N Jett on Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:56:01 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] (no subject)


Hi everyone, I am new to the list so forgive me if I'm not following proper 
procedure here but I found an interesting article regarding studies of 
TV/video addiction. I hope sharing this is appropriate for this list, I 
apologize if it is not.

http://www.sciam.com/2002/0202issue/0202kubey.html

Television Addiction
                      By Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
  ...........

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of the struggle for survival is how easily 
organisms can be
harmed by that which they desire. The trout is caught by the fisherman's 
lure, the mouse by
cheese. But at least those creatures have the excuse that bait and cheese 
look like sustenance.
Humans seldom have that consolation. The temptations that can disrupt their 
lives are often
pure indulgences. No one has to drink alcohol, for example. Realizing when a 
diversion has
gotten out of control is one of the great challenges of life.
Excessive cravings do not necessarily involve physical substances. Gambling 
can become
compulsive; sex can become obsessive. One activity, however, stands out for 
its prominence
and ubiquity--the world's most popular leisure pastime, television. Most 
people admit to having a love-hate relationship with it. They complain about 
the "boob tube" and "couch
potatoes," then they settle into their sofas and grab the remote control. 
Parents commonly fret
about their children's viewing (if not their own). Even researchers who 
study TV for a living
marvel at the medium's hold on them personally. Percy Tannenbaum of the 
University of California at Berkeley has written:
     "Among life's more embarrassing moments have been countless occasions 
when I am engaged in conversation in a room while a TV set is on, and I 
cannot for the life of me stop from periodically glancing over to the 
screen. This occurs not only during dull conversations but during reasonably 
interesting ones just as well."

Scientists have been studying the effects of television for decades, 
generally focusing on whether watching violence on TV correlates with being 
violent in real life [see "The Effects of Observing Violence," by Leonard 
Berkowitz; Scientific American, February 1964; and "Communication and Social 
Environment," by George Gerbner; September 1972]. Less attention has been 
paid to the basic allure of the small screen--the medium, as opposed to the 
message.
The term "TV addiction" is imprecise and laden with value judgments, but it 
captures the essence of a very real phenomenon. Psychologists and 
psychiatrists formally define substance dependence as a disorder 
characterized by criteria that  include spending a great deal of time using 
the substance; using it more often than one intends; thinking about reducing 
use or making repeated unsuccessful efforts to reduce use; giving up 
important social, family or occupational activities to use it; and reporting 
withdrawal symptoms when one stops using it. All these criteria can apply to 
people who watch a lot of television. That does not mean that watching 
television, per se, is problematic. Television can teach and amuse; it can 
reach aesthetic heights; it can
provide much needed distraction and escape. The difficulty arises when 
people strongly sense that they ought not to watch as much as they do and 
yet find themselves strangely unable to reduce their viewing. Some knowledge 
of how the medium exerts its pull may help heavy viewers gain better control 
over their lives.

                        A Body at Rest Tends to Stay at Rest

                        The amount of time people spend watching television 
is astonishing. On average, individuals in the industrialized world devote 
three hours a day to the pursuit--fully half of their leisure time, and more 
than on any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who 
lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some 
commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make a 
conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why do so 
many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In Gallup polls 
in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and seven out of 10 
teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV. Other surveys have 
consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of adults call themselves TV 
addicts.

                        To study people's reactions to TV, researchers have 
undertaken laboratory experiments in which they have monitored the brain 
waves (using an electroencephalograph, or EEG), skin resistance or heart 
rate of people watching television. To track behavior and emotion in the 
normal course of life, as opposed to the artificial conditions of the lab, 
we have used the
Experience Sampling Method (ESM). Participants carried a beeper, and we 
signaled them six to eight times a day, at random, over the period of a 
week; whenever they heard the beep, they wrote down what they were doing and 
how they were feeling using a standardized scorecard.
As one might expect, people who were watching TV when we beeped them 
reported feeling relaxed and passive. The EEG studies similarly show less 
mental stimulation, as measured by alpha brain-wave production, during 
viewing than during reading.

                        What is more surprising is that the sense of 
relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity 
and  lowered alertness continue. Survey participants commonly reflect that 
television has somehow absorbed or sucked out their  energy, leaving them 
depleted. They say they have more difficulty concentrating after viewing 
than before. In contrast, they rarely indicate such difficulty after 
reading. After playing sports or engaging in hobbies, people report 
improvements in mood. After watching TV, people's moods are about the same 
or worse than before.

