|
Updated: 07/23/2005
Does the violence in films and on
TV contribute to violence in This question has been debated for decades. During that time some 2,500 books and articles have been written on the effects of TV and film violence on human behavior. In this article we're going to summarize some the latest thinking on this subject. The results of one of the most extensive studies ever done on the subject of violence and TV were released in 2003. Researchers followed 329 subjects over 15 years. They found that those who as children were exposed to violent TV shows were much more likely to later be convicted of crime. Researchers said that, "Media violence can affect any child from any family," regardless of social class or parenting. Girls who watched more than an average amount of violence tended to throw things at their husbands. Boys who grew up watching violent TV shows were more likely to be be violent with their wives. Researchers concluded in Developmental Psychology that, "Every violent TV show increases a little-bit the likelihood of a child growing up to behave more aggressively." We'll look at more of the research in a moment. Canada was one of the first countries to extensively research this issue. The results of their studies prompted some of their engineers to devise the "V-Chip." As you may know, the V-Chip allows parents to lock out TV programming they consider objectionable to their children. Although the concern in Canada was primarily violence (hence the V-chip), in the United States there is also great concern about sexual content—probably more than in most other industrialized societies. Hence, the V-chip can be programmed to screen out both violence and sex. The issue of sex, which has resulted in quite different research findings, is discussed here and here, so in this article we'll focus on the issue of film and TV violence.
Studies done in both the United States and Canada have shown a positive relationship between early exposure to TV violence and physical aggressiveness in later life. Even so, a clear cause-effect relationship is complicated by the fact that children are typically exposed to many stimuli as they grow up, many of which could play a role in later behavior. For example, during a child's life we can't discount the role of such things as violent video games, the social values of parents and peers, or general living conditions. If you eat something that you have not tried before and immediately get sick, you will probably assume there's a direct relationship between the two. And if at some later date you forget about your first experience and eat the same thing again, and immediately get sick again, you can be fairly sure that whatever you ate makes you sick. No rocket science here, just clear cause and effect. Unfortunately, the cause and effect in many other areas of life are not as readily apparent. A few decades ago you would see doctors in TV commercials endorsing a particular brand of cigarettes. And many medical doctors smoked. Not today. Today the evidence is clear: smoking is the number one cause of preventable heath problems and premature death in the United States. Although for years the cigarette manufacturers suppressed evidence that linked smoking to health problems, eventually the cause-effect relationship became obvious to anyone who wanted investigate the facts. Unlike the cause and effect in the example of your eating something and immediately getting sick, the effects of cigarette smoking aren't immediately apparent. It's only years later that many smokers develop lung cancer, heart problems, emphysema, sexual problems, etc. In the same way—after looking at years of accumulated data—we're now recognizing a relationship between violence in the media and social problems. A summary of much of the research and its consequences can be found in the book Visual Intelligence—Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication by Ann Marie Seward Barry.
Violence and TV Ratings It's well known that TV violence holds an attraction for most viewers and this attraction translates into ratings and profits. Because of this most media executives have been reluctant to admit that media violence is in any way responsible for violence in our society. If it weren't for the ratings and profits involved, producers would undoubtedly be much more willing to acknowledge the harm in TV and film violence and do something about it. Instead, we have such things as the American Medical Association finding that shows that in homes with premium cable channels, or a VCR or DVD...
After many high school students died in a shooting rampage at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado in April, 1999, many people were quick to blame the media. Violent video games and a well-known film were seen as contributing factors. Even so, millions of young people were exposed to both of these influences throughout their lives without going on a murderous rampage. But when you add extreme anger, easy access to guns, and an indifferent and amoral attitude toward the lives of others, the results can be very different. In 1992, TV Guide commissioned a study of a typical 18-hour TV broadcast day to determine levels of violence. The networks and the more popular cable channels were monitored for "purposeful, overt, deliberate behavior involving physical force or weapons against other individuals." There were 1,846 acts of violence that broke down this way.
There are many problems in linking media violence to violence in society. First, as we've suggested, only a small percent of those who watch violence are responsible for violent acts. Most of us are seemingly unaffected by it. Even though we can't establish a simple, direct, cause-and-effect relationship between media violence and violence in our society, we can draw some conclusions from the data. Studies show that people who watch a lot of TV violence not only behave more aggressively, but are more prone to hold attitudes that favor violence and aggression as a way of solving conflicts. These viewers also tend to be less trusting of people and more prone to see the world as a hostile place.
Studies also show that media violence also has a desensitizing effect on viewers. As a result, specific levels of violence become more acceptable over time. It then takes more and more graphic violence to shock (and hold) an audience. History gives us many examples. To cite just one, the famous Roman Circuses started out being a rather tame form of entertainment. But in an effort to excite audiences, violence and rape were introduced in the arena settings. Subsequently, as audiences got used to seeing these things, they then demanded more and more, until the circuses eventually became violent, bloody and grotesque, and hundreds, if not thousands, of hapless people died in the process of providing "entertainment." Next, media violence is typically unrealistic, simplistic, glorified, and even presented as humorous
Even the sound of gunshots on TV and in films is so different from real gunshots that people often fail to recognize them in real life. Next, the consequences of killing, especially by the "good guys," are seldom shown. Violence and killing are commonly depicted as a ready and even acceptable solution to problems. To put it simplistically, problems are solved when the "bad guys" are all dead. The unrealistic element of TV and film violence seems to come as a surprise to some. A young gang member who was admitted to a New York ER after being shot seemed amazed to find that getting shot was not only traumatic but excruciatingly painful. He was blaming the doctors and nurses for his pain, since on TV getting shot didn't seem to be all that big of a deal.
Toward Violence? Some say violence is in the human DNA and that religion offers the only true defense. This would seem logical. But, if you know your history, you know that organized religion—especially Judeo-Christianity—have been a major part of the problem. As lamentable as it may be, it has been estimated that over the centuries more than a billion people have been killed in the "cause of Christianity." According to Sankara Saranam (God Without Religion, 2005) —
Joseph Dispenza wrote:
Even thought many want to believe these deaths were somehow justified in the cause of some greater good, this raises some disquieting issues in the history of and predisposition toward violence.
One of the most successful television series in history, Star Trek, was created, produced and (largely) written by Gene Roddenberry, whose primary message was peaceful coexistence. The series started in 1966 and its various incarnations continue today. The series has won scores of humanitarian awards. Colleges have even offered English courses that focus on the series. Anyone who has followed Star Trek knows that (under Roddenberry) gratuitous violence was never seen as necessary. At the same time, when it was deemed necessary, the ramifications were almost never shown—just as they are almost never shown in most films and TV programs. In the end Gene Roddenberry was proud of the message he delivered week after week to millions of people around the world. Earlier, during testimony before Congress, Roddenberry had said: [Television] is the most dangerous Shortly before his death he was asked what he would like to have as an epitaph. Roddenberry said, just say this: He loved humanity. Based on what their work says about their true feelings, I wonder how many TV and film producers can say the same today?
We have clear indications that the long-term effects of exposure to media violence will lead to undesirable social consequences. These negative social effects will undoubtedly be accelerated as violence becomes more graphic in an effort to attract and hold film and TV audiences. In looking over the evidence of the increasing levels of film and TV violence it is now taking to satisfy viewers and the resulting effects on society, David Puttnam, a noted film director, simply observed, "We are destroying ourselves." TV producers clearly face a dilemma in dealing with the apparent conflict between the negative effects of TV violence and positive program ratings. So what's the answer? First, we have to take a look at how violence is used. Eliminating all violence from the media is not in keeping with the reality of the human condition. Violence has always been with us and probably always will be. But the 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders witnessed by normal TV viewers over 18 years is clearly unrealistic and exploitative. Violence is being used as a superficial way of grabbing and holding an audience. Many TV and film producers have elected to "take a higher road" and not rely on gratuitous violence to capture and hold an audience. This route typically results in more accolades for their work and more personal respect from the creative community. But the higher road is often the more difficult one. It takes talent to engage an audience through the strength of your storytelling and production expertise. As a footnote to this topic, there is evidence to show that commercials in violent TV shows are not as effective in selling products as commercials in other types of TV programming. A well documented study on this by the To Home Page
© 2005, All Rights Reserved
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
society?
