Does internet use trigger sex crime?
May 15, 2011 5:24 PM Subscribe
Broadband Internet: An Information Superhighway to Sex Crime? [.pdf] (Leuven et al. 2011) is a German/Norwegian study that attempts to answer the question Does internet use trigger sex crime?
Abstract:
Abstract:
We use unique Norwegian data on crime and internet adoption to shed light on this question. A public program with limited funding rolled out broadband access points in 2000-2008, and provides plausibly exogenous variation in internet use. Our instrumental variables and fixed effect estimates show that internet use is associated with a substantial increase in reported incidences of rape and other sex crimes [my emph.].For a contrasting view, see Kendall (2007). Also of interest in this area is D'Amato (1990).
We present a theoretical framework that highlights three mechanisms for how internet use may affect reported sex crime, namely a reporting effect, a matching effect on potential offenders and victims, and a direct effect on crime propensity. Our results indicate that the direct effect is non-negligible and positive, plausibly as a result of increased consumption of
pornography.
way to go with interrogating the data, folks!
posted by wilful at 5:35 PM on May 15, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by wilful at 5:35 PM on May 15, 2011 [3 favorites]
Does not living as a solitary hermit in a remote cave cut-off from all human contact trigger sex crime?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:36 PM on May 15, 2011
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:36 PM on May 15, 2011
Hmm, there was a study a few years ago showing that internet penetration actually seemed to reduce sex crimes.
posted by delmoi at 5:39 PM on May 15, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by delmoi at 5:39 PM on May 15, 2011 [2 favorites]
BOY MAKES LOVE TO DECLAWED CAT AFTER READING METAFILTER. ONLINE COMMUNITY IS OUTRAGED. MORE AT 11.
posted by phunniemee at 5:40 PM on May 15, 2011
posted by phunniemee at 5:40 PM on May 15, 2011
Is there proof that pornography increases sex crimes? I'd heard of theories along those lines, but not hard data.
posted by angrycat at 5:41 PM on May 15, 2011
posted by angrycat at 5:41 PM on May 15, 2011
way to go with interrogating the data, folks!
RTFA day was May 7.
posted by pompomtom at 5:50 PM on May 15, 2011 [2 favorites]
RTFA day was May 7.
posted by pompomtom at 5:50 PM on May 15, 2011 [2 favorites]
Heh, delmoi said internet penetration.
posted by danhon at 5:59 PM on May 15, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by danhon at 5:59 PM on May 15, 2011 [2 favorites]
Correlation does not imply causation, study finds. The correlation between studies mistaking correlation for causation and people knee jerk reacting to that finding without reading the study approaches 1.
posted by elpapacito at 6:09 PM on May 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by elpapacito at 6:09 PM on May 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
furiousxgeorge: “No.”
Look, stop drowning me in data points; you've argued your point persuasively and given me enough rational readings of the copious evidence you present in this comment to utterly convince me already.
posted by koeselitz at 6:13 PM on May 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
Look, stop drowning me in data points; you've argued your point persuasively and given me enough rational readings of the copious evidence you present in this comment to utterly convince me already.
posted by koeselitz at 6:13 PM on May 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sometimes I wish there was like a 30-minute waiting period between when something was posted and when people could start commenting. From the little I’ve looked at, I don’t think people can dismiss the research by simply saying correlation doesn’t equal causation. The authors use instrumental variable estimation, a statistical technique that is used to try to determine causation in non-experimental studies.
posted by Jasper Friendly Bear at 6:29 PM on May 15, 2011 [6 favorites]
posted by Jasper Friendly Bear at 6:29 PM on May 15, 2011 [6 favorites]
It should finally be noted that the arrival of the internet most likely implied a much stronger shock to the availability of pornography in Norway compared to the US. While pornography was de facto legalized and readily available in most of the US, a legal ban on pornography was in place in Norway. Access to pornography was therefore severely limited in Norway before the arrival of broadband internet, especially with respect to movies and other moving images.Emphasis mine.
Because the law theoretically had restricted access to porn in Norway
and
Because there is some evidence of increase in sex crime AFTER the diffusion of internet
therefore
it follows internet increased sex offences.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? And, the internet didn't only bring porn, but also chat, irc, facebook and other social opportunities. An increase in social opportunities could theoretically lead to increase meetings (dating sites as well) and that may also have led to increased chances for violent crimes to occour.
posted by elpapacito at 6:33 PM on May 15, 2011
Sometimes I wish there was like a 30-minute waiting period between when something was posted and when people could start commenting. From the little I’ve looked at, I don’t think people can dismiss the research by simply saying correlation doesn’t equal causation. The authors use instrumental variable estimation, a statistical technique that is used to try to determine causation in non-experimental studies.
28...
29...
30! Calling it broadband is just asking for trouble in my book.
posted by hal9k at 6:33 PM on May 15, 2011
28...
29...
30! Calling it broadband is just asking for trouble in my book.
posted by hal9k at 6:33 PM on May 15, 2011
elpapacito, you're embarrasing yourself by not reading the paper.
posted by wilful at 6:36 PM on May 15, 2011
posted by wilful at 6:36 PM on May 15, 2011
delmoi: “Btw, are they counting kiddy porn as a sex crime?”
No. Their general benchmark seems to be rape.
angrycat: “Is there proof that pornography increases sex crimes? I'd heard of theories along those lines, but not hard data.”
The authors of this study believe that the data they present indicates that pornography increases the number of reported sex crimes; they show a strong correlation, backed up (as Jasper Friendly Bear says) by instrumental variable estimation, between increased internet usage and sex crimes. In the face of this, they examine three possible reasons for this correlation: that internet usage merely increases the likelihood that rape will be reported; that the internet helps rapists find victims; and that pornography increases the propensity to rape.
Their conclusion is that the latter is the most likely reason why reported sex crime is correlated with increased internet usage.
posted by koeselitz at 6:37 PM on May 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
No. Their general benchmark seems to be rape.
angrycat: “Is there proof that pornography increases sex crimes? I'd heard of theories along those lines, but not hard data.”
The authors of this study believe that the data they present indicates that pornography increases the number of reported sex crimes; they show a strong correlation, backed up (as Jasper Friendly Bear says) by instrumental variable estimation, between increased internet usage and sex crimes. In the face of this, they examine three possible reasons for this correlation: that internet usage merely increases the likelihood that rape will be reported; that the internet helps rapists find victims; and that pornography increases the propensity to rape.
Their conclusion is that the latter is the most likely reason why reported sex crime is correlated with increased internet usage.
posted by koeselitz at 6:37 PM on May 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
leave the internet alone. it's never done anything wrong.
posted by philip-random at 6:41 PM on May 15, 2011
posted by philip-random at 6:41 PM on May 15, 2011
elpapacito, you're embarrasing yourself by not reading the paper
Maybe by not understading it entirely, you ment to say? Luckly, I don't suffer from that. But please go ahead explain yourself.
posted by elpapacito at 6:58 PM on May 15, 2011
Maybe by not understading it entirely, you ment to say? Luckly, I don't suffer from that. But please go ahead explain yourself.
posted by elpapacito at 6:58 PM on May 15, 2011
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?
Yes, lets ignore mathematically validated, statistically sound modeling on the basis of a flippant dismissal based an apparent "logical fallacy", which even from the wikipedia article:
posted by delmoi at 6:59 PM on May 15, 2011
Yes, lets ignore mathematically validated, statistically sound modeling on the basis of a flippant dismissal based an apparent "logical fallacy", which even from the wikipedia article:
The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.Are they looking at anything besides chronological events? If so then it's not an example of the fallacy.
posted by delmoi at 6:59 PM on May 15, 2011
I haven't dismissed anything delmoi, don't project please ;)
posted by elpapacito at 7:03 PM on May 15, 2011
posted by elpapacito at 7:03 PM on May 15, 2011
You said:
And, the internet didn't only bring porn, but also chat, irc, facebook and other social opportunities. An increase in social opportunities could theoretically lead to increase meetings (dating sites as well) and that may also have led to increased chances for violent crimes to occour.The study said, in the intro:
Although it is not possible to report crime to the police on the internet, internet use may induce people to report crimes that they would otherwise not report. However, we find no evidence of changes in reported crime relative to charges or convictions, which would be expected if marginal reports are less strong. There are also no changes in the time elapsed between the crime and the report, suggesting again that reporting behavior was unaffected.posted by wilful at 7:07 PM on May 15, 2011
Next, we try to distinguish between the two other mechanisms. On the one hand, there may be a matching effect where the positive relationship between internet use and sex crime reflects that it is easier for sex offenders to meet their potential victims via chat rooms or other internet sites than through alternative activities. On the other hand, internet use can have a direct effect on the propensity for sex crime.
Our results indicate that the direct effect is positive and substantial. First, we find no effect on other types of crime, where internet use might have an indirect effect through displacing alternative activities but should have little if any direct effect.
Second, we exploit that the size of the direct effect is likely to vary systematically with access to non-internet pornography. In particular, we find a weaker effect of internet use on sex crime in municipalities close to the national border: While a legal ban on distribution of pornography was in place and enforced in Norway, pornography was legal and readily available in Sweden, the neighboring country. Although we admittedly cannot rule out matching or reporting effects, these results suggest that the positive net impact of internet use on sex crime is at least in part driven by the direct effect of internet use, plausibly as a result of increased consumption of pornography. This is consistent with many previous laboratory studies which support that pornography and sex crime are complements,
First, we find no effect on other types of crime, where internet use might have an indirect effect through displacing alternative activities but should have little if any direct effect.
Mh. So if I get it right, using internet might indirectly affect the number of crimes commited by displacement....is that mean to say that if one is, for instance, playing on the net then one can not at the same time commit some crime on the streets? ...then it says
"but it should have little if any direct effect" ...
what constitutes a direct effect? One watches porn --> probability of enacting a scene increases --> more sex crimes ?
If so, what about other "criminally suggestive" content, such as GTA, multiplayer shootemups and the likes? Weren't they made more accessible by the net? Or maybe also movies rated for violent displays and theoretically less accessible before the advent of the net?
posted by elpapacito at 7:26 PM on May 15, 2011
Mh. So if I get it right, using internet might indirectly affect the number of crimes commited by displacement....is that mean to say that if one is, for instance, playing on the net then one can not at the same time commit some crime on the streets? ...then it says
"but it should have little if any direct effect" ...
what constitutes a direct effect? One watches porn --> probability of enacting a scene increases --> more sex crimes ?
If so, what about other "criminally suggestive" content, such as GTA, multiplayer shootemups and the likes? Weren't they made more accessible by the net? Or maybe also movies rated for violent displays and theoretically less accessible before the advent of the net?
posted by elpapacito at 7:26 PM on May 15, 2011
It seems completely plausible to me that a population, after being suddenly and continuously exposed to limitless depictions of sexual violence, could on average have a greater propensity to commit sexual violence.
Does that mean that any individual, after getting on the Internet, is going to be more likely to rape someone? No, of course not. But if you start with the proposition that in any population, a certain percentage of people may, due to whatever combination of innate and environmental factors, be more predisposed to commit this sort of crime; and then you give that population access to limitless depictions of other people committing what constitutes simulations of that crime; it seems not controversial that that might encourage (by, say, planting the seeds of the idea in the mind of someone for whom the impulse was dormant) a non-negligible increase in the actual incidence of that sort of crime.
Metafilter obviously has a pro-Internet bias, and also a pro-freedom of information bias, and I know a study like this triggers associations with moralizing politicians who would seize on it as a basis for restricting media on specious grounds. But I think taking a strong stance on freedom of speech and all that it entails means saying that keeping the Internet free of censorship is worthwhile even if it means there are collateral harms that result. What it shouldn't mean is burying your head in the sand anytime there's a suggestion that greater access to pornography, say, might have detrimental effects on society.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 7:53 PM on May 15, 2011 [4 favorites]
Does that mean that any individual, after getting on the Internet, is going to be more likely to rape someone? No, of course not. But if you start with the proposition that in any population, a certain percentage of people may, due to whatever combination of innate and environmental factors, be more predisposed to commit this sort of crime; and then you give that population access to limitless depictions of other people committing what constitutes simulations of that crime; it seems not controversial that that might encourage (by, say, planting the seeds of the idea in the mind of someone for whom the impulse was dormant) a non-negligible increase in the actual incidence of that sort of crime.
Metafilter obviously has a pro-Internet bias, and also a pro-freedom of information bias, and I know a study like this triggers associations with moralizing politicians who would seize on it as a basis for restricting media on specious grounds. But I think taking a strong stance on freedom of speech and all that it entails means saying that keeping the Internet free of censorship is worthwhile even if it means there are collateral harms that result. What it shouldn't mean is burying your head in the sand anytime there's a suggestion that greater access to pornography, say, might have detrimental effects on society.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 7:53 PM on May 15, 2011 [4 favorites]
For those interested, I have a paper forthcoming coauthored with Todd Kendall (cited above) similar to the one linked to looking at the effect of online prostitution on street prostitution (here). Like the above authors, we also use broadband as an instrumental variable. I think prostitution is the one sex crime the cited authors don't explore, so fyi in case you're interested.
posted by scunning at 7:58 PM on May 15, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by scunning at 7:58 PM on May 15, 2011 [5 favorites]
I think the authors are poopie heads.
posted by Ad hominem at 8:25 PM on May 15, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Ad hominem at 8:25 PM on May 15, 2011 [3 favorites]
elpapacito wrote "what constitutes a direct effect? One watches porn --> probability of enacting a scene increases --> more sex crimes ?"
It'd probably be something like the "general aggression model" that Anderson and coauthors have used to explain the causal effect of violent media on aggression more generally.
"If so, what about other "criminally suggestive" content, such as GTA, multiplayer shootemups and the likes? Weren't they made more accessible by the net? Or maybe also movies rated for violent displays and theoretically less accessible before the advent of the net?
Interestingly, there's been some studies looking at the effect of violent video games on crime (of which I am a contributor - another plug), and it's not always consistent with what's found in the lab. FWIW.
posted by scunning at 8:50 PM on May 15, 2011
It'd probably be something like the "general aggression model" that Anderson and coauthors have used to explain the causal effect of violent media on aggression more generally.
"If so, what about other "criminally suggestive" content, such as GTA, multiplayer shootemups and the likes? Weren't they made more accessible by the net? Or maybe also movies rated for violent displays and theoretically less accessible before the advent of the net?
Interestingly, there's been some studies looking at the effect of violent video games on crime (of which I am a contributor - another plug), and it's not always consistent with what's found in the lab. FWIW.
posted by scunning at 8:50 PM on May 15, 2011
When did you first learn to type one handed? Did you enjoy the nap that followed? Did the internet trigger your nap?
posted by buzzman at 8:56 PM on May 15, 2011
posted by buzzman at 8:56 PM on May 15, 2011
Correlation is not causation! Confirmation bias! You didn't account for my favorite variable! It's... THE MEFI INTRO TO SOCIAL SCIENCE VARIETY HOUR! Where having slept through a lecture course makes you an instant expert! Now get out there, contestants, and show them pointy-haired sociologists that us plain folks know better'n 'em what statistical significance is, boy howdy.
posted by nasreddin at 9:59 PM on May 15, 2011 [12 favorites]
posted by nasreddin at 9:59 PM on May 15, 2011 [12 favorites]
A Norwegian study on pornography is like a study on the societal effects of alcoholism in the United States, circa 1925: one cannot be sure that the specter of the Temperance Movement is not behind it. You know, given recent developments.
Indeed, even now, so many different groups simply dislike pornography and so constantly fumble out their rationales as to why it must be stamped out that studies in line with such may well be viewed with suspicion.
posted by adipocere at 11:04 PM on May 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
Indeed, even now, so many different groups simply dislike pornography and so constantly fumble out their rationales as to why it must be stamped out that studies in line with such may well be viewed with suspicion.
posted by adipocere at 11:04 PM on May 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
So Adipocere do you have any evidence these academics are linked to anti-pornagraphy activism? Or are you simply arguing that - effectively - studies that could be used by activists we disagree with are suspicious?
I mean, crikey, I see this played out regarding climate denialism but the burden of proof remains a little heavier than the fact research can be used by those we disagree with, I feel.
posted by smoke at 11:12 PM on May 15, 2011
I mean, crikey, I see this played out regarding climate denialism but the burden of proof remains a little heavier than the fact research can be used by those we disagree with, I feel.
posted by smoke at 11:12 PM on May 15, 2011
Correlation does not imply causation
And drink! I love these threads, Correlation != causation is a huge winner for the Metafilter drinking game.
posted by Justinian at 11:21 PM on May 15, 2011 [4 favorites]
And drink! I love these threads, Correlation != causation is a huge winner for the Metafilter drinking game.
posted by Justinian at 11:21 PM on May 15, 2011 [4 favorites]
smoke, you've misinterpreted, he's only viewing it with suspicion, he's not disagreeing with based on some well-founded critique of the methodology.
posted by wilful at 11:22 PM on May 15, 2011
posted by wilful at 11:22 PM on May 15, 2011
The authors use instrumental variable estimation, a statistical technique that is used to try to determine causation in non-experimental studies.
this is determining that the observed increase over time is smaller in districts closer to the Swedish border, yeah? (last para. of section 7)
so they say that "our results suggest that internet use increases the propensity for sex crime", "plausibly as a result of increased consumption of pornography", but then use the assumed increase in porn consumption as a control to determine the causative effect. surely if pre-existing availability of porn is their instrumental variable, the conclusion they should be drawing is about consumption of porn and sexual crime, not about use of the internet.
also, with the reduced observed increase in border regions, I'd be curious to see whether those regions went from a higher baseline to the same value as the rest of the country, or from the same baseline to a lower final value. those numbers don't appear to be included in the attached tables.
posted by russm at 12:49 AM on May 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
this is determining that the observed increase over time is smaller in districts closer to the Swedish border, yeah? (last para. of section 7)
so they say that "our results suggest that internet use increases the propensity for sex crime", "plausibly as a result of increased consumption of pornography", but then use the assumed increase in porn consumption as a control to determine the causative effect. surely if pre-existing availability of porn is their instrumental variable, the conclusion they should be drawing is about consumption of porn and sexual crime, not about use of the internet.
also, with the reduced observed increase in border regions, I'd be curious to see whether those regions went from a higher baseline to the same value as the rest of the country, or from the same baseline to a lower final value. those numbers don't appear to be included in the attached tables.
posted by russm at 12:49 AM on May 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
Or maybe, just maybe more victims after finding on the web that crimes like this not only happen to them do feel empowered to actually report what happened to them?
posted by dominik at 2:37 AM on May 16, 2011
posted by dominik at 2:37 AM on May 16, 2011
Or maybe, just maybe...
...just maybe this question has been addressed both in TFA, and summarised in this thread.
posted by pompomtom at 2:54 AM on May 16, 2011 [3 favorites]
...just maybe this question has been addressed both in TFA, and summarised in this thread.
posted by pompomtom at 2:54 AM on May 16, 2011 [3 favorites]
This clearly doesn't need to be taken seriously. They used the words "Information Superhighway".
posted by yoHighness at 5:32 AM on May 16, 2011
posted by yoHighness at 5:32 AM on May 16, 2011
A couple things to point out:
1) The authors attribute an increase in sex crimes to access to pornography, not to the internet access per se (as russm pointed out). Access to pornography was relatively limited in Norway prior compared to many other countries prior to widespread broadband access. They found smaller increases in areas near the border with Sweden, where residents would have easier access to less restricted Swedish pornography. They attributed negative results in a similar study in the US to greater availability of non-internet pornography in the US.
2) As the authors put it, "Our baseline estimate suggests that in 2006 roughly one out of eleven rapes per 100,000 inhabitants would have been avoided if broadband internet had not been introduced." In other words, broadband access seemed to be related to an increase in reports of rape and other sex crimes, but impact on public safety was still minimal. If you were a woman living in Norway at this time in a region without broadband access, you had about 1 chance in 50,000 of reporting a rape over the course of a year. If you lived in an area with broadband access your chances of reporting a rape were still about 1 in 50,000. (Yeah, 1/100,000 higher, but still for all practical purposes about the same.)
Graphs presented on p. 32 of the study illustrate how small the differences were.
There was an increase in the rate of reported sex crimes in Norway during the time period the study looked at, but only a small percentage of that seemed to be related to broadband access.
3) The authors argued that these differences could not be attributed to an increased willingness of victims with access to internet support groups etc. to report crimes, since the percentage of reports resulting in charges being filed did not decrease. They explained their reasoning this way: "We expect that, everything else equal, crimes are more likely to be reported the more likely it is that charges will be made. If internet use caused an increase in reporting, then the marginal reports would probably be weaker on average." This assumes, though, that most rapes and other sex crimes that can be prosecuted are reported, and that an increase in reporting would lead to an increase in false reports and reports in cases where less evidence is available. I'm not sure that this is actually the case. Sex crimes are notoriously underreported, and I assume this true in Norway as well. An increase in reporting of acquaintance rape would have the opposite effect.
posted by nangar at 6:16 AM on May 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
1) The authors attribute an increase in sex crimes to access to pornography, not to the internet access per se (as russm pointed out). Access to pornography was relatively limited in Norway prior compared to many other countries prior to widespread broadband access. They found smaller increases in areas near the border with Sweden, where residents would have easier access to less restricted Swedish pornography. They attributed negative results in a similar study in the US to greater availability of non-internet pornography in the US.
2) As the authors put it, "Our baseline estimate suggests that in 2006 roughly one out of eleven rapes per 100,000 inhabitants would have been avoided if broadband internet had not been introduced." In other words, broadband access seemed to be related to an increase in reports of rape and other sex crimes, but impact on public safety was still minimal. If you were a woman living in Norway at this time in a region without broadband access, you had about 1 chance in 50,000 of reporting a rape over the course of a year. If you lived in an area with broadband access your chances of reporting a rape were still about 1 in 50,000. (Yeah, 1/100,000 higher, but still for all practical purposes about the same.)
Graphs presented on p. 32 of the study illustrate how small the differences were.
There was an increase in the rate of reported sex crimes in Norway during the time period the study looked at, but only a small percentage of that seemed to be related to broadband access.
3) The authors argued that these differences could not be attributed to an increased willingness of victims with access to internet support groups etc. to report crimes, since the percentage of reports resulting in charges being filed did not decrease. They explained their reasoning this way: "We expect that, everything else equal, crimes are more likely to be reported the more likely it is that charges will be made. If internet use caused an increase in reporting, then the marginal reports would probably be weaker on average." This assumes, though, that most rapes and other sex crimes that can be prosecuted are reported, and that an increase in reporting would lead to an increase in false reports and reports in cases where less evidence is available. I'm not sure that this is actually the case. Sex crimes are notoriously underreported, and I assume this true in Norway as well. An increase in reporting of acquaintance rape would have the opposite effect.
posted by nangar at 6:16 AM on May 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
I like the paper (it's clever!) but would love to see a technical presentation by the authors. I'd like to see plots of the change-on-change over space x time to see if rollout actually lines up with some clear pattern.
The crucial piece in an IV approach (unless you have a sucky instrument and no power) is the assumption that aside from the predictor of interest there is no causal pathway connecting instrument to outcome. Policy is often a stochastic process, and they say "[w]hile the criteria determining selection are somewhat unclear," but I bet that there are social and spatial predictors of rollout. They check most of the usual offenders, but there's always a valid concern about residual confounding given our limited ability to measure them.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:17 AM on May 16, 2011
The crucial piece in an IV approach (unless you have a sucky instrument and no power) is the assumption that aside from the predictor of interest there is no causal pathway connecting instrument to outcome. Policy is often a stochastic process, and they say "[w]hile the criteria determining selection are somewhat unclear," but I bet that there are social and spatial predictors of rollout. They check most of the usual offenders, but there's always a valid concern about residual confounding given our limited ability to measure them.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:17 AM on May 16, 2011
Correlation does not imply causation
But it sure does wink suggestively at it.
And I wouldn't say that the researchers are jumping to conclusions at all, they seem to have been fairly measured and careful about making wild claims. Unlike this thread.
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:56 AM on May 16, 2011
The authors attribute an increase in sex crimes to access to pornography, not to the internet access per se
well no, from both the abstract and the conclusion
posted by russm at 9:17 AM on May 16, 2011
well no, from both the abstract and the conclusion
Our IV and fixed effect estimates suggest that internet use is associated with a significant increase in reported incidences of rape and other sex crimes. We present a theoretical framework that highlights three mechanisms for how internet use may affect reported sex crime, namely a reporting effect, a matching effect on potential offenders and victims, and a direct effect on crime propensity. Our results suggest that the direct effect is positive and empirically important, plausibly as a result of increased consumption of pornography.they claim a causal relationship (at a population, not individual level) between increased internet access and propensity to commit sexual crimes, and speculate that availability of porn is the mechanism. (although they do assume porn, or more specifically rapid increase in the availability of porn, is the mechanism in their IV analysis).
posted by russm at 9:17 AM on May 16, 2011
I guess my point is that if they found that a rapid increase in availability of porn causes an increase in propensity to commit these crimes they should just say so, even though it has less headline power than "Broadband Internet: An Information Superhighway to Sex Crime?". Though it does have broader policy implications than just internet access (deregulation of porn production/availability in other media, for example).
posted by russm at 9:28 AM on May 16, 2011
posted by russm at 9:28 AM on May 16, 2011
completely unscientific thought: I have no particular problem imagining that something/anything that may blow the lid off of decades/centuries of sexual repression may conceivably lead to an increase in negative applications of this now released sexual energy.
My question: is there any science available as to positive applications we may be getting from this same release?
posted by philip-random at 9:35 AM on May 16, 2011
My question: is there any science available as to positive applications we may be getting from this same release?
posted by philip-random at 9:35 AM on May 16, 2011
Scunning - a link to sciencedirect? Not cool, man.
posted by stratastar at 9:39 AM on May 16, 2011
posted by stratastar at 9:39 AM on May 16, 2011
If you google scholar "The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence" and click "all 19 versions" you will find pdfs on various academics' personal pages. Since Elvisier probably owns the copyright and other pages may be ephemeral, it's not unreasonable to link them from here. I guess cat.inist.fr is also a stable link.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 9:47 AM on May 16, 2011
posted by a robot made out of meat at 9:47 AM on May 16, 2011
my bad - i didn't realize there was a rule against linking to the actual published versions. I was linking to one of Anderson and Bushman's papers on the "general aggression model". They have numerous versions of it.
So, just so I understand the etiquette, do not link to anything that does not have universal access (ie that doesn't require a subscription)?
posted by scunning at 11:00 AM on May 16, 2011
So, just so I understand the etiquette, do not link to anything that does not have universal access (ie that doesn't require a subscription)?
posted by scunning at 11:00 AM on May 16, 2011
But here's a google scholar link to stuff along these lines. If you look at my paper on video games and crime, we discuss the GAM model briefly too (starting on page 5). Here's what we wrote:
"GAM hypothesizes that violent media, including violent video games, increases a person’s aggressive tendencies through a process of social learning that occurs simultaneous to the exposure itself. Violent media causes the person to mistakenly develop certain scripts, or rules of thumb, that are used to interpret social situations both before they occur, as well as afterwards. GAM posits, in other words, that violent video games cause aggression by biasing individuals towards forming incorrect beliefs about relative danger that they are in. Perception biases towards hostility, therefore, can in turn cause the person to respond in either a “fight or flight” fashion. It may also permanently alter a person’s point of view, creating an aggressive personality as an outcome (Bushman and Anderson 2002)."
I don't know enough psychology to really guess as to the credibility of Anderson's GAM hypothesis, because he really skirts alot of the more technical stuff on the brain's physiology. But, putting that aside, to answer the earlier question, I suspect that if there were repeated quasi-expeimental studies done that found clear, unambiguous increases in rapes from porn, where porn really is exogenous, then someone would probably think about porn increasing social aggressiveness via some kind of "social learning" mechanism.
But, fwiw, I think papers like this need replication, and a lot of it, before anyone says really anything one way or another. I'm not 100% about this IV yet, too. It may just be because I don't yet fully understand what they did. But that F-test is huge (over 300 - it only technically needs to exceed 10 as a "rule of thumb"), which means they do not have a weak IV problem, but you cannot technically test the key assumption in IV, which is that the instrument is excludable. This instrument, if I'm not mistaken, seems to be some measure of the availability of broadband earlier in time in a region (some measure of infrastructure maybe?) which is used to instrument for the share of households with broadband in their homes later. But if broadband is endogenous, why wouldn't broadband infrastructure be endogenous for the same reasons? It's not as though the Norwegian government really rolled out a truly random infrastructure. Presumably the factors associated with adopting broadband at the household and the factors associated with creating the infrastructure are correlated.
But this is where I just need to read the paper more closely.
posted by scunning at 11:08 AM on May 16, 2011
"GAM hypothesizes that violent media, including violent video games, increases a person’s aggressive tendencies through a process of social learning that occurs simultaneous to the exposure itself. Violent media causes the person to mistakenly develop certain scripts, or rules of thumb, that are used to interpret social situations both before they occur, as well as afterwards. GAM posits, in other words, that violent video games cause aggression by biasing individuals towards forming incorrect beliefs about relative danger that they are in. Perception biases towards hostility, therefore, can in turn cause the person to respond in either a “fight or flight” fashion. It may also permanently alter a person’s point of view, creating an aggressive personality as an outcome (Bushman and Anderson 2002)."
I don't know enough psychology to really guess as to the credibility of Anderson's GAM hypothesis, because he really skirts alot of the more technical stuff on the brain's physiology. But, putting that aside, to answer the earlier question, I suspect that if there were repeated quasi-expeimental studies done that found clear, unambiguous increases in rapes from porn, where porn really is exogenous, then someone would probably think about porn increasing social aggressiveness via some kind of "social learning" mechanism.
But, fwiw, I think papers like this need replication, and a lot of it, before anyone says really anything one way or another. I'm not 100% about this IV yet, too. It may just be because I don't yet fully understand what they did. But that F-test is huge (over 300 - it only technically needs to exceed 10 as a "rule of thumb"), which means they do not have a weak IV problem, but you cannot technically test the key assumption in IV, which is that the instrument is excludable. This instrument, if I'm not mistaken, seems to be some measure of the availability of broadband earlier in time in a region (some measure of infrastructure maybe?) which is used to instrument for the share of households with broadband in their homes later. But if broadband is endogenous, why wouldn't broadband infrastructure be endogenous for the same reasons? It's not as though the Norwegian government really rolled out a truly random infrastructure. Presumably the factors associated with adopting broadband at the household and the factors associated with creating the infrastructure are correlated.
But this is where I just need to read the paper more closely.
posted by scunning at 11:08 AM on May 16, 2011
I just thought it was funny that you linked to a paywalled version of your own article.
posted by stratastar at 11:14 AM on May 16, 2011
posted by stratastar at 11:14 AM on May 16, 2011
philip-random: "My question: is there any science available as to positive applications we may be getting from this same release?"
I think one thing could be the increase in reporting of rapes, which the authors have as one of three possible ways that internet could increase reported rapes. One mechanism is that it increases rapes, period. But another is that it makes people more likely to say they were raped, but not necessarily more likely to be raped.
For instance, Emily Oster and Robert Jensen have a paper in the QJE where they find that the staggered roll out of cable TV in India caused over time Indian females to report, in essence, higher valuation on their own rights. Basically, access to western media caused Indians to say "being beaten is wrong", as well as to gain more education. Maybe the bargaining position improved.
Information can do that. It could cause women to become emboldened after a rape. A woman is raped, and prior to the internet she lacks the ability to really get help - for whatever reason. Maybe no one around her is supportive. A lot of the time, rapes are acquaintance rapes, for instance, and so maybe it's really complicated for her because she's convinced herself of the ambiguity of the attack or something like that. The Internet could open up new social networks for her where she gets outside of that stuff, and finds the resolve to report it.
The authors do not say that that is not happening, as they repeatedly say the effect they identify is a "net effect" of porn on sex crimes, where the "net effect" is an additive measure of three different kinds of effects (none of which are identifiable in themselves - only in the aggregate). But they think that because they don't find evidence for other kinds of crimes that could be affected by reporting, that maybe this isn't in fact reporting, but rather "porn consumption" purely.
The one thing I keep thinking is that technically, this is at best really only the identification of broadband access (using IV) on reported rapes. That's the one thing to keep in mind. There's an ecological fallacy associated with trying to get lower than the level of aggregation here. They are careful to try and test for some of those other things, and a first step is to look for other crimes that would've been "under reported", but I think that since this is the key, critical part of the paper, they may need to do an extensive bullet proofing exercise here, with considerably more placebos and falsifications. It's hard, though - unless you know a lot about Norway, and this specific technological event, it's difficult to know what to say. Two stage least squares rewards a researchers' deep institutional knowledge. But that means a referee needs to know that too to offer suggestions.
posted by scunning at 11:16 AM on May 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think one thing could be the increase in reporting of rapes, which the authors have as one of three possible ways that internet could increase reported rapes. One mechanism is that it increases rapes, period. But another is that it makes people more likely to say they were raped, but not necessarily more likely to be raped.
