Media Portrayal of Violence Can Lead to Aggressive Behaviour - Essay Example

Examine the following ment: media depictions of violence can prompt aggressive behavior toward others or themselves even when portrayals of violence are fictional. Definitions In order to begin to assess the proposition that media portrayal of violence can lead to aggressive behaviour, we need first to clarify the term. Violence has been defined as: "The overt expression of physical force (with or without a weapon) against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt or killed, or actually hurting or killing" (Gerbner and Gross, 1976). Although this helps to clarify the meaning of the term, there are various caveats that need to be borne in mind. First, viewers themselves may perceive violence in different ways (Gunter, B. 1985) often leading to a situation where a researcher's rating of media violence may be more extreme than that of the viewer (Gunter, and McAleer, 1990). For example, cartoons are often deemed to be violent, yet children hardly ever interpret them this way. Second, violence should not always be viewed as a single category whose meaning can be taken for granted because the context in which 'violence' is portrayed may influence the viewers' interpretation of what constitutes a violent act. In this respect, non-fictional violence is nearly always rated as more violent and disturbing than fictional portrayals. Social Surveys of Media Violence and Aggression. The public's common sense opinion of the relationship between violence and the media is to view the link or correlation as direct and uncontroversial. This is based on the notion that, as television has become more widespread and the number of violence programmes have increased, there has been a corresponding rise in levels of violence in society at large. While it is true that television ownership has expanded enormously, most homes in the U.S.A. have at least one, the amount of television violence may have actually stayed the same or decreased in proportion to the rising levels of violent crime in society (Cumberbatch 1987). The link may therefore not be as obvious as it at first appears. In fact, many studies on the issue seemed to bear out the common sense view. In 1972, Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behaviour concluded that there was a strong association between exposure to television violence and social behavior in children and adolescents. Ten years later, in 1982, the National Institute of Mental Health came up with similar findings. Similarly, in 1992 the American Psychological Association took a ten year look at the question and emphasized the fact that television violence did have a role to play in determining aggressive attitudes over time and across demographic groups (Levine and Rosich 1996). A review of laboratory and field studies, including longitudinal research, came to one overarching finding 'The mass media are significant contributors to the aggressive behavior and aggression-related attitudes of many children, adolescents and adults'. (Donnerstein et al 1994). Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences Violence Panel, based on a review of 188 studies and 1,126 comparisons between 1957 and 1990, underline the fact that the effects of television on violence are quite significant (Comstock and Paik 1990). Most of these studies have concentrated on television simply due to the fact that it is so widespread and accessible when compared to most other forms of communication. Qualifications as to the Findings of Early Surveys Given such wide-ranging in-depth studies of the subject, it seemed that the issue was closed to any further debate. This picture however may not be so clear cut. Caution has been advised by some investigators who emphasize that the effects of television violence may not be the same for all individuals precisely because some people are more prone to the effects of seeing violence than others (Donnerstein et al 1994). The consensus that the media can lead to aggressive behavior is a general finding that needs to be further scrutinised in order to understand how this occurs and which groups are particularly prone to its effects. Media violence may be only one factor in a spectrum of other factors within society that leads to aggressive behavior. Violence may thus have multiply causes with its portrayal in the media not being the sole cause (Taylor et al 1994). In addition, the belief that the media exerts a powerful, damaging influence on youth may serve as a convenient diversion that masks the real causes of aggressive acts. Generally, children are regarded as being particularly susceptible to imitative violence as they seem to copy what they see on television as much as they imitate adults, peers and characters they read about in books. In this respect, most studies have focussed on children because, not only are they regarded as being more vulnerable to the social effects of television violence, but this is also thought to have negative consequences when they become adults. Evidence, however, as to whether this causes them to be more anti-social or aggressive than they would otherwise be is lacking (Buckingham1996). While it is true that those already disposed to violence, for example due to experiencing real aggression in domestic circumstances, may be more influenced by television, evidence that such exposure can provide anything more than a cue to the type of violence is limited. It is often assumed by parents that young people are passive recipients of whatever is broadcast by the media. This may be underestimating the way in which children and adolescents may actually be more sophisticated viewers than adults. Children react to and interpret television by way of conventions, genre and narrative involving a complex interaction of social factors on a number of different levels e.g. opinion of peers about programmes, attitude of parents and what is viewed as acceptable among a social group. Given a society where the media has become all pervasive, there is a need to empower children and parents according to such criteria so that they can make informed choices as to what may or may not lead to inappropriate behaviour (Buckingham 1996). The inference is that the problem of violence in society is not going to be alleviated by quick-fix restrictions to various television programmes because the issue is much more complicated involving various aspects and domains by which a society functions of which the media