The Effects of Violent Movies on Viewers - Research Paper Example

The Effects of Violent Movies Upon Viewers As the real world violence seemed to be accelerating at a rapid pace in the 1960s and 1970s, researchers plunged into studies scrutinizing the effects of virtual violence on actual violence. While the public has been fearful of the potential harmful effects of violent scenes especially on children, the cultivation theory, which was focused on the effects of television, has been flourished. Since then, a plethora of the studies have concentrated on the effects of media violence, especially upon youth. Researchers tried to find out whether the scenes of violence evoked aggressive and violent behaviour. The findings were inconclusive and even mutually exclusive. While a number of researchers claimed that media violence had a cathartic effect, others argued that exposure to virtual violence provoked aggressive behavior in real life. The aim of this paper is to discuss the effects of violence upon viewers in three respects: age, level of education and technology. Although most of the studies focus on the violent materials on TV, their results are applicable to the violent movies. John Condry points out three logical possibilities in regard to the effects of viewing violent material in references to the major studies in that area as follows: “a) watching violence on television make us more violent (Huesman, 1982; Huesman & Malamuth, 1986); b) it could make us less violent (Feshbach, 1972) or c) it may have no effect whatsoever on our aggressive behavior (the null hypothesis) (Freedman, 1984; Kaplan and Singer, 1976; Milavsky, 1988)” (86). However, as Condry also noted, the vast evidence is in favour of the first hypothesis of a positive link between media violence and actual violence (Condry 86). The studies of Berkowits and Green have also shown that exposure to violence does not have a cathartic effect, but instead, it leads to violence (Luke 145). These findings are specifically valid for children and young adolescents. It is obvious from the studies that media violence generates actual violent behavior. However, there are three underlying psychological mechanisms which lead to that behavioral aggression. According to Condry, violent materials trigger three cognitive mechanisms: imitation, disinhibition, and arousal/desensitization (Condry 98).Bandura’s experimental study has shown that children imitate both film-model and live-model conditions, since they learned by observation. In Bandura’s experiment, two groups of children watch two movies in which an adult punches a BoBo doll. In the first movie, the adult is rewarded, in the second punished. Accordingly, the first group of children treats the Bobo doll agressively, while the second group does not punch the toy. Nevertheless, his experiment is included an additional variable, which is reward/punishment. Furthermore, Len Berkowitz refuted the catharsis theory and argued that the aggression on TV “have a disinhibiting effect” which makes subsequent violent behavior more likely (cited by Condry 104). As people watch fantasy violence, their inhibitions lower, thus lead to possible domestic violence. Berkowitz made an experiment to prove his point. In his experiment, two groups of students have been insulted by a graduate student. Then, Berkowski shows a violent movie to the first group, but not the second one. After the film, both groups allowed to show their aggression towards the same graduate student. The first group was more hostile and aggressive. They felt more justified and less inhibited after watching the film about a man who “deserved what he got” (Condry 105). Berkowitz’s experiment invalidated catharsis theory while proving that violent movies make people less inhibited. The last pyschological effect of violent materials is arousal/desensitization. As viewers get accustomed to violent materials through continuous exposure, they become desensitized to violence, thus less responsive. Drabman and Thomas have shown that children were more insensitive to a real-life event after watching a violent movie (Condry 112). It was also found out that the heavy viewers are less responsive to violence than the light viewers (Condry 112). Linz, Donnerstein and Penrod have argued that “repeated exposure to ‘slasher’ films can also lower emotional responsiveness” (Condry 113). As the major behavioral patterns are usually set early in life, the age of the viewer becomes a crucial factor in regard to the effects of violent movies. Since children are more amenable to influence and more malleable than adults, the effects of violent movies on children are both stronger and more permanent. In fact, The Academy of Pediatrics says “More than one thousand scientific studies and reviews conclude that significant exposure to media violence increases the risk of aggressive behavior in certain children, desensitizes them to violence and makes them believe that the world is a ‘meaner and scarier’ place than it is” (cited by Tompkins). A lot of studies have already established the link between exposure to violent films and aggressive behavior in children. With the few exceptions, it is now generally accepted that media violence is harmful to children, as obvious as smoking is detrimental to health. Due to the weight of the scientific evidence, organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association declared a joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children which stated that “at this time, well over 1000 studies…point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children” (http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm). As Huesmann and Eron noted: “there can be little doubt that in specific laboratory settings exposing children to violent behavior on film or TV increases the likelihood that they will behave aggressively immediately afterwards” (Huesmann and Eron 6). Singer and Singer found a relationship between violence and aggression in children as young as 3 (Oatey). The existing studies have also proven that the childhood aggression learnt from TV or films is not a transient phenomenon for most children (7). Nevertheless, Huesmann and Eron pointed out that only few studies scrutinized the relation between childhood agression and adult criminality. They provided an experimental research, which was comprised of 672 children. They concluded that aggresive behavior especially male aggression is usually set at age 8 and predictive of delinquent behavior as an adult (Huesmann and Eron 9). They stated that children who are heavy viewers acted aggressively to solve their problems, they (especially the boys) identified with the aggressors, and they encoded these memories (Huesmann and Eron 77). The child, who is exposed to violence, developed aggressive fantasies including these encoded messages and adopts violent solutions to social problems. If his/her attitude becomes habitual, it interferes with his/her academic success (Huesmann and Eron 77). It must also be noted that for a number of researchers children are more sensitive between ages of 9 and 12. As Oatey stated, “violence on television is likely to have most of an effect on the viewer up until this age although this is not to