Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medical Xpress)   Superheroes make people more aggressive, explaining why comic book store brawls are so dangerous   (medicalxpress.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, superhero culture, Violence, Sarah M. Coyne, favorite superhero, children, superhero media, superheroes, Superhero  
•       •       •

520 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Jan 2017 at 12:50 PM (5 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
5 days ago  
m.popkey.co
 
5 days ago  
Be agressive. Be-e agressive!
 
5 days ago  
media.giphy.com
 
5 days ago  
www.joesergi.net

"Told you so!"
 
5 days ago  
As long as they're aggressive in their quest for truth, justice, and the American way I don't see a problem here.
 
5 days ago  
so 240 children were asked questions about their favorite superheros now means something for all children?  i know how statistics work, and while math might suggest 240 is indeed a large enough sample size i would call horseshiat on this if they expand that to say, 10,000 kids and then looked at other possible aggression modifiers in their life.  they could probably glean more from what their parents like and how they act as a larger indicator of their aggression but no, this seems fine to some Family Life professor at BYU.

im not saying it doesnt play a role, im saying the study concluded it off horseshiat data.
 
5 days ago  
Children who are plopped down in front of the TV have worse social interactions than children who are parented and go outside. Also water is wet.
 
5 days ago  
Remember Eddie Murphy and Rocky?
(NSFW language of course, so remember your ear buds)

 
5 days ago  

The Flexecutioner: so 240 children were asked questions about their favorite superheros now means something for all children?  i know how statistics work, and while math might suggest 240 is indeed a large enough sample size i would call horseshiat on this if they expand that to say, 10,000 kids and then looked at other possible aggression modifiers in their life.  they could probably glean more from what their parents like and how they act as a larger indicator of their aggression but no, this seems fine to some Family Life professor at BYU.

im not saying it doesnt play a role, im saying the study concluded it off horseshiat data.


The confounding is likely to be a big issue. The professor also did not report on whether the children who identified with superheroes were already more aggressive during the first study. It might be that more aggressive children are attracted to aggressive comics, instead (as the study implies) the other way around.

/These 'scientists' sound like headline-hunters.
 
5 days ago  

Sin_City_Superhero: Be agressive. Be-e agressive!


B-E! A-G-G! A-R-E-S-S-I-V-E!
 
5 days ago  
SUCH A STUDY IS BENEATH ME, VICTOR VON DOOM!
 
5 days ago  
img.fark.net
 
5 days ago  
You think just cause a guy reads comics he can't start some shiat?!?!
 
5 days ago  

draypresct: The Flexecutioner: so 240 children were asked questions about their favorite superheros now means something for all children?  i know how statistics work, and while math might suggest 240 is indeed a large enough sample size i would call horseshiat on this if they expand that to say, 10,000 kids and then looked at other possible aggression modifiers in their life.  they could probably glean more from what their parents like and how they act as a larger indicator of their aggression but no, this seems fine to some Family Life professor at BYU.

im not saying it doesnt play a role, im saying the study concluded it off horseshiat data.

The confounding is likely to be a big issue. The professor also did not report on whether the children who identified with superheroes were already more aggressive during the first study. It might be that more aggressive children are attracted to aggressive comics, instead (as the study implies) the other way around.

/These 'scientists' sound like headline-hunters.


My read on TFA was preschoolers pick up and retain the things they are able to pick up and retain. AKA they get the pew pew, and therefore talk about the pew pew. They aren't exactly known as the great moralists of our times. Without any example of controlling for existing predispositions, and showing a change there, the study is worthless.
 
5 days ago  
How did they find this?

BYU family life professor

Ahh it was wanted to be found

/old superheroes werent exactly passive actors (shiva, odysseus, achillies, yvyh, odin, et cetera)
//make fun of my baldy friend? MAUL BY BEAR!
 
5 days ago  

The Flexecutioner: so 240 children were asked questions about their favorite superheros now means something for all children?  i know how statistics work, and while math might suggest 240 is indeed a large enough sample size i would call horseshiat on this if they expand that to say, 10,000 kids and then looked at other possible aggression modifiers in their life.  they could probably glean more from what their parents like and how they act as a larger indicator of their aggression but no, this seems fine to some Family Life professor at BYU.

im not saying it doesnt play a role, im saying the study concluded it off horseshiat data.


