Is it reasonable to assume that media violence must affect behavior to some degree? Joanne Savage, a professor at American University and a criminologist decided to investigate further into this question. This is achieved by investigating the available empirical and theoretical literature on television violence and violent behavior.
It was found that treatment stimuli used in laboratory studies are more intense than those in real life and, thus, are more likely to elicit a greater effect than those seen in the real world (Savage, 2008). If such studies were overemphasized it would result in conclusions that media violence is more influential in molding behaviors than it actually is. Field studies and field experiments have consistently found smaller effects than controlled lab studies (Savage, 2008). This is not surprising do to the lack of control of stimuli in field studies.
In addition, a focus on media literature, where we might find some correlations in a subset of studies, would lead to an exaggerated view of importance of media violence in the etiology of violent behavior if empirical evidence or individual and situational factors were ignored (Savage, 2008). For example, risk factors such as family violence, parenting styles, and biological factors are thought to cause violence (Savage, 2008). Considering this, it is hard to conclude with certainty that media violence significantly affects human behavior.
There are very few studies designed to test the most plausible hypothesis: that a diet of media violence can lead to aggressive habits. Most of the studies that we do have do not report adequate statistical analyses to draw firm conclusions. (Savage, 2008)
Resource
Savage, J. (2008). The Role of Exposure to Media Violence in the Etiology of Violent Behavior. American Behavioral Scientist, Volume 51, Number 8, 1123-1136.
Your referenced source and synopsis reflects what my bibliography citation also revealed - exposure to violence via the media does not really create violent tendencies.
Numerous studies regarding the influence of media violence on society and criminality have been conducted over the years and results indicate a link exists between them. However, a causal relationship has never truly been established and when trait and environmental factors are controlled for, the effect of fictional or ‘entertainment’ violence on criminal behavior has tended to be statistically small. Savage & Yancey (2008) pointed out that previous studies have not focused on criminal violence or aggression as a dependent variable, but rather a broad spectrum of antisocial behaviors many of which are not necessarily illegal. In their meta-analysis on the consequences of media violence exposure, Savage & Yancey (2008) limited their review to studies which measure only the effects on “behavior that transcends normal aggression” and is prohibited by law (p.773). Even so, several of the studies they analyzed were found to be methodologically weak, failed to control for certain variables such as ‘trait aggression’ or did not measure actual exposure time. Depending on study design and reliability, some outcomes indicated a causal relationship exists, particularly for males. Yet, those which controlled for other factors showed effects were either inconclusive or small enough to be insignificant (Savage & Yancey, 2008).
Based on earlier findings and those by Savage & Yancey, it would seem that researchers need to reevaluate their approach to the study and analysis of media violence and its effects on criminal behavior. Otherwise, policy generated from existing research has the potential to be rooted in flawed or erroneous conclusions.
Reference:
Savage, J & Yancey, C. (2008). The effects of media violence exposure on criminal aggression: a meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35 (6), 772-791. doi:10.1177/0093854808316487
Yes, you are correct that it does seem that researchers should indeed reevaluate their approach towards the study of media violence and its effects on criminal aggression. Since we cannot prove, at least not yet, that there is a definite causal relationship between media violence and criminal aggression, we should not base policies on unsound research.
In reviewing the week 6 postings I see the pattern that violent media influencing the incidence of violence is ‘possible,’ or is apparent ‘sometimes.’ Is it possible that a more holistic view is required, that a look at more than just quality and quantity of violent media is necessary to determine cause an effect? Do people that consume more violent media consume more sugar? Do they experience less physical activity and attain less physical fitness? Do they participate in less group activities (not the virtual kind seen in gaming..)? Do they have parental and family relationships that might lead to poor impulse control and poor social skills? Do they consume higher amounts of this media due to their already antisocial disinterest in others? Are there social and economic factors that relate to media consumption that might influence violent behavior (urban high crime neighborhoods that are not hospitable to outdoor play)? As several of the posters above have stated, I also find myself cautioning against citing cause and effect relationships concerning violent media and violent behavior when it is possible that they are only correlative relationships.
Much of the current wisdom on aggression states that violence breeds violence. This has been applied to the case of television violence viewed by children. Basically children see aggressive behavior on one of their favorite shows and then act out in an antisocial manner or have negative thoughts. This has been supported by previous research on violent media. Educators F.C. Blumberg, K.P. Bierwirth and A.J. Schwartz , however, were not so convinced that all media was the same in their article “Does Cartoon Violence Beget Aggressive Behavior in Real Life? An Opposing View”.
