Of The Media On Aggressive Behaviour Essay, Research Paper
There is evidence that promotes the view that
anti-social behaviour can be promoted by the media. Some of the effects are
short lived and others will vary depending on whether the anti-social behaviour
is shown on it?s own or not. Violent video games and TV are the main sources of
media violence. On TV there is very little aggression
overall. The Gerbner Studies (1970?s and 1980?s) found that in children?s TV
programmes 20 violent acts per hour occurred. Since 1967, the percentage of
violent programmes has not increased but the number of violent acts per
programme has increased. Halloran and Croll (1972) found that violence was a
common feature on TV programmes but not as prevalent on British as it was on
American TV programmes. Cumberbatch (1987) supported this, finding that 30% of
programmes had violence in them but only 1% of TV is violent overall. Gunter
and Harrison (1995) said that violence only occupies a tiny proportion of TV in
few programmes. They found that 1% of terrestrial TV was violent and less that,
2% on satellite TV was violent. Altogether there is not very much violence on
TV but what there is seems to be concentrated to a few programmes which if
young children are exposed to could be damaging to them mentally especially in
later life. The problem with these studies is that what some people
perceive as violent others do not. In younger children a small violent act such
as pushing or shoving can be imitated and interpreted as violent. In a longitudinal study by Lefkowitz et
al. (1972), a preference for TV violence at 8 years of age was found to be
related to aggression at the same age. Older children (17-18 years old) who
preferred violence on TV were not more aggressive. If a preference for TV
violence was found at 8 years old then this was found to be related to violence
at 18 years old, but a preference at 18 for TV violence was not found to be
related to early aggression. This shows that exposing younger children to
violence on TV in earlier life can have long-term as well as short-term effects
on the child. Australian research has shown that there
is no significant correlation between early TV violence viewing and later
aggression. In Poland, the researchers agreed that a greater preference for
violence at an early age was related to later aggression but the effects were
not large and the results should be treated cautiously. A cross-national survey
was carried out by Huesmann and Eron (1987) across six countries (Holland,
Australia, USA, Israel, Poland and Finland) and they found that viewing
television violence at an early age is a predictor of later aggression.
Cumberbatch (1997) criticised this study saying that there was actually no
evidence to support this. The problem with longitudinal studies is that there
could be many other potential intervening variables especially when studying
over a long period. Bandura (1963) showed children aggressive behaviour on a
film. It showed adults in a room hitting a bobo doll. The children who saw the
film were compared with children who hadn?t, the children who watched the film
were found to be more aggressive in their play. This is supported by Liebert
and Baran (1972) who found that children watching an aggressive film
demonstrated a greater willingness to hurt another child. Both of these
laboratory studies show that if children are exposed to aggression in the
media, although this was set up intentionally, they can become more aggressive.
Both of these studies are laboratory studies and the problem with these is that
it is difficult to generalise findings to real life situations. A comparison of two cities was made by Hennigan et al
(1982); one city had TV the other didn?t. The presence or absence of TV did not
affect the crime rate and there was no increase in violent crime when the city
without TV got TV. There was an increase in robberies due to people seeing
affluence on TV and wanting to possess more. Williams (1986) supported this
finding that aggression in child
Centrewall 91989) compared South Africa, Canada and USA. In USA and Canada the
murder rates increased after TV was introduced. In South Africa the number of
murders declined but only in white people. Therefore these studies show that if
there is no TV in a certain place then the introduction of TV can increase the
crime rate in that place. The problem arises in comparing cities, communities
or countries because there are too many other factors, which could account for
the difference e.g. the cultural differences. There are two explanations of the effects of violent
video games: the social learning theory suggesting that children will imitate
what they have seen on the screen; and the catharsis theory that suggests that
violent video games channel a child?s aggression and stop them from being
aggressive in real life. Observational studies (e.g. Irwin and Gross, 1995)
have found that playing violent video games increases aggression in children in
the short-term at least so supporting the social learning theory?s view.
Griffiths (1998) found that video game violence has more effect on young
children, but far less effect on teenagers and no apparent effects on adults.
There is, on the other hand, very little research into the long-term effects of
violent video games and at the moment, it is entirely speculation of the
effects. The problem with blaming the media for violent behaviour
is that it is rather like explaining it backwards beginning with the media and
using that to explain why offenders offend. Hagell and Newburn (1996) have
found that young offenders watch less TV than their non-offending counterparts
and had little interest in particularly violent programmes in the first place.
Research suggests that children are victims of the media and are drawn in, the
media ?tricks children into all kinds of ill advised behaviour? (Gauntlett,
1998). Research that is more recent has shown that children are able to talk
critically and intelligently about the media (Buckingham, 1996) and that young
children from as young as 7 years old are able to make ?media literate?
productions themselves. On TV, violence is not often shown along with the
negative effects possibly leading children to believe that there aren?t any.
Often in addition, violence goes unpunished showing children that it is alright
to commit violent acts, they won?t be punished for it. From this study called
the National Violence Media Study only 4% of violent programmes showed and anti
violent theme and children?s programmes were the least likely of all to show
the long-term negative consequences of violence. Different people interpret
violent acts in different ways and they can be portrayed in the media for
different reasons. E.g. a man had his house broken into, caught the burglars in
his house and he shot them, was this a justified act of violence? It was highly
publicised because of this. Media violence in studies is restricted to
fictional programmes news programmes are exempt. If violence in fictional
programmes have such adverse effects on people then why don?t they have the
same effects on people when they are shown in the news? The evidence does show that the media does have an
effect on violent behaviour but the difference is very small and as Cumberbatch
said, the results should be treated cautiously. The media does also have
pro-social effects as well as anti-social ones, if the catharsis theory is
correct then it can relieve aggressive feelings and prevent aggression in real
life. The media cannot be completely blamed for aggression; there are other
factors to be considered that could influence the person particularly a child.
Research portrays children as helpless victims of the media?s influence but it
has been shown that children can critically talk about the media at age seven.
The child?s upbringing, background, culture and peers could all influence any
possible aggressive behaviour. The media alone cannot be blamed for all
aggression, other factors have to be taken into account.
3af