Alright
After my last rant about how stupid it is for people to believe that there is NO link between Media Violence and aggression (yeah, that's what it was about) I thought I'd post my actual essay. Hehe. Yeah if you want to see me go from irate to semi-diplomatic, you should read my rant and then this.
The question of the Media Violence-Aggression Link
From the a scientific point of view, there is little debate about whether media violence is linked to aggression. The answer seems to be a resounding “yes” from scientific community. The questions seem to be how much/what kinds of aggression, how strongly correlated is media violence and aggression, where is the causality, and to what importance?
There are complex answers to what kind of aggression really seems promoted by media violence, and just how much violence it promotes. The definition of violence is called into question when we look at these issues. Some studies look at behavior, thoughts, emotions, or changes in ideals of violence, like the construct a person has of how much violence is too much. In July 2000, Congressional Public Health Summit created a joint statement that included the statement; “viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children”, saying violent media can affect all of these ideas of aggression.
Bushmen and Anderson focused on meta-analysis of behavioral aggression, assessing a sample size of over 43,000 over a total of 202 samples. The meta-analysis showed a significant correlation between media violence and behavioral aggression, which peaked in 2000 (their analysis stopped in 2000 for this study) at about 0.2 with a 99.9% confidence interval, a statistically significant link between violent media and aggression. They also showed the disparity between experimental and non-experimental studies. The more methodical experimental studies showed a much higher correlation, dismissing the biased idea that the more statistically significant studies on media violence and aggression are less methodical. (483-485)
Correlation research does have its limits in showing causality, but many studies have tried to get at the heart of directionality. Bushman and Anderson stated that the meta-analysis of the experimental studies showed effect sizes significantly greater than zero “establishing a causality link early in the history of media violence research” (pg 484). And in many studies, the short term effects are clearly demonstrated by paradigms where children watch a violent film and act more aggressively towards each other or some object, such as a Bobo-doll in classic experiments. Or even aggression towards a real life clown after watching an adult hit the clown-like Bobo-doll. (Leland, 47)
It’s harder to demonstrate clear causality in longitudinal studies because often it can only be done with correlations. In this case, ethics would be questionable in controlling what a child watches through childhood, particularly if it was thought to have a negative impact. But correlation longitudinal studies still provide useful information.
Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, and Eron (2003) looked at the long term effects of media violence from third grade into adult hood, a total period of 15 years. They used a composite measure of aggression that took into account the differences in aggression between men and women and created a single valid measure. TV. Violence viewing was a significant correlate with all aggression variables. Perceived realism of TV violence in childhood was significantly correlated with Men’s adult composite aggression .22 correlation p<.01, and even more highly significant correlates with Women’s composite aggression .25 score and Adult indirect aggression of .28, both of which had p < .001.
Identification with aggressive male characters was also among the most significant results, creating a .29 correlation at p<.001 for Men Adult Composite aggression, this variable was also correlated with Women’s adult composite aggression and indirect aggression. Identification with aggressive female characters showed significant correlation only with women’s aggression. In summary, TV violence and factors associated with it produced significant correlations with aggressive behavior, even after 15 years. And the fact that it is correlated after even 15 years suggests a directionality of the effect.
There is much importance to these findings. The fact that the correlation of media violence and aggression is only less than the correlation of Smoking and lung cancer, and is higher than second hand smoke and lung cancer, Exposure to lead and IQ scores in children, and calcium intake and bone mass, points out that, comparatively, this is a socially relevant finding.
Bushmann and Anderson suggest that it is comparative to TV advertisements, in that even if only 1% are affected in any significant way, that is a lot of people. If half the population of the U.S. watched violent television, and only 1% were affected, that would be 1.5 million more aggressive people. They also say that the cumulative effects are of the most concern. One violent movie is not “necessary and sufficient” cause for violence, but a lifetime of violent media is more than likely going to create a significantly more aggressive person than if the person had not been heavy consumer of such media.
Huesmann et. al holds that children are of the most concern when it comes to media violence. In fact, they go on to say “Media violence may have short-term effects on adults, but the real long term effects seem to occur only with children.” (pg 218). This puts the responsibility on the parents to control the consumption of violent media viewing in their house. But it also puts clear responsibility on society to not deny the negative effects of violent media. It seems counterintuitive to tell parents there is no effect of media violence but expect them to control viewing anyway. Society must admit that there are harmful effects so we know we need to control this problem, even if they cannot or will not stop putting the media out there. Because recognizing the need to do something about it is the first step to being able to do something about it, even if that just means making sure younger children watch Dora the Explorer instead of Power Rangers.
Works Cited
Bushman, B. J. & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public. American
Psychologist, 56, 477-489
Leland, J. (1995, Dec. 11). Violence, real to real. Newsweek, 46-48.
Huesmann, R.L., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C.L, & Eron, L.D. (2003). Longitudinal Relations
Between Children’s Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and Violent
Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977-1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, 201-221
Yeah, it's not strong philosophically, just psychologically significant. I had a lot more studies, but I didn't need all of them for this paper. Just know that I think it's retarded to think, that with all the studies out there and with the logic that children imitate things they see, that people still want to claim that there is no link or that it's insignificant.