Using previous research, the authors speculated that children do have high moral reasoning to sort right from wrong and can easily distinguish fantasy from reality, specifically in the case of cartoons. Even at a young age, children know the difference between good, acceptable behavior and bad, unacceptable behavior. They also show comprehension about the implication of consequences for misbehaving. The authors also noted that children don’t commonly view cartoons as reality. The animation serves as a visual clue that the scenario is a fictional one filled with make-believe characters. These two factors serve as opposing forces to a child’s propensity for violence after watching violent cartoons. So a child watches a violent cartoon but realizes that the behavior is not to be imitated because they recognize that it is both wrong and is happening in a fantasy world and a subsequent propensity for violence is diminished.
It is important to note that the authors were examining cartoon violence only. Its unique nature makes it easier for children to separate it from reality. Other media forums should be researched to determine if the findings on cartoon violence can be transferred to shows in which live actors are used.
Reference
Blumber, F.C, Bierworth, K.P., & Schwartz, A.J. (2008). Does cartoon violence beget aggressive violence in real life? An opposing view. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, pp. 101-104.
Thank you for your very insightful post! I believe a more holistic approach could only prove beneficial in determining if the relationship between media violence and criminal aggression is indeed causal or correlative. As you and others have mentioned, many factors influence criminal aggression and since we cannot yet determine a definite causal relationship between media violence and criminal aggression, we should be cautious in citing a cause and effect relationship.
Video game violence is one of the newest and most well-known sources of violence in the media today. We should give special attention to the possible impact of violent video games. It has been suggested the “active nature” of video games makes them very different from other screen-based media. (Frank & Buchman, 1996b: Wartella, O’Keefe & Scantlin, 2000) Video game players actively participate in, and in some games create the games violent action rather than being a satisfied recipient. This violence is rewarded by delivering the player a higher score, without any of the negative consequences of real life. Violence is justified without any negative consequences (Funk 1995). There are some researchers that assert it has been proven violent video games increase the negative cognitions and behavior of the player (Anderson & Bushman, (2001). Much more research is needed to identify who is most at risk from the negative impact and negative outcomes (Funk 2002a)
Reference:
Funk, J.B., Baldaccie, H.B., Pasols, T., Baumgardner,J., Violence exposure in real-life, Video games, television, movies, and the internet: is there desensitization? , Journal of Adolescence 27 (2204) 23-39
In the Journal of the American Medical Association published the definitive epidemiological study on the impact of TV violence and aggression. The study was based to what happen to nations that TV was introduce a comparison to nations without TV. The regions where the study was concluded where demographically identical the different was one with TV and the other one without. Immediately after the introduction of TV the violence on the playground exploded. The most ironic correlation was that within years the murder rates increase in those areas with TV. Could these killers be the same instigators of playground aggression 15 before?
1994, Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders said “By portraying violence as the normal means of conflict resolution, the media gives youth the message that violence is socially acceptable and the best way to solve problems. After 10 years of research, we know that a correlation exists between violence on television and aggressive behavior in children.”
Also eve single one of these governmental, scientific and public health organizations has enlisted the nation’s top experts in their field. These experts have reviewed all the existing knowledge produced by empirical research over the years. Typical of the statements from the nation’s top scientists, the American Psychological Association report on media violence concludes: “There is absolutely no doubt that those who are heavy viewers of violence demonstrate increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behavior.”
Reference:
The Evidence Against Media Violence. (2003). LA Times.
You are absolutely right. In violent video games, the player is rewarded with points with each devastating blow to the opponent. Psychologists Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate “it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children’s aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play.” The combination of these three components will ultimately influence violence among children and youth.
Reference:
Anderson, C. PhD and Gentile, D. (2004, June Violent Video Games - Psychologists Help Protect Children from Harmful Effects. American Psychological Association. http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html Retrieved date: February 15, 2009
Hi everyone,
Could I please ask that the first of my two posts be ignored? It was not intended to be sent. Please consider the second of my posts as my original post.
I apologize for any confusion.
Thank you,
Maria Ochoa
Katie Hayes Group 2 wrote,
Is it reasonable to assume that media violence must affect behavior to some degree? Joanne Savage, a professor at American University and a criminologist decided to investigate further into this question. This is achieved by investigating the available empirical and theoretical literature on television violence and violent behavior.
