The Social Policies that have been put in place are in two different places, there is first the regulation of the networks and the policies at the governmental level. The television that is mostly seen in Canada is imported through the United States, so their policies also affect Canadian television. The networks were effected by the United States Television Act, where they had to reduce the level of violence on their shows. They were also required to create a “family time” hour and push the more violent shows later in the evening, presumably when the children are asleep. In Canada networks have to place a logo with an age group on all of their shows. The networks also have accepted a voluntary code that prohibits programming that contains gratuitous violence; or sanctions, promotes or glamorizes violence. There is a sub committee of the CRTC called the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council that monitors the enforcement of the code and acts as a route to lodge complaints as needed. The Canadian government has made initiatives, committees, and commissions to look into the issues of television violence, but have not formed any legislature as they feel that:
“In our opinion, most Canadians would object to blanket restrictions on the
freedom of expression of broadcasters and on their own personal viewing
choices. We believe, nevertheless, that freedom of expression is not an
absolute and unconditional right, that the industry has a social responsibility
to respond to the concerns of the audiences which it serves, and that the
industry must be given the chance to do so, independently and in lieu of
legislation, wherever possible.” (House of Commons)
Effects of Television Violence on Children
Studies have shown that there are three major effects of violence on television: (1) children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, (2) children may be more fearful of the world around them, and (3) children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways towards others. (APA). Violence has been defined as “the act of injuring or killing someone of the threat of injuring or killing someone, whatever the method or context. (Martinez)
The effect of a decreased sensitivity to pain and suffering in others, can lead to more tolerant behavior of violence, and desensitization of children. An average child witnesses “8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television by the seventh grade.” (Children and Television Violence). The Saturday Morning cartoons alone have an average violence rate of 20 to 25 acts per hour. (Josephson) This constant bombardment takes the ‘edge’ off violence, and children begin to see violence as an everyday occurrence. Children in a study done by Drabman and Thomas showed that children who had seen a film, and then watching a fight on the playground the children who had seen a film with violence in it took longer to seek help. (Potter pg. 136) A child then can become desensitized by the amount of violence in a TV show. In a study done by Feshback and Roe in 1968, children try to distance themselves from victims of violence so that they regard themselves as different from the victim. These children did recognize the emotional state of the victim, but did not automatically feel empathy for the victim. (Potter pg. 136). Elementary School age children are more likely then preschool children to say that they have been scared by something on television. (Josephson) Children will try to rationalize their fear by trying to rethink that the victim deserved the treatment. Both the trends can carry through into their adulthood, as adults are less susceptible to television violence, but will still feel desensitization and increased tolerance after repeated exposure.
As violence is shifted to an everyday occurrence children believe themselves to be more vulnerable and will become fearful of their environment as ‘it happened on TV’. Television viewers who watched four or more hours of television a day were more likely to succumb to the Mean World Syndrome. This syndrome is demonstrated when people are more fearful of the world around them, exaggerate their risk factor and overestimate the people involved. (Murray). Children will exaggerate their risk factor as they are also more likely to be portrayed in the media as victims of violence or ill health. Children who see a violent act in a situation that they are familiar with, will lead them to be fearful of that environment as they can see themselves in that context. Children who have watched something that frightened them may have “monsters in the closet” and refuse to do certain tasks because of fear. Children who are fearful may often continue this cycle by going back to the television in an attempt to find a refuge, but can find nothing there to comfort them. (Josephson) The most common character involved with violence are white middle aged males. (Potter) The most common victim is a female character or a child. Thus young girls begin to perceive themselves as potential victims and are more frightened by the world. People with Mean World Syndrome are more likely to over-guess the number of criminals and law enforcement officers employed in their area, as they see them on television. (Murray) In the wake of September 11th children have become more fearful of planes, and terrorist activities. Children also overestimated the damage done to New York city as they say the constant video loop of the buildings collapsing which in their minds added up to more then just the one structure collapsing.
