26 ms·

Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

211 points by newsreview1 7y ago

aphextim 7y ago
Same reason that when they show the shooter's face all over the media and they give them tons and tons of attention, it typically spawns more copycats who are just lonely/sad/broken teens looking for the same attention. In the show, this teen's suicide was portrayed to have had an impact on many students/families/teachers etc for a very long time after the incident. It almost glorified the suicide and the methods of leaving tapes behind. Real suicide is not so glorious and does not leave a much of an impact as you would think, other than on the immediate family. For example, when my mother committed suicide, my sister, grandparents and myself were impacted severely for a bit, but outside of our family circle it didn't have as much of an impact. When I was in high school, we had a student commit suicide, which we ended up having 1 school meeting regarding it, but after about a week it had been forgotten by most and swept under the rug as everyone moved on to the next thing. I guess I am biased based on my two experiences with suicide, however glorifying it in any way will only lead to more incidents.
- quedicestu 7y ago
  This is true in some cases, and false in others. It is sad to think how ephemeral life can be, but the living and legacy aspects. It can also be freeing.
- pm90 7y ago
  Makes sense. But how do we address it? It’s not like we can stop the media from reporting on such things. Perhaps the show could have been rated for adults only? It seems like teens today do face challenges that weren’t faced by my generation or the ones before that. Social media, internet enabled always on devices seem to have changed the experience of being a teenager. Perhaps there are deeper issues at stake that need addressing?
  - aaomidi 7y ago
    Back when hollywood was facing censorship they realized they need to self censor or stats like this will be used against them. This is an example of where Netflix acted without thinking what impacts a show like this will have. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and this was on Netflix to resolve. The first step in this case would be to take it down from Netflix. Or they're going to face people calling for it to be taken down through the state.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      You mean the same "state" that blames "violent video games" for mass violence ignoring the centuries of lynching in the US?
      - aaomidi 7y ago
        I never said the state is an always good or always bad entity. It's there to respond to people, and sometimes make its own shit up because of money. I'm just explaining the system we have right now and how netflix is playing with fire.
  - rhcom2 7y ago
    There are ways to report on suicide responsibly that are supported by evidence[1]. I think we need similar guidelines for mass shootings. [1] http://reportingonsuicide.org/ http://reportingonsuicide.org/
  - dpkonofa 7y ago
    >It’s not like we can stop the media from reporting on such things. Sure you can. Stop watching it. Tell your friends to stop watching it and why. The media nowadays is all about going over the top and sensationalizing things because that's what gets the eyeballs on the screens and that's where the advertisements get them money. Hurt their wallets and they'll stop.
    - avgDev 7y ago
      This will never work IMO. Media has done the work, the work is based on science. Some people are turned off by current news media but they know more eye balls will tune in if it is over the top. These companies are exploiting human nature. We cannot hurt their wallets because generally people don't care. Maybe eventually humans will change. However, once they notice different trends they will adopt. They don't care either, they just maximizing profits. It is simple really.
- umvi 7y ago
  The scary thing is that both this article and the example you cited are used as reasons to limit constitutional freedoms: Limit second amendment more to prevent mass shootings. Limit first amendment more to prevent suicides. Really though, we should be focusing on the root cause: lonely/sad/broken people. Focus on helping/loving them and I bet suicide/mass shooting rates drop significantly.
  - TheArcane 7y ago
    > Limit second amendment more to prevent more shootings. I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines.
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines. Not sure why you put quotes around constitutional freedom. The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine. As simple as that.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US.
        mieseratte 7y ago
        > It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US. It's weird to me that advocating for the cessation of an absolute right to self-defense is a mainstream political position. It's not as if history is one peachy peace-and-love orgy.
- ajeet_dhaliwal 7y ago
  I don't have much experience with suicide but to add to this, I think attention can go both ways. I once saw a picture of someone who had committed suicide and it was quite distressing. Attention can both lead to glorification or put people off, depending on the way it's done. In most cases it seems to be hidden away and people may not know what actually happens when they do this. One common example now is the jumping off a bridge death into water is still considered a peaceful way to go whereas it's extremely violent and all the organs are ripped out of their positions.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    > I don't have much experience with suicide but to add to this, I think attention can go both ways. It's the difference between a ruggedly handsome cowboy and a diseased lung on your pack of smokes.
- duxup 7y ago
  NPR did a good story on a study that examined what shooters DO and DO NOT like. They like videos of chaos and screaming. They like their photo shown. They don't like stories about the victims that make the victims seem like they're human. What they were doing before the shootings, things they did with their lives, etc. They don't like stories about the community itself that aren't just about the event (shooting). I noticed NPR does a lot of stories about the the victims. Nothing should be legally restricted, but I think news orgs can do their job 100% and still participate in a potentially helpful manner. To be clear there is no science that says doing any of these things reduce any amount of shooting or such, but it seems like a reasonable theory that if they see shootings result in coverage they don't like, it might discourage them if they think they won't get what they want.
  - giggles_giggles 7y ago
    I'm surprised that what shooters like/do not like can be generalized like this. I would have expected that it was more dependent upon the specific psychology of the shooter than this.
    - duxup 7y ago
      IIRC a lot of mass shooters are focused on the aftermath and coverage / impact of their acts and what they imagine the media coverage is was important to a lot of them. I suspect there are exceptions. Also due to the number of people available for study I have to think certainly possible that things aren't as the study implied.
    - awakeasleep 7y ago
      Especially interesting that this is 'known' considering how most shooters die in the event.
      - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
        A lot of the research about shooters can be based on their manifestos/writings, and many shooters have shown interest in previous shooters and coverage of them, so that's probably where a lot of this could be drawn from.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- notus 7y ago
  It didn't almost glorify suicide, it 100% glorified suicide.
- jdavis703 7y ago
  > Real suicide is not so glorious and does not leave a much of an impact as you would think, other than on the immediate family. This isn't true. I can still remember the bloodied face of a woman I saw struck by a train. I remember the pedastrian strikes I've seen whenever I ride past the location or go through the station. If I jump in front of a train I can delay tens of thousands of people. I'm wasting several person years of other people's time. I might get in the news just for that. The train engineer will remember that moment for the rest of their life. So will the people who saw my jump. And the maintenance man who has to clean my blood and guts off the train will also remember.
- soperj 7y ago
  I think you'd be surprised. I had a friend for a couple years in Junior High. He had some family issues, and ended up getting kicked out of school, and we lost touch. 6-7 years after high school, he killed himself. I've never talked to the family, but still think about him.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  > When I was in high school, we had a student commit suicide, which we ended up having 1 school meeting regarding it, but after about a week it had been forgotten by most and swept under the rug as everyone moved on to the next thing. I've had a similar situation, but with the total opposite experience. The entire town had railed around the event.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  You are absolutely right they glamorized suicide. But doesn't all media do that for the most part? I mean, most people are looking for escapism. It's particularly galling that they do it with suicide, but it's what people want: 1- Movies/TV glamorizes violence from gangsters/mob/police/army... or they demonize it. 2- Movies glamorize drinking/smoking/taking drugs... or they demonize it. 3- Movies glamorize casual sex/strip clubs... or they demonize it. 4- Movies glamorize college... or they demonize it. 5- Movies glamorize having money... or they demonize it. 6- Movies glamorize 'justice' (criminal justice, etc) I think the series is an insult to everyone who has been exposed to a suicide in their life, but I think that applies to many points. The guy who spent 15 years in jail falsely convicted won't appreciate the BS that is CSI. Just like the guy who is a recovering alcoholic, the ex-stripper, the person who lived real life violence like war, etc. Whenever something bothers me, and this series bothers me plenty, I look within and why it bothers me. Why other things that might be similar don't. It really helps me understand our shared humanity.
- appleshore 7y ago
  People underestimate the prevalence of random suicidal thoughts. A lot is probably intrusive thoughts or just life frustrations pushed into a form. People should be taught to be skeptical of bad thoughts and understand how chaotic the brain can act. Otherwise random thoughts can materialize into fixations and be re-enforced by biases. Life is hard, it occasionally gets you down but thinking bad thoughts doesn’t make you “sick”, it just makes you human.
effnorwood 7y ago
When can we expect prison sentences for all those involved?
pseudolus 7y ago
Obviously horrific but a major failing of the study is that it doesn't state what percentage of the teens who committed suicide actually watched or were even aware of Netflix's "13 Reasons Why". The conclusions are drawn from very indirect evidence.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  Exactly. I was wondering if I missed it, but I guess not. There is no indication in the research if these suicidal teens actually watched the show (or what percentage) prior to taking their own lives. I realize this is difficult evidence to gather, but without it, they're showing a pretty week correlation. There could be many other factors.
- jammygit 7y ago
  A randomized double bind study probably has ethical issues. I guess this is the best we can do, unless Netflix volunteers viewing data for everyone
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I wonder if that is even needed ironically given second order exposure and cultural concepts leaking out regardless of actually watching it or not. Granted the "second hand" usually takes time for diffusion of concepts.
pgrote 7y ago
"When researchers analyzed the data by sex, they found the increase in the suicide rate was primarily driven by significant increases in suicide in young males. While suicide rates for females increased after the show’s release, the increase was not statistically significant." I have watched the series. I wonder why males saw a significant increase in suicides if the show revolved around a female suicide. And, yes, I understand they didn't find direct causation. There explanation at the end was refreshing. "While compelling, this research had several limitations. For example, the study used a quasi-experimental design, meaning that the researchers cannot make a causal link between the release of “13 Reasons Why” and the observed changes in suicide rates. The researchers cannot, therefore, rule out the possibility that unmeasured events or factors influenced suicide rates during this period."
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  Males commit suicide more, in general (in western countries). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide Edit - as for why there were more male suicides linked to this show, one reason for male suicides in western countries is the increasing marginalisation of men (whereas in countries with more female suicides or a more equal ratio, women are highly marginalised). If the show glorifies suicide as a way to gain more attention and de-marginalise the individual, it makes sense that more young men would do it.
  - ousta 7y ago
    be careful don't state facts like this here. that might trigger some Californians.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Men are more successful, but women try more often.
    - Mikeb85 7y ago
      'Try'.
tyingq 7y ago
I'm curious if there's an unusual dip after the spike. In other words, it might have accelerated some suicides, versus adding to the overall rate over a longer time period.
- asadlionpk 7y ago
  That would be true if all the population watched the series at t0. But in reality the series is always new to someone somewhere.
  - jfrankamp 7y ago
    I think the parent was implying that the show's effect was time shifting imminent suicides to 'now'. Since the consumption of streaming media is big-spike-on-release + long tail, that big spike when the show is released would still be visible. It would look like a spike and then dip for suicides averaging to the trend line on a larger time scale.
    - tyingq 7y ago
      That's a terrific summary. Thank you. I'm predicting a dip based on acceleration versus any real additive effect. I could certainly be wrong but the stats would be enlightening.
gberger 7y ago
Where can I find the full text of the study?
- coolspot 7y ago
  https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.02...
MattSteelblade 7y ago
Is there a link to the study?
acf_plot 7y ago
But how many of those students watched the series? Or was it less direct? Maybe the show’s popularity led to a higher number of suicide discussions, insults, references etc?
kaffeemitsahne 7y ago
Potentially OT. Why do people write >"While suicide rates for females increased after the show’s release, the increase was not statistically significant." instead of >"Suicide rates for females did not increase significantly after the show's release." ? I have seen this quite often and it always seems a bit misleading to me. Edit: I should have written the 2nd version as "No statistically significant increase in [...] was found". My point is not about the difference between "significance" and "statistical significance" but about mentioning an effect, while also saying the effect is not statistically significant. If it's not statistically significant, why mention it?
- Matticus_Rex 7y ago
  Significance and statistical significance are two different things, and it's good for them to be distinguished.
- tikhonj 7y ago
  This is a recurring issue because "significant" means very different things in different contexts. The first sentence reads as "rates increased, but in a way that is not distinguishable from noise", while the second reads as "rates increased, but not to an extent that matters".
  - lazugod 7y ago
    The second reads as though there wasn’t even an insignificant increase, which is very different.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  They observed an increase, but the statistical test they used couldn't distinguish it from noise with sufficient confidence to call it "statistically significant." Statistical significance and a significant increase aren't the same. A statistically significant increase might be totally insignificant, and for a small enough study, a subjectively "significant" increase might be statistically insignificant.
- clircle 7y ago
penagwin 7y ago
Depression is a tough topic. Speaking from experience here, it's healthy to talk about your feelings, etc. But if you look at the communities like # depression on tumblr/reddit etc, I bet it will make healthy people feel a bit depressed. In kinda a cyclic issue, the problem is that depressed people need to sorrounded them selves with happy people to talk to, consume more positive media,etc. Otherwise you end up feeding your own depression, producing and consuming more depressive content and comments with others. To anyone facing depression : Please talk to a therapist, and consider avoiding needlessly negative communities/media. Sorrounding yourself with depressing things won't help.
- jammygit 7y ago
  I actually disagree somewhat: if I’m feeling terrible, happy music makes me feel worse but something a little similar to my mood is soothing. I think that’s why Marilyn Manson and NIN were so popular Edit: this is to an extent only. Burying yourself in an extremely negative place does make things worse if you spend too much time there or go in too deep
  - penagwin 7y ago
    I understand that feeling for sure! One of the common coping strategies (this is a real strategy) my doctors have tried with me is: "Think about how others are in worse situations". But for me that made me feel worse. I'm financially stable, decently intelligent, have been given a great start at life, etc. yet I can't go to the grocery store without having a panic attack? How pathetic is that? On paper I should have nothing to complain about - but the depression SAID NO. So I definitely understand how you feel. It's kinda like how if you just broke up with somebody serious, watching a makeout scene in a movie would just suck.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Yeah, I think that the whole "healthy to talk" thing has kind of gone a bit too far here. It's useful to talk to someone who's understanding; perhaps someone who's been through, or has experienced someone else going through, similar issues. It's not useful to fall into a community full of broken people who don't know how to help each other.
Havoc 7y ago
This must be brutal for the producers & actors. I'd be crushed.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Netflix was told over and over that it would be prudent to remove the most graphic scene, and it refused to... for two years. Until they did. https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696151/13-reasons-why-netflix-suicide-scene-removed-controversy-medical-experts https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696151/13-reasons-why-n...
  - mffnbs 7y ago
    Wow, this was recent, too.
aledalgrande 7y ago
Funny how one tv series would have induced many suicides, while currently family situation and society have nothing to do with it? Please...
onychomys 7y ago
Here's the study itself, although it's not open access, so you'll need to be somewhere that can get you access to it. https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/fulltext https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/fulltex...
- coolspot 7y ago
  Hey, I just found someone - https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.02...
riffic 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...
- elicash 7y ago
  Did you even bother to read the article? They state this themselves. > The lack of change in homicide rates during the period of interest lends some strength to the idea that changes in suicide rates were influenced by the show and not some other environmental or social factor that occurred during this period. [...] > While compelling, this research had several limitations. For example, the study used a quasi-experimental design, meaning that the researchers cannot make a causal link between the release of “13 Reasons Why” and the observed changes in suicide rates. The researchers cannot, therefore, rule out the possibility that unmeasured events or factors influenced suicide rates during this period.
  - riffic 7y ago
    no, I didn't bother to read the press release and I do not have access to the source journal.
  - rightbyte 7y ago
    They also write: "Conclusion: The release of 13 Reasons Why was associated with a significant increase in monthly suicide rates among U.S. youth aged 10 to 17 years. Caution regarding the exposure of children and adolescents to the series is warranted." The could have written the exact opposite since the release also is associated (according to the authors) with a CI [downwards going to less increasing] trend in suicide rates. April 2015 was also a spike April. And the March to April step in suicides 2017 when the series was released is not bigger than many other steps. I would say there has to be more to it than what the authors provide to claim something is associated with an increase. Actually, all events that has happened since the beginning of the data series could be associated with a "significant increase monthly suicide rates among U.S. youth aged 10 to 17 years" since the long trend is in that direction.
  - Rapzid 7y ago
sigstoat 7y ago
the title of the paper is at the bottom of the nih page. plugging that into google produces this page: https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/pdf https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/pdf which combined with sci-hub, gets you full text.
slg 7y ago
>When researchers analyzed the data by sex, they found the increase in the suicide rate was primarily driven by significant increases in suicide in young males. "13 Reasons Why" was a show about the suicide of a young girl and was primarily aimed at a young female audience. If the studies numbers were primarily driven by an increase in suicides among young males, the causation implied seems rather dubious.
- kaonashi 7y ago
  You don't think young men can find young women influencing?
  - slg 7y ago
    That isn't my point. My point was that young men are less likely to be aware of or watch a show that isn't targeted at them. They can't really be inspired to copy something that they aren't familiar with. Similarly if the show was the cause of the spike and the audience was largely young girls, why wasn't there a statistically significant spike in the suicide rate of girls?
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      > They can't really be inspired to copy something that they aren't familiar with. Can't they? Who's to say they weren't more influenced because the protagonist was female? The show still had a significant male viewership rate of 35%. That's not the majority, but it isn't small either.
  - nightfly 7y ago
    The viewership of 13 reasons why was 65% female, 35% male. The show would have to a have an inordinately, disproportionately, strong impact on males to cause almost a 29% increase in male suicides, but a non statistically significant increase in female suicides with that viewership distribution.
kart23 7y ago
Yeah no cap they kinda glorified suicide. I don't mean like the gritty details, but like the concept. The show romanticizes suicide as a way to get back at the people who harmed you, solve your problems, and make a huge impact on all the people around you, for better or worse.
lwf 7y ago
Interesting to ponder, but hard to draw any conclusions. There are too many confounding factors, including other prominent suicides covered in the media. LA Times article criticising the study[1]: > While no variations in the suicide rate were found for people ages 18-64, the rate among people ages 10 to 17 increased by 28.9% in April 2017, the month after the series debuted, the study said. It was also up significantly in June and December of that year, and was higher than expected in March 2017, when the show was heavily promoted. The April 2017 rate was the highest in the five-year period that was studied. > Outside events include things such as the much-covered suicides of Soundgarden’s Chris Cornell in May 2017 and Chester Bennington of Linkin Park in July of that year, and the death of musician Tom Petty by accidental overdose that October, Moutier says. Also, former NFL star Aaron Hernandez died by suicide in April 2017. […] > Here’s how a 28.9% increase can also be described as a “weak association,” according to Moutier: The overall suicide rate of boys 10-17 is actually very low, she says, around 0.6 per 100,000 people. Therefore, any change could be seen as significant change. Guest column from the executive producer of the show[2]: > However, the research failed to substantiate the author's own hypothesis: that when the show launched on March 31, 2017, young females would be most affected, because it's a girl whose suicide is depicted onscreen. In fact, there was no increase in suicide rates for adolescent girls that spring — and for boys the increase started before the show even launched. As you can see from the chart below, which is based on the same government data, suicide counts for adolescent girls over the last decade have been much more stable than for boys, which have risen consistently. The highest recorded month for girls was November 2016, well before anyone had ever watched 13 Reasons Why. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-13-reasons-why-suicide-study-netflix-20190501-story.html https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-13-reasons... [2]: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/13-reasons-why-creator-refutes-studies-linking-netflix-hit-suicide-increase-guest-column-1213858 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/13-reasons-why-c...