It was found that treatment stimuli used in laboratory studies are more intense than those in real life and, thus, are more likely to elicit a greater effect than those seen in the real world (Savage, 2008). If such studies were overemphasized it would result in conclusions that media violence is more influential in molding behaviors than it actually is. Field studies and field experiments have consistently found smaller effects than controlled lab studies (Savage, 2008). This is not surprising do to the lack of control of stimuli in field studies.
In addition, a focus on media literature, where we might find some correlations in a subset of studies, would lead to an exaggerated view of importance of media violence in the etiology of violent behavior if empirical evidence or individual and situational factors were ignored (Savage, 2008). For example, risk factors such as family violence, parenting styles, and biological factors are thought to cause violence (Savage, 2008). Considering this, it is hard to conclude with certainty that media violence significantly affects human behavior.
There are very few studies designed to test the most plausible hypothesis: that a diet of media violence can lead to aggressive habits. Most of the studies that we do have do not report adequate statistical analyses to draw firm conclusions. (Savage, 2008)
Resource
Savage, J. (2008). The Role of Exposure to Media Violence in the Etiology of Violent Behavior. American Behavioral Scientist, Volume 51, Number 8, 1123-1136.
Link | February 12th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Lynn Webb-Team 3 wrote,
Katie Hayes-
Your referenced source and synopsis reflects what my bibliography citation also revealed - exposure to violence via the media does not really create violent tendencies.
Link | February 13th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Layla McKinnon - Group 2 wrote,
Numerous studies regarding the influence of media violence on society and criminality have been conducted over the years and results indicate a link exists between them. However, a causal relationship has never truly been established and when trait and environmental factors are controlled for, the effect of fictional or ‘entertainment’ violence on criminal behavior has tended to be statistically small. Savage & Yancey (2008) pointed out that previous studies have not focused on criminal violence or aggression as a dependent variable, but rather a broad spectrum of antisocial behaviors many of which are not necessarily illegal. In their meta-analysis on the consequences of media violence exposure, Savage & Yancey (2008) limited their review to studies which measure only the effects on “behavior that transcends normal aggression” and is prohibited by law (p.773). Even so, several of the studies they analyzed were found to be methodologically weak, failed to control for certain variables such as ‘trait aggression’ or did not measure actual exposure time. Depending on study design and reliability, some outcomes indicated a causal relationship exists, particularly for males. Yet, those which controlled for other factors showed effects were either inconclusive or small enough to be insignificant (Savage & Yancey, 2008).
Based on earlier findings and those by Savage & Yancey, it would seem that researchers need to reevaluate their approach to the study and analysis of media violence and its effects on criminal behavior. Otherwise, policy generated from existing research has the potential to be rooted in flawed or erroneous conclusions.
Reference:
Savage, J & Yancey, C. (2008). The effects of media violence exposure on criminal aggression: a meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35 (6), 772-791. doi:10.1177/0093854808316487
Link | February 14th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Angelica Mejia-Rutland wrote,
Hi Layla,
Yes, you are correct that it does seem that researchers should indeed reevaluate their approach towards the study of media violence and its effects on criminal aggression. Since we cannot prove, at least not yet, that there is a definite causal relationship between media violence and criminal aggression, we should not base policies on unsound research.
Link | February 14th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Theo Krause - Group 2 wrote,
In reviewing the week 6 postings I see the pattern that violent media influencing the incidence of violence is ‘possible,’ or is apparent ‘sometimes.’ Is it possible that a more holistic view is required, that a look at more than just quality and quantity of violent media is necessary to determine cause an effect? Do people that consume more violent media consume more sugar? Do they experience less physical activity and attain less physical fitness? Do they participate in less group activities (not the virtual kind seen in gaming..)? Do they have parental and family relationships that might lead to poor impulse control and poor social skills? Do they consume higher amounts of this media due to their already antisocial disinterest in others? Are there social and economic factors that relate to media consumption that might influence violent behavior (urban high crime neighborhoods that are not hospitable to outdoor play)? As several of the posters above have stated, I also find myself cautioning against citing cause and effect relationships concerning violent media and violent behavior when it is possible that they are only correlative relationships.
Link | February 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Melissa Forsythe-Group 1 wrote,
Much of the current wisdom on aggression states that violence breeds violence. This has been applied to the case of television violence viewed by children. Basically children see aggressive behavior on one of their favorite shows and then act out in an antisocial manner or have negative thoughts. This has been supported by previous research on violent media. Educators F.C. Blumberg, K.P. Bierwirth and A.J. Schwartz , however, were not so convinced that all media was the same in their article “Does Cartoon Violence Beget Aggressive Behavior in Real Life? An Opposing View”.
