�����������
RUNNING
HEAD: Economics of Media Violence
The Economics of Media Violence
Bruce D. Bartholow
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Karen E. Dill
Lenoir-Rhyne College
Kathryn B. Anderson
Our Lady of the Lake University
James J. Lindsay
University of Minnesota
Correspondence:
Bruce D. Bartholow, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
CB# 3270, Davie Hall
University of North
Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Tel: (919) 843-5486
Fax: (919) 962-2537
Email:
bartholow@unc.edu
*This paper is to be published in Fall, 2003 in The economics of media violence. In I. E. Sigel (Series Ed.) & D. A. Gentile (Vol. Ed.),� Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology: .Media Violence and Children. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
The Economics of Media Violence
����������� Violence in entertainment is as old
as civilization itself. The Romans delighted in watching Christians do battle
with hungry lions, and dramatic theatre � from the ancient Greeks to Shakespere
to Andrew Lloyd Webber � has always been thick with jealousy, retribution, and
violence. However, it was not until the mass media explosion of the 20th
Century that heavy doses of violence were made available to everyone, every
day. Over the past 100 years, as media have become more available, they also
have become more violent (e.g., Bushman & Anderson, 2001). This chapter
examines some potential reasons for this association, focusing on media
industry beliefs that violent program content attracts more viewers (and hence
their dollars) than does nonviolent program content.
The
Rise of Mass Media Consumption
����������� In the early part of the 20th
Century, motion pictures and radio provided an interesting diversion for those
who could afford them. However, relatively few people considered these
commodities to be an essential part of their life. With the introduction of
television in the middle of the century, however, mass media availability (and
consumer demand) began to skyrocket. Although America�s entry into World War II
delayed this boom by approximately a decade (television was first introduced in
1939), by 1955 two-thirds of all homes in the United States contained a
television set. This figure increased to around 93% by the end of that decade,
and today television is a part of the daily lives of virtually all Americans
(Nielsen Media Research, 1998).�
����������� The rise in media availability of
all kinds has gone hand-in-hand with a steep rise in media consumption among
both children and adults, such that media
consumption is now the great American pastime. The
numbers are startling. The television is on for 7 hours and 40 minutes each day
in the average American household (TV Turnoff Network, n.d.). Forty to sixty
percent of Americans watch television during dinner, a time traditionally
devoted to family interactions (Gentile & Walsh, 2002; Roberts, Foehr, Rideout, & Brodie (1999), and
25% of people regularly fall asleep with the television on (TV Turnoff Network,
n.d.). One recent study indicates that the average American child spends
upwards of 40 hours per week consuming some type of mass media, not including
that related to school and homework (Roberts et al., 1999). Indeed, children spend more time watching television
than doing any other waking activity, including time spent in school (TV Turnoff
Network, n.d.; Walsh, 2001). In contrast, the National Institute on
Media and the Family reports that in an average week, kids spend � hour
interacting directly with dad, 2 � hours with mom, 5 hours on homework, and 2
hours reading (Walsh, 2001). During
weekday evenings, the first hour of primetime television � the time when
networks and their advertisers are targeting adults specifically � is seen by
33% of American children ages 2-11 (Hamilton, 1998). Consumption of television
rises for all age groups on the weekend, but especially for children. One
particularly telling statistic is that at 10:00am on any given Saturday,
approximately 60% of all American children are watching television (Comstock
& Scharrer, 1999). At the rate
Americans watch television, a child who grows up and lives to be 75 will have
spent 9 years of his life in front of the TV (Kubey, & Csikszentmihalyi,
2002).
����������� Since
it�s inception, television has been the
dominant form of media. However, it is no longer the near "single
source" of entertainment and information that it once was (Groebel, 2001).
More recently, other types of media, including computers and video games, have
become commonplace. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by the year 2000, 42%
of American households contained at least one member who routinely used the
Internet at home (Fox, 2002). Recent analyses indicate a trend among children
and adolescents to spend more time with computers and less time with
television. Youth also report preferring computers to more traditional media
like television (Strasburger & Wilson, 2002).
����������� In the past ten years, the video
game industry has boomed, as video games of all kinds have become extremely
popular among young people. Annual video game industry sales consistently
outpace sales of movie tickets (Elmer-Dewitt, 1993; Hettrick, 1995; Walsh,
1999). Despite the recession, video game
sales increased by 43% in 2001, skyrocketing to $9.4 billion in the U.S.
(Markoff, 2002). Recent surveys of video game consumption are consistent
with these enormous dollar figures, showing that upwards of 90% of American
children between the ages of 2 and 17 play video and computer games regularly
and/or have video game systems in their homes (Funk, 1993; Walsh, 2001). Older
teens and college students also play a lot of video games. According to one
report, approximately 15% of young men entering college play at least one hour
of video games per day in an average week (Cooperative Institutional Research
Program, 1999). This figure appears to have been steadily rising in recent
years. Video game industry executive Doug
Lowenstein attributed some of the growth of the industry to the fact that two
generations of children had grown up with video games and interactive
technology (Markoff, 2002).��
How
Much Violence is in the Media?
����������� The rise in media consumption has
important implications for society. Cultural norms and values are reflected in
(and some say determined by) the media. As such, increases in violence depicted
in the media have raised concerns over the impact of this violence on society.
Before discussing this issue in detail, it is important to first outline what
constitutes media violence.
Defining media violence. The National Television Violence Study (NTVS, 1998) � a comprehensive examination of the content of American television programs � defines media violence as:
�Any overt depiction of a credible threat of physical force or the actual use of such force intended to physically harm an animate being or group of beings. Violence also includes certain depictions of physically harmful consequences against an animate being or group that occurs as a result of unseen violent means. Thus there are three primary types of violent depictions: credible threats, behavioral acts, and harmful consequences. (p. 41)�
Although some other definitions differ slightly (e.g., Center for Media and Public Affairs, 1999), most scholars generally agree with the definition provided in the NTVS. In Global Study on Children's Media Behavior, Jo Groebel (2001), Director General of the European Institute for the Media, concludes that, over a broad range of research methodologies (e.g., content analyses, behavioral research, cultural studies), and settings (e.g., North American, Western European, Asian, African), the terms "aggression" and "violence" in the media are defined generally as "behavior that leads to harm of another person."�
����������� Potter (1999) analyzed how
theorists, content analysts and the public define violence and aggression.
