Will use TURN IN for plagiarism.
Researchers in the sciences and social sciences draw a distinction between what they call “correlation” and “causation.” The brief article linked here explains the distinction succinctly (paste the url into your browser if you need to): https://www.understandinghealthresearch.org/useful-information/correlation-and-causation-15 (ATTACHED AS A PDF)
Once you’ve read that brief article, consider the following:
For many years, researcher George Gerbner conducted studies in an attempt to shed light on how people are affected by the mass media to which they’re exposed. In summarizing some of Gerbner’s research, authors Anthony Pratkanis and Eliot Aronson report the following:
Heavy readers of newspaper accounts of sensational and random crimes report higher levels of fear of crime. Repeated viewing of “slasher” films is associated with less sympathy and empathy for victims of rape. (53)
To generate such information, Gerbner and his associates studied the following three things:
1) The mass medium an individual uses the most; in other words, does he/she prefer newspapers, TV, radio, film, etc.?
2) How much the individual uses that mass medium; in other words, does he/she read or watch lightly or heavily, occasionally or repeatedly, etc.?
3) The attitudes the individual holds about the real-life counterparts of the phenomena depicted in his/her medium of choice; in other words, what does he/she think about the actual crime rate? How does he/she feel toward actual rape victims, etc.?
Question: Can Gerbner’s research, as summarized above, be said to show correlation? If so, what things are being correlated?
And furthermore, can Gerbner’s research, as summarized above, be said to show causation? Why or why not?
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|