Priming Media Violence Essays

The study of violence in mass media analyzes the degree of correlation between themes of violence in media sources (particularly violence in video games, television and films) with real-world aggression and violence over time. Many social scientists support the correlation.[1][2] However, some scholars argue that media research has methodological problems and that findings are exaggerated.(Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009; Freedman, 2002; Pinker 2002; Savage, 2004)

Complaints about the possible deleterious effects of mass media appear throughout history, even Plato was concerned about the effects of plays on youth.[3] Various media/genres, including dime novels, comic books, jazz, rock and roll, role playing/computer games, television, films, internet (by computer or cell phone) and many others have attracted speculation that consumers of such media may become more aggressive, rebellious or immoral. This has led some scholars to conclude statements made by some researchers merely fit into a cycle of media-based moral panics (e.g. Gauntlett, 1995; Trend, 2007; Kutner & Olson, 2008). The advent of television prompted research into the effects of this new medium in the 1960s. Much of this research has been guided by social learning theory developed by Albert Bandura. Social learning theory suggests that one way in which human beings learn is by the process of modeling.

Media effects theories[edit]

Social learning theory[edit]

Social learning theory originated with Bandura's which suggests that children may learn aggression from viewing others.[4] Modeling of behavior was observed in Bandura's Bobo Doll experiments. Bandura presented children with an Aggressive Model: The model played with 'harmless' tinker toys for a minute or so but then progressed onto the Bobo doll, the model lay the Bobo doll down and was violent towards it; punched its nose, hit it with a mallet, tossed it in the air, and kicked it. In addition, verbal comments were made in relation. They then put the children in a room with a Bobo doll to see if he/she would imitate the behavior previously seen on the video.

The findings of this experiment suggest that children tended to model the behavior they witnessed in the video. This has been often taken to imply that children may imitate aggressive behaviors witnessed in media. However, Bandura's experiments have been criticized (e.g. Gauntlett, 1995) on several grounds. First, it is difficult to generalize from aggression toward a bo-bo doll (which is intended to be hit) to person-on-person violence. Secondly, it may be possible that the children were motivated simply to please the experimenter rather than to be aggressive. In other words, the children may have viewed the videos as instructions, rather than incentives to feel more aggressive. Third, in a latter study (1965) Bandura included a condition in which the adult model was punished for hitting the bo-bo doll by himself being physically punished. Specifically the adult was pushed down in the video by the experimenter and hit with a newspaper while being berated. This actual person-on-person violence actually decreased aggressive acts in the children, probably due to vicarious reinforcement. Nonetheless these last results indicate that even young children don't automatically imitate aggression, but rather consider the context of aggression.

Given that some scholars estimate that children's viewing of violence in media is quite common, concerns about media often follow social learning theoretical approaches.[5]

Social cognitive theory[edit]

Social cognitive theories build upon social learning theory, but suggest that aggression may be activated by learning and priming aggressive scripts. Desensitization and arousal/excitation are also included in latter social cognitive theories. The concept of desensitization has particularly gotten much interest from the scholarly community and general public. It is theorized that with repeated exposure to media violence, a psychological saturation or emotional adjustment takes place such that initial levels of anxiety and disgust diminish or weaken.[4] For example, in one recent study, a sample of college students were assigned at random to play either a violent or non-violent video game for 20 minutes. They were then asked to watch a 10-minute video of real life violence. The students who had played the violent video games were observed to be significantly less affected by a simulated aggressive act than those who didn't play the violent video games. However the degree to which the simulation was "believable" to the participants, or to which the participants may have responded to "demand characteristics" is unclear (see criticisms below). Nonetheless, social cognitive theory was arguably the most dominant paradigm of media violence effects for many years, although it has come under recent criticism (e.g. Freedman, 2002; Savage, 2004). Recent scholarship has suggested that social cognitive theories of aggression are outdated and should be retired.[6] Some scholars also argue that the continuous viewing of violent acts makes teenagers more susceptible to becoming violent themselves.[7]

Catalyst model[edit]

One alternative theory is the catalyst model (Ferguson et al., 2008) which has been proposed to explain the etiology of violence. The catalyst model is a new theory and has not been tested extensively. According to the catalyst model, violence arises from a combination of genetic and early social influences (family and peers in particular). According to this model, media violence is explicitly considered a weak causal influence. Specific violent acts are "catalyzed" by stressful environment circumstances, with less stress required to catalyze violence in individuals with greater violence predisposition. Some early work has supported this view (e.g. Ferguson et al., 2008). Recent research with inmates has, likewise, provided support for the catalyst model.[8] Specifically, as suggested by the catalyst model, perpetrators of crimes sometimes included stylistic elements or behaviors in their crimes they had seen in media, but the motivation to commit crimes itself was unrelated to media viewing.

Moral panic theory[edit]

A final theory relevant to this area is the moral panic. Elucidated largely by David Gauntlett,[9] this theory postulates that concerns about new media are historical and cyclical. In this view, a society forms a predetermined negative belief about a new medium—typically not used by the elder and more powerful members of the society. Research studies and positions taken by scholars and politicians tend to confirm the pre-existing belief, rather than dispassionately observe and evaluate the issue. Eventually the panic dies out after several years or decades, but ultimately resurfaces when yet another new medium is introduced.

Criticisms[edit]

Although organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have suggested that thousands (3500 according to the AAP) of studies have been conducted confirming this link, others have argued that this information is incorrect. Rather, only about two hundred studies (confirmed by meta-analyses such as Paik and Comstock, 1994) have been conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals on television, film, music and video game violence effects. Critics argue that about half find some link between media and subsequent aggression (but not violent crime), whereas the other half do not find a link between consuming violent media and subsequent aggression of any kind.[10]

Criticisms of the media violence link focus on a number of methodological and theoretical problems including (but not limited to) the following (see Bryce & Kaye, 2011; Freedman, 2002; Olson, 2004; Tedeschi & Quigley, 1996; Pinker, 2002):

  1. Failure to adequately control experimental conditions when assessing aggressive outcomes between violent and non-violent games (see Adachi & Willoughby, 2010). Traditionally, researchers have selected one violent game and one non-violent game, yet shown little consideration of the potentially different responses to these games as a result of differences in other game characteristics (e.g., level of action, frustration, enjoyment).
  2. Failure to acknowledge the role of social contexts in which media violence is experienced. Within theoretical models explaining the influence of violent video game exposure on aggressive attitudes and behaviour, no acknowledgement is made towards understanding the influence of social gaming experiences and contexts on these outcomes. That is, differential outcomes of gaming arise as a result of different social contexts (online versus offline gaming) and social dynamics involved in social gaming experiences (Kaye & Bryce, 2012). Existing theoretical models assume that the outcomes of gaming are equivalent, regardless of these different contexts. This is a key limitation of current theory within media violence research
  3. Failure to employ standardized, reliable and valid measures of aggression and media violence exposure. Although measurement of psychological variables is always tricky at best, it is generally accepted that measurement techniques should be standardized, reliable and valid, as demonstrated empirically. However, some scholars argue that the measurement tools involved are often unstandardized, sloppily employed and fail to report reliability coefficients. Examples include the "Competitive Reaction Time Test" in which participants believe that they are punishing an opponent for losing in a reaction time test by subjecting the opponent to noise blasts or electric shocks. There is no standardized way of employing this task, raising the possibility that authors may manipulate the results to support their conclusions. This task may produce dozens of different possible ways to measure "aggression", all from a single participant's data. Without a standardized way of employing and measuring aggression using this task, there is no way of knowing whether the results reported are a valid measure of aggression, or were selected from among the possible alternatives simply because they produced positive findings where other alternatives did not. Ferguson and Kilburn, in a paper in Journal of Pediatrics, have found that poorly standardized and validated measures of aggression tend to produce higher effects than well validated aggression measures.
  4. Failure to report negative findings. Some scholars contend that many of the articles that purport positive findings regarding a link between media violence and subsequent aggression, on a closer read, actually have negative or inconclusive results. One example is the experimental portion of Anderson & Dill (2000; with video games) which measures aggression four separate ways (using an unstandardized, unreliable and unvalidated measure of aggression, the Competitive Reaction Time Test mentioned above) and finds significance for only one of those measures. Had a statistical adjustment known as a Bonferroni correction been properly employed, that fourth finding also would have been insignificant. This issue of selective reporting differs from the "file drawer" effect in which journals fail to publish articles with negative findings. Rather, this is due to authors finding a "mixed bag" of results and discussing only the supportive findings and ignoring the negative findings within a single manuscript. The problem of non-reporting of non-significant findings (the so-called "file cabinet effect") is a problem throughout all areas of science but may be a particular issue for publicized areas such as media violence.
  5. Failure to account for "third" variables. Some scholars contend that media violence studies regularly fail to account for other variables such as genetics, personality and exposure to family violence that may explain both why some people become violent and why those same people may choose to expose themselves to violent media. Several recent studies have found that, when factors such as mental health, family environment and personality are controlled, no predictive relationship between either video games or television violence and youth violence remain (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009; Ybarra et al., 2008, Figure 2).
  6. Failure to adequately define "aggression." Experimental measures of aggression have been questioned by critics (Mussen & Rutherford, 1961; Deselms & Altman, 2003). The main concern of critics has been the issue of the external validity of experimental measures of aggression. The validity of the concept of aggression itself, however, is rarely questioned. Highly detailed taxonomies of different forms of aggression do exist. Whether researchers agree on the particular terminology used to indicate the particular sub-types of aggression (i.e. relational versus social aggression), concepts of aggression are always operationally defined in peer-reviewed journals. However many of these operational definitions of aggression are specifically criticized. Many experimental measures of aggression are rather questionable (i.e. Mussen & Rutherford, 1961; Berkowitz, 1965; Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Deselms & Altman, 2003). Other studies fail to differentiate between "aggression" aimed at causing harm to another person, and "aggressive play" in which two individuals (usually children) may pretend to engage in aggressive behavior, but do so consensually for the purpose of mutual enjoyment. (Goldstein)
  7. Small "effects" sizes. In the research world, the meaning of "statistical significance" can be ambiguous. A measure of effect size can aid in the interpretation of statistical significance. In a meta-analysis of 217 studies by Paik and Comstock (1994), effect sizes for experiments were r = .37 and r = .19 for surveys, which are small to moderate effects. Most of these studies however did not actually measure aggression against another person. Paik and Comstock note that when aggression toward another person, and particularly actual violent crime is considered, the relationship between media violence and these outcomes is near zero. Effects can vary according to their size (for example the effects of eating bananas on your mood could very well be "statistically significant" but would be tiny, almost imperceptible, whereas the effect of a death in the immediate family would also be "statistically significant" but obviously much larger). Media violence studies usually produce very small, transient effects that do not translate into large effects in the real world. Media violence researchers often defend this by stating that many medical studies also produce small effects (although as Block and Crain, 2007, note, these researchers may have miscalculated the effect sizes from medical research).
  8. Media violence rates are not correlated with violent crime rates. One limitation of theories linking media violence to societal violence is that media violence (which appears to have been consistently and unfailingly on the rise since the 1950s) should be correlated with violent crime (which has been cycling up and down throughout human history). By discussing only the data from the 1950s through the 1990s, media violence researchers create the illusion that there is a correlation, when in fact there is not. Large spikes in violent crime in the United States occurred without associated media violence spikes during the 1880s (when records were first kept) and 1930s. The homicide rate in the United States has never been higher than during the 1930s. Similarly, this theory fails to explain why violent crime rates (including among juveniles) dramatically fell in the mid 1990s and have stayed low, during a time when media violence has continued to increase, and saw the addition of violent video games. Lastly media violence researchers can not explain why many countries with media violence rates similar to or equal to the U.S. (such as Norway, Canada, Japan, etc.) have much lower violent crime rates. Huesmann & Eron's own cross-national study (which is often cited in support of media violence effects) failed to find a link between television violence and aggressive behavior in most of the countries included in the analysis (including America, and even in studies on American boys).
  9. Media violence on TV is a reflection of the level of violence that occurs in the real world. Many TV programmers argue that their shows just mirror the violence that goes on in the real world. Zev Braun, of CBS, in 1990 argued in a debate on the Violence Bill that, "We live in a violent society. Art imitates modes of life, not the other way around: it would be better for Congress to clean that society than to clean that reflection of society."[11]

