In following the idea that television and various other media outlets are a guide for behavior, psychologist Carl Jung is famous for conducting word association studies to examine the “unconscious mind” (Bushman 293). In Jung’s experiment, participants made mental connections to homonyms after viewing either a nonviolent or a violent video. These homonyms were carefully selected to have one meaning more aggressive than the other, such as “pound” and “sock.” The videotapes were selected to be equally entertaining but very different in their content of violence. The violent tape chosen was Karate Kid III and the nonviolent tape was Gorillas in the Mist. In experiments using these two videos, higher levels of anger and aggressive behavior were found in participants who saw the Karate Kid III video than in participants who saw the Gorillas in the Mist video (Bushman 295). Due to these findings, media violence was believed to have an important effect on aggressive connections to the homonyms. Participants that saw the violent video listed a greater number of aggressive associations to the homonyms than did participants who saw the nonviolent videotape. The findings indicate that the violence viewed by these participants generated aggressive thoughts and caused them to respond more to the violent words. The results of Jung’s experiment confirm that viewing violence can cause mental aggression in viewers (Bushman 298).
An additional example of modeling aggressive behavior in television is a study led by Tannis Williams and her associates at the University of British Columbia. They examined a rural community which was recently introduced to television compared to two rural communities that already had television and high levels of aggression. The observation was conducted after the first community had television for two years. The subjects were forty-five first and second grade students. After the two year period, the researchers had concluded that the aggression among children in the first community increased by 160 percent while in other communities, the aggression levels remained the same (Levin 99).
The studies of Bandura, Jung, and Williams have stressed the tendency that viewers model their behavior after instances viewed on television. However, this is not the only reason one might believe viewers learn aggressive behavior from the media. The frequency and legitimacy of violent acts on television also influences viewers to model their acts after what they have seen on television. Prime-time television, on average, displays around five acts of violence per hour (Levine 91). The American Psychological Association estimates that the average child through various media outlets witnesses eight thousand murders and over one hundred thousand other violent acts by age twelve (Zoglin 58). A study conducted by four universities and financed by the cable industry analyzed around 2,700 shows in a twenty-week survey of 23 channels. The results of the study showed that 57% of the shows contained at least some violence (Zoglin 59). In addition, The National Television Violence Study found that 85% of shows on premium channels such as HBO and Showtime contain violence (Zoglin 59). Theoretically, a person could turn their television on at any given time and view an act of violence. However, the frequency of violence on television is not the only problem. A large part of the problem lies in the way violence is portrayed on television.
In real life, when a person is found guilty of committing a violent act, they are punished by some authority figure, whether it is family members or the police. However, this usually does not occur on most television shows. According to The National Cable Television Study, in 73% of the violent acts observed on television, the offender went unpunished (Zoglin 60). In this sense, television is sanctioning violence. A false message of “its okay to be violent” is being transmitted. Television producers are sending out the message that not everyone suffers from violence. For victims and their families, violence on television is depicted without much attention to the pain and suffering, both long term and immediate (“All Carnage”). Less than half of television’s violent activities show the victims experiencing some signs of pain, and only one in six programs depict any long-term negative consequences such as physical suffering or emotional harm (“All Carnage”). Due to the fact that television glamorizes violence, viewers get an unrealistic look at the negative effects of this brutality. When no consequences exist, it is easier for a person to rationalize and accept violence.
Another problem with the way that television portrays violence is the lack of seriousness. Violence is presented in a humorous manner very frequently. More than a third of all violent scenes in programs across America involve a humorous situation which trivializes and undermines the seriousness of violence (“All Carnage”). The unrealistic way in which television glamorizes violence and sometimes rewards it can often disillusion viewers. The show “South Park,” for example, is a cartoon directed at teenagers, which shows one of the characters die in every episode. This only teaches children that dying is not that serious. A child watching Saturday morning cartoons experiences twenty to twenty-five violent acts per hour (“Rude Tube”). Combined with the fact that an average child watches about twenty-three hours of television a week, studies show that by the time a child reaches eighteen years of age they will have viewed two-hundred thousand acts of violence on television alone (“Rude Tube”). By increasing the legitimacy of violence, television is creating a model of behavior for viewers to follow.
Besides the frequency and legitimacy of violence on television increasing the tendency toward aggressive behavior, viewers are becoming desensitized by the constant viewing of violence. Through this process, people become increasingly less reactive to a particular thing. Someone who becomes desensitized to violence may be more likely to engage in violence (“Violence on TV”). By viewing violence everyday on television, it is possible that people will become more accustomed to seeing violence and become less affected by it. According to Levine, “Depictions of violence in the media have become so routine that perfectly ‘normal’ people no longer recognize it” (Levine 31).
Furthermore, desensitization to violence causes two main fears. By becoming accustomed to violence on television, people might become more accustomed to violence in our society. According to Levine, “The more we watch violence, and the less distressed we are by it, the more we risk becoming tolerant of real-life violence” (Levine 32).
The second fear is that by undermining the seriousness of violence, people will be more hesitant to help the victim of violence. The lack of concern about violence on the screen could possibly translate into a general lack of concern about people and a reluctance to be helpful to others. The repeated exposure to violence can dull emotional reactions and make people less likely to intervene or seek help for victims (Levine 35).