If we all thought like you that we needed a sample of 10,000 to make any inferences about human behavior, we might as well pack up science and go home.

They drew a reasonable conclusion off of reasonable data. 240 participant is not horseshiat.

One study also does not equal gospel truth. That's why science values replication and consensus (in this case meaning consensus of data from multiple avenues of reseaech from different groups).

Also, who said "all children". Anyone with any understanding of human beings understands that what is true for one, or many, is not true for all.

/Not entirely sure you really understand statistics. But not statistically sure you dont understand statistics, which is to say, I don't know
 
5 days ago  

draypresct: The confounding is likely to be a big issue. The professor also did not report on whether the children who identified with superheroes were already more aggressive during the first study. It might be that more aggressive children are attracted to aggressive comics, instead (as the study implies) the other way around.

/These 'scientists' sound like headline-hunters.


Did you actually go read the study to see if this is a confound? If I was reviewing it I would expect them to control for overall amount of TV time I'm some way.

I am not gonna read the study, but a lot of people in this thread are only to happy to shiat on the science without any actual info. a news article is not actual information.

Science is hard and imperfect, but I think you guys can afford to give the author's, and the peer review system some.benifit of the doubt and assume if you considered an issue, they probably considered it to. Only better and in a lot more detail.
 
5 days ago  

chawco: draypresct: The confounding is likely to be a big issue. The professor also did not report on whether the children who identified with superheroes were already more aggressive during the first study. It might be that more aggressive children are attracted to aggressive comics, instead (as the study implies) the other way around.

/These 'scientists' sound like headline-hunters.

Did you actually go read the study to see if this is a confound? If I was reviewing it I would expect them to control for overall amount of TV time I'm some way.

I am not gonna read the study, but a lot of people in this thread are only to happy to shiat on the science without any actual info. a news article is not actual information.

Science is hard and imperfect, but I think you guys can afford to give the author's, and the peer review system some.benifit of the doubt and assume if you considered an issue, they probably considered it to. Only better and in a lot more detail.


No, I didn't read the study. The article didn't even link to it, or provide enough information (title or journal would have helped) to find it, so I had to rely on what was reported in the article.

We don't know that this was published in a peer-review journal, do we?
 
5 days ago  

Egoy3k: Children who are plopped down in front of the TV have worse social interactions than children who are parented and go outside. Also water is wet.


As someone who was basically raised by tv after 6th grade... this.

/Mostly socially inept, but better than I used to be.
 
5 days ago  

draypresct: chawco: draypresct: The confounding is likely to be a big issue. The professor also did not report on whether the children who identified with superheroes were already more aggressive during the first study. It might be that more aggressive children are attracted to aggressive comics, instead (as the study implies) the other way around.

/These 'scientists' sound like headline-hunters.

Did you actually go read the study to see if this is a confound? If I was reviewing it I would expect them to control for overall amount of TV time I'm some way.

I am not gonna read the study, but a lot of people in this thread are only to happy to shiat on the science without any actual info. a news article is not actual information.

Science is hard and imperfect, but I think you guys can afford to give the author's, and the peer review system some.benifit of the doubt and assume if you considered an issue, they probably considered it to. Only better and in a lot more detail.

No, I didn't read the study. The article didn't even link to it, or provide enough information (title or journal would have helped) to find it, so I had to rely on what was reported in the article.

We don't know that this was published in a peer-review journal, do we?


from TFA:
The study was published this week in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

I am admittedly tired and cranky after a hard day of sciencing. All I am saying is rather than assume the authors are idiots, with hold judgement when all you go was a shiatty news article snippet. This may or may not be an extremely well designed rigorous study. Maybe she did report on baseline aggressive tendencies, how the hell do we know?
 
5 days ago  

chawco: The Flexecutioner: so 240 children were asked questions about their favorite superheros now means something for all children?  i know how statistics work, and while math might suggest 240 is indeed a large enough sample size i would call horseshiat on this if they expand that to say, 10,000 kids and then looked at other possible aggression modifiers in their life.  they could probably glean more from what their parents like and how they act as a larger indicator of their aggression but no, this seems fine to some Family Life professor at BYU.

im not saying it doesnt play a role, im saying the study concluded it off horseshiat data.

