The Moderating Role of Gender and Predisposition to Violence - Research Paper Example

The Moderating Role of Gender and Predisposition to Violence on Violent Media Exposure Effects Esther Perez Nova Southeastern December 5, 2014 Abstract The General Aggression Model (GAM) states that short-term exposure to violent media increases aggressive cognition, emotions, and behaviors. This research hypothesizes that watching a TV show with violence will increase aggression among viewers, and that gender and predisposition to violence will moderate this TV violence-aggression relationship. The study will use a pre-test, post-test control group experimental research design. It will involve 80 undergraduate participants (40 males and 40 females) who will be divided into two groups: one group will watch a domestic violence show, while the other will watch a romance show. I will use a multi-factorial design to examine the data. These instruments will be used: Maudsley Violence Questionnaire (MVQ), a questionnaire that will gather information on demographics and other variables, self-report for time spent on consuming violent media and kinds of violent media, and the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ). The Moderating Role of Gender and Predisposition to Violence on Violent Media Exposure Effects The coincidence between the popularity of violent TV shows in the 1960s and higher violent crime rates motivated social scientists to determine if violent media exposure affected physical, emotional, and cognitive aggression (Ferguson & Savage, 2012). The General Aggression Model (GAM) states that short-term exposure to violent media arouses aggressive cognition, thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Qian & Zhang, 2014). In particular, the inner state of the person, such as thoughts and feelings, influences their interest in and consumption of violent media (Sigurdsson et al., 2006). GAM also posits that long-term exposure to media violence can result to long-term real-life violence too (Qian & Zhang, 2014). Ferguson and Savage (2012), however, warned researchers from using poor research designs that do not consider the third factor or intervening and mediating variables. Studies are mixed on the role of violent media in aggression. Watching violent television shows and films may increase aggression, although other factors may mediate this interaction, particularly interactivity, gender, and personal characteristics that incline people to violence (Lin, 2013). Gender has been shown to moderate the relationship between TV violence and aggression (Sigurdsson, 2006). In addition, people who are inclined to violence due to high aggressiveness level or violent traits are more prone to being violent after watching violent films/TV shows (Qian & Zhang, 2014). Gender and personality traits and characteristics may be the main moderators that can explain why some people who watch violent media or play violent video games do not necessarily exhibit violent behaviors towards others. Some studies showed that media violence per se is associated with violent behaviors. Coker et al. (2014) studied the correlation between exposure to media violence (using three media types: film, video games, and music) and physical aggression for Grade 5 students. They used a survey research design that included 5,147 students and their parents from three U.S. metropolitan areas. They used the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale, multivariable linear regression, and partial correlation coefficients to study these media effects, while considering the duration of consumption and frequency of violent content. After adjusting for multivariate factors, specifically sociodemographics, family and neighborhood violence, and child mental health symptoms, their findings showed that media violence exposure is correlated with violent behaviors and that increasing time spent on consuming violent video games and music increased this correlation (Coker et al., 2014). This study has the strengths of multivariate analysis and control of potential third variable/s, but its weaknesses are that it is only correlational and it does not determine the connection between personality variables and other possible mediating variables. Another study showed, however, that interactivity is more important than watching violent media alone. Lin (2013) conducted a survey design after recruiting only male students in the U.S. by mail. He examined the impact of media interactivity by assessing the violent media effects of three kinds of media (where he randomly assigned the sample to): watching a recorded violent video game play, playing a violent video game, and watching a violent movie. He measured three aspects of aggression: affect, cognition, and physiological arousal. He controlled the variables of frustration, trait aggression, and enjoyment. Findings showed that video games players should the highest aggression in affect, cognition, and physiological arousal, and that character identification did not mediate the effect of violent media on aggression. The weaknesses of the study are its correlational design and the media consumption