Starting with a scholarly definition that focuses on causing harm to another,
he notes that scientists disagree over specifics such as whether intent
matters, whether to include both physical and verbal aggression, and whether
non-human targets and off-screen events should be included. Such differences
may affect the outcomes of content analyses, and as such reports can vary in
their conclusions concerning the amount of violence on television and in other
media. Potter also found what he called a �profound� difference between what
the public considers violent and how scientists conceptualize violence. For
example, the public does not consider cartoons as violent, although scientists
note that cartoons feature some of the highest rates of violence found in the
media. The public becomes concerned when they are shocked or offended by what
they see, and hence the graphicness of media violence is the most important
factor for many. Critics, then, conclude that scientists use poor definitions
of media violence, but Potter contends that the scientists� definitions are not
poor, but reflect different concerns: The public is concerned with being
shocked by what they watch and scientists are concerned that the public will be
harmed by what they watch, whether or not it is perceived as shocking (Potter,
1999).
Violence on television. As television became more widely consumed over the
past half-century, it also became increasingly violent, a fact that has raised
concerns among many social policy-makers. Over thirty years ago, consensus was
already building as to the dangers of violence on American television, as
indicated by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence
in 1969: �The preponderance of the available research evidence strongly
suggests�that violence in television programs can and does have adverse effects
upon audiences� (cited in Berkowitz, 1993, p. 199). Nevertheless, entertainment
industry officials have been reluctant to embrace this conclusion. Still,
following a 1972 report by the Surgeon General of the United States, which concluded,
�there is a causative relationship between televised violence and subsequent
antisocial behavior,� some industry executives appeared convinced of the
evidence and pledged to �manage program planning accordingly� (Communications
Subcommittee, 1972). In a more recent policy statement, the National Cable
Television Association (1993) condemned the �gratuitous use of violence
depicted as an easy and convenient solution to human problems�, and vowed to
�strive to reduce the frequency of such exploitative uses of violence�� (p.1).
The Network Television Association (1992) made similar promises.
����������� What has been the outcome of this
careful program planning? The answer, unfortunately, is that violent
programming has steadily increased over the past 30 years. Research reports
published in the early 1970�s indicated that by age 14, the average child had
witnessed more than 11,000 murders on television (Looney, 1971). This figure
has dramatically increased, with more recent reports indicating that the
average American child now witnesses about 10,000 violent crimes (e.g., murder,
rape, and assault) per year on television- about 200,000 total violent crimes
by the time they are teens (Signorielli, Gerbner, & Morgan, 1995).
Moreover, the authors of the NTVS (1998) reported that 61% of television
programs contain violence. Other reports contend that the figure for prime time
network programs � those that young people are most likely to watch � is more
than 70% (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994). Violent acts occur
5 times per hour in primetime programs and 20 times per hour in children�s
programs (Strasburger, & Wilson, 2002). Fully two-thirds of children�s
programming contains violence, making these shows more violent than all other
genres except feature films and drama series. All indications are that these
figures will continue to climb.�
����������� The 1990�s saw an increase in the
number of popular children�s programs with violent themes, and particularly
those in which the �heroes� use violent means to solve problems or settle
disputes (e.g., Power Rangers, Power Puff Girls). According to the NTVS (1998),
at least 10% of the perpetrators of violence can be categorized as �heroes.�
Furthermore, the majority (68%) of children�s programming with violent content
was presented in a humorous context. Trotta (2001) explains that this
combination of violence and humor plays a major role in desensitizing children
to violence (an issue discussed in more detail in a later section). Gerbner
also explains that media producers often mix violence and humor to increase the
appeal of the violence to the audience (Jhally, 1994). This helps create the
illusion that violence is fun and largely without negative consequences, thus
encouraging violence in the viewer. Bushman and Huesmann (2001) agree that
unpunished violence perpetrated by attractive heroes provide what they call the
"best" prescription for encouraging imitation of violent scripts and
adoption of pro-violence beliefs and attitudes.
����������� Table 1 contains percentages of the
main types of violent content as a function of program genre and contextual
variables identified by the NTVS (1998). The violent content variables were
rated according to three levels of analysis: the program, the scene, and the
violent interaction (see left column of Table 1). Percentages are reported by
program genre to illustrate how children�s programs compare to other types of
programs. As shown in Table 1, the percentage of Children�s programs containing
excessive violence (9 or more violent interactions) exceeded that found in
Comedies, Music Videos and Reality programs. The majority of violent
interactions (58%) in children�s programs involved repeated attacks from the
same perpetrator to the same target (e.g., repeated punching). Most violent
children�s programs show only short-term negative consequences for targets of
violence (67%), some (26%) show no negative consequences, and only 6% show
long-term negative consequences for targets. Use of the body as a weapon in
violent interactions in children�s programs (43%) is more frequent than in
violent interactions in Dramas (31%), Movies (39%), and Reality shows (25%),
which are more likely to depict guns as weapons. These depictions have real
consequences for aggression in society. Research on observational learning
suggests that children who view aggressive behavior involving the body (e.g.,
biting and kicking) are likely to imitate the behavior (e.g., Bandura, 1973,
1983), which is likely to result in harm to child peers. Other research
indicates that the repeated pairing in the media of guns with violence leads to
the formation of permanent links in memory, such that the mere presence of a
gun enhances the likelihood of aggressive responding (e.g., Anderson, Benjamin,
& Bartholow, 1998; Bartholow, Anderson, Carnagey, & Benjamin, 2002;
Berkowitz & LePage, 1967).��
����������� In a recent report, the Parents Television Council, a grass-roots organization that promotes �family friendly� television programming, examined the content of television�s traditional �family hour� of programming, defined as between 8 and 9pm Monday through Saturday and 7-9pm on Sunday (Parents Television Council, 1999). The study found that the major TV networks� �family hour� programming has grown increasingly more sexual, explicit, profane, and violent. The PTC study found that the percentage of violent programs broadcast per hour on the major networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, UPN, and WB) had nearly doubled since 1997, the last time the family hour content had been studied. In all, only 24% of family hour programs were deemed �family friendly,� which was defined as �programs that promote responsible themes and traditional values� (Parents Television Council, 1999, Overview and Background section, � 1). The authors cite the reason for this �coarsening� of the family hour as economic in nature: the programmers want to market to a young adult audience and so have created content they think will attract that audience.
����������� Violence in other forms of media.
