REACHING AN AGREEMENT: EFFECTS OF TV VIOLENCE ON YOUTH

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

Under the Supervision and Mentorship of Dr. John S. Caputo

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

By

Brittany T. Rawlings

August 2011

TV Violence 1

Abstract

Over the course of a year, a child will spend 1,500 hours watching television, a

significant amount when compared to the 900 hours he or she will spend in school (Herr,

2007). Violence is one of the dominating messages disseminated through the sensation

of television, which plays an active role in entertaining and impacting the lives of today‘s

young audience. Because of its prevalence, violence on TV has grown to be a

controversial issue on which several studies have been conducted since the 1950s. This

thesis explores past research and takes a critical look at studies conducted within the last

ten years in order to discover new or better understandings of how watching television

violence affects young viewers. Using Bandura‘s social cognitive theory and Gerbner‘s

theory of cultivation as a guide, this documentary research offers a fresh understanding of

an always-changing medium. While research continually attempts to tie antisocial

behavior to viewing violent television, the confidence to infer causation remains weak.

TV Violence 2

Table of Contents

Abstract……………..……………………………………………………………………..1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................3

The Problem .....................................................................................................................3

Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................4

Definition of Terms..........................................................................................................5

Organization of Remaining Chapters...............................................................................7

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.........................................................9

Introduction ......................................................................................................................9

Philosophical Assumptions ..........................................................................................9

Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................10

The Literature.................................................................................................................11

General Content Analyses..........................................................................................12

Attitudes Toward Violence .........................................................................................14

Long- and Short-Term Effects ....................................................................................17

Direct and Indirect Aggression ..................................................................................19

Governmental Reports ...............................................................................................24

Discussion ......................................................................................................................27

Research Questions ........................................................................................................28

CHAPTER 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY..........................................................30

Scope of the Study .........................................................................................................30

Methodology of the Study .............................................................................................30

CHAPTER 4: THE STUDY ............................................................................................33

The Literature.................................................................................................................33

The Picture of Violence ..............................................................................................33

Cognitive Assessments ...............................................................................................38

Aggression and Other Residual Effects .....................................................................42

Discussion ......................................................................................................................44

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................48

Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................48

Recommendations for Further Study .............................................................................49

Prevention and Intervention ...........................................................................................51

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................54

References……………...………………………………………………………………...58

TV Violence 3

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

“There is a guest in today’s family who has much more freedom and liberty than

any other stranger who ever enters the home. Third parent, second teacher, entertainer,

informer, wasteland, babysitter, drug– these and a variety of other terms have been used

to describe this houseguest. Most families choose not to insult this guest, hesitate to talk

about it, and rarely do anything about the guest’s role even when they do talk. Television

has a way with families– generally its own way.”

(Palmer, Hockett, & Dean, 1983, p. 279)

The Problem

Technology is the force of today‘s ever-evolving world, and television is at the

heart of it. While experiencing its own evolution and advancement, TV has maintained a

constant presence. Postman (1985) wrote that television is our culture‘s principal mode

of knowing about itself. Therefore, he continues, how television stages the world

becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged (p. 92). This becomes a

problem when the picture does not accurately reflect reality. Children growing up in this

reality will never know life without television. This makes them especially vulnerable to

potentially harmful effects from viewing television programming.

Other problems arise with viewing given that a child‘s cognitive development has

not yet matured in order for him or her to completely understand, dissect and analyze all

of the messages being thrown at him or her by the media. According to Palmer, Hockett,

and Dean (1983), the majority of a young child‘s viewing is adult television

programming, to which he or she comes ill equipped cognitively and emotionally. In

addition, the young child frequently views this programming alone, without the

moderating influence of an adult co-viewer (p. 290). A lack of cognitive development

can be a barrier to appropriate emotional reactions to media messages (Potter, 2008, p.

TV Violence 4

58) ―Until children have developed many knowledge structures, they don‘t have many

perspectives from which to view the world‖ (p. 61).

Violence is one of many messages disseminated through the sensation of

television, which plays an active role in entertaining and impacting the lives of today‘s

youth. Because of its prevalence, violence on TV has grown to be a controversial issue

on which several studies have been conducted since the 1950s. Based on his research,

Gerbner asserts that growing up in a mediated violence-laden culture breeds

aggressiveness in some and desensitization, insecurity, mistrust, and anger in most (as

cited in Stossel, 1997, p. 91). The impact, degree and severity of effects from violent

television viewing such as these are continually debated. Scholars do agree, however, on

the simple possibility that television does contribute to antisocial effects, although it may

not be the only contributing variable. While debate ensues over potential long and short-

term effects of television viewing, children are often at the forefront as a special group

that needs protection from the risks of any negative media effects (Potter, 2008, p. 62).

Importance of the Study

―The television generation is a grim bunch. It is much more serious than children

of any other period – when they were frivolous, more whimsical,‖ (McLuhan & Fiore,

1967, p. 126). Postman (2000) agrees, stating that one of the severely negative

consequences of TV is its role in making the institution of childhood obsolete (p. 12).

This notion, alone, grants purpose to current research. When kids are spending more

time watching television than any other activity, they become at risk for experiencing

antisocial effects.

TV Violence 5

The commonness of TV in today‘s American household means that children are

exposed to potentially harmful images as of birth. Even supposing young children

generally possess lower levels of maturation and experience, they are intuitive moralists.

According to Flavell and Ross (1981):

Although four- to six-year-olds have little reflective understanding of their moral

knowledge, they nevertheless have an intuitive moral competence that displays

itself in the way they answer questions about moral rules and in the way they

excuse their transgressions and react to the transgressions of others. (p. 288)

Still, with limited awareness and even less supervision, violent messages are

constantly being reinforced in a young viewer‘s mind, challenging their moral

development. As explained, children are particularly susceptible to viewing violence on

television, as their scripts for aggression are still developing at this stage. This means

that young viewers may be cued to behave aggressively when they previously may not

have behaved this way (Coyne, Archer, & Eslea, 2004, p. 235). Previous research

indicates the possibility that viewing violent television contributes to aggression, and a

number of other antisocial effects. Present and future research, like the technology of

television, needs to evolve in order to better understand and if needed, combat such

effects. A meta-analysis of more recent studies is important in that it can reveal up-to-

date conclusions on an ever-changing medium and audience.

Definition of Terms

Aggression: A short- or long-term effect from viewing violent media that involves a

display of antisocial behavior. Aggression can be direct or indirect, hostile, instrumental,

imitative, verbal, physical, even accidental (Kotler & Calvert, 2003).

TV Violence 6

Attitudinal Effects: Media effect that can create and shape one‘s opinions, beliefs, and

values (Potter, 2008).

Behavioral Effect: Long- and short-term media effects that can trigger actions (Potter,

2008).

Cognitive Effect: A type of learned media effect that can affect what a person knows by

planting ideas and information into his or her mind (Potter, 2008).

Content Analysis: A procedure that helps researchers identify themes and relevant issues

often contained in media messages (Rubin, Rubin, Haridakis, & Piele, 2010)

Cultivation: Inquiry into the assumptions television cultivates about the facts, norms, and

values of society (Gerbner, 1976).

Cultural Indicators Project: Content and cultivation analysis project that began in 1967-

68. Gerbner and his team monitored primetime and weekend daytime broadcast

television programming, and examined relationships between television viewing and

conceptions of social reality (Signorielli, Gerbner, & Morgan, 1995).

Desensitization: In terms of media violence, involves an increased tolerance that can lead

to lower sensitivity to aggression and violence, and callousness (Potter, 2008; Signorielli,

2006).

Emotional Effect: Reactions to media related physiological changes that can make a

person feel things as well as trigger weak or strong emotions (Potter, 2008).

Fear: Also described as fear of victimization or cultivation of fear, is the emotional effect

as derived from heavy viewing of violent television that leads people to construct

unrealistically high estimates of the risk of victimization and a corresponding belief that

the world is a mean and violent place (Potter, 2008).

Mean World Syndrome: Gerbner‘s theory suggesting that television viewing cultivates a

general sense of danger and mistrust (Gerbner & Gross, 1976).

Meta-Analysis: As used in this thesis, is a type of research method that draws conclusions

about the strength or consistency of communication effects across studies (Rubin, Rubin,

Haridakis, & Piele, 2010).

Modeling: Also known as imitation, it is the copying behavior described in Bandura‘s

social learning theory.

National Television Violence Study (NTVS): A comprehensive media analysis project

that examined approximately 10,000 television programs across all times of day on the

most frequently viewed channels over a three-year period, from 1994-1997 (Kunkel &

Zwarun, 2006).

TV Violence 7

Reciprocality: The view that viewing TV violence alone does not account for aggressive

behavior. Rather, a person is also affected by internal preexisting conditions and

environmental stimuli (Bandura, 1986).

Social Cognitive-Social Learning Theory: Bandura‘s theory that predicts children may

focus on television characters who are ‗like‘ them to guide their behavior or help them

form scripts of acceptable behaviors and possible outcomes, particularly those of an

aggressive nature (Bandura, 2002).

Violence: the overt expression of physical force (with or without a weapon, against self

or other) compelling action against one‘s will on pain of being hurt or killed or actually

hurting or killing (as defined by the Cultural Indicators Project, Signorielli, Gerbner, &

Morgan, 1995).

Organization of Remaining Chapters

It is important to note that not all researchers who evaluate the effects of violence

on television believe that the medium is inherently bad. ―Theoretically the media,

especially television, have been shown to be an important source for learning behaviors

and cultivating viewers‘ attitudes and perceptions‖ (Glascock, 2008, p. 269). Bandura

(1986) concedes, offering that television can serve as an effective instrument for human

development and enrichment (p. 165). It is the enormity of data to the contrary, however,

that has called such attention to television and media research.

The first chapter of this study has outlined the importance of this present study as

well as the study‘s goal to ensure that the research on TV violence effects stays as up-to-

date as the technology of television itself. In order to grasp the full picture of TV

violence and its alleged effects on children specifically, this thesis will organize past

research and present meta-analytical data into these remaining four chapters: 2) Review

of previous literature; 3) Research scope and methodology; 4) Current meta-analytical

study; and 5) Summaries and conclusions. Chapter two will review over fifty years of

TV Violence 8

previous literature on the subject, as well as offer philosophical assumptions and a

theoretical framework on which to base the study. The third chapter explains the scope

and methodology of the present meta-analysis, which will look at relevant research

within the last ten years. Data analysis will be conducted in chapter four, including a

discussion of research findings. The last chapter will provide limitations to this present

study, suggest recommendation for further research, and offer final thoughts and

conclusions.

TV Violence 9

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

There is little argument surrounding the fact that violence encompasses a vast

majority of television programming. If and how violent media translates into viewers‘

real lives raises question and concern. Some researchers have attempted to prove that

viewing televised violence causes aggressive behavior, while others seek to counter these

findings, revealing violence on TV as harmless entertainment. ―The sheer quantity of

violence on television encourages the idea that aggressive behavior is normal‖ (Stossel,

1997, p. 91). Murray (1984) summarized literature on television and antisocial effects,

claiming that 80 percent of past surveys on the topic have concluded from evidence

gathered that media violence causes aggression (as cited in Huesmann, L. R. & Taylor, L.