If we all thought like you that we needed a sample of 10,000 to make any inferences about human behavior, we might as well pack up science and go home.

They drew a reasonable conclusion off of reasonable data. 240 participant is not horseshiat.

One study also does not equal gospel truth. That's why science values replication and consensus (in this case meaning consensus of data from multiple avenues of reseaech from different groups).

Also, who said "all children". Anyone with any understanding of human beings understands that what is true for one, or many, is not true for all.

/Not entirely sure you really understand statistics. But not statistically sure you dont understand statistics, which is to say, I don't know


I fail to reject your hypothesis.
 
5 days ago  

Herr Flick's Revenge: chawco: The Flexecutioner: so 240 children were asked questions about their favorite superheros now means something for all children?  i know how statistics work, and while math might suggest 240 is indeed a large enough sample size i would call horseshiat on this if they expand that to say, 10,000 kids and then looked at other possible aggression modifiers in their life.  they could probably glean more from what their parents like and how they act as a larger indicator of their aggression but no, this seems fine to some Family Life professor at BYU.

im not saying it doesnt play a role, im saying the study concluded it off horseshiat data.

If we all thought like you that we needed a sample of 10,000 to make any inferences about human behavior, we might as well pack up science and go home.

They drew a reasonable conclusion off of reasonable data. 240 participant is not horseshiat.

One study also does not equal gospel truth. That's why science values replication and consensus (in this case meaning consensus of data from multiple avenues of reseaech from different groups).

Also, who said "all children". Anyone with any understanding of human beings understands that what is true for one, or many, is not true for all.

/Not entirely sure you really understand statistics. But not statistically sure you dont understand statistics, which is to say, I don't know

I fail to reject your hypothesis.


null! I call null!!
 
5 days ago  

chawco: draypresct: chawco: draypresct: The confounding is likely to be a big issue. The professor also did not report on whether the children who identified with superheroes were already more aggressive during the first study. It might be that more aggressive children are attracted to aggressive comics, instead (as the study implies) the other way around.

/These 'scientists' sound like headline-hunters.

Did you actually go read the study to see if this is a confound? If I was reviewing it I would expect them to control for overall amount of TV time I'm some way.

I am not gonna read the study, but a lot of people in this thread are only to happy to shiat on the science without any actual info. a news article is not actual information.

Science is hard and imperfect, but I think you guys can afford to give the author's, and the peer review system some.benifit of the doubt and assume if you considered an issue, they probably considered it to. Only better and in a lot more detail.

No, I didn't read the study. The article didn't even link to it, or provide enough information (title or journal would have helped) to find it, so I had to rely on what was reported in the article.

We don't know that this was published in a peer-review journal, do we?

from TFA:
The study was published this week in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

I am admittedly tired and cranky after a hard day of sciencing. All I am saying is rather than assume the authors are idiots, with hold judgement when all you go was a shiatty news article snippet. This may or may not be an extremely well designed rigorous study. Maybe she did report on baseline aggressive tendencies, how the hell do we know?


Thanks, I'd missed that.

I think it's valid to be a little more skeptical of splashy announcements that contradict long-standing trends in the reduction of violence that correlate with increased popularity of comic books.

The journal's homepage does not indicate that it is peer-review:
http://www.springer.com/psychology/child+%26+school+psychology/journa​l​/10802
 
5 days ago  

draypresct: chawco: draypresct: chawco: draypresct: The confounding is likely to be a big issue. The professor also did not report on whether the children who identified with superheroes were already more aggressive during the first study. It might be that more aggressive children are attracted to aggressive comics, instead (as the study implies) the other way around.

/These 'scientists' sound like headline-hunters.

Did you actually go read the study to see if this is a confound? If I was reviewing it I would expect them to control for overall amount of TV time I'm some way.

I am not gonna read the study, but a lot of people in this thread are only to happy to shiat on the science without any actual info. a news article is not actual information.

Science is hard and imperfect, but I think you guys can afford to give the author's, and the peer review system some.benifit of the doubt and assume if you considered an issue, they probably considered it to. Only better and in a lot more detail.

No, I didn't read the study. The article didn't even link to it, or provide enough information (title or journal would have helped) to find it, so I had to rely on what was reported in the article.

