Not only does violence affect behaviour at an early age but at an adult age also.
“Boys who spent most of their time viewing violent television shows at age eight were most likely to have convictions at age 30.” (Blomqvist, 1994)
An article mentions how, “ Children can become anti-social and desire to see more violence in entertainment and real life.” Children may even decide to use violence to settle their conflicts.
The New York Times reported the rise in consumption of violent fantasy toys such as G.I. Joes and toy guns, in the wake of the September the eleventh terrorist attacks. Many parents who previously wouldn't allow their children to play with guns and soldiers gave in to their children's expected desires for these toys. Toys, along with TV and movies are made to leave an impression on children. Young children learn by seeing others act and imitating their actions. With the media giving their full attention to young children the media can sell their product more easily. The media knows that young children are most vulnerable to the effects of media violence. Children spend more time learning about life through media than in any other way. The average child spends approximately 28 hours a week watching television, which is about as much time as they spend in school. Therefore children cannot but help to become aware of the violence they are being exposed to. Parents may argue by saying that now we have ratings to take care of what children are to see.
Another issue to think about is music. Singing and music have always played a significant role in learning and the communication of culture. Children learn from the role models they see and hear. For the past forty years, some children’s television has very effectively used the combination of words, music and fast-paced animation to achieve learning. Most parents are concerned about what their young children see and hear, but as children grow older, parents pay less attention to the music and videos that hold their children’s interest. A concern to many interested in the development and growth of teenagers is the negative and destructive themes of some rock and other types of music, including best-selling albums promoted by major recording companies. The following themes are prominent:
- Advocating and glamorising abuse of drugs and alcohol
- Pictures and explicit lyrics presenting suicide as an "alternative" or "solution"
- Graphic violence
- Rituals in concerts
- Sex which focuses on control, sadism, masochism, incest, children devaluing women, and violence toward women
Parents can help their teenagers by paying attention to their teenager's purchasing, downloading, listening and viewing patterns, and by helping them identify music that may be destructive. An open discussion without criticism may be helpful.
Music is not usually a danger for a teenager whose life is happy and healthy. But if a teenager is persistently preoccupied with music that has seriously destructive themes, and there are changes in behaviour such as isolation, depression, alcohol or other drug abuse, a psychiatric evaluation should be considered.
Children have become very dependant on the music entertainment industry to give them the best music around. Some of the lyrics by artists such as Eminem and Snoop Dogg give children explicit words to sing along to. In a recent survey by the Recording Industry Association of America it was found that many parents do not know what lyrics are contained in the popular music their children listen to.
There are many grievances against video rental companies such as Blockbuster for allowing under age children to rent films on their parents’ card. The world is filled with sex, violence and inappropriate fare for children. Where were the parents when their children were sitting in front of the television? It doesn’t take an eighteen-certificate movie to infiltrate an otherwise peaceful living room with death and destruction. Parental supervision is lacking. While Blockbuster may occasionally err, the real error is that many parents allow their children too much independence.
The absence of government regulation of children's television has made parents' job more difficult, necessitating more parental monitoring of what children see on television. This unfortunate situation places additional, unnecessary pressure on parents. Parents are responsible for monitoring the quality and quantity of the media to which their children are exposed. Standards will make the job easier, however. In the meantime, parents can watch television and other media with their children and evaluate the shows together. Children do not interpret programs the same way adults do. Adults need to talk with children about what they observe through the media, to find out how children are interpreting what they see and to help clarify misinterpretations. Parents can choose an approved list of media options for their children and give children choices from among permitted shows.
Parents need to be aware that much of what children watch on television is not specifically intended for children. It has been estimated that only 10% of children's viewing time is spent watching children's television; the other 90% is spent watching programs designed for adults. Parents can assist children in finding alternatives to viewing adult television. In addition, parents can use videotapes of high quality children's programming and public television when commercial alternatives are not available.
As consumers, parents should recognize and use their influence with sponsors of children's programs. The chief purpose of commercial television is not to entertain or to educate but to sell products. Parents can communicate with advertisers on programs that are valuable, as well as sponsors of programs that are violent. Parents can also help their children become educated consumers and involve them in writing complaints to broadcasters and companies that use violent images in an attempt to sell toys and other products. As taxpayers, parents can encourage their legislators to adopt policies to protect children from media violence.
