Research Methods ﷓﷓Yates

LITERATURE REVIEW‑A

Agoraphobia, the fear of public places and situations, has been called "the most crippling of the phobias" (Zitrin et al., 1983, p. 42) due to its imprisoning effects on those suffering from it. Victims of this phobia typically have an irrational fear of leaving their homes, and in extreme cases they cannot even walk down the street without being overcome with fear. Fortunately agoraphobics can be helped by in vivo therapy, which involves exposing agoraphobics to actual phobic situations in an effort to rid them of their unfounded fears toward phobic situations. In vivo therapy has repeatedly been shown to be a very effective treatment for agoraphobia.

Emmelkamp et al. (1983) said the "effectiveness of [in vivo] procedures is now well established," and there is general agreement among researchers that in vivo therapy is effective for the treatment of agoraphobia. Since in vivo therapy is widely accepted as an effective treatment for agoraphobia, most current articles concentrate either on comparing in vivo therapy to another therapy or adding a new aspect, such as drug treatment, to further improve in vivo exposure.

One way which in vivo therapy has been improved was found by Foa et al. (1980). The effectiveness of in vivo exposure was shown to improve if treatment sessions are massed close together rather than spaced apart in time. This improvement is based on the premise that agoraphobia is a classically conditioned response to public situations. One characteristic of classical conditioning is that extinction of a conditioned response more readily occurs if extinction sessions are held close together rather than spaced apart. This finding lends credence to the view that agoraphobia is classically conditioned.

Another view of causation of agoraphobia holds that it is the result of a lack of assertiveness. Acting on this assumption, Emmelkamp et al. (1983) compared assertiveness training to in vivo therapy, hypothesizing that an increase in assertiveness would be followed by an improvement in the subjects phobic condition. It was found, however, that while assertiveness training does increase agoraphobics' typical lack of assertiveness, it does practically nothing to decrease the anxiety experienced by the subjects. While the view that agoraphobia is caused by unassertiveness was not disproven by these results, it is certainly discouraged.

It has also been shown that in vivo therapy can be augmented if imipramine, an antidepressant, is administered along with the exposure (Zitrin et al., 1980). The theory behind this success is that the imipramine inhibits the panic attacks from which many agoraphobics suffer and the in vivo therapy helps alleviate the anticipatory anxiety.

In vivo therapy can be further improved if it is preceded by exposure in imagination (Emmelkamp et al., 1975). This combination of two behavioral therapies yields better results than if imagination therapy and in vivo therapy are administered separately. On its own, imagination therapy does reduce anxiety and avoidance, but not as well as in vivo therapy. In vivo exposure has also been shown to be superior to cognitive modification, in which a patient's interpretation of a situation is changed to be more adaptive (Emmelkamp et al., 1978). Cognitive modification does very little in reducing anxiety of agoraphobics. Researchers have speculated that in vivo therapy may actually bring about more cognitive change than cognitive modification. It has not been determined, however, whether cognitive modification might have

more impact if it is combined with in vivo therapy.

These studies have repeatedly shown that in vivo exposure is a viable treatment for agoraphobia, but it may yield even better results if the sessions are massed together (Foa et al., 1980), if imipramine is administered along with the exposure (Zitrin et al., 1980), and if imagination therapy precedes in vivo therapy (Emmelkamp et al., 1975). Emmelkamp et al. (1978, p. 56) wrote that "group exposure in vivo is probably the most effective and the most efficient behavioral treatment for agoraphobia known at present." For the time being, it appears to be the best treatment for this phobia.

LITERATURE REVIEW‑B

Since more and more television programs deal with violence, or the program's content is filled with violent actions, there has been an increasing interest in studying television violence's effect on viewers. Many studies have found a positive correlation between televised violence and aggressive behavior. But despite these findings, little change has been made in television programming. A reason for this is that some producers and network officials believe that violence is needed in the programs to keep the viewers' interest. Without the violent content, the network ratings would drop, and this would be hazardous to the producers.

There have been increasing studies on the topic of television violence, with the common study dealing with televised violence's effects on the behavior of children between the ages of 3‑5. The proposed hypothesis is that viewing televised violence will increase children's aggressive behavior (Lovaas 1961; Steuer 1971; Eron 1972; Hartnegal1975; Huston‑Stein 1981).

The commonly used steps to analyze this hypothesis are observing the children in free play, exposing them to the aggressive film, and then observing the children's free play once again. Most studies have an experimental group which views the aggressive film and a control group which views a nonaggressive film. Then the post‑exposure free play period is compared to the pre‑exposure free play period of the children.

Each study has its own operational definitions of aggressive play and different criteria of aggressive films vs. nonaggressive films. Many definitions of aggression used by the researchers include different forms, such as physical, verbal, threatening, etc. (Bankart 1979; Huston‑Stein 1981). The films used also have a variety of aggressive actions such as physical abuse of hitting and kicking, verbal abuse of name calling and derogatory speech, etc. (Steuer 1971; Bankart

1979; Huston‑Stein 1981). Most nonaggressive films contained no such aggressive forms.

The results of the studies, which proposed tile common hypothesis that televised violence does lead children to increase their aggressive behavior, were found to be supportive. During the post‑exposure free play session the experimental group was found to elicit more aggressive behavior than they had during tile pre‑exposure free play session. The experimental group also elicited more aggressive behavior than the control group (Lovaas 1961; Steuer 1971; Eron 1972;

Harnegal 1975; Huston‑Stein 1981).

