Does Media Violence Lead to Aggression and Societal Violence?

AS and A Level Sociology

Lin

Man-Ju Lin

Sara Talpos

English 125

16 April 2006

Does Media Violence Lead to Aggression and Societal Violence?

In 2003 Devin Moore, a teenager from Alabama, was caught and brought to police station on suspicion of stealing a car. In the police station, Moore said to Ace Mealer, a 911 dispatcher, “Life is a video game. You've got to die sometime” (par. 16). He suddenly grabbed the gun and shot three police officers, then drove off in a police car but was later apprehended. On October 9th 2005, he was sentenced to death by lethal injection. Moore had played the violent video game Grand Theft Auto day and night for months. This violent video game has sold more than 35 million copies, with worldwide sales approaching $2 billion. It is a game that provides the pseudo-world that is governed by the laws of depravity (Associated Press). The famous case of Devin Moore motivated by this game serves as an evidence for the “copycat” crimes, which raised the concern on the effect of media violence.

The debate over the effects of media violence began in 1920s when researchers in the United States and Great Britain began studying the effect of the introduction of television. The issue of media violence did not draw much attention in the United States until the Columbine school shootings on April 20, 1999. Two teenager students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, carried weapons and killed thirteen people at Columbine High School. Harris and Klebold are both fans of violent video games such as Doom and Wolfenstein 3D. Many scholars and media analysts have used the case of Columbine High School Massacre and Devin Moore to defend their argument that media violence is the major cause of aggression and societal violence. However, scholars did not discuss the fact that Moore’s childhood was full of mental and physical abuse. Moore’s father beat him constantly and “[forced] him to work long shifts at his janitorial business” (Surette). Factors such as family background should also be considered before blaming the video industry for these crimes.

It is undeniable that media play a major role in our daily life. Media not only provide us with entertainment, but also serve as sources of information, educational tool and basis for conversation and social interaction. Despite these functions and uses of media, the debate over the negative effects of media violence emerges from time to time, and there is a growing concern for these effects on our society. Many scholars have conducted researches and concluded that media portrayal of violence leads to aggression and societal violence. Media can be in the form of movies, television, newspapers, video games or the Internet. However, they failed to take into account of factors such as audiences’ background, psychological characteristics, environmen, society and cultural standards when evaluating the effect of media violence. I believe that media violence does not necessarily lead to aggression and societal violence.

According to the article Teen Health and the Media, “the average American teen spends about 20 hours a week watching television” (Washington State Department of Health). Indeed, we cannot deny the fact that we are exposed to many types of media violence since childhood. If media violence does lead to aggression and societal violence, teenagers’ characters would be shaped by the portrayal of violence in media. Every year, about six thousand high school graduates decide to attend the University of Michigan. If these high school graduates possess violent qualities and characteristics, our campus would become very violent and there would ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

According to the article Teen Health and the Media, “the average American teen spends about 20 hours a week watching television” (Washington State Department of Health). Indeed, we cannot deny the fact that we are exposed to many types of media violence since childhood. If media violence does lead to aggression and societal violence, teenagers’ characters would be shaped by the portrayal of violence in media. Every year, about six thousand high school graduates decide to attend the University of Michigan. If these high school graduates possess violent qualities and characteristics, our campus would become very violent and there would be an increasing report of violent crimes in the local newspaper.