duration may be too short to assess actual media effects. Its strengths are its multivariate analyses and the identification of interactivity as important to violent media effects. Moreover, in light of studies underscoring the connection between media violence and actual violence, other scholars believe that the literature has serious methodology problems and many studies fail to third or mediating variables. Ferguson and Savage (2012) examined if recent studies have responded to these methodological problems after fifty years of research on violent media. They reviewed widely-cited articles. They stressed that the experimental studies that cited Bandura’s bo-bo doll studies neglected the latter’s studies lack of proof for causing and generalizing interpersonal violence (Ferguson & Savage, 2012). They also noted problems in operationalizing exposure to TV violence because related studies did not prove that TV violence per se caused violent behaviors in their samples. In addition, when controlling moderating variables, they noted that violent media effects became zero to insignificant (Ferguson & Savage, 2012). Hence, Ferguson and Savage (2012) do not believe that recent studies respond to the methodological rigors needed to prove that violent media consumption in itself increases aggression. Other studies then studied the importance of third variables, where some showed that personality variables can moderate violent media effects on human behaviors. Ferguson et al. (2011) studied the effect of personality variables on participants’ preference for violent media and their moderating role in affecting the connection between violent media exposure and violent actions and depressed moods. These personality variables included Five-Factor Model personality traits, trait aggression, and other possible moderators of media violence outcomes. Their sampling included college students from different cultural groups: 232 Mexican–Americans, 455 Croatians, and 150 English students. They analyzed the data using hierarchical multiple regressions. Their findings showed that there was a small link between media violence and aggressive behavior, and that, when personality characteristics were controlled, these media effects were no longer existent for English and Mexican-American students. The Croatians showed a more complex picture wherein playing video games reduced violent acts, while watching violent TV shows resulted to an increase in violent behaviors (Ferguson et al., 2011). Across these cultural groups, low agreeableness and high trait aggression predicted violent actions, and that, though men engaged in violence more than women, personality variables were more salient than gender (Ferguson et al., 2011). The strengths of this article are the use of multivariate analyses and consideration of moderating variables, while its weaknesses are that it is correlational and does not study if consumption of media violence per se can lead to significant impacts on violent cognition, emotions, and actions. A study underscores, however, that empathy and attitudes towards violence moderate violent media effects more than superordinate personality traits (i.e. psychoticism, extraversion, and antisocial traits). Sigurdsson et al. (2006) tested this hypothesis on 433 college students in Iceland. They used a number of instruments: The Maudsley Violence Questionnaire (MVQ) to evaluate the attitudes and beliefs that incline people to violence; The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) that measures psychoticism and other superordinate traits; The Adult Impulsiveness, Venturesomeness and Empathy Questionnaire (IVE); Gough Socialization Scale (GSS) that evaluates proneness to anti-social behavior; and a questionnaire that collected information on gender, age, and video film watching and computer game playing habits (Sigurdsson et al., 2006). Their findings showed that acceptance of violence predicted aggressive levels more than other factors and that it mediates how superordinate personality traits are affecting violent behaviors (Sigurdsson et al., 2006). The weaknesses of the study are the lack of randomization of sampling selection and correlational design. Its strengths are its use of multivariate analysis and determination of violent attitudes’ role in violent media effects. Another study confirms that personality variables impact aggression, but gender also affects violent media effects. Qian and Zhang (2014) determined if watching a violent movie through a computer results to aggressiveness among college students through the modified STROOP task. They also examined if violence differs across gender and aggression levels. Their sampling included 108 undergraduate students in China. Half of the sampling was randomly assigned to watch Ninja Assassin (2009), a violent movie, while the other half watched Big Nothing (2006), a non-violent movie. They answered the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) to determine their aggressiveness levels first. Then, they watched the movies and performed the STROOP task that used 30 aggressive and 30 non-aggressive words, where participants pressed the numbers