Media violence has been of concern to social scientists, parents, and educators for over 30 years. As media violence continues to escalate, so do concerns over the impact of such violence on the behaviour of adolescents and youth. In terms of video games, there has been an increase in the violence and brutality of the games and increasingly realistic graphics and sound that yield blood-gushing, bone-crunching special effects. Newer games are often played from a "first person shooter" perspective; players kill video characters directly rather than via another character. With the arrival of the Sony Playstation, analogue controllers and "reality vests" allow the player to feel the victim's struggle to stay alive. During game play these analogue devices vibrate and twitch when, for example, the player's character chokes or shoots an opponent or is shot by an opponent. This stimulation enhances the sensory experience of video game play, further making it more ‘real’ than passive audiovisual media, such as TV.
Despite recent media claims that video games may be one of the factors that contribute to youth violence, there isn’t much evidence regarding the impact of violent video game play on feelings of hostility, and aggressive behaviour. Some researchers (e.g., Anderson & Ford, 1986) have found that participants display more aggression, hostility, and anger after playing more violent video games. Irwin and Gross (1995) found a martial arts game to give higher levels of aggression among boys than an exciting (motorcycle racing) control game. Their results provide evidence for increased object, physical, and verbal aggression following violent video game play. Ballard and Wiest (1996) examined the effect of the level of video game violence. They found that male college students displayed more hostility and greater cardiovascular reaction after playing a violent game (Mortal Kombat) than after playing a non-violent control game. They also found that players displayed significantly greater hostility and cardiovascular reactivity after playing a more violent version of Mortal Kombat (the special effect of gushing blood was added to the basic fighting game) than after playing the same game without the added special effect. This indicates that level of game violence, and not simply game violence, is important to examine.
Conversely, Scott (1995) failed to find an increase in hostile or aggressive affect as an effect of level of video game violence. However, rather than using one violent video game with increasing levels of violence, Scott (1995) employed two different video games that were assumed to represent varying degrees of violence. The loss of control in game type, graphics, and sound that was created by using more than one game to examine the effect of level of violence may have influenced the results of that study.
Some parents rely on technology, restrictions or ratings to do their job. They protest film and television violence as if it were these industries’ fault that their children are plopped in front of the television all day. Of course, ratings and technology do allow some parental control and would limit the need for censorship. Parents will be able to block objectionable programmes through state of the art technology. New standards have been adopted to equip televisions and computers with the V-chip. The chip will allow viewers to block shows based on their TV ratings for sexual content and violence as well as objectionable language. A 1996 law declared that televisions sold in the United States with screens that are at least thirteen inches must eventually contain built in blocking technology. The V-chip seems to be a good device, perhaps giving parents the help they need so they can rest a little easier.
Technology doesn’t always work. Kids will do what they want when no one is around and that often means beating the systems designed to keep them out. An example of this is from the United States involving a thirteen year old from New England. Her parents put a “family lock code” on MTV to prevent her from watching too much television. She broke the code and retaliated by locking the Discovery Channel instead. While technology as well as government and industry-imposed limits may be helpful, it is no substitute for parental guidance. In fact, that is what industry officials suggest. The PG rating stands for Parental Guidance and it means just that. Unfortunately most parents take those ratings to mean yes and no but it is not a black and white issue. That is why censorship will not work either and parents must ultimately become involved.
Sometimes parents make poor judgements. For example, some allow their children to see movies that are totally inappropriate.
McClean says;
“When we let our children accompany us to the cinema to view adult rated movies with violence and sexually explicit scenes we are encouraging their focus and perhaps early participation in such activities” (McClean 1994)
Is the violence really harmful? Experts seem to think so.
Studies have been done that show that repeated exposure to television
violence is a major factor in the gradual desensitization of individuals to
such acts (Cline, Croft, and Courrier cited in Hough 1997). It has further
been argued that such desensitization may weaken some peoples' psychological
restraints on their own violent behaviour; in other words, the ordinary
guilt, fear of retaliation or social disapproval, is not as great due to
desensitization (Doob & Wood cited in Hough 1997). Other studies have pointed
to television viewing as increasing aggression in boys but not in girls
despite the fact that both genders watched similar amounts of television
(Van Evra cited in Hough 1997). It has also been learned that boys typically
prefer violent programs while girls have a preference for non-violent shows. Other studies have noted the effects of quantity, saying that
children who watch a lot of television generally do show more aggression,
restlessness, and a belief in a “scary world” (Singer, Singer, & Rapacynski
cited in Hough 1997). This last finding makes a great deal of sense as most
programming does contain conflict and stimulating situations that may
contain a great deal of frightening elements. Children see things that they
perhaps would never see in real life. The shows do have some impact.
