Debates on Media Effects on Humans - Essay Example

?Debates on Media Effects Introduction The media have become one of the most powerful resources man has ever developed. It represents a tool of communication and information which humans have established to enhance and widen human relations and perspectives. For the most part, it has helped serve primary goals of communication and information dissemination. This is not to say however that it has not caused unfavourable effects for society. This paper will discuss the different points raised on media effects. It will discuss how the media affects us and critically evaluate debates on media effects, as well as traditional and new approaches to media effect theories. With reference to a specific case study, mostly on the use of videogames and its impact on children’s behaviour, an assessment on media effect and influence will be carried out by this essay. Body of the paper The media have various effects on society. In the past 60 years or so, a significant amount of research has been undertaken in order to assess the relationship between the media and the audience in terms of the latter’s behaviour. Much hysteria and concern have been seen among the general population throughout the years have been exhibited based on something they may have watched on television or film (Buckingham, 2003). In 1938, a radio adaptation by Orson Welles of H.G Wells’ science fiction book ‘War of the Worlds’ certainly caused hysteria among the people who believed they were actually being invaded by Martians (Gunter & Harrison, 2013). In the 1950s, American caricatures and comic books have also brought life to violence (Buckingham, 2003). Psychologists have expressed concerns on the addictive impact of TV on passive children; however, other experts have also noted better cognitive development for children exposed to television (Andison, 1977). The effect of the media is therefore difficult to estimate because it is a resource which has to be understood within the context of the larger society. In other words, it is important to expand “the media effects tradition to include consideration of normative expectations, institutional performance, constraints and conventions of the media...” (Campbell & Ling, 2009, p. 592). Leading into the 1930s, the media impact has been acknowledged as significant. A so-called hypodermic effect was claimed; however such claim was not founded on scientific processes, but mostly on speculative perceptions (Buckingham, 2003). Researchers further assessed the impact of film on viewers and reached the conclusion that these films prompted children to behave in delinquent manners; however, the data gathering process in the surveys covered the laboratory process of investigating, with subjects taken out of the social context and evaluated as individuals (Cumberbatch, 1989). In the post-World War II period, a significant shift was seen in the study by Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet (1944) establishing that Americans voting in an election utilised the radio as well as newspapers to make their decisions on candidates to vote for. In effect, the media helped reinforce their opinions and decisions. After various studies were carried out assessing media effects, newer approaches were carried out by Blumler and Katz (1974) through their study entitled, The Uses of Mass Communication in 1974. Their study expressed that viewers often have specific needs while watching television (Blumler & Katz, 1974). Sociologists have also discovered that audiences are active viewers, they analyse what they watch and break down the media through conventions, often assessing them in terms of their social context (Morley, 1995). Still, even with the studies made on the effects, it is still difficult to determine the impact of numerous media text. Viewers of War of the Worlds were actually already very much affected and anxious about the threat of war in most parts of the world (Sherry, 2004). Moreover, the copycat killings following the release of the film Natural Born Killers in 1994 were actually carried out by individuals who performed violent acts long before the release of the movie (Boyle, 2001). The argument made by writer Winn (2002) on the TV being an addictive influence on passive children has been refuted by other psychologists who were able to establish improved cognitive improvements on children (Sims and Melvin-Thomas, 1985). The idea of effect is therefore difficult to gauge because it is not possible to evaluate media independent of its social and environmental context. The media have a significant impact and influence on individuals. Whether or not such effect is sufficient to drive individuals to violence is however, another matter (Campbell and Ling, 2009). Video games for example have been blamed by various individuals to be a major cause for the rise of violent acts among the youth population. The opinions on this issue have always been polarizing with various scholars like Anderson and colleagues (2003) pointing out that media violence has grown so much, to the point where its rates have almost matched incidents for smoking and lung cancer (Bushman and Anderson, 2001). Other scholars like Freedman (2002) and Olson (2004) by contrast have pointed out that studies on media violence have not been appropriately managed, mostly producing inconsistent results and mismatch between the actual data and the theories. Medical doctors have also criticized data on studies which claim similar trends between media violence research as well as research on smoking and lung cancer (Block and Crain, 2007). At present, it is difficult to determine whether or not media violence contributes to violent crime. In support of media violence researchers, they do raise valid points of discussion. It is important to