It seems like basic common sense to most parents, but now there is proof: if your kids watch a lot of steamy, suggestive TV, they are more likely to have sex that results in a teen pregnancy.
Here are the money paragraphs:
The study, which tracked more than 700 12-to-17-year-olds for three years, found that those who viewed the most sexual content on TV were about twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy as those who saw the least.
“Watching this kind of sexual content on television is a powerful factor in increasing the likelihood of a teen pregnancy,” said lead researcher Anita Chandra. “We found a strong association.” The study is being published today in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Mommas and Daddies, turn off that (steamy, sex-filled) TV!
One quick note that is kind of off-topic: I have been traveling a lot lately, which is the only time I get to watch much TV — in my hotel room. Anyway, I was flipping through the channels and watched Fox for a bit, and on came a commercial with Barack Obama. Obama said parents should do the right thing: turn off the TV! I wondered if Barack ran that commercial on other stations, or only on Fox.
Spurious correlation at best. You can’t use something like what someone watches on tv as a predictor for sexual behavior. There is some other underlying cause that impulses teens to both watch steamy tv and have more sex.
The lead author seems to have a doctorate in public health. Too bad she didn’t get more data analysis classes . . .
Geoff,
I’m glad to see this report. Maybe now we might get some more pressure to get sex off the prime time television. I don’t know if you’ve watched Gossip Girl, but it’s pretty bad in terms of this.
On your second point, Obama’s commercial is running on other stations besides Fox. Perhaps if you step away from the Republican News Channel every once in a while, you might catch it. 😉
Then we should probably warn our kids not to watch Fox News. 😀
As I heard this on the radio, one explanation I considered is that parents who watch what shows are viewed in their homes watch out for their children in other ways too. However, I just came up with a convoluted explanation. Women watch television more than men. Men who watch television do so because they are hanging around women. Hanging around women is a precondition for pregnancy. Fishing may work this way also.
However, wallowing in filth as entertainment is not a good thing to do to a mind.
Variable writes: Spurious correlation at best.
It might be spurious or not. How can you tell?
You can’t use something like what someone watches on tv as a predictor for sexual behavior.
Sure you can. You can use use any factor X as a “predictor” for any other factor Y. What you can’t do is conclude that because X predicts Y, it must mean that X causes Y.
There is some other underlying cause that impulses teens to both watch steamy tv and have more sex.
Perhaps, but this is pure speculation on your part.
The lead author seems to have a doctorate in public health. Too bad she didn’t get more data analysis classes . . .
This is unfair, unless you have read the study itself and can point to some flaws.
Some of the correlation may well be “spurious” as you say, but some may be due to causation. The idea that watching steamy sex on TV makes you more prone to have sex is quite plausible. What makes you so quick to assume it’s entirely spurious?
Obama’s been pretty vocal in commercials and speeches about parents paying more attention to what their children are taking in through television and video games.
From this article one could defer that the frequent promotion of deviant lifestyles in the mass media can cause good people to experiment with taboos and to get into trouble.
This is one of the reasons to vote for traditional marriage in California (Yes On 8), in Arizona (Prop 102) and in Florida.
Kodos,
As a statistician/econometrician, it’s my job to weed out spurious correlation when building causal models. My dissertation was based on finding new ways to do this.
I’ll concede that my original statement wasn’t well thought out. Yes, you can model any variable X to predict Y. What I should have said was TV viewing habits are not a valid predictor of sexual behavior.
When trying to build causal models, the causing variable needs to be as random as possible for all participant, much like a double blind drug study. In my opinion, TV viewing habits are not randomly assigned, and that non-randomness biases the results making conclusions unreliable. A common example of this is the statement “Increasing ice cream consumption causes more swimming pool deaths.” The underlying factor not controlled for? Temperature.
Having read the study in question, the authors made no attempt to address the possibility of the spurious nature of the correlation. So, I stand by my original statement. There is some underlying variable that drives both the TV viewing habits and the sexual behavior. Until the authors address this, the conclusion is unreliable.
Oh. And I also stand by my assertion that the author could use more data analysis classes.
Tomorrow, FCC vs. Fox Television Stations will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Fox is defending its role in broadcasting vulgarity to America.
Hm. I love watching The Office, but I have no desire to sell paper. (Though I am in love with Pam.) So maybe there’s something to this? :]