As a freshman majoring in Communication Studies at the University of Michigan, I have conducted a survey and investigated sixty students’ opinion on whether or not they think that television violence leads to an increase in societal violence. The questions involved number of hours of television students watch, the types of programs students like watching and their views about television in general. According to my survey, 85 percent of students are not aroused or feel aggressive when watching television involving violent acts. This suggests that those who perceive violent messages from television are highly unlikely to behave violently or commit violent acts. Also, 82 percent of students think that media violence does not influence their action and behavior. 10 percent of students think it does, and 8 percent of students think that their behavior is occasionally influenced by media violence. A student who thought that media violence does influence his action and behaviour commented, “it doesn’t mean that I commit violent crime as a result of watching violent shows. However I do get angry at people more often or feel impatient sometimes.” This implies that most people do not mimic the violent acts portrayed in media, or even commit violent crimes. Thus societal violence is unlikely to be the result of media violence. According to my survey, the majority of students view media as an exciting source of entertainment and an educational tool. One student noted that “sometimes it is other factors, for example, intense pressure from school work, family, and social standards that cause people to feel annoyed and behave violently.” Although this survey is only based on the opinion of sixty people, which may not be representative for the whole population, the result of the survey does support my belief and suggest that media violence may not be the cause of aggression and societal violence. Other factors need to be taken into account when evaluating the effect of media violence.

Recent studies of media violence include George Gerbner’s Cultivation Study. Gerbner is a famous communication theorist; he initiated the Cultural Indicators Project to “perform content analysis of televised violence” (Bryant et al. 101). The project has begun in mid 1960s and researchers are still trying to prove the causal relationship between media violence and aggression and societal violence. Gerbner claimed that long-term exposure to television violence tends to generate false attitudes and images of the reality. According to Gerbner’s research, children could learn from television and believe that violence is the acceptable way to solve conflict. Children who grow up in such environment will generally internalise distorted views of the social world and make assumptions about various aspects that is not based on reality. However, cultivation is “usually described as a hypothesis rather than a formal media effects theory due to a lack of supporting, empirical evidence to explain how the cultivation process occurs” (Bryant et al. 102). When considering the possible effects media violence may have on the audience, we also need to account for television viewers’ age, gender, social status, and other psychological traits since these also affects their way of perceiving images portrayed in television. One cannot conclude that media violence leads to aggression without carefully considering these actors.

Recent statistics have also shown that the portrayal of violence in media does not necessarily cause societal violence. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report in 1998, violent crimes have decreased 7 percent compared to 1997. They reported in 1999 “the number of high school students who fight or carry weapon is smaller than in years past” (Bryant et al. 187). “Large spikes in violent crime in the United States occurred without associated media violence spikes during the 1880s and 1930s” (Wikipedia). These statistics support the idea that media violence does not necessarily lead to societal violence. Researchers who promote the idea that media violence is the major cause of societal violence failed to explain why violent crime rates fell while TV and video game violence increase in the mid 1990s. Researchers also failed to explain why other countries with similar media violence rate as the US have much lower crime rates (Wikipedia). These informtation suggest that there must be other factors that contribute to aggressive behavior and societal violence.

Although there are hundreds of studies that show the direct causation between media violence and societal violence, these studies are often unstandardized. Researchers used different ways to measure aggression. For instance, participants may be asked to watch a violent TV program and rate their aggression level from 1 to 10. Such measurement of aggression level may not be accurate and may be biased. Another famous study that confirmed the negative effects of media violence conducted by scholars Craig Anderson and Karen Dill also employed an unstandardized measure of aggression. In the study, each participant was paired with a partner; one of them had to watch a short clip of the violent video game Wolfenstein 3D for fifteen minutes. And then they were asked to perform a Competitive Reaction Time Test. It is like a computer game: if the person wins, he or she would choose a penalty, which was a loud noise played through the headphones, for the partner. The researcher would then compare their scores. It is believed that the person who watched the violent show before the game would be aroused and behaves aggressively thus he or she would have higher score (Anderson et al.). This way of measuring aggression may be bias since the ability to play or perform the test may depend on participants’ familiarity with the use of computer and how frequent the participant play similar computer games. In reality, it has been reported that Anderson and Dill modified the result in favor of their argument and the result was “rigged” (Munger). Without a standardized measurement of aggression, researchers may manipulate the results to support their conclusion.