say that it cannot have an effect after this”. But it does not mean that adolescents are not affected by the violent movies. Parke et al.’s study has revealed that male juvenile delinquents were significantly more aggressive after they watched violent videos (Oatey). Huesmann and Eron also measured the correlation between the child’s academic achievement and propensity to aggression and television violence. They found out a statistically significant and inverse relationship between child’s academic performance and aggression and violence viewing. They stated that: “the lower the child’s academic performance, the greater was the child’s aggression, the more violence the child watched, and the more the child thought that television violence was like real life” (Huesmann and Eron 67). They note that this correlation was one of the highest correlations in the United States (67). Huesmann and Eron correlate this correlation with also socioeconomic status and parental education. According to them, higher aggression is correlated with lower achievement, which is correlated with lower socioeconomic status and lower parental education (67). Huesmann and Eron’s research comprised of 758 children interviewed in 3 years illustrated that there is a statistically significant relation between violence viewing and predicted future change. They concluded that “the strength of the relation depended as much on the regularity with which violence was viewed as on the seriousness of the violence” (Huesmann and Eron 78). Their findings show that if a child constantly watches violent programs, identifies with aggressors, believes that these shows reflect life, develops aggressive fantasies, he tends to be more aggressive (Huesmann and Eron 78). Such child would also probably have parents with lower education and social status. Violence has become even closer and threatening with the further advancements of technology. 3-D movies portray violence even more vividly, thus increase arousal while decreasing the sensitivity to violence. Better technologies make violence more influential and its effects more intensive as violence become more realistic. However, it must also be noted that better technology also allows better control. Rating systems and V-chip technology has made it possible to control children’s television viewing. Although findings from experimental research are highly useful, their relevance might be limited. Shanahan and Morgan explains this situation as follows “for one thing, psychological experiments are usually carried out under conditions that do not approximate real-world viewing; outside the lab, people watch for hours at a time, intermittently, often in a social or family context (providing both distraction and reinforcement), whereas in the lab isolated subjects are usually exposed to brief, specifically selected program fragments” (Shanahan and Morgan 45). Another criticism is that examined effects are “short-term” effects. Furthermore, the pioneer of the cultivation theory, Gerbner, pointed out that the effects of violence are far beyond individual aggression. He notes that not all viewers automatically become criminals. Gerbner and Gross argues that “although many children sometimes get riled up and pretend to act out the violent maneuvers of television super-combatants after (or while) viewing, that kind of imitation is usually at a relatively low level” (pharaphrased by Shanahan and Morgan 46). They do not assert that media violence has no behavioral effects, but according to them serious violent acts stemmed from television violence are rare. Shanahan and Morgan also agree with them since the amount of violence would be higher as daily experience if every viewer has imitated what they see on films (Shanahan and Morgan 46). Furthermore, Gerbner and Gross claimed that the violent content has been used as a method of social control. They underlined the fact that media does not solely depict the aggressors but it portrays the victims too. “Gerbner et al. (1978, 1979) argued that television violence may more fruitfully be seen as a scenario depicting social relationships, as a demonstration of power, and perhaps most importantly as reflecting the power hierarchy of society and reproducing the social order” (Shanahan and Morgan 48). The ruling elites control the masses through fear elicited by the institutions of media. There are more victims than aggressors, and people also learn to be violent from watching movies (Shanahan and Morgan 48). The cultivation theory points out that “apprehension, mistrust and fear of victimization may be more widespread and general (and subtle) impacts of television violence than occasional acts of imitative aggression” (48). Thus, the violent movies lead to both violence and control. The viewers are controlled through their fears and they also imitated the victims as well as the aggressors. To sum up, firstly it is argued that violent movies generate violence. Their primary effect upon viewers is aggressive behavior. Violent movies also lead to imitation, disinhibition and desensitization. Although adults are not exempted from the violent effects of media violence, its effects on children and adolescents are higher and stronger. Children tend to be more aggressive after they are exposed to violence and this effect is not transient. Level of education is also important in a sense that children from families with lower status and education are more prone to aggression and violent movies. Better technology also plays a role, in fact double roles. While it contributes to the dissemination of violent messages and thus desensitization, it also allows controlling the effects of violent movies on children. Lastly, the sociological effects of media violence have been discussed. It is noted that media violence goes beyond individual aggression but it is also used as a vehicle of manipulation by the ruling classes which control the media industry. Unfortunately, despite the warnings from several institutions in regard to the dangers of violent movies, the media industry still sells both commercialized and aestheticized violence to its viewers, which included children who are easily influenced by the virtual role models and imitated their aggressive behavior, which further leads to the increased criminality. Work Cited: Condry, John. The Psychology of Television. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989. Print. Huesmann, L. Rowell and Leonard D. Eron. “The Development of Aggression in American Children as a Consequence of Television Violence Viewing”. Television and the Aggresive Child: A Cross-National Comparison. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986. 45-80. Print. Luke, Carmen. Constructing the Child Viewer: A History of the American Discourse on Television and Children, 1950-1980. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1990. Print. Oatey, Alison. “Television Viewing and Violent Behaviour”. 30 Nov. 1998. Web. 24 Nov. 2010. Shanahan, James and Michael Morgan. Television and Its Viewers: Cultivation Theory and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print. Tompkins, Aimee. “The Psychological Effects of Violent Media on Children”. AllpsychJournal. 14 Dec. 2003. Web. 24 Nov. 2010. Read More