The final reason one might expect viewers to learn aggressive behavior from the media is that viewers may get a false presumption of the world and attain a pessimistic attitude. According to FBI figures, less than one percent of Americans are victims of violent crimes in a given year, not to mention the fact that the crime rate has been stable the past two decades (“Cultivation Theory”). However, despite the fact that crime is not increasing, people have a tendency to believe it is. Many people believe that this negative attitude can be attributed to the portrayal and abundance of television violence (“Cultivation Theory”). George Gerbner, an expert on violence in the media, suggests that since “television reaches so many people and delivers such a violent message, it is able to create a worldview that is accepted by most people even though it is false” (Levine 29). The more violence a person sees on television, the more that person feels threatened by violence.
In addition, heavy viewers of television tend to obtain a pessimistic attitude. These people have an increased fear of being victimized by violence, resulting in self-protective behaviors and mistrust of others. Their pessimistic attitude can be attributed to their view of the world we live in. George Gerbner claims that television, “presents a coherent vision of the world” (Stossel 87). However, he believes that, “this vision of the world is violent, mean, repressive, dangerous, and inaccurate” (Stossel 87).
The most important aspect of violence in television is preventing it. There are many ways in which it can be prevented, but not often are many carried out. These solutions are easy to implement, but are often overlooked because of commercial purposes. One such solution is to “create conflict without killing.” Michael Landon, who starred in and directed “Little House on the Prairie” managed to do so in his programs. His goal was to put moral lessons in his show in an attempt to teach while entertaining. On the program “Hill Street Blues” the conflicts are usually personal and political matters among the characters. Although some violence does occur, the theme is not the action, but rather its consequences (“Children and TV Violence”). In today’s society, television networks are only concerned about ratings. Television and various other media outlets will go to any lengths in order to establish higher ratings. Society as a whole has changed dramatically, as higher ratings are brought by programs which contain real-life situations, and an inclusion of extra violence, sex, and gore.
Perhaps the most important way to prevent children from watching television violence is to stop it where it starts. The parents should step in and turn the set off when a violent program comes on. The parents are the child’s role models from which they learn. If the child can learn at an early age that violence on television is bad, then they can turn the set off for themselves when they get older. Education should start at home. However, fixing the problems of children and television violence is not easy. There are many factors that have to be considered and people to be convinced. This problem will, no doubt, never go away and continue to get worse as the years go by. Although there are measures that can be taken to prevent the children from ever being exposed to such things, violence in various media outlets seems to be everywhere.
Given the persuasiveness of media violence, it is easy to understand how it might have an effect on its viewers. It is reasonable to believe that media directs its viewers’ attention to forms of violent behavior that they might not otherwise consider. The fact that there is an abundance of violence on television can not be argued. The lesson the media teaches about the legitimacy of violence does not correspond with the reality of the situation. In addition, it is no wonder that viewers become desensitized by the abundance of violence on television. The pessimistic attitude television promotes is one that is not needed in today’s already brutal society. Television may not be the only factor contributing to violence in America, but it is one that can be controlled. It is estimated that ten percent of violence in the United States can be attributed to television (Stossel 88). However, with the grueling competition of media companies fighting for viewer ratings, violence may be the only way to grab viewer attention in our ever-changing society.
Work Cited
Bushman, Brad J. “Effects of Television Violence on Memory for Commercial Messages.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 4.4 (1998): pp. 291-307. Online. Available: http://www.apa.org/journals/xap/xap44291.html. 30 March 2000.
Chandler, D. (1995). “Cultivation Theory.” 18 September 1995. Online. Available: http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dgc/cultiv.html. 28 March 2000.
“Children and TV Violence.” American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry(AACAP). Online. Available:
http://www.parenthoodweb.com/parent_cfmfiles/pros.cfm?n=247. 30 March 2000.
Gary Gilson. “Media Violence: Reversing the News Media’s Obsession with Death.” COLORS Magazine. July 1995. Online. Available: http://www.mtn.org/newscncl/articles/colors.html. 2 August 2000.
Hummel, John. Observational Learning. Online. 29 May 1998. Available: http://www.valdosta.edu/~whuitt/psy702/behsys/social.html. 3 April 2000.
Levine, Madeline. Viewing Violence. New York: Doubleday, 1996.
Marin, Rick. “The Rude Tube.” Newsweek Magazine. 23 March 1998. Online. Available:http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/issue/12_98a/nw_980323_056_1.htm. 1 April 2000.
Stossel, Scott. “The man who counts the killings.” The Atlantic Monthly Magazine. May 1997: pp. 86-88. Online. Available: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97may/gerbner.htm. 1 April 2000.
Szaflik, Kevin. Violence on TV: The Desensitizing of America. Online. 22 September 1999. Available: http://www.ridgenet.org/szaflik/tvrating.htm. 1 April 2000.
Turner, Richard. “All Carnage, All The Time.” Newsweek Magazine. 23 August 1999. Online. Available: http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/issue/08_99b/printed/us/so/so0608_1.htm. 1 April 2000.
Zoglin, Richard. “Chips Ahoy.” Time Magazine. 19 February 1996: pp. 58-61. Online. Available: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1996/dom/960219/television.html. 30 March 2000.