Exploring the Violence in Television and Its Effect on Childrens Psyche - Essay Example

Exploring the Violence in Television and Its Effect in Children's Psyche Introduction Many years have passed but an alarming fact has been falling onto deaf ears: thousands of studies conclude television enables children to develop "an extensive how-to course in aggression" (Comstock & Scharrer, 1999; Slaby et al., 1995, p. 163). Violent TV programs do not only create short-term difficulties in parent and peer relations, but it also has been proven to cause lasting and detrimental effects. According to a widespread survey, 57 percent of American TV programs between 6 A.M. and 11 P.M. contain violent scenes. In fact, most TV violence does not show victims experiencing any serious harm, and few programs condemn violence or depict other ways of solving problems. Violent content is 9 percent above average in children's programming, and cartoons are the most violent (Center for Communication and Social Policy, 1998). We are all aware that our daily lives are studded with different types of violence. Social psychologists have asserted that much of our behavior is learned by watching others. And what do children see on TV They are exposed to more violence. This further validates what the children have seen in the neighborhood, it makes violence such normal fare -- everyone's doing it, not just in their neighborhood, but all over world. More than the adults, it is the children that have greater propensity to imitate the things they have watched on television. For them, TV represents violence as an appropriate way to solve interpersonal problems, to get what you want out of life, avenge slight injuries and insults and make up for perceived injustices. How extreme is the problem of violence in television Does it really transmit aggressive behavior to children Does it affect their psychological health This paper will try to tackle the link of TV violence and aggression to young viewers and try to analyze what are the possible solutions that can be done to thwart the incremental effects of violence in television. Extent of Violence Two large scale studies--the University of Pennsylvania's Cultural Indicators Project and the National Television Violence Study (NTVS) have observed prevalence of violence in television. In the early 1970s, Gerbner and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania began conducting yearly analyses of violence on television and continued for more than two decades. They counted the number of violent acts using the definition, "the overt expression of physical force, with or without weapon, against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt or killed, or actually hurting or killing" (Gerbner et al. 1978, p. 179). Furthermore, they required that the violence be plausible and credible, which rules out idle threats, verbal abuse, or comic gestures with no credible violent consequences. The violence may be intentional or accidental. In addition, violent accidents, catastrophes, and acts of nature are included. Signorielli (1990) clarified: Any act that fits the definition, regardless of conventional notions about types of violence that may have "serious" effects, is coded. This includes violence that occurs in realistic, serious, fantasy, or humorous contexts. "Accidental" violence and "acts of nature" are recorded because they are always purposeful in fiction, claim victims, and demonstrate power (p. 89). On the other hand, the NTVS (1996) analyzed more than 10,000 hours of television programming across 23 channels over 3 years using the definition of violence as: An overt depiction of a credible threat of physical force or the actual use of such force intended to physically harm an animate being or group of beings. Violence also includes certain depictions of physically harmful consequences against an animate being or group that occur as a result of unseen violent means (p. 1-48). Their interpretation of violence in media messages is based more on harm to viewers than on harm to media characters. It is known that a very small percentage of violent acts on television are graphic. The NTVS (1996) found that rarely is violence shown graphically; that is, only 3% of violent scenes feature a close-up of the violence and only 15% of violent scenes showed any blood or gore. Furthermore, much of the violence is sanitized, with 47% of violent interactions depicting no harm at all to the victims. However, sanitized violence can have serious negative effects on viewers, especially over the long term. After repeated viewing of depictions of violence with little harm to victims, people can become desensitized and more accepting of violence as a way to solve problems (Linz, Donnerstein, & Penrod, 1988). In addition, the sheer repetition of violent acts can lead people to overestimate their risk of being victimized (Gerbner et al., 1978). Of course, television programs are not all violent because there are some educational TV programs for children, like Sesame Street, Art Attack or Blues Clues. However, looking at the total amount of TV viewing rather than at only educational programming reveals a small negative correlation between heavy TV viewing and school grades or achievement test scores. That is, children who are