                        Within moments of sitting or lying down and pushing 
the "power" button, viewers report feeling more relaxed. Because the 
relaxation occurs quickly, people are conditioned to associate viewing with 
rest and lack of tension. The association is  positively reinforced because 
viewers remain relaxed throughout viewing, and it is negatively reinforced 
via the stress and dysphoric rumination that occurs once the screen goes 
blank again.

                                                         Habit-forming drugs 
work in similar ways. A tranquilizer that leaves the body
                                                         rapidly is much 
more likely to cause dependence than one that leaves the body
                                                         slowly, precisely 
because the user is more aware that the drug's effects are
                                                         wearing off. 
Similarly, viewers' vague learned sense that they will feel less relaxed
                                                         if they stop 
viewing may be a significant factor in not turning the set off. Viewing
                                                         begets more 
viewing.

                                                         Thus, the irony of 
TV: people watch a great deal longer than they plan to, even
                                                         though prolonged 
viewing is less rewarding. In our ESM studies the longer
                        people sat in front of the set, the less 
satisfaction they said they derived from it. When signaled, heavy viewers 
(those who
                        consistently watch more than four hours a day) 
tended to report on their ESM sheets that they enjoy TV less than light
                        viewers did (less than two hours a day). For some, a 
twinge of unease or guilt that they aren't doing something more
                        productive may also accompany and depreciate the 
enjoyment of prolonged viewing. Researchers in Japan, the U.K. and the
                        U.S. have found that this guilt occurs much more 
among middle-class viewers than among less affluent ones.

                        Grabbing Your Attention

                        What is it about TV that has such a hold on us? In 
part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological "orienting
                        response." First described by Ivan Pavlov in 1927, 
the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any
                        sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our 
evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential 
predatory
                        threats. Typical orienting reactions include 
dilation of the blood vessels to the brain, slowing of the heart, and 
constriction of
                        blood vessels to major muscle groups. Alpha waves 
are blocked for a few seconds before returning to their baseline level,
                        which is determined by the general level of mental 
arousal. The brain focuses its attention on gathering more information
                        while the rest of the body quiets.

                        In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther 
Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to
                        study whether the simple formal features of 
television--cuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises--activate the orienting
                        response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. 
By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the
                        researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks 
can indeed trigger involuntary responses and "derive their attentional value
                        through the evolutionary significance of detecting 
movement.... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique."

                        The orienting response may partly explain common 
viewer remarks such as: "If a
                        television is on, I just can't keep my eyes off it," 
"I don't want to watch as much as
                        I do, but I can't help it," and "I feel hypnotized 
when I watch television." In the
                        years since Reeves and Thorson published their 
pioneering work, researchers
                        have delved deeper. Annie Lang's research team at 
Indiana University has shown
                        that heart rate decreases for four to six seconds 
after an orienting stimulus. In ads,
                        action sequences and music videos, formal features 
frequently come at a rate of
                        one per second, thus activating the orienting 
response continuously.

                        Lang and her colleagues have also investigated 
whether formal features affect
                        people's memory of what they have seen. In one of 
their studies, participants
                        watched a program and then filled out a score sheet. 
Increasing the frequency of
                        edits--defined here as a change from one camera 
angle to another in the same
                        visual scene--improved memory recognition, 
presumably because it focused
                        attention on the screen. Increasing the frequency of 
cuts--changes to a new visual
                        scene--had a similar effect but only up to a point. 
If the number of cuts exceeded
                        10 in two minutes, recognition dropped off sharply.

                        Producers of educational television for children 
have found that formal features
                        can help learning. But increasing the rate of cuts 
and edits eventually overloads
                        the brain. Music videos and commercials that use 
rapid intercutting of unrelated
                        scenes are designed to hold attention more than they 
are to convey information. People may remember the name of the
                        product or band, but the details of the ad itself 
float in one ear and out the other. The orienting response is overworked.
                        Viewers still attend to the screen, but they feel 
tired and worn out, with little compensating psychological reward. Our ESM
                        findings show much the same thing.

                        Sometimes the memory of the product is very subtle. 
Many ads today are deliberately oblique: they have an engaging story
                        line, but it is hard to tell what they are trying to 
sell. Afterward you may not remember the product consciously. Yet
                        advertisers believe that if they have gotten your 
attention, when you later go to the store you will feel better or more
                        comfortable with a given product because you have a 
vague recollection of having heard of it.