understand also that “with modern industrial society, the dynamics of change are so rapid that the life experience of the child is necessarily different from that of the parent” (Campbell and Ling, 2009, p. 598). One of the most significant points also raised is the fact that assessing violent crime through experimental conditions, which basically seeks to manipulate research subjects into committing violent acts, is very much unethical (Ferguson, 2009). This would therefore imply that the best form of research for related research would only be correlation research. The researchers on violence caused by the media have considered the experimental issue by shifting their assessment to aggression (Block and Crain, 2007). However, since not all aggressive acts are unlawful or damaging, some of these can be assessed experimentally. Where studies can discover through experiments the impact of media violence and associate it with the real world scenario, then it may also be argued that both phenomena have sufficiently similar elements to trigger concern (Block and Crain, 2007). If it is not possible to ethically assess violent behaviours, how would it be possible then to evaluate aggression in the laboratory setting? The modified Taylor Competition Reaction Time Test has been a common tool in measuring aggression (Anderson and Dill, 2000). In this test, research subjects, after being exposed to a form of media (possibly violent or nonviolent show or game), are instructed to participate in a reaction time game against another person. They are also instructed to press a button quickly when their screen turns red. This test apparently indicates that for participants who usually have longer noise blasts against an ‘opponent,’ they are likely displaying aggressive behaviour (Anderson and Dill, 2000). However, in the actual setting, this test cannot be an accurate measure of violence especially as the noise blasts are not causing any real damage. Some researchers however insist that the test does measure aggression because it also measures a person’s intuition towards violence or non-violence (Anderson and Dill, 2000). Still, even with its years of application, the test has not convincingly established real-world aggression and the actual manifestation of violent crime or tendencies. In general, there have been two different approaches in understanding the impact of media violence. These approaches include the social learning approaches and the catharsis model. Most scholars have used the social learning model. Such model indicates that individuals would likely imitate what they see. One such social learning model is The General Aggression Model (Bushman and Anderson, 2002) which argues that being exposed to violent shows or media causes the development of violent tendencies or thoughts. In the actual setting, when individuals encounter vague conditions, those possessing violent thoughts would likely react violently as well. For the catharsis model, aggression is mostly based on biological expression (Bushman and Anderson, 2002). This model indicates that media violence is considered a release for aggressive thoughts or tendencies. In effect, individuals who are exposed to violent media would likely be less aggressive. This catharsis model however, is not regarded well among researchers involved in media violence studies (Bushman, 2002). Although the social learning model seems to provide a more logical perspective on media violence, neither model has found effective support from relevant studies. The social learning models of aggression have been assessed and tested and results are inconsistent and are based on invalid or poor research tools (Freedman, 2002). More importantly systematic and meta-analytic studies relating to media violence effects have consistently indicated no links between media violence exposure and increased aggression (Savage, 2004; Paik and Comstock, 1994; Bushman and Anderson, 2001). The results for these studies generally assess aggression, not violent crime, which mostly presents with weaker effects (Ferguson, 2009). Results relating to video games have also presented with weak correlations to media violence (Ferguson, 2007). Publication bias has also been noted for studies relating to video games. The results from research have also provided insignificant support for the catharsis model. Recent studies have not provided any support for the points suggested by the catharsis model. This may be attributed to the fact that not many researchers actually evaluate the model (Ferguson, 2009). For such an evaluation to occur researchers would have to start off by provoking research subjects, triggering their anger and then assessing whether violent or non-violent media would calm them. Not many researchers have carried out such studies with most of the studies using the opposite approach to the test. These researchers use individuals who are calm, not irritated, exposing them to violent media and then studying their behaviour after (Ferguson, 2007). In effect, the current available studies do not provide sufficient basis to support or oppose the catharsis model. Sherry (2007) has suggested that individuals who are often exposed to long periods of violent video games often display less aggression as compared to those who are exposed to shorter periods of violent video game playing. In effect, the longer an individual plays with violent games, the less aggressive they would likely be. Although this suggestion takes issue with the social learning theories, it does not also support the catharsis model (Sherry, 2007). It is more likely that video games are not familiar with games they would be assigned randomly. Such unfamiliarity triggers frustration which is reduced over time as the player gets used to the game. Studies which use short exposures to violent video