Hypotheses proposed in other studies were: (1) children will elicit prosocial behavior after exposure to a prosocial film (Bankart 1979); (2) exposure to an aggressive film will decrease constructive play in children (Noble 1970, 1973); (3) children will be more willing to hurt another child after viewing an aggressive film (Leibert & Baron 1972); (4) fantasy aggression films will reduce aggression anxiety in children and also reduce other forms of aggression except the form viewed (Siegal 1956).

All the previous hypotheses were supported by the data found, except the fantasy‑aggressive film hypothesis. Both hypotheses in this study were nullified because of insignificant correlations, or the opposite behaviors appeared in the children than the behaviors predicted (Siegal 1956).

After the results of this data have been combined and analyzed, the main finding is that by watching televised violence, children become more aggressive during play. If parents want to eliminate this rise in aggressive behavior they should not allow their children to watch violent programs. Evidence shows that more emphasis needs to be directed toward educational and prosocial programs (Bankart 1979). Thus, the children will have a better understanding of

society and will learn that violence is not present everywhere in every action.

LITERATURE REVIEW‑C

The findings of all of these studies seem to agree. All the evidence points to the fact that viewing TV violence has many negative effects on children, who probably make up the largest viewing audience. Quite a lot of research has been done in this area since it is of great concern to parents and educators. Several negative effects of viewing TV violence have been proven.

Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1963) have proven that children tend to imitate aggressive behaviors of human and cartoon characters in a free play situation. Their study also showed that after having viewed a violent program, children tended to play more aggressively in a non‑imaginative way as well than a control group who had not viewed a violent program.

Another study that showed that children display non‑imaginative aggression after viewing a violent TV program was the one done by Liebert & Baron (1972). This study showed that viewing violence increases a child's willingness to aggress toward a human victim as shown in the helping/hurling button game.

Another important area of research is that of toleration of aggression. The study done by Drabrian & Thomas (1975) indicates that after viewing violence on TV, children are more tolerant of aggression when they see it in a real life situation. In this study the group who had viewed a violent program took longer to seek adult help to break up a fight between preschoolers than the control group did.

A different kind of study was also done on tolerance to aggression by Thomas, Horton, Lippincott, & Drabrian (1977). This study measured GSR of an experimental group who had seen a violent film and a control group that hadn't while they observed aggression in preschoolers. The experimental group had a higher tolerance as measured by GSR.

A study done by Eron (1963) showed that boys who preferred programs that were rated as violent displayed more aggressive behavior than those who did not. However, boys who watched a great deal of TV tended to be less aggressive than those who watched less TV. However, in another experiment done by Cline, Croft & Courrier (1973) boys who watched TV were more desensitized to real‑life aggression than boys who watched very little TV. This study

looked at two extremes, though, boys who watched 25 or more hours of TV per week and boys who watched 4 hours or less per week. The majority probably falls somewhere in between.

A follow up study was done on the one by Eron (1963). This study was done by Eron, Huesmann, Lefkowitz & Walder (1972). The same people were brought back and it was found that early aggressive habits developed in childhood from watching violent TV programs remained the same even if violent programs were no longer preferred.

A study done by Osborn & Endsley (1971) showed that children found violence scary and preferred non‑violent cartoons. They remembered the violent episodes the best when asked to recall each episode a week later. The fact that they remembered it more than the others show that it made some kind of impact whether they imitated it or not.

All of this research is important because TV plays such a large role in our society. Children are very impressionable and they view TV, not only as a source of entertainment, but also to learn social behaviors. If children learn at a young age to display aggressive behaviors and to be tolerant of them, they will retain these patterns into adulthood and accept aggression as a way of life.

LITERATURE REVIEW‑D

Psychologists, doctors, and clinical scientists have generally suspected biophysical causes of autism; however, they are not sure enough of what those causes are specifically. Autism occurs 5 times out of 10,000 births, and it occurs 4 times more in boys than in girls. Although these figures are not that high, psychologists realize that some autistic children are misdiagnosed as mentally retarded, deaf‑mute, or brain damaged. Prognosis for autism is not very good. Only 5% of autistic children make normal social adjustments, 20% make some social adjustments, and 75% are socially withdrawn from the world.

All the research materials basically complimented each other in one specific way: none of them could prove their theories of autism for one reason or another. Some authors state that they wished for better equipment, and others said that they didn't go about the experiment the right way.

Three of the studies focused on external factors (stimulus preferences, dermatoglyphic;s, and video tape vs. mirror image), but the other seven studies focused on internal factors to determine that cause or causes of autism. All studies were generally well‑explored and carefully planned out, but they all failed to prove their theories.

There seemed to be a correlation between two of the experiments. These two experiments were amino acids measuring the levels of the CSF, and the brain scan findings. Both of them found abnormal levels of the CSF (cerebrospinal fluid) in the brain.

Why are the causes of autism still unknown? It seems that some of the experiments I read about were nothing but stabs in the dark. I feel that is part of the reason the authors could not prove their theories. If a correlation is found, it should be more closely examined again, instead of forgetting it, or waiting for someone else to repeat the experiment again.

Autism is a very important subject to be studied. This topic has been widely studied throughout the years, and it has been proved that the causes of autism are due to an unloving or uncaring parents, or a cold environment such as an orphanage. I learned a great deal studying this subject about the autistic child, and I also learned what can go wrong with a child in the developmental stages of his or her life.

Examples from Jack Yates.