STUDY: FOX News Causes Healthcare Costs to Increase

[iNow]

I had an idea for a study this morning. Perhaps a few have already been done (links if you've got 'em would be great).

 

 

Stress, anxiety, and fear lead to health problems. That has been reinforced by so many studies and so much research that we can take it as given. Stress and fear and anxiety are not good for our health. They consistently lead to other more serious health issues.

 

 

FOX News (and others, but I'm using them as a specific study subject) magnifies, reinforces, and feeds these negative feelings among viewers. Their segments, and the way they present them, lead to significantly increased stress, anxiety, and fear levels in their audience. Their audience is also more geriatric in nature, with a median age of over 65, a higher median age than all of the other primary news sources.

 

Elderly citizens are more prone to health issues, and are also more likely to be impacted more robustly by negative health drivers (such as the aforementioned stress, anxiety, and fear).

 

 

 

The hypothesis is this:

 

FOX News is a direct driver of elevated healthcare costs. Their viewers are more likely to suffer from negative health outcomes than viewers of other news sources, and these negative health outcomes are driven (reinforced/magnified/exacerbated) directly by the stress, fear, and anxiety which their shows purposefully induce and feed among their audience.

 

I think we can study this by sampling a decently sized population, and compare the average healthcare costs of Fox News viewers against non-Fox News viewers, holding other variables as consistent as possible (larger population samples will help to minimize the noise from confounding variables).

 

 

 

What do you think? Is this a reasonable hypothesis? Is there work which supports or negates this conjecture already available to us? Have I wholly lost touch with reality and missed the mark with this?

 

Discuss.

[Mr Skeptic]

Mmmm... "Study finds that watching Fox News linked to strokes and heart attacks"

 

I wonder if anyone would dare do that study, and how hard Fox News listeners will laugh at it?

[Icefire]

It's possible, but I give it a 50-50 chance of being significantly noticeable.

[iNow]

Mmmm... "Study finds that watching Fox News linked to strokes and heart attacks"

Yeah, that's the basic idea, for sure, but even more than just strokes and heart attacks... Higher blood pressure, higher sleep problems, higher all the stuff which comes with increased levels of anxiety, fear, and stress.

 

 

Do readers think that the above is what such a study would actually find? Like I said, the control group would be non-Fox News watchers, but people who do watch news. Would that group have, on average, lower healthcare costs/needs, all other factors being roughly equal?

[Icefire]

I believe so. If what Michael Moore (and quite a few others actually) say is correct, there is a lot of emphasis on sensationalism and news stories about bad things that are happening.

[ercdndrs]

This seems like it would be very hard to prove what you're hypothesising. How would you make sure that people were becoming prone to health problems as a result of watching FOX news? How would you prove that your results are not because people who are prone to health problems are likely to watch FOX news?

[iNow]

First, it's important that you note that scientific research is not generally about proving things, but instead about finding correlations and then making valid inferences as a result of those correlations.

 

Second, much of the concern you raise would be adequately addressed by having a larger enough population sample. The larger the N, the more confident the result.

[Mr Skeptic]

This seems like it would be very hard to prove what you're hypothesising. How would you make sure that people were becoming prone to health problems as a result of watching FOX news? How would you prove that your results are not because people who are prone to health problems are likely to watch FOX news?

 

A very good point. A previous study, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, found that death anxiety (among other things) correlated with conservatism. So, to get good results the study would need to account for this variable. To actually prove causation, the study would have to track a large group over a long period, keeping track of health and conservatism and other variables (such as the aforementioned death anxiety), and show that watching Fox News precedes worsening health.

 

Maybe for a short term study they could simply track the level of stress hormones of TV watchers.

[Pangloss]

I think this would indeed be interesting, especially if the results were compared with CNN and/or MSNBC so we could see which one is worst and ask them to adjust accordingly.