More recently developed forms of entertainment media for young people can be
even more graphic and violent than what appears on television. This is
particularly true of video games. As mentioned previously, an overwhelming
majority of children play video games daily or weekly. Perhaps the most
alarming aspect of the popularity of these games is that a majority of the most
popular ones are extremely violent in nature, involving brutal mass killings as
the primary strategy for winning the game, and containing extremely gory
graphics to depict it all (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Bartholow &
Anderson, 2002; Dietz, 1998; Provenzo, 1991; Buchman & Funk, 1996; Funk,
Flores, Buchman, & Germann, 1999). This fact came to light very publicly in
1993 U.S. Senate hearings examining whether violence in video games posed a
public health risk, hosted by Joseph Lieberman (Democrat from Connecticut).
Although at that time only 10% of video games available for the home market
were identified as violent in nature, the violent games � particularly Mortal
Kombat and Street Fighter II � overwhelmingly dominated the market
(Kent, 2001). One outcome from these hearings was the industry-wide rating
system for video games, which was intended to give parents the information
necessary to determine which games were age-appropriate for their kids.
Unfortunately, the rating system so far appears to have failed to protect most
kids from exposure to violent games. Part of the blame for this failure
apparently belongs to parents. In a recent survey, 90% of teens in grades 8
through 12 reported that their parents never check the ratings of video games
before allowing them to be purchased, and only 1% had ever prevented a purchase
based on a game�s rating (Walsh, 2000; also see Gentile & Walsh, 2002).
Parents should not be held fully responsible, however, because ratings provided
by the video game industry often do not match those provided by parents or
their game-playing kids (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Funk et al., 1999; Walsh
& Gentile, 2001).
����������� Another outcome of the Senate hearings of 1993 was the
strong encouragement from both the Senate panel and several media experts who
testified for industry officials to institute a voluntary, industry-wide cap on
the level of violence in their games. Just as television executives have done
for over 30 years, video game industry heads have ignored this advice. A recent
content analysis of top selling PC video games found that 60% of the games
contained a main theme of violence, with 17% of those depicting sexualized
violence (Dill, Gentile, Richter & Dill, 2001). Believing that realistic
depictions of violence are theoretically more likely to incite violence in the
player, Dill et al. rated the realism of game content, finding that two thirds
of the violent games portrayed realistic (defined as existing or able to exist
in the real world) targets and that 92% portrayed realistic weapons. Dietz
(1998) also analyzed the content of top selling console video games and found
that 79% of the games included aggression and that 21% of these games depicted
violence towards women.
����������� Finally, there is some discrepancy
in the literature as to the amount of violence contained in music videos. For
example, some reports indicate that, overall, about 15% of the videos on
popular cable music channels (e.g., MTV, VH-1, BET) contain violence (e.g.,
Durant et al., 1997; Smith & Boyson, 2002). On the other hand, findings
from the NTVS (1998) indicated that 53% of music videos contained violent
scenes (see Table 1) (also see Strasburger & Wilson, 2002). This apparent
discrepancy could be a function of different methods of coding what is violent,
as discussed previously. In addition, part of the discrepancy might reflect
differences in the music genres examined. For example, whereas nearly a third
of rap and heavy metal music videos contain violence, less than 10% of adult
contemporary and rhythm and blues videos do (Strasburger, & Wilson, 2002).
Rap music that includes misogynistic lyrics is associated with aggression
toward women in the laboratory (Barongan & Nagayama Hall, 1995).
Why is there So Much Violence in the Media?
�We live in a violent society. Art imitates the modes
of life, not the other way around: It would be better�to clean society than to
clean up the reflection of that society.�
����������������������� (Zev
Braun, CBS television executive [�Violence Bill Debated in Washington,� 1990]).
����������� �The television industry is merely
holding a mirror to American society.�
����������������������������������� (Howard
Stringer, CBS television executive [cited in West, 1993])
����������� Media executives� publicly claim
that the reason for violence in the media is that society is filled with
violence, and the media have a responsibility to accurately depict society in
their products. Here, we offer what we believe to be the real reasons, based on
economic realities of the media industry, for the unreal levels of violence
depicted in television, movies, and video games.
Media Marketing: Economic Reasons for Violence in Media
If the average person were asked, �What is the purpose of the media?� chances are the response would be something like, �to inform and entertain the public.� Indeed, broadcasting licenses are awarded (at essentially no cost) to television networks on the understanding that they broadcast in �the public interest, convenience, and necessity� (Hamilton, 1998, p. 33). From this perspective, it would appear that networks determine what to broadcast based on what the public appears to want. However, the true purpose of television is not so much to inform and entertain as to provide an audience for product advertisements. Perhaps the most obvious clue to this fact is the daytime drama, or �soap opera.� As implied by their name, soap operas were invented as a vehicle for marketing cleaning products, and aired during the daytime hours when men were presumed to be at work while most women � those most likely to care about and buy cleaning products � stayed home. The first televised soap opera (�Search for Tomorrow�) aired on CBS in 1951, though the concept was actually borrowed from radio programs dating back several years. To this day, advertisements accompanying programs that air during the daytime hours are primarily for household products, and are primarily aimed at women. Thus, from the start, media and marketing executives have been targeting specific audiences with the types of programs they are assumed to like, in order to sell specific kinds of products.
It is an understatement to note that advertising is a huge business. Annually advertisers spend approximately $150 billion to sponsor TV and radio programs, in the hopes of making two-to-three times as much in return from media consumers who buy their products and services (Fox, 2002). From the 1970s to the 1990s, the daily number of ads targeted at the average American jumped from 560 to 3,000 (Fox, 2002). In that same time frame, the number of ads to which children were exposed increased from 20,000 per year (Adler et al., 1977) to more than 40,000 per year (Kunkel & Gantz, 1992; also see Strasburger, 2001). Children represent an especially captive audience for TV ads, because research shows that children (especially those younger than 5 years) do not discriminate between programs and advertisements (e.g., Levin, Petros, & Petrella, 1982; Ward, Reale, & Levinson, 1972). Even somewhat older children who can discriminate programs from ads at a perceptual level often do not recognize the persuasive intent of those ads (see Kunkel, 2001). Findings such as these prompted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1978 to attempt to ban all advertising aimed at children (Fox, 2002).
However, precisely the opposite has come to pass. For example, since its inception in 1989, Channel One � a television network ostensibly meant to inform children about current events � has been broadcast directly into American school classrooms. The main purpose of Channel One, as with all television, is selling. As the president of Channel One told an audience of youth marketers in 1994, �The biggest selling point to advertisers [is that]� we are forcing kids to watch two minutes of commercials. The advertiser gets a group of kids who cannot go to the bathroom, cannot change the station, who cannot listen to their mother yell in the background�� (cited in Fox, 1992, p. 25). Hence, when viewing time at school and home is considered, the average child can virtually never escape television and the marketing machine that powers it.