This Mean World Syndrome breeds an atmosphere of “get them before they can get me” and children become more aggressive and are more likely to expect aggressive acts. The social model of psychology states that children learn through imitating role models. Children begin to identify with their television characters as role models and may pretend to be them. In a study by Aletha Huston-Stein and her colleagues in 1972, children who had a ‘diet’ of Batman and Superman were more likely to be physically active, more likely to get into fights and scrapes, play roughly with toys, snatch toys from others and get into altercations. (Murray). Batman and Superman are both perceived as good guys and it is acceptable for them to use violence so the children may be of the belief that violence is acceptable to make you a hero. ). “In most televised programs the ‘bad guy’ gains control over important resources and amasses considerable social and material rewards through a series of aggressive maneuvers, whereas his punishment is generally delayed until just before the last commercial.” (Martinez) This role modeling allows children to focus on the immediate rewards, like having the toy to play with, instead of the long term effects, like loosing a friendship because the child was greedy. The level of juvenile crimes has increased as children are learning more and more about violence through media. Between the years 1952 to 1972 the numbers of juveniles arrested increased 1600 percent! (Winn) Another strong case of identification with the media is again after September 11th and children bullying others because they happened to resemble the terrorist’s or were of Islamic faith.
Why does Violence in the media hit children so much? Firstly children will pay more attention to violent scenes as they are often accompanied by rapid movement, rapid scene changes, sound effects and loud music; all of which stimulate the sensory portions of their brains. Violence keeps the child interested, and so the media has tried to keep the attention of the child by violence. As children age they tend to seek out dramas with social justice themes, and these themes often include some violent act being done that has to be set to rights. Secondly, Children have not had the experience necessary to negate the desensitization or the mean world syndrome. They perceive violence as an every day occurrence and an every day solution as they see it every hour on the television. Thirdly they identify with their hero who in some cases will solve problems through violence, and begin to emulate him or her. They have not learned that violence on television is alright, but violence in real life is not.
The social model of psychology states that children learn through imitating role models. Children begin to identify with their television characters as role models and may pretend to be them. In a study by Aletha Huston-Stein and her colleagues in 1972, children who had a ‘diet’ of Batman and Superman were more likely to be physically active, more likely to get into fights and scrapes, play roughly with toys, snatch toys from others and get into altercations. (Murray)
Cultural and Diversity Factors
Not all children who watch violent cartoons are effected the same way, some children have certain factors that predispose them to be more susceptible to the violence, and others have an increased resiliency.
The clearest factor that influences what the effect of violence has on children is how much violent television they watch. The more they watch the more likely they are to feel the effects listed above. It also depends on what kind of violence they watch. In a study done by Bandura, Ross and Ross in 1963 children watched a ‘live’ event of aggression (an experimenter insulting and striking an inflatable doll), a television version of the same scene, and a cartoon version. The filmed and live version seemed to initiate more aggressive behavior then the animated. (Martinez)
Children who watch violent shows and identify with their characters strongly are more likely to be influenced. There are three predictor variables of how strongly a child will identify with characters. A child who is in a lower socioeconomic bracket who does not do well academically is more likely to identify strongly with the characters. A child who strongly identifies with good guys will be more likely to approve of violent behavior. (Martinez) By the same token boys are more likely to watch violent shows as they often feature male protagonists rather then girls who seek out female protagonists which hardly ever star in violent shows.
What increases a child’s resiliency is involvement of other role models, better performance at school, and what they watch. The active involvement of real life role models will help change the child’s ability to identify with the characters in television. Children who watch very little television or watch primarily educational shows, such as Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood or Sesame Street, are more likely to model the behaviors of altruism, sharing and empathy and do better academically. (Murray)
Cultural factors play into television violence as well. In Japan preschoolers watch alone or without adult supervision about 50 % of their viewing time. In America 75% of a preschoolers viewing time is spent with an adult, but watching adult shows which contain more violence, and frightening scenes for the child. In Canada over 80% of the programs that preschoolers watch are programs intended for children, and it is more likely that Canadian parents will let their child watch alone if they are watching educational shows. (Josephson)
Perspectives on the Issue
There are two popular views on the regulation of television violence, that it should be banned or regulated strongly, that it shouldn’t as it takes away the rights and freedoms of the individual. In 1990 a 13-year-old girl named Virginie Larivere managed to mount a national petition demanding action on television violence that gathered 1.5 million signatures. With the increasing amount of research that outlines the negative effects of television violence on children, more and more people are demanding that precautions be taken. They have gotten the committees and the commissions set up but there has been no formal legislature drafted yet. The conflicting viewpoint that has been taken by the Canadian government is that the artists, producers and audiences have a right to freedom of expression, that if violence is a way to hold children’s attention that it is alright as long as the bad guys are caught in the end. A Social Work perspective is looking at the person in the environment, that as long as there are other supports that help reduce the risk of aggressive behavior later.