Culture and Media Violence The majority of this research derives from American communication and psychological research. Concerns about the 'effect' of media violence is far less prominent in public and academic discourse in Europe and other parts of the developed world. To a large degree, this is because European and Australian scholars, in particular, recognise that the relationship between media and culture is a great deal more complex than is often conceded by psychological and communications research in North America. There is a recognition that culture is critical to our understanding of these complexities, and that there are no clear causal relations between culture, media, politics and human violence. They simply work in complicated ways through and upon one another through social interactions and history.[12]

Response to criticisms[edit]

  1. Social science uses randomized experiments to control for possible differences between media conditions, although these must be done with care. In a typical study, children or young adults are randomly assigned to different media conditions and then are observed when given an opportunity to be aggressive. Researchers who argue for causal effects have defended their work that is based on well-established methodological and statistical theory and on empirical data.[13]
  2. Regarding the inconclusive nature of some findings, media researchers who argue for causal effects often contend that it is the critics who are misinterpreting or selectively reporting studies (Anderson et al., 2003). It may be that both sides of the debate are highlighting separate findings that are most favorable to their own "cause".
  3. Regarding "third" variables, media violence researchers who argue for causal effects acknowledge that other variables may play a role in aggression (Bushman & Anderson, 2001)[14] and that aggression is due to a confluence of variables. These variables are known as "third variables" and if found, would probably be mediator variables (which differ from moderator variables). A mediator variable could 'explain away' media violence effects, whereas a moderator variable cannot. For instance, some scholars contend that trait aggressiveness has been demonstrated to moderate media violence effects (Bushman), although in some studies "trait aggression" does appear to account for any link between media violence exposure and aggression. Other variables have also been found to moderate media violence effects (Bushman & Geen, 1990).[15] Another issue is the way in which experimental studies deal with potential confounding variables. Researchers use random assignment to attempt to neutralize the effects of what commonly are cited as third variables (i.e. gender, trait aggressiveness, preference for violent media). Because experimental designs employ random assignment to conditions, the effect of such attributive variables on experimental results is assumed to be random (not systematic). However, the same can not be said for correlational studies, and failure to control for such variables in correlational studies limits the interpretation of such studies. Often, something as simple as gender proves capable of "mediating" media violence effects.
  4. Regarding aggression, the problem may have less to do with the definition of aggression, but rather how aggression is measured in studies, and how aggression and violent crime are used interchangeably in the public eye.
  5. Much of the debate on this issue seems to revolve around ambiguity regarding what is considered a "small" effect. Media violence researchers who argue for causal effects contend that effect sizes noted in media violence effects are similar to those found in some medical research which is considered important by the medical community (Bushman & Anderson, 2001), although medical research may suffer from some of the same interpretational flaws as social science. This argument has been challenged as based on flawed statistics, however (Block & Crain, 2007). Block & Crain (2007)[16] recently found that social scientists (Bushman & Anderson, 2001) had been miscalculating some medical effect sizes. The interpretation of effect size in both medical and social science remains in its infancy.
  6. More recently, media violence researchers who argue for causal effects have acknowledged that societal media consumption and violent crime rates are not well associated, but claim that this is likely due to other variables that are poorly understood. However, this effect remains poorly explained by current media violence theories, and media violence researchers may need to be more careful not to retreat to an unfalsifiable theory – one that cannot be disproven (Freedman, 2002).
  7. Researchers who argue for causal effects argue that the discrepancy of violent acts seen on TV compared to that in the real world are huge. One study looked at the frequency of crimes occurring in the real world compared with the frequency of crimes occurring in the following reality-based TV programs: America's Most Wanted, Cops, Top Cops, FBI, The Untold Story and American Detective, (Oliver, 1994). The types of crimes were divided into two categories, violent crimes and non-violent crimes. 87% of crimes occurring in the real world are non-violent crimes, whereas only 13% of crimes occurring on TV are considered non-violent crimes.[11] However, this discrepancy between media and real-life crimes may arguably dispute rather than support media effects theories. Some previous research linked boxing matches to homicides[17] although other researchers consider such linkages to be reminiscent of ecological fallacies (e.g. Freedman, 2002). Much more research is required to actually establish any causal effects.[18]

Media violence and youth violence[edit]

On average, children in the United States spend six hours a day connected to media.[19] However, several scholars (e.g. Freedman, 2002; Olson, 2004; Savage, 2004) have pointed out that as media content has increased in violence in the past few decades, violent crimes among youth have declined rapidly. Because the violence being portrayed in media especially TV is usually punished, it does not have an effect on producing violent behavior.[20] While it may seem to be evident that reducing exposure to media violence will reduce aggression, it is less clear what sorts of interventions will produce a reduction in exposure.[21] Analysis from this study show that violent media consumption as well as various forms of nonempathetic parental behaviour led to slightly more violent delinquency and to considerably more violence-approving normative beliefs.[22] As Children advance into teen years evidence for violent acts in relation to violent media becomes less consistent.[23] Although most scholars caution that this decline cannot be attributed to a causal effect, they conclude that this observation argues against causal harmful effects for media violence. A recent long-term outcome study of youth found no long-term relationship between playing violent video games or watching violent television and youth violence or bullying.[24]

Relationship between media violence and minor aggressive behaviors[edit]

Given that little evidence links media violence to serious physical aggression, bullying or youth violence,[24] at present most of the debate appears to focus on whether media violence may influence more minor forms of aggressiveness. An article done in 1987 reviewing a history of court cases dealing with violent acts of youths showed that the courts were hesitant to hold media at fault for the violent acts.[25] At present, no consensus has been reached on this issue. For example, in 1974 the US Surgeon General testified to congress that "the overwhelming consensus and the unanimous Scientific Advisory Committee's report indicates that televised violence, indeed, does have an adverse effect on certain members of our society."[26] However, by 2001, the US Surgeon General's office, The Department of Health and Human Services had largely reversed itself, relegating media violence to only a minor role and noting many serious limitations in the research.[27] Studies, have also disagreed regarding whether media violence contributes to desensitization[28][29][30]

Media violence and cultural studies[edit]

