What are the REAL effects of violent media?

[byron lomax]

When reading newspapers and listening to debates on the radio, I routinely come across claims that violence in video games, comics and action films, among other things, has a direct effect on people's behaviour, young people in particular. But does anyone have any info on studies in psychology and human behaviour which show a strong link between exposure to media and resulting violent behaviour in individuals? Some people seem to be taking for granted that part of the blame for violence and crime is de-sensitization from playing violent video games. That's pretty troubling, because I, and everyone else I know, know that there's a difference between real life and what happens on a TV screen.

If there is any compelling evidence showing a direct link between exposure to violence and aggressive behaviour (with no possibility of other causative influences taking part), I'd be interested to read it.

 

[Christopher]

There is no correlation. Look at Japan. Their TV and movies are a lot more violent than the American stuff. Even in Japanese kids' shows, there are character deaths, gunfire, all sorts of things you'd never get away with in a US kids' show. And yet the violent crime rate in Japan is a teeny, tiny fraction of what it is in the US.

Now, if children are raised without proper moral guidance, if their parents, guardians, teachers, etc. fail to instill healthy social skills or empathy or ethics -- or, worse, subject them to neglect or abuse -- then they might see violence in the media as something worth emulating. But in that case, the media imagery is the least of the reasons for that behavior. A young person isn't going to be inspired to violence by a TV show, movie, or video game unless that young person already has the urge to commit violence. The media imagery merely provides the form, not the desire. A young person who's had a healthy upbringing and understands right from wrong won't be motivated to emulate media violence.

Speaking for myself, I haven't been desensitized to violence by seeing it in the media. On the contrary -- when I was younger, I wasn't much bothered by seeing onscreen violence, but eventually I saw so much of it that I just got sick of it. I became more sensitized to it, more unhappy at seeing depictions of suffering and death.

So people who are claiming there's a correlation between media violence and real violence are failing to consider the real root causes. That correlation only exists among people who are already predisposed to violence, and if you took away the media images, those people would just find other inspirations.

 

[LitmusDragon]

The problem I think with any study of this type is that it's impossible to separate the correlation from the causation. Violent videogames aren't created in a vacuum. They are a product of the entertainment industry, which reflects the demands of the consumer (more or less). The demand for violence I think increases as societal levels of stress increase. As society and the technology driving it becomes increasingly faster paced so it seems our stress level increases, or so some studies would suggest.

 

[Trubinator]

There is no correlation. Look at Japan. Their TV and movies are a lot more violent than the American stuff. Even in Japanese kids' shows, there are character deaths, gunfire, all sorts of things you'd never get away with in a US kids' show. And yet the violent crime rate in Japan is a teeny, tiny fraction of what it is in the US.

Now, if children are raised without proper moral guidance, if their parents, guardians, teachers, etc. fail to instill healthy social skills or empathy or ethics -- or, worse, subject them to neglect or abuse -- then they might see violence in the media as something worth emulating. But in that case, the media imagery is the least of the reasons for that behavior. A young person isn't going to be inspired to violence by a TV show, movie, or video game unless that young person already has the urge to commit violence. The media imagery merely provides the form, not the desire. A young person who's had a healthy upbringing and understands right from wrong won't be motivated to emulate media violence.

Speaking for myself, I haven't been desensitized to violence by seeing it in the media. On the contrary -- when I was younger, I wasn't much bothered by seeing onscreen violence, but eventually I saw so much of it that I just got sick of it. I became more sensitized to it, more unhappy at seeing depictions of suffering and death.

So people who are claiming there's a correlation between media violence and real violence are failing to consider the real root causes. That correlation only exists among people who are already predisposed to violence, and if you took away the media images, those people would just find other inspirations.

What he said.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

By these so-called "experts'" logic, I should be a twisted maniac because I watched cartoons in the 80s.

 

[byron lomax]

There is no correlation. Look at Japan. Their TV and movies are a lot more violent than the American stuff. Even in Japanese kids' shows, there are character deaths, gunfire, all sorts of things you'd never get away with in a US kids' show. And yet the violent crime rate in Japan is a teeny, tiny fraction of what it is in the US.

Now, if children are raised without proper moral guidance, if their parents, guardians, teachers, etc. fail to instill healthy social skills or empathy or ethics -- or, worse, subject them to neglect or abuse -- then they might see violence in the media as something worth emulating. But in that case, the media imagery is the least of the reasons for that behavior. A young person isn't going to be inspired to violence by a TV show, movie, or video game unless that young person already has the urge to commit violence. The media imagery merely provides the form, not the desire. A young person who's had a healthy upbringing and understands right from wrong won't be motivated to emulate media violence.

