Social science research: read the fine print
Highlighted at Instapundit:
Girls commit dating violence as often as boys, studies show. “More girls ”“ 43 percent ”“ than boys ”“ 28 percent ”“ reported committing an act of physical dating violence, said researchers who are presenting their findings beginning Wednesday at the American Psychological Association’s annual meeting.”
That certainly would be a finding of interest, so I clicked on the link, which goes to an NBC report on the study with the headline “Girls commit dating violence as often as boys, studies show.” The lede repeated the idea: “Girls are the perpetrators of some form of dating violence nearly as often as boys, surprising new studies show.”
But when readers get to the article’s fourth paragraph (if they ever get there at all), this is what they find:
The study looked at a spectrum of behaviors, ranging from name calling and expressing anger, spreading rumors, and using controlling behaviors such as keeping track of dating partners, to physical violence such as slapping, hitting and biting, and sexual violence including forced kissing. Taken as a whole, one in three reported being the victim of at least one of the behaviors on that spectrum.
While most of us may not rank name-calling, or bad-mouthing another to their friends as “violence,” the researchers say they included the psychological and relationship tactics because they can have a profound impact.
So the study actually seems to have looked at dating meanness, or maybe we should call it “dating behavior that’s not ideal, and could hurt somebody’s feelings.” But if the headline had been “Girls commit dating meanness as often as boys, studies show,” it wouldn’t be getting much attention, would it? Girls, name-calling? Whoever would have thunk it?
Look, women are no angels. In my own life, it’s been my observation that women perpetrate a great deal of the world’s nastiness, as do men, and I’d be hard-pressed to say who comes out ahead if we tote it all up. So you won’t find a lot of posts at this blog (actually, I don’t think you’ll find any posts at this blog) lauding women’s innocence and superiority in the world and in relationships, because I don’t see women that way at all.
But I’d like facts to be reported correctly (I know; dream on). And if a study defines relationship “violence” as almost anything, psychological or otherwise, that hurts a person’s feelings, then “violence” has become practically meaningless as a word and as a concept.
This study has gotten a lot of press, and I have yet to find an article about it that is any more forthcoming than that NBC one. Some are considerably less informative, not even mentioning the weird way “violence” is defined by the study. Even the APA release is mum on the subject. And I have yet to find a link to the entire study, which I’d really have to read to get a clearer picture.
This study and the press coverage of it is hardly an isolated example. One common denominator I’d imagine is often operating is researchers’ need to get more money to study whatever is their specialty. So in this case, my guess would be that finding lots of “violence” would be to their advantage. And publicity—with headlines such as this one that call the levels of teen violence found as “shocking”—probably help immeasurably in that endeavor.
The Big Brother conspiracy take is that the scope of regulated and punishable behavior is being expanded, eg, the campaigns against largely non-physical bullying and non-PC behavior in general.
Eric:
Agreed.
when i was little if we told a parent or teacher that so and so called us a bad name, the rejoinder was don’t be a tattletale, names can never hurt you.
Now all of a sudden, its violence, The world is inside out and upside down.
I have to wonder if “redefining” terms to get different results is a product of the liberal education system. It seems to be happening all the time now.
One big example that comes to mind, the definition of “racism” as given by most liberals/leftists is such that Black Americans cannot, by the left’s definition, be racist.
Another example is the pay gap study conducted by NOW several decades ago – they “redefined” the job of both the executive and his secretary so that they could show a pay gap between men and women. (I remember watching an interview with a representative of NOW explaining that since the executive and his secretary are part of the same team, they should be paid the same – and she kept a straight face the whole time!)
Both of these examples are rather old at this point in time; but others can certainly come up with newer, more recent examples for sure.
Redefine the language and you control the discussion, no? Academia seems to have had that down pat for several decades; so why shouldn’t the liberal news media join in too?
And, I don’t intend to be “mean” Neo; but, didn’t you see that when you were a liberal? The other side needs to be “educated” on what the language means before they could possible understand the more enlightned viewpoint?
The finding isn’t surprising. Dr. Martin Fiebert has doen a lot of research on the subject. Go here. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Ray:
Nor is your comment the least bit surprising.
I knew the minute my post went up that comments would come along to cite research such as Fiebert’s, which is not only irrelevant to the actual findings of the study I’m discussing (which did not actually find that girls were as physically violent as boys unless physical violence was defined in a virtually meaningless way), but it’s also on a subject with which I’m very familiar, having worked in the field.