                        The natural attraction to television's sound and 
light starts very early in life. Dafna Lemish of Tel Aviv University has
                        described babies at six to eight weeks attending to 
television. We have observed slightly older infants who, when lying on
                        their backs on the floor, crane their necks around 
180 degrees to catch what light through yonder window breaks. This
                        inclination suggests how deeply rooted the orienting 
response is.

                        "TV Is Part of Them"

                        That said, we need to be careful about overreacting. 
Little evidence suggests that adults or children should stop watching TV
                        altogether. The problems come from heavy or 
prolonged viewing.

                        The Experience Sampling Method permitted us to look 
closely at most every domain of everyday life: working, eating,
                        reading, talking to friends, playing a sport, and so 
on. We wondered whether heavy viewers might experience life differently
                        than light viewers do. Do they dislike being with 
people more? Are they more alienated from work? What we found nearly
                        leaped off the page at us. Heavy viewers report 
feeling significantly more anxious and less happy than light viewers do in
                        unstructured situations, such as doing nothing, 
daydreaming or waiting in line. The difference widens when the viewer is
                        alone.

                        Subsequently, Robert D. McIlwraith of the University 
of Manitoba extensively studied those who called themselves TV
                        addicts on surveys. On a measure called the Short 
Imaginal Processes Inventory (SIPI), he found that the self-described
                        addicts are more easily bored and distracted and 
have poorer attentional control than the nonaddicts. The addicts said they
                        used TV to distract themselves from unpleasant 
thoughts and to fill time. Other studies over the years have shown that 
heavy
                        viewers are less likely to participate in community 
activities and sports and are more likely to be obese than moderate viewers
                        or nonviewers.

                        The question that naturally arises is: In which 
direction does the correlation go?
                        Do people turn to TV because of boredom and 
loneliness, or does TV viewing
                        make people more susceptible to boredom and 
loneliness? We and most other
                        researchers argue that the former is generally the 
case, but it is not a simple case
                        of either/or. Jerome L. and Dorothy Singer of Yale 
University, among others,
                        have suggested that more viewing may contribute to a 
shorter attention span,
                        diminished self-restraint and less patience with the 
normal delays of daily life.
                        More than 25 years ago psychologist Tannis M. 
MacBeth Williams of the
                        University of British Columbia studied a mountain 
community that had no
                        television until cable finally arrived. Over time, 
both adults and children in the town became less creative in problem 
solving,
                        less able to persevere at tasks, and less tolerant 
of unstructured time.

                        To some researchers, the most convincing parallel 
between TV and addictive drugs is that people experience withdrawal
                        symptoms when they cut back on viewing. Nearly 40 
years ago Gary A. Steiner of the University of Chicago collected
                        fascinating individual accounts of families whose 
set had broken--this back in the days when households generally had only
                        one set: "The family walked around like a chicken 
without a head." "It was terrible. We did nothing--my husband and I
                        talked." "Screamed constantly. Children bothered me, 
and my nerves were on edge. Tried to interest them in games, but
                        impossible. TV is part of them."

                        In experiments, families have volunteered or been 
paid to stop viewing, typically for a week or a month. Many could not
                        complete the period of abstinence. Some fought, 
verbally and physically. Anecdotal reports from some families that have
                        tried the annual "TV turn-off" week in the U.S. tell 
a similar story.

                        If a family has been spending the lion's share of 
its free time watching television, reconfiguring itself around a new set of
                        activities is no easy task. Of course, that does not 
mean it cannot be done or that all families implode when deprived of their
                        set. In a review of these cold-turkey studies, 
Charles Winick of the City University of New York concluded: "The first 
three
                        or four days for most persons were the worst, even 
in many homes where viewing was minimal and where there were other
                        ongoing activities. In over half of all the 
households, during these first few days of loss, the regular routines were 
disrupted,
                        family members had difficulties in dealing with the 
newly available time, anxiety and aggressions were expressed.... People
                        living alone tended to be bored and irritated.... By 
the second week, a move toward adaptation to the situation was common."
                        Unfortunately, researchers have yet to flesh out 
these anecdotes; no one has systematically gathered statistics on the
                        prevalence of these withdrawal symptoms.

                        Even though TV does seem to meet the criteria for 
substance dependence, not all researchers would go so far as to call TV
                        addictive. McIlwraith said in 1998 that 
"displacement of other activities by television may be socially significant 
but still fall
                        short of the clinical requirement of significant 
impairment." He argued that a new category of "TV addiction" may not be
                        necessary if heavy viewing stems from conditions 
such as depression and social phobia. Nevertheless, whether or not we
                        formally diagnose someone as TV-dependent, millions 
of people sense that they cannot readily control the amount of
                        television they watch.