For instance, Emily Oster and Robert Jensen have a paper in the QJE where they find that the staggered roll out of cable TV in India caused over time Indian females to report, in essence, higher valuation on their own rights. Basically, access to western media caused Indians to say "being beaten is wrong", as well as to gain more education. Maybe the bargaining position improved.
Information can do that. It could cause women to become emboldened after a rape. A woman is raped, and prior to the internet she lacks the ability to really get help - for whatever reason. Maybe no one around her is supportive. A lot of the time, rapes are acquaintance rapes, for instance, and so maybe it's really complicated for her because she's convinced herself of the ambiguity of the attack or something like that. The Internet could open up new social networks for her where she gets outside of that stuff, and finds the resolve to report it.
The authors do not say that that is not happening, as they repeatedly say the effect they identify is a "net effect" of porn on sex crimes, where the "net effect" is an additive measure of three different kinds of effects (none of which are identifiable in themselves - only in the aggregate). But they think that because they don't find evidence for other kinds of crimes that could be affected by reporting, that maybe this isn't in fact reporting, but rather "porn consumption" purely.
The one thing I keep thinking is that technically, this is at best really only the identification of broadband access (using IV) on reported rapes. That's the one thing to keep in mind. There's an ecological fallacy associated with trying to get lower than the level of aggregation here. They are careful to try and test for some of those other things, and a first step is to look for other crimes that would've been "under reported", but I think that since this is the key, critical part of the paper, they may need to do an extensive bullet proofing exercise here, with considerably more placebos and falsifications. It's hard, though - unless you know a lot about Norway, and this specific technological event, it's difficult to know what to say. Two stage least squares rewards a researchers' deep institutional knowledge. But that means a referee needs to know that too to offer suggestions.
posted by scunning at 11:16 AM on May 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
stratastar - ah! My bad. I thought you were talking about later when I linked to GAM stuff. I was signaling that my paper had actually been published and wasn't just in working paper I guess! Here's the paper on Todd's website. It's a nice companion piece to this paper being discussed if only because the one sex crime the Norweigian's don't study is prostitution, and that's the only thing we focus on. Yet Todd Kendall is my coauthor, who really started this literature in economics on studying the effect of internet pornography on rape (but his paper found the opposite - evidence for rape and porn as substitutes, not complements).
posted by scunning at 11:19 AM on May 16, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by scunning at 11:19 AM on May 16, 2011 [2 favorites]
3) The authors argued that these differences could not be attributed to an increased willingness of victims with access to internet support groups etc. to report crimes, since the percentage of reports resulting in charges being filed did not decrease. They explained their reasoning this way: "We expect that, everything else equal, crimes are more likely to be reported the more likely it is that charges will be made. If internet use caused an increase in reporting, then the marginal reports would probably be weaker on average." This assumes, though, that most rapes and other sex crimes that can be prosecuted are reported, and that an increase in reporting would lead to an increase in false reports and reports in cases where less evidence is available. I'm not sure that this is actually the case.
Yeah, this seems to be a pretty odd assumption on their part, and I don't see that they give any evidence for it. Dismissing the possibility of a change in reporting rates based on what appears to be just an unsupported conjecture on their part seems problematic.
posted by klausness at 2:02 PM on May 16, 2011
Yeah, this seems to be a pretty odd assumption on their part, and I don't see that they give any evidence for it. Dismissing the possibility of a change in reporting rates based on what appears to be just an unsupported conjecture on their part seems problematic.
posted by klausness at 2:02 PM on May 16, 2011
So, Norway, with low incidence of rapes compared to English-speaking world and to Sweden, finds that after people have vastly more access to materials from other cultures, rape rates go up. Isn't that sort of what we'd expect, regardless of whether pornography (or the internet, in any role other than assimilating cultural force) played a role or not?
Locations that would be presumed to have higher pre-broadband pornography access would also be locations that would be presumed to be more like Sweden in other ways too, right?
posted by nathan v at 2:40 PM on May 16, 2011
Locations that would be presumed to have higher pre-broadband pornography access would also be locations that would be presumed to be more like Sweden in other ways too, right?
posted by nathan v at 2:40 PM on May 16, 2011
So, just so I understand the etiquette, do not link to anything that does not have universal access (ie that doesn't require a subscription)?
This would be correct for the text of posts, but not for comments. So... I'm not sure what stratastar is on about :P
(You're links do come off as a little too self promotional though. More context and information would make them much more palatable)
posted by Chuckles at 11:05 PM on May 16, 2011
This would be correct for the text of posts, but not for comments. So... I'm not sure what stratastar is on about :P
(You're links do come off as a little too self promotional though. More context and information would make them much more palatable)
posted by Chuckles at 11:05 PM on May 16, 2011
« Older A Boy and His Battle Kingdom | The last two stores of smallpox under review Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
No.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:27 PM on May 15, 2011 [3 favorites]