according to the colors of these words. Their findings showed that participants who watched a violent film had delayed responses to aggressive words, which indicates that their cognition for these words had been activated (Qian & Zhang, 2014). They also noted gender differences where men who watched the violent film showed aggression, while females who watched the same violent movie did not (Qian & Zhang, 2014). Furthermore, those with high aggression levels also showed greater aggression after watching the violent film more than those with low aggression levels (Qian & Zhang, 2014). The weaknesses of the study are that the instruments may not be suitable for Chinese students because they are usually used for native speakers of English and that the study shows correlations, not causative violent media outcomes. Its strengths are its consideration for important gender and aggressiveness levels as moderating variables and use of mechanical computer task to objectively check actual potential violent cognition. Considering that media violence per se cannot cause aggression directly and that mediating variables may come into play, this research presents the hypothesis that watching a TV show with violence will increase aggression among viewers, and that gender and predisposition to violence will moderate this TV violence-aggression relationship. The study will use a pre-test, post-test control group experimental research design. Method Participants Undergraduate students will be recruited for this study. They will come from a university in the U.S. The sampling strategy will be a randomized sampling strategy where I will select 40 female and 40 male participants randomly from the list of university students. I will send these students paper mails and e-mails to ask for their participation in the research. I will inform them that I will be conducting the study to determine violent media effects on aggression. The target sampling is 80 participants, so if these students decline or do not respond within a week, I will send more mail/e-mail invitations to randomly-selected students. Once I have 80 samples, I will set a viewing time. 40 will be assigned to watch a TV show with domestic violence, while the other 40 will watch a romance TV show. They will watch these shows through a computer in the university’s computer laboratory. Materials The chosen TV show with domestic violence will come from Law and Order Special Victims Unit (SVU), “Persona” (Season 10, Episode 8), which was aired last 25 November 2008. Olivia Benson (Mariska Hargitay) leads the Manhattan Special Victims Unit. She is working on a domestic abuse case for this episode. This is selected because of the violence in it. The romance TV show that will be viewed is “The Hurt Locket” (Season 3, Episode 13) from Gossip Girl, and aired last March 8, 2010. Gossip Girl revolves around rich teenagers in New York City. This episode has no violent content and is more focused on family and romance. I will use the Maudsley Violence Questionnaire (MVQ) to measure predisposition to violence in a True/False format. See Appendix A for the MVQ. The Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ), a 5-point rating scale, will also be used to measure aggressive level in four levels, physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. See Appendix C for the BPAQ. I will also have a general questionnaire that will gather information on gender, mental health problems, home and neighborhood violence exposure, parent educational attainment, parenting style, intimate partner violence exposure, household composition and income, and self-report for time spent on consuming violent media and kinds of violent media. See Appendix B. I chose these factors because they can mediate or intervene with the relationship between violent media exposure and aggression. Some of these factors will be controlled to study the correlations among the independent and dependent variables. Procedure Before viewing these shows, the sample will take the Maudsley Violence Questionnaire (MVQ). They will answer the general questionnaire afterwards. After viewing these shows, participants will take the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ). After finishing the study, participants will be thanked for their time and systematically debriefed. I will use a multi-factorial design to examine the data. TV show type and gender will be the independent variables, while the dependent variable will be aggressiveness. 2 TV show types (violent versus non-violent) x Gender (males versus females) x Aggressive level (high aggression versus low aggression) will be used for the analysis of variance (ANOVA). I will also use simple effect analysis to study any interaction between TV show type and gender and between TV show type and aggression. References Coker, T.R., Elliott, M.N., Schwebel, D.C., Windle, M., Toomey, S.L., Tortolero, S.R., Hertz, Peskin, M.F., & Schuster, M.A. (2014). Media violence exposure and physical aggression in fifth-grade children. Academic Pediatrics, in press, 1-8. Retrieved from ScienceDirect. Ferguson, C.J., Colwell, J., Mlačić, B., Milas, G., & Mikloušić, I. (2011). Personality and media influences on violence and depression in a cross-national sample of young adults: Data from Mexican–Americans, English and Croatians. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1195-1200. Ferguson, C.J., & Savage, J. (2012). Have recent studies addressed methodological issues raised by five decades of television violence research? A critical review.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(2), 129-139. DOI:10.1016/j.avb.2011.11.001. Lin, J. (2013). Do video games exert stronger effects on aggression than film? The role of media interactivity and identification on the association of violent content and aggressive outcomes.Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 535-543. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.001. Qian, Z., & Zhang, D. (2014). The effects of viewing violent movie via computer on aggressiveness among college students.Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 320-325. DOI: /10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.008. Sigurdsson, J.F., Gudjonsson, G.H., Bragason, A.V., Kristjansdottir, E., &Sigfusdottir, I.D. (2006). The role of violent cognition in the relationship between personality and the involvement in violent films and computer games.Personality and Individual Differences, 41(2), 381-392. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.006. Appendix A Maudsley Violence Questionnaire (MVQ) Please answer True or False. 1. Being violent shows you are a man. 2. It is OK to hit someone if they make you look stupid. 3. If you are not willing to fight it means you are weak and pathetic. 4. If I felt threatened by someone, I would stop them by attacking them first. 5. Being violent shows you are strong. 6. Fighting can help to sort out most disagreements. 7. It is OK to hit someone who upsets you. 8. Sometimes you have to be violent to show that you are a man. 9. Physical violence is a necessary sign of strength and power. 10. ‘Real men’ are not afraid of fighting. 11. If someone attacked me verbally, I would attack them physically. 12. I expect real men to be violent. 13. Being violent shows that you can assert yourself. 14. If I don’t show that I’m tough and strong, people will think I’m weak and pathetic. 15. People who irritate you deserve to be hit. 16. Most people won’t learn unless you physically hurt them. 17. I would rather lose a fight and get beaten up than embarrass myself by walking away. 18. It is shameful to walk away from a fight. 19. If I am provoked, I can’t help but hit the person who provoked me. 20. When I can’t think of what to say, it’s easier to react with my fists. 21. It is OK to hit someone who threatens to make you look stupid. 22. If trouble starts, I wouldn’t think about it––I would just get stuck in and fight. 23. It is OK to be violent if someone threatens to damage your property. 24. If I were in a potentially violent situation, I would automatically confront the person threatening me. 25. You won’t survive if you run away from fights and arguments. 26. You can never face people again if you show you are frightened. 27 When you are pushed to your limit, there is nothing you can do except fight. 28. Men who are gentle get walked on. 29. I believe that if someone annoys you, you have a right to get them back, by whatever means necessary. 30. If you don’t stick up for yourself physically you will get trodden on. 31. I see myself as a violent person. 32. Violence is second nature to me. 33. I just seem to attract violence. 34. Fear is a sign of weakness. 35. I enjoy fighting. 36. It is normal for men to want to fight. 37. If I get angry, hitting out makes me feel better. 38. It is OK to hit your partner if they behave unacceptably. 39. It is OK (or normal) to hit women if you need to teach them a lesson. Appendix B General Information about Yourself What is your gender?_________ Have you had any mental health problems for the past two years? If yes, what are they? Are you exposed to home and neighborhood violence every day? ____ How often each week do you witness home violence? _____ Are you exposed to neighborhood violence? _____ How often each week do you witness neighborhood violence? _____ Are you exposed to intimate partner violence? _____ How often each week do you witness intimate partner violence? _____ What is your parents’ educational attainment? Mother____________________ Father_____________________ Can you give an estimation of household income? _____ How many family members are there in your household? Please write down their family roles. (i.e. father, grandmother et al.). _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Do you watch violent TV shows? Violent means there are considerable physical aggression done on others, such as hitting and kicking, as well as killing._____ How often do you watch these shows every week? _____ How much time do you spend watching TV shows that can be considered as violent every day? _____ How often do you watch films that can be seen as violent? _____ Do you listen to music that can be considered as violent? _____ Appendix C: Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) Read More

 

Read More