Responses
One solution to this issue can be found in network programming. The most obvious solution for the networks is to cut back on the violence in television. The concern for the television networks is how to keep a child’s attention without violence. Children will pay more attention to violent scenes as they stimulate the sensory portions of their brains One way the networks have tried to resolve this is with parental advisory notices before certain shows. Unfortunately, some parents have no idea what their children watch and are not in the same room to hear the warnings. The networks have ‘slotted’ shows geared for older viewers later in the day, in the hopes that this will prevent younger children from watching more violent shows. Some cable providers have a special lineup of non-violent shows geared for children.
Parents and teachers are also important in the resolution of this issue. Education is important for the parents, as they need to be aware of the effects of television violence on their children. At home parents are encouraged to monitor what their children are watching and to ban offensive shows. As well, parents should be able to monitor their children for mimicking characters they see on television. Cutting down on the television time limits the child’s exposure and limits the risk. Parents should not be relying on the television to be an electronic babysitter. Education on the dangers of media violence needs to be incorporated into the school system so teachers are aware, and that the children themselves are aware of their own reactions to violence on television. Children should be educated as to why violence is not an acceptable approach to solving problems
The last player in this is the media community, the group that actually participates in making the shows. The media needs to take a stand on how the violence portrayed effects children. Networks need to be more conscientious of what they show. Actors need to be educated of their ‘role model’ status and what their profession does to the rest of society. This trend has been started by actors like Eddie Murphy who have stated that they will turn down roles if they are too offensive to children.
Social workers’ roles in these responses varies, social workers can play a role in the education, advocating for better policies or more support groups, and helping to assist in research for continued methods on dealing with the effects. Social workers can play a role in education of the public, by working through schools, in families, and in adolescent children. At schools they can help facilitate awareness programs for teachers and students, such as Speak out Against Violence campaign that was started in 1996. By advocating for new policies Social workers help limit what is shown on television or in support programs help minimize the repercussions of violence. Researching the effects allow social workers to look at the person in the environment and see if there is another predisposition to be effected by violence.
E. B. White wrote that: “I believe that television is going to be the test of the modern world, and in this new opportunity to see beyond the range of our vision, we shall discover either a new and unbearable disturbance of the general peace or a saving radiance in the sky. We shall stand or fall by television, of this I am sure.” (Murray). The effects of television violence on youth’s behavior is a complex issue. There are three clear effects of television violence on children, they become desensitized to violence, start into the “Mean World Syndrome” and they become predisposed to aggressive behavior. If, as it has been said that, it takes a whole village to raise a child, then it must take the whole media community to realize the influence of what a child sees on television. As a society we must continue to educate ourselves on the detrimental effects of television violence and take action to protect children from television violence.
References:
American Psychologists Association. (1985). Violence on Television What do Children Learn? What can Parents Do? Washington DC: American Psychologists Associtation
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. (1996). Chronology of Main Events & Initiatives Undertaken Related to the Issue of Television Violence. Retrieved by website:
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. (1996). Fact Sheet. Retrieved by website: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/SOCIAL/VIOLART.htm
Standing Committee on Communication and Culture. (1993) Report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communication and Culture. Ottawa: Government of Canada
Murray, John P. (1995). Children and Television Violence. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy. Vol 4. No 3. P. 7-14
MacIntyre, Jefferey. (2002). The montage is the message - and it feels good. National Post, Saturday ed. March 30, 2002.
Nielsen, A.C. and Company (1988). The 1988 Nielsen Report on Television. Northbrook, IL: A.C. Nielsen Company
Page Wise Inc. (2001) Children and Television Violence. Texas: Austin Page Wise inc.
Spicer, Keith. (1996) A Canadian Agenda for Children’s Television. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission website.
Vedantam, Shankar. (2002) Agression linked to tube time. Calgary Herald. March 29, 2002.