ggreer 7y ago
The full text is on Sci-hub: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020 I'm extremely skeptical. I don't know how many ways they carved up the data before they found a segment of the population with increased suicide rates at the right time. Also, the show is about a girl who kills herself, but the female rate of suicide didn't increase enough to be considered statistically significant. Lastly, the spike in suicides starts in March, which is a month before the show was released. Their claim only makes sense if you think that watching the trailer is enough to trigger suicides.
- sigstoat 7y ago
  > I don't know how many ways they carved up the data before they found a segment of the population with increased suicide rate at the right time. and they still reported 9 different categorizations (overall/male/female * 3 age groups), and could only find one with a change. it isn't clear to me if they corrected for the multiple comparisons they did report.
  - ggreer 7y ago
    Right, but that doesn't tell me how many other ways they carved the data up and didn't report it in the paper. Maybe they initially chose different age groups (10-22, 23-50, >50) and found no effect. Then they tweaked the categories and tada, controversial paper!
    - sigstoat 7y ago
      > Right, but that doesn't tell me how many other ways they carved the data up and didn't report it in the paper. i understand that and i don't believe i contradicted you, rather i was emphasizing: they _admitted_ to 9 different carvings and only got 1 interesting one. what they did under the hood had to be even worse!
- malandrew 7y ago
  Maybe I missed it in the article, but did they check the Netflix viewing history of those that committed suicide. Seems like that would be a critical causal link. If a show about suicide is available on Netflix and no one is around to watch it...
ryanmercer 7y ago
But how many people realized they were depressed, or someone around them had suicidal tendencies, and got help as a result of this program?
devin 7y ago
I seem to remember suicide being considered cool in the grunge era of the 90s, especially after Kurt Cobain took his life. I wonder if there’s data on that.
jgrowl 7y ago
> NIH-supported study highlights the importance of responsible portrayal of suicide by the media I'm not going to say that media doesn't play a part, but this is mostly a symptom of an inadequate mental health system and a disfunctional society that provides no sense of community/cohesion. Many of us are painfully alone and directionless. We come from broken homes and experience neglect and abuse in childhood. Pointing the blame at a TV show just feels insulting.
thinkcontext 7y ago
A pet peeve of mine is the noble suicide trope used often in film and tv. Armageddon, Aliens, Endgame, 7 Pounds, its everywhere. I haven't seen any research but I imagine it could normalize suicide in the minds of the impressionable young. I get that's its an effective (though artistically blunt) plot device but I would prefer that it be used less.
- chasd00 7y ago
  lots of heroic stories result in the death of the hero. I suppose suicide is technically correct but the story is a heroic sacrifice not a suicide.
ysleepy 7y ago
Paper: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gUa9-SNEkTgJ:https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/pdf+ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gUa9-S... The Werther Effect was well known, from inception, filming and publishing, the concerns seem to have been brushed aside. I really can't see how the studio, netflix and the producers can reject the blame for the induced suicides. The show distinctly glorifies suicide, playing on the emotional issues and need for acknowledgment of teenagers. Responsibility does not vanish if the effects are indirect or abstract. "We produced the show true to the book." is no defense at all and there is a higher moral standard if you sell a product to children still.
pessimizer 7y ago
It's a show that (at least from the title, and a quick summary of the plot) agrees with the common, awful idea that what people do to you can make you kill yourself, and that killing yourself will somehow punish the people who made you do it. You would expect it to increase teen suicides as much as you would expect a slickly produced show about a suicide bombing in a shopping mall causing an unjust government to fall and the bomber to be remembered forever as a hero to increase suicide bombings.
rightbyte 7y ago
This is just bogus p-hacking and perverse causality analysis. Look at their graph of monthly data. https://i.imgur.com/mc8PJW8.png https://i.imgur.com/mc8PJW8.png You can't draw any conclusion from that but that it is an overall increasing trend with cyclic tendencies by season. March prior to the release in the end of March was already all time high rate of suicides. "Table 1. Association Between the Release of 13 Reasons Why and Suicide in the United States, by Age Group" I mean ... it's just stupid. The series' premiere date is also a arbitrary point in time. I don't refute that the series might have increased the suicide rate, but I have no idea how to verify that or put a estimate on it. The authors surely don't know either.
- vadansky 7y ago
  Worse part is the top comments contains the following, based on this p-hacking garbage: >The scary thing is that both this article and the example you cited are used as reasons to limit constitutional freedoms
boomboomsubban 7y ago
These suicide studies are ridiculous. A 30% increase works out to something like twenty additional suicides in a population of around forty million. Trying to blame that on a television show seems far fetched.
bpfrh 7y ago
This is not suprising and not the first time something like this happend. There is even a term for that "Werther Effekt" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sctb 7y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19788773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19788773.
ta0xdeadbeef 7y ago
Throwaway and vagueness for hopefully obvious reasons. I was loosely involved in the production of this show. I didn't find out about it until after our contribution was finished. If I had known what content we were working on I would voiced my concern. I'm deeply ashamed I had anything to do with this and if I had known, I wish I could have verbalized my objection and voiced concern over being affiliated with the reckless disregard the production staff has for a leading cause of death among people in America that has taken the lives of friends and family.
emtel 7y ago
You should be _extremely_ skeptical of this finding. 1. It's an observational, retrospective study. 2. The control analysis is dubious, and its unclear if the control analysis was selected in advance. 2. It's an astonishingly high effect size. 3. They do numerous sub-group analyses without any indication that such analyses were pre-registered, and apparently without doing any multiple-comparisons corrections (e.g. bonferroni). 3. From the article: "The observed suicide rate for March 2017 — the month prior to the release of “13 Reasons Why” — was also higher than forecast. The researchers note that the show was highly promoted during the month of March, exposing audiences to the show’s premise and content through trailers. The researchers did not find any significant trends in suicide rates in people 18- to 64 years of age." We're being asked to believe not only that the show itself can have this huge effect, but that the trailer can too. But only among males in a certain age group. This stinks.
- Rapzid 7y ago
  Nothing about this "research" is compelling. This is 2019s Momo; hide your kids!
zzaacchh 7y ago
This news marks the end of my Netflix subscription. This news should have everyone at the company questioning why they are contributing to service that claimed the lives of nearly two hundred children.
stjohnswarts 7y ago
So I suppose that we should ban series about suicide... Also the more people that drive, also increases the number of people who die on the road, thus it follows that we ban driving.
stunt 7y ago
The movies we watch can affect our decisions and choices we make in our life. And the affect is different for different people. In the same way that those sponsored scenes already did to smoking and drinking trends. Bad driving styles, attraction to martial art etc.

211 points by newsreview1 7y ago

Same reason that when they show the shooter's face all over the media and they give them tons and tons of attention, it typically spawns more copycats who are just lonely/sad/broken teens looking for the same attention. In the show, this teen's suicide was portrayed to have had an impact on many students/families/teachers etc for a very long time after the incident. It almost glorified the suicide and the methods of leaving tapes behind. Real suicide is not so glorious and does not leave a much of an impact as you would think, other than on the immediate family. For example, when my mother committed suicide, my sister, grandparents and myself were impacted severely for a bit, but outside of our family circle it didn't have as much of an impact. When I was in high school, we had a student commit suicide, which we ended up having 1 school meeting regarding it, but after about a week it had been forgotten by most and swept under the rug as everyone moved on to the next thing. I guess I am biased based on my two experiences with suicide, however glorifying it in any way will only lead to more incidents.

quedicestu 7y ago
This is true in some cases, and false in others. It is sad to think how ephemeral life can be, but the living and legacy aspects. It can also be freeing.
pm90 7y ago
Makes sense. But how do we address it? It’s not like we can stop the media from reporting on such things. Perhaps the show could have been rated for adults only? It seems like teens today do face challenges that weren’t faced by my generation or the ones before that. Social media, internet enabled always on devices seem to have changed the experience of being a teenager. Perhaps there are deeper issues at stake that need addressing?
- aaomidi 7y ago
  Back when hollywood was facing censorship they realized they need to self censor or stats like this will be used against them. This is an example of where Netflix acted without thinking what impacts a show like this will have. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and this was on Netflix to resolve. The first step in this case would be to take it down from Netflix. Or they're going to face people calling for it to be taken down through the state.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    You mean the same "state" that blames "violent video games" for mass violence ignoring the centuries of lynching in the US?
    - aaomidi 7y ago
      I never said the state is an always good or always bad entity. It's there to respond to people, and sometimes make its own shit up because of money. I'm just explaining the system we have right now and how netflix is playing with fire.
- rhcom2 7y ago
  There are ways to report on suicide responsibly that are supported by evidence[1]. I think we need similar guidelines for mass shootings. [1] http://reportingonsuicide.org/ http://reportingonsuicide.org/
- dpkonofa 7y ago
  >It’s not like we can stop the media from reporting on such things. Sure you can. Stop watching it. Tell your friends to stop watching it and why. The media nowadays is all about going over the top and sensationalizing things because that's what gets the eyeballs on the screens and that's where the advertisements get them money. Hurt their wallets and they'll stop.
  - avgDev 7y ago
    This will never work IMO. Media has done the work, the work is based on science. Some people are turned off by current news media but they know more eye balls will tune in if it is over the top. These companies are exploiting human nature. We cannot hurt their wallets because generally people don't care. Maybe eventually humans will change. However, once they notice different trends they will adopt. They don't care either, they just maximizing profits. It is simple really.
umvi 7y ago
The scary thing is that both this article and the example you cited are used as reasons to limit constitutional freedoms: Limit second amendment more to prevent mass shootings. Limit first amendment more to prevent suicides. Really though, we should be focusing on the root cause: lonely/sad/broken people. Focus on helping/loving them and I bet suicide/mass shooting rates drop significantly.
- TheArcane 7y ago
  > Limit second amendment more to prevent more shootings. I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    > I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines. Not sure why you put quotes around constitutional freedom. The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine. As simple as that.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US.
      - mieseratte 7y ago
        > It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US. It's weird to me that advocating for the cessation of an absolute right to self-defense is a mainstream political position. It's not as if history is one peachy peace-and-love orgy.
ajeet_dhaliwal 7y ago
I don't have much experience with suicide but to add to this, I think attention can go both ways. I once saw a picture of someone who had committed suicide and it was quite distressing. Attention can both lead to glorification or put people off, depending on the way it's done. In most cases it seems to be hidden away and people may not know what actually happens when they do this. One common example now is the jumping off a bridge death into water is still considered a peaceful way to go whereas it's extremely violent and all the organs are ripped out of their positions.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > I don't have much experience with suicide but to add to this, I think attention can go both ways. It's the difference between a ruggedly handsome cowboy and a diseased lung on your pack of smokes.
duxup 7y ago
NPR did a good story on a study that examined what shooters DO and DO NOT like. They like videos of chaos and screaming. They like their photo shown. They don't like stories about the victims that make the victims seem like they're human. What they were doing before the shootings, things they did with their lives, etc. They don't like stories about the community itself that aren't just about the event (shooting). I noticed NPR does a lot of stories about the the victims. Nothing should be legally restricted, but I think news orgs can do their job 100% and still participate in a potentially helpful manner. To be clear there is no science that says doing any of these things reduce any amount of shooting or such, but it seems like a reasonable theory that if they see shootings result in coverage they don't like, it might discourage them if they think they won't get what they want.
- giggles_giggles 7y ago
  I'm surprised that what shooters like/do not like can be generalized like this. I would have expected that it was more dependent upon the specific psychology of the shooter than this.
  - duxup 7y ago
    IIRC a lot of mass shooters are focused on the aftermath and coverage / impact of their acts and what they imagine the media coverage is was important to a lot of them. I suspect there are exceptions. Also due to the number of people available for study I have to think certainly possible that things aren't as the study implied.
  - awakeasleep 7y ago
    Especially interesting that this is 'known' considering how most shooters die in the event.
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      A lot of the research about shooters can be based on their manifestos/writings, and many shooters have shown interest in previous shooters and coverage of them, so that's probably where a lot of this could be drawn from.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
notus 7y ago
It didn't almost glorify suicide, it 100% glorified suicide.
jdavis703 7y ago
> Real suicide is not so glorious and does not leave a much of an impact as you would think, other than on the immediate family. This isn't true. I can still remember the bloodied face of a woman I saw struck by a train. I remember the pedastrian strikes I've seen whenever I ride past the location or go through the station. If I jump in front of a train I can delay tens of thousands of people. I'm wasting several person years of other people's time. I might get in the news just for that. The train engineer will remember that moment for the rest of their life. So will the people who saw my jump. And the maintenance man who has to clean my blood and guts off the train will also remember.
soperj 7y ago
I think you'd be surprised. I had a friend for a couple years in Junior High. He had some family issues, and ended up getting kicked out of school, and we lost touch. 6-7 years after high school, he killed himself. I've never talked to the family, but still think about him.
cameronbrown 7y ago
> When I was in high school, we had a student commit suicide, which we ended up having 1 school meeting regarding it, but after about a week it had been forgotten by most and swept under the rug as everyone moved on to the next thing. I've had a similar situation, but with the total opposite experience. The entire town had railed around the event.
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
You are absolutely right they glamorized suicide. But doesn't all media do that for the most part? I mean, most people are looking for escapism. It's particularly galling that they do it with suicide, but it's what people want: 1- Movies/TV glamorizes violence from gangsters/mob/police/army... or they demonize it. 2- Movies glamorize drinking/smoking/taking drugs... or they demonize it. 3- Movies glamorize casual sex/strip clubs... or they demonize it. 4- Movies glamorize college... or they demonize it. 5- Movies glamorize having money... or they demonize it. 6- Movies glamorize 'justice' (criminal justice, etc) I think the series is an insult to everyone who has been exposed to a suicide in their life, but I think that applies to many points. The guy who spent 15 years in jail falsely convicted won't appreciate the BS that is CSI. Just like the guy who is a recovering alcoholic, the ex-stripper, the person who lived real life violence like war, etc. Whenever something bothers me, and this series bothers me plenty, I look within and why it bothers me. Why other things that might be similar don't. It really helps me understand our shared humanity.
appleshore 7y ago
People underestimate the prevalence of random suicidal thoughts. A lot is probably intrusive thoughts or just life frustrations pushed into a form. People should be taught to be skeptical of bad thoughts and understand how chaotic the brain can act. Otherwise random thoughts can materialize into fixations and be re-enforced by biases. Life is hard, it occasionally gets you down but thinking bad thoughts doesn’t make you “sick”, it just makes you human.

effnorwood 7y ago

When can we expect prison sentences for all those involved?

pseudolus 7y ago

Obviously horrific but a major failing of the study is that it doesn't state what percentage of the teens who committed suicide actually watched or were even aware of Netflix's "13 Reasons Why". The conclusions are drawn from very indirect evidence.

djsumdog 7y ago
Exactly. I was wondering if I missed it, but I guess not. There is no indication in the research if these suicidal teens actually watched the show (or what percentage) prior to taking their own lives. I realize this is difficult evidence to gather, but without it, they're showing a pretty week correlation. There could be many other factors.
jammygit 7y ago
A randomized double bind study probably has ethical issues. I guess this is the best we can do, unless Netflix volunteers viewing data for everyone
Nasrudith 7y ago
I wonder if that is even needed ironically given second order exposure and cultural concepts leaking out regardless of actually watching it or not. Granted the "second hand" usually takes time for diffusion of concepts.

pgrote 7y ago

"When researchers analyzed the data by sex, they found the increase in the suicide rate was primarily driven by significant increases in suicide in young males. While suicide rates for females increased after the show’s release, the increase was not statistically significant." I have watched the series. I wonder why males saw a significant increase in suicides if the show revolved around a female suicide. And, yes, I understand they didn't find direct causation. There explanation at the end was refreshing. "While compelling, this research had several limitations. For example, the study used a quasi-experimental design, meaning that the researchers cannot make a causal link between the release of “13 Reasons Why” and the observed changes in suicide rates. The researchers cannot, therefore, rule out the possibility that unmeasured events or factors influenced suicide rates during this period."

Mikeb85 7y ago
Males commit suicide more, in general (in western countries). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide Edit - as for why there were more male suicides linked to this show, one reason for male suicides in western countries is the increasing marginalisation of men (whereas in countries with more female suicides or a more equal ratio, women are highly marginalised). If the show glorifies suicide as a way to gain more attention and de-marginalise the individual, it makes sense that more young men would do it.
- ousta 7y ago
  be careful don't state facts like this here. that might trigger some Californians.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Men are more successful, but women try more often.
  - Mikeb85 7y ago
    'Try'.

tyingq 7y ago

I'm curious if there's an unusual dip after the spike. In other words, it might have accelerated some suicides, versus adding to the overall rate over a longer time period.

asadlionpk 7y ago
That would be true if all the population watched the series at t0. But in reality the series is always new to someone somewhere.
- jfrankamp 7y ago
  I think the parent was implying that the show's effect was time shifting imminent suicides to 'now'. Since the consumption of streaming media is big-spike-on-release + long tail, that big spike when the show is released would still be visible. It would look like a spike and then dip for suicides averaging to the trend line on a larger time scale.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    That's a terrific summary. Thank you. I'm predicting a dip based on acceleration versus any real additive effect. I could certainly be wrong but the stats would be enlightening.

gberger 7y ago

Where can I find the full text of the study?

coolspot 7y ago
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.02...

MattSteelblade 7y ago

Is there a link to the study?

acf_plot 7y ago

But how many of those students watched the series? Or was it less direct? Maybe the show’s popularity led to a higher number of suicide discussions, insults, references etc?

kaffeemitsahne 7y ago

Potentially OT. Why do people write >"While suicide rates for females increased after the show’s release, the increase was not statistically significant." instead of >"Suicide rates for females did not increase significantly after the show's release." ? I have seen this quite often and it always seems a bit misleading to me. Edit: I should have written the 2nd version as "No statistically significant increase in [...] was found". My point is not about the difference between "significance" and "statistical significance" but about mentioning an effect, while also saying the effect is not statistically significant. If it's not statistically significant, why mention it?

Matticus_Rex 7y ago
Significance and statistical significance are two different things, and it's good for them to be distinguished.
tikhonj 7y ago
This is a recurring issue because "significant" means very different things in different contexts. The first sentence reads as "rates increased, but in a way that is not distinguishable from noise", while the second reads as "rates increased, but not to an extent that matters".
- lazugod 7y ago
  The second reads as though there wasn’t even an insignificant increase, which is very different.
roywiggins 7y ago
They observed an increase, but the statistical test they used couldn't distinguish it from noise with sufficient confidence to call it "statistically significant." Statistical significance and a significant increase aren't the same. A statistically significant increase might be totally insignificant, and for a small enough study, a subjectively "significant" increase might be statistically insignificant.
clircle 7y ago

penagwin 7y ago

Depression is a tough topic. Speaking from experience here, it's healthy to talk about your feelings, etc. But if you look at the communities like # depression on tumblr/reddit etc, I bet it will make healthy people feel a bit depressed. In kinda a cyclic issue, the problem is that depressed people need to sorrounded them selves with happy people to talk to, consume more positive media,etc. Otherwise you end up feeding your own depression, producing and consuming more depressive content and comments with others. To anyone facing depression : Please talk to a therapist, and consider avoiding needlessly negative communities/media. Sorrounding yourself with depressing things won't help.