D., 2003). Should this be accurate, the question – and several others – still exists about

whether or not the causal effects observed in a controlled laboratory setting can be

generalized to the real world.

―The confusing state of television research is largely due to inappropriate

conceptions of the problem‖ (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). Still, it becomes difficult for

researchers to narrow their study when it is believed that more than one variable is at play.

Strasburger and Wilson (2003), claim that no single factor propels a child or teenager to

act aggressively, rather, the causes of such antisocial behavior are complex and

multifaceted (p. 63).

Philosophical Assumptions

The complexity of a child‘s antisocial behavior comes from the numerous

variables that contribute to his or her thoughts and actions. Researchers have sought to

TV Violence 10

evaluate to what extent television violence is one such variable. A number of theories

have emerged as relevant in understanding the effects of viewing television on a general

audience. Dorfman, Woodruff, Chavez, and Wallack (1997) developed a content

analysis study on California news stories aiming for support of McCombs and Shaw‘s

agenda-setting theory. Zillmann‘s excitation transfer theory has also been used as

background for research investigating mental effects from television viewing (Weaver,

2011; Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podoloski, & Eron, 2003; Peters & Blumberg, 2002).

Both of these theories have been used to investigate the different ways television may

alter the way viewers of all ages think and possibly act.

Griffin (2009) posits that watching media violence can expand our repertoire of

behavioral options far beyond what we would discover on our own through trial-and-

error learning (p. 347). Such intangible effects, unfortunately, are difficult to study and

measure without the ethical implications involved in creating motivation for antisocial

behavior.

Theoretical Framework

According to Bandura‘s (1971) social learning theory, people in their everyday

lives continually observe the actions of others and the occasions on which they are

rewarded, ignored, or punished (p. 46). This theory stems from the idea of modeling

behavior. In terms of mass media, Bandura (1986) offers that an influential source of

social learning at any age is the abundant and varied symbolic modeling provided by

television and other visual media (p. 70). ―Although much social learning is fostered

through observation of real-life models, advances of communication have increased

reliance upon symbolic models‖ (Bandura, 1971, p. 2).

TV Violence 11

Through his work with the Cultural Indicators Project, Gerbner has investigated

the various symbolic models upon which television viewers rely. The Cultural Indicators

Project, which began examining the images of broadcast television programming in 1967,

conducts both content analysis and cultivation analysis (Signorielli, Gerbner, & Morgan,

1995) on this ―artificial reality‖ that makes TV violence so popular. Cultivation analysis,

specifically, inquires into the assumptions television fosters about the facts, norms, and

values of society (Gerbner & Gross, 1976)

Gerbner asserts that television is the central cultural arm of American society.

Postman (1992) warns, however, that it is not always clear, at least in the early stages of a

new technology fusion into a culture, who will gain most by it and who will lose most.

This is because, he offers, the changes wrought by technology are subtle if not mysterious,

one might even say wildly unpredictable (p. 12). His point was that technology creates a

new conception of what is real or true. Television was not invented with the intention of

imposing antisocial behaviors upon its viewing audience. Still, as Postman cautions,

unforeseen consequences stand in the way of all those who think they see clearly the

direction in which a new technology will take us (p. 15).

The Literature

The following is an exemplary review of literature that explores previous studies

on television violence and its impact on youth prior to the year 2000. Five themes

emerged throughout the research, which serve to organize the collection of data into these

five categories: (1) General Content Analyses; (2) Attitudes Toward Violence; (3) Long

and Short-Term Effects; (4) Direct and Indirect and Aggression; and (5) Governmental

Reports.

TV Violence 12

General Content Analyses

Perhaps the most widely referenced content analysis research of violence on

television comes from Gerbner‘s Cultural Indicators Project, an ongoing research project

that investigates violence in dramatic network television programming. Beginning in

1967-68 for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence and

continuing through 1972 in accordance with the Surgeon General‘s Scientific Advisory

Committee on Television and Social Behavior (Gerbner, 1969, 1972), Gerbner and Gross

(1976) embarked on ‗renewal research‘ under a grant from the National Institute of

Mental Health.

Cultural Indicators, the renewal research, involved the periodic study of

television programming and its conceptions of social reality. The project incorporates the

Violence Profile, a set of indicators tracing aspects of the television world and of

conceptions of social reality they tend to cultivate in the mind of viewers. The indicators

stem from message system and cultivation analyses conducted by trained analysts over

sample weeks of primetime and weekend daytime network dramatic programming.

Double-coded data of violence ensures intercoder reliability on measures of prevalence,

rate and role. Findings on these three measures were gathered to create the Violence

Index. Patterns that emerged demonstrated researchers‘ belief that television is not like

any other media, and required a new approach to research. Drawbacks to this research, as

explained by Gerbner and Gross, are that the Index itself is not a statistical finding but

serves as a convenient illustrator of trends and facilitates gross comparisons.

By 1995, the Cultural Indicators Project had monitored over 25 years of television

programming, accumulating a database of computer-archived observations on over 3,000

TV Violence 13

programs and 35,000 characters coded on various thematic, demographic, and action

categories (Signorielli, Gerbner, & Morgan, 1995). Analysts isolate specific incidents of

violence and categorize programs by the seriousness of the violence as well as the

significance of the violence to the story line. From 1967 to 1993, the research from the

Project analyzed a total of 26 annual week-long samples of network programming

broadcast each fall. Critics raise issue regarding the simple, straightforward definition

used by the Project to identify violent acts. Gerbner and his team focus primarily on

overt, physical violence, which seems to contradict their concession that ―violence is a

complex social relationship‖ (Signorielli, et al., 1995). Still, it is the most consistent,

comprehensive collection of data to date measuring violence on television.

The pervasiveness of fictional violence as entertainment television spurs curiosity

of a more narrowed content analysis. Local broadcast news stations are a genre of media

that showcase real-life violent television, and a team from the Berkeley Media Studies

Group designed a research study to examine this outlet. Their objective was to explore

how local television news structures the public and policy debate on youth violence

(Dorfman, Woodruff, Chavez, & Wallack, 1997). Through content analysis, researchers

observed 214 hours of local television in California and coded a total of 1,791 thematic

stories about youth, violence, or both. The study did not include episodic accounts and

only analyzed content during the week of September 19-25 and October 29-November 2,

1993. These dates were specifically chosen around the Halloween weekend with the

hope of maximizing the number of stories involving youth, and perhaps, violence.

Additionally, stories were coded as being about youth if they involved gang references or

TV Violence 14

anyone 24 years old or younger – a clear expansion beyond what some might consider

―youth.‖

Research concluded that violence was the single most frequent story topic

(Dorfman, et al., p. 1312); and that over half (55 percent) of the stories about youth

referenced violence, and more than two thirds (68 percent) of stories about violence

concerned youth (p. 1314). The youth-related gang assumption, wide age range,

restricted time frame, and selective Halloween sampling period dramatically limit this

study, while increasing the risk of bias, and potentially skewing the findings. In a letter

to the editor published in the American Journal of Public Health, Males (1998) alleged

that the analysis by the Berkeley Media Studies Group would have been stronger had

they examined violent crime trends independently instead of relying on conventional

beliefs. He challenged, ―the authors‘ recommendation to apply public health approaches

to violence prevention will be of benefit only if simplistic demographic theories and

statistical myths are replaced by analyses situating youth crime in its adult contexts,‖ (p.

1123).

Attitudes Toward Violence

Caputo (1999) reiterates the commonness of violence in television news stories,

calling specific attention to the sensationalized coverage of murders, rapes, and disasters

far out of proportion to their frequency in real life. One reason why television violence is

so popular is because many viewers are sensation seekers. When viewers get bored,

watching TV violence offers them the arousal they desire (Krcmar & Greene, 1999, as

cited in Potter, 2008, p. 82).

TV Violence 15

The notion of desensitization has led researchers to study viewers‘ attitudes

toward violence, as well as levels of tolerance, acceptance, and apathy. Drabman and

Thomas (1976) exposed groups of fifth-grade students to either violent or nonviolent

program excerpts, hypothesizing that exposure to televised violence serves to increase

children‘s toleration of real-life aggression. With written parental permission, 20 boys

and 20 girls participated in the double-blind study. Treatment for the control group was

watching a 15-minute edited segment of a baseball game, while the experimental group

watched 15 minutes of an edited segment from a detective series. The experimenter then

asked each subject to supervise two preschool children on a monitor for him because he

had to step out, but to notify the experimenter if the children got into any trouble. As the

preschoolers on the screen engaged in aggressive play, the experimenter recorded the

time lapse between the start of the tape, and when he was notified, if at all.

According to researchers, the results provide strong evidence that children‘s

response to real-life aggression can be affected by exposure to fictional violence.

However, these results cannot be generalized and are limited by the small sample size,

which affects the significance of the results. For example, there is a thirty-second

differential in notifying trouble between the girls in the control and experimental groups,

with the control group responding quicker. Researchers use this to support their

hypothesis, but the evidence is weak considering it is based on a total of 20 girls and

there is little explanation on the impact of thirty seconds.

With similar intent, Tulloch (1995) set out to examine the responses of students

ages 9 to 16 to questions about the appropriateness of violence as seen in 20-minute

programming excerpts. A total of 1,135 students in grades 4, 7 and 10 evaluated

TV Violence 16

alternative responses to violence on forced-choice questionnaires. Each group of students

viewed an edited 20-minute excerpt of a popular program falling under one of six genres–

soap opera, war series, police drama, science fiction, documentary, and sport. No shows

chosen for the study were classified as children‘s programming. Students then read

descriptions of events that occurred in the show they watched, and were offered

alternative behavioral choices supported by justifications. Options were read to younger

groups to minimize reading difficulty. Results indicate that females showed an overall

increase in rejection of violence with age, while male responses were more program-

specific. Several areas of concern emerge from this study‘s research validities.

Constructs were unsuitably measured, as the questionnaire was not age appropriate, and

incomprehensible especially for those to whom it had to be read aloud. Additional

disconnect between subjects, programming and evaluation demonstrates weak internal

validity given that the research design does not lend to reaching accurate conclusions

about the effects of the independent variable on the dependent.

Contrary to the quantitative studies previously discussed, Lazar (1998) conducted

a qualitative analysis using grounded theory in which she interviewed 21 social workers

on their regulation habits of children‘s television viewing. The interviewed participants

worked primarily with youth in schools, community mental health agencies, and private

practices. Interviewees indicated that television is a big part of children‘s everyday

activities and communication, and also identified TV-related violence in kids‘ play,

drawing, and conversations. While social workers expressed concern that violence on

TV causes aggression and desensitization, they did not consider their concern grounds for

intervention. According to Lazar, social workers did not seem to believe television

TV Violence 17

violence was a worthy enough contender among the many factors that vied for their

attention. As one respondent added, ―no one brings their child in because TV has made

them behave in a certain way,‖ (p. 120). While not offering strong statistical conclusions,

Lazar‘s ―lull of tradition‖ (p. 129) imparts insightful perceptions about concern and

inaction, mirroring society. Lazar explains that society has been lulled into accepting a

steady stream of violence, which contradicts concern about what is best for children.