The question of the Media Violence-Aggression Link
From the a scientific point of view, there is little debate about whether media violence is linked to aggression. The answer seems to be a resounding “yes” from scientific community. The questions seem to be how much/what kinds of aggression, how strongly correlated is media violence and aggression, where is the causality, and to what importance?
There are complex answers to what kind of aggression really seems promoted by media violence, and just how much violence it promotes. The definition of violence is called into question when we look at these issues. Some studies look at behavior, thoughts, emotions, or changes in ideals of violence, like the construct a person has of how much violence is too much. In July 2000, Congressional Public Health Summit created a joint statement that included the statement; “viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children”, saying violent media can affect all of these ideas of aggression.
Bushmen and Anderson focused on meta-analysis of behavioral aggression, assessing a sample size of over 43,000 over a total of 202 samples. The meta-analysis showed a significant correlation between media violence and behavioral aggression, which peaked in 2000 (their analysis stopped in 2000 for this study) at about 0.2 with a 99.9% confidence interval, a statistically significant link between violent media and aggression. They also showed the disparity between experimental and non-experimental studies. The more methodical experimental studies showed a much higher correlation, dismissing the biased idea that the more statistically significant studies on media violence and aggression are less methodical. (483-485)
Correlation research does have its limits in showing causality, but many studies have tried to get at the heart of directionality. Bushman and Anderson stated that the meta-analysis of the experimental studies showed effect sizes significantly greater than zero “establishing a causality link early in the history of media violence research” (pg 484). And in many studies, the short term effects are clearly demonstrated by paradigms where children watch a violent film and act more aggressively towards each other or some object, such as a Bobo-doll in classic experiments. Or even aggression towards a real life clown after watching an adult hit the clown-like Bobo-doll. (Leland, 47)
It’s harder to demonstrate clear causality in longitudinal studies because often it can only be done with correlations. In this case, ethics would be questionable in controlling what a child watches through childhood, particularly if it was thought to have a negative impact. But correlation longitudinal studies still provide useful information.
Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, and Eron (2003) looked at the long term effects of media violence from third grade into adult hood, a total period of 15 years. They used a composite measure of aggression that took into account the differences in aggression between men and women and created a single valid measure. TV. Violence viewing was a significant correlate with all aggression variables. Perceived realism of TV violence in childhood was significantly correlated with Men’s adult composite aggression .22 correlation p<.01, and even more highly significant correlates with Women’s composite aggression .25 score and Adult indirect aggression of .28, both of which had p < .001.
Identification with aggressive male characters was also among the most significant results, creating a .29 correlation at p<.001 for Men Adult Composite aggression, this variable was also correlated with Women’s adult composite aggression and indirect aggression. Identification with aggressive female characters showed significant correlation only with women’s aggression. In summary, TV violence and factors associated with it produced significant correlations with aggressive behavior, even after 15 years. And the fact that it is correlated after even 15 years suggests a directionality of the effect.
There is much importance to these findings. The fact that the correlation of media violence and aggression is only less than the correlation of Smoking and lung cancer, and is higher than second hand smoke and lung cancer, Exposure to lead and IQ scores in children, and calcium intake and bone mass, points out that, comparatively, this is a socially relevant finding.
Bushmann and Anderson suggest that it is comparative to TV advertisements, in that even if only 1% are affected in any significant way, that is a lot of people. If half the population of the U.S. watched violent television, and only 1% were affected, that would be 1.5 million more aggressive people. They also say that the cumulative effects are of the most concern. One violent movie is not “necessary and sufficient” cause for violence, but a lifetime of violent media is more than likely going to create a significantly more aggressive person than if the person had not been heavy consumer of such media.
Huesmann et. al holds that children are of the most concern when it comes to media violence. In fact, they go on to say “Media violence may have short-term effects on adults, but the real long term effects seem to occur only with children.” (pg 218). This puts the responsibility on the parents to control the consumption of violent media viewing in their house. But it also puts clear responsibility on society to not deny the negative effects of violent media. It seems counterintuitive to tell parents there is no effect of media violence but expect them to control viewing anyway. Society must admit that there are harmful effects so we know we need to control this problem, even if they cannot or will not stop putting the media out there. Because recognizing the need to do something about it is the first step to being able to do something about it, even if that just means making sure younger children watch Dora the Explorer instead of Power Rangers.
Works Cited
Bushman, B. J. & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public. American
Psychologist, 56, 477-489
Leland, J. (1995, Dec. 11). Violence, real to real. Newsweek, 46-48.
Huesmann, R.L., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C.L, & Eron, L.D. (2003). Longitudinal Relations
Between Children’s Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and Violent
Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977-1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, 201-221
Yeah, it's not strong philosophically, just psychologically significant. I had a lot more studies, but I didn't need all of them for this paper. Just know that I think it's retarded to think, that with all the studies out there and with the logic that children imitate things they see, that people still want to claim that there is no link or that it's insignificant.