                        Slave to the Computer Screen

                        Although much less research has been done on video 
games and computer use, the same principles often apply. The games
                        offer escape and distraction; players quickly learn 
that they feel better when playing; and so a kind of reinforcement loop
                        develops. The obvious difference from television, 
however, is the interactivity. Many video and computer games minutely
                        increase in difficulty along with the increasing 
ability of the player. One can search for months to find another tennis or
                        chess player of comparable ability, but programmed 
games can immediately provide a near-perfect match of challenge to
                        skill. They offer the psychic pleasure--what one of 
us (Csikszentmihalyi) has called "flow"--that accompanies increased
                        mastery of most any human endeavor. On the other 
hand, prolonged activation of the orienting response can wear players
                        out. Kids report feeling tired, dizzy and nauseated 
after long sessions.

                        In 1997, in the most extreme medium-effects case on 
record, 700 Japanese children were rushed to the hospital, many
                        suffering from "optically stimulated epileptic 
seizures" caused by viewing bright flashing lights in a Pokémon video game
                        broadcast on Japanese TV. Seizures and other 
untoward effects of video games are significant enough that software
                        companies and platform manufacturers now routinely 
include warnings in their instruction booklets. Parents have reported
                        to us that rapid movement on the screen has caused 
motion sickness in their young children after just 15 minutes of play.
                        Many youngsters, lacking self-control and experience 
(and often supervision), continue to play despite these symptoms.

                        Lang and Shyam Sundar of Pennsylvania State 
University have been studying how people respond to Web sites. Sundar
                        has shown people multiple versions of the same Web 
page, identical except for the number of links. Users reported that
                        more links conferred a greater sense of control and 
engagement. At some point, however, the number of links reached
                        saturation, and adding more of them simply turned 
people off. As with video games, the ability of Web sites to hold the
                        user's attention seems to depend less on formal 
features than on interactivity.

                        For growing numbers of people, the life they lead 
online may often seem more important, more immediate and more intense
                        than the life they lead face-to-face. Maintaining 
control over one's media habits is more of a challenge today than it has 
ever
                        been. TV sets and computers are everywhere. But the 
small screen and the Internet need not interfere with the quality of the
                        rest of one's life. In its easy provision of 
relaxation and escape, television can be beneficial in limited doses. Yet 
when the
                        habit interferes with the ability to grow, to learn 
new things, to lead an active life, then it does constitute a kind of 
dependence
                        and should be taken seriously.



                        Further Information:

                        Television and the Quality of Life: How Viewing 
Shapes Everyday Experience. Robert Kubey and Mihaly
                        Csikszentmihalyi. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990.

                        Television Dependence, Diagnosis, and Prevention. 
Robert W. Kubey in Tuning in to Young Viewers: Social Science
                        Perspectives on Television. Edited by Tannis M. 
MacBeth. Sage, 1995.

                        "I'm Addicted to Television": The Personality, 
Imagination, and TV Watching Patterns of Self-Identified TV Addicts. Robert
                        D. McIlwraith in Journal of Broadcasting and 
Electronic Media, Vol. 42, No. 3, pages 371--386; Summer 1998.

                        The Limited Capacity Model of Mediated Message 
Processing. Annie Lang in Journal of Communication, Vol. 50, No. 1,
                        pages 46--70; March 2000.

                        Internet Use and Collegiate Academic Performance 
Decrements: Early Findings. Robert Kubey, Michael J. Lavin and John
                        R. Barrows in Journal of Communication, Vol. 51, No. 
2, pages 366--382; June 2001.


                        The Authors

                        ROBERT KUBEY and MIHALY CSIKSZENTMIHALYI met in the 
mid-1970s at the University of Chicago, where Kubey
                        began his doctoral studies and where 
Csikszentmihalyi served on the faculty. Kubey is now a professor at Rutgers
                        University and director of the Center for Media 
Studies (www.mediastudies.rutgers.edu). His work focuses on the
                        development of media education around the world. He 
has been known to watch television and even to play video games
                        with his sons, Ben and Daniel. Csikszentmihalyi is 
the C. S. and D. J. Davidson Professor of Psychology at Claremont
                        Graduate University. He is a fellow of the American 
Academy of Arts and Sciences. He spends summers writing in the
                        Bitterroot Mountains of Montana, without newspapers 
or TV, hiking with grandchildren and other occasional visitors.






_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold