Dr. Janet McMullen  Fall 2002  MWF 10:00

Updated:11/22/2002

In July, 2000, a Congressional Public Health Summit was held and a joint statement was released on the impact of violent entertainment on children.  It was signed by six groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolscent. Psychiatry.  Their statement said that the body of literature point to causal connection between viewing entertainment violence and aggressive attitudes, values and behavior in some children. 

The U.S. Surgeon General, David Satcher issued a report in January, 2001, stating that repeated exposure to violent entertainment causes more aggressive behavior throughout the life of the child.

In 2001, the Federal Trade Commission released its report that movie, music and video game industries all specifically market violent, R-rated content to children as young as 12 years of age.  In the report one marketing executive was quoted, "Our goal was to find the elusive teen target audience and make sure everyone between the ages of 12 to 18 was exposed to the film."  This was one example of many such statements entered into evidence, including those concerning music and video games. 

Their efforts seem to be working.  Hannibal, certainly one of the more gruesome and violent films out there, was attended by thousands of kids, escorted by their parents!  While MGM attempted to market the film to adults, parents didn't seem to get the hint.   Erica Tavnier, 34, took her 8 year old daughter.  She told USA Today, " I just put my hands over her face" in the "bad" parts.  She said her daughter didn't get scared in movies, "I guess because we watch them so often." 

Some statistics:

• The average Child has seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence by the time they finish ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!
• The most violent type of programming is cartoons; averaging 26 violent acts/hour
• Between 70-80% of all programs have violent content.
• There is more violence in early prime time than in later hours.
• Average of 5 violent acts per prime-time hour and 18 acts per weekend daytime hr.
• These definitions don't involve verbal or psychological types of violence.
• No correlation has been found between the amount of violence in a program and its popularity according to rating; study showed that a "violent" version of POLICE WOMAN was no more liked than a "toned down" version.
• 1994 study by Center for Media and Public Affairs said TV was more violent than 2 years before
• 18 random hours from 10 channels ; day in the life" study
• 2605 violent acts, up 41% from study in 1992
• Serious violent acts up 67% from 1992
• A study commissioned by the National Cable Television Association found that the degree of violence has not changed much in the last 32 months; it remained at about 61%.
• In fact the same study found the level of violence rose slightly between 1994 and 1997.
• 92% of programs aired on pay cable included violent content.
• (CNN, 1998)
  
  

Violence defined as "deliberate act of physical force that is aimed at hurting someone, destroying property or intimidating someone."

• Violence in promotional announcements for series and made for TV movies almost doubled.
• Steepest rise came in news programs, both network and local - 244% increase
• Networks weren't happy with results. ( Broadcasting 8/8/94 p. 56; TV GUIDE 8/13/94 p. 37)
  

When asked about their opinions of violent content,

• 82% of the American public thought movies were too violent.
• 72% thought entertainment television was too violent.
• 57% thought the same about television news content.
• 82% thought movie violence was a serious problem for society.
• 80% believe television violence is harmful to society.
• 71% thought violence on TV tells people violence is fun and acceptable.
• 76% believed violence "numbs" people so that they're insensitive to it.

For more information about public attitudes about media violence, check the Mediascope site at http://www.igc.org/mediascope/fopinion.htm .  

After the Columbine shootings, a USAToday/CNN/Gallup poll found that 73% of Americans believed that TV and Films were at least somewhat to blame for youth violence.  (Senate Judiciary Committee Media Violence Report, 1999).

The Issue of Television and Violence

Background:

1969: Congress had been pressured to "Do Something"

John Pastore, was chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Congress appropriated $1 Million Dollars to research the problem.

"National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence" 1968. The results were inconclusive, but the commission in its' report stated that it was hard to believe the industry claims of persuasive ability with regard to product selection and NO impact from other programming.

"Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior" 1972

The National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) was the agency for managing the studies. The problem: researchers on the committee, however had to be "approved" by the networks....We have discussed the problems with this study earlier.

• It found that mediated violence did influence some of the people some of the time.
• The study found that network programs were violent: 8 of every ten programs contained violence
• Television's portrayals of violence were FREQUENT and UNREALISTIC (this is a key issue)
• The impact of social learning and whether or not violence was rewarded or had no negative consequences was discussed (Bandura studies)
  
  

Because proponents wanted to prove a causal relationship, and "some people some of the time" didn't do that, the TV networks and their researchers insisted that meant there was NO problem. Their gate keeping researchers watered down the findings to the point that some scientists would not allow their names on the final document.

The Attorney General took the data and stated: "These studies --and scores of similar ones--make it clear to me that the relationship between televised violence and antisocial behavior is sufficiently proved to warrant immediate remedial action. Indeed the time has come to be blunt: we can no longer tolerate the present high level of violence that is put before children in American homes."

But nothing happened.

In 1982 a new commission was established to synthesize and summarize massive amounts of the research done after 1971. Seven areas of influence of violence on TV found:

• television and health
• violence and aggression
• pro-social behavior
• cognitive and affective aspects of viewing
• the family and interpersonal relations
• social beliefs and social behavior.
• effects on society

The report also found that television continued to show as much or more violence than it had in the past. This report accepted the premise that violence on TV did have impact, the questions that remained to be determined were:

• What types of portrayals caused effects?
• What psychological factors lead what people to be effected by it?
  
  

Social concern has been the driving force behind this research...but still nothing has happened, the levels of violence on television and in films continued to grow ...

In an effort to deal with this and other concerning content issues, the Telecommunications Act of

1996 mandated the implementation of a V-Chip into new television sets and the voluntary establishment of an industry ratings code to be used with the chip. Initially, the ratings system developed and implemented in Jan, 1997 was an age-based system, but parental and citizen group demands for more information led to modifications which included designations for dialogue (D), sexual situations (S) and violence (V). All networks but NBC have adopted those ratings as of fall, 1997.

What are some of the effects of television violence on members of our society?  

For an excellent article which summarizes much of the research in this area, read:  Stossel, Scott.  "The Man Who Counts the Killings." Atlantic Monthly, May 1997.  Find it online at : http://theatlantic.com/issues/97may/gerbner.htm 

PSYCHOLOGICAL

Modeling/observational learning effects. This involves the imitation of media models or at the very least, learning from them about various behaviors and the social acceptance and (in some cases) the consequences of those behaviors

Dis-inhibitory effects: These effects involve the increased likelihood of the viewer doing things he/she wouldn't normally do. This is a particular concern because, especially in the television westerns of the '50s and '60s, because the consequences of violence were rarely shown. Now, when violence may be more graphic, it is sometimes glorified. Audiences laugh, applaud and cheer during some violent scenes.....

Key concepts: Media violence is most likely to be modeled or have effects if:

• Live-action Mediated violence rather than cartoon, or printed
• If violence is positively reinforced or has no negative consequences, (would you rape? study)
• If violence is seen as real, it is more influential (in this case children tend to get scared).
• If the subject is aroused or is easily aroused; the arousal can come from film itself, or something that happened before.

The violent content can effect a viewer's attitudes and opinions about violence in one of four ways:

• It can reinforce violent tendencies already present in the viewer
• Violent behavior is reinforced in the context of the story
• Media may reinforce certain values about the use of the violence
• Violence may occur in a context that is overall very reinforcing (violence in a more glamorous show may have more influence than one in a "gritty show.")
  

Sensitization is the OPPOSITE of modeling.

Here the viewer LESS likely to imitate as a result.

This happens when people more easily imagine themselves in the position of the victim rather than the aggressor. (Sometimes television programming can sensitize viewers to a new perspective. For example, the mini-series Roots certainly unified the American population and presented a perspective about African-Americans. It "sensitized" the White population to the experience of the slaves. While no television show can adequately accomplish that, Roots did increase awareness and understanding in a way no film or television program had ever done before.)

Desensitization is a straightforward example of classical conditioning.

• With repeated viewing of violence in a "safe, comfortable" environment, the normal reactions of disgust, fear, stress, are diminished.
• If viewer is relaxed and happy when watching, the content and the context of viewing become associated.
• Result: the content is seen as relaxing and entertaining.

In a recent study, it was learned that among adolescent boys have learned that to be "cool" they have to watch violent stuff and act like it doesn't bother them. "Desensitization to violence thus becomes a way to impress a date. " !!! (Harris, p. 197)

Although we may never participate in violence our selves, as we become used to it, desensitized, it may not bother us so much...Our compassion is gone. How does this effect our culture?

This concept is exemplified by a study by Linz, Donerstein and Penrod conducted with college males. After viewing a series of "slasher films" the subjects showed significantly less empathy for victims of rape.

CULTIVATION effects involve our influence of television content on our perceptions of the real world. Those perceptions reflect television "reality" rather than real world "reality." One cultivation effect is the

Mean world syndrome:

TV world shows 50% of characters involved in violence, but less than 1% of population of real world is. People who have significant dependence on television tend to believe that the levels of violence on television are the levels of violence in the real world. They believe that the world is a violent and scary place, and they tend to be more afraid than those who are not so dependent upon television.

According to the American Medical Association, longitudinal studies have shown that 8-year-old boys who watch the most violence as children were more likely than others to have engaged in aggressive and/or delinquent behavior by at 18 years of age and serious criminal activity by the age of thirty.

There are indications that watching violent television tends to lead to violent behavior in kids who in turn watch more violent programming or films to justify their own behavior. This can become an aggressive cycle that feeds on itself to the detriment of the individuals and culture involved. For more facts and additional resources see the AMA site at http://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/releases/1996/vvfact.htm.

Catharsis Theory:

Broadcasters and film makers have long argued that violent content provides CATHARSIS for viewers. According to that Catharsis theory, watching violent content drains of the violent urges of the viewer, they get a vicarious release by watching violent acts in media, thus venting violent urges they might have.

However, the theory doesn't work; no support for it. It has been tested again and again with the same results. You can figure this one out on your own. We all have seen erotic scenes in R-rated films that affect us in some way. If you sat there and felt no physiological responses, no emotional reaction and felt "boy, I don't need to do that- all my "urges" are satisfied now!" then the catharsis theory holds water. If not.....It doesn't take a social scientist to figure that one out, but there a bunch of Hollywood producers who still argue the point......

LONGITUDINAL STUDIES: These studies which took place over 10 years found violent TV was related to peer-rated aggression.

• This effect was stronger for boys than girls; stronger in U.S. than in Finland where the other study was done.
• The biggest predictor was when the viewer identified with the violent character.
• There was no evidence that violent TV only effects kids with parents who are violent or kids who seem predisposed to violence or kids who fantasize.

A twenty-two year effort conducted by Dr. Leonard D. Eron found that there was a strong correlation between children who watched violent television at age 8  and criminal behavior at age 30 (including assault, murder, child abuse, spouse abuse and rape).  

These longitudinal studies support the link between viewing violent TV programming and subsequent aggressive behavior.

There are a number of anecdotal cases which illustrate the impact of violent media:

• Ronnie Zamora, age 15, killed 82 year old neighbor because he wanted her television. It didn't seem to matter that he had grown up in the neighborhood and she had had him in for cookies frequently. In his murder trial, his lawyer claimed Zamora couldn't help himself. He had grown up watching TV crime dramas and the TV made him do it! The judge didn't buy it!
• Born Innocent case occurred when Olivia Nieme (age 9), raped with a bottle by three older girls and a boy. An NBC TV movie a few days before, "Born Innocent," had shown a girl raped with a plunger handle. Mrs. Nieme sued NBC for 11 million. The judge, while sympathizing with the "copy-cat" crime threw the case out. 
• The two Columbine High School shooters wrote about their fascination with violent video games and the movie, Basketball Diaries" .  They played a violent scene from it repeatedly over several weeks or months.
• After the release of the movie Natural Born Killers a couple went on a killing rampage through Mississippi and Tennessee later admitting they copied the film.
• In January, 2001, 13 year old Lionel Tate was convicted as an adult for the murder of  Tiffany Eunick.  His lawyer said Lionel was imitating moves he saw on professional wrestling programs when the girl was killed.   Later that summer, another child was killed when he was playing 'wrestling' with a friend."  A search on the web for "backyard wrestling" will present hundreds of web sites devoted to imitation of WWF.

There are literally hundreds of crimes associated with violence in media, including a rash of suicides after the release of The Deerslayer, and more recently the incident with teenagers playing in traffic imitating a scene from The Program.

How explicit should television violence be?

In Television Appreciation, we watched a number of the classic westerns in class. Though criticized for violence in the 1960s and '70s, and the body count did get pretty high, there was rarely any blood shown. Bullets never came out the other side, there were no gaping wounds, no one writhed in pain. They just clasped the wound and fell slowly to the ground. Fist fights never resulted in broken hands or ruptured internal organs....Critics claimed that such "sanitized violence" misled children into thinking violent acts had no real consequences.

While shows such as NYPD Blue and E.R. show the results of violence more graphically, motion pictures seem to glorify it. In the last two decades, the trend which began with Bonnie and Clyde (in which they were riddled with bullets in slow motion) has accelerated through Robo Cop and the Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the Thirteenth films. It seems as though producers sometimes try to out-graphic each other with violent special effects.

Violence may still be sanitized somewhat, but frequently NEWS is not.

Violence in Commercials

Even when programs are "toned down," or non-violent in nature, sometimes the commercials aired within them are not. Frequently film makers want to attract a primarily young, male demographic to action films. So these films may be advertised in sports programs, especially football, basketball, baseball games, etc. A study conducted during baseball playoffs in 1996 found that at least 6 commercials per game had violent content. 74% of the theatrical film commercials were violent, but the largest number of violent commercials were for other television and cable programs! This poses a real problem for parents who might think they're watching a "safe" non-violent program with the kids only to have the child scared or influenced by a violent commercial within the program.

The American Medical Association has long held that violence is harmful, but in 1998 supported the findings of the latest National Television Violence Study, calling it "definitive" confirmation that television portrays violence in a way that "increases the risk of learning aggressive attitudes.

"The AMA considers violence to be a major national health problem, and television to be an important contributing factor." (AMA, 4/16/98)

VIOLENCE IN NEWS:

A study by Center for Media and Public Affairs in 1994, focused part of effort on non-fictional violence: "The argument is not that news is bringing us a mirror of reality, but that news judgment has changed, " Lichter says. News coverage of murders tripled in the last year, while national crime rate stayed the same. " (Broadcasting 8/8/94p. 56)

• In Jan 1987: Photographers were covering what they though was a routine news conference by Pennsylvania Treasurer C. Budd Dwyer ...He put a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger! Most stations aired the tape only up to the point where he put the gun in his mouth....Some said it was news and needed to be covered!
• Jan, 1993, news crew in Florida was shooting scenes in a park in Florida when a woman's estranged husband ran up to her and shot her... That video was shown across the country.
• In the spring of 1998, a depressed man tried to burn himself alive on an LA freeway, and when he failed, he put a shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. The Los Angeles television stations were covering the event live at 4:30 in the afternoon. They had pre-empted afternoon children's programming!

Other examples....

• Nancy Kerrigan attacked at the skating rink in 1994.
• Paula Glass --kidnapped from her own bedroom and found dead later.
• Los Angeles Forest fires burning hundreds of homes...

A more recent study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (1997) found that 24% of all tabloid news stories (on shows such as "Hard Copy, Inside Edition, American Journal, etc.) dealt with crime and 21% with sex. Accidents and disasters made up 17% and 10% of stories were about destructive behaviors such as drug and alcohol abuse. Only 7% of stories were at all concerned with heroic or uplifting behaviors.

What is the impact of these kinds of images on children?

• 42-45% of children say violence dominates their thoughts
• Kids are afraid of the news
• Kids don't recognize the limited nature of news or events described therein
• They see the same story over and over again and it seems like it's everywhere
• The news stories don't' show how LIMITED the fires were , and they don't show them put OUT! Kids in LA were afraid they'd burn up in their sleep. (C-SPAN 1/11/94 1 PM CST)
• Concerns over media violence lead the legislation we discussed in the last unit and the implementation of the ratings system for television programming. But a study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the system didn't identify much of the content in question.
• 79 % of shows with violence and 92% of shows with sexual content did not receive V for violence or S for sexual content ratings.
• More than half of the shows designed for young children contained violence. (Kaiser, 1998)
  

Violence in Music

We can't address the issue of media violence without at least touching upon the issue of violence in music. In a recent article in Spin Trent Reznor, lead singer for the group Nine Inch Nails commented about his latest release which has sold two million copies: "I think The Downward Spiral" actually could be harmful, through implying and subliminally suggesting things..." Implication and subliminal suggestion? Here are some of the lyrics from the title song...

"He couldn't believe how easy it was

He put a gun into his face

Bang! Problems have solutions

A lifetime of f--ing thing up,

FIXED in one determined flash." (My emphasis )

Considering the rate of suicide among teenagers has nearly doubled between 1970 and 1990, and what we know about modeling and persuasion (especially when the model or pursuader is a celebrity or someone who is admired by the receiver of the message....) there can be little doubt that these types of lyrics have at least some influence.

Some of the evidence is anecdotal, but it is still powerful. Nicholaus McDonald, 18, and Brian Basset, 16, of Washington state admitted killing Brian's parents and his five-year old younger brother. They said they got the idea from lyics of a song by Silverhair. The lyrics of the song, "Israel's Son" include the following: "Hate is what I feel you you/....I want you to know that I want you dead/...If you're not here soon, Ill kill a friend instead." The group's manager said there was no violent intent in that song and that Silverhair does not condone violence. (AP, 1/19/96)

Another group of teens reportedly listened to Doggystyle by Snoop Doggy Dog, got "worked up" while listening the second time, stabbed a bed multiple times and then stabbed the 80 year old grandparents of one of the teens. Why? A dispute over beer. (Reuters, 2/9/94)

I could list a number of other examples, and I'll bet some of you could provide your own list of violent lyrics. We all know that music is powerful. We use it to reinforce the mood we're in or to change the mood we're in, and it can do that. If putting on a particular piece of uplifting music can make the world seem easier to deal with, why is it so hard to accept that music can have the opposite effect as well. I challenge each of you to think about your own use of music and apply it to this issue:

• What is the overall message of the music YOU listen to?
• If influence exists, how might it influence you?
• Do you need to make some changes?

These are questions only you can ask and answer.

Now, given the concerns we have about the theoretical paradigmatic shift in our field, what is the appropriate methodology for the study of violence in mediated communication?

(Pay special attention to pp. 190 - 197 in Bryant and Zillman, ch. 7. This chapter will be on reserve in the Library; I will also place a chapter from Leo Jeffres, Mass Media Effects on reserve)

What can parents do to mediate the influence of television violence on their children?

• Limiting the amount of television children watch.
• Monitor what they watch and restrict violent programming.
• Monitor and restrict video games, music and music videos with violent content.
• Teach kids alternatives to violence.
• Help them understand the difference between fantasy and reality.
• Teach them that violence (and ALL actions) have consequence.
• WATCH TV WITH THEM (this is most important) and TALK WITH THEM ABOUT WHAT YOU WATCH; Ask them what they think would happen if they or someone they know behaved in that way? Would they be hurt? What would it be like? Would they go to jail? What would mom and dad go through? Would they be sad? Would the violence solve problem? Make new ones?
• Ask kids how they feel and what they think about the programs, movies, or videos they watch. Ask them if they thing the show was good for them, and why?
• Set a good example! You can't limit their shows and then watch worthless stuff for hours yourself.....Kid don' buy "Do as I SAY, not as I DO." (Would YOU?)

No body says any of this is easy or quick. On the contrary, sometimes it is VERY hard. The restrictions are work because you have to follow through and be consistent, and they'll try everything they can to get around you. You will the meanest mom/dad around and surely the ONLY parents in the world who won't let their kids watch/play that!

The discussions aren't always that easy either. You may just want to sit back and watch something, but you have to explain, question, and listen....They don't always want to tell you what they're thinking or feeling either. You have to watch, listen, be patient, and sometimes follow up later. The best time to speak to a child about something serious is usually right before bed. They'll talk about anything to get to stay up a little longer. That's great teaching time......

After the Columbine shootings in 1999, the national attention was focused on the issue of violence in media. In June, 1999, President Clinton ordered the Justice Department to investigate whether film, music and game industries marketed violence to children.  The answer was "yes."   The commission found that the majority of best-selling r-rated movies, music and video games were marketed to children as young as twelve.  You can see as summary of  the report at http://www.cmpa.com/tvent/marketviolenceexsum.htm .

Concern was so great and evidence of violence influence so strong that a judge in Indianapolis, ruled that a city ordinance banning minors from playing violent and sexually explicit  video games  without specific parental permission could take effect. The law was later reversed by the the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals, but the fact that it was passed at all indicates the intense level of concern.

There is serious concern that the increasing level of violence in our society is contributing to a generation of psychopaths -- individuals who have no concern for others.  Certainly anyone who has witnessed or read transcripts of the videos or journals of the Columbine shooters cannot help but wonder how these young men, and so many others could have so little feeling for those who lives they prepared to destroy.    Early childhood abuse or neglect can alter the brain's chemistry and contribute to the development of a psychopathic personality.  Research is demonstrating that repeated exposure to porngraphic or violent images can desensitize a child and contribute as well.  Children become afraid and the brain reacts physiologically to that fact, causing the child to be continually aroused and scanning for "danger," defensive and hostile.  Such a perspective can become in the words of one psychologist, "permanent and fixed."  

In 1999, The Senate Committee of Judiciary, held hearings and published a report on violence in the media and its effects on children. The lengthy report summarized the research and made some interesting observations.  It clearly stated that a principal cause of violent committed by young people was media violence, with television alone being responsible for 10% of youth violence.  The report quoted one expert regarding arguing against the link between violence in media and violent behavior, " To argue against it is like arguing against gravity!" 

On March 21, 2000, Senator Sam Brownback  (R-Kansas) heard testimony from experts on the matter of violence in video games.  Witness after witness presented testimony that video games influenced violent acts which affected them or their family members.   Some researchers and experts believe that video games teach users to kill.  Army Lt. Col. David Grossman, a retired military psychologist, has written about the impact of violent video games from a military perspective, citing that similar tools are used in the military to teach soldiers to kill.  For more information, see his book, Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill (1999). 

A Dr. Mc NOTE:

The best thing you can do for your children is evaluate your own viewing and media habits TODAY. THINK about what you watch and listen to and why you choose those things. Whenever I wanted to do something that wasn't all that good for me, my dad would always ask me, "What GOOD is it?" (Used to drive me CRAZY!) Very often, I couldn't come up with any kind of reasonable answer.

If your goal in life is to be the best person you can be, to be successful, contributing, happy and content with life...to have a stable and fulfilling family life and work life, my dad's question is a good one. You should want to be concentrating on things that help you reach those goals, not those that drag you back. Sure life is hard, it is sometime hard beyond bearing, but if we only focus on the bad, we'll miss all of the wonderful possibilities. There are people who are happy and fulfilled in life. They're not stupid or naive. If they can have fulfillment, you can too, but to have it, you must focus on the things can bring it to existence. Howard Stern, Doggystyle, and Ozzie Osburne are probably not going to do it. My Dad's question about the choices you make...."What GOOD is it?"...might just be a start.

Some helpful Web Resources for this lecture:

• Students are encouraged to go to the Media Education Foundation site at http://www.meidaed.org/ There is a series of study guides, the Gerbner Series Study Guide, which includes a number of excellent short articles, resources and questions about the issue. While we don't have the film series available to us, you can learn a lot by just reading these short pieces. It's a great summary of the issue.
• Project Look Sharp also has some excellent information about violence and television. Http://www.ithaca.edu/looksharp/
• MEDIASCOPE offers another excellent site and includes the results of the National Television Violence Studies. Find that one at http://www.igc.org/mediascope/ The site has excellent resources.
• Parent's Television Council:  http://www.parentstv.org 
• Sentate Judiciary Committee Media Violence Report, September 14, 1999 at http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/mediavio.htm  
• Many of the media literacy links provided in the previous lecture also have information about television violence. I encourage you to check out as many of them as possible.
  

Copyright, 2002

Dr. Janet McMullen