At the same time, children are exposed to bad things in real life too.
Hough makes the point that today's children are hardly the first in the
world to be exposed to sex and violence. In the Middle Ages,
for example, physical hardship, crime and disease were similar to
experiences that if filmed, would carry an eighteen rating by today's standards. Still, Hough doesn't accept that fact as justification for showing
gratuitous violence. He says,
“But it was raw life to which the children
were exposed, not the synthetic, exploitive, or commercial imaginations
determined to titillate and tantalize” (Hough 1997)
He adds that society cannot protect, or rate, the actual bad experiences children face today as they are also exposed to real life violence to some extent.
At the same time, he objects to the creative world “bruising the
psychologies and vulgarizing the sensibilities of children”. The point is well taken. It is bad enough that children raised in dysfunctional situations or bad neighbourhoods have to be exposed to violence at earlier and earlier ages but they shouldn't have to be bombarded with it as a form of entertainment.
If one accepts the position that violence is bad for children, but does not
believe in censorship, what can be done? Parental control is the answer.
It seems that more and more television is used as a babysitter, and children
are allowed to watch inappropriate shows due to peer pressure. If a
neighbour, or friend from school, watches a particular show, a child will
want to do the same. Often, a parent gives in because it was allowed in
another household. The way that violence can be stopped is by parents
learning to just say no.
Prevention magazine suggests that parents limit TV time to one or two hours
per day with a prepared schedule of shows ("Media" 86). Some experts
maintain that children should never see any violence before the age of
eight, an age when they are just learning to separate fantasy from reality. Others believe parents are the experts as every child is different;
they say that parents cannot protect their children from everything. An
example of how restrictions backfire is that children who have never seen
the Power Rangers seem to know everything about them. One clue that can
help parents determine whether or not programming is too violent is if the
children cannot retell the story without having to talk about the violence. The Prevention article concludes with the advice that parents should
talk about the shows, their conclusions and provide other viable solutions.
In other words, a lesson can be made of some of the violence being depicted.
Violence can be used as a teaching tool but by no means should very violent
programming be encouraged nor should violence be the predominate theme of
most shows viewed by children. However, if violence occurs in a seemingly
innocuous show unexpectedly, it should be discussed.
While controlling a child's viewing habits is not easy, it can be done.
Starting while they are young can help alleviate peer pressure and will
create a good start.
Marie Winn says,
“The difficulties of controlling children's television viewing -- the powerful attractions of the television experience, the diminishing authority of the family, the lack of support from schools and other institutions, the pressure from peers -- all conspire to sap parents' confidence and make it difficult to deny their children the
gratifications of television, to set firm rules and to stick with them” (Marie Winn 1985)
Also, although parental control is ideal, it is simply not being done often enough. Barlow and Hill (cited in Hough 1997) noted that parental control over children's viewing habits appears to have been declining for several decades. Rubinstein (cited in Hough 1997) found that while there was a great deal of parental concern about the levels of sex and violence on television, mothers and fathers exerted only a small amount of control over what their children watched.
Parental neglect is widespread in many areas. Television and film limits is
just one area where parents have been lax. Thus, a strategy may be to
enhance parental participation in other aspects of a child's life.
Encouraging parents to be more responsible and pay more attention to their
child is key to a solution to the problem of media violence.
Not all parents are negligent of course. Some do place restrictions on
children. However, studies found that when parents do try to impose
restrictions, children have found many ways to get around such limits; they
typically sneak into another room or watch a forbidden show at a friend's
house (Barlow and Hill cited in Hough 1997). Of course, basic parenting and a
lack of control is the predominate issue and not simply the availability of
a show. The real problem in that example is that the children were
disobedient, not that they viewed a forbidden show.
Even for children who do listen, it is simply too difficult for a parent to
screen or supervise every episode of every television show their children
choose to watch. The control becomes even harder as children reach that
magic age of 13 or 14 when the ratings suggest it is okay for them to see
the programs. Still, violent programming will have an effect on a young
teenager. Overall, the research has shown a complex relationship between
personal characteristics, patterns of media usage, and attitudes toward
media violence (Hough 1997).
Parents should consider utilizing rating systems but caution should rule.
The television rating system in the United States, for example, does not bear much
of a resemblance to the movie ratings and parents are more in the dark than
ever. Since the television rating system has been implemented there has been
a cry for more information such as letters that would depict why the program
was rated either PG or 14. Often, the ratings make no sense. For
example, a soap opera such as Days of Our Lives that contains implausible
themes and promotes marriage as an institution gets a 14 rating, whereas
Friends generally gets a mere PG even though cast members never seem to
sleep with the same person twice. Because of the problems inherent with
censorship, and even due to difficulties associated with sophisticated
parental controls, there is no substitute for good old fashioned
supervision. As far as television and films for children are concerned,
parental guidance is most definitely suggested.
The issue of under-age children watching adult films is only relevant if it affects children’s behaviour in the way many people believe. It must be decided if the issue is part of a “moral panic” or if it is something that must be taken seriously.
“Moral panics have been described as a condition, episode, person or group of persons which emerge to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.” (Cohen, 1972)
A major moral panic was that relating to ‘video nasties’, which subsequently led to an official change, as in 1984 the video Recording Act, came about which introduced the regulation of videos via the British Board of Film Classification.
“The debates concerning the issue centred upon the lack of parental control in monitoring children’s viewing and the dangers posed by certain programmes and films to young people.” (Lusted, 1991)
In 1990 at the time of the murder of James Bulger, the concern of ‘video nasties’ was revoked due to it being related to the violent film ‘Child’s Play 3’ which the two offenders had previously watched and supposedly mimicked. Further regulations were brought in in 1994 due to this case and its implications. However Lusted points out that there is
“Considerable difficulty in establishing casual connections between television violence and violent behaviour” (Lusted, 1991)
The underlying causes of many moral panics have little if anything, to do with the subject or event with which they focus their concern. As Furedei points out, that children have in the past killed other children, yet the death of James Bulger provoked a reaction previously never seen before by the British public. Even though such killings remain extremely rare,
“The story, largely due to its portrayal by the media, led to the view that all children were now at risk from one another, and that access to certain films could produce child murderers.” (Furedei, 1994)
Although it is a very serious case the media does seem to exaggerate and distort such moral panics, which gives rise to a heightened public concern. Within some cases it seems like they present reasons and scapegoats for the occurrence of certain events in order to divert attention from more real and greater problems found within society.
I found there to be many media theories, which connect violence viewed on television and violent behaviour in society closely together.
- Firstly it is found that violence in the media encourages viewers to imitate what they see, which could be linked to the social learning theory, which is a general theory of human behaviour. Bandura uses it to explain media effects, particularly the effects of violence. Bandura believes that adults, and especially children acquire attitudes, emotional responses, and new styles of conduct through ‘modelling’ of films and television. The major premise is that we learn by observing others. E.g. James Bulger
- Violence in the media de-sensitises the audience in general. According to this theory, violence in the media excites children but the more they see, the more they need to excite them. The result being that they become less shocked by real life violence.
- Violence in the media erodes inbuilt inhibitions about sexual and violent behaviour. Attitudes are broken down if it is seen as normal on the screen. Particularly if such behaviour is seen as being unpunished in film etc.
- Violence in the media releases tension and desires through identification with fictional characters and events. Although all research on this is inconclusive some psychiatrists claim to have successfully used pornography to help sex offenders release their emotions.
- Violence in the media can sensitise people to the effects of violence. Again difficult to prove but when filmed in certain ways violence can be so shocking as to put people off violence and make them more aware of its consequences.
Whether the media causes violence has been much researched and thoroughly debated. With there being,
“A lot of controversy on the topic, as it is embraced by one study, rejected by another and largely left unanswerable by years of congressional inquiries.” (No author-internet)
However the connection between the two is seen to many scientists and psychiatrists as an established fact and no longer a point of debate. As Susan Villani (Psychiatrists), who has carefully reviewed the studies on this subject, states,
“Clearly, with more exposure to media violence, children do become desensitised, they do copy what they see, and their values are shaped by it.” (Sappenfield-internet)
There are many, many studies that have been carried out all proving that violence on television leads to youth violence. For example a study carried out by the The American Academy of child and adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) found that children who view violence on television may,
“Become immune to the horror of violence; gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems; imitate violence they observe on television, and identify with certain characters, victims or victimizers.” (No author-internet)
The programme, ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles’ was found to have a certain impact regarding this link with one example being where
“A six year old boy wearing a turtle costume stabbed a friend in the arm for not returning a borrowed toy and a three year old boy picked up the family cat and swung it around his head like a turtle hero wielding a weapon. With him saying, “I’m just like Michelangelo.”” (No author-internet)
However Dennis Warton of the broadcasting industry is sceptical and says,
“They spark a lot of interest but nothing definite comes out that can establish a direct link, many even say that data has been tortured to fit a theory.” (Sappenfield-internet)
In 1995 Newburn and Hagell concluded that,
“Although well over 1,000 studies have been made, the case for a link between media violence and violent behaviour is ‘not proven.’” (Fulcher and Scott page 299)
They carried out their own research, and found the viewing preferences and viewing habits of both offenders and none offenders were very similar, therefore giving no evidence to back up the assumption that young offenders prefer and watch more violent television programmes than none offenders do.
It is clear that no study can definitely say that television causes any violent act-it can only infer. Even though it does seem that the vast majority of studies do support a link whether it be big or small. Although the case may not be proven with many studies being flawed. I personally believe that the media does in fact have some degree of effect on children or adults, as it seems a simple matter of common sense as Dr Body says,
“If television doesn’t influence kids, then why are so many people spending so many billions of dollars to advertise” (Sappenfield-internet)
There simply must be some influence. Some kids probably might be able to watch television all day and not commit a single violent act. Psychiatrists say that this merely begs for more research about who might be influenced by television and how. Maybe it’s a case that one causes the other although again there is no hard evidence to back it up.
It is not just violence in television that has an effect on people. The blockbuster series of ‘The Matrix’ films has been blamed for driving some extreme fans of the films to kill in the United States. American police thought there was a direct link between the films and some bizarre murder cases. In The Matrix, humans live in a virtual world secretly run by computers. The films are high in violent content and the sophisticated and ‘cool’ nature of the films could affect mentally unstable and vulnerable people. The Matrix was said to have inspired teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who shot thirteen people dead and wounded twenty three others before killing themselves at Columbine High School, Colorado, in 1999.
Some other cases that were said to be inspired by The Matrix are:
The case of a woman called Tonda Lynn Ansley who was apparently a completely normal and passive person until she became obsessed by the film. The thirty seven year old shot a friend dead in the street and showed no remorse until the police arrived. She told police, “ I started having dreams. I found out that they aren’t really dreams.” What she said is part of the storyline of The Matrix, where the central character, Neo, is haunted by dreams which he later discovers to be real. Ansley blamed “outer forces” for the murder of Sherry Lee Corbett. She said, ”They put you to sleep and then bring you back and put you in bed.” A detective said, “When you wake you think it’s a bad dream. She was describing a scene in the film where Keanu Reeves believes he is dreaming when he is really doing what is shown. She thought people were conspiring against her, drugging her and invading her dreams. Mrs Corbett was one of those.” Ansley was never tried and was sent to a mental hospital indefinitely.
Another Matrix fanatic was Lee Boyd Malvo, the teenage Washington sniper. He hardly said anything when initially arrested for his involvement in the three-week killing spree, which left ten people dead. One of the only things he said was, “I love The Matrix.” From his jail cell where he was held pending the trial he wrote, “Free yourself of The Matrix. You are a slave to The Matrix control. The outside force has arrived!”
Josh Cooke was so obsessed with Neo that he copied his long, black trench coat and bought a similar shotgun. In February 2003 the nineteen year old calmly walked into the basement of his family’s home in Washington and shot his father seven times. He then went into the kitchen and shot his mother twice. Afterwards Cooke rang the police and told them,” You’d better come quick, I’ve just killed both my parents.” When the police arrived he was coolly sipping a can of Coke. Cooke’s lawyer Rachel Fierro said,” A psychiatrist says Josh cannot differentiate between what is real and what is not, what is right and what is wrong. He believes he was living in the virtual reality world of The Matrix at the time of the alleged offences.”