An interesting experiment called the “Bo-Bo Doll”, conducted by psychologist Albert Bandura, is widely used to support the negative effect of media violence. In the experiment, children watched a video clip which shows an adult aggressively hitting, kicking, and punching a doll. After the video, the children were placed in an identical room with the same doll used in the clip. Bandura found that “88 percent of the children imitated the aggressive behavior shown in the video” (Bandura et al.). Bandura thus propounded the Social Learning Theory, which suggests that people often observe other people’s actions and the sonsequences of those actions, and learns from what has been observed (Bryant et al. 70). However, if we take a closer at this experiement, we can find many flaws. First of all, the children in the experiment were placed in the exact same room that was used in the video clip. This may not be the case in real life. The settings portrayed in media are usually dramatized; media provides a psudo environment which is different from our daily life.Youths may be influenced by media violence however they are situated in different settings and therefore unlikely to perform the exact same violent acts portrayed in media. Secondly, most violent acts in media usually has a moral ending where the villain are punished by justice. Youths would learn that violent behavior may lead to punishment therefore it is unlikely that they would imitate the exact same violent act. Thirdly, the children in the experiment were not allowed to be accompanied by their parents, which is unlike real life settings.Youths in real life receive education from their parents and school. They are taught that violent acts are morally wrong. Thus one cannot generalize from this experiment that there is a causal relationship between media violence and aggression without considering other factors.

Third factors must be taken into account when analysing the effect of media violence. Audience do not simply take in whatever they have seen from the media and be influence directly. Audiences’ relationship to media content should not be ignored because audiences are “active readers” rather than “passive recipients” (Croteau et al.). “Active readers” means people are intelligent in engagement with the media. They actively construct their own independent interpretation and meanings from media text (Croteau et al.). For instance, when we are watching violent horror movies, we know that certain tricks and tools are used by the film industry to make the film appears attractive and realistic. We do not believe everything that is depicted in the films. Different audiences can interpret and make meanings of media text by using their diverse cultual tools such as language, religion, pre-existing belief, experience and values (Croteau et al.). Audience are free-thinking and free-spirited. We would respond differently to the same media text. We would also interact with other audience and develop shared meanings of media content. When we perceive violent messages in the media, we would express and exchange our feelings with others. We do not simply mimic the violent act. We would not be directly affected by the message because we actively interprete the message by applying our cognition, logic , prior experiences and knowledge. We know that violence is wrong and may lead to punishment thus we would not behave violently. Hence media violence would not necessarily lead us to behave violently and commit violent crimes.

The issue of media violence is controversial indeed. If we take a step back and ask ourselves who is responsible for societal violence, media is definitely not the only answer. Teenagers who know that violent behavior is wrong but still engage in violent acts deserve punishment and should blame themselves. Irresponsible parents who failed to educate their children or even abuse the children should be blamed. Government that failed to implement measures such as gun control to prevent societal violence should also be blamed. After all, media is not the sole factor that contributes to societal violence.

Works Cited

Bandura, Albert. Social Learning through Imitation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1962.

Bryant, Jennings, and Susan Thompson. Fundamentals of media effects. 1st ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

"Can A Video Game Lead To Murder?." CBC News 6 Mar 2005. 16 Apr 2006 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678261.shtml>

Croteau, David, and William Hoynes. Media/society : industries, images, and audiences . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 2000.

"Fast Facts." Teen Health and the Media. 05 Apr. 2006 <http://depts.washington.edu/thmedia/view.cgi?section=medialiteracy&page=fastfacts>.

Himmelweit, Hilde. Television and the child : an empirical study of the effect of television on the young. London: Oxford University Press, 1960.

Lowery, Shearon. Milestones in mass communication research. New York: Longman, 1983.

Thierer, Adam. "Let's Consider the Facts Before We Call In Government to Regulate Video Games." The Technology Liberation Front. 6 Apr 2006. 16 Apr. 2006 <http://www.techliberation.com/archives/037891.php>.

“Media violence research.” Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia. 16 Apr. 2006
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_violence>.