In his book Selling out America�s Children,
Walsh (1994) discusses how television programming and advertising, two
influential voices in American culture today, work together to shape our
values. The job of media executives is to hold an audience in order to sell
their advertisers� products.� In order
to hold their audience, they do what it takes to get the audience�s attention.
The most common attention-grabbing topics are sex, violence and humor, and
consequently, television commonly features these topics (Walsh, 1994, 2001; see
also Jhally, 1994). In the end, as a result of seeking the most profitable
programs, media executives are creating programming that promotes violence,
irresponsible sex, and materialism. In this respect, media executives are
profiting from a product that is, in many ways, unhealthy for their customers,
especially children. Younger viewers are often sought after because
their relative inexperience with ads, and the fact that their product and brand
name preferences are less firmly entrenched make them potentially more easily
influenced than older audiences.
Hamilton (1998) provides a detailed analysis of the use of violence on television as a marketing strategy to ensure a viewing audience. He explains, �the portrayal of violence is used as a competitive tool in both entertainment and news shows to attract particular viewing audiences (p. 3),� and that these audiences are chosen based on the kinds of products and services they are likely to purchase. This, then, determines what kinds of ads will be shown during particular time slots, and the prices charged by the networks for showing these ads. Demographic characteristics of those who appear to prefer violent programs are thus very important to television executives. There are some data to suggest that a large audience of young men and women � the demographic groups considered most attractive by advertisers � watches violent programs. Hamilton (1998) reports the results of a large survey in which adults in three age categories (18-34, 35-50, and 50+) were asked about their viewing habits. Results showed that 73% of men in the 18-34 group were heavy consumers of violent programming and that overall, men in this age category answered yes to an average of almost 5 out of 10 questions related to viewing violent shows. The next highest-viewing group was women in the 18-34 age group, 60% of whom were considered heavy consumers of televised violence.
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of the struggle for survival is how easily organisms can be harmed by that which they desire. The trout is caught by the fisherman�s lure, the mouse by cheese�Realizing when a diversion has gotten out of control is one of the great challenges of life. (Kubey, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, � 1)
����������� From our review in a previous section, it is safe to conclude that media consumption is the primary free-time activity of most Americans. The question is why do we watch so much?� Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) say that we are psychologically addicted to the electronic screen. They cite the example, familiar to many of us, of people trying to have a conversation in a room where a television is playing. Periodically, during both interesting and uninteresting conversations, talking ceases and everyone turns to the television screen. As we will see, this is largely because advertisers are experts at getting our attention.�
����������� Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) explain that TV repeatedly triggers our orienting response � the instinctive reaction to pay attention to any sudden or novel stimulus. This orienting response evolved in the species because it helps us identify potential threats and react to them. Producers of media use features such as edits, cuts, zooms, pans and sudden noises to continually trigger our orienting response. In short, they exploit basic psychological and biological �instincts� to get and keep our attention. In ads, action sequences and music videos, the orienting response is triggered at a rate of once per second (Kubey, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002); essentially, this amounts to a continuous cueing of attention.
����������� Similarly, the National Institute on Media and the Family describes what they call �Jolts and Tricks� (NIMF, n.d.; Walsh, 2001). Jolts are devises used by the media that are designed to engage our emotions. The most common emotional jolts are appeals to sex, violence, humor and belonging needs. �Tricks� are technical features designed to grab our attention, as described above in the discussion of the orienting response. Common �tricks� used to grab our attention include special effects, edits, pacing, music, camera angles, graphics, color, volume, lighting, makeup and animation (NIMF, n.d.; Walsh, 2001). So, not only does the content of programs attract attention, but so does the way in which that content is presented. Media producers know that when an audience�s emotions are engaged, that audience is more vulnerable to suggestion (e.g., Cialdini, 2001). In this case, the suggestion takes the form of advertising products. As such, media producers believe that grabbing our attention eventually translates into grabbing our dollars.
����������� So what might be wrong with allowing media to grab our attention? After all, as Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) point out, sometimes television is enjoyable and can offer an outlet for fun and relaxation. When, then, does it become a problem? Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi report that two out of five adults and seven out of ten children say that they watch too much TV. Also, viewers often feel that they can�t stop watching TV. Additionally, while people report increased good moods after activities such as sports and hobbies, they report being in the same mood or in a worse mood after watching TV (Kubey & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).�
Studies show that prolonged viewing is less relaxing and satisfying than low or moderate viewing. However, this may not be apparent to the viewer because the relaxation response occurs soon after viewing begins, thus the viewer associates relaxation with watching television.��� Turning off the TV after a viewing session is associated with more stress and with dysphoric rumination. However, this is not because turning off the TV is stressful, but because the initial relaxation response has faded with prolonged exposure. Thus, people end up watching television for longer than they say they want to, under the incorrect assumption that more television will increase relaxation. Ironically, heavy TV viewers enjoy TV less than light TV viewers do (Kubey, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).
����������� Although media executives publicly
deny that market pressures drive the levels of violence in their programs,
privately they often point out that such pressures impair their ability to
reduce television violence (Hamilton, 1998). In debating the issue of
television violence in Congress in 1988, Representative Dan Glickman observed,
�An obstacle to voluntary reduction in violence by networks is that, in this
intensely competitive business, it is commonly held that violence sells�
(Congressional Record, 1988). Despite the prevailing industry ethos that
networks must broadcast violent programs to remain competitive, recent data
indicate that they may be hurting themselves, in addition to their viewing
audiences, by doing so.
����������� �From a competitive advantage perspective, the argument that
programs are violent in response to public demand appears to be unfounded. For
example, Gerbner (1994) notes that, �the most highly rated programs are seldom
violent� (cited in Hamilton, 1998, p. 32). Gerbner compared the average Nielson
ratings (the industry standard for determining viewership of particular
programs and networks) and shares (i.e., proportion of the television market at
any particular time) for 104 violent programs and 103 nonviolent programs aired
between 1988 and 1993, and reported that average rating for violent programs
was 11.1, whereas the average rating for nonviolent programs was 13.8.
Similarly, the average share for violent programs was 18.5 compared to 22.5 for
nonviolent programs. Consistent with these findings, Hamilton (1998) reported
that when theatrically produced movies are shown on television along with
warnings about content (for violence, nudity, or language), �broadcasters run
more network promotions and fewer general product ads, consistent with the
theory that warnings cause advertiser pullouts that lower prices (p.