 

The question could be applied to other health-related subjects as well. For example, has there been an increase in the use of casual abortion (as casual birth control) or an increase in anti-male hate crimes (are there such things?) due to frequent "women in peril" media coverage, e.g. "Law & Order: SVU" or "CSI: Miami".

[iNow]

has there been an increase in the use of casual abortion (as casual birth control) or an increase in anti-male hate crimes (are there such things?) due to frequent "women in peril" media coverage, e.g. "Law & Order: SVU" or "CSI: Miami".

 

I think you'd struggle in finding a large enough population sample to obtain meaningful results.

[Drbrigitteholde]

nice post ...............

[ParanoiA]

Well also keep in mind that Fox news more or less signs on to the notion of god and religion, so there could also be a relaxed effect, since they aren't "driving the bus" so to speak. It could be that Fox news viewers are better able to handle the fears that us youngsters are creating in the elderly, because they believe in god and his plan.

 

It could be that atheism is the cause, and not Fox news at all. After all, if I point out a spider and you jump, did I scare you, or did your fear of spiders scare you?

 

Is there any way to distinguish the difference in a study?

[iNow]

Well also keep in mind that Fox news more or less signs on to the notion of god and religion, so there could also be a relaxed effect, since they aren't "driving the bus" so to speak. It could be that Fox news viewers are better able to handle the fears that us youngsters are creating in the elderly, because they believe in god and his plan.

That's an interesting idea, but one which the data seems to argue against. Most studies show, for example, how much MORE afraid of death believers are than non-believers.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7949111.stm

 

 

In further support of this point, and negating the suggestion above, is that studies have found organic atheism to be strongly correlated with high levels of social and mental health, whereas groups with high religiosity scores tend to be the most afraid, neurotic, and unhealthy both socially and mentally. Here's just one example (read: there are many many more):

 

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

 

Finally, there's also been work showing that religiosity matches highly with poverty, and that churches and religions are most common in areas with high poverty and suffering, but I'm not sure that's too relevant... I'll leave it at the two above. You may have a point, but what I've read tends to suggest the contrary.

 

 

 

It could be that atheism is the cause, and not Fox news at all.

Can you clarify your intended meaning here? Atheism is really little more than the outcome of a person who finds the case for god uncompelling. We've had many threads about this, so I'll avoid that particular rabbit hole. However, what do you suggest atheism is causing? (remember... no results have been found... what I put forth in this OP is a hypothesis, not a study outcome).

 

 

After all, if I point out a spider and you jump, did I scare you, or did your fear of spiders scare you?

 

For the purpose of this idea, I don't that is relevant. The issue here is that my physiology was unstressed and relatively calm until you pointed it out. The subject of my attention is not a factor, since my stress was a result of the action you took to point it out to me.

 

Further (and I think you would have to admit this), many times what Fox News points out is hardly objective fact (hey! it's a spider). Very often, it's spun extreme bias with specific narrative intended to reinforce and magnify existing emotions from the reptilian areas of our brains.

 

Anyway... Just because it's the spider which scares someone doesn't mean pointing that spider out is not the issue, especially when upon further inspection we discover that it was just a shadow being cast from the light coming through the curtains.

[ParanoiA]

That's an interesting idea' date=' but one which the data seems to argue against. Most studies show, for example, how much MORE afraid of death believers are than non-believers.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7949111.stm

 

 

In further support of this point, and negating the suggestion above, is that studies have found organic atheism to be strongly correlated with high levels of social and mental health, whereas groups with high religiosity scores tend to be the most afraid, neurotic, and unhealthy both socially and mentally. Here's just one example (read: there are many many more):

 

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/facu...under-7000.pdf[/quote']

 

Well, on short notice, I've found that the religious are at least reporting they are happier, or were when this survey was done.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010672

 

Americans can be divided into three groups when it comes to religious practice. Surveys indicate that about 30% attend houses of worship at least once per week (I will call them "religious"), while about 20% are "secular"--never attending. The rest attend sometimes, but irregularly. These population dimensions have changed relatively little over the decades: Since the early 1970s, the religious group has not shrunk by more than two or three percentage points.