The summary version of the problem in the field—which has been a controversy for many many decades—is exactly the same problem as in the study I discuss in my post: there are often problems with the way violence or abuse is defined in the studies, which often also lack calibration of the severity of the violence, and/or whether the violence is defensive or aggressive in nature.
Huge, huge flaws. I’ve read a great deal of the original research, and way too much of it is garbage in garbage out.
Neo-neocon,
Although I didn’t get to the follow-up investigation as you did, my suspicion from the outset was that males and females might be defining “violence” in different ways.
You continue:
I agree, however is this not to be expected? It’s the same trend that led Obama’s Dept of Education to set the loosest possible guidelines for campus sexual harassment. What that dictum demands and your comment above notes is that “harassment” or “violence” is now defined by the victim of the moment. If one feels harassed or violated then one has been harassed or violated. There is no longer even an attempt at any objective, third party assessment.
ME for neo 080813
The Left tells us that there is no difference between males and females.
The Left tells us that a little boy can know he’s really a little girl inside, and vice versa.
The Left tells us that a male or female can demand that the public pay for major surgery, psychiatric, and hormonal treatments for sex-change procedures.
The Left declares that sexual differences in dress and accouterments are societally imposed.
The Left declares that a little boy can instinctively know that he should really be wearing dresses and frills, make-up, and long hair.
The Left declares that women are as violent as men.
The Left declares that it would be a peaceful, gentle, sharing world if controlled by women instead of by men.
The Left tells us that its is horrible if two children hug each other or a little boy touches a little girl anywhere.
The Left tells us that sex is good fun and that children as young as kindergarten age need explicit sex education.
The Left creates laws and severe public pressure to prevent the Left from being offended.
The Left creates laws and severe public pressure to silence the Right when it is offended.
The Left extolls diversity and demands conformity.
The Left extolls free speech and sets up speech codes.
The Left embraces the narrative and ignores the reality.
So in addition to grabbing headlines, the hidden agenda here is redefining/expanding definition of violence and further blurring/equalizing behavior between the sexes?
This tide of phony social science, redefined cultural norms, and the endless need to nudge, nudge, nudge all us unto into their predefined categories is so exhausting. Bullying, white privilege, cis-gendered vs. your gender expressed, slut-walks, etc. Am I the only one who feels like in the last 5 years we’ve managed to fall down a rabbit hole and we’re now residing in Wonderland?
I do like that the lead author on one of those presentations at the APA conference is at the Center for Innovative Public Health Research in California; “innovative” indeed.
Plus, the center’s acronym is CiPHUR, which I would pronounce “cipher” — as in “zero” or “a method of transforming a text in order to conceal its meaning” (per Webster’s)?
The primary definition of “violence” in my dogeared Webster’s Ninth is “exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.” The word has been understood to refer to an action and this is nothing but an attempt to redefine the language to make a word mean something that it does not. Name-calling and rumor-mongering is not nice and certainly can cause hurt feelings and social discord, but neither is a form of “violence.” That’s absurd.
Is this spiraling downward to a point where beating people to death will be considered a perfectly reasonable response to the “violence” of a perceived nasty look? Or even a perceived negative thought?
I thought the most interesting thing in the article was toward the bottom where they seem to intimate that kids raised in two parent homes are less prone to these bad behaviors. OH REALLY?
Social science is so fuzzy. P < 0.5 and you're good to go!
Wm Lawrence, I noticed that, too! It’s not surprising, really. If a kid’s parents are in a stable relationship, chances are that the kid learns how to treat other people.
I thought the violence definition was not only ridiculous, but it would have been more interesting to see name-calling and insults as a separate result. I could never understand people who insulted their boyfriend or girlfriend, particularly in public. “I love you” one moment, “you stupid **” the next.
Free the fine print;
Undo the fastenings.
Brave the results
Of freedomings
I.can’t.remember.
The last time
the media failed
to enable Obama.
It’s been a gross
last five years.
I know you concur.
I’ve heard your fears.
No thing is sure.
Finals are undone!
Because its the lesson,
And The Lesson Endures.
These things are like government funded perpetual energy machines. It truly is not apparent what the real goal is here.