HELPING CHILDREN DEAL WITH VIOLENT MEDIA

HELPING CHILDREN DEAL WITH VIOLENT MEDIA

Institutional Solutions

The V-Chip. Given the probable negative effects and influences of violent television, what can a parent do, short of prohibiting viewing altogether? Prohibition would not be totally successful, anyhow, because children see TV at friends’ homes and may rent violent videos and movies. Even as the V-chip mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has become standard practice (Price, 1998), it must be programmed in each TV set to block out the violent shows, as determined by the rating. To the surprise of many, the V-chip has been little used. The reasons for this are not clear, but is probably a combination of ignorance of its presence, lack of knowledge about how to program and implement it, and a reluctance to block out a large number of programs of possible interest to the parents.

MPAA Television Ratings. First implemented in the late 1990s as a parallel to the more familiar movie rating systems, the TV ratings attempt to

Violence: Watching All That Mayhem Really Matters 288

specify appropriate age (e.g., TV-14 not suitable for children under 14) and sometimes information as to the nature of the questionable content (sex, language, violence). These ratings continue to be the subject of criticism and refinement in attempt to make them more useful.

Parental Mediation and Media Literacy

Classroom Training. Although mitigating the effects of TV violence has not been the major thrust of the research, there have been some interesting findings that speak to this issue, Huesmann, Eron, Klein, Brice, and Fischer (1983) developed a treatment designed to change children’s attitudes about violent TV. One hundred sixty-nine first- and third-graders who watched a lot of violent TV were exposed to two treatment sessions over 2 years. The first session involved showing children TV film clips and having them discuss the violence and alternative nonviolent realistic ways that the problems could have been solved. Neither the treatment session nor a control group session discussing other aspects of TV had any effect on the children’s own violent behavior or on their belief about the reality of TV violence.

However, a second intervention nine months later with the same group had children develop arguments about the negative effects of TV violence, write a paragraph on the topic, and make a group video with everyone reading his or her essay. This treatment (but not the control) led to reduced violent behavior and a weaker relationship between aggression and violent TV viewing. In terms of attitudes, the treatment had a substantial effect on children’s responses to two questions (“Are television shows with a lot of hitting and shooting harmless for kids?” and “How likely is it that watching

a lot of television violence would make a kid meaner?”). The mitigation effect was strongest in children who identified least with the violent characters, suggesting the important role of identification with the aggressive model.

More recently, Robinson, Wilde, Navracruz, Haydel, and Varady (2001) tested a 6-month training session for third- and fourth-graders and their parents designed to reduce television, video, and video game use. Children were encouraged to watch no TV or video for ten days and stay to a one- hour-per-day regimen thereafter. Children also received lessons on various aspects of media literacy and parents were encouraged to help their children follow the schedule and to encourage the family to do likewise. Compared to

a control group, the experimental group showed less peer-rated aggression and observed verbal aggression.

A somewhat different approach by Wilson and Cantor and their colleagues draws on an application of classical conditioning. They used systematic desensitization techniques to reduce

Systematic Desensitization.

289 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

children’s fear reactions to scary media presentations (B.J.Wilson, 1987, 1989; B.J.Wilson & Cantor, 1987; B.J.Wilson, Hoffner, & Cantor, 1987). For example, before watching a scary movie about lizards, children of ages 5 to 10 either (a) saw a live lizard, (b) saw the experimenter touch a live lizard, or (c) had no exposure to a live lizard. The group where the experimenter modeled touching the lizard led to the most reduction in negative emotional reactions and interpretations (B.J.Wilson, 1989).

The successes of Huesmann and Wilson and their colleagues in mitigating the effects of TV violence through training is encouraging if for no other reason than that it shows that this antisocial learning is subject to alteration by new learning. This is especially encouraging, because violence as a dispositional behavior trait is known to be remarkably stable over time (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Olweus, 1979).

Personality Development. Another approach to mitigating negative effects of media violence is suggested by the individual differences research of Tamborini and his colleagues (Tamborini, 1991, 1996; Tamborini & Stiff, 1987; Tamborini, et al., 1990; Tamborini, Stiff, & Zillmann, 1987; see also J.Cantor, 1991, and McCauley, 1998). If certain types of personalities (e.g., highly empathic) find graphic violence distasteful and disturbing, and others (e.g., sensation seeking, Machiavellian) find it pleasantly arousing, cultivating empathic qualities in one’s children and discouraging Machiavellianism and sensation-seeking presumably should help in ensuring that they will not find viewing violence to be pleasurable. Similarly, encouraging psychological identification with the victims and not the perpetrators of violence should decrease the enjoyment level of violent TV

See Cantor and Wilson (2003) for a thorough review of strategies to reduce negative effects of media violence in children.