is but one strand. Children seem perfectly able to discriminate between fictional and non-fictional (e.g. the news) portrayals of violence and often react to the former with less anxiety than the latter and develop strategies to protect themselves from films that cause distress. In this regard, they seem to find it easier to distance themselves from fictional than non-fictional material. However, fictional violence can still lead to nightmares and anxiety, though this is usually of short duration with no long-term effects. Some themes that evoke fear cut across categories and genres as well as differences between fact and fiction. For example, body violation, the supernatural, death of animals, threats to family harmony are particularly relevant in this respect. The Vulnerable Groups Individuals who suffer from social or psychological distress seem especially vulnerable to depicted violence (Buckingingham and Allerton 1995). The reasons for this may reside in the fact that, because these children are confused mentally and emotionally, they are not able to distinguish fact from fiction to the same degree as normal children. In addition, in the absence of a parental role model, such children could be turning to the media as a replacement for absent or inadequate parents with all the consequences that arise therefrom e. g. copycat violence. Media violence is also thought to contribute to some aggressive acts in the case of those who experience unemployment or social deprivation and the availability of drugs and firearms may be a further contributory factor (Taylor et al 1994). This scenario can be exacerbated when the media, principally the non-fictional domain, employs stereotypes of race, gender or age etc., making it more likely that such groups will become a target of violence (Lester and Ross 2003). Psychological Aspect of the Influence of the Media on Violent Behavior. Bandura (1965) found that by exposing children to a film, where violence was being directed towards a doll, that the children's behavior subsequently became aggressive towards a doll during real play. In fact, the children imitated some of the detailed forms of the model's violence and this behavior was even greater when reinforced. This became known as observational learning and has some obvious similarities with copycat or imitative behavior. Many studies corroborated this finding, the conclusion being that young children can acquire an aggressive response not in their previous behavioral repertoire merely through exposure to a film or television model displaying aggression. The implication was that mass-media fictional violence could be contributing to increased levels of violence in society. Psychological studies, therefore, appeared to be confirming what social surveys had found as to the effects of media-violence on behavior. The mechanism underlying this response was believed to reside in the fact that watching violence causes an increase in arousal levels with more realistic violence inducing greater arousal. Therefore, when an individual is engaged in everyday activities, because arousal levels tend to be still high, there is a likelihood that violence will ensue. As we have seen, however, social learning theorists have stressed the importance of cognitive factors in mediating between a stimulus and a response. So how violence is perceived and interpreted are important factors in this equation. Moreover, arousal levels tend to return to a normal state soon after the violent or aggressive event has passed; so Bandura's study may only be relevant to a timeframe immediately following the viewing of a violent film. An alternative approach to psychological research on media violence concerns desensitisation. This refers to a reduction in emotional responsiveness to television violence as a result of repeated exposure. In other words, it is thought that the more one watches violence the greater the tolerance so that, as with drugs, more is required to produce the desired effect. The implication here is that, because one becomes desensitised to violence, there is more of a chance that violence will be resorted to when the occasion presents itself in the real situation. Watching acts of aggression may therefore serve to weaken the restraints on such behavior by way of guilt and fear of retaliation or disapproval. In this way, violence comes to be regarded as the norm rather than the exception. This theory, however, has yet to receive confirmation. Paradoxically, psychologists have also put forward a diametrically opposite view referred to as the catharsis theory. This account sees watching violence as an opportunity to release pent-up aggression. The implication is that watching televised violence can have a therapeutic effect and should be increased rather than reduced. This theory is implausible because it has been shown that the actual performance of aggressive acts is far from cathartic; in fact adults become more aggressive, not less, when exposed to violent situations (Loew, 1967). From a psycho-sociological perspective, watching programmes in which conflicts are resolved through physical violence may have a widespread effect on an individuals attitude towards the place of violence in society. For example, Gerbner and Gross (1976) reported that viewers who watched television more than average are more distrustful, overestimate the risk of criminal violence, buy more locks, dogs and guns to protect themselves. So, even though this group may not actually resort to violence they nevertheless still react to the perceived threat of violence instigated by the media. Conclusion The idea that there may be a direct, incontrovertible link between media violence and human behavior receives some support from the many early and some later studies that have examined this issue. As we have noted, there are, nevertheless, certain important qualifications that need to be taken into consideration. First, and most importantly, media violence is not the sole cause of violence in society. The media is set within a complex social structure of a sophisticated culture whereby there are many subtle interactions taking place of which the media represents one facet. The media may therefore simply be a reflection of a society's priorities and ethos to the extent that the real cause of violence is more than likely to reside in the fabric of society rather than the media itself. Those studies that tended to find a direct relationship between the media and aggression probably ignored these