Describe and evaluate evidence of the influence of the media on aggressive behaviour.

Australian research has shown that there is no significant correlation between early TV violence viewing and later aggression. In Poland, the researchers agreed that a greater preference for violence at an early age was related to later aggression but the effects were not large and the results should be treated cautiously. A cross-national survey was carried out by Huesmann and Eron (1987) across six countries (Holland, Australia, USA, Israel, Poland and Finland) and they found that viewing television violence at an early age is a predictor of later aggression. Cumberbatch (1997) criticised this study saying that there was actually no evidence to support this. The problem with longitudinal studies is that there could be many other potential intervening variables especially when studying over a long period.

Bandura (1963) showed children aggressive behaviour on a film. It showed adults in a room hitting a bobo doll. The children who saw the film were compared with children who hadn't, the children who watched the film were found to be more aggressive in their play. This is supported by Liebert and Baran (1972) who found that children watching an aggressive film demonstrated a greater willingness to hurt another child. Both of these laboratory studies show that if children are exposed to aggression in the media, although this was set up intentionally, they can become more aggressive. Both of these studies are laboratory studies and the problem with these is that it is difficult to generalise findings to real life situations.

A comparison of two cities was made by Hennigan et al (1982); one city had TV the other didn't. The presence or absence of TV did not affect the crime rate and there was no increase in violent crime when the city without TV got TV. There was an increase in robberies due to people seeing affluence on TV and wanting to possess more. Williams (1986) supported this finding that aggression in children increased when TV was introduced. Centrewall 91989) compared South Africa, Canada and USA. In USA and Canada the murder rates increased after TV was introduced. In South Africa the number of murders declined but only in white people. Therefore these studies show that if there is no TV in a certain place then the introduction of TV can increase the crime rate in that place. The problem arises in comparing cities, communities or countries because there are too many other factors, which could account for the difference e.g. the cultural differences.

There are two explanations of the effects of violent video games: the social learning theory suggesting that children will imitate what they have seen on the screen; and the catharsis theory that suggests that violent video games channel a child's aggression and stop them from being aggressive in real life. Observational studies (e.g. Irwin and Gross, 1995) have found that playing violent video games increases aggression in children in the short-term at least so supporting the social learning theory's view. Griffiths (1998) found that video game violence has more effect on young children, but far less effect on teenagers and no apparent effects on adults. There is, on the other hand, very little research into the long-term effects of violent video games and at the moment, it is entirely speculation of the effects.

The problem with blaming the media for violent behaviour is that it is rather like explaining it backwards beginning with the media and using that to explain why offenders offend. Hagell and Newburn (1996) have found that young offenders watch less TV than their non-offending counterparts and had little interest in particularly violent programmes in the first place. Research suggests that children are victims of the media and are drawn in, the media 'tricks children into all kinds of ill advised behaviour' (Gauntlett, 1998). Research that is more recent has shown that children are able to talk critically and intelligently about the media (Buckingham, 1996) and that young children from as young as 7 years old are able to make 'media literate' productions themselves.

On TV, violence is not often shown along with the negative effects possibly leading children to believe that there aren't any. Often in addition, violence goes unpunished showing children that it is alright to commit violent acts, they won't be punished for it. From this study called the National Violence Media Study only 4% of violent programmes showed and anti violent theme and children's programmes were the least likely of all to show the long-term negative consequences of violence. Different people interpret violent acts in different ways and they can be portrayed in the media for different reasons. E.g. a man had his house broken into, caught the burglars in his house and he shot them, was this a justified act of violence? It was highly publicised because of this. Media violence in studies is restricted to fictional programmes news programmes are exempt. If violence in fictional programmes have such adverse effects on people then why don't they have the same effects on people when they are shown in the news?

The evidence does show that the media does have an effect on violent behaviour but the difference is very small and as Cumberbatch said, the results should be treated cautiously. The media does also have pro-social effects as well as anti-social ones, if the catharsis theory is correct then it can relieve aggressive feelings and prevent aggression in real life. The media cannot be completely blamed for aggression; there are other factors to be considered that could influence the person particularly a child. Research portrays children as helpless victims of the media's influence but it has been shown that children can critically talk about the media at age seven. The child's upbringing, background, culture and peers could all influence any possible aggressive behaviour. The media alone cannot be blamed for all aggression, other factors have to be taken into account.