Much of the research on media and violence derives from the United States, particularly the related research fields of psychology and media/communication studies. Research in Europe and Australia on the relationship between media and violence is far broader and is much more clearly embedded in politics, culture and social relationships.[31]Jeff Lewis' book Media Culture and Human Violence challenges the conventional approaches to media violence research.[32] Lewis argues that violence is largely generated through the interaction of social processes and modes of thinking which are constantly refreshed through the media, politics and other cultural discourses. Violence is continually presented as 'authorised' or 'legitimate' within government, legal and narrative media texts. Accordingly, Lewis disputes with the proposition that violence is 'natural' or that violence is caused by media of any sort. Rather, media interacts with culturally generated and inherited modes of thinking or 'consciousness' to create the conditions in which violence can occur. These forms of 'violence thinking' are embedded in historically rooted processes of hierarchical social organisation. These hierarchical organisational systems shape our knowledge and beliefs, creating a ferment in which violence is normalised and authorised by governments and other powerful institutions. The link between violence and the media is therefore very complex, but exists within the normative framework of modern culture. According to Lewis, in fact, humans in the advanced world are the most violent beings of all times.[33]

See also[edit]

[edit]

References[edit]

  • Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2001) Media Violence and the American Public: Scientific Facts Versus Media Misinformation. American Psychologist
  • Anderson, C., & Dill, K. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772–790.
  • Bargh, J. (2005). Bypassing the will: Towards demystifying the nonconscious control of social behavior. In R. Hassin, J. Uleman and J. Bargh (Eds.) The New Unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514995-1
  • Bargh, J.; Chen, M.; Burrows, L. (1996). "Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action"(PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 71 (2): 230–244. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230. PMID 8765481. 
  • Bartholow, B. D.; Bushman, B. J.; Sestir, M. A. (2006). "Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 42 (4): 532–539. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.08.006. 
  • Berkowitz, L. (1965). "Some Aspects of Observed Aggression". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 12 (3): 359–369. doi:10.1037/h0022221. PMID 14333308. 
  • Block, J. J.; Crain, B. R. (2007). "Omissions and errors in "Media violence and the American public."". American Psychologist. 62 (3): 252–253; discussion 253–4. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.3.252. PMID 17469907. 
  • Bushman, Brad & Anderson, C. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific fact versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56(6–7), pp. 477–489.
  • Bushman, Brad, & Anderson, C. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the General Aggression Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679–1686.
  • Beresin, E. (2010). The impact of media violence on children and adolescents: Opportunities for clinical interventions. Retrieved from http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/developmentor/the_impact_of_media_ violence_on_children_and_adolescents_opportunities_for_clinical_interventions
  • Browne, K; Hamilton-Giachristsis, C (2005). "The influence of violent media on children and adolescents : a public-health approach". Lancet. 365 (9460): 702–710. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17952-5. PMID 15721477. 
  • Bryce, J., & Kaye, L. K. (2011). Computer and videogames. In G. Brewer (Ed.), Media Psychology (pp. 101–114). London: Palgrave Macmillan
  • Centerwall, B (1992). "Television and violence. The scale of the problem and where to go from here". JAMA. 267 (22): 3059–3063. doi:10.1001/jama.267.22.3059. PMID 1588720. 
  • Comstock, G. & Scharrer, E. (2003). Meta-analyzing the controversy over television violence and aggression. In D. Gentile (Ed.) Media Violence and Children, pp. 205–226. ISBN 978-0-275-97956-0
  • David-Ferdon C., Hertz MF Electronic Media and Youth Violence: A CDC Issue Brief for Researchers. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control; 2009. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention /pdf/Electronic_Aggression_Researcher_Brief-a.pdf
  • Deselms, J. L.; Altman, J. D. (2003). "Immediate and Prolonged Effects of Videogame Violence". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 33 (8): 1553–1563. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01962.x.  "This study examined the relationship between playing violent videogames and sensitivity to aggressive acts."
  • Elizabeth, J. E.; Morton, N. (2008). "Exposure to media violence and young children with and without disabilities: Powerful opportunities for family-professional partnerships". Early Childhood Education Journal. 36 (2): 105–112. doi:10.1007/s10643-008-0276-x. 
  • Fedorov, Alexander (2010). Children and Media Violence: Comparative AnalysisLAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 164 p.
  • Ferguson, C. J.; Kilburn, J. (2009). "The Public Health Risks of Media Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review". The Journal of Pediatrics. 154 (5): 759–763. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.033. PMID 19230901.  Available at: http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/MVJPED.pdf
  • Fanti, K. A.; Vanman, E.; Henrich, C. C.; Avraamides, M. N. (2009). "Desensitization to media violence over a short period of time". Aggressive Behavior. 35 (2): 179–187. doi:10.1002/ab.20295. PMID 19172659. 
  • Ferguson, C., Rueda, S., Cruz, A., Ferguson, D., Fritz, S., & Smith, S. (2008). Violent video games and aggression: Causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior Available at: https://www.webcitation.org/63PLhgBmk?url=http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/CJBGames.pdf
  • Ferguson, C. J. San Miguel; Hartley, R. D. (2009). "A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: The influence of family, peers, depression and media violence"(PDF). Journal of Pediatrics. 155 (6): 904–908. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.06.021. PMID 19683724. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2009-10-07. 
  • Freedman, Jonathan L. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression.: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-3553-0
  • Freedman, J. Evaluating the Research on Violent Video Games.
  • Hare, Robert D. (1993). Without Conscience : The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. Pocket Books. ISBN 978-0-671-73261-5. OCLC 28550146. 
  • Huesmann, L.R., & Eron, L. (1986). Television and the aggressive child: A cross-national comparison. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates ISBN 978-0-89859-754-7
  • Huesmann, L.R, Moise, J.F., & Podolski, C.L. (1997). The effects of media violence on the development of antisocial behavior. In D. Stoff, J. Breiling & Master (Eds.) Handbook of Antisocial Behavior (pp. 181– 193). New York: John Wiley & SonsISBN 978-0-471-12452-8
  • Hurely, S. "Bypassing Conscious Control: Media violence, unconscious intention, and freedom of speech[permanent dead link]". from Does Consciousness Cause Behavior? An Investigation of the Nature of Volition, March 2006 MIT Press (ISBN 978-0-262-16237-1)
  • Johnson, JG; Cohen, P; Smailes, EM; Kasen, S; Brook, JS (2002). "Television viewing and aggressive behaviour during adolescence and adulthood". Science. 295 (5564): 2468–2471. doi:10.1126/science.1062929. PMID 11923542. 
  • Jones, Gerard (2002). Killing monsters: why children need fantasy, super heroes and make-believe violence. New York : Basic BooksISBN 978-0-465-03696-7
  • Kaye, L. K.; Bryce, J. (2012). "Putting the fun factor into gaming: The influence of social contexts on experiences of playing videogames"(PDF). International Journal of Internet Science. 7 (1): 23–37. 
  • Krcmar, M.; Kean, G. L. (2005). "Uses and gratifications of media violence: Personality correlates of viewing and liking violent genre". Media Psychology. 7 (4): 399–420. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0704_5. 
  • Lancet, The (2008). "Is exposure to media violence a public health risk?". The Lancet. 371 (9619): 1137. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60495-x. 
  • Larsson, H.; Andershed, H.; Lichtenstein, P. (2006). "A Genetic Factor Explains Most of the Variation in the Psychopathic Personality". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 115 (2): 221–230. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.221. PMID
  1. ^Anderson, Craig A.; Berkowitz, Leonard; Donnerstein, Edward; Huesmann, L. Rowell; Johnson, James D.; Linz, Daniel; Malamuth, Neil M.; Wartella, Ellen (2003). "The influence of media violence on youth". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 4 (3): 81–110. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2003.pspi_1433.x. PMID 26151870. 
  2. ^Media Violence Commission, International Society for Research on Aggression (Isra) (2012). "Report of the Media Violence Commission". Aggressive Behavior. 38 (5): 335–41. doi:10.1002/ab.21443. PMID 22886500. 
  3. ^Weaver, Erin (2007). "Based on a True Story: The Use of Truth on the Didactic Stage". Inquiry@Queen's (1): 1–5. 
  4. ^ abSparks, G.G., Sparks, E. A & Sparks, C.W. (2008) Media Violence. In J. Bryant ( Ed),Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research(3rd ed., pp. 269–286)
  5. ^Beresin, Eugene. "The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions". American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 
  6. ^Ferguson, Christopher; Dyck, Dominic (2012). "Paradigm change in aggression research: The time has come to retire the General Aggression Model"(PDF). Aggression and Violence Behavior. 17 (3): 220–228. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.02.007. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2013-09-27. 
  7. ^Mrug, Sylvie (January 1, 2016). "Emotional Desensitization to Violence Contributes to Adolescents' Violent Behavior". Journal of abnormal child psychology. 44: 75 – via NUI, Maynooth Library Search. 
  8. ^Surette, Ray (2013). "Cause or catalyst: The interaction of real world and media crime models". American Journal of Criminal Justice (38): 392–409. doi:10.1007/s12103-012-9177-z. 
  9. ^David Gauntlett (2005), Moving Experiences, second edition: Media Effects and Beyond, London: John Libbey
  10. ^Freedman, Jonathan L. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-3553-0[page needed]
  11. ^ abAnderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2001) Media Violence and the American Public: Scientific Facts Versus Media Misinformation. American Psychologist
  12. ^Media, Culture and Human Violence
  13. ^name=Bushman, Rothstein, & Anderson (2010), Much Ado About Something: Violent Video Game Effects and a School of Red Herring: Reply to Ferguson and Kilburn (2010), American Psychological Association
  14. ^Bushman, B.J.; Anderson, C.A. (2001). "Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation". American Psychologist. 56 (6–7): 477–489. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.56.6-7.477. PMID 11413871. 
  15. ^Bushman, B.J.; Green, R.G. (1990). "Role of cognitive-emotional mediators and individual differences in the effects of media violence on aggression". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 58 (1): 156–163. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.156. PMID 2308072. 
  16. ^Block, J.J.; Crain, B.R. (2007). "Omissions and errors in "Media Violence and the American Public". American Psychologist. 62 (3): 252–253. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.62.3.252. PMID 17469907. 
  17. ^Phillips, D.P. (1986). Natural experiments on the effects of mass media violence on fatal aggression: Strengths and weaknesses of a new approach. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.19, pp.207-250). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  18. ^Anderson, C. A.; Berkowitz, L.; Donnerstein, E.; Huesmann, L. R.; Johnson, J. D.; Linz, D.; Wartella, E. (2003). "The influence of media violence on youth". Psychological science in the public interest. 4 (3): 81–110. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2003.pspi_1433.x. PMID 26151870. 
  19. ^Jason, L. A.; Danielewicz, J.; Mesina, A. (2005). "Reducing media viewing: Implications for behaviorists". Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention. 2 (3): 194–206. doi:10.1037/h0100313. 
  20. ^Felson, R. B. (1996). Mass media effects on violent behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 103-128
  21. ^Anderson, Craig A.; Berkowitz, Leonard; Donnerstein, Edward; Huesmann, L. Rowell; Johnson, James D.; Linz, Daniel; Malamuth, Neil M.; Wartella, Ellen (2003-12-01). "The Influence of Media Violence on Youth". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 4 (3): 81–110. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2003.pspi_1433.x. ISSN 1529-1006. PMID 26151870. 
  22. ^Kanz, Kristina-Maria (2015-10-13). "Mediated and moderated effects of violent media consumption on youth violence". European Journal of Criminology: 1477370815608882. doi:10.1177/1477370815608882. ISSN 1477-3708. 
  23. ^Browne, K. D.; Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2005). "The influence of violent media on children and adolescents: a public-health approach". The Lancet. 365 (9460): 702–710. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)70938-7. 
  24. ^ ab"Video Games and Youth Violence: A Prospective Analysis in Adolescents", Christopher J. Ferguson, Journal of Youth and Adolescence
  25. ^Dee Lushbough, Juliet (1987-06-01). "Media Accountability for Real-Life Violence: A Case of Negligence or Free Speech?". Journal of Communication. 37 (2): 106–139. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1987.tb00986.x. ISSN 1460-2466. 
  26. ^American Psychological Society
  27. ^Department of Health And Human Services
  28. ^Fanti, Kostas; Vanman, E; Henrich, CC; Avraamides, MN (2009). "Desensitization To Media Violence Over A Short Period of Time". Aggressive Behavior. 35 (2): 179–187. doi:10.1002/ab.20295. PMID 19172659. Retrieved 11 July 2012. 
  29. ^Ramos, Raul; Ferguson, Christopher J.; Frailing, Kelly; Romero-Ramirez, Maria (2013). "Desensitization Comfortably numb or just yet another movie? Media violence exposure does not reduce viewer empathy for victims of real violence among primarily Hispanic viewers". Psychology of Popular Media Culture. 2: 2–10. doi:10.1037/a0030119. 
  30. ^Gentile, D. A.; Lynch, P. J.; Linder, J. R.; Walsh, D. A. (2004). "The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance". Journal of adolescence. 27 (1): 5–22. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.002. 
  31. ^B. Lewis and J. Lewis, Health Communication: A Media and Cultural Studies Approach, Palgrave, London, Ch.s 1 and 2.
  32. ^Jeff Lewis (2015) Media, Culture and Human Violence, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
  33. ^See also S. Critchley (2014) The Faith of the Faithless, Verso, New York; John Gray (2007) Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals, Farrarm Los Angeles.

Review of the Roots of Youth Violence: Literature Reviews

Volume 5, Chapter 10:

North America has long been concerned about the possible effects of media violence and most especially, its effects on youth. The leading concern is that media violence may cause aggressive or violent and criminal behaviour. Various scholars, political groups, and organizations have reported that there is clear and consistent evidence that violence in the media causes real-life aggression and violence. In June of 2000, a number of American medical and psychological associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, issued a joint statement about the pathological effects of entertainment violence (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2000). According to these groups, evidence points to a causal association between media violence and aggressive behaviour in some children. Some scholars have evalualated the magnitude of media violence effects on violent behaviour as almost as important as gang membership (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007). However, there is ongoing debate as to whether there is a causal relation between media violence and aggression. Furthermore, the importance of this relation, and whether it warrants widespread concern, is highly disputed.

Canada has not been immune from debate and concerns about the effects of media violence on attitudes, emotions, and behaviours, herein referred to as “media effects.” In 2004, the Ontario Office for Victims of Crime commissioned a report about the effects of media violence in order to develop a strategic plan to reduce exposure to media violence in Canada (Smith, 2004). The report included a number of Canadian examples of alleged “copycat” crimes, and made recommendations such as implementing a national public education campaign to “inform people about the extensive research showing harmful effects of media violence, particularly on children and youth” (Smith, 2004: 204) and encouraging survivors of violent crimes caused by entertainment products, or their families, to file civil lawsuits against the entertainment companies responsible for creating the products or distributing them (Smith, 2004). However, Canada’s stance on media effects is admittedly undecided. An earlier report prepared for the Canadian National Clearing House on Family Violence (1995) suggested that it is “at-risk” youth, a group that represents a minority of viewers, who are probably most vulnerable to media violence, and that television violence likely makes them more aggressive than they would otherwise be (Josephson, 1995). Attempts to censor violent media or media that has the potential to stoke crime (e.g., hip hop music) have also permeated the Canadian political sphere. In 2005, one of hip hop’s most prominent artists (Curtis Jackson, a.k.a. 50 cent) was the subject of complaints by Toronto Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who called upon Immigration Minister Joe Volpe to deny Jackson entry to Canada for his planned concerts (CBC, 2005). Jackson’s songs are characterized by lyrics that have offended many, mostly because they boast of his life of crime and violence. Ultimately, however, Jackson was allowed entry.

Defining Media Violence and Aggression

Concerns about the effect of media violence on aggression are not restricted to any specific media type, and frequently apply to television, film, music, video, and computer games. Media violence has been defined as “visual portrayals of acts of physical aggression by one human or human-like character against another” (Huesmann, 2007). However, others have argued that even violent lyrics can lead to aggression (see Barongan and Nagayama Hall, 1995; Fischer and Greitemeyer, 2006). Aggression is commonly defined by psychologists as any behaviour that is intended to harm another person (Anderson et al., 2003). Aggressive behaviour may take various forms. Physical aggression includes a variety of acts ranging from shoving and pushing to more serious physical assaults, including violent acts which may cause serious injury (e.g., shooting). Less serious forms of aggression include verbal aggression (e.g., saying hurtful things to others) and relational/indirect aggression (e.g., telling lies to get a person in trouble or to harm their interpersonal relationships). Aggressive and violent behaviour is said to be caused by multiple factors which converge over time. It has been argued that influences that promote aggressive behaviour in children, such as media violence, can effectively contribute to increasingly aggressive and violent behaviour years later (Anderson et al., 2003).

Theoretical Explanations of Media Effects

To answer the question of whether media violence can lead to aggression, one must first have an understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of such claims. A prominent scholar on emotion and media, Dolf Zillmann, has proposed several theories to explain why individuals seek out crime and horror/violent media. His mood management theory is self-explanatory, in that it suggests that entertainment is used to enhance or maintain positive states and to diminish or avoid negative ones (Zillmann, 1988a, 1988b; Zillmann and Bryant, 1985, as cited in Oliver, 2003). In this framework, the consumption of crime or violent media is also thought to be related to viewers’ own fears and anxieties: viewers may choose to expose themselves to their fears in a safe context as a way of coping or mastering their fears. Such a perspective is supported by a study that found that, when males were induced to think aggressive thoughts or to behave in an aggressive manner, they were more likely than other participants to select violent as opposed to non-violent media entertainment for viewing in a subsequent task (Fenigstein, 1979). This theory may partly explain why numerous studies have found associations between youths’ aggressive behaviours and their preference for media violence (which will be discussed in more detail below).

Additional theories, however, suggest that media violence can lead to aggression. The most straightforward explanation of media effects is social learning theory (Cantor, 2003). Social learning theory suggests that individuals learn from direct experience and from behaviour modelled by others, which can occur via the media. Proponents of the media effects argument, such as L. Rowell Huesmann (2007), therefore suggest that media violence has short-term and long-term effects, both of which can be accounted for by various related theories.