Long- and Short-Term Effects

In today‘s world, this steady stream of violence is almost unavoidable. While the

number of TV sets in a household has increased, family viewing has declined, and

individual program selection and solitary viewing have increased (Hepburn, 1998). By

the time a person turns 65, they will have had so many opportunities to tune in that they

will have spent 3,000 entire days viewing television (Pungente, 1990, as cited in Caputo,

1993, p. 184).

It is hard to imagine not being affected by such a constant presence. Slaby,

Roedell, Arezzo, and Hendrix (1995) identified four major effects that continually

appeared in previous research: the aggressor effect, the victim effect, the bystander effect,

and the increased-appetite effect. The aggressor effect takes place when children‘s

behavior increases in aggressive, mean-spirited, or violent play. It is most often seen in,

but not limited to, children who identify with the aggressive character of a program, or

perceive the portrayed violence to be realistic and relevant to their own lives. The victim

effect is what Gerbner referred to as the ‗Mean World Syndrome‘ (Stossel, 1997, p. 91)

meaning that viewers become fearful of victimization in a world they interpret as far

more dangerous than it actually may be. The bystander effect consists of increased

TV Violence 18

indifference or desensitization to violence both in media and real life, which Potter

(2008) classifies as a long-term emotional effect (p. 304). The increased-appetite effect

refers to an elevated desire to view more violence (Slaby, et al., p. 166).

Concurring with the effects previously described, Kunkel and Wilson (1995)

designed a content analysis study to distinguish portrayals of violence most likely to

contribute to the learning of aggressive attitudes and behaviors, fear, and desensitization.

The definition of violence employed involved several key concepts including intention to

harm, physical harm, and animate beings as perpetrator and target. Unlike Gerbner‘s

approach to identifying violent content, Kunkel and Wilson take into account contextual

factors. This comes in direct response to non-academic critics who have sought to

undermine the legitimacy of Gerbner‘s content-based findings by pointing out their lack

of sensitivity to contextual factors. While this alternate approach offers a new

perspective to content analysis research of violence on television, there is no discussion

regarding reliability and validity measures. The absence of method explanation does not

necessarily confirm that, for example, intercoder reliability testing did not take place,

however, the lack of detailed information implies that results may be subject to these and

other limitations.

Palmer, Hockett, and Dean (1983) focused specifically on fear and television

viewing. In their study, ―The Television Family and Children‘s Fright Reactions,‖ 43

second-graders and 46 sixth-graders in North Carolina completed a questionnaire about

their television viewing habits. Researchers investigated program-related fear through

questions about the frequency of fear, the popularity of frightening programming, and

avoidance behaviors. Viewing habits were categorized by items concerning the

TV Violence 19

frequency of TV viewing, viewing times, and parentally-shared viewing. Over half of all

second-grade students and 44 percent of sixth-grade students reported no regulation of

TV viewing by their parents. Results also showed that overall TV viewing increased

with age, and nightmare frequency was more prevalent among younger students.

Because results are based on self-reported data of a small sample size, they cannot be

confidently generalized to represent the beliefs and behaviors of all second and sixth

grade students and parents. That is, external validity is low.

Direct and Indirect Aggression

Aggression is an overwhelmingly recurring theme in all types of research on

viewing televised violence. Greenberg (1975) investigated the relationship between

viewing violent television and aggressive attitudes among British schoolchildren.

Similarly, in a cross-national comparison, Huesmann and Eron (1986) looked at the

development of aggression as a consequence of TV violence viewing among children in

America, Finland, Poland, Australia, and Israel.

Considering the popular controversy in the U.S. surrounding the effects of

watching televised violence, and the minimal research conducted in Britain on the topic,

Greenberg (1975) set out to test the hypothesis that frequent viewing of television

violence is positively related to aggressive attitudes among young people. A stratified

sample of 726 students in London completed a questionnaire that asked them to check off

which programs they frequently watched from a list of 30 shows. The list included 18

programs in which violence was common, and 12 in which it was not. It is possible this

imbalance already biases results from the onset considering there are more choices of

violent programming than non-violent. In measuring aggressive attitudes, participants

TV Violence 20

responded to statements with agree, disagree, or not sure. This forced-choice approach

limits the data‘s richness in that there is little opportunity for, and thus less understanding

of, the degree to which respondents agree or disagree. Questionnaire items are also

susceptible to students providing socially acceptable answers given the 3-point, ―right‖,

―wrong‖, or ―neutral‖ scale. Despite these drawbacks, results still showed no real

discrepancy between the frequencies of violent versus non-violent television viewing.

Greenberg claims that there is support for his hypothesis, however this support is not

statistically significant nor are results entirely trustworthy based on the study‘s

limitations.

A study with similar limitations investigated contributors to violent behavior

among elementary and middle school children. Singer, Miller, Guo, Flannery, Frierson,

and Slovak (1999) studied 2,245 public school students‘ exposure to violence, parental

monitoring, and TV-viewing habits based on self-reported data of violent behaviors.

They hypothesized that exposure to real-life violence, preference for violent

programming, and number of TV-viewing hours would be positively associated to self-

reported violent behaviors, while parental monitoring would be negatively associated.

The researchers found evidence to support all hypotheses, but not without study

limitations. Third through eighth graders completed a 45-minute anonymous

questionnaire in which they reported any recent exposure to violence, past exposure, self-

identified violent behavior, personal TV-viewing patters, and degree of parental

monitoring. The first limitation concerns the survey design that is at risk for participant

exhaustion from a 45-minute questionnaire. Additionally, recall errors, embarrassment,

and even fear may occur in kids when asked to report on past exposure to violence. Self-

TV Violence 21

reported violent behavior is subject to misconceptions and misinterpretations of what

each individual student considers violent behavior to be. The overarching weakness of

this study stems from its dependence on self-reported data.

Huesmann and Eron (1986) approached their 3-year longitudinal cross-national

study primarily with an information-processing, learning model. According to this model,

the aggressiveness of a child is determined most by the extent to which a child‘s

environment frustrates and victimizes the child, provides aggressive models (or scripts),

and reinforces aggression (p. 239). Recognizing that serious aggression requires the

convergence of several factors, the researchers conducted their longitudinal study under

the assumption that environmental instigators, because of differences in their cognitive

functioning, affect children differently. They concluded, ―results were remarkably

consistent, especially when one considers the vastly different television and social

environments in the participating countries,‖ (p. 255). For example, results from almost

every country indicated that more aggressive children watch more violence in the media.

Unique to this cross-national study are correlations obtained between aggression,

popularity and TV viewing. The researchers hypothesized that aggressive behavior made

kids less popular, thus provoking them to spend more time watching television. This

unpopularity may exacerbate the relationship between television violence and aggression

(p. 249). With the exception of Israel, every sample showed that the more aggressive

children were less popular among peers. Alternatively, in the U.S. only, there was

evidence that less popular kids watched more TV violence.

In 1988, Huesmann furthered his research on the development of aggression using

an information-processing model. Assuming that predisposing factors co-occur with

TV Violence 22

environmental conditions, Huesmann emphasizes that neurological, hormonal, and other

physiological abnormalities stemming from genetic, prenatal, and even traumatic

histories also play a role in surfacing aggressive behavior. That is, he believed the

natural conditions a child experiences from womb through the beginning of his or her life

coupled with any genetic, inherited conditions work together to determine a child‘s future

aggressive tendencies.

Encoding, retrieving, and rehearsing memory scripts are other major components

to a child‘s aggressive play. Upon retrieval, Huesmann explains that a child reevaluates a

script for its potential consequences, appropriateness in a given situation, and measures it

against his or her internalized social norms. Because of the variance in experiences and

cognitive development among children, some may have a matured capacity to more

thoroughly evaluate cues, while others may have different reinforcement histories that

identify different patterns of reward and punishment.

A frequent argument concerning kids‘ television viewing is TV‘s unrealistic

display of rewards and punishment, citing that violent behavior all too often is applauded,

or occurs without remorse or consequence. Based on previous content analyses, violence

is far more common in programming targeted to younger audiences than it is in

primetime television. Overt physical violence becomes an efficient means of

entertainment since children‘s programming cannot hold the same attention with

complicated plot lines and emotionally developed characters. In 1992, a study published

in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that during the 27 hours a

week a child spends watching TV, he or she will witness 200,000 acts of violence by the

age of eighteen (Stossel, 1997, p. 90). The American Academy of Family Physicians

TV Violence 23

indicates that cartoons account for 46 percent of television violence (as cited by

Federman, 1996-1998). Saturday morning cartoons alone show 20-25 violent acts per

hour (American Association of Pediatrics Committee on Communications, 1995). These

violent portrayals are what Gerbner referred to as ―happy violence.‖ He said, ―Humor is

a sugar coating that makes the pill of violence go down much more easily – so it gets

integrated into one‘s framework of knowledge,‖ (as cited in Stossel, 1997, p. 96).

Hapkiewicz and Roden (1971) studied the effect of aggressive cartoons on the

interpersonal play of 60 second graders. Each student was randomly assigned into same-

sex pairs, and each pair was then randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups:

aggressive cartoon, nonaggressive cartoon, and no cartoon. This study is unique in that it

incorporates the control variable of viewing no TV at all for comparison to viewing

aggressive/violent TV versus non-aggressive/non-violent TV. This study observed both

aggressive (such as pushing) and prosocial (such as sharing) behaviors in student pairs

post-treatment. Results revealed no significant differences among the three groups,

which could have been affected by the small sample size. Researchers also point out that

since the investigation was conducted in a school where such behaviors as standing in

lines, waiting, and taking turns are encouraged and reinforced, it would be valuable to

study the effects of aggressive films on prosocial behavior in a variety of other social

contexts (p. 1585).

Interpersonal play was also observed by Huston-Stein, Fox, Greer, Watkins, and

Whitaker (1981) to investigate the effects on 66 preschoolers under four television

viewing conditions: high action-high violence, high action-low violence, low action-low

violence, and no TV viewing. Like Hapkiewicz and Roden (1971), the study by Huston-

TV Violence 24

Stein et al. looks for effects in the form of immediate, external and outward behavior

demonstrations from a small sample of same-sex pairs. According to researchers,

findings lend more support to general arousal theory than modeling theory. The data,

while not significant, showed that action is more important than violence in attracting and

holding children‘s attention. A pre and post-treatment evaluation could have helped

improve the significance of results regarding differences in free play among groups.

To summarize previous research on TV violence and aggressive behavior, Paik

and Comstock (1994) conducted a meta-analysis that reviewed empirical research to

discern a causal relationship between violent television viewing and aggressive,

antisocial behavior in everyday life, and the magnitude of effect. A total of 217 studies

were selected, both published and unpublished, dating from 1957 to 1990. Paik and

Comstock acknowledge that a common criticism of statistical meta-analysis is the

question of independence among the hypothesis tests emerging from all the included

studies. Among their results, they found that direct exposure to violence seems to induce

more aggression than mass mediated exposure. In terms of magnitude, the effect was

largest when antisocial behavior was measured as aggression toward an object, and

smallest when measured as criminal violence against a person (p. 531). It could be

argued that publication bias – which claims those studies with significant outcomes are

more likely to be published, or available, than those without significant findings – is

present in this meta-analysis, noting that the pool of studies used consisted of 85 percent

published and 15 percent unpublished.