Speaking for myself, I haven't been desensitized to violence by seeing it in the media. On the contrary -- when I was younger, I wasn't much bothered by seeing onscreen violence, but eventually I saw so much of it that I just got sick of it. I became more sensitized to it, more unhappy at seeing depictions of suffering and death.

So people who are claiming there's a correlation between media violence and real violence are failing to consider the real root causes. That correlation only exists among people who are already predisposed to violence, and if you took away the media images, those people would just find other inspirations.

Thanks for that. I always thought the claims of media violence and the extent of its influence were deeply flawed at best, and I think you articulated it very well there.

 

[Christopher]

By these so-called "experts'" logic, I should be a twisted maniac because I watched cartoons in the 80s.

Right! I'm sure you're a twisted maniac for totally different reasons. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[Teelie]

You have to take any psychological conclusions, theories or claims made by a media outlet with a hefty amount of salt. Most aren't interested in giving the entire truth or facts, only in the news bite of what they can sell to the public and sensationalize.

As Christopher pointed out, much of the claims about violence influencing people is bunk, or at best based on incredibly shaky research that was looking for a wanted conclusion instead of testing the theory. Plus, it's hard to point a finger and say that whatever you're pointing at is the cause.

Point at video games, movies, comics, music, etc. and you can easily find a counter point to show that it doesn't do anything near the damage it's purported to do. If it were true it promotes violence then why don't we see anything showing that the same can be done to promote peace? Peace isn't as news worthy substance as perpetuating a myth about violent media causing violent outbursts from youth and I can't recall any research published exploring that angle either.

 

[miraclefan]

There is no correlation. Look at Japan. Their TV and movies are a lot more violent than the American stuff. Even in Japanese kids' shows, there are character deaths, gunfire, all sorts of things you'd never get away with in a US kids' show. And yet the violent crime rate in Japan is a teeny, tiny fraction of what it is in the US.

Now, if children are raised without proper moral guidance, if their parents, guardians, teachers, etc. fail to instill healthy social skills or empathy or ethics -- or, worse, subject them to neglect or abuse -- then they might see violence in the media as something worth emulating. But in that case, the media imagery is the least of the reasons for that behavior. A young person isn't going to be inspired to violence by a TV show, movie, or video game unless that young person already has the urge to commit violence. The media imagery merely provides the form, not the desire. A young person who's had a healthy upbringing and understands right from wrong won't be motivated to emulate media violence.

Speaking for myself, I haven't been desensitized to violence by seeing it in the media. On the contrary -- when I was younger, I wasn't much bothered by seeing onscreen violence, but eventually I saw so much of it that I just got sick of it. I became more sensitized to it, more unhappy at seeing depictions of suffering and death.

So people who are claiming there's a correlation between media violence and real violence are failing to consider the real root causes. That correlation only exists among people who are already predisposed to violence, and if you took away the media images, those people would just find other inspirations.

What he said.

Ditto!

 

[The Badger]

As I recall (I took Psychology many years ago) there was a study that showed that in boys (and only boys) who were already prone to violent behaviour, exposure to high levels of media violence would often cause an increase in such behaviour. This increase was short term only, though it is plausible that the response would persist as long as the stimulus were present.

AFAIK, that was the only evidence to support the 'media violence causes real violence' hypothesis.


I'll see if I can find my old notes on this.


Edit: Just found this:
http://allpsych.com/journal/violentmedia.html

 

[Christopher]

^But that doesn't show that media violence causes real violence, just that it can amplify the effect of a pre-existing cause. The cause of the predisposition for violence is something else, most likely child abuse and neglect.

 

[Teelie]

In other words, violent media is only a mild stimulant to what is already there. It does not cause it. In that case, the media itself isn't the problem but getting the potential for violence from the person under control is. Someone predisposed doesn't need a television to become violent.

 

[Christopher]

Ultimately, the problem is that we live in a society where children are routinely deprived of parental affection and social interaction, and where many are subjected to abuse by parents, caregivers, and bullies. The problem isn't violence on television, the problem is parents who abandon their children in front of the television rather than spending time with them.

 

[Islander]

Let's just reverse the statement and look at historial violent events: The crusades, the inquisition, WWI, WWII... None of which were triggered by video games! Fascinating!