Theoretical Explanations of Short-Term Media-Effects

The short-term effects of media violence are largely attributed to priming, mimicry or arousal (Huesmann, 2007). Priming processes suggest that external stimulus can be inherently linked to cognition (e.g., the sight of a gun is linked to aggressive thoughts). Primed concepts thus make behaviours linked to them more likely to occur. In this perspective, media violence is purported to prime aggressive concepts, which in turn increases the likelihood of aggressive behaviour.

Even more simplistic, mimicry suggests that merely viewing media violence can lead to imitating the observed behaviour. Anecdotal evidence (e.g., copycat crimes) (Smith, 2004) and some scholarly work suggests that observing specific social behaviours effectively increases the likelihood of children behaving in the same way (Huesmann, 2007).

Arousal theory is also referred to as excitation-transfer theory, and was first proposed by Dolf Zillmann (Bryant, Roskos-Ewoldsen and Cantor, 2003). The theory is based on a number of assumptions about emotional responding. For example, emotions such as anger, fear, and sexual arousal are said to involve a substantial increase in sympathetic activation and have similar peripheral indices of arousal, such as elevated heart rate and blood pressure (Cantor, 2003). According to excitation-transfer theory, physiological arousal that occurs due to an emotion decays relatively slowly and can linger on for some time after the cause of the emotion. The intensity with which an emotion is felt also depends on the level of arousal existing at the time. As individuals have relatively poor insight into why they are physiologically aroused, an individual can confuse residual arousal with a new emotion (i.e., a misattribution) which leads the individual to feel the subsequent emotion more intensely (Cantor, 2003). Applying this theory to media effects suggests that the arousal induced by media violence could linger and make people who are angered feel their anger more intensely, as well as potentially make them react more violently if provided the opportunity to retaliate against their provoker (Cantor, 2003). Although arousal theory is supported by a great deal of evidence, some research suggests that imitating media violence can occur in the absence of elevated arousal or provocation (Cantor, 2003). This led Zillmann to revise his theory to account for what he believed were long-term media effects. Zillmann’s revised theory suggested that frequent, consistent and repeated activation of particular concepts results in the chronic accessibility of such constructs. If, then, media violence makes aggression scripts (i.e., an enduring hostile mental framework) chronically accessible, individuals thus exposed may be more likely than individuals without a history of heavy exposure to media violence to engage in aggressive behaviours (Cantor, 2003). Other theories also account for purported long-term media effects.

Theoretical Explanations of Long-Term Media Effects

The long-term effects of media violence are said to be due to observational learning and to the activation and desensitization of emotional processes (i.e., desensitization theory). (Huesmann, 2007). Observational learning theory suggests that when children observe others’ behaviours and make attributions for their actions, this leads to the development of cognitive scripts. As children age, normative beliefs about appropriate social behaviours become entrenched and act as filters to limit inappropriate social behaviour. These normative beliefs and scripts are thus influenced, in part, by children’s observation of behaviours around them, including those observed in the media. The theory therefore suggests that children who are developing scripts and normative beliefs can become aggressive if they observe violent behaviours depicted in the media.

According to desensitization theory, repeated exposure to emotionally activating media leads individuals to become habituated to these emotions, and consequently leads to a decline in their negative emotional reactions (e.g., increased heart rate, perspiration) to stimuli that would ordinarily cause such reactions (e.g., violence). Desensitization itself is said to lead individuals to have the capability of acting aggressively without experiencing the negative emotions that would, under normal circumstances, circumscribe aggressive behaviour (Huesmann, 2007).

Individual Factors and the General Aggression Model

The processes outlined above represent basic learning and behavioural mechanisms and are also applicable to real-life experiences (as opposed to media-based experiences). The aforementioned theories also largely present media effects as affecting all individuals equally. However, such broad, overarching theories may be criticized as dubious given the widespread appeal of media violence and the comparatively scant number of people who engage in aggressive or violent behaviour. Some scholars have therefore proposed more attenuated media-effects theories. Craig A. Anderson (another strong proponent of the media effects argument) and his colleagues have proposed the general aggression model (GAM), which integrates many of the aforementioned theoretical models and takes into consideration developmental factors (see Anderson and Bushman, 2002a; Anderson and Carnagey, 2004; Anderson and Huesmann, 2003, as cited in Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007). The model also distinguishes between variables and processes that operate in the current situation (e.g., person and situation variables) and those that exert influence over a long period of time (e.g., biological and environmental variables). The long-term variables (e.g., aggressive personality) are those that facilitate the current situation variables, which in turn directly increase aggression or decrease “normal” inhibitions against aggression. According to the GAM, media violence is both an environmental factor (i.e., due to social learning) and a situational instigator (i.e., due to its cognitive links to aggressive scripts, schemas, and beliefs).

The model also assimilates advances in developmental theories that explain individual differences in development via a risk and resilience perspective (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007). Risk factors are life experiences that may put children at risk for future maladaptation, whereas resilience factors protect children from this risk exposure. Anderson and colleagues (2007) suggest that risk and resilience factors may explain why media effects affect some children to a greater degree than others, although they argue that media effects are likely a risk factor for all children. Risk factors that have been studied include marital discord, low socio-economic status, maternal psychological distress, single-parent status or divorce, low maternal education, and exposure to violence, as well as genetic risk factors for psychopathology or aggression (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007). Risk factors frequently coincide and are considered by some, such as Anderson and colleagues (2007), to have cumulative effects on children’s risks for healthy development. Resilience factors include good self-regulation, close relationships with caregivers and other adults, and effective schools (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007).

It is typically acknowledged that exposure to media violence will likely not, in itself, lead to extreme and rare violent behaviour (e.g., shooting someone). However, Anderson and colleagues (2007) suggest that someone who has other risk factors for violent behaviour, and who, for example, is already verbally aggressive, may become more aggressive (e.g., push or shove others) due to media effects. They note, however, that media effects are also likely influenced by the developmental tasks children face as they mature (e.g., in infancy, early childhood, middle childhood, adolescence). For example, in middle childhood, learning social rules and norms takes on increased importance. As such, media effects may have short-term or long-term effects and may be very different depending on the age of the child.

Evidence Supporting the Media-Effects Argument

Based on these theoretical models, and on a number of studies that they and others have conducted, Anderson and colleagues (2007) have categorically stated that “exposure to media violence causes an increase in the likelihood of aggression in at least some significant proportion of the population” (25) and that, since 1975, there has been no scientific doubt that viewing violence increases aggression (Anderson and Bushman, 2002b). Based on previous reviews of the literature, they claim that the debate over media effects on violence is over. Studies using various methodologies (e.g., experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal) provide converging evidence that media violence contributes to real-life violence (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007).

Each methodological approach to the study of media effects provides its own strongpoints, while triangulation (e.g., finding similar results using different methodologies) is said to provide the strongest support for a causal association between exposure to media violence and demonstrating aggressive or violent behaviour (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007). The following discussion will outline three methodological approaches to the study of media effects (e.g., experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal), highlight their usefulness for supporting media-effects arguments, and present some findings that have emerged from studies that have used these methodologies.

Experimental studies allow researchers to observe whether exposure to media violence leads to short-term increases in aggression. In these studies, participants are (typically) randomly assigned to groups who either watch a violent video or a non-violent video. In a short time period following the video viewing, which can range from a few minutes to a few days, participants’ aggressive behaviour, thoughts or emotions are observed (e.g., their aggressive free-play behaviour is recorded, the punishment they administer to others is measured, they are asked to self-report thoughts or emotions of aggression). Anderson and colleagues (2003) report that these types of studies typically find that viewing violent media content leads both children and older youth to behave more aggressively and have more aggressive thoughts and emotions. They additionally report that youth who are predisposed to being aggressive, or who have been aroused or provoked, especially demonstrate these effects. Media effects, however, can range in statistical significance and are typically categorized as being either weak/small, moderate, or strong (see Table 1 for a practical example of the categorization of effect sizes). Anderson and colleagues (2003) report that media violence effect sizes are “moderate on the average” and vary greatly depending on the outcome measure used (e.g., effect sizes are smaller for more serious outcomes than for less serious outcomes). They conclude that the average effect sizes generated by experimental studies are large enough to warrant social concern (Anderson et al., 2003).

Cross-sectional studies consist largely of surveys and are said to have provided, over the past 40 years, consistent evidence that young peoples’ physical aggression, verbal aggression, and aggressive thoughts are correlated with the amount of violent television and film they regularly watch (for reviews see Chaffee, 1972; Comstock, 1980; Eysenck and Nias, 1978; Huesmann and Miller, 1994, as cited in Anderson et al., 2003). The size of these correlations is typically small to moderate and tends to be higher for elementary-school children than for adolescents and adults (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007). Surveys are said to provide support for the causal conclusions of experimental studies, in that they demonstrate that the short-term effects identified in experimental studies are also generalizable to real-life violence (Huesmann, 2007). Still, surveys do not indicate whether media violence causes aggression or whether some other factor leads the same individuals who watch more violence to behave more aggressively than their peers (Anderson et al., 2003).