Governmental Reports

TV Violence 25

In a report from the Surgeon General‘s Scientific Advisory Committee on

Television and Social Behavior, researchers outlined results from over two years of study,

which began in 1969, to examine the complex issue of violence on TV (National Institute

of Mental Health, 1971). Upon detailing the study‘s findings, it is prefaced that the

impact of televised violence on the viewer is embedded in a complicated set of related

variables. The initial request for the Committee‘s extensive investigation was initiated by

a request from Senator John O. Pastore to Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary

Robert H. Finch. Expressing his concerns, Pastore wrote, ―I am exceedingly troubled by

the lack of any definitive information which would help resolve the question of whether

there is a causal connection between televised crime and violence and antisocial behavior

by individuals, especially children…‖ (p. 1). In an effort to correct common criticisms of

previous research methods and findings, the studies involved in this research utilized

whole television programs, rather than brief excerpts; and observed the possibility of

prosocial as well as antisocial responses after viewing.

According to the report, 23 independent projects were funded in order to provide

a multidimensional approach to the assessment of television‘s effects. Unfortunately, the

results from the 1971 report show similar inconsistencies and circumstantial evidence

indicated in previous research. Researchers concluded that the possible role of mass

media in very early acquisition of aggressive tendencies remains unknown. Their

explanation comes from data which demonstrated that in highly controlled laboratory

studies, there is evidence that television viewing may lead to an increase in aggressive

behavior. Conversely, this evidence was considerably weaker in studies conducted in

more natural conditions. In sum, the two-year investigation found that in some cases,

TV Violence 26

viewing television violence may cause an increase in some children some of the time. ―It

is exceedingly difficult to disentangle from other elements of an individual‘s life history,‖

(p. 5). Paik and Comstock (1994) point out that the survey research studies undertaken

by the Surgeon General‘s committee are important because they capture everyday

viewing and everyday aggression, although problematic for causal inference (p. 518).

Additionally, results from the study cannot be generalized to the entire public, as

participants do not consist of cross-section samples of the entire American population of

children.

Cater and Strickland (1979) outline the history of the committee, its findings, the

influx of backlash and support, and responses from both the industry and the government.

The conservative terms with which the Advisory Committee cautioned their conclusions

coupled with the controversial nature of the topic, and personal/professional agendas of

all constituents involved, brought about an onslaught of criticism. Professor James

Anderson of Ohio University, among a number of critics, scrutinized the

inconclusiveness of the report, offering that the most disappointing factor was the failure

of the project to provide any progress in the area of effects (Cater & Strickland, p. 96).

From the media, the report and Advisory Committee combated additional criticisms as

well as sensationalized reporting. Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld responded to the

chatter and demonstrated continued support for the research even once out of office,

urging parents to take action and demand better TV for their children. In the May 1973

issue of Reader’s Digest, Steinfeld said, ―We can no longer tolerate the present high

levels of televised violence that is put before children in American Homes‖ (p. 38 as cited

in Cater et al., p. 101).

TV Violence 27

In a more recent report on Senate Bill 363, the Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation provided background information on television violence and details of

the legislation. The purpose of the bill, as stated in the report, is to protect American

children from the harm caused by viewing violence on television (McCain, 1997). The

first Congressional hearings on television violence were held in 1952. In the Senate,

hearings were held in 1954, and again in every decade through the 1990s (p. 21). The

1972 Surgeon General report called for Congressional action, but according to McCain

and this report, each time the issue was raised in Congress, the industry continually

promised to regulate itself while at the same time urged against Congressional action.

Senate Bill 363, or S. 363, amends the Communications Act of 1934. It would prohibit

the distribution of violent programming that cannot be blocked by electronic means in

broadcast and cable television during the hours of the day when children are likely to

comprise a substantial portion of the viewing audience (p. 26). Electronic means

includes the V-chip that was introduced during the 104th

Congress as part of the 1996

Telecommunications Act. Estimated costs to enact S. 363 would reach about $3 million

in new discretionary spending over a four-year period.

Discussion

It is clear that television‘s popularity has raised questions about its social effects

since its inception. As Comstock (1975) explains, ―A polling of the conclusions would

lead one to accept the proposition that under at least some circumstances, viewing

violence increases the likelihood of some form of subsequent aggressiveness.

Nevertheless, it is also difficult to escape the impression that there are very wide

differences in the acceptance of the findings‖ (p. 29).

TV Violence 28

Differences in findings relate to limitations of previous literature. Much of the

research on media violence has focused on the observation and measurement of

immediate, overt behavior that occurs after viewing a particular program or isolated

scenes from programs. Gerbner and Gross (1976) criticize that these types of

experimental or quasi-experimental research designs are of limited value because they

ignore the fact that the world of TV drama consists of a complex and integrated system of

characters, events, actions, and relationships – all of whose effects cannot be measured

with regard to any single element or program seen in isolation. This and other criticism

comes from the observation that little longitudinal research has been done on the topic of

television violence. Studies that have conducted longitudinal research are subject to their

own limitations such as the inconclusiveness of the Surgeon General‘s report; or the 1986

cross-national comparison by Huesmann and Eron, whose findings are considered not

entirely reliable because methods and procedures could not be identically replicated

within each country due to rules and restrictions unique to each location. Huston-Stein,

Fox, Greer, Watkins & Whitaker (1981) note the narrow range of behavioral outcomes

examined as still another limitation of previous studies on television violence (p. 184).

One major part of the debate concerning effects of viewing violence on TV

pertains to the blurred lines between real and fantasy. Although not entirely absent from

previous literature, the concept of television as an ―artificial reality‖ has not been widely

tested as a unique effect separate from additional socially undesirable behaviors.

Research Questions

Various limitations of previous studies evoke interest in the investigation of more

current, hopefully evolved, research. ―We are in need of an up-to-date conceptual

TV Violence 29

framework to motivate inquiry into our socialization,‖ (Hepburn, 1998). Still, even with

such limitations, Paik and Comstock (1994) defend that findings obtained since the 1980s

strengthen the evidence that television violence increases aggressive and antisocial

behavior to a varying degree, depending on the choice of the variables considered (p.

538).

This thesis will therefore examine recent research within the same general-to-

specific themes previously identified: content analyses; attitudes toward violence; long

and short-term effects; and direct and indirect aggression. Archival research of studies

from the year 2000 to the present will be investigated to address the following research

questions:

RQ1: What progress and/or new conclusions, if any, can be drawn regarding

effects impacting children viewing violence on television?

RQ2: What new or developed understandings have emerged over the last ten

years specifically relating TV violence to aggressive behavior and fear of victimization

among youth?

As previously stated, Gerbner and Gross (1976) suggest that the confusing state of

television research is largely due to inappropriate conceptions of the problem. They

explain, ―the reach, scope, ritualization, organic connectedness, and non-selective use of

mainstream television makes it different from other media of mass communications,‖ (p.

179). The following chapter outlines the scope and methodology of the present meta-

analysis that investigates current TV violence studies with the intent to uncover better

understandings of the confusing state of television research.

TV Violence 30

CHAPTER 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

Scope of the Study

Studies have been conducted to discern behavioral influences of violent television

viewing and entertainment since the late 1950s. While vast, the research over these last

sixty years is vague and conflicting. The evolution of cellular technology, video games,

computers, and other forms of media entertainment have only broadened and complicated

the study of media effects further. Singer suggest that children interpret information

gleaned from films, television, video games, computers, and even books in ways

commensurate with their cognitive level (Dowd, Singer, & Wilson, 2006, p. xxviii). Of

his social cognitive theory, Bandura (1986) explained that new technologies alter the

mode of modeling to boost its instructive power (p. 71). Given children‘s vulnerable

impressionability towards all types of models, the focus of this thesis was narrowed to

concern youth and television media specifically. ―To a child growing up immersed in the

culture of images, it appears to be the most natural thing in the world‖ (Gitlin, 2002, p.

24). This generation‘s kids, teens and young adults are unaccustomed to life without

television and television violence. This study reviews recent data on television violence

and its effects on today‘s youth with the intention of creating a clearer understanding for

present and future research.

Methodology of the Study

A qualitative meta-analysis of documentary research was employed to reveal

current information about the strength and consistency in findings from studies on TV

violence and its effects on youth. Studies conducted from 2000 to the present were

compiled and analyzed through exemplary archival research of previous literature. The

TV Violence 31

types of current data included in the evaluation are scholarly articles; academic books and

journals; studies conducted by government, non-profit, and activist organizations; as well

as reports from family, youth and medical societies. Online databases such as Academic

Search Complete and Google Scholar were utilized to locate scholarly journal articles

from different fields of study including psychology, sociology, communication, broadcast

and electronic media, children and family, early childhood education, and more.

ProQuest Direct, Google Books, and additional online resources were used to gather

popular news media, non-academic texts, and survey research from various public and

private organizations, associations and societies.

The described meta-analysis will assist in drawing conclusions about the strength

and consistency of communication effects across studies (Rubin, Rubin, Haridakis, &

Piele, 2010, p. 214) that are critical considering the litigious reputation concerning the

effects of viewing violence on television. The strengths of archival data collection and

analysis deem it an appropriate research method for this study‘s intentions. It allows the

potential for spanning long periods of time, including time passed, the ability to cover

large and diverse populations, and to evaluate multiple variables and units of observation

not always feasible through a single study (Hoyle, Harris, & Judd, 2002). Data will be

compiled into one comprehensive analysis highlighting new findings and advances in

research, as well as gaps that still exist or themes that require further study. The

inclusion of both academic and non-academic findings relevant to this area of study

demonstrates a non-biased approach to data analysis. In this sense, academic findings

refer to scholarly studies conducted by researchers at the university level. Non-academic

TV Violence 32

research refers to data from public and private organizations with an interest in childhood

development or mass media communications.

TV Violence 33

CHAPTER 4: THE STUDY

The Literature

Current research on the effects of viewing television violence, while evolved, is

still comprised of familiar themes seen in previous studies from the last several decades.

New programs, growing audiences, and an evolving medium contribute to the continued

importance of content analysis in understanding the images kids see on their TV screen.

How children feel about what they are watching, and how they feel while they are

watching are other underlying variables of both past and present research. Antisocial

effects such as aggression, desensitization, and fear of victimization continue to be main

areas of focus, while new studies emerge addressing additional consequences from

televised violence. As researchers continue to find new angles and utilize advanced

research methods, one commonality still plaguing research is the hesitation to infer

causality. Even so, prevention advice and intervention studies are on the rise. The

following analysis of current data reflects themes previously discussed, and offers new

insight into TV violence, organized into these three categories: (1) the picture of

violence; (2) Cognitive assessments; and (3) Aggression and other residual effects.

The Picture of Violence

Nearly every single American household, 99 percent, owns at least one television,

while most households own two or more (Herr, 2007). Bauder (2006) indicates that more

than half of all American households have three or more television sets (as cited in Potter,

2008, p. 5). A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation (2010) found that kids ages 8 to 18

watch approximately four and a half hours of television each day. The study also found

TV Violence 34

that 71 percent of kids have a television in their bedrooms. Television‘s saturation is

evident, as is the presence of violence in programming.

In an effort to keep findings current, Signorielli (2003) conducted a content

analysis on 13 weeks of network dramatic programming that builds upon content research

from the Cultural Indicators Project and context research from the National Television

Violence Study (NTVS). Results indicate that the overall level of violence did not

change between the spring of 1993 and the fall of 2001, with six out of 10 network

prime-time programs containing some violence (p. 53). One omission from Signorielli‘s

study that limits its contribution is the elimination of news/information programs from

her analysis. With this removal, only fantasy violence is included in the analysis. One

new finding, however, showed that the same amount of violence continues to be

committed, but by fewer characters. ―In short, for the past 30-plus years, violence was

found in 60 percent of prime-time network programs at a rate of 4.5 acts per program,‖ (p.

54).

Glascock (2008) designed a content analysis to review aggressive behaviors also

within prime-time network television programming, using Bandura‘s social learning-

social cognitive theory and Gerbner‘s cultivation theory to guide his research.

Recognizing that programming formats have changed over the last decade to include

news magazine and reality shows, Glascock‘s study adds to previous content analyses

while focusing specifically on verbal, indirect, and physical acts of aggression. A total of

6,599 aggressive acts were coded, and overall, he found there were approximately 68 acts

of aggression per hour on network prime-time TV (p. 274). No significant differences

were found in TV genre or network. It is important to note that Glascock‘ findings are

TV Violence 35

based on weighted representations of sex and ethnicity, as opposed to the actual

representations seen on TV. This fact challenges the results of the study because data is

not based on a representative sample, but rather, a quota sample that does not reflect what

viewers actually see when they watch.

According to Smith, Nathanson, and Wilson (2002), past content analyses are

plagued by at least three limitations (p. 86). First, they claim almost all previous research

has focused on violence seen on major broadcast networks, ignoring violence on popular

premium cable programming. This limitation is even seen in more recent research like

Signorielli (2003) and Glascock‘s (2008) studies. The second limitation is that a majority

of previous studies have compared prime time only to Saturday morning television

programming. This is the case with Gerbner‘s famed Cultural Indicators Project, which

does not account for other time frames such as after-school or late-night television. Third,

Smith et al. offer that past research has taken only a minimal look at the contextual nature

of violence while focusing more on sheer amount. To combat these limitations, Smith,

Wilson, and various other researchers engaged in three separate studies all assessing

violence on television, and all published in the March 2002 issue of the Journal of

Communication.

Using social cognitive theory to frame their analysis, Smith et al. designed their

study to assess the prevalence and context of violence in a random, representative sample

of 23 broadcast, independent, and cable channels (p. 84). As an extension of data from

NTVS, this study found no significant differences in the amount of violence between

prime time and other times of day (p. 93). According to the authors, violence is prevalent

no matter what time of day is considered. However, only the most popular viewing hours

TV Violence 36

were assessed, and because of its low levels of violence, public broadcasting was dropped

from analyses involving context. Both points contradict the study‘s generalizations

regarding violence on all channels, all the time. Additionally, like several other studies,

this research did not include news or sports programming, further excluding research of

real violence on TV. The oversight of news and sports programming, along with the

exclusion of public broadcasting, provides an inaccurate understanding of the true

dimensions of violence on TV. The misconceptions of this study‘s findings suggest

researcher bias and the hope of creating favorable results.

Continuing to work off NTVS data, Wilson, Smith, Potter, Kunkel, Linz, Colvin,

and Donnerstein (2002) investigated the nature and extent of violence contained in

television programming that targets children 12 years and younger (p. 5). They found

that programs targeted to children contain more violence overall than nonchildren‘s

shows (p. 29). Additionally violence in children‘s programming is more likely to be

sanitized and trivialized. For example, their results showed that more than three fourths

of violent scenes in kids‘ programs contained some form of humor, while only one fourth

of other types of programming displayed aggression in a humorous context (p. 22).

Knowing what they did about how much and under what conditions violence was

being committed, Wilson, Colvin, and Smith (2002) set out to learn more about the

perpetrators committing this violence. Returning to NTVS data, the researchers assessed

the nature of the characters, the nature of the violence, and the context of the violence.

They found that a large majority of violent perpetrators, 89 percent, were adults, while

children and teens accounted for four and seven percent respectively. Considered

together across the 2,500 hours of programming sample, this means that younger

TV Violence 37

perpetrators engage in on-screen violence roughly once every hour and a half, and adult

perpetrators approximately five times per hour (p. 45). Overall, compared to adult

perpetrators, this study found that younger perpetrators are more likely to be portrayed as

attractive, are punished less often, and engage in violence that results in fewer negative

consequences to the victim (p. 53). In spite of this, the violence committed by child

characters is less serious and less intense (p. 54). However, because only violent

behaviors and violent characters were coded in this study, the nature of youth-engaged

violence cannot be reported in terms of all behaviors by all child characters.

While published in 2002, these last three studies from the March issue of the

Journal of Communication all rely on data collected between 1995-1997, which in one

aspect reduces the newness in research findings, but in another, offers a fresh perspective

on already discussed findings.

New to TV violence content analysis is the inclusion of advertising. Martinez,

Prieto, and Farfan (2006) posit that similar to the neglect of real violence such as news

programming, the effects of advertising on children have also been overlooked in

previous research. ―Advertising stands out not only because of its constant and

substantial presence, but also because of the most important sociocultural and financial

repercussions that it entails,‖ (p. 282). In their research, Martinez et al. (2006) point out

the use of aggression and violence in televised advertising relating to children from three

perspectives: minors as targets for advertisements; minors as an advertising resource,

and; minors as receptors of advertisements (p. 274). Minors are both on screen selling,

and off screen increasingly targeted as current and future buyers and consumers, as well

as influencing agents on the buying habits of their families. This type of TV violence

TV Violence 38

research is increasingly important because of advertising‘s blatant motives. It can be

argued that television programming is primarily intended for selling audience to

advertisers through the guise of entertainment or information purposes. Advertising,

however, has a very obvious and direct objective to persuade the viewer to invest in

whatever good or service is being promoted. In this sense, when violence is used on a

young audience to achieve this goal, it is deliberately trying to create an effect that may

suggest, or result in, antisocial behavior. While research on consumer-related effects of

advertising is abundant, Martinez et al. (2006) reiterate that further research is needed in

this genre of television violence effects.

Cognitive Assessments

Studies over the last decade have attempted to address limits in previous research

by examining more than just the immediate, overt, behavioral responses a child may or

may not demonstrate after viewing violent television. Two major themes have emerged

in recent research on watching TV violence that focus on children‘s cognitive capacities

and development. These themes are emotional development, which includes kids‘

enjoyment and acceptance of TV violence; and moral development and understanding,

which includes reasoning and the conflict between reality and fantasy.

Citak (2009) set out to contribute to attitudinal research by constructing an

attitude scale based on over 200 undergraduates‘ responses to a 30-item questionnaire

using a 3-point Likert scale. While the scale was not utilized in further study, researchers

intend for it to be a reliable and valid instrument of measurement in ascertaining attitudes

toward violence on television.

TV Violence 39

Such attitudes toward television violence are often discussed in terms of degree of

enjoyment and program selection. Weaver (2011) conducted a meta-analytical review of

existing research to investigate selective exposure to and the enjoyment of media

violence. A common argument for the saturation of violence in the media is that

audiences are sensation seekers who want violence (Potter, 2008; Krcmar & Greene,

1999). In his study, Weaver (2011) found selective exposure to and enjoyment of violent

content to be unique processes in that violence increases selective exposure but decreases

enjoyment (p. 244). A survey by Hassan, Osman, and Azarian (2009) measured affection

towards violence on television, meaning how strongly participants preferred or enjoyed

viewing violence. They sought to determine whether violent entertainment viewing

habits of adolescent boys in Kuala Lumpur predict their attitudes about aggression. From

their sample, they found that boys with a greater affection for violence in movies

exhibited a more positive attitude toward aggression in general (p. 153).

Regarding exposure, Vidal, Clemente, and Espinosa (2003) conducted an

experimental study, which hypothesized that attraction toward violence is related to the

amount of TV usage. Vidal, et al. summarized their findings claiming that the more

youths watch violence, the more they enjoy it (p. 391). The researchers also found that

initial valuing of violence was neutral meaning participants did not like or dislike

violence prior to the experiment. In a cross-sectional study, Krcmar and Vieira (2005)

investigated the impact of family relations and found that children‘s moral reasoning and

perceptions of justified and unjustified violence were not similar to the responses of their

parents (p. 288). While limitations to this study keep it from being generalized to all

youth, the data does spark discussion and implies a need for further research.

TV Violence 40

Wilson (2008) offers that children engage in emotional sharing with well-liked

characters (p. 92) that in turn may account for the valuing or enjoyment of television

violence, or at the least, toleration. According to Potter (2008) people identify with

characters who have similarities to them but who also have qualities that they would like

to possess (p. 83). ―From a social learning-cognitive theoretical perspective, children

may focus on television characters who are ‗like‘ them to guide their behavior or help

them form scripts of acceptable behaviors and possible outcomes,‖ (Bandura, 2002, as

cited in Signorielli, 2006, p. 150).

This emotional empathy toward on-screen characters has been described by some

researchers as the result of the sanitized and glamorized pattern that television violence

follows (Kunkel & Zwarun, 2006; Potter, 2008). Kunkel and Zwarun define a sanitized

depiction of violence to mean that the portrayal fails to show realistic harm to victims,

both from a short- and long-term perspective (p. 209), while a glamorized depiction

refers to violence that is performed by attractive role models who are often justified for

acting aggressively and who suffer no remorse, criticism, or penalty for their violent

behavior (p. 210).

The use of humor in violent content is one way programming can be both

sanitized and glamorized. According to Wilson, Colvin, and Smith (2002), 70 percent of

child aggressors in their TV study were featured in a scene that combined violence with

humor, whereas less than half of adult perpetrators were shown in this context (p. 55).

Cartoons commonly integrate violence and humor as seen by the Cultural Indicator‘s

Project and NTVS. Other previous studies reiterate the high content of violence in

cartoons. For example, the American Academy of Family Physicians found that cartoons

TV Violence 41

account for 46 percent of television violence (as cited by Federman, 1996-1998) and

Saturday morning cartoons alone show 20-25 violent acts per hour (American

Association of Pediatrics Committee on Communications, 1995).

More recently, Peters and Blumberg (2002) took a critical look at research

examining the effects of cartoon violence on children‘s moral understanding and

behavior, asking if its effects truly are as detrimental as they have been perceived. They

explain that given the fantasy-based content and unrealistic character actions, cartoons

create a ‗gray world‘ as far as violence is concerned. Cartoon violence, they suggest,

may provide young viewers with a faulty impression of the impact of violence and

aggression in real-life situations (p. 145). That is, children as an audience are

desensitized, experiencing a false sense of reality in which consequences of violence are

limited, levels of harm are unrealistically low, and kids aggress against kids their own age

(Wilson, Colvin, & Smith, 2002, pp. 54-55). This bystander effect consists of increased

callousness, desensitization, and behavioral indifference toward real-life violence among

others. Slaby, Roedell, Arezzo and Hendrix (1995) explain that when violence is

portrayed as commonplace, acceptable, and justifiable, the viewing of violence can

undermine the viewer‘s feelings of concern, empathy, or sympathy toward victims of

real-life violence (p. 166).

The American Academy of Pediatrics (2009) explains that children younger than

eight cannot uniformly discriminate between real life and the fantasy or entertainment

reality offered by TV. As a result, ―[Kids] quickly learn that violence is an acceptable

solution to resolving even complex problems, particularly if the aggressor is the hero,‖

(as cited by Parents Television Council, 2011).

TV Violence 42

According to cultivation theory, people who watch a great deal of television will

come to perceive the real world as being consistent with what they see. A study by the

Kaiser Family Foundation (2010) found that kids ages 8 to 18 watch approximately four

and a half hours of television each day. The study also found that 71 percent of kids have

a television in their bedrooms. If what they see is violence, cultivation theory suggests

that these young viewers will develop a fear of victimization. Gerbner (2002) described

the patterns of violence and victimization as demonstrations of power. Cultivation theory

posits that these depictions serve to intimidate rather than incite and to paralyze rather

than trigger action (as cited in Signorielli, 2006, p. 158).

Aggression and Other Residual Effects

In 2000, six major medical organizations (American Academy of Pediatrics,

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological

Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians,

and American Psychiatric Association) issued a joint statement to Congress, concluding

that ―viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values,

and behavior, particularly in children,‖ (Congressional Public Health Summit, as cited in

Wilson, 2008, p. 100).

Christakis and Zimmerman (2007) corroborate this joint statement, however only

partially, in their five-year observational, longitudinal study published in Pediatrics, the

official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Their results showed that

viewing violent programming by preschoolers is associated with subsequent aggressive

behavior, but only for boys (p. 996). In their 15-year longitudinal study of 329 youth,

Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, and Eron (2003) found a significant relationship for

TV Violence 43

both boys and girls when comparing the relative plausibility of observational learning and

desensitization theories with the plausibility of the preference-for-violence theory and

potential for a third variable (p. 203). ―Children‘s TV-violence viewing between ages 6

and 9, children‘s identification with aggressive same-sex TV characters, and children‘s

perceptions that TV violence is realistic were significantly correlated with their adult

aggression‖ (p. 215). While results were reported as significant, it is important to note

that both the five and 15-year longitudinal studies relied on previous data collected more

than ten years prior to their analyses and follow-ups. Issues of reliability and sampling

also suggest the potential for bias.

To challenge commonly accepted beliefs about television violence and

subsequent antisocial behavior, Blumberg, Bierwirth, and Schwartz (2008) contest that

perhaps young children may be less inclined to emulate violent actions seen on television

than currently thought. In their brief review of previous literature concerning cartoon

violence specifically, Blumberg et al. consequently reached similar conclusions to those

mentioned earlier on the topic of cartoons and the use of humor in violent programming.

―The frequent contextualization of violence coupled with the young children‘s cognitive

repertoire, notably, their abilities to distinguish right from wrong and fantasy from reality,

may mitigate the likelihood that young viewers will perpetrate the violent acts shown in

cartoons on others in real life‖ (p. 103).

Murray (2008) reviewed social, correlational, and experimental data from the

1950s to 1990s regarding the effects of media violence on children and avows that fifty

years of research leads to ―the inescapable conclusion that viewing media violence is

related to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behaviors‖ both short and long

TV Violence 44

term (p. 1212). Based on his research, he conceives that there may be a basis for thinking

about the addictive quality of media violence. He is not alone in this conjecture.

According to Robbins (2010), the progression of the technology of television parallels the

course of a drug addiction in that the addict must keep upping the quantity or purity in

order to get the desired effect (p. 122). This concept is especially dangerous in children

who are at a disadvantage given their lower levels of maturation and experience.

Discussion

Feshbach and Tangney (2008) believed there are few areas in the study of mass

media effects that have been as extensively investigated as the effects of exposure to

violence on television (p. 387). It appears kids‘ exposure to television is real. If it were

not, it seems unlikely that so much research would focus on the potentially damaging

effects from viewing. The average American youth spends 1,500 hours watching

television a year and spends only 900 hours in school (Herr, 2007). With media‘s

demanding presence in a television-rich society, all children become ―at-risk.‖ This is

especially true considering that past and present content analyses show how violence on

TV is targeted towards today‘s youth and is portrayed as being normal, entertaining, and

an efficient means for solving problems. Heroes are praised for killing the bad guys,

wrestlers are idolized for beating up their opponents, and kids everywhere are recreating

fight scenes at recess and in their living rooms with imaginary light sabers, nunchucks,

and machine guns.

Content analyses have continued to be conducted as a way to not only keep data

current, but also to hold industry groups accountable. Even so, policy makers are

interested in television fare that is extant, not what might be (Feshbach & Tangney, 2008,

TV Violence 45

p. 387). To get the full picture, it would be beneficial to have content analyses that

compare the number of nonviolent versus violent acts in a show, series, time slot, etc.

This would be especially helpful for use in observational studies of modeling behavior to

understand if violence dominates imitation by way of dominating content, or if violent

context overrules nonviolent regardless of a constant on-screen presence. Equally

important in such a study would be the inclusion of reality television, news/information

programming, and advertising on both network and cable television.

As the technology of the television transforms into flat screens, high definition,

3D, surround sound and more, research hurries to keep up. Robbins (2010) explains that

in most studies on the effects of TV, television is considered to be an undifferentiated

entity, meaning that in the case of violence on TV, the specific form in which violent

content is delivered is ignored. But as Robbins points out, ―a young child watching a

small screen from a distance is having a very different experience – psychically,

neurologically, physiologically – from a young child lying on the floor a few feet away

from a giant, surround-sounded, pulsing plasma screen‖ (p. 120). McLuhan‘s notorious

adage, ―the medium is the message,‖ advocates this same point. He insisted that societies

have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate

than by the content of the communication (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967, p. 8). Bearing this

argument, the actual device from which violent TV is viewed should also play a role in

effects research.

Certain production techniques tend to arouse viewers as well (Potter, 2008, p. 82),

humor being one such technique. Using humor in violent portrayals is what Gerbner

referred to as ―happy violence.‖ He states that comic violence, like other comic images,

TV Violence 46

conveys potentially significant lessons. Gerbner likened humor to the sugar coating that

makes the pill of violence go down easier (Signorielli, Gerbner, & Morgan, 1995) so it

gets integrated into one‘s framework of knowledge (as cited in Stossel, 1997, p. 96). In

this way, integrating humor and violence impairs children‘s ability to learn about

negative emotional issues (Wilson, 2008, p. 90). It keeps a child from learning how to

understand and cope with real, serious emotional situations that, unlike cartoons, are

more painful than humorous.

Caputo (1993) points out that television in general presents a view of reality that

is funnier, sexier, bolder, more violent and more intense than our own. Among children,

television creates a reality with which schools simply cannot compete (p. 183). Through

research, current studies have addressed the potential effects concerning humor,

consequence, accountability and morality within the false reality created by cartoon

violence. Richmond and Wilson (2008) attempt to go further in their study investigating

whether moral disengagement mediates enjoyment of violent media, leading to increased

exposure of such media. They claim participants might disengage morally in order to

justify violent media. Using the mechanisms of moral justification – for example,

diffusion of responsibility, distortion of possible consequences, or attribution of blame –

―people may justify acts of aggression and violence because they may see themselves

trying to combat ruthless others, as seen in films‖ (p. 351). According to the authors,

violent and aggressive conduct is made to appear morally acceptable and an effective

way of dealing with certain situations, whereas non-violent decisions are determined to

be ineffective. While their results indicate a significant relationship between the

technique of moral disengagement and enjoyment of violent media, this study does suffer

TV Violence 47

from research limitations including reliance solely on self-reported data from a small

convenience sample.

Much of recent research was conducted to ‗update‘ findings from previous studies,

highlighting changes, consistencies, and more. But like the work seen in previous

research, data derived within the last ten years is still inconclusive in a sense. Many

researchers claim significant relationships while downplaying study limitations.

Additionally, inconsistencies between results exist from one study to the next, as in the

gender discrepancy between Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, and Eron‘s (2003) and

Christakis and Zimmermann‘s (2007) studies. In spite of the limitations in these and

other studies, questions are still being asked and new studies are evolving, as is the

medium. ―The place of media in the lives of children is worth special attention – not

simply because children are uniquely impressionable but because their experience shapes

everyone‘s future,‖ (Gitlin, 2002, p. 17).

TV Violence 48

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS

Few people pass their day without spending at least some time with the television.

It can be active engagement, background noise, or perhaps some combination of the two.

Signorielli (2006) posits that television is the central and most pervasive mass medium in

American culture. With this understanding, Postman (1992) advises that the American

culture needs to know if television changes its conception of reality, the relationship of

the rich to the poor, and the idea of happiness itself (p. 19).

Gerbner‘s (1976) theory of cultivation makes this same inquiry into the

assumptions television cultivates about the facts, norms, and values of society. That is,

Gerber sought to know how television affects the way viewers perceive the world. In the

social cognitive view according to Bandura (1986), people are neither driven by inner

forces nor automatically shaped and controlled by external stimuli. Rather, he explains,

human functioning is explained in terms of a model of triadic reciprocality in which

behavior, cognitive and other personal factors, and environmental events all operate as

interacting determinants of each other (p. 18). With so many variables coexisting and

simultaneously acting upon each other, it seems imperative, albeit daunting, to control for

these extenuating factors when studying the effects of television viewing alone.

Limitations of the Study

As demonstrated by past and present research, it becomes nearly impossible to

control for each and every environmental, cognitive, and personal stimuli. This strains

the confidence of most studies, leaving conclusions from the late 1950s to present still

apprehensive to declare causality. It is an unavoidable impracticality that can be found in

nearly all previous research. Because these limitations already exist in the data, any

TV Violence 49

analysis of this data is immediately flawed. This is not to say that all previous data is

void of valuable contribution. Instead, it is to insist that it would be naïve to ignore the

possibility of a ‗third variable‘ for which researchers were unable to control. Concerning

this meta-analysis, third variables emerged as preexisting or impeding physiological,

psychological or environmental conditions for which researchers were unable to control.

These include intellectual level, social class, family communication, parental monitoring,

family aggression, parent and family viewing habits, and more.

Given the nature of dependency a meta-analysis has on previously conducted

research, this present study is to be consumed as exploratory in nature and explanatory in

results. The research questions employed searched for new ideas or further developed

findings about the effects children experience from viewing violence on TV. No

inference of causality was intended. Aside from the difficulty to control all variables, the

individual studies used in this analysis each come with their own research limitations that

may stem from issues of validity, reliability, sampling and more. Coinciding with

imperfect data is the potential for publication bias, which is the tendency to overstate the

magnitude of a given effect because relevant non-significant findings or failures to

replicate are not included in the review (Hoyle, Harris & Judd, 2002). In an attempt to

reduce such bias, this study included data from relevant scholarly, professional, medical,

and government organizations- all of which come with their own research biases and

imperfections.

Recommendations for Further Study

As the type of television, programming, and audience changes, so must the way

research is conducted, including the questions being asked. Content analyses, for

TV Violence 50

example, can no longer narrow their focus to prime-time network television alone, as the

advent of direct cable, satellite television, digital video recording (DVR), Internet TV and

more have dramatically changed viewing habits. Regarding programming, Glascock

(2008) recognized the growing popularity of entertainment news and ‗reality‘ television

and therefore included it in his content analysis. Sports, public broadcast, music

television, commercial advertising, and information news programs have also been

overlooked, and require inclusion in content analysis research. Another gap shows very

little available research on the occurrence of nonviolent versus violent incidents within

programming, a comparison that would help support the claims of an unparalleled

persistence of violent acts.

Besides frequency, nonviolent research may also assist in better understanding

children‘s modeling behaviors. Evidence continues to support Bandura‘s social learning

perspective that viewers engage or enjoy television more when they ‗like‘ or can relate to

the characters. When these liked characters act out in violence, viewers become

empathetic and in turn tolerate or excuse the negative behavior. If children accept and

model the violent acts, researchers would benefit from knowing if the same occurs for

liked characters committing nonviolent acts. For example, perhaps children get up and

sing in their living rooms after watching a musical, or kick around the soccer ball after

cheering on their favorite team. If kids‘ modeling behaviors from watching nonviolent

programming are just as strong as they are from violent, this adds new perspective to the

debate. More longitudinal research is needed in order to discern with more confidence

short- and long-term effects from violent television.

TV Violence 51

Whether researchers are studying aggression, fear of violence, attitudes toward

violence or various other objectives, most data is collected in an experimental,

observational setting. Knowing the difficulties of studying the effects of violence in a

real-world setting, a laboratory setting is common. However, many studies seek out

immediate behavioral responses to treatment without a pre-test or other way to discern a

child‘s predisposed tendency to think or act aggressively. These responses then become

erroneously correlated (or worse, causal) results to the negative effects of viewing

television violence. The question that has yet to be answered with certainty is whether

violent TV causes kids to be aggressive; or if aggressive kids search out violent TV.

Ethical implications may disturb attempts in answering this question, especially in long-

term studies, if subjecting participants to excessive on-screen violence does in fact cause

harm.

Violence, however, no longer translates to the outward physical display of

aggression since aggression no longer translates to outward physical displays of

antisocial behavior. While numerous studies have shown that viewing violence in the

media can influence an individual‘s subsequent aggression, none, according to Coyne,

Archer, and Eslea (2004), have examined the effect of viewing indirect aggression.

Because it is more subtle than overt, indirect aggression is much more difficult to

measure. For their research, Coyne et al. considered ―indirect aggression‖ to be both

verbal and physical aggression that is acted out devoid of the victim‘s presence. The

construct also referred to direct forms of relational aggression as well as nonverbal

aggression (p. 236).

Prevention and Intervention

TV Violence 52

Even with the absence of undisputable proof, several media effects researchers

have embarked upon prevention and intervention studies. Many of these studies follow

social cognitive approaches to media violence research and program implementation in

that they examine the processes involved in the comprehension, interpretation, and

evaluation of aggressive acts. One suggestion for further research, according to Murray

(2008), is to assess some of the neurological correlates of viewing televised violence (p.

1223). This stems from what he and Robbins (2010) consider the ―drugging‖ or

addictive quality of media violence. Like them, other researchers worry about the

dependence on television and advocate media literacy. Anderson, Berkowitz, Donnerstein,

Huesmann, Johnson, Linz, Malamuth, &Wartella (2003) encourage parental monitoring

and guidance as well as media education. Walma van der Molen (2004) discusses the

role of families, schools, even pediatricians to assist in promoting media awareness to

kids, especially when concerning ‗real-life‘ violence. ―The enormous amount of public

concern and research effort that has been directed at the prevalence of media violence and

at the harmful effects that it may have on children thus far largely has ignored the

regularity of real-life violence depicted in television news‖ (p. 1771).

Intervention research is not new, and while its studies are limited, the data is

growing. ―The lack of formal research on interventions related to media violence is

somewhat surprising, considering that the knowledge base from which experimental

interventions could be developed is large‖ (Anderson et al., p. 102). Rosenkoetter,

Rosenkoetter, Ozretich, and Acock (2004) conducted a year-long classroom-based

intervention with 177 children in grades first through third with the goal of making

TV Violence 53

participants more critical TV viewers. The main takeaway for students from this program

was that all television teaches, but different programs teach different lessons (p. 38).

In a similar study, Rosenkoetter, Rosenkoetter, and Acock (2009) conducted

another classroom-based intervention study involving 496 children in first through fourth

grade. The study lasted seven months, and students were interviewed before, during, and

after treatment. Compared to the 242 students from the control group, the researchers

found that the intervention group expressed more critical attitudes concerning television

violence. On the contrary, the intervention did not impact students‘ behavioral

aggression (p. 393).

For more than 25 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has been

addressing the issue of media and its positive and negative impact on the health and

behavior of children. ―Media are an important part of our lives and have much to teach,

but some media messages are negative and can be harmful to children‖ (Shifrin, 2007, p.

2). The AAP recognizes exposure to media violence as a significant risk to the health of

children, while stating that it is not the sole factor contributing to aggression, antisocial

attitudes and violence among kids and teens (p. 6). Representing 60,000 pediatricians,

AAP prevention and intervention methods advocate media literacy through public

education campaigns and the promotion of more child-positive media over censorship (p.

7).

What can be inferred about television violence is that no one child is immune

from its effects. Evidence shows that any child from any family, city or background has

the potential to use cultivated or learned notions of aggression in some future situation.

Whether that anticipated use of aggression can be predicted has yet to be determined.

TV Violence 54

Television violence research would benefit from attitudinal studies of imposed media

literacy programs. Media literacy research should observe attitude changes, the

occurrence of any changes in program selection made by participants, and changes in the

levels of enjoyment over the course of the study. Because there are few, if any, ethical

implications from teaching media literacy, an experiment deliberately encouraging such

an agenda would offer a new intervention perspective and more insight to TV violence

research in general.

Conclusions

―To a degree that was unthinkable in the seventeenth century, life experience has

become an experience in the presence of media‖ (Gitlin, 2002, p. 20). Much of what is

seen on TV is now categorized as ―reality,‖ and all of it is considered entertainment.

Postman (1985) called it ―junk.‖ The television long ago made its presence known in the

home and has since worked its way into the office, gym, classroom, waiting room, mobile

devices, and even automobiles. Now, the only activity demanding more time from

today‘s youth is sleep.

In his research, Murray (2008) found nearly 2,000 studies over the last fifty years

pertaining to various effects from television viewing, approximately 600 of which

directly related to violence (p. 1212). This meta-analysis sought to learn how research on

the effects of exposure to television violence has progressed over the last decade, and to

bring forward new observations and understandings. Content analysis has been an

important part of past and present research, dedicating most efforts to the violent images

kids see on screen. Still, this genre of research can benefit from updated, comprehensive

data that evaluates all times of day and types of programming. Some newer studies have

TV Violence 55

focused on previously conducted data from archaic research such as NTVS. While vast,

this data is not up-to-date and modern research perspectives that rely on past findings do

not accurately reflect today‘s viewers (See Smith, Nathanson & Wislon, 2002; Wilson,

Smith, Potter, Kunkel, Linz, Colvin, & Donnerstein, 2002; & Wilson, Colvin, & Smith,

2002).

Content analyses like Gerbner‘s Culural Indicators Project and NTVS have

provided extensive findings on the prevalence and commonness of violence on television.

Cultivation-based research supports the defense that repeated viewing of televised

violence leads to greater acceptance of risky attitudes and behaviors. Bandura‘s social

cognitive-social learning theory adds that depictions of liked characters experiencing

either rewards or punishments for their actions will influence viewers to be either more or

less likely to perform those behaviors themselves (Nabi & Clark, 2008, p. 407). Humor

is one such way that viewers‘ attitudes and behaviors are influenced.

Characters utilize humor to cultivate the acceptance of violence in viewers of all

ages, and is especially exploited in children‘s programming. Past and present research

shows that the lack of consequence, remorse, and funny context downplay the severity of

violence and lead to the cultivation of a false reality as well as decreased sensitivity

(Caputo, 1993; American Association of Pediatrics Committee on Communications,

1995; Signorielli, Gerbner, & Morgan, 1995; Federman, 1996-1998; Peters & Blumberg,

2002; Wilson, Colvin & Smith, 2002; Potter, 2008; Richmond & Wilson, 2008).

Decreased sensitivity is also described as desensitization. Some children may

model that which they see on TV, which can lead to callousness, apathy, and nonchalance

during emotional situations. What has yet to be clearly defined is the nature of

TV Violence 56

desensitization in terms of subsequent aggression. Levels of desensitization fall under a

spectrum, and concrete connections remain unknown. At the smallest level,

desensitization can mean reduced emotional reactions from viewing TV violence. At the

opposite extreme, it can reflect complete disregard for the consequences of one‘s own

violent actions.

Significant or not, research findings on aggression, desensitization and other

assumed antisocial effects from media violence have made television a target for blame.

In 2006, 5,958 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 16 each day

(Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009). In a single year, more U.S. children

will die from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS

combined (Children‘s Defense Fund, 2004, as cited by AAFP.org, 2010). While there is

no explanation behind why young people have and will continue to die like this, the mere

possibility that television violence contributes is enough to perpetuate the divisive fight

against it.

According to Gerber and Gross (1976), television‘s chief cultural function is to

spread and stabilize social patterns, to cultivate not change but resistance to change.

―Television is a medium of the socialization of most people into standardized roles and

behaviors. Its function is, in a word, enculturation‖ (p. 179). Critics fear that violence on

TV makes such negative scenes seem acceptable, if not expected, in real life situations.

Perpetuation of antisocial behaviors is a major concern when looking at the commonality

of violence on television. Pairing this commonality with the amount of time children

especially spend watching TV, the concern escalates. Even without the certainty of

TV Violence 57

causation, a correlation linking TV violence and antisocial behaviors suffices in keeping

the debate alive, and research persistent.

TV Violence 58

References

American Academy of Pediatrics (2009, November). Media violence: Council on

communications and media. Pediatrics. 124(5): 1495-1503.

American Association of Pediatrics, Committee on Communications (1995). Media

violence. Pediatrics. 95: 949-951.

Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz,

D., Malamuth, N. M., Wartella, E. (2003). The influence of media violence on

youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(3), 81-110.

Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D.

Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd

ed., pp. 121-

154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1971). Psychological modeling: Conflicting theories. Chicago: Aldine-

Atherton, Inc.

Bauder, D. (2006, September 21). More TVs than people in average home. Breitbart.com.

Retrieved by Potter, W. J. October 30, 2006, from

www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/21/D8K9ER580

Blumberg, F. C., Bierwirth, K. P., & Schwartz, A. J. (2008). Does cartoon violence beget

aggressive behavior in real life? An opposing view. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 36, 101-104.

