From Screen to Street: The Real Impact of Media Violence
For years, we have all been exposed to the ongoing debate regarding the relationship between violence and the media. Conflicting perspectives argue over whether the media simply reflects levels of violence in society, or if it pushes people to express their rage through acts of aggression. Movies like Kill Bill Part Two and Troy depict large-scale violence and destruction. The Simpsons carries a strong undertone of violence, and even children’s cartoons like Tom and Jerry show violent scenes juxtaposed with humour.
Every time I leave a cinema hall or finish watching TV, I ask myself a set of questions: Why is violence shown on television? How much violence is portrayed and what are its effects on viewers? Does media violence make certain viewers more aggressive? Which groups within the audience are affected most, and how does media violence impact children? After reading extensively on the subject, I have tried to answer these questions through this article—and I can forewarn you, I found some of the answers rather unsettling.
Media plays an intrinsic role in shaping people’s character. It influences, at times dictates, and often provokes actions from its audience that may be negative. The portrayal of violence on television or in video games has made some vulnerable viewers aggressive, with many seeking media violence as inspiration. In 1977, Ronny Zamora, a fifteen-year-old in Florida, shot and killed his eighty-two-year-old neighbour. His lawyer argued that Ronny had become dangerously inured to violence from watching excessive television and suffered from what was termed “television intoxication.” The jury rejected the defence, and Ronny was convicted of first-degree murder. So why is violence shown on television? Producers often include violence because it is the simplest and cheapest form of drama to demonstrate the rules of power.
According to researchers Gerbner and Gross, violence has not only increased in dramas and video games, but also in news programming. News outlets now compete to showcase violence, under the concept, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Many producers admit that violent and tragic stories keep ratings up, while good news does not. Although media producers argue that television simply reflects society, researchers have rejected this claim, pointing out that real-life violence is far lower than what is portrayed on screen. Some also argue that advertisers believe violent content draws larger audiences, though research has challenged this idea.
Violence, unlike language, has no barriers. Programmes produced in one country can be sold globally. “The code word for violence is action because it travels well around the world,” said the producer of Die Hard 2 (which featured 264 deaths compared to 18 in the original Die Hard). “Everyone understands an action movie. If I tell a joke, you may not get it, but if a bullet goes through a window, we all know to hit the floor, no matter the language.”
So what is the level of violence being shown in media? A content analysis of American TV, which examined more than 8,000 hours of cable and broadcast programming, found that about 60 percent of shows contained violence. By the time the average American child graduates from elementary school, they will have seen more than 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 assorted violent acts (including assaults and rapes) on television. The numbers are even higher for children with access to cable or DVDs. Video games are similarly saturated: 85 percent of the most popular games contain violence. In one U.S. survey, 59 percent of fourth-grade girls and 73 percent of boys reported that their favourite games were violent (Bushman and Anderson 2001).
Hundreds of studies suggest a strong link between television viewing and aggression. Reed Hundt, then chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said, “There is no longer any serious debate about whether violence in the media is a legitimate problem. Science and common-sense judgments of parents agree: there are substantial risks of harmful effects from viewing violence throughout the television environment.” Gerbner and Gross’s research showed that eight out of ten American programmes included violence, while nine out of ten children’s programmes contained violent elements, averaging eight violent episodes per hour (Gerbner and Gross 1976).
Is media violence directly responsible for aggression? According to Potter, violent portrayals can sometimes lead to positive effects, but the most common negative effect is “learning to behave aggressively,” or direct imitation of what viewers see. The effects may be immediate—such as aggression through disinhibition, fear responses, or desensitization—or long-term, including heightened aggression, exaggerated perceptions of victimisation, or increased acceptance of violence (Potter 1999).
The National Institute of Mental Health in the U.S., in its report Television and Behaviour: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties, found overwhelming evidence that excessive television violence had strong effects on behaviour in playgrounds and on streets. Another five-year study of 732 children directly linked television viewing to increased conflicts with parents, fighting, and delinquency (Anderson 2004). Beyond aggression, Gerbner and Gross observed that heavy viewers often live in fear: “People who watch a lot of TV see the real world as more dangerous and frightening. Heavy viewers are less trustful of fellow citizens and more fearful of reality” (Anderson 2004).
Psychological research highlights three major effects on children after viewing media violence:
They may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
They may become more fearful of the world around them.
They may become more likely to behave aggressively toward others.
Heavy child viewers show less emotional response to violent scenes, worry less about violence, and are less likely to view it as wrong. For instance, a study showed that children who watched violent cartoons were slower to react when witnessing younger kids fighting later, compared to those who had watched non-violent shows (Violence on Television).
So which groups are most affected? According to Potter, media violence is widespread, with most perpetrators portrayed as male, often “good” characters committing violence, and few perpetrators punished. Much of the violence is presented humorously (Potter 1999). The youth are particularly vulnerable. L. Rowell Huesmann’s fifteen-year study found that boys who were heavy viewers of violent TV between ages six and nine were twice as likely to abuse spouses and three times more likely to be convicted of crimes by their twenties. Girls who were heavy viewers were also significantly more likely to engage in violent behaviour as adults (Childhood Viewing, 2003).
Dr. George Gerbner’s studies at the University of Pennsylvania showed that children’s TV often contains up to 20 violent acts per hour. In one experiment, preschool children exposed to violent cartoons were more likely to hit, argue, break rules, and show impatience than those who watched non-violent shows (Youth Violence, 2001).
There is little doubt that media violence influences viewers. A paradox emerges: the TV industry claims that a few minutes of advertising can sell products, but insists that hours of violent programming surrounding those adverts have no effect. Violent images in films and television do contribute to greater violence in society. Many citizen groups express concern that children, in particular, may learn to see violence as the default way to resolve conflict. Whether such portrayals are curbed in the future remains to be seen, though research has gone a long way in raising awareness of their negative impact.
Footnote: This article was written in 2004 and has not been updated.