Geoff EganViolence in Media 2: Anna Coren's Revenge
March 13th 2008 01:32
As I said in an update below, I’m looking into media violence more after that single post. I’ve found some pretty interesting articles that often make the point that exposure to violence from the media leads to “lower empathy and stronger proviolence attitudes” but often have qualifying statements that I think makes the overall findings less set in stone than they originally appear. This particular article ended up talking a lot about the effects of the interactive nature of video games on children, but it does generalise into film and television as well:
No shit? You think? Exposing people who have pro-violence attitudes towards desensitised violence won’t improve their mind-set regarding it. Who’d a thunk it?
Interestingly I found an article from 1963 (its on JSTOR so I’ll can’t link it; but put a reference at the end for anyone interested who has access to JSTOR) stating that even then media violence was a major issue:
However, interestingly this was also stated:
It’s hard to find anything more on this theory, which leads me to believe that either it’s been debunked sometime in the past 50 years, or that I’d have to search deeper than Google Scholar. I can’t imagine it being a popular position in today’s scapegoating society. But it is an interesting idea.
But one last line from that article I think is very pertinent to this:
So media violence may lead to people being more violent, but long term criminality and delinquency are not caused by my watching of Rambo? Again hardly the long term collapse of society that tabloid journalism loves to throw around is it? Similarly according to the Bureau of Justice in the United State the levels of violent crime have been on the decline since a peak in 1993.
I’m neither a sociologist, nor a psychologist so anything I’ve said here is just repeating what I’ve read, and it looks to me like a lot of the evidence supports that exposure to this can increase aggressive behaviour, but qualifiers like the one above seem to detract from these. You can’t tell me that violent media causes more violence, but only in those who were more likely to be violence in the first place and expect me to take it seriously.
But that final quote from the 1963 article is a really interesting point (if it still stands 50 years later), I find it hard to believe that exposure to violent media increases your likelihood to violence in the degree that it is criminal, especially in the light of declining rates of violent crime.
* Berkowitz, Corwin, Heironimus., 1963, 'Film Violence and Subsequent Aggressive Tendencies', The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2., pp. 217-229.
“Even if children with pre-existing lower empathy and stronger proviolence attitudes are simply drawn to violent video games, this exposure is unlikely to improve empathy or decrease proviolence attitudes.”
No shit? You think? Exposing people who have pro-violence attitudes towards desensitised violence won’t improve their mind-set regarding it. Who’d a thunk it?
Interestingly I found an article from 1963 (its on JSTOR so I’ll can’t link it; but put a reference at the end for anyone interested who has access to JSTOR) stating that even then media violence was a major issue:
“Few contemporary social problems outside the political arena have received as much attention from Main Street, Madison Avenue, and Washington as the question of the effects of violence in the mass media.“
“Media violence, such writers contend, degrades tastes, seduces the innocent, and incites crime and juvenile delinquency”
(This is from 1963 people. Nothing changes.)However, interestingly this was also stated:
“On the opposite side of the argument, however, a substantial group of authorities have claimed that such fantasy aggression often has socially beneficial effects by providing safe, vicarious outlets for the supposedly pent-up hostile energy within the audience”
It’s hard to find anything more on this theory, which leads me to believe that either it’s been debunked sometime in the past 50 years, or that I’d have to search deeper than Google Scholar. I can’t imagine it being a popular position in today’s scapegoating society. But it is an interesting idea.
But one last line from that article I think is very pertinent to this:
“While most quantitative surveys seem to indicate that the mass media probably do not have much of a role in the development of persistent criminal and delinquent characteristics,”
So media violence may lead to people being more violent, but long term criminality and delinquency are not caused by my watching of Rambo? Again hardly the long term collapse of society that tabloid journalism loves to throw around is it? Similarly according to the Bureau of Justice in the United State the levels of violent crime have been on the decline since a peak in 1993.
I’m neither a sociologist, nor a psychologist so anything I’ve said here is just repeating what I’ve read, and it looks to me like a lot of the evidence supports that exposure to this can increase aggressive behaviour, but qualifiers like the one above seem to detract from these. You can’t tell me that violent media causes more violence, but only in those who were more likely to be violence in the first place and expect me to take it seriously.
But that final quote from the 1963 article is a really interesting point (if it still stands 50 years later), I find it hard to believe that exposure to violent media increases your likelihood to violence in the degree that it is criminal, especially in the light of declining rates of violent crime.
* Berkowitz, Corwin, Heironimus., 1963, 'Film Violence and Subsequent Aggressive Tendencies', The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2., pp. 217-229.
| 77 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Harry
World Art
Sydney Diary
Personals
Video Games
Brisbane Diarystar
Zoo Parent
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Kids see people killed in gruesome ways and then show up alive in another movie. Death and pain aren't real to them. I don't know about Australia, but in the USA, we have cold blooded killers who are caught and tried for their crimes. Far too often, they say they didn't understand what they were doing. They saw it on TV and didn't think it was wrong. They thought it would be a kick to kill someone. It's the same with sex. Kids are bombarded with it constantly and then have to try it for themselves. They don't see the after-effects like AIDS, other "social diseases" and teen pregnancy in the programs that glamourize such behavior.
Don't misunderstand me here, Geoff. I'm not saying that censorship is the answer. The lack of parental censorship is. If kids had something better to do than stare at the screen all day, maybe they'd find better outlets for their curiosity. And personal responsibility has to be taught as well or more kids will be able to claim that they "didn't understand."
My 10 year old grandson watched a movie recently that showed someone being burned. He didn't understand how deadly fire can be. We made him look at photographs of burn victims (both alive and dead) to make him get the point. My daughter is much more careful about her son's viewing habits now. Parents need to be the teachers of morality, not the telly!
Comment by Geoff Egan
Cinema XYZ
Noise Fanatic
Once a child is old (maybe mature is a better word) then the obvious 'fantasy' of most violence in television (or film or video games) becomes apparent and the rediculous nature of it is more obvious.
As was mentioned in the comments on first article I wrote about this it can be the more 'realistic' violence in movies (often about more serious subjects, like war for instance) that can seem to be more dangerous than the rediculousness of movies like Terminator or Die Hard or the like
Comment by S.L. Bradish