TV Violence 59

Caputo, J. S. (1999, July 5). We all have role to play in cleaning up media‘s bad act. The

Spokesman Review/Spokane Chronicle. A11. Retrieved from

https://learn.gonzaga.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-319490_1

Caputo, J. S. (1993). Media literacy: The time is now. In Learning from learners: Fifty-

seventh yearbook of the Claremont Reading Conference (181-187). Retrieved

from

https://learn.gonzaga.edu/bbcswebdav/courses/COML516_A1_21833_SP11/CO

ML516_A1_21833_SP11_ImportedContent_20110105124122/GORG-COML-

516-000-

000_ImportedContent_20100819120006/Modules/Module%202.%20Media%20C

ontent%20and%20the%20Business%20of%20Media/Read/embedded/Caputo-

Media%20Literacy-The%20Time%20is%20Now.pdf

Cater, D. & Strickland, S. (1979). TV violence and the child: The evolution and fate of

the Surgeon General’s report. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Christakis, D. A. & Zimmerman, F. J. (2007). Violent television viewing during

preschool is associated with antisocial behavior during school age. Pediatrics,

120(5), 993-999.

Citak, G. G. (2009). Constructing an attitude scale: Attitudes toward violence on

televisions. International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(4), 268-273.

Comstock, G. (1975). The effects of television on children and adolescents: The evidence

so far. Journal of Communication, 25-34.

TV Violence 60

Congressional Public Health Summit (2000, July 26) Joint statement of the impact of

entertainment violence on children. Retrieved from

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm

Coyne, S. M., Archer, J., & Eslea, M. (2004). Cruel intentions on television and in real

life: Can viewing indirect aggression increase viewers‘ subsequent indirect

aggression?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(3), 234-253.

Dorfman, L., Woodruff, K., Chavez, V., & Wallack, L. (1997). Youth and violence on

local television news in California. American Journal of Public Health, 87(8),

1311-1316.

Dowd, N., Singer, D. G., & Wilson, R. F. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of children, culture

and violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Drabman, R. S. & Thomas, M. H. (1976). Does watching violence on television cause

apathy?. Pediatrics, 57(3), 329-331.

Federman J. (1996-1998). National television violence study I, II, and III. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Feshbach, S. & Tangney, J. (2008). Television viewing and aggression: Some alternative

perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 387-389.

Gerbner, G. (2002). Mass media and dissent. In M. Morgan (ed.), Against the

mainstream: The selected works of George Gerbner (pp. 479-481). New York:

Peter Lang.

Gerbner, G. (1972). Violence in television drama. In G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein

(Eds.), Television and social behavior (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

TV Violence 61

Gerbner, G. (1969). Dimensions of violence in television drama. Chapter 15 In R. K.

Baker & S. J. Ball (Eds.), Violence and media (a staff report to the National

Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence). United States of

America: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Gerbner, G. & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of

Communication (pre-1986), 26(2), 172-199.

Gitlin, T. (2002). Media unlimited: How the torrent of images and sounds overwhelms

our lives. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Glascock, J. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression on prime-time network television.

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(2), 268-281.

Greenberg, B. S. (1975). British children and televised violence. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 38(4), 531-547.

Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory (7th

ed.). New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Hapkiewicz, W. G. & Roden, A. H. (1971). The effect of aggressive cartoons on

children‘s interpersonal play. Child Development, 42, 1583-1585.

Hassan, M. S. B. H, Osman, M. N, & Azarian, Z. S. (2009). Effects of watching violence

movies on the attitudes concerning aggression among middle schoolboys (13-17

years old) at international schools in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. European Journal

of Scientific Research, 38(1), 141-156.

Hepburn, M. A. (1998). The power of the electronic media in the socialization of young

Americans: Implications for social studies education. Social Studies, 89(2).

TV Violence 62

Herr, N. (2007). Television & health. Retrieved from

http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html

Hoyle, R. H., Harris, M. J., & Judd, C. M. (2002). Research methods in social relations.

(7th

Ed.) United States of America: Thomson Learning, Inc.

Huesmann, L. R. & Eron, L. D. (1986). Television and the aggressive child: A cross-

national comparison. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Huesmann, L. R., 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(2), 201-222.

Huesmann, L. R. & Taylor, L. D. (2003). The case against the case against media

violence. In D. A. Gentile (Ed.), Media violence and children: A complete guide

for parents and professionals (pp. 107-130). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kaiser Family Foundation (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-

olds. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/mh012010presentL.pdf.

Kotler, J. A. & Calvert, S. L. (2003). Children‘s and adolescents‘ exposure to different

kinds of media violence: Recurring choices and recurring themes. In D. A.

Gentile (Ed.). Media violence and children: A complete guide for parents and

professionals. (pp. 171-184). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Krcmar, M. & Greene, K. (1999). Predicting exposure to and uses of television violence.

Journal of Communication, 49(3), 24-25.

TV Violence 63

Krcmar, M. & Vieira, E. T. (2005). Imitating life, imitating television: The effects of

family and television models on children‘s moral reasoning. Communication

Research, 32(3), 267-294.

Kunkel, D. & Wilson, B. (1995). Measuring television violence: The importance of

context. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39(2). Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/ehost/detail?sid=232419c5-

1a91-41fb-a0ba-

b3d3717e5af4%40sessionmgr12&vid=19&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Qt

bGI2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=9508240104

Kunkel, D. & Zwarun, L. (2006). How real is the problem of TV violence? Research and

policy perspectives. In N. Dowd, D. G. Singer, & R. F. Wilson (Eds.). Handbook

of children, culture and violence. (pp. 203-224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lazar, B. A. (1998). The lull of tradition: A grounded theory study of television violence,

children, and social work. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 15(2), 117-

131.

Males, M. (1998). Letters to the editor: California trends reveal teenage violence myths.

In American Journal of Public Health, 88(7), 1123.

Martinez, I. J., Prieto, M., D., & Farfan, J. (2006). Childhood and violence in advertising:

A current perspective. The International Communication Gazette, 68(3), 269-287.

McCain, J. (1997). Children’s Protection from Violent Programming Act (105th

Congress,

first session report from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

TV Violence 64

McLuhan, M. & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage: An inventory of effects.

New York: Bantam Books.

Murray, J. P. (2008). Media violence: The effects are both real and strong. American

Behavioral Scientist, 51(8), 1212-1230.

Murray, J. P. (1984) Results of an informal poll of knowledgeable persons concerning the

impact of television violence. Newsletter of the American Psychological

Association Division of Child, Youth, and Family Services, 7(1), 2.

Nabi, R. L. & Clark, S. (2008). Exploring the limits of social cognitive theory: Why

negatively reinforced behaviors on TV may be modeled anyway. Journal of

Communication, 58, 407-427.

National Institute of Mental Health. (1971). Television and growing up: The impact of

televised violence (Report to the Surgeon General: United States Public Health

Service). Rocksville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Paik, H. & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial

behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21(4), 516-546.

Palmer, E. D., Hockett, A. B., Dean, W. W. (1983). The television family and children‘s

fright reactions. Journal of Family Issues, 4(2), 279-292.

Parents Television Council (2011). Facts and TV statistics: “It’s just harmless

entertainment” Oh really?. Retrieved from

http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/facts/mediafacts.asp

Peters, K. M., & Blumberg, F. C. (2002). Cartoon violence: Is it as detrimental to

preschoolers as we think?. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(3), 143-148.

TV Violence 65

Postman, N. (2000, June 16-17). The humanism of media ecology [Speech]. Media

Ecology Association, 1, 10-16. Retrieved from

https://learn.gonzaga.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-319465_1

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York:

Vintage Books.

Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show

business. New York: Penguin.

Potter, W. J. (2008). Media literacy (4th

ed). Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pungente, J. (1990). The Jesuit Communication Project. Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Richmond, J., & Wilson, J. C. (2008). Are graphic media violence, aggression and moral

disengagement related?. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15(2), 350-357.

Robbins, J. (2010). Missing the big picture: Studies of TV‘s effects should consider how

HDTV is different. The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, 118-

122.

Rosenkoetter, L. I., Rosenkoetter, & Acock, A. C. (2009). Television violence: An

intervention to reduce its impact on children. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 30, 381-397.

Rosenkoetter, L. I., Rosenkoetter, S. E., Ozretich, R. A., & Acock, A. C. (2004).

Mitigating the harmful effects of violent television. Applied Developmental

Psychology, 25(1), 25-47.

Rubin, B. R., Rubin, A. M, Haridakis, P. M., & Piele, L. J. (2010). Communication

research: Strategies and sources (7th

ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.

TV Violence 66

Shifrin, D. L. (2007). Images kids see on the screen. (On behalf of the American

Academy of Pediatrics). Washington, DC: Department of Federal Affairs.

Signorielli, N. (2006). A preliminary demography of television violence. In N. Dowd, D.

G. Singer, & R. F. Wilson (Eds.). Handbook of children, culture and violence. (pp.

149-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Signorielli, N. (2003). Prime-time violence 1993-2001: Has the picture really changed?.

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(1), 36-57.

Signorielli, N., Gerbner, G., & Morgan, M. (1995). Violence on television: The Cultural

Indicators Project. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39(2), 278-283.

Slaby, R. G., Roedell, W. C., Arezzo, D., & Hendrix, K. (1995). Early violence

prevention: Tools for teachers of young children. Newton, MA: National

Association for the Education of Young Children.

Smith, S., Nathanson, A. I., & Wilson, B. (2002). Prime-time television: Assessing

violence during the most popular viewing hours. Journal of Communication,

52(1), 84-111.

Steinfeld, J. (May 1973). TV violence is harmful. Reader’s Digest, p. 38.

Stossel, S. (1997 May). The man who counts the killings. The Atlantic Monthly.

Retrieved from

https://learn.gonzaga.edu/bbcswebdav/courses/COML516_A1_21833_SP11/CO

ML516_A1_21833_SP11_ImportedContent_20110105124122/GORG-COML-

516-000-

000_ImportedContent_20100819120006/Modules/Module%203.%20Media%20E

ffects/Read/embedded/ManWhoCounts.pdf

TV Violence 67

Strasburger, V. C & Wilson, B. J. (2003). Television violence, In D. A. Gentile (Ed.),

Media violence and children: A complete guide for parents and professionals (pp.

57-86). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Tulloch, M. I. (1995). Evaluating aggression: School students‘ responses to television

portrayals of institutionalized violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(1),

95-115.

Vidal, M. A., Clemente, M., & Espinosa, P. (2003). Types of media violence and degree

of acceptance in under-18s. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 381-392.

Walma van der Molen, J. H. (2004). Special articles – Violence and suffering in

television news: Toward a broader conception of harmful television content for

children. Pediatrics, 113(6), 1771-1775.

Weaver, A. J. (2011). A meta-analytical review of selective exposure to and the

enjoyment of media violence. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(2),

232-250.

Wilson, B. J. (2008). Media and children‘s aggression, fear, and altruism. The Future of

Children, 18(1), 87-118.

Wilson, B. J., Colvin, C. M., & Smith, S. (2002). Engaging in violence on American

television: A comparison of child, teen, and adult perpetrators. Journal of

Communication, 52(1), 36-59.

Wilson, B. J., Smith, S. L., Potter, W. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Colvin, C., & Donnerstein,

E. (2002). Violence in children‘s television programming: Assessing the risks.

Journal of Communication, 52(1), 5-35.