165).��
����������� It is generally thought that
advertisers pull product ads during programs with warning labels out of fear
that consumers will be offended by the program and potentially associate it
with their product (Hamilton, 1998). However, recent findings suggest an even
better reason for advertisers not to sponsor violent programs. In a series of 3
experiments, Bushman (1998) exposed participants to commercials embedded in
either violent or nonviolent film clips, and later asked them to recall as many
of the commercial messages as they could. Across experiments, participants who
saw the violent film clips consistently showed poorer memory for commercials
than those exposed to the nonviolent film clips. Moreover, Bushman reported
that violent film clips made participants angry, and that level of anger served
to impair memory (i.e., anger was a mediating variable). These findings were
confirmed by those of a recent meta-analysis (Bushman & Phillips, 2001),
showing that all types of TV viewers (children, adults, those who do and do not
like to watch violent TV) are less likely to remember the content of
advertisements during shows that contain violence. Recent findings indicate
that sexual content produces similar impairment on memory for ads (Bushman
& Bonacci, 2002). The implication is that although violent (and sexually
explicit) television shows may attract large audiences and exposure to the
commercials, the viewers may not remember the content of the commercial
messages, which ultimately will decrease the likelihood that investment in
commercials will result in increased product sales.
����������� In addition to potential revenue
losses associated with decreased advertisement effectiveness, it can be argued
that the constant broadcasting of violence in the media produces economic and
other costs for society for which media corporations are not held responsible.
Media corporations profit from sponsorship of their programs with little regard
for how their products affect viewers. Hamilton (1998) has argued that this
phenomenon� products or byproducts resulting in costs to those who don�t profit
from the products �is not unlike the health and monetary costs incurred by the
public through industrial pollution. Just as an industrial process can produce
wastes that pollute the local air and groundwater (resulting in acute and
chronic health effects to local inhabitants), so too do programs and other
events portrayed by the media produce costs to individual viewers and society
as a whole. Hamilton has labeled this phenomenon the theory of negative
externalities.
����������� According to Hamilton (1988),
television and cable networks operate according to a relatively simple formula
involving the number of viewers for a given program (within a given demographic),
the number of competing networks offering a similar type of program, the amount
that advertisers or cable subscribers are willing to pay for a program, and the
costs involved in producing or acquiring a program. What these economic
formulas are missing is the costs borne by the viewers. Several significant
costs can be identified. For one, television generally increases passivity
among viewers, leading to less exercise, increased food intake (generally of
high calorie snack foods), and ultimately a less healthy populace. For example,
the link between television viewing, decreased physical activity, and obesity
(particularly in children) is well documented (e.g., Andersen, Crespo,
Bartlett, Cheskin, & Pratt, 1998; Crespo et al., 2001; Dennison, Erb, &
Jenkins, 2002; Dietz & Gortmaker, 1985). Furthermore, a recent study showed
that children who were randomly assigned to watch less television showed less
weight gain over 7 months than children whose television viewing was not
altered (Robinson, 1999). Other costs associated with media violence have been
reviewed elsewhere (e.g., Anderson & Gentile, this volume; Wilson &
Strasburger, this volume). However, the tools that economists, accountants, and
public health officials use to determine health risks associated with hazardous
wastes (e.g., animal testing and lifetime excess cancer risk calculations)
cannot be used by researchers to determine risks associated with violent
television programs, video games, and music lyrics. While many of the elements
are present to estimate such risks, the fact that media violence may have
substantial long term effects brought about through repeated exposure to
violent programs, and that such risks can only be estimated through
correlational data, hinders researchers� ability to effectively estimate the
degree to which a particular program is responsible for a person�s
actions.�
����������� Hamilton (1998) states that
estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding �lifetime excess
cancer risk� due to a particular hazardous waste site are fraught with
controversy. Estimates of risks associated with a given television program,
video game, or music lyrics may be even more controversial due to sparse or
nonexistent data on long term effects of specific programs and consumers� general
belief that they are immune to such effects (as discussed in the next section).
Producers of violent media capitalize on this missing element in the research.
We suspect that to the degree that the risks and costs associated with violent
content of a television show, movie, video game or song lyric remains
uncertain, those in the media industry will continue to base their decisions
concerning whether to broadcast violence on profits and direct costs without
considering the costs to consumers or ultimate costs to society at large.
The
Impact of Violence in the Media on Society
����������� The ill effects of media violence on
society are well documented (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Anderson &
Gentile, this volume; Wilson & Strasburger, this volume; see also Bushman
& Anderson, 2001; Bushman & Huesmann, 2001; Smith & Donnersetin,
1998), and so will not be detailed here. On the basis of the accumulating
evidence, six major professional organizations that focus on public health
issues � the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric
Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry � recently signed a joint statement attesting
to the dangers of media violence for children: �At this time, well over 1,000
studies�point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and
aggressive behavior in some children (Joint Statement, 2000, p.1).
����������� The evidence (and endorsement of the
evidence by experts in the field) apparently does not convince media
executives, however. Much like tobacco company CEOs did for decades, media
executives have consistently told the public that there is no proof that
dangerous content of their products leads to any ill effects on society. For
example, in a May 12, 2000 interview, Doug Lowenstein, president of the Digital
Software Association, told CNN�s The World Today, �There is absolutely
no evidence, none, that playing a violent video game leads to aggressive
behavior.� Similarly, Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association
of America, has said, �If you cut the wires of all TV sets today, there would
be no less violence on the streets in two years� (Moore, 1993, p. 3007). Apparently,
media executives believe that while the advertisements that they sell to
corporations have an influence over the behavior of viewers, the violent
content of their programs has no such influence (see Berkowitz, 1993; Bushman
& Anderson, 2001).
����������� Media executives are not alone in
their apparent belief that media violence is harmless. Many individuals in the
lay public also seem largely unaware of the deleterious effects of consistent
exposure to violence in the media. For example, in one recent poll conducted by
PC Data magazine, respondents indicated that they believed video games do not
cause aggression ("Poll says games are safe," 2000). Such beliefs
likely are based on personal experience; i.e., �I�ve been watching violent
shows all of my life, and I�ve never killed anyone.� However, media violence
effects are often more subtle than such statements would imply, sometimes
leading indirectly to increased aggression, or to decreased helping and
compassion, via psychological mechanisms or processes that can be slow to
develop and difficult to recognize. For example, many scholars have
hypothesized that, over time, repeated exposure to violence in the media can
desensitize viewers to real world violence (see Bushman & Anderson, 2001).