heavy viewers, particularly those who spend more than 30 hours a week watching television, do slightly less well in school (Huston & Wright, 1998). Of course, it is quite possible that children who are already doing poorly in school choose to watch more television, so it may be incorrect to conclude that TV watching is interfering with school performance. Longitudinal studies give some help in untangling the causal links. Daniel Anderson and his colleagues (Anderson et al., 2001) found that girls who were heavy TV viewers in preschool got slightly lower school grades overall, especially in science and English, even when researchers controlled statistically for each child's early skill in those areas. For boys in this sample, early heavy viewing had no such persisting effects. Other research, however, suggests that heavy TV viewing may have negative (causal) effects on the development of reading skills for both boys and girls (Ritchie, Price, & Roberts, 1987). TV and Aggression Besides the lower academic achievement brought about by excessive TV viewing, studies have shown that highly aggressive youngsters have a greater appetite for violent TV and computer games. As they view more, they become especially likely to resort to hostile ways of solving problems. However, violent TV sparks hostile thoughts and behavior, even in non-aggressive children; its impact is simply less intense (Bushman & Huesmann 2001, p. 231). TV violence "hardens" children to aggression, making them more willing to tolerate it in others. Heavy TV viewers believe that there is much more violence and danger in society, an effect that is especially strong for children who perceive televised aggression as relevant to their own lives (Donnerstein, Slaby, & Eron 1994, p. 220). As their responses indicate, violent TV images modify children's attitudes toward social reality so they increasingly match what children see on TV. However, Moeller (2001) had indicated that the possible relationships between television violence and children's aggression are multiple and potentially complex. First, there might be no relationship at all. Second, there might be a correlational relationship (presumably positive in nature) between the extent to which children watch violent television shows and their actual aggressive behavior. If such an association does exist, then other possibilities also loom. For example, watching violence on television might cause aggressive behavior. However, it is also possible that having an aggressive personality might cause children to watch violence on television (a situation you recognize as a child-effects position). It is also possible that both watching violence on television and being aggressive might be caused by some third variable (e.g., neglectful parenting). Finally, watching violence on television might not cause aggressive behavior per se but might do so in interaction with one or more other variables. For example, violent television programs might not have an adverse effect on most children, but might be deleterious for certain vulnerable children (p. 127). After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, television reporting had obviously influenced how Americans experienced shock on the fate of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Many saw live images of the World Trade Center towers collapsing. In the days that followed, videotapes of the attacks and their immediate effects were televised over and over again. And in the weeks and months that followed, television presented additional images of the "war on terrorism." Indeed, many parents worried about the impact of the attacks and the war on terrorism on their children. Psychologists pointed out that there is little or no research on how televised terrorism might affect children (Atwood & Donnelly, 2002). Some observers expressed the concern that exposure to terrorist acts and retaliatory responses, a new experience for most Americans, might make American children more aggressive and violent. Others worried that the strong emphasis on the Middle Eastern ethnicity and Muslim religion of those believed to be responsible for the attacks would foster the development of racism and prejudice. Although it is too early to tell what the long-term impact of these events will be on American children, research examining the effects of terrorism and war on children in nations where such events are everyday experiences allows psychologists to make some predictions. And, as is always the case with developmental outcomes, many factors influence how acts of violence that occur in the context of war affect children. First, like children in violent communities in the United States, children in countries where terrorist acts are common experiences, such as Israel, are more aggressive as a group than those who live in more peaceful locations. However, research indicates that the likelihood that an individual child will engage in violent behavior depends on certain protective and risk factors (Aptekar & Stocklin, 1997). Second, one important factor distinguishes nations at war from violent communities. When nations are at war, the people on each side usually have reasons they believe are important enough to justify continuing to fight. Research suggests that, if children