 

How do religious Americans compare to the secular when it comes to happiness? In 2004, the General Social Survey asked a sample of Americans, "Would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?" Religious people were more than twice as likely as the secular to say they were "very happy" (43% to 21%). Meanwhile, secular people were nearly three times as likely as the religious to say they were not too happy (21% to 8%). In the same survey, religious people were more than a third more likely than the secular to say they were optimistic about the future (34% to 24%).

 

The happiness gap between religious and secular people is not because of money or other personal characteristics. Imagine two people who are identical in every important way--income, education, age, sex, family status, race and political views. The only difference is that the first person is religious; the second is secular. The religious person will still be 21 percentage points more likely than the secular person to say that he or she is very happy.

 

This is a good read too:

 

http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/happy.htm

 

What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness.

 

And check this out:

 

One important exception to this trend, however, is found in one of the most famous studies in the psychology of religion. In the days before research boards reviewed research proposals before the studies were conducted, Pahnke devised an experiment to induce people to have a religious experience. On a Good Friday, when they were to meditate in a chapel for 2.5 hours, twenty theology students were given either psilocybin or a placebo. The students who were given the psilocybin reported intense religious experiences, as you might imagine. Their levels of happiness also were significantly greater than the control group reported. But what is especially interesting is that these effects remained 6 months after the experiment, as the psilocybin group reported more "persistent and positive changes" in their attitudes to life than did the placebo group.

 

That would seem to suggest a closeness with god helps to create happiness. Makes sense too for those who believe in such things.

 

So, are they happier and more afraid? And now, what's more important? Happiness that costs fear, or brevity at the expense of happiness?

[iNow]

Well, thanks, but this thread is about Fox viewership regardless of religious affiliation or belief, not about religious affiliation or belief regardless of news viewership. As I said in my previous post, I'm not sure... you may have a point, it's just not really important to this hypothesis.

[Mr Skeptic]

That's an interesting idea, but one which the data seems to argue against. Most studies show, for example, how much MORE afraid of death believers are than non-believers.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7949111.stm

 

 

In further support of this point, and negating the suggestion above, is that studies have found organic atheism to be strongly correlated with high levels of social and mental health, whereas groups with high religiosity scores tend to be the most afraid, neurotic, and unhealthy both socially and mentally. Here's just one example (read: there are many many more):

 

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

 

Of course the study you cited claims the cause and effect for that is the other way around:

Of course, none of the above correlations demonstrate that high levels

of organic atheism cause societal health, or that low levels of organic atheism

cause societal ills. Rather, societal health seems to cause widespread atheism, and

societal insecurity seems to cause widespread belief in God, as has been

demonstrated by Norris and Inglehart (2004), mentioned above.

Incidentally, the Bible also mentions quite frequently how the Israelites tend to abandon God whenever they have peace and prosperity.

[ewmon]

IMO...

 

The news media enjoys a position (and profits) of its own making and at the people's expense. Over the decades, news programs have gone from humdrum, money-losing public service broadcasts to flashy, glitzy extremely high-profit productions.

 

They rely on gut-level sensationalism, and they sensitize and prey on people's fears. Consumer feedback has become very sophisticated, and if, for example, the public strongly reacts to a story of a kitten put in a microwave, the media can immediately search the world for stories of animals put into microwaves and/or other sad stories of kittens, and the people will get a false impression of the world worry that it has suddenly gone crazy over kittens and/or microwaves. We also have 24-hour news channels and more technology to bring the news more graphically to people.

 

And the media will simply claim that they do it because the people want it. I believe that the news media has gone from a fairly balanced view of life to an animalistic knee-jerk reaction nature of reporting. IMO, as in the original Star Trek series episode "Wolf in the Fold", the news media has become a malicious incorporeal entity that feeds on fear.

[iNow]

Over the decades, news programs have gone from humdrum, money-losing public service broadcasts to flashy, glitzy extremely high-profit productions.

 

They rely on gut-level sensationalism, and they sensitize and prey on people's fears.

And my hypothesis is that Fox News does so on average more than the other primary news sources, and that this can be quantized by measuring the healthcare requirements and costs of viewers. My hypothesis is that viewers of Fox News will on average suffer more stress/fear related disorders than viewers of other news sources.

[joshuam168]

delete

Edited July 21, 2010 by joshuam168

[iNow]

Can one of the mods move this thread? It doesn't fit into a medical discussion. It's merely politics as evidenced by the fact that the OP singles out one news station instead of saying "news stations". I don't appreciate politics in here

The other news stations serve as a baseline. Please read more closely. This is a suggested study... a proposal... a hypothesis... a scientific conjecture. The thread was positioned in such a way that the home it was given is accurate.

 

Perhaps you should get more than 50 posts under your belt before you start trying to redecorate and use the mods as your hired help.

Edited July 21, 2010 by iNow

[joshuam168]

gone

Edited July 21, 2010 by joshuam168

[ParanoiA]

I pay very little attention to politics, from what I have seen FOX news gets rapped on a lot, thereby leading me to the conclusion that this is political bias?

 

So, why choose fox? Why not cnn or nbc? Do you watch fox or nbc or cnn or none? If you don't watch FOX than this seems to be merely a political statement against the news station.

 

 

He chose Fox because they are the only news outlet that overtly compliments the conservative agenda and associated phobias, which is necessary for his hypothesis. The subject matter might be political, but the purpose is not. This would be akin to a psychological hypothesis involving chocolate's effect on the brain - while the subject matter might be edible, it's most certainly a scientific purpose. (speaking of which, I'd be happy to participate in any study involving chocolate.. )

 

 

And do not attack with words or I will report, I do not wish for an argument so please enlighten me to your viewpoint rather than attacking.

 

Forgive him lord, he knows not what he asks...

[iNow]

So, does anyone else have any comments about the idea itself? That is what this thread was intended to discuss... The hypothesis... Not to get into petty vitriol spitting matches.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The other news stations serve as a baseline. Please read more closely. This is a suggested study... a proposal... a hypothesis... a scientific conjecture. The thread was positioned in such a way that the home it was given is accurate.

 

Perhaps you should get more than 50 posts under your belt before you start trying to redecorate and use the mods as your hired help.

Postcount-based elitism? Really? I haven't seen any of that since the days I regularly made 25 posts per day.

 

This is now one of the best threads we've ever had in Speculations, since it proposes a clear hypothesis, makes testable predictions, proposes a method for testing those predictions, and was rather civil until very recently.

 

Anyway, carry on.

[JohnB]

Not being from the US I'm not too familiar with the US networks.

 

But as I understand it FOX tends to the right and the others tend to the left. I don't see that this is actually relevent.

 

The assumption is to use the others as a baseline to compare with FOX and this would be fine if the others really are a baseline. Since we are talking about scaring people and healthcare costs, wouldn't a definitive comparison between networks be needed first? The implicit assumption of using the other networks as a base is that FOX is an outlier "bad" news wise, while this might be politically true, the connection to "bad" news content is pure conjecture.

 

How many reports of "bad" things, the prominance given to each item, the number of "follow up" stories, even the number of "related" items broadcast. These factors would need to researched first to find out if FOX is indeed an outlier in "bad" news reporting. Where does it put the original hypothesis if FOX comes in in the middle of the pack and not as an outlier?

 

I think that the problem with the study as originally proposed is that there are too many assumptions, a mistake in any of which will influence the outcome. This would render results meaningless. Quantitive values would have to be assigned to certain factors before any study findings could be viewed as "conclusive" in any way.