That is, although viewing violence is thought to initially provoke fear,
anxiety, disgust, or other negative affective states, repeated exposure to
violence appears to reduce its psychological impact, such that violent images
eventually do not elicit these negative states (e.g., see Berkowitz, 1993;
Griffiths & Shuckford, 1989; Rule & Ferguson, 1986).
����������� The concept of desensitization has
been applied to understanding a number of phenomena in the psychological
literature. Perhaps the most well known example is the use of systematic
desensitization to treat patients in a phobia or anxiety clinic. Behavioral
therapists have known for decades that systematic exposure to a threatening
stimulus (e.g., a snake), coupled with relaxation and/or enjoyment, is
effective in reducing the fear and anxiety associated with that stimulus.
According to Wolpe (1982), after repeated exposure to an anxiety-provoking
stimulus under relaxing conditions, �the stimulus eventually loses its ability
to evoke anxiety. Successively �stronger� stimuli [can then be] introduced and
similarly treated� (p. 133). For example, treatment for a snake phobic might
include first showing a stylized drawing of a snake, then a photo of a small
snake, then a photo of a large python, then a film depicting snakes in motion,
then seeing a live snake, then watching people interact with snakes, and so on,
until the patient is eventually able to hold a live snake while remaining
totally relaxed (e.g., Bandura & Adams, 1977).
����������� The long behavioral tradition in
systematic desensitization suggests that repeated exposure to increasingly gory
and realistic portrayals of violence in the mass media may desensitize people
to violence in the real world. Research shows that media violence initially
provokes fear, anxiety, and sleep disturbances (e.g., Cantor, 1998, 2001;
Harrison & Cantor, 1998). However, violent media are typically consumed in
conditions of relaxation and pleasure, and with no apparent adverse
consequences for the individual. As such, repeated exposure may cause the initial
adverse reactions to fade such that people become less responsive to real
violence. A number of studies have found support for this basic premise, in
that participants exposed to violent media (e.g., �slasher� films, televised
police action, violent boxing matches) are less physiologically aroused by
subsequent real world violence than are participants exposed to nonviolent
media (e.g., Bushman, Carnagey, & Anderson, 2002; Cline, Croft, &
Courier, 1973; Lazarus, Speisman, Mordkoff, & Davison, 1962; Linz, Donnerstein,
& Adams, 1989; Thomas, 1982; Thomas, Horton, Lippincott, & Drabman,
1977).
As noted previously, the public becomes concerned about the level of violence in the media only when they are shocked or offended by what they see. Over years of exposure to violent media, the process of desensitization changes what shocks or offends, indeed changes peoples� very definitions of what is violent (see Bushman et al., 2002; Linz et al., 1989). This process leads to a kind of induced complacency, whereby violence may seem more commonplace and appropriate, aggressive thoughts and feelings may come to mind more easily, and aggressive responses (including verbal, gestural, and physical responses) in interpersonal situations may become more likely. It is therefore understandable why most people believe they are not harmed by media violence, despite scientific evidence to the contrary.
What's really real?
������������� �And it�s true we are immune, when fact is fiction and TV reality.� (From �Sunday, bloody Sunday� by rock music group U2, 1983)
����������� Recently, there has been a growing interest in the media to depict "real life." "Reality" television, as it is called, has included such popular shows as the "Survivor" series. Nielsen recently reported �Survivor II� as the most popular program for children aged 2 to 11 in the 2000-2001 viewing season (Strasburger, & Wilson, 2002). MTV shows its "Real World," and even the learning channel promises "life unscripted."
����������� Ironically, while audiences long for reality in their media, their own lives are becoming less real. Educator Roy F. Fox claims, "In today's culture, reality plays second fiddle to representations of reality" (Fox, 2002, p.24). Fox explains:
The images, voices and sounds of electronic media overwhelm their real counterparts.� While Huck [Finn] may have ruminated over his last conversations with Tom Sawyer, the minds of today's kids reverberate with messages, impressions and values from an infinite number of electronic sources, each one clamoring, in uniquely compelling ways, to be heard, to be believed, to be real.� (p.23-24).
����������� While the audience desires depictions of reality, what we see on television is often patently unreal. Bushman and Huesman (2001) speak to the unreality in the world of media violence, noting that the frequency of aggressive crimes occurring in the real world is significantly lower than that depicted on television. For example, FBI statistics show that 0.2% of the crimes occurring in the real world are murders, whereas 50% of the crimes occurring on "reality-based" television are murders (Oliver, 1994). Furthermore, if the murder rate depicted on TV were applied to �real� life, the entire population of the United States would be wiped out in just 50 days (Medved, 1995).
����������� With children spending the majority of their free time plugged into media, the unreal world becomes theirs. For example, Fox (2002) tells how children often �replay� commercials they�ve seen on television by acting them out, singing the slogans, or even including them in their art projects at school. Some kids, he relates, even dream about commercials, and one boy, when asked to do a self-portrait, created a replica of a character from a television commercial for potato chips (Fox, 2002). Rather than actively participating in life during their own free time through involvement in sports, art, and outdoor play, children in our culture watch other people do things, with the increasing hope that what they watch will be "real." Furthermore, many kids hope that someday others will watch them on television, thus completing the cycle (D. Gentile, personal communication, August 7, 2002). Advertisers are fully aware of this dynamic, as illustrated by commercials for Gatorade brand sports drinks that appeared a few years ago, suggesting that kids all want to be �like Mike� (referring to basketball star Michael Jordan), and that drinking Gatorade would magically make this happen. Not only does this turn media representations of reality into kids� actual reality, it also fills their minds with a distorted view of the world they live in as a hyperviolent, hypersexual, hypermaterial place. In the end, this may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.�
In the end it all boils down to economics. Media professionals and advertisers create these unreal worlds in order to sell their products to the consumer, with special emphasis on child consumers because of the ease of persuading them and their own persuasive power with their parents. The marketing of media to children works so well that kids are "replaying" television commercials in school months after given commercials have stopped airing (Fox, 2002). In short, those who wish to profit financially from them are manipulating children�s everyday lives, and turning them into consumers above all else.
References
Adler, R., Friedlander, B., Lesser, G., Meringoff, L., Robertson, T., Rossiter, J., & Ward, S. (1977). Research on the effects of television advertising to children: A review of the literature and recommendations for future research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Andersen, R. E., Crespo, C. J., Bartlett, S. J., Cheskin, L. J., & Pratt, M. (1998). Relationship of physical activity and television watching with body weight and level of fatness among children. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 938-942.