games may manifest higher levels of aggression; however this may be attributed to issues on game familiarity, not violent game contents. Moreover, the decrease in aggression indicators with time is not based on catharsis, but in improved familiarity. In the study by Unsworth et al. (2007), the authors established that the impact of violent video game playing was different for each player as some players manifested cathartic effects following hours of playing violent games. Majority of players manifested no change or effect, and some also ended up being more aggressive. It may therefore be difficult to conclusively argue that violent media has a cathartic or non-cathartic impacts, especially as individuals are often different from each other. According to the study by Olson et al. (2008), adolescent boys are usually calmer and less aggressive after a violent video game play than before playing the game; and some of them actually played video games to decrease any aggression they may be feeling. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, it is important to note that media definitely has an effect on humans, whether such effect is sufficient to drive individuals to do or not do something is still an unsettled issue. Despite numerous researches which have been carried out on the subject matter, inconsistent results have emerged. Moreover, these research studies cannot ethically evaluate the issue because human subjects are involved and media violence cannot actually be used and observed in relation to the manifestation of violence. This same dilemma is seen among studies on children and how they are affected by violent video games. Research does not indicate specific and definitive results. These studies are however firm in declaring that the hypodermic theory is no longer the accepted norm in terms of media effects and that humans are actually more discerning and analytical in terms of how they perceive and react to violent media. In effect, although the exposure of individuals to violence in the media has changed and has become more pervasive since the introduction of media, humans too have evolved in their perceptions. Violent behaviour or tendencies among humans may therefore not necessarily be associated to media violence. References Anderson, C., & Dill, K. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772–790. Andison, F. S. (1977). TV violence and viewer aggression: Accumulation of study results 1956-1976. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(3), 314-331. Barker, M. & Petley, J. (2001). Ill Effects: The Media, Violence Debate. London: Routledge. Block, J., & Crain, B. (2007). Omissions and errors in “Media violence and the American public.” American Psychologist, 62, 252–253. Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (Vol. 3). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage publications. Boyle, K. (2001). What's Natural About Killing? Gender, copycat violence and Natural Born Killers. Journal of Gender Studies, 10(3), 311-321. Buckingham, D. (2001). Electronic child abuse? Rethinking the media’s effects on children. In M. Barker, & J. Petley (Eds.), Ill effects: The media/Violence debate (pp. 63-77). 2nd ed. London, Routledge. Bushman, B., & Anderson, C. (2001). Media violence and the American public. American Psychologist, 56, 477–489. Campbell, S., & Ling, R. (2009). Effects of mobile communication. In B. Jennings & M. B. Oliver. (Eds). Media effects: Advances in Theory and research (pp. 592-606). New York: Routledge, New York. Cumberbatch, G. (1989). Violence and the mass media: the research evidence. In G. Cumberbatch & D. Howitt (Eds.), A measure of uncertainty: the effects of the mass media London: John Libbey & Company Ltd. Davis, D. K. (1990). News and politics. New directions in political communication, 147-184. Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 470–482. Ferguson, C. (2009). Media Violence Effects and Violent Crime: Good Science or Moral Panic?. Violent Crime: Clinical and Social Implications. Ed. Scapegoat or Murder Simulator Evan Friscia. Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gunter, B. & Harrison, J. (2013). Violence on Television: An Analysis of Amount, Nature, Location and Origin of Violence in British Programmes. London: Routledge. Morley, D. (1995). Theories of consumption in media studies. Acknowledging consumption, 296- 328. Olson, C. (2004). Media violence research and youth violence data: Why do they conflict? Academic Psychiatry, 28, 144–150. Olson, C., Kutner, L., & Warner, D. (2008). The role of violent video game play in adolescent development: Boys’ perspectives. Journal of Adolescence Research, 23, 55–75. Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on anti-social behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516–546. Savage, J. (2004.) Does viewing violent media really cause criminal violence? A methodological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 99–128. Sherry, J. L. (2004). Media effects theory and the nature/nurture debate: A historical overview and directions for future research. Media Psychology, 6(1), 83-109. Sherry, J. (2007). Violent video games and aggression: Why can’t we find links? In R. Preiss, B. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 231–248). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sims, A., & Melville-Thomas, G. (1985). Survey of the opinion of child and adolescent psychiatrists on the viewing of violent videos by children. Bulletin of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, 238-240. Unsworth, G., Devilly, G., & Ward, T. (2007). The effect of playing violent videogames on adolescents: Should parents be quaking in their boots? Psychology, Crime and Law, 13, 383–394. Winn, M. (2002). Plug-in Drug: Television, Computers, and Family Life. Penguin USA. Read More