We don't know that this was published in a peer-review journal, do we?

from TFA:
The study was published this week in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

I am admittedly tired and cranky after a hard day of sciencing. All I am saying is rather than assume the authors are idiots, with hold judgement when all you go was a shiatty news article snippet. This may or may not be an extremely well designed rigorous study. Maybe she did report on baseline aggressive tendencies, how the hell do we know?

Thanks, I'd missed that.

I think it's valid to be a little more skeptical of splashy announcements that contradict long-standing trends in the reduction of violence that correlate with increased popularity of comic books.

The journal's homepage does not indicate that it is peer-review:
http:// ...


it is peer reviewed. Not that that is a gaurantee of good scientist though.
 
5 days ago  

chawco: draypresct: The confounding is likely to be a big issue. The professor also did not report on whether the children who identified with superheroes were already more aggressive during the first study. It might be that more aggressive children are attracted to aggressive comics, instead (as the study implies) the other way around.

/These 'scientists' sound like headline-hunters.

Did you actually go read the study to see if this is a confound? If I was reviewing it I would expect them to control for overall amount of TV time I'm some way.

I am not gonna read the study, but a lot of people in this thread are only to happy to shiat on the science without any actual info. a news article is not actual information.

Science is hard and imperfect, but I think you guys can afford to give the author's, and the peer review system some.benifit of the doubt and assume if you considered an issue, they probably considered it to. Only better and in a lot more detail.


Being that this is linked on Fark I can reasonably infer there is a 98% chance this study can be chucked in the trash.
 
5 days ago  
Superheros tend to fight, because they had to in order to survive.  And by survive I mean keep their creators employed.  So they battle using superpowers and do stuff like throw buses full of innocent passengers at each other.  Hell Yeah!

You could never sell a comic book based on stories of someone who lived his entire life quietly tending his garden, taking walks in the country and enjoying afternoon naps.    Peace just doesn't sell.
 
4 days ago  

chawco: draypresct: chawco: draypresct: chawco: draypresct: The confounding is likely to be a big issue. The professor also did not report on whether the children who identified with superheroes were already more aggressive during the first study. It might be that more aggressive children are attracted to aggressive comics, instead (as the study implies) the other way around.

/These 'scientists' sound like headline-hunters.

Did you actually go read the study to see if this is a confound? If I was reviewing it I would expect them to control for overall amount of TV time I'm some way.

I am not gonna read the study, but a lot of people in this thread are only to happy to shiat on the science without any actual info. a news article is not actual information.

Science is hard and imperfect, but I think you guys can afford to give the author's, and the peer review system some.benifit of the doubt and assume if you considered an issue, they probably considered it to. Only better and in a lot more detail.

No, I didn't read the study. The article didn't even link to it, or provide enough information (title or journal would have helped) to find it, so I had to rely on what was reported in the article.

We don't know that this was published in a peer-review journal, do we?

from TFA:
The study was published this week in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

I am admittedly tired and cranky after a hard day of sciencing. All I am saying is rather than assume the authors are idiots, with hold judgement when all you go was a shiatty news article snippet. This may or may not be an extremely well designed rigorous study. Maybe she did report on baseline aggressive tendencies, how the hell do we know?

Thanks, I'd missed that.

I think it's valid to be a little more skeptical of splashy announcements that contradict long-standing trends in the reduction of violence that correlate with increased popularity of comic books.

The journal's homepage does not indicate that it is peer-rev ...


So I've figured out how they did it. They tested several outcomes, and wrote up the one that happened to have a significant result in the right direction.

The correlation between superhero engagement and aggression (table 3):
Correlation of superhero engagement (t1) with:
Physical aggression (t1): - 0.03
Physical aggression (t2): 0.21 (p is between 0.01 and 0.05)
Relational aggression (t1): 0.09
Relational aggression (t2): 0.16
Verbal aggression (t1): 0.13
Verbal aggression (t2): 0.09
...

The study also lied: "No behavioral outcome at Time 1 predicted superhero engagement at Time 2." In table 1, general prosocial behavior at time 1 had a correlation of -0.20 (p between 0.05 and 0.10) and so did watching violent TV at time 1 (0.23, p < 0.01).

This study can be safely ignored until replicated by someone who can analyze data while correctly accounting for multiple comparisons.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report