Mayhem Really Matters

Mayhem Really Matters

Q: What is the overall conclusion from the research about the effects of watching media violence?

A: Of the 3,500 research studies conducted since 1950 studying the effects of watching media violence, all but 18 (i.e., 99.5%) show negative effects of violent entertainment. (Grossman & deGaetano, 2001).

Q: How many murders has the average child seen on TV by the time

he or she finishes elementary school?

A: Eight thousand, plus 100,000 other acts of violence (Huston et al., 1992). If they happened to have seen the film Die Hard 2, they saw 264 murders in that movie alone!

Q: How many hours per week do eighth graders spend playing video games?

A: Boys spend 4.2 hours and girls 2 hours, mostly at home (Funk, 1993a).

Although specific figures depend on our precise operational definition, the reality of media, especially television and film in the United States, Japan, India, and elsewhere, is a highly violent world. Around 60% of American TV programs and 90% of the movies on TV contain some sort of violence (National Television Violence Study, 1997). On U.S. television, there are 14 violent acts per hour on children’s programming (Strasburger & Wilson, 2002), and children’s programming overall has the most violence, much of which is trivialized, glamorized, and sanitized (Wilson, Smith, Potter, Kunkel, Linz, Colvin, & Donnerstein, 2002). Considerable violence even occurs in programming we do not immediately associate with aggression, such as news, music videos, and even commercials aimed at children. Also, the large majority of video games (85%) are violent (Funk, 1993b; Provenzo, 1991).

How about the retort that media violence only reflects an imperfect world that is very violent? Yes, there is violence in the real world but much less than what is in the media. According to FBI statistics, about 87% of real crimes are nonviolent, but only 13% of crimes on reality-based TV entertainment are. For murder, the contrast is even stronger; only 0.2% of crimes reported to the FBI are murders, whereas 50% of the crimes on TV are murders (Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Oliver, 1994). We have already

Violence: Watching All That Mayhem Really Matters 260

seen in chapter 7 how the sensationalist news reporting of unusual but grisly crimes leads to people hugely overestimating their occurrence in reality (Best, 1999; Glassner, 1999).

Consistent with the definition of most researchers, violence is defined here as behavior causing intentional physical harm to another individual. Excluded from this definition are accidental injury, vandalism of property, and various behaviors sometimes called “psychological” or “Verbal” aggression, including emotional abuse and the “alternative aggressions” often used by girls to intimidate other girls by threatening to withdraw relationships (Simmons, 2002). These issues are all very important and deserve serious study in regard to media images. However, they have not received much study as yet, whereas the presentation of physical violence has been the subject of intense research scrutiny for the last half century. Although the term is not always used precisely, aggression is the internal motivation behind the violent behavior. Acts of violence may be observed directly; the motive of aggression must be inferred from those acts.

Violence on television has long been a contentious political issue, and there has probably been more psychological research on the topic of violence than on all other topics in this book put together, by one estimate between three and four thousand studies (Grossman & deGaetano, 2001; Huston, et al., 1992). This chapter makes no claim to comprehensively review all of that literature; thorough reviews and discussions in varying detail are available elsewhere (e.g., Donnerstein & Smith, 1997; Dubow & Miller, 1996; Geen, 1994; Huston, et al., 1992; Murray, 1999; National Television Violence Study, 1997; Paik & Comstock, 1994; Smith & Donnerstein, 1998; Sparks & Sparks, 2002; Wood, Wong, & Chachere, 1991). This research has been conducted particularly within the social learning and cultivation frameworks, although other perspectives have also been useful. Often the discussion of the scientific issues has been clouded and colored by the economic or philosophical perspectives of those involved, and much of the popular writing on the topic has taken the form of either (a) polemical and unfounded media bashing, or (b) a defensive apologia to support one’s economic self-interest, in either case often ignoring the large body of research that is reality available. In either type of argument, crucial distinctions among diverse types and contexts of violence and among different populations are often lacking.

In considering the effects of media violence on society, we must not make the mistake of imagining media to be the only factor, or even the major factor, which contributes to violence in society Negative social conditions like poverty, racism, crowding, drugs, parental neglect, availability of weapons, and the underclass subculture doubtlessly contribute far more than television. Negative family and/or peer role models also have substantial effects. Even if media violence is responsible for only 5% to 15% of societal

261 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

violence, as estimated by some researchers (Sparks & Sparks, 2002; Strasburger, 1995), that is still important. Because of the nature of mass communication, even a very small effect of media can be substantial in terms of numbers. For example, suppose a violent movie could be shown to cause .001 % of the viewers to act more violently. Although the percentage may be minuscule, .001 % of an audience of 20 million is still 200 people!

We approach the study of media violence in this chapter by looking at the various effects of the violent view of the world presented in media. This study of the perceived reality of media violence focuses on the psychological processes involved and the weight of the evidence supporting the existence of those effects. Later in the chapter we look at individual differences among those who are attracted to or repelled by media violence and longitudinal studies probing for long-term effects. Next we look at one of the newest areas of concern, violent video games. Finally, we address the question of what may be done to provide balance to this violent perceived reality and thus mitigate the negative effects of media violence.