jammygit 7y ago
I actually disagree somewhat: if I’m feeling terrible, happy music makes me feel worse but something a little similar to my mood is soothing. I think that’s why Marilyn Manson and NIN were so popular Edit: this is to an extent only. Burying yourself in an extremely negative place does make things worse if you spend too much time there or go in too deep
- penagwin 7y ago
  I understand that feeling for sure! One of the common coping strategies (this is a real strategy) my doctors have tried with me is: "Think about how others are in worse situations". But for me that made me feel worse. I'm financially stable, decently intelligent, have been given a great start at life, etc. yet I can't go to the grocery store without having a panic attack? How pathetic is that? On paper I should have nothing to complain about - but the depression SAID NO. So I definitely understand how you feel. It's kinda like how if you just broke up with somebody serious, watching a makeout scene in a movie would just suck.
esotericn 7y ago
Yeah, I think that the whole "healthy to talk" thing has kind of gone a bit too far here. It's useful to talk to someone who's understanding; perhaps someone who's been through, or has experienced someone else going through, similar issues. It's not useful to fall into a community full of broken people who don't know how to help each other.

Havoc 7y ago

This must be brutal for the producers & actors. I'd be crushed.

roywiggins 7y ago
Netflix was told over and over that it would be prudent to remove the most graphic scene, and it refused to... for two years. Until they did. https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696151/13-reasons-why-netflix-suicide-scene-removed-controversy-medical-experts https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/16/20696151/13-reasons-why-n...
- mffnbs 7y ago
  Wow, this was recent, too.

aledalgrande 7y ago

Funny how one tv series would have induced many suicides, while currently family situation and society have nothing to do with it? Please...

onychomys 7y ago

Here's the study itself, although it's not open access, so you'll need to be somewhere that can get you access to it. https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/fulltext https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/fulltex...

coolspot 7y ago
Hey, I just found someone - https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.02...

riffic 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...

elicash 7y ago
Did you even bother to read the article? They state this themselves. > The lack of change in homicide rates during the period of interest lends some strength to the idea that changes in suicide rates were influenced by the show and not some other environmental or social factor that occurred during this period. [...] > While compelling, this research had several limitations. For example, the study used a quasi-experimental design, meaning that the researchers cannot make a causal link between the release of “13 Reasons Why” and the observed changes in suicide rates. The researchers cannot, therefore, rule out the possibility that unmeasured events or factors influenced suicide rates during this period.
- riffic 7y ago
  no, I didn't bother to read the press release and I do not have access to the source journal.
- rightbyte 7y ago
  They also write: "Conclusion: The release of 13 Reasons Why was associated with a significant increase in monthly suicide rates among U.S. youth aged 10 to 17 years. Caution regarding the exposure of children and adolescents to the series is warranted." The could have written the exact opposite since the release also is associated (according to the authors) with a CI [downwards going to less increasing] trend in suicide rates. April 2015 was also a spike April. And the March to April step in suicides 2017 when the series was released is not bigger than many other steps. I would say there has to be more to it than what the authors provide to claim something is associated with an increase. Actually, all events that has happened since the beginning of the data series could be associated with a "significant increase monthly suicide rates among U.S. youth aged 10 to 17 years" since the long trend is in that direction.
- Rapzid 7y ago

sigstoat 7y ago

the title of the paper is at the bottom of the nih page. plugging that into google produces this page: https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/pdf https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/pdf which combined with sci-hub, gets you full text.

slg 7y ago

>When researchers analyzed the data by sex, they found the increase in the suicide rate was primarily driven by significant increases in suicide in young males. "13 Reasons Why" was a show about the suicide of a young girl and was primarily aimed at a young female audience. If the studies numbers were primarily driven by an increase in suicides among young males, the causation implied seems rather dubious.

kaonashi 7y ago
You don't think young men can find young women influencing?
- slg 7y ago
  That isn't my point. My point was that young men are less likely to be aware of or watch a show that isn't targeted at them. They can't really be inspired to copy something that they aren't familiar with. Similarly if the show was the cause of the spike and the audience was largely young girls, why wasn't there a statistically significant spike in the suicide rate of girls?
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    > They can't really be inspired to copy something that they aren't familiar with. Can't they? Who's to say they weren't more influenced because the protagonist was female? The show still had a significant male viewership rate of 35%. That's not the majority, but it isn't small either.
- nightfly 7y ago
  The viewership of 13 reasons why was 65% female, 35% male. The show would have to a have an inordinately, disproportionately, strong impact on males to cause almost a 29% increase in male suicides, but a non statistically significant increase in female suicides with that viewership distribution.

kart23 7y ago

Yeah no cap they kinda glorified suicide. I don't mean like the gritty details, but like the concept. The show romanticizes suicide as a way to get back at the people who harmed you, solve your problems, and make a huge impact on all the people around you, for better or worse.

lwf 7y ago

Interesting to ponder, but hard to draw any conclusions. There are too many confounding factors, including other prominent suicides covered in the media. LA Times article criticising the study[1]: > While no variations in the suicide rate were found for people ages 18-64, the rate among people ages 10 to 17 increased by 28.9% in April 2017, the month after the series debuted, the study said. It was also up significantly in June and December of that year, and was higher than expected in March 2017, when the show was heavily promoted. The April 2017 rate was the highest in the five-year period that was studied. > Outside events include things such as the much-covered suicides of Soundgarden’s Chris Cornell in May 2017 and Chester Bennington of Linkin Park in July of that year, and the death of musician Tom Petty by accidental overdose that October, Moutier says. Also, former NFL star Aaron Hernandez died by suicide in April 2017. […] > Here’s how a 28.9% increase can also be described as a “weak association,” according to Moutier: The overall suicide rate of boys 10-17 is actually very low, she says, around 0.6 per 100,000 people. Therefore, any change could be seen as significant change. Guest column from the executive producer of the show[2]: > However, the research failed to substantiate the author's own hypothesis: that when the show launched on March 31, 2017, young females would be most affected, because it's a girl whose suicide is depicted onscreen. In fact, there was no increase in suicide rates for adolescent girls that spring — and for boys the increase started before the show even launched. As you can see from the chart below, which is based on the same government data, suicide counts for adolescent girls over the last decade have been much more stable than for boys, which have risen consistently. The highest recorded month for girls was November 2016, well before anyone had ever watched 13 Reasons Why. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-13-reasons-why-suicide-study-netflix-20190501-story.html https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-13-reasons... [2]: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/13-reasons-why-creator-refutes-studies-linking-netflix-hit-suicide-increase-guest-column-1213858 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/13-reasons-why-c...

ggreer 7y ago

The full text is on Sci-hub: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020 I'm extremely skeptical. I don't know how many ways they carved up the data before they found a segment of the population with increased suicide rates at the right time. Also, the show is about a girl who kills herself, but the female rate of suicide didn't increase enough to be considered statistically significant. Lastly, the spike in suicides starts in March, which is a month before the show was released. Their claim only makes sense if you think that watching the trailer is enough to trigger suicides.

sigstoat 7y ago
> I don't know how many ways they carved up the data before they found a segment of the population with increased suicide rate at the right time. and they still reported 9 different categorizations (overall/male/female * 3 age groups), and could only find one with a change. it isn't clear to me if they corrected for the multiple comparisons they did report.
- ggreer 7y ago
  Right, but that doesn't tell me how many other ways they carved the data up and didn't report it in the paper. Maybe they initially chose different age groups (10-22, 23-50, >50) and found no effect. Then they tweaked the categories and tada, controversial paper!
  - sigstoat 7y ago
    > Right, but that doesn't tell me how many other ways they carved the data up and didn't report it in the paper. i understand that and i don't believe i contradicted you, rather i was emphasizing: they _admitted_ to 9 different carvings and only got 1 interesting one. what they did under the hood had to be even worse!
malandrew 7y ago
Maybe I missed it in the article, but did they check the Netflix viewing history of those that committed suicide. Seems like that would be a critical causal link. If a show about suicide is available on Netflix and no one is around to watch it...

ryanmercer 7y ago

But how many people realized they were depressed, or someone around them had suicidal tendencies, and got help as a result of this program?

devin 7y ago

I seem to remember suicide being considered cool in the grunge era of the 90s, especially after Kurt Cobain took his life. I wonder if there’s data on that.

jgrowl 7y ago

> NIH-supported study highlights the importance of responsible portrayal of suicide by the media I'm not going to say that media doesn't play a part, but this is mostly a symptom of an inadequate mental health system and a disfunctional society that provides no sense of community/cohesion. Many of us are painfully alone and directionless. We come from broken homes and experience neglect and abuse in childhood. Pointing the blame at a TV show just feels insulting.

thinkcontext 7y ago

A pet peeve of mine is the noble suicide trope used often in film and tv. Armageddon, Aliens, Endgame, 7 Pounds, its everywhere. I haven't seen any research but I imagine it could normalize suicide in the minds of the impressionable young. I get that's its an effective (though artistically blunt) plot device but I would prefer that it be used less.

chasd00 7y ago
lots of heroic stories result in the death of the hero. I suppose suicide is technically correct but the story is a heroic sacrifice not a suicide.

ysleepy 7y ago

Paper: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gUa9-SNEkTgJ:https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/pdf+ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gUa9-S... The Werther Effect was well known, from inception, filming and publishing, the concerns seem to have been brushed aside. I really can't see how the studio, netflix and the producers can reject the blame for the induced suicides. The show distinctly glorifies suicide, playing on the emotional issues and need for acknowledgment of teenagers. Responsibility does not vanish if the effects are indirect or abstract. "We produced the show true to the book." is no defense at all and there is a higher moral standard if you sell a product to children still.

pessimizer 7y ago

It's a show that (at least from the title, and a quick summary of the plot) agrees with the common, awful idea that what people do to you can make you kill yourself, and that killing yourself will somehow punish the people who made you do it. You would expect it to increase teen suicides as much as you would expect a slickly produced show about a suicide bombing in a shopping mall causing an unjust government to fall and the bomber to be remembered forever as a hero to increase suicide bombings.

rightbyte 7y ago

This is just bogus p-hacking and perverse causality analysis. Look at their graph of monthly data. https://i.imgur.com/mc8PJW8.png https://i.imgur.com/mc8PJW8.png You can't draw any conclusion from that but that it is an overall increasing trend with cyclic tendencies by season. March prior to the release in the end of March was already all time high rate of suicides. "Table 1. Association Between the Release of 13 Reasons Why and Suicide in the United States, by Age Group" I mean ... it's just stupid. The series' premiere date is also a arbitrary point in time. I don't refute that the series might have increased the suicide rate, but I have no idea how to verify that or put a estimate on it. The authors surely don't know either.

vadansky 7y ago
Worse part is the top comments contains the following, based on this p-hacking garbage: >The scary thing is that both this article and the example you cited are used as reasons to limit constitutional freedoms

boomboomsubban 7y ago

These suicide studies are ridiculous. A 30% increase works out to something like twenty additional suicides in a population of around forty million. Trying to blame that on a television show seems far fetched.

bpfrh 7y ago

This is not suprising and not the first time something like this happend. There is even a term for that "Werther Effekt" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sctb 7y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19788773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19788773.

ta0xdeadbeef 7y ago

Throwaway and vagueness for hopefully obvious reasons. I was loosely involved in the production of this show. I didn't find out about it until after our contribution was finished. If I had known what content we were working on I would voiced my concern. I'm deeply ashamed I had anything to do with this and if I had known, I wish I could have verbalized my objection and voiced concern over being affiliated with the reckless disregard the production staff has for a leading cause of death among people in America that has taken the lives of friends and family.

emtel 7y ago

You should be _extremely_ skeptical of this finding. 1. It's an observational, retrospective study. 2. The control analysis is dubious, and its unclear if the control analysis was selected in advance. 2. It's an astonishingly high effect size. 3. They do numerous sub-group analyses without any indication that such analyses were pre-registered, and apparently without doing any multiple-comparisons corrections (e.g. bonferroni). 3. From the article: "The observed suicide rate for March 2017 — the month prior to the release of “13 Reasons Why” — was also higher than forecast. The researchers note that the show was highly promoted during the month of March, exposing audiences to the show’s premise and content through trailers. The researchers did not find any significant trends in suicide rates in people 18- to 64 years of age." We're being asked to believe not only that the show itself can have this huge effect, but that the trailer can too. But only among males in a certain age group. This stinks.

Rapzid 7y ago
Nothing about this "research" is compelling. This is 2019s Momo; hide your kids!

zzaacchh 7y ago

This news marks the end of my Netflix subscription. This news should have everyone at the company questioning why they are contributing to service that claimed the lives of nearly two hundred children.

stjohnswarts 7y ago

So I suppose that we should ban series about suicide... Also the more people that drive, also increases the number of people who die on the road, thus it follows that we ban driving.

stunt 7y ago

The movies we watch can affect our decisions and choices we make in our life. And the affect is different for different people. In the same way that those sponsored scenes already did to smoking and drinking trends. Bad driving styles, attraction to martial art etc.