Anderson, C. A., Benjamin, A. J. Jr., & Bartholow, B. D. (1998). Does the gun pull the trigger? Automatic priming effects of weapon pictures and weapon names. Psychological Science, 9, 308-314.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of
violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive
affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review
of the scientific literature. Psychological
Science, 12,
353-359.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). The effects of media violence on society. Science, 295, 2377-2379.
Aronson, E. (1999). The Social Animal. New York: Worth.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1983). Psychological mechanisms of aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol.1, pp. 1-40). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287-310.
Barongan, C., & Nagayama Hall, G. C. (1995). The influence of misogynous rap music on sexual aggression against women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 195-207.
Bartholow, B. D., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: Potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-290.
Bartholow, B. D., Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Benkamin, A. J. Jr. (2002). Individual differences in knowledge structures and priming: The weapons priming effect in hunters and nonhunters. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression:
Its causes, consequences, and control. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Berkowitz, L., & LePage,
A. (1967). Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 7, 202-207.
Buchman, D. D., & Funk, J. B. (1996). Video and computer games in the �90s: Childrens� time commitment and game preference. Children Today, 24, 12-16.
Bushman, B. J. (1998). Effects of
television violence on memory of commercial messages.� Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 291-307.
Bushman, B. J., &
Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific
facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477-489.
Bushman, B. J., & Bonacci, A. M.
(2002). Violence and sex impair memory for television ads. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 557-564.
Bushman, B. J., Carnagey,
N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Video game violence desensitizes
players to real world violence. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001).� Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D.G. Singer & J.L. Singer (Eds.)� Handbook of Children and the Media.� Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
Bushman, B. J., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). If the television program bleeds, memory for the advertisement recedes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 44-47.
Cantor, J. (1998). "Mommy, I'm scared": How TV and movies frighten children and what we can do to protect them. San Diego, CA: Harvest/Harcourt.
Cantor, J. (2001). The media and children�s fears, anxieties, and perceptions of danger. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 207-221). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Center for Media and Public Affairs (1999, June).� Merchandizing mayhem: Violence in popular entertainment.� Abailable at http://www.cmpa.com/archive/viol98.htm.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: science and practice (4th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Cline, V. B., Croft, R. G., & Courrier, S. (1973). Desensitization of children to television violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 360-365.
Communications
Subcommittee. (1972). Hearings on the Surgeon General�s Report by the
Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior. Serial No.
92-52. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Comstock, G. A., & Scharrer, E. (1999). Television: What�s on, who�s watching, and what it means. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Congressional Record (1988). Floor debate on the Television Violence Act (H.R. 3848).
Cooperative Institutional Research Program (1999). Cooperative Institutional Research Program survey results. Ames, IA: Office of Institutional Research.
Crespo, C. J., Smith, E., Toiano, R. P., Bartlett, S. J., Macera, C. A., & Andersen, R. E. (2001). Television watching, energy intake, and obesity in U.S. children. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 155, 360-365.
Dennison, B. A., Erb, T. A., & Jenkins, P. L. (2002). Television viewing and television in bedroom associated with overweight risk among low-income preschool children. Pediatrics, 109, 1028-1035.
Derksen, D. J., & Strasburger, V. C. (1996).� Media and television violence:� Effects on violence, aggression, and antisocial behaviors in children.� In A. M. Hoffman (Ed.) Schools, violence, and society. Westport, CT:� Praeger.
Dietz, T. L. (1998). An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games: Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles, 38, 425-442.
Dietz, W.H., & Gortmaker, S. L. (1985). Do we fatten our children at the television set? Obesity and television viewing in children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 75, 807-812.
Dill, K. E., Gentile, D. A., Richter, W. A., & Dill, J.C. (2001, August).� Violence, race, sex and age in video games:� A content analysis.� Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Durant, R.H., Rich, M., Emans, S.J., Rome, B. S., Alfred, E., & Woods, B. R. (1997).
Violence
and weapon carrying in music videos: A content analysis. Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 443-448.
Elmer-Dewitt, P. (1993, September). The amazing video game boom. Time, 66-73.
Fox, R. F. (2002, Summer). Hucksters hook captive youngsters. Mizzou: The Magazine of the MU Alumni Association, 90, 22-27.� Available from the University of Missouri Alumni Association, 123 Donald W. Reynolds Alumni and Visitor Center, Columbia, MO 65211.
Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluation of the impact of violent video games. Clinical Pediatrics, 32, 86-90.
Funk, J. B., Flores, G., Buchman, D. D., & Germann, J. N. (1999). Rating electronic games: Violence is in the eye of the beholder. Youth & Society, 30, 283-312.
Gentile, D. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2002). A normative study of family media habits. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 157-178.
Gerbner, G. (1994, January 27). Highlights of the Television Violence Profile No. 16. Remarks prepared for the National Association of Television Executives Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL.
Griffiths, M. D., & Shuckford, G. L. J. (1989). Desensitization to television violence: A new model. New Ideas in Psychology, 7, 85-89.
Grossman, D., & Degaetano, G. (1999). Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill : A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence.� New York: Random House.
Groebel, J. (2001). Media Violence in Cross-Cultural Perspective.� In D.G. Singer & J.L. Singer (Eds.)� Handbook of Children and the Media.� Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
Hamilton, J. T. (1998). Channeling violence: The economic market for violent television programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harrison, K., & Cantor, J. (1999). Tales from the screen: Enduring fright reactions to scary media. Media Psychology, 1, 97-116.
Hettrick, S. (1995, May 11). Video games on target for $ 22 billion. Hollywood Reporter.
Jhally,
S. (Executive Producer/Director). (1994).�
The Killing Screens [Video recording]. (Available from Media Education Foundation, 26 Center Street, Northampton,
Massachusetts 01060)
Joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on
children: Congressional Public Health Summit.
(2000, July 26). Retrieved December 19, 2000, from:
http://www.senate.gov/~brownback/violence.pdf
Kent, S.
L. (2001). The ultimate history of video games. Roseville, CA: Prima
Publishing.
Kubey, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (February 23, 2002).� Television addiction is no mere metaphor. Scientific American.�
Kunlel, D. (2001). Children and television advertising. In D.G. Singer & J.L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 375-393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kunkel, D., & Gantz, W. (1992). Children�s television advertising in the multi-channel environment. Journal of Communication, 42, 134-152.
Lazarus, R. S., Speisman, M., Mordkoff, A. M., & Davison, L. A. (1962). A laboratory study of psychological stress produced by a motion picture film. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76, (34), Whole No. 553.
