[gun-fucious]

Whodathunkit?
i wonder if the researchers found any other things that have a unique alure for boys?


Guns May Hold 'Unique Allure' for Young Boys
10/23/2003
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,567345,00.html
Press Release
Health Behavior News Service
c/o Center for the Advancement of Health
2000 Florida Avenue, NW, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20009-1231
www.hbns.org

Contact:
Marjorie Hardy
Phone: 727-864-7562

Many boys say they are not interested in playing with guns and may even describe them as their least favorite object in a group of play items, but many will still touch a gun if left alone with one, new research suggests.

Almost two-thirds of the boys who touched an air pistol when left alone with it also said that the gun was their least favorite object in a group of play items, according to the study by Marjorie S. Hardy, Ph.D., of Eckerd College published in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics.

"Nonetheless, their behaviors belied the truth-they were curious enough about the gun to pick it up," she says.

Declaring a gun off-limits has little effect on the actual behavior of boys looking for a toy, the researchers found. Boys who were cautioned not to touch the gun were not any more or less likely to do so, suggesting that warnings themselves do not turn guns into tempting objects for boys.

In fact, boys younger than 12 said they were less interested in the gun after being strongly warned not to touch it. However, these younger boys were significantly more likely than older boys to touch the guns.

"The overall pattern of results in the study reinforces the idea that guns hold a unique allure and instructions not to touch them have limited impact on behavior," Hardy says.

"The findings also demonstrate the inconsistency between the children's self-reported interest in guns and their actual behavior," she adds.

The study included 55 boys ages 9 to 15 who were recruited from a summer camp. The boys were shown a variety of play objects, like Legos, a GameBoy and art supplies, along with an unloaded and disarmed air pistol. The boys then ranked the objects according to how much they wanted to play with them.

When the boys returned a week later, they were left alone with the objects while the researcher left the room for a short while. Boys who had ranked the gun as their least favorite plaything were warned not to touch one of other objects, while boys who had shown at least some preference for the gun were warned not to touch it.

Through a two-way mirror, Hardy and her colleagues watched the boys to see if they would touch the gun or other forbidden object. Many of those who were not warned against the gun still touched or played with it when they were alone, although all but three of the boys denied touching it when the researcher returned to the room.

None of the boys touched any other forbidden items after the researcher warned against them.

According to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics, 3,385 children and teens were killed by gunfire in 1999.

Date of Release: October 10, 2003

[Telperion]

When the boys returned a week later, they were left alone with the objects while the researcher left the room for a short while. Boys who had ranked the gun as their least favorite plaything were warned not to touch one of other objects, while boys who had shown at least some preference for the gun were warned not to touch it. This has to be the most utterly contrived experimental methodology I've ever heard.

[LawDog]

Sooo... Basically the experiment finds out that if you tell a boy not to touch something, he'll haul off and coon-finger it anyways.

Duh!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and opine that the researchers in this particular experiment are not the parents of boys.

I wonder how much the taxpayers had to cough up for this one?

Lawdog

[antsi]

What in the world is this even supposed to prove? It isn't just bad research methodology; it's sheer gibberish.

[Hatchett]

That's got to be one of the dumbest studies I've ever seen.

[TheeBadOne]

Rent two, get one free... :rolleyes:

[P95Carry]

Doncha just lurv psychological analysis ........ so ....... so ........ illuminating .......

http://www.bedford.net/design/images/smilies/puke.gif

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

What in the world is this even supposed to prove? It isn't just bad research methodology; it's sheer gibberish

This study is going to be usefull to the gun-control lobby. It will be used to "prove" that guns are "inheirently" dangerous to children, no matter how much training and familiarization parents give them. The conclusion will be drawn from this study that "smart gun" technology is an absolute necessity, for the sake of the children. :banghead:

[Chris Rhines]

Curious.

When I was about eight, my Dad sat me down and showed me his pistol (a .22LR H&R Sidekick - still got it.) He showed me how to operate it, and how to check if it were loaded. Then, he put it away and told me not to go look for it, but that if I wanted to see it again, all I had to do was ask.

I never once looked for it. And anyone who knows me, knows that I'm not normally so well-disposed towards authority. ;)

So what's changed here?

- Chris

[Mark Tyson]

So what's changed here?

What's changed is the way guns are treated. They've become symbols of crime and vengeance, things to be kept away from people. In fact they are ordinary, potentially dangerous tools that should be learned and respected.

While you may not like authority, it sounds as if you have self-discipline and respect. This society could use a little more of both.

[semf]

Put a group of boys in a room full whatever they play with these days, tell them they can play with what ever they want, just under no circumstances play with the cactus in the corner, come back an hour later 2/3 of them will have cactus spines in their fingers.

[greyhound]

Then, he put it away and told me not to go look for it, but that if I wanted to see it again, all I had to do was ask.

There was a post here recently about some guy whose kid was talking about going shooting with his father when his teacher overheard the conversation and reported him to Child Protective Service.

I'll bet a lot more parents these days try to hide their guns from their children rather than teach them gun safety, with the predictable tragedies ensuing.

[Art Eatman]

Not just the study itself is specious; so is the number of deaths of "children" that is cited.

When you create a "forbidden fruit" situation, why would you not expect the behavior that was reported? If you really don't want a young boy to "mess" with a firearm, take the big-deal aspect out. Remove the notions of "mystique" or "lure of the illicit".

3,385 dead "children" must include age 20-something as still a child! As far as accidental deaths from "messing" with a gun, the number for those of 14 and below is more on the order of 100. The rest were wilful actions.

Art

[gun-fucious]

Dr. Marjorie S. Hardy currently teaches at Eckerd College in Saint Petersburg, Florida, and is a licensed clinical psychologist. Dr. Hardy has been studying the behavior of children around firearms since 1995. Her research focuses on the effects of education on children's attitudes toward and behaviors around firearms. She has published several articles on this topic, presented at various conferences, written an op-ed that appeared in the New York Times, and appeared on ABC's 20/20, Primetime, and Good Morning America to discuss her findings. Dr. Hardy authored an article entitled "Behavior-Oriented Approaches to Reducing Youth Gun Violence" for our most recent issue of The Future of Children, "Children, Youth, and Gun Violence," (Volume 12, Number 2—Summer/Fall 2002).

Teaching Children and Parents about the Dangers of Guns
Moderator: Dr. Marjorie S. Hardy , Department of Psychology, Eckerd College

Since 1988, the National Rifle Association's "Eddie Eagle" program has taught millions of youngsters to "Stop, Don't Touch, Leave the Area, Call an Adult." Since the inception of Eddie Eagle and similar programs, fatal firearms accidents involving children have dropped 56 percent. The Journal of American Nursing found Eddie Eagle to be the most effective of 80 programs studied, and Eddie Eagle has been praised by government, law enforcement, and parents. Doesn't this prove that firearm education is effective at reaching youth?
Submitted by: Amanda King

There are several problems with this argument. First, the 56 percent decline in fatal firearm accidents in children since the inception of the Eddie Eagle program is an example of what we call a "spurious" correlation. In other words, just because these two events coincided does not mean that one (the program) caused the other (the decline). Since the inception of the Eddie Eagle program, there has also been a strengthening of gun laws, improvements in the economy, and other more global factors which are far more likely to have played a role in the decline.

A discussion of the other factors that may have influenced the decline in firearm-related deaths among children can be found in The Future of Children article by Fingerhut & Christoffel: "Firearm-Related Death and Injury among Children and Adolescents."

The nursing article to which you are referring actually studied only three programs (not 80, as some Web sites have reported), and its measure of "effectiveness" was the program's appeal to users and its bilingual format. The author of this article did not measure the effectiveness of the program with respect to changes in children's attitudes, knowledge, or (most importantly) behavior around guns. In fact, the NRA has no empirical evidence that its program is effective at changing children's behaviors around guns.

The article in question is:

Howard, P.K. An overview of a few well-known national children's gun safety programs and ENA's newly developed program. Journal of Emergency Nursing (October 2001) 27(5), 485-488.


Other Questions in Teaching Children and Parents about the Dangers of Guns

How can a parent be sure that even after educating a child about gun safety, the gun won't be used in anger? Response

Is there any evidence that laws which punish adults for allowing minors access to weapons are effective? Response

How is it possible to teach children not to play with guns? Response

Directing programs towards parents would seem to be problematic. Should we continue focusing on parents? Response

Does playing with guns have a "cathartic" effect or reinforce violent behavior? Response

http://www.futureofchildren.org/discussion2873/discussion_show.htm?doc_id=129299

[cuchulainn]

What in the world is this even supposed to prove? Um, that if you mix a gun in with a bunch of toys, the kid will think it's a toy no matter what you tell him? Golly, I guess this rules out the toy chest for gun storage. :rolleyes:

All kidding aside -- and I'm certainly NOT defending this bogus "study" --
some kids are more curious and less obedient than others, even with the same parenting. Parents have to assess each child and act accordingly.

But the false assumption (strawman argument?) behind these types of "studies" is that Eddie Eagle type programs are presented as the be all and end all of gun safety for children. They're not. They are one tool among many.

[geekWithA.45]

Yup, the study is rubbish, for a number of design and analytical reasons. That doesn't stop it from making a "great sound bite" for the gun bigots, though.

When I was studying psych/research/statistics, we shredded a whole slew of "gun studies", which crop up regularly in the research.

Example of one of the more insidious (but still flawed) designs:

Subjects are put in a room and told to fill out a multiple choice test, selecting choices as to how they would handle various conflict oriented scenarios. Each scenario has as one of the responses a so called "violent response". (Actually, the "violent" responses weren't _actually_ violent, a more fair characterization of them would be "confrontational response")

So, the control group fills out the forms sitting at a table on which a tennis racket "left over from the previous study" is sitting.

The experimental group sits at the same table, upon which a pistol "left over from the previous study" is placed.

Then you compare the incidence of "violent (ahem, confrontational) responses" from the control group compared to the experiment group.

The conclusion of this erstwhile experiment?

That the mere presence of a gun inspires violence.:what:

:fire: :fire: :fire:

My professional opinion: Too much of what we rely on has "the color of science", but not the substance of science. It's what my old professor (A former army/pentagon guy) describes as "voodoo".

If you want to prove it for yourself, first educate yourself on stats/formal scientific experimental design. Understanding a good undergrad textbook is really all you need, the fundamentals are composed of about 7 or 8 concepts. (Too long to get into here)

Then, grab a copy of any prestigious, top of the line medical journal, and grab a study at random.

Chances are, you'll be able to identify flaws in either the methodology, analysis, or conclusions that are big enough to drive a truck through.



I fear for the future of science, to be honest.

Even laying aside the blatantly skewed, politically motivated studies, the literature is just full of crap, and I fear that we are bogging down our scientific progress because we are no longer standing on the shoulders of giants and firmly accepted fact, but on the spongy, moldy swiss cheese of dubious knowledge.

[Old Fuff]

Art is right. What you see here is the “forbidden fruit syndrome” at work. It is safe to say that all of the boys had been conditioned by the entertainment media (movies, TV, video games, etc.) to be interested in guns - probably for the wrong reasons. In the “experiment” the researchers tell certain children that they are not to touch the gun. Fully understanding the rules about pleasing adults they say, “no we won’t.” But when they are left alone (or at least think they are) normal childhood curiosity takes over. What would happen for example, if they substituted a combat knife or even cigarettes and lighters for a gun and repeated their experiment?

This sort of research is “junk science,” designed and intended to support a view held by the researchers concerning a controversial public issue.

[Baba Louie]

Results are in:

Many little boys will do exactly the opposite of what they're told to do (or not do).
WOW. What a surprise!!!

Many little boys will lie if they think it'll keep them out of trouble.
Whoa. Didn't see that one coming!!!

Many Clinical Pyschologists waste their time and (whose?) money studying the obvious and calling it valuable knowledge. But, it does keep them off the streets.

Many little boys like the "Unique Allure" that guns hold, and grow up spending a lot of time and money on the darned things.;)

Adios

[sm]

Interesting thread.
Couple of thoughts:

1)Not one to waste monies on studies, but I'd be curious if a study were conducted of adult males over the age of 40 today and their exposure to firearms growing up and deaths. My point being the difference the family played in raising male kids, teaching firearms safety/responsibilty. Many of males were also taught in schools firearms. We listend to radio shows and later viewed the western and army shows.

The "curiosity" is a natural part of being, responsible parents and adults taught kids. Kids that did not show responsiblity were discilplined (guns taken away, and/or spanked). Get that BB gun out one time without persmisson, or not use muzzle control out hunting...and well lessons stick and butts smart.

2) Girls are not mentioned in this study. Why? I know girls mature faster than boys, however, Girls are curious too. So why not Include the girls?

3) Repeat #1 with the girls, these ladies were exposed like the boys to guns. I mean the stereotype here I disagree with. I'm a guy, exposed to guns, but I was exposed to a cast iron skillet and needle and thread. My sis was exposed to guns, hammers and saws.

I've not taken stats,not that it's needed. Someone with the skill do a forum poll on gender, age and firearms and lets see what gives . I believe our poll will be more accurate and won't cost monies. Maybe include those that have kids and with gender and age do a home test.

Compile and send to the original studies. I bet our documentation will be fair and true.

I just used 40 as an example, but there is difference in the way perceptions and teaching have changed. I'm 48 and Male- Tamara is under 40, so I don't know where --if there is--a "period" where stuff started changing.

Art, Sam...others?

[El Tejon]

So, the solution is . . . EDUCATION! [El Tejon singing] "Teach, the children well, something, something, something or other.":D

Little boys like guns? Shocking! Train 'em up!

[P95Carry]

I'm 48 and Male- Tamara is under 40, so I don't know where --if there is--a "period" where stuff started changing. re1973 .... ya know .. i have tried to work this one out for a long time .... I'm 58 (groan) ...... and male .... but this whole ''process'' seems to have been so insidious, it's near impossible to make markers along the way to identify a ''period'' ... ''this happened then'' .... ''that happened then'' .... nothing really that blatent.

So much has occurred almost imperceptably ... only really being obvious thru retrospective analysis .. comparing the ''now'' with the ''then''.

One major factor has been I believe, the lack of anything on the WWII scale ... wars yes but not the same ...... such that progressively more and more people have grown up in ''peace-time'' .... they have ''had it cushy'' it might be said ... and with that has come more expectation of the easy life and the lazy attitudes. Parenting has followed this by broadly becoming ever less responsible.

In generation terms there always seems to be an ''us'' and ''them'' ....... guess there always has been but now we see this seemingly inexhorable slide .. downwards. Values, attitudes ..... debasing of honor, integrity, respect. All seemingly at an exponential rate ..... :(

Sorry .. waffling as usual!

[sm]

El T, bit off key there, but yeah EDUCATION. Surprising what a kid ( male of female) wants to learn ...being curious and all, when the parents/adults in the kids life teach. I mean turn off the TV, and teach. Pop in a tape and learn Eddie Eagle, from a hunting show, whatever. Besides the kid will come to that responsible adult about questions. Questions that the kid needs honest answers to, and not just guns. I mean there is that "alluring" opposite sex thingy that crops up. Heck, smell of Hoppes helping an adult clean a gun is a great way to answer curious questions, and instill trust.

Kids and parents have always "not gotten along" or "I don't understand". Even so 20/20 hindsight the kid tries to figure out when the parents had time to attend night school...got smart on 'em.:)

Ok, I must be old fashioned. As to the opposite sex...I don't think there is an answer...guns are easier to figure out.;)

El T...just a suggestion...don't sing the 4 rules to your nephews...okay? :D

[Skunkabilly]

I'm 24 and I still like to touch guns :o

[Mike Irwin]

Good.

At least boys are wired correctly from the outset.

It's apparently the soccer moms who beat the goodness out of them with their shrill anti-gun hysterics...

[Standing Wolf]

Leftists don't want boys to be boys: it interferes with their evolution into girly men.