A new study (summarized here) casts doubt on the popular notion that exposure to sex in the media is linked to earlier sexual activity. “There is a common problem in social science research called the third variable problem,” said Laurence Steinberg, one of the study’s authors. “When looking at the relation between a given behavior and given experience, it could look like there is a correlation, when in fact the relationship is dependent on something else entirely.” In order to address the “third variable problem,” Steinberg re-analyzed existing data, controlling for “adolescents’ propensity to be exposed to sexualized media.” In Steinberg’s more conservative analysis, the relationship between media exposure and early sexual activity disappeared. “There are many reasons to find the portrayal of sex in mass media objectionable,” says Steinberg. “But let’s not confuse matters of taste with matters of science.” (HT: Carl Beyer) [%comments]
So Maybe Sexy Media Doesn't Lead to Teen Sex?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I can see how you might make an apparent causation disappear, but how do you make a correlation disappear? Two sets of numbers are either correlated or they are not. And if they author of the paper truly does not know the difference between causation and correlation, how much is the rest of his work worth?
For myself, I find it easier and much cheaper just to read literature like “Cider With Rosie”. They’ve always been at it.
One makes a correlation “disappear” by controlling for other variables that made it seem that the first two are independently correlated with each other.
The answer is in your question, he is not making a correlation disappear, he is merely disproving the alleged correlation from the first study.
The correlation does not “disappear” the causation assumption however is challenged. The report seems to be saying the cause of both higher exposure to sex in the media and earlier sexual experiences are both caused by early interest in sex. In other words, a child who gets interested in sex earlier than his/her peers is more likely to find sex in media more interesting than his/her peers, and therefore watch it, as well as seek to engage in sex sooner.
All of this should extract the following response:
“Duh.”
Yimminy! Let’s define terms–
Correlation is a (0-1) measure of the simultaneity of pairs of variables with no preconceptions as to whether or not they have any causal relationship.
Example: (Google) Global warming vs. number of pirates.
Now, two variables might be related, but logically, correlation does not imply causation. But correlations can be suggestive and are a good place to begin investigation. Still the issue is CAUSATION. Example:
Correlation(+): Cancer with milk drinking.
Causation–Milk drinking helps people live to old ages.
Cancer is often a disease of old people.
Cheeeeeeeze………….
As for teenage sex, I’m for it. I don’t doubt for a minute that exposure to sex in the media encourages it. Pete Hamill (I think) once said that the public concern about sex vs. violence was that upon seeing a violent film, one was not inclined to go home and be violent.
yeah right- just like celebrity smoking doesn’t spike tobacco sales to minors- in fact, just change all “sex” here to “tobacco” and ull probably come up with a good amicus brief the industry could use in marketing exposure to children
I’m not yet so old that I can’t remember that (for teen boys, at least) the causative effect here is being a teen boy. Nor am I so narrow-minded, nor so selfish, as to think that more teen sex isn’t a good thing, even if I am past the point where I’d enjoy the benefits personally.
I’m not convinced. The claim that 16-year-olds interested in sex will be more likely to view sexual material…well, do you know a 16-year-old that isn’t interested in sex?
The question then becomes, it seems, a matter of whether such viewing helps push teens from WANTING to…to DOING.
I’m sure there is some reflexive thing going on here: That is, TV shows are sexual because we have become a more sexualized society…and we have become a more sexualized society due to the environments our minds find themselves exposed to.
I think most of us would agree that porn has an impact on us (otherwise there would not be such a demand). And if that sort of sexual material can stimulate some sort of action (either alone or with others), then why wouldn’t we think that lesser sexual material might have at least some effect also?
This reminds me of nothing very different from advertisers claiming that their ads haven’t had a negative impact in this or that area…yet they continue to spend BILLIONS to buy and create advertising? Who would spend that kind of money on something useless?
Lastly, I imagine a lot of sexual TV is just following that old marketing slogan of “sex sells.” They know if they spice it up enough, it will draw viewers. Those viewers, having a desire for such material, not only create a demand for it, but are no doubt affected by it.