Levin, S., Petros, T., & Petrella, F. (1982). Preschoolers� awareness of television advertising. Child Development, 53, 933-937.
Linz, D., Donnerstein, E., & Adams, S. M. (1989). Physiological desensitization and judgments about female victims of violence. Human Communication Research, 15, 509-522.
Looney, G. (1971, October). Television and the child: What can be done? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Chicago, IL.
Markoff, J. (2002, May 24). Recession?� Don�t tell the video game industry. New York Times.� Retreived June 20, 2002 from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/24/technology/24GAME.html?ex=1023256208&ei=1&en=b044bbd10bda69d2.
Medved, M. (1995, October). Hollywood�s 3 big lies. Reader�s Digest, 147(882), 155-159.
Moore, J. W. (1993, December 18). Lights! Camera! It�s gun control time. National Journal, 3007.
National Cable Television Association. (1993, January). Industry policy statement regarding violence. Washington, DC: Author.
National Institute on Media and the Family (n.d.). Jolts and tricks: How the media hook kids [Video recording]. Available from the National Institute on Media and the Family, 606 24th Avenue South, Suite 606, Minneapolis, MN 55454.
National Television Violence Study, (1998).� National Television Violence Study (Vol. 3).� Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara, Center for Communication and Social Policy.
Network Television Association. (1992, December). Standards for depiction of violence in television programs. New York, NY: Author.
Nielsen Media Research (1998). Galaxy explorer. New York, NY: Author.
Oliver, M. B. (1994). Portrayals of crime, race, and aggression in �reality based� police shows: A content analysis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38, 179-192.
Parents
Television Council. (1999, August 31).� The
family hour: Worse than ever and headed for new lows.� Retrieved June 11, 2002 from http://www.parentstv.org/main/publications/reports/famhrstudy99/main.asp
Potter, W. J. (1999).�
In On media violence.�
(pp. 63-83).� Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Poll says games are safe. (1999, May 27).� Retrieved Feb. 1, 2000 from: http://pc.ign.com/articles/068/068231p1.html
Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense
of Nintendo. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U.G., Rideout, V. G., & Brodie,
M. (1999). Kids & the media @ the new millennium: Executive summary.
Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Robinson, T. M. (1999). Reducing childrens� television
viewing to prevent obesity: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 282, 1561-1567.
Rule,
B.G., & Ferguson, T.J. (1986). The effects of media violence on attitudes,
emotions, and cognitions. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 29-50.
Signorielli,
N., Gerbner, G., & Morgan, M. (1995). Violence on television: The cultural
indicators project. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 39,
278-283.
Smith, S. L. & Boyson, A. R. (2002). Violence in music videos: Examining the prevalence and context of physical aggression. Journal of Communication, 52, 61-83. �
Smith, S. L., & Donnerstein, E. (1998). Harmful effects of exposure to media violence: Learning of aggression, desensitization, and fear. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 167-202). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Strasburger, V. C. (2001). Children and TV advertising:
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral
Pediatrics, 22, 185.
Strasburger, V. C., & Wilson, B. J. (2002).� Children, adolescents, and the media.� Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, M.H. (1982). Physiological arousal, exposure to a relatively lengthy aggressive film, and aggressive behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 72-81.
Thomas, M.H., Horton, R.W., Lippincott, E.C., & Drabman, R.S. (1977). Desensitization to portrayals of real-life aggression as a function of exposure to television violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 450-458.
Trotta, L. (2001).� Children's advocacy groups. In D.G. Singer & J.L. Singer (Eds.)� Handbook of Children and the Media.� Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
TV Turnoff Network (n.d.).� TV facts and figures: TV undermines family life.� Retrieved September 4, 2002 from: http://www.tvturnoff.org/factsheets.htm
Violence bill debated in Washington: Most panelists argued against legislation. (1990, February 5). Broadcasting, 118(6), 77-79.
Walsh, D. A. (1994).� Selling out America�s children: How America puts profits before values-and what parents can do.� Minneapolis, MN: Fairview Press.
Walsh, D. A. (2001). Sixth annual video and computer game report card [On-line]. National Institute on Media and the Family. Retrieved September 5, 2002 from: http//www.mediafamily.org/research/vgrc/2001-2.shtml
Walsh, D. A. (2000, March 21). Interactive violence and children: Testimony submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology, United States Senate. Minneapolis, MN: National Institute on Media and the Family. Available at: http://www.mediafamily.org/press/senateviolence-full.shtml.
Walsh, D. A. (2001). Doctor Dave�s cyberhood. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Walsh, D. A., & Gentile, D. A. (2001). A validity test of movie, television, and video-game ratings. Pediatrics, 107, 1302-1308.
Ward, S., Reale, G., & Levinson, D. (1972). Children�s perceptions, explanations, and judgments of television advertising. A further exploration. In G. Comstock & E. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
West, W. (1993, July 5). TV�s bigwigs are a smash at the Capitol Hill comedy club. Insight on the news, 9(27), 40-41.
Wolpe, J. (1982). The practice of behavior therapy (3rd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.
|
|
Program Genre |
||||||
|
Type of Violent content |
All |
Children�s |
Comedy |
Drama |
Movies |
Music Videos |
|
|
Excessive violence |
32 |
31 |
5 |
40 |
59 |
3 |
17 |
|
Fantasy violence |
45 |
87 |
14 |
11 |
19 |
12 |
0 |
|
Realistic violence |
55 |
13 |
86 |
89 |
81 |
88 |
100 |
|
Punishment of �bad�
perpetrators |
55 |
59 |
47 |
66 |
56 |
27 |
45 |
|
Long-term negative
consequences for targets |
16 |
6 |
8 |
33 |
33 |
10 |
7 |
|
Short-term negative
consequences for targets |
55 |
67 |
44 |
49 |
49 |
41 |
47 |
|
No negative consequences
for targets |
29 |
26 |
48 |
18 |
17 |
49 |
45 |
|
Violence with blood and
gore |
14 |
1 |
1 |
21 |
24 |
9 |
16 |
|
Violence with humor |
42 |
68 |
89 |
16 |
32 |
14 |
8 |
|
Use of guns in violent
interactions |
26 |
12 |
15 |
41 |
33 |
18 |
45 |
|
Use of body as a weapon |
39 |
43 |
53 |
31 |
39 |
56 |
25 |
|
Repeated
perpetrator-target violence |
61 |
58 |
51 |
59 |
63 |
62 |
71 |
|
Overall proportion of
programs with violent content |
61 |
67 |
37 |
75 |
89 |
53 |
39 |