more subtle factors. In order to come to a proper understanding of the true status of media violence in relation to aggression, there needs to be more of an understanding of the complex ways that social criteria and the media interact in these ways. Young people are probably much more resilient and 'media literate' than they are given credit for, precisely because they grow up in a culture where this is called for. Having said this, those who are subject to various kinds of social deprivation, especially where there is insufficient emotional support and guidance from parents, may be particularly vulnerable to media violence. Similarly with psychological approaches to this question - although initially it was thought that watching violent films can lead directly to aggressive behavior, this was found to be only relevant to instances where the wider agenda was not taken account of. As the effects of the media become more extensive and invasive, especially through the internet, computer games and so on, and images of violence become more realistic and immediate, it is incumbent on parents, teachers, individuals and authorities concerned to inform themselves as to what constitutes appropriate viewing. Certainly, if young people are left to their own devices in an emotional vacuum with little support from a significant other the verdict seems to be unanimous that watching violent material will have negative consequences. In this case, the solution would seem to be to provide the appropriate level of support so that children and adolescents do not become vulnerable in this way. But this implies an engagement with wider social issues, again illustrating how complicated the relationship between the media and society actually is. In sum, to understand how the media may influence aggressive behavior it is necessary to disentangle the way that it interfaces with society. It may therefore not be possible to understand its effects other than by considering it from this perspective. In short, the notion that it was possible to consider media violence as a detached issue may have, from the outset, been misconceived and simplistic. Some later research has attempted to address the more complex picture but much more needs to be carried out along the same lines to assess the real influence of the media. References Bandura, A. 1965. Influence of model's reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1, pp. 589-595. Buckingham, D. and Allerton, M. 1995. 'Fear, Fright and Distress: A Review of Research on Children's Emotional Responses to Television'. London: Broadcasting Standards Council. Buckingham, David. 1996. 'Moving Images - Understanding children's emotional responses to violence'. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Comstock, G. A. and Paik, H. J. 1990. 'The Effects of Television Violence on Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-analysis'. National Academy of Sciences unpublished report. Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior, Washington, DC Cumberbatch, G.1987. The portrayal of violence on British Television. London: BBC Television. Donnerstein, E., Slaby, R. G., and Eron, L. D. 1994. The Mass Media and Youth Aggression. In, 'Reason to Hope: Psychological Perspectives on Violence and Youth' pp. 219-250. L. D. Eron., J. H. Gentry and P. Schlegel. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Gerbner, G. and Gross, L. 1976. Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of communication. 26. pp. 173-199 Gunter, B. 1985. Dimensions of Television Violence. Aldershot: Gower. Gunter, B and McAleer. 1990. Children and television - The one-eyed monster London: Routledge. Loew, P. 1979. Acquisition of a hostile attitude and its relationship to aggressive behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 5, pp. 335-341. Lester, P. M. and Ross, S. D. 2003. Images that Injure - Pictorial Stereotypes in the Media. Connecticut: Praeger. Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behaviour. 1972. "Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence. Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A. and Sears, D. O. 1994. 'Social Psychology.' Englewood, NJ: Prenctice Hall. Levine, Felice, J., and Rosich, Kathline, J. 1996. Social Causes of Violence - Crafting a Science Agenda. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Outline Although violence can be defined as a deliberate act of aggression towards a person against their will, this tends to be regarded differently when depicted in the media. There is some evidence that non-fiction violence, as seen in news programmes, may be more disturbing than fictional violence. Early social surveys found a correlation between media violence and actual violence in society, reinforcing the common-sense view held by the public. This tidy picture however is subject to qualification because of the complex ways by which society, the individual and media interact. These include the fact that: 1. Some people are more prone to the effects of violence than others. 2. Violence may have multiple causes of which the media is but one. 3. Blaming the media may divert attention as to the real causes of violence. 4. People are not passive recipients of the media but devise different strategies to cope with its effects. The problem of violence cannot therefore be alleviated through a quick-fix scapegoating of the media. Normal children may not be as prone to media violence as is supposed because they build up strategies for coping, though some kinds of fictional violence require more coping strategies than others. Children from deprived backgrounds may be more at risk due to emotional insecurity and psychological confusion. Imitation or copycat violence may not be as prevalent as supposed because there are cognitive factors that intervene in complex ways that serve to offset its effects. Desensitisation to violence, through media exposure, may have some effect on weakening social constraints to violence but this has yet to be established. The opposing view that watching violence may help to release pent-up anger has received little support. Despite this, exposure to media-violence may help to raise the fear of violence in the community leading to inappropriate defensive actions. Although there may be some link between media-violence and aggression, this has to be seen in the context of the wider society and not in isolation. Only by considering the effects of the media in this was can its true influence on society be gauged. Read More