Longitudinal studies are said to be especially useful in the media effects debate, as they provide grounds to discredit arguments that it is aggressive individuals who seek out violent media, as opposed to the preferred argument that violent media leads to aggression. Longitudinal studies typically measure how much violent television children watch at time A (e.g., age 7) and how much aggressive behaviour they demonstrate at time B (e.g., age 15). It is important, however, that longitudinal studies of media effects focus on the time spent viewing violent television, as opposed to total television viewing time, as the latter is said to likely underestimate the effects of violent television (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007). Given the expense and difficulty of conducting longitudinal studies, they are few and far between. Still, some studies suggest that while youth media violence exposure predicts later aggression, high aggressiveness in childhood does not lead to frequent viewing of television violence later in life (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007). Anderson and colleagues (2003) report that on average, the size of media effects in longitudinal studies are small to moderate, depending on the time lag (e.g., how much time elapsed between the initial and secondary measures). On the other hand, there is some evidence that suggests that more aggressive children tend to watch more violence than their less aggressive peers (Anderson et al., 2003). It has also been found that total time watching television can also predict later aggressive behaviour, even after controlling for factors such as childhood neglect and neighbourhood characteristics (Johnson, Cohen, Smailes, Kasen and Brook, 2002). The fact that the amount of time children spend watching television is predictive of aggressive behaviour may indeed suggest that other factors account for children’s television viewing time and aggressive behaviour. Still, Anderson and colleagues (2003) state that there is stronger evidence that suggests that seeing a lot of media violence is a precursor of increased aggression, even when other factors are controlled for statistically (e.g., social class, intellectual functioning, prior level of aggressiveness, parenting).

Three New Studies and Their Implications

Although for the purpose of this report only the findings of a few specific studies have been detailed, it seems important and relevant to provide some of the latest findings generated by three studies conducted by Anderson and colleagues (2007). They used the general aggression model to conduct an experimental, a cross-sectional and a longitudinal study (with a lag-time period of two to six months). Their primary focus was on the effect of playing violent video games on short-term aggressive behaviour, the correlation between violent video game exposure and aggressive behaviours among high school students, and the long-term effects of violent video games on aggression and pro-social behaviour among elementary school children. While the reported findings and conclusions tended to support Anderson and colleagues’ hypothesis (i.e., that violent video game exposure leads to increased aggression), two other important and contentious findings emerged.

First, their findings suggest that when statistically controlling for other factors that may moderate the relation between exposure to violent video games and aggression, the effect of media violence exposure on aggression becomes non-significant. In their experimental study, they observed the effects of playing violent video games on aggressive behaviour (e.g., playing a noise blast at varying levels of intensity to punish an alleged opponent). While they report that their experimental manipulation (i.e., having youth play violent video games) led to increased aggressive behaviour, controlling for other factors such as media violence exposure (the composite of television, film, and video game violence exposure), sex and age made the media violence exposure effect non-significant (i.e., media violence exposure did not predict aggressive behaviour). This finding is contrary to what one would expect based on their prior arguments (e.g., that exposure to media violence can have long-term effects that facilitate short-term effects on aggression).

They found similar results for their cross-sectional survey and longitudinal study. In the survey study, they statistically controlled for participants’ sex, normative aggressive beliefs (i.e., believing that aggressive acts are common), violence orientation (based on a composite measure of participants’ attitudes toward violence and their reported anger and hostility), and exposure to violence in television and film. They found that when controlling for these factors, exposure to media violence (in television and film) was no longer related to violent behaviour and physical aggression. Similarly, in the analyses of their longitudinal study, they found that when controlling for other factors (e.g., total amount of time spent watching television, parental involvement, hostile attribution bias, sex, race, and the amount of time elapsed between initial and secondary measures), the association between exposure to television and movie violence and physical aggression became non-significant. Note that two additional criticisms may also be lodged against their longitudinal study. First, one may criticize their characterization of this study as longitudinal because, in some cases, their initial and secondary measures occurred within the span of two months. Second, although they report that exposure to video game violence leads to physical aggression, their statistical analyses failed to provide key information (i.e., measures of how well this proposed directionality of the relation fits the data compared with alternative directionalities) that would have supported this causal relation and negated alternative interpretations (e.g., that aggression leads to playing violent video games).

Surprisingly, the authors chalk up the lack of a significant relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behaviour to the fact that the violent video game effect seems to be outweighing the media effects (e.g., perhaps interactive media violence is more strongly related to violent behaviour than exposure to non-interactive media violence is). This seems counterintuitive, however, as applying this argument to real life would suggest that youth who experience high levels of interaction with real-life violence/aggression should similarly be non-affected by media violence. However, it seems unlikely that proponents of the media effects argument would support such a claim, as they argue that exposure to media violence is an added risk factor for real-life violence/aggression (e.g., community violence, family practices) (Anderson, Gentile and Buckley, 2007). If exposure to media violence is indeed an added risk for aggression, one would expect that its effects would remain significant even after controlling for other factors. However, this is not the case. As such, these three studies suggest that exposure to media violence does not lead to increased aggression.

Other findings that emerged suggest that when statistically controlling for other factors, the ability to predict aggressive behaviour based on exposure to highly interactive media violence (e.g., violent video game exposure) substantially decreases. For example, in the cross-sectional survey study, the predictive value of exposure to violent video games for aggressive behaviour ranged from 20 per cent to just over two per cent after controlling for other factors. That is, only considering the effect of exposure to violent video games predicts 20 per cent of aggressive behaviour; however, considering other important factors reduces the amount of aggressive behaviour predicted by violent video game exposure alone to about two per cent. Similar findings emerged for the amount of violent behaviour predicted by exposure to violent video games. This suggests that purported media effects may in fact be accounted for by other factors. More importantly, Anderson and colleagues’ findings seem to suggest that, had they statistically controlled for additional factors (e.g., prior victimization, sensation seeking), the effects of media violence could have further diminished.

Based on a report by the US Department of Health and Human Services (2001), Anderson and colleagues (2007) claim that the effect of exposure to violent video games is comparable in size to other risk factors for violence in the peak years of offending (i.e., ages 15–18), such as gang membership (see Table 1). However, in reporting risk factors for violent behaviour, the US Department of Health and Human Services not only separates early risk factors (for youth aged 6–11) and late risk factors (for youth aged 12–14), they also only include exposure to television violence in the early risk factor category and report that it has an estimated small effect size (.13). Anderson and colleagues (2007) wrongly compared their video game violence effect size (.30), which was generated from a sample of youth aged 7–11 and by only controlling for sex and not for other important factors, to other factors in the late risk factor category (i.e., they should have compared it to factors in the early risk factor category). More importantly, the report itself concluded that “it [is] extremely difficult to distinguish between the relatively small long-term effects of exposure to media violence and those of other influences” (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000).

The US Department of Health and Human Services (2001) also reports that, while risk factors may be additive, the timing of risk factors and the onset of violence are connected: “[S]tudies show that many youths with late-onset violence did not encounter the childhood risk factors responsible for early-onset violence. For these youths, risk factors for violence emerged in adolescence” (Huizinga et al., 1995; Moffitt et al., 1996; Patterson and Yoerger, 1997; Simons et al., 1994, as cited in US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001, Ch. 4). This is noteworthy because much of the media effects literature stipulates that many short-term effects are apparent for younger children (up to about age 10), but that findings are less consistent for older children and adolescents (i.e., it does not seem as though exposure to media violence causes violent behaviour) (Freedman, 2002; Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005). Moreover, longitudinal claims that early exposure to media violence leads to late-onset violence seem doubtful given the interaction between the timing of risk factors and violent behaviour.

Evidence Not Supporting the Media Effects Argument

In light of some of the points outlined above, many criticisms have been lodged against purported media-effects findings. Anderson and his colleagues have been criticized by others for failing to account for socio-historical facts and crime trends that do not support their claims. For example, Ferguson (2002) suggests that purported media effects are an attempt to simplify the problem of violence, and that claims that rises in violence have coincided with the prominence of television (since the 1950s) ignore other surges in violence that occurred prior to the prominence of violent media.

Other reviews of the media-effects literature suggest that, while some studies provide support for short-term media effects on attitudes and behaviour, they also often suffer from methodological problems and the findings tend to be inconsistent. Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis (2005) reviewed five meta-analyses (i.e., analyses which statistically combine the results of several studies) and one quasi-systematic review (i.e., a review of relevant studies) of media-effects and found that there is evidence of substantial short-term effects of violent imagery in television, film, and video games on children and adolescents’ thoughts, emotions, and aggression. However, they report that the evidence is less consistent for older children and adolescents. Moreover, they found that many studies fail to establish causal associations, and that few studies have considered the importance of background factors such as family violence when assessing media effects. As such, the relative contribution of media violence to aggressive behaviour is difficult to establish (Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005).

In his encompassing systematic review of 200 studies, Canadian scholar Jonathan Freedman (2002) concludes that there is a lack of scientific support for the prevailing belief that media violence is connected to violent behaviour. Moreover, the ever-increasing popularity of violent television, films and video games has coincided with a dramatic decrease in violent crime (Freedman, 2002). Still, some believe that the availability of television in the United States and in Canada since the 1950s, and the increase in violent crime between 1960 and 1990, demonstrates a clear media violence effect. However, there is evidence that suggests that other factors such as family structure changes (e.g., higher divorce rates, more single parents), an increasing gap between rich and poor, and a sharp increase in young males due to the postwar baby boom all likely contributed to this trend (Freedman, 2002).