understand the reasons and goals associated with war, they are less likely to become aggressive (Garbarino, Kostelny, & Dubrow, 1991). So, explaining to children conflicts that involve violence can help moderate the potential effects of that violence. To this end, parents and teachers might incorporate two important themes that emerged in televised discussions of the events of September 11 into the explanations they provide to children. First, the military response of the United States was framed in terms of self-defense and was accompanied by renewed discussion of shared national values. Second, most Americans viewed the terrorists as distinct in both beliefs and practices from those of similar ethnicity and religion. These two themes may serve to moderate the potential effects of terrorism and the war on terrorism on children's own choices with regard to aggression, violence, and racism. Conclusion For parents, the clear message from all the research on television is that it is an educational medium. Children learn from what they watch-vocabulary words, helpful behaviors, attitudes, gender roles, and aggressive behaviors. Huston and Wright (1994) point out that "television can be an ally, not an enemy, for parents. Parents can use television programs for their children's benefit just as they use books and toys" (p. 80). However, using television in this way requires considerable vigilance and planning. Then, what should be done to put a plug at the increasing violence in TV The government should find appropriate ways in having more claws at censorship. The mass media organizations should also encourage their colleagues to produce educational programs and hold more sensibility in what they show on television. Likewise, parents should be more responsible not to make TV as a "babysitter" and they should find time to monitor what programs their children watch. Treatment for aggressive children must begin early, before their antisocial behavior becomes too absorbed, that it is difficult to change. Although violent television is clearly not the only, or even the major, cause of aggressiveness among children or adults, nonetheless it has been proven to be a significant influence. TV should be a source of entertainment and education and not as a motivation to cultivate violent behaviors among our youth. References Aptekar, L., & Stocklin, D. (1997). Children in Particularly Difficult Circumstances. In J. W. Berry, P. R. Darsen, & T. S. Saraswathi (eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 2, (pp. 377-412). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Atwood, Joan D., and Donnelly, J. (2002) The Children's War: Their Reactions to Devastating. Events. The Family Journal. 10(1): 11-18. Bushman B.J. & Huesmann L.R. (2001). Effects of Televised Violence on Aggression in Handbook of Children and the Media, eds. D. Singer & J. Singer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 223-54. Center for Communication and Social Policy. (1998). National Television Violence Study Volume 3: Executive Summary. University of California, Santa Barbara, April. Comstock, G., & Scharrer, E. (1999). Television: What's on, Who's Watching, and What it Means. San Diego, CA: Academic. Donnerstein, E., Slaby R. G., & Eron, L. D. (1994). The Mass Media and Youth Aggression in Reason to Hope: A Psychosocial Perspective on Violence and Youth, (eds.), L. D. Eron, J. H. Gentry, & P. Schlegel. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 219-250. Garbarino J., Kostelny K., & Dubrow N. (1991). No Place to be a Child: Growing Up in a War Zone. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N. (1978). Cultural Indicators: Violence profile no. 9. Journal of Communication, 28, 176-207. Huston A. C., & Wright J. C. (1998). Television and the Informational and Educational Needs of Children. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, 9-23. Huston, A. C., Anderson, D. R., Wright, J. C., Linebarger, D. L., & Schmitt, K. L. (2001). Sesame Street Viewers as Adolescents: The Recontact Study. In S. M. Fisch & R. T. Truglio (eds.), "G" is for "Growing": Thirty Years of Research on Children and Sesame Street (pp. 131-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Linz, D. G., Donnerstein, E., & Penrod, S. (1988). Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Violent and Sexually Degrading Depictions of Women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 758-768. Moeller, T. G. (2001). Youth Aggression and Violence: A Psychological Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. National Television Violence Study. (1996). Technical Report (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ritchie, D., Price, V., & Roberts, D. (1987). Television, Reading, and Reading Achievement: A Reappraisal. Communication Research, 14, 292-315. Signorielli, N. (1990). Television's Mean and Dangerous World: A continuation of the Cultural Indicators Perspective. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (eds.), Cultivation Analysis: New Directions in Media Effects Research (pp. 85-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Slaby, R. G., Roedell, W. C., Arezzo, D., & Hendrix, K. (1995). Early Violence Prevention: Tools for teachers of young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Read More