Suppose that people who watch a lot of violence on TV are also particularly likely to behave aggressively. This relationship would NOT necessarily indicate that watching violence influences aggressive behavior because association does not prove causation. True /False ?

True.

The statement is correct that association does not prove causation. Just because two variables are associated or correlated, meaning there is a relationship where they seem to vary together, doesn't mean that one variable actually causes the other. In the example provided, while there might be a relationship between watching violence on TV and behaving aggressively, we cannot automatically conclude that watching violence causes aggressive behavior.

There are other possible explanations for this observed association:

1. Reverse Causation: It may be that aggressive individuals are drawn to violent TV shows rather than the TV shows causing the aggression.

2. Third Factor: There could be a third factor influencing both, such as a psychological predisposition to aggression that also makes violent content more appealing.

3. Coincidence: The apparent association might be coincidental or due to chance.

To demonstrate causation, researchers would have to control for these other variables and ideally conduct experimental studies where participants are randomly assigned to watch violent or non-violent TV content and then measure the differences in their aggressive behaviors in controlled conditions.