There is, according to Freedman, some survey research that has identified a weak but positive correlation between exposure to violent media and aggression for children up to about age ten. However, as is widely known, correlations do not mean or imply causation, and so one must assume that this relation can mean a number of things. For example, children who prefer violent programs also tend to be more aggressive than children who watch less-violent programs (Freedman, 2002). Survey research is therefore problematic because of its inability to establish causation. While longitudinal studies face the same limitations of survey research in terms of establishing causation, they do provide the ability to observe whether same-age correlations increase over time because, arguably, media exposure effects should be cumulative. In his review of longitudinal studies, Freedman finds that same-age correlations do not increase over time, and that the expected spreading apart across time also does not occur. That is, if exposure to media violence causes aggression, children who are equally aggressive at age eight, but watch different amounts of media violence, should differ in aggression at a later age. However, this is not the case.

Experimental studies that can, to some degree, overcome problems of temporal order and therefore establish causal relations, often suffer because of their weak measures of aggression (e.g., measuring aggression on a Bobo doll). Some experimental studies that use relatively good measures of aggression support a relation between exposure to media violence and behaving aggressively (28 per cent); however, 55 per cent do not, and a sizeable number present mixed findings (16 per cent) (Freedman, 2002). In addition, some experimental studies of media effects suggest that factors aside from the manipulation (e.g., viewing violent videos) may lead to increases in observed aggression. For example, a study by Leyens and Dunand (1991) found that when adult participants were led to expect to see either a violent or a non-violent movie, but did not actually see a movie, those who expected the violent movie were subsequently more aggressive than those who expected the non-violent movie. In this case, it seems as though the mere expectation of being exposed to violence can lead to short-term increases in aggressive behaviour, and that such increases are independent of actually viewing media violence.

In light of his encompassing and thorough review of the literature, Freedman argues that despite previous reviews that suggest that media violence does cause violent behaviour, a review of the literature does not support this conclusion. Moreover, he states that before a theory or hypothesis can be considered correct, the research testing it must produce “results that support it with great consistency” (Freedman, 2002: 199). His review of the literature suggests that regardless of the method used, fewer than half of the studies have found results that supported the hypothesis, implying that there is great inconsistency in the findings. In response to comparisons of media violence effects with advertising effects, Freedman suggests that there is a vast difference between the goals of these two media types. While advertising is designed to advance a specific, clear and unmistakable message (e.g., car commercials which enumerate the qualities of a specific car and urge consumers to purchase it), media violence is not meant to be persuasive, just popular. Although some argue that media violence may put forth implicit messages (e.g., that using violence to solve problems is appropriate) or provide for learning experiences, Freedman is highly skeptical of these claims given the fictional nature of the media violence that is most often under study and the frequent mixed messages that accompany these depictions.

A criticism that can be lodged against both Anderson and colleagues (2007) and Freedman (2002) is that many of the studies they cite to support their respective views of media effects are somewhat dated (i.e., from the 1960s to the mid-1990s). Many recent studies of media effects seek to identify “third factors” that may account for both youths’ consumption of violent media and aggressive behaviour (see Gallo, 2003; Kubrin, 2005; Miranda and Claes, 2004), and reviews of the literature suggest that it is important to do so (Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005). For example, Chen et al. (2006) found that sensation seeking (e.g., how much individuals like going to wild parties, doing “crazy” things just for fun, doing things on impulse) operates as a confound variable in the relation between rap music and aggressive behaviour. In their study of 1,056 college students, Chen et al. used music preference to predict aggressive behaviour. They hypothesized that rap music would be most predictive of aggressive behaviour and tested their hypothesis by controlling for other factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, level of sensation seeking, and listening to music genres other than rap. They initially found that listening to rap music “often”9 significantly and positively predicted aggressive behaviour (e.g., being in a fist-fight or shoving match, being in a gang, threatening someone with a knife or gun, or attacking someone intending to seriously injure that person). However, the authors found that sensation seeking also significantly and positively predicted aggressive behaviour, and did so to a stronger degree than listening to rap music. Moreover, they found that individuals with higher levels of sensation seeking were more likely to listen to music genres that were positively associated with aggression. To address the potential relation between sensation-seeking and aggressive behaviour, the authors added sensation-seeking to their analyses and found that the association between music preference and aggressive behaviour had significantly decreased. The authors concluded that sensation-seeking is likely a factor that contributes to (and obfuscates) the relation between aggressive behaviours and music preference, as it seems to mediate such a relation. One may therefore hypothesize that third, fourth and fifth factors frequently operate in reported media-effects findings. Given these and other findings, researchers should make concerted efforts to control for other factors when making claims about media effects. Similarly, reviews of the literature should consider whether other important factors were controlled for when assessing media effects.

Research about media effects on youth has also led to focusing on the potential harmful effects of violent video games. A review of the literature conducted by Bensley and Van Eenwyk (2001) suggests that the role of video games in violence and aggression is limited in either size or scope. Findings are not supportive of a major public health concern about violent video games’ potential to lead to real-life violence. The authors report that for young children (ages about 4 to 8), there is some evidence of increased aggressive free-play behaviour following playing violent video games. However, results are inconsistent and inconclusive for teens and college-aged individuals. Their review may be criticized, however, as it included measures of aggression that have, in other places, been reprehended (e.g., measures of aggression against a Bobo doll) (see Freedman, 2002). Still, when considering three other reviews and their own, the authors conclude that there are major gaps in the existing research (e.g., lack of well-controlled, randomized research), which effectively prohibit claims that violent video games lead to real-life violence.

Explaining Concerns about Media Violence

Despite a lack of substantial findings, politicians and scholars alike scapegoat the media as a cause of violent behaviour. Some researchers have suggested that individuals’ beliefs about media effects on behaviour may be due to the “third-person effect.” The third-person effect suggests that individuals tend to believe that others are more affected by negative media messages than they themselves are (Hoffner et al., 2001). This effect is couched within attribution theory, which posits that individuals attempt to make sense of their environment by identifying underlying causes of behaviour. In this process, individuals tend to overestimate dispositional causes of behaviour for others (e.g., personality, traits) and situational factors for themselves (e.g., social pressures) (Hoffner et al., 2001). For example, McLeod, Eveland and Nathanson (1997) found that when presented violent and misogynistic hip hop lyrics, individuals perceived others as being more affected by these messages than they themselves were. Furthermore, this perception correlated positively with supporting censorship of such lyrics (even when controlling for factors such as political conservatism).

There is also evidence that suggests that third-person effects may especially be present when people consider the potential effects of the media on low-status individuals (Grier and Brumbaugh, 2007). Literature on status suggests that individuals with a low social status, indicated by factors such as socio-economic status, ethnicity, age and gender, tend to be seen as less competent than high status individuals (Conway, Pizzamiglio and Mount, 1996; Conway and Vartanian, 2000; Ridgeway and Correll, 2004). Similarly, third-person effects tend to favour downward comparisons to others, in which the other person is seen as less competent than the self, thus sustaining positive self-images (Hoffner et al., 2001). Furthermore, the more distant one feels from the third person, the more one is prone to stereotype that person as likely to be influenced by the media (particularly when media-effects knowledge is primed) (Duck and Mullin, 1995, as cited in Hoffner et al., 2001). In this respect, certain social groups may be especially vulnerable to third-person effects. Not surprisingly, and more importantly, Hoffner and colleagues (2001) found that people believe that children are more likely than adults are to be influenced by media effects.

The third-person effect may partly explain why scholars, politicians and many individuals believe that media violence causes real-life violence. That these concerns mostly centre around youth is further explained by the fact that youth tend to occupy a low social status and are considered to be relatively incompetent (e.g., in discerning media messages). Furthermore, there is reason to believe that salience is also related to the third-person effect. Hoffner and colleagues (2001) suggest that when considering the causes of societal problems, the effects of television violence may be more salient than other factors, such as poverty and drug use, which many people have not experienced personally. Combined, these factors emphasize why, when pressed for explanations for youths’ occasional aggressive and violent behaviours, many are quick to turn to the media.

Concluding Remarks

This review is meant to provide the reader with a holistic understanding of the media effects debate. First, one must consider the theoretical models meant to explain media effects, which are essentially two-part. While some theories suggest that media violence leads to the social learning of violent behaviour, other theories suggest that entertainment is typically used to manage moods, and that those who are aggressive actively seek out violent media content. A review of some of the research on media effects suggests that there is some support for the social learning perspective. Small media effects have been observed in laboratory settings, and cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have revealed some associations between consuming violent media and behaving aggressively or violently; however, the findings do not provide clear and consistent evidence that media violence causes aggressive and violent behaviour. At best, one could surmise that there is an association between media violence and aggression. However, claims that this association is causal are met with serious criticisms. Many studies that are said to support this causal association are fraught with methodological problems, such as weak measures of aggression and failing to consider other important factors when measuring the effects of media violence.