Using previous research, the authors speculated that children do have high moral reasoning to sort right from wrong and can easily distinguish fantasy from reality, specifically in the case of cartoons. Even at a young age, children know the difference between good, acceptable behavior and bad, unacceptable behavior. They also show comprehension about the implication of consequences for misbehaving. The authors also noted that children don’t commonly view cartoons as reality. The animation serves as a visual clue that the scenario is a fictional one filled with make-believe characters. These two factors serve as opposing forces to a child’s propensity for violence after watching violent cartoons. So a child watches a violent cartoon but realizes that the behavior is not to be imitated because they recognize that it is both wrong and is happening in a fantasy world and a subsequent propensity for violence is diminished.
It is important to note that the authors were examining cartoon violence only. Its unique nature makes it easier for children to separate it from reality. Other media forums should be researched to determine if the findings on cartoon violence can be transferred to shows in which live actors are used.
Reference
Blumber, F.C, Bierworth, K.P., & Schwartz, A.J. (2008). Does cartoon violence beget aggressive violence in real life? An opposing view. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, pp. 101-104.
Link | February 14th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Angelica Mejia-Rutland wrote,
Theo,
Thank you for your very insightful post! I believe a more holistic approach could only prove beneficial in determining if the relationship between media violence and criminal aggression is indeed causal or correlative. As you and others have mentioned, many factors influence criminal aggression and since we cannot yet determine a definite causal relationship between media violence and criminal aggression, we should be cautious in citing a cause and effect relationship.
Link | February 15th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
David Killeen wrote,
Video game violence is one of the newest and most well-known sources of violence in the media today. We should give special attention to the possible impact of violent video games. It has been suggested the “active nature” of video games makes them very different from other screen-based media. (Frank & Buchman, 1996b: Wartella, O’Keefe & Scantlin, 2000) Video game players actively participate in, and in some games create the games violent action rather than being a satisfied recipient. This violence is rewarded by delivering the player a higher score, without any of the negative consequences of real life. Violence is justified without any negative consequences (Funk 1995). There are some researchers that assert it has been proven violent video games increase the negative cognitions and behavior of the player (Anderson & Bushman, (2001). Much more research is needed to identify who is most at risk from the negative impact and negative outcomes (Funk 2002a)
Reference:
Funk, J.B., Baldaccie, H.B., Pasols, T., Baumgardner,J., Violence exposure in real-life, Video games, television, movies, and the internet: is there desensitization? , Journal of Adolescence 27 (2204) 23-39
Link | February 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Wurzburg, D---Group 3 wrote,
Reply to: Melissa Forsythe-Group 1
In the Journal of the American Medical Association published the definitive epidemiological study on the impact of TV violence and aggression. The study was based to what happen to nations that TV was introduce a comparison to nations without TV. The regions where the study was concluded where demographically identical the different was one with TV and the other one without. Immediately after the introduction of TV the violence on the playground exploded. The most ironic correlation was that within years the murder rates increase in those areas with TV. Could these killers be the same instigators of playground aggression 15 before?
1994, Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders said “By portraying violence as the normal means of conflict resolution, the media gives youth the message that violence is socially acceptable and the best way to solve problems. After 10 years of research, we know that a correlation exists between violence on television and aggressive behavior in children.”
Also eve single one of these governmental, scientific and public health organizations has enlisted the nation’s top experts in their field. These experts have reviewed all the existing knowledge produced by empirical research over the years. Typical of the statements from the nation’s top scientists, the American Psychological Association report on media violence concludes: “There is absolutely no doubt that those who are heavy viewers of violence demonstrate increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes and increased aggressive behavior.”
Reference:
The Evidence Against Media Violence. (2003). LA Times.
Link | February 15th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Briana Valencia Team 3 wrote,
Hi David.
You are absolutely right. In violent video games, the player is rewarded with points with each devastating blow to the opponent. Psychologists Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate “it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children’s aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play.” The combination of these three components will ultimately influence violence among children and youth.
Reference:
Violent Video Games - Psychologists Help Protect Children from Harmful Effects. American Psychological Association.
Anderson, C. PhD and Gentile, D. (2004, June
http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html Retrieved date: February 15, 2009
Link | February 15th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Maria Ochoa wrote,
Hi everyone,
Could I please ask that the first of my two posts be ignored? It was not intended to be sent. Please consider the second of my posts as my original post.
I apologize for any confusion.
Thank you,
Maria Ochoa
Link | February 16th, 2009 at 6:12 pm