the kind of stimulation necessary to release them (disinhibition). I called these behavioural mechanisms, because for the most part the influence was shown on some activity† (p128 The Psychology of Television) Aletha Huston (university of Kansas 1989) studied the effects of television violence on children’s behaviour and stated: † Children who watch violent television programmes, even ‘just funny’ cartoons, were more likely to hit out at their playmates, argue, disobey class rules, leave tasks unfinished, and were less willing to wait for things than those who watched the non violent programmes.†(p 142 The Psychology of Television) We can see from the varying studies, different results and opinions of these psychologists just how hard it can be to support or negate a link between violence on television and in real life. How the questionnaires were prepared in class In a classroom environment we produced a questionnaire on peoples opinions relating to the link between television violence and real life. The class split into small groups of three or four and discussed possible questions to add to the questionnaire, trying to have a balance of pro television and anti television questions. The individual group questions were discussed and eight questions picked to make up the actual questionnaire, these questions consisted of four pro television and four anti television, the questions were set out so an anti television was followed by a pro television question. The obvious reason for the split into pro and anti television is to try and produce a questionnaire that will give the people taking part a non-biased set of alternate answers. The questions we decided on where as follows: 1. Violence on TV causes certain people to copy those actions in real life 2. People understand TV is not real life and have no wish to copy what they see 3. Children often act out violence from TV especially cartoons 4. Violence in playgrounds is not influenced by TV 5. Violence is sensationalised in TV soaps to boost ratings 6. Violence in soap story lines is vital to keep viewers interested 7. News programmes use to much graphic violence 8. Graphic violence is needed in the media to show reality in news stories To measure these results we required a scale, this scale is known as the Likert questionnaire scale and was devised in the 1930s, and it works on the principle of asking the question and then giving the subject five possible answers, strongly agree, moderately agree, unsure, moderately disagree and strongly disagree (the first two and last two can be reversed) Questions one, two, five and six were prepared using the answer scale, 1: strongly agree, 2: moderately agree, 3 unsure, 4: moderately disagree and 5: strongly disagree. Questions three, four, seven and eight were prepared using the answer scale, 1: strongly disagree, 2: moderately disagree, 3: unsure, 4: moderately agree and 5: strongly agree. The reason for this is to prevent untrue answers and is explained in the next section. Why are there anomalies in preparation and analysis When preparing the questionnaire we realised that we could possibly encounter problems in the way people would answer the stated questions, the Likert scale is specifically designed to prevent this. For example we could encounter people who would pick only their favourite number and pay no attention to the questions being asked, or people would stick to the left side or right side of each column. The way the scale is set out at the moment both someone who is anti and someone who is pro television would both score the same, 24, and somebody who is unsure of every question asked would score 24 as well. Also a person who sticks to only one side of the scale, say the right side, would score a maximum of 40. This would not form a very interesting conclusion and people’s true views would be unknown so we have to alter the scale to produce interesting results, we alter only the scale and not the actual answers. To alleviate these problems the scale has to go through slight changes when we have all the necessary data, but we must emphasise that only the scores are changed and not any of the actual answers given by the participants After we have made these changes it can be seen that we now have a set of interesting results with definite pro and anti opinions and the people who have not completed the questionnaire correctly have no bearing on the result. How the data was analysed To analyse all the data collected from the questionnaires we needed to produce a graph of all the answers. This table would show in detail how the subjects of the questionnaire answered our eight questions and, when we alter the scale, would provide us with evidence of the pro and anti television feeling. The graph shows all the answers to the questionnaire and also shows the changes made, the numbers in red show how we have altered the value for the actual answer e.g. question 1 answer 1 has now become question 1 answer 5 etc Summary results of questionnaire To find the pro and anti television views of our subjects we needed to work out the over all percentages, these were found by the mathematical processes below: 1. Strongly pro television: value 1 (79) divided by the number of participants (520) multiplied by 100 to give us 15.19% 2. Moderately pro television: value 2, 113/520 x 100 = 21.73% 3. Unsure: value 3, 45/520 x 100 = 8.65% 4. Moderately anti television: value 4, 181/520 x 100 = 34.81% 5. Strongly anti television: value 5, 102/520 x 100 = 19.62% These results show that 54.43% of the people who participated in our questionnaire are moderately or strongly anti television, compared to 36.92% who are moderately or strongly pro television. Other theories for the cause of aggressive behaviour Although the debates still continue on the links between television and aggressive behaviour, other links have been researched and their findings well documented. Probably the most well known person to document his findings on aggressive behaviour was Sigmund Freud (1856-1939); he had a psychoanalytical approach and stated that we all have innate instincts in the form of something called Eros (the seeking of pleasure and self-preservation) and Thanatos (a tendency to self destruct) He tells us that this tension can often lead to the Thanatos being projected outwardly and onto others. Freud stated that the need for displaying aggression comes as naturally as the need for food, drink and sex. The aggressive instinct can be displaced through cathartic activities such as sport. Megargee (1966) supported Freud in his findings and found that crimes are often committed by over controlled individuals who, over a period of time, have repressed their anger. Another approach to this topic was Lorenz’s ethological approach, his hydraulic model claimed that ‘aggressive energy builds up gradually over a period of time and needs to be released periodically.’ Lorenz (1966) stated that aggression is connected with our need to be adaptive, to fit in and survive within our environment. Dollard et al (1939) adopted a very different approach, the frustration-aggression hypothesis. This hypothesis claimed that aggression is always a consequence of frustration and the existence of frustration always leads to aggression. Dollard et al view aggression as innate and in doing so agree with the findings of Freud and Lorenz, but, say it would only take place in particular opportune circumstances. Aggression could possibly be delayed or it could be aimed at a third party, a scapegoat. It is as if the mind thinks things through and only acts when the time is perceived to be right, or is advantageous. Another view is that of Berkowitz (1966) who says we rely on certain cues to trigger our responses. Frustration leads to anger, which is different from actual aggression, the frustration cues a readiness to act. Then only an environmental cue will actually trigger aggression. This theory is somewhat similar to the frustration-aggression hypothesis but it has the intermediary response that takes the form of anger, something has to come along that tips us over the edge. Bandura (1961, 1963, 1965, 1973, 1994) produced a theory on social learning. He claimed that aggressive behaviour was learned through observation, imitation and reinforcement of aggressive models. Even non-tangible reinforcements such as the words † be tough† can have the same effect. Bibliography Course notes R Walters & P J Daly 2003 The psychology of Television John Condry

101 Great Science Experiments Book for Kids

101 Great Science Experiments: A Step-by-Step Guide is a well-designed and organized guide to brief science experiments in eleven different categories, including temperature, light, color, sound, magnets and electricity. Like many other books published by DK Publishing, 101 Great Science Experiments provides easy-to-follow directions, illustrated with color photographs. Each experiment includes a short description of the experiment and why it works and illustrated step-by-step directions. 101 Great Science Experiments will appeal to 8 to 14 year-olds. Pros Cons Very well-organizedNice variety of experimentsEasy-to-follow steps for each experimentSteps illustrated with photographs of kids doing the stepsDetailed table of contents and indexNot enough safety information, and what little there is of it is too easy to missNot for young scientists who want to do experiments without prior knowledge of the outcomes Book Description Publisher: DK Publishing, Inc.One-half page to one-page experimentsEach experiment illustrated with multiple color photographsLength: 120 pagesDetailed Table of Contents and IndexEleven different categories of hands-on science experimentsFor Ages: 8 to 14 yearsCopyright: 1993ISBN: 9780756619183Categories: science, hands-on, nonfiction Review of 101 Great Science Experiments There is a lot to like about 101 Great Science Experiments: A Step-by-Step Guide by Neil Ardley. Like many of the other childrens books published by DK Publishing, it is beautifully designed and is illustrated with high-quality photographs. If your kids -- tweens or young teens -- enjoy hands-on science activities, 101 Great Science Experiments will appeal to them. The science experiments in 101 Great Science Experiments are organized by category: Air and Gases, Water and Liquids, Hot and Cold, Light, Color, Growth, Senses, Sound and Music, Magnets, Electricity, and Motion and Machines. Since the experiments dont generally build on one another, your young scientist can pick and choose experiments as desired. However, note that some of the longer experiments tend to be in last four categories in the book. The experiments are generally ones that can be done in a short period of time. The directions for most of them are one-half to one-page long. In some cases, all of the materials are ones you will have on hand. In other cases, a trip to the store (hardware or grocery store and/or hobby shop) may be required. Unlike books that challenge the reader to determine the outcome of a problem by doing an experiment as in What happens when you mix sodium bicarbonate and vinegar? 101 Great Science Experiments tells the reader what will happen and why and invites the reader to try it. For example, in the case of mixing sodium bicarbonate and vinegar, the reader is invited to Make a volcano erupt. Numbered steps are provided, most with an accompanying photograph showing a boy or girl doing the step. Both the introduction to each experiment and the steps are very briefly, yet fully, stated. In many cases, additional related science information is provided for the experiment. The Table of Contents, which is divided into the categories of science experiments, provides a helpful overview of the types of experiments in 101 Great Science Experiments. The detailed index will assist the reader interested in a particular aspect of science to find what is available in the book. I would have appreciated a longer section at the beginning of the book on safety rather than the seven-sentence boxed section on the first Contents page. It would be easy to miss the reminder directed to the young reader that for every step with the symbol of two people, You must ask an adult to help you with it. Knowing that you will be able to ensure that your child is aware of, and follows, safety procedures. In every other respect, 101 Great Science Experiments: A Step-by-Step Guide is an excellent book. It provides a lot of interesting experiments that will add to your 8- to 14-year-olds knowledge of science. Since it provides an opportunity to try experiments in a variety of categories, it may also ignite further interest in a particular category that will lead to your child seeking out additional information and books. More Fun Science Projects for Kids Make a Dry Ice Crystal BallHow to Grow Sugar CrystalsHow to Create Green FireMake a Rainbow in a Glass