Theories that do not suggest that there is a causal relation between exposure to media violence and aggression or violent behaviour are also supported by substantial evidence. For example, research is said to generally support the notion that the enjoyment of media violence is highest for viewers who possess characteristics associated with aggression (Oliver, Kim and Sanders, 2006). Social learning theories are further plagued by research that suggests that the developmental stages of children greatly influence the impact of media violence, and that media violence does not have the cumulative effects one may expect. For example, research on the frightening effects of media suggests that the element that frightens children changes as they mature. With increasing maturity, children respond less to the perceptible characteristics of the media (e.g., the imagery and appearance) and respond more to the conceptual aspects of the media (Cantor, 2006). If such is the case for the frightening effects of media, one might hypothesize that the effects of media violence are likely similar. As such, the alleged underlying messages of violent content may not emphatically reach youth until they are somewhat older, effectively casting doubt on claims that young children learn long-term social messages from media violence.

Despite the lack of consistent support for a causal relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive or violent behaviour, this review has shown that there have been persistent and substantial attempts by various scholars and organizations to categorically state that media violence causes aggression and violence (even when substantial evidence suggests the contrary). Research on the third-person effect suggests that individuals are inclined to believe that the media can have effects on viewers, especially if these viewers are children, due to factors such as the salience of media violence and downward comparisons to others. Combined, these factors provide a narrative for the widespread misattributions of real-life violence and crime to media violence.

In concluding, the author offers the following insightful remarks of P. Vorderer, F. Steen and E. Chan (2006), which the author believes illustrate some of the most important questions those considering the potential effects of media violence should bear in mind while pursuing such enquiries:

When we approach entertainment as an experience that is sought after and enjoyed, we encounter the enduring questions of its psychological cause. Why do human beings, across a range of different cultures and historical periods, seek out and enjoy the experience of entertainment? Why do they select and create certain types of situations-and not others- to entertain themselves? Why do they seek entertainment so often, for such long periods of time, and in so many different situations and settings? To ask these questions is to adopt the perspective that entertainment is a response to a certain set of opportunities rather than a feature of a particular media product itself [emphasis added] (Vorderer, Steen and Chan, 2006: 3).

References

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children: Congressional Public Health Summit, July 26, 2000. Retrieved January 18, 2008 from http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm.

Anderson, C. A. and B.J. Bushman. (2002a). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27−51.

Anderson, C. A. and B.J. Bushman. (2002b). Media violence and the American public revisited. The American Psychologist, 57(6-7), 448−450.

Anderson, C. A. and N.L. Carnagey. (2004). Violent evil and the general aggression model. In A. Miller (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (pp. 168−192). New York: Guilford Publications.

Anderson, C. A., L. Berkowitz, E. Donnerstein, R. Huesmann, J.D. Johnson, D. Linz, et al. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in The Public Interest, 4(3), 81−110.

Anderson, C. A., D.A. Gentile and K.E. Buckley. (2007). Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, C. A. and L.R. Huesmann. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view. In M. A. Hogg and J. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 296−323). London: Sage Publications.

Barongan C., and G.C. Nagayama Hall. (1995). The influence of misogynous rap music on sexual aggression against women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 195−207.

Bensley, L. and J. Van Eenwyk.(2001).Video games and real-life aggression: Review of the literature. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(4), 244−257.

Bryant, J., D. Roskos-Ewoldsen and J. Cantor. (2003). A brief biography and intellectual history of Dolf Zillmann. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen and J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and Emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillman (pp. 7–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Browne, K. D. and C. Hamilton-Giachritsis. (2005). The influence of violent media on children and adolescents: A public-health approach. The Lancet, 365, 702−710.

Cantor, J. (2003). Media violence effects and interventions: The roles of communication and emotion. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen and J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and Emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillman (pp. 197−220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cantor, J. (2006). Why horror doesn’t die: The enduring and paradoxical effects of frightening entertainment. In J. Bryant and P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of Entertainment (pp. 315−327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

CBC (2005, November 23). Ban 50 Cent from touring, Toronto MP urges. Retrieved January 26, 2008, from www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/11/23/Arts/fiftycent-051124.html.

Chaffee, S.H. (1972). Television and adolescent aggressiveness (overview). In G.A. Comstock and E.A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and Social Behavior: A Technical Report to the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 1−34). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Chen, M., B.A. Miller and J.W. Grube. (2006). Music, substance use, and aggression. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(3), 373−381.

Comstock, G. (1980). New emphases in research on the effects of television and film violence. In E.L. Palmer and A. Dorr (Eds.), Children and the Faces of Television: Teaching, Violence, Selling (pp. 129−148). New York: Academic Press.

Conway, M., M.T. Pizzamiglio and L. Mount. (1996). Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 25−38.

Conway, M. and L.R. Vartanian. (2000). A status account of gender stereotypes: Beyond communality and agency. Sex Roles, 43(3−4), 181−199.

Duck, J. M. and B. Mullin. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 77−93.

Eysenck, H.J. and D.K.B. Nias. (1978). Sex, Violence, and the Media. New York: Saint Martin’s Press.

Fenigstein, A. (1979). Does aggression cause a preference for viewing media violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(12), 2307−2317.

Ferguson, C. J. (2002). Media violence: Miscast causality. The American Psychologist 57(6−7), 446−447.

Fischer, P. and T. Greitemeyer. (2006). Music and aggression: The impact of sexual-aggressive song lyrics on aggression-related thoughts, emotions, and behavior toward the same and the opposite sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), 1165−1176.

Freedman, J. L. (2002). Media Violence and its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Gallo, S. (2003). Music preference with an emphasis on gangsta rap: Female adolescent identity, beliefs, and behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64 (8-B) (Electronic; Print).

Grier, S. A. and A.M. Brumbaugh. (2007). Compared to whom? The impact of status on third person effects in advertising persuasion in a South African context. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(1), 5−18.

Hoffner, C., R.S. Plotkin, M. Buchanan, J.D. Anderson, S.K. Kamigaki and L.A. Hubbs. (2001). The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of television violence. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 283−299.

Huesmann, L. R. (2007). The impact of electronic media violence: Scientific theory and research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S6−S13.

Huesmann, L.R. and L.S. Miller. (1994). Long-term effects of repeated exposure to media violence in childhood. In L.R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive Behavior: Current Perspectives (pp. 153−186). New York: Plenum Press.

Huizinga, D., R. Loeber and T.P. Thornberry. (1995). Recent findings from the program of research on the causes and correlates of delinquency (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ 159042). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Johnson, J. G., P. Cohen, E.M. Smailes, S. Kasen and J.S. Brook. (2002). Aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood. Science, 295, 2468-2471.

Josephson, W. L. (1995). Television Violence: A Review of the Effects on Children of Different Ages (National Clearinghouse on Family Violence; Health Canada). Retrieved January 18, 2008 from www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-nivf/familyviolence/html/nfntseffevage_e.html.

Kubrin, C. E. (2005). Gangstas, thugs, and hustlas: Identity and the code of the street in rap music. Social Problems, 52(3), 360−378.

Leyens, J. and M. Dunand. (1991). Priming aggressive thoughts: The effect of the anticipation of a violent movie upon the aggressive behaviour of the spectators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 507−516.

McLeod, D. M., W.P. Eveland and A.I. Nathanson. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24(2), 153−174.

Miranda, D. and M. Claes. (2004). Rap music genres and deviant behaviors in French Canadian adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(2), 113−122.

Moffitt, T., A. Caspi, N. Dickson, P. Silva and W. Stanton. (1996). Childhood-onset versus adolescents-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural history from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399−424.

Oliver, M. B. (2003). Mood management and selective exposure. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen and J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and Emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillman (pp. 85−106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Oliver, M. B., J. Kim and M.S. Sanders. (2006). Personality. In J. Bryant and P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of Entertainment (pp. 329−342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Patterson, G. R. and K. Yoerger. (1997). A developmental model for late-onset delinquency. In D. W. Osgood (Ed.), Motivation and Delinquency (Vol. 44, pp. 121−177). Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

Ridgeway, C. L. and S.J. Correll. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510−531.

Simons, R. L., C.-I. Wu, R.D. Conger and F.O. Lorenz. (1994). Two routes to delinquency: Differences in the impact of parenting and deviant peers for early versus late starters. Criminology, 32, 247−275.

Smith, V. (2004). Action Agenda: A Strategic Blueprint for Reducing Exposure to Media Violence in Canada (Office for Victims of Crime Research/Revictimization Prevention Grant Program; Government of Ontario). Toronto: Queen’s Printer.

United States. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). News Release: Youth Violence Epidemic Not Over, But Effective Prevention Programs Exist, Surgeon General’s Report Finds. Retrieved January 21, 2008 from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/pressreleases/pr_youthviolence.htm United States.

United States. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services; and National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.

Vorderer, P., F.F. Steen and E. Chan. (2006). Motivation. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of Entertainment (pp. 3−18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zillmann, D. (1988a). Mood management: Using entertainment to full advantage. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher and E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, Social Cognition, and Affect (pp. 147−172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

9 Note that “often” was not specifically defined and the respondents’ subjective assessments were relied upon.

Contents

Volume 1. Findings, Analysis and Conclusions

Volume 2. Executive Summary

Volume 3. Community Perspectives Report

Volume 4. Research Papers

Volume 5. Literature Reviews

0 Thoughts to “Priming Media Violence Essays

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *