This essay will explore the concepts of ‘inattentional’ and ‘change’ blindness to explain how someone can fail to see stimuli that they are looking directly at. The main focus is on two famous experiments; "Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events" by Simons and Chabris, (1999) which will be used to explain inattentional blindness and “Failure to detect changes to people during real-world interaction” by Simons and Levin (1998) which will be used to explain ‘change blindness’. However, the starting point for this discussion is attentional selection.
Active attentional selection occurs over space and time. The ‘spotlight’ has become the favoured metaphor for spatial attention because it captures some of the characteristics of attention - the feeling that attention can be used like a beam of light, to illuminate what is hidden. Cueing experiments have been an important tool for understanding spatial attention as a spotlight (Chun and Wolfe, 2001). In a cueing experiment, subjects are required to respond as quickly as possible to the onset of a light or other simple visual stimulus. This target stimulus is preceded by a “cue” whose function is to draw attention to the occurrence of a target in space. As a general rule, cues facilitate detection of and response to stimuli presented at the cued location. Posner consequently described attention as a "spotlight that enhances the efficiency of the detection of events within its beam" (Posner, 1980, p. 172).
The attentional spotlight theory is not the only metaphor used to describe visual attention. Eriksen and St. James (1986) proposed the zoom-lens metaphor. Rather than a beam of attention of a set size, they argued that we zoom in and out depending on the task. Like many metaphors, though, it is unwise to take them too literally. Subsequent findings examining the details have questioned several aspects of these theories raising two main objections to both: First, some studies suggest that attention can be split between two locations which has difficulty fitting with the idea of a single attentional 'beam' or 'lens' (Pylyshyn and Storm,1988). Second, research has shown that we can actually process visual stimuli outside the spotlight/zoom-lens quite thoroughly. McGlinchey-Berroth et al. (1993) revealed that patients with hemispheric neglect have been found to process visual information presented to their 'neglected' side.
Although there are problems with the attentional spotlight and zoom-lens as metaphors, they still provide a useful insight into how our attention can move independently of the eyes. The evidence also scientifically confirms the everyday experience of fixing the gaze and still being able to 'look around'. (Matlin, 2005)
Accordingly, when attention is not focused onto items in a scene they can go unnoticed. Therefore, Inattentional Blindness is the failure to see unattended items in a scene; literally ‘looking but not seeing’ (Mack and Rock, 1998). The scan path of the eye is therefore very strongly affected by visual attention. There are two general processes, called ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down‘, which determine where humans locate their visual attention (Braisby and Gellatly, 2005). The bottom-up process is entirely stimulus driven, for example, a candle burning in the dark or a pink taxi in a fleet of black cabs. In all these instances, the visual stimulus captures attention automatically without conscious choice. The top-down process, on the other hand, is directed by a voluntary control process which focuses attention on one or more objects which are relevant to the observer’s aim. Such aims may include looking for a street sign or counting the number of passes a team makes. In these scenarios, the conspicuous objects in a scene that would normally attract the viewer’s attention may be ignored if they are irrelevant to the task at hand. This is called ‘Inattentional Blindness‘. Recent psychological investigations have revealed that over half of people failed to detect fairly obvious elements of the environment when instructed to attend to a specific task. It has been discovered that most individuals (55%) fail to detect a man in a gorilla suit pass through a group of people passing a basketball when asked to count the number of times the ball is passed between the players (Simons and Chabris, 1999). Interestingly, in this experiment the ‘Gorilla’ walks in front of the ball on a couple of occasions crossing through the ‘spotlight’ and yet the majority of participants are blind to his existence despite stopping in the middle of the players and distinctively beating his chest. Inattentional blindness is a clear example of ‘looking but not seeing’. The next phenomenon that will be discussed is ‘change blindness’ which will show that even when someone’s attention is engaged they can fail to see an obvious change.
Simons and Levin (1998) approached pedestrians engaging them in conversation before changing the identity of the experimenter/conversationalist during the conversation. To make the change, they had two "workers" carry a door between the subject and experimenter. The results show that fifty percent of subjects failed to notice the change to a new person. The change blindness demonstration is interesting because, unlike inattentional blindness there is no question that observers have attended to the scene and to the objects in the scene. Nevertheless, considerable changes in the scene are missed. The changes are seen when the observer's attention remains with an object while it changes. Prior attention to the object is usually not enough, suggesting that the post-attentive visual representation is relatively vague.
References.
Mack, A. and Rock, I (1998) Inattentional Blindness, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
James, W. (1890) Principles of Psychology, New York:Holt.
Simons, D. J.; Chabris, C. F. (1999). "Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events". Perception 28: 1059-1074.
Chun, M. M., Wolfe, J. M. 2001. Visual attention. E. Bruce Goldstein, ed. Blackwell Handbook of Perception. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, U.K. pp272-310
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, pp3-25.
Pylyshyn, Z., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent
targets:evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179-197.
McGlinchey-Berroth, R., Milberg, W.P., Verfaellie, M., Alexander,
M., & Kilduff, P.T. (1993). Semantic processing in the
neglected visual field: Evidence from a lexical decision task.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 79–108.
Simons, D.J., & Levin D.T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4(5), 644-649.
Braisby, N., Gellatly, A. (2005) Cognitive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Matlin, M.W. (2005) Cognition. USA: John Wiley & Sons. (6th ed.)
Cater, K., Chalmers, A., Ledda, P.(2002) Selective Quality Rendering by Exploiting Human Inattentional Blindness: Looking but not Seeing. Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. Nov, pp. 17–24.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Primary Source analysis of ‘The best of everything’
I will be analysing an excerpt written by John Reith in 1924 entitled ‘The best of everything’ originally found in Broadcast over Britain (Reith, 1924). I will begin by briefly describing who John Reith was before highlighting important aspects of his upbringing. Next I will describe the general conditions in Britain that would have affected Reith. I will then investigate what is meant by the term ‘Reithian values’ and its legacy within the BBC. I will then consider these points in my analysis of his excerpt. Finally, I will consider criticisms of Reith before concluding this essay. I have sourced a variety of textbooks, journals and websites which consider early BBC history and John Reith directly which I have used to supplement the primary source analysis.
John Reith (1889-1971) was the first general manager when it was founded as the British Broadcasting Company in 1922; and he was its first director general when it became a public corporation in 1927. He created the templates for public service broadcasting in Britain; and for the arms-length public corporations that came later. Reith fought political attempts to influence the BBC, while offering the British people programmes to educate, inform and entertain (Birt, 1998).
Reith was born in Stonehaven. His father was a minister of the United Free Church of Scotland. He wanted to go to university, but his father insisted he become an apprenticed engineer. At the outbreak of the Great War, Reith volunteered for service but was wounded in October 1915, and subsequently transferred to the Royal Engineers. He spent two years in the USA managing armaments contracts and by the end of the war had been promoted to the rank of major (Birt, 1998).
In the early 1920’s, there was no public demand for radio. It was seen simply as a scientific curiosity or an expensive hobby. To drive sales manufacturers realised the need for an appealing radio service. After the end of World War I, restrictions were to be lifted on radio technology creating the possibility of a commercial system like that in America. However, the belief in regulation and corporatism that characterised the British after the Great War led to the formation of a publicly-owned monopoly instead (Black, 2000).
In 1922 Reith moved to London and despite a lack of experience, he applied to an advert for a General Manager of this planned British Broadcasting Company; Reith got the job. During the 1926 General Strike he struggled to ensure editorial independence for the BBC winning the confidence of the people, and in the following year he became Director-General of the reformulated British Broadcasting Corporation, deriving its authority from a Royal Charter rather than a parliamentary statute. (Black, 2000)
More than 85 years later, the term "Reithian values" has become synonymous with public service broadcasting. When the BBC launched, Reith did it with a mission to "educate, inform and entertain" (Perkin, 1989). He set about convincing the educational establishment of the value of broadcasting. This was no easy feat, because the public was highly sceptical about the benefits of radio at the time. Nevertheless, in 1923 the BBC began broadcasting serious talks for adults, a year later came the first schools broadcast. Almost from the start, education was a core BBC department, along with music and drama. By 1929, as the number of licences approached 3.5 million, schools broadcasts and talks accounted for 80 hours per week. Education programming thus became an accepted and popular part of radio. (BBC, 18/11/1999)
In the excerpt itself, Reith discusses why education has to be included in the programming and why entertainment is not enough. It was written in 1924; when the BBC was still officially a commercial company. Yet, it is clear when reading through his excerpt that he values the educational potential of broadcasting above all else. In response to those who believe that it should be used for entertainment alone he states:
“Entertainment, pure and simple, quickly grows tame; dissatisfaction and boredom result” (Reith, 1924)
He goes on to acknowledge the variety of tastes involved throughout the various regions of Britain. His tone at this point gives the impression that he is already running a public service with a duty to involve all areas of Britain. Remarkably, this is still 3 years in the future. I am therefore left with the impression that the BBC became a public service because of John Reith himself regardless of the 1927 Royal Charter.
The excerpt indicates his religious upbringing. There is a distinctly protestant flavour to his comment that “it would be a sad reflection on human intelligence if it were contented” with entertainment alone. Perhaps it is this protestant notion of self-betterment that stubbornly drove him to the establishment of his values in broadcasting.
It is not all positive for Reith; he has been called a bully, hypocrite, tyrant. During a Commons debate in 1936, the Labour MP George Lansbury said Reith "would have made a very excellent Hitler for his country" (BBC, 11/3/2010). He made things worse for himself by saying he admired Mussolini and talked in 1939 of Hitler's 'magnificent efficiency'. He also had an admiration for the German broadcasters: 'Germany has banned hot jazz and I'm sorry that we should be behind in dealing with this filthy product of modernity.' (BBC, 11/3/2010)
The impartiality image has also been described as smoke and mirrors. It has been claimed that he pandered to the government in the guise of “steadying the nation”; creating an understanding that the Government would not have to censor the BBC because that would be done discreetly by the BBC themselves (Pilger, 2007).
It is difficult to come to a satisfactory conclusion on such a contradictory, complex and controversial character in the scope of this essay. However, with the recent outcry with news that BBC Radio 6 and perhaps other BBC services are to close down. It is interesting to imagine how Reith would have handled this. According to the Times the BBC's current Director-General Mark Thompson conceded that the corporation "has become too large and must shrink to give its commercial rivals room to operate” (Foster, 2010). I am sure that Reith would had the sense to realise that the reason commercial radio cannot compete with the BBC is because people identify the Reithian values to ‘educate, inform and entertain’ in the BBC. While, commercial radio is mindless entertainment containing advert after advert after advert with no public confidence in standards; and he would have had the strength of character tyrannical or otherwise to stand up for what he thought was right.
References
BBC, 18/11/1999, published at 18:27 GMT (accessed – 10/3/2010) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/526855.stm
BBC, 11/3/2010 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/in-depth/reith_6.shtml
Birt, J (1998), New Statesmen, 75 years of the BBC, (127) January supp. pp1-15
Black, J (2000), Modern British History: since 1900. MacMillian Press Ltd: London
Foster, P (2010) BBC signals an end to era of expansion – TimesOnline. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article7041944.ece
Perkin, H (1989) The rise of professional society: England since 1880. Routledge: London
Pilger, J (2007) The Invisible Government - speech cited at - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18046.htm (accessed – 10/3/2010)
John Reith (1889-1971) was the first general manager when it was founded as the British Broadcasting Company in 1922; and he was its first director general when it became a public corporation in 1927. He created the templates for public service broadcasting in Britain; and for the arms-length public corporations that came later. Reith fought political attempts to influence the BBC, while offering the British people programmes to educate, inform and entertain (Birt, 1998).
Reith was born in Stonehaven. His father was a minister of the United Free Church of Scotland. He wanted to go to university, but his father insisted he become an apprenticed engineer. At the outbreak of the Great War, Reith volunteered for service but was wounded in October 1915, and subsequently transferred to the Royal Engineers. He spent two years in the USA managing armaments contracts and by the end of the war had been promoted to the rank of major (Birt, 1998).
In the early 1920’s, there was no public demand for radio. It was seen simply as a scientific curiosity or an expensive hobby. To drive sales manufacturers realised the need for an appealing radio service. After the end of World War I, restrictions were to be lifted on radio technology creating the possibility of a commercial system like that in America. However, the belief in regulation and corporatism that characterised the British after the Great War led to the formation of a publicly-owned monopoly instead (Black, 2000).
In 1922 Reith moved to London and despite a lack of experience, he applied to an advert for a General Manager of this planned British Broadcasting Company; Reith got the job. During the 1926 General Strike he struggled to ensure editorial independence for the BBC winning the confidence of the people, and in the following year he became Director-General of the reformulated British Broadcasting Corporation, deriving its authority from a Royal Charter rather than a parliamentary statute. (Black, 2000)
More than 85 years later, the term "Reithian values" has become synonymous with public service broadcasting. When the BBC launched, Reith did it with a mission to "educate, inform and entertain" (Perkin, 1989). He set about convincing the educational establishment of the value of broadcasting. This was no easy feat, because the public was highly sceptical about the benefits of radio at the time. Nevertheless, in 1923 the BBC began broadcasting serious talks for adults, a year later came the first schools broadcast. Almost from the start, education was a core BBC department, along with music and drama. By 1929, as the number of licences approached 3.5 million, schools broadcasts and talks accounted for 80 hours per week. Education programming thus became an accepted and popular part of radio. (BBC, 18/11/1999)
In the excerpt itself, Reith discusses why education has to be included in the programming and why entertainment is not enough. It was written in 1924; when the BBC was still officially a commercial company. Yet, it is clear when reading through his excerpt that he values the educational potential of broadcasting above all else. In response to those who believe that it should be used for entertainment alone he states:
“Entertainment, pure and simple, quickly grows tame; dissatisfaction and boredom result” (Reith, 1924)
He goes on to acknowledge the variety of tastes involved throughout the various regions of Britain. His tone at this point gives the impression that he is already running a public service with a duty to involve all areas of Britain. Remarkably, this is still 3 years in the future. I am therefore left with the impression that the BBC became a public service because of John Reith himself regardless of the 1927 Royal Charter.
The excerpt indicates his religious upbringing. There is a distinctly protestant flavour to his comment that “it would be a sad reflection on human intelligence if it were contented” with entertainment alone. Perhaps it is this protestant notion of self-betterment that stubbornly drove him to the establishment of his values in broadcasting.
It is not all positive for Reith; he has been called a bully, hypocrite, tyrant. During a Commons debate in 1936, the Labour MP George Lansbury said Reith "would have made a very excellent Hitler for his country" (BBC, 11/3/2010). He made things worse for himself by saying he admired Mussolini and talked in 1939 of Hitler's 'magnificent efficiency'. He also had an admiration for the German broadcasters: 'Germany has banned hot jazz and I'm sorry that we should be behind in dealing with this filthy product of modernity.' (BBC, 11/3/2010)
The impartiality image has also been described as smoke and mirrors. It has been claimed that he pandered to the government in the guise of “steadying the nation”; creating an understanding that the Government would not have to censor the BBC because that would be done discreetly by the BBC themselves (Pilger, 2007).
It is difficult to come to a satisfactory conclusion on such a contradictory, complex and controversial character in the scope of this essay. However, with the recent outcry with news that BBC Radio 6 and perhaps other BBC services are to close down. It is interesting to imagine how Reith would have handled this. According to the Times the BBC's current Director-General Mark Thompson conceded that the corporation "has become too large and must shrink to give its commercial rivals room to operate” (Foster, 2010). I am sure that Reith would had the sense to realise that the reason commercial radio cannot compete with the BBC is because people identify the Reithian values to ‘educate, inform and entertain’ in the BBC. While, commercial radio is mindless entertainment containing advert after advert after advert with no public confidence in standards; and he would have had the strength of character tyrannical or otherwise to stand up for what he thought was right.
References
BBC, 18/11/1999, published at 18:27 GMT (accessed – 10/3/2010) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/526855.stm
BBC, 11/3/2010 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/in-depth/reith_6.shtml
Birt, J (1998), New Statesmen, 75 years of the BBC, (127) January supp. pp1-15
Black, J (2000), Modern British History: since 1900. MacMillian Press Ltd: London
Foster, P (2010) BBC signals an end to era of expansion – TimesOnline. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article7041944.ece
Perkin, H (1989) The rise of professional society: England since 1880. Routledge: London
Pilger, J (2007) The Invisible Government - speech cited at - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18046.htm (accessed – 10/3/2010)
“Violence in the media causes violence in society!”
In this essay I will explain this ‘common-sense’ assumption. First I will discuss what is meant by ‘common-sense’ and explain how the above assumption has become categorised as this. I will then look at the politics that has become entangled in this statement as certain policies are pushed through based on the ‘scientific proof’ backing this view. In order to assess this from a sociological perspective I have sourced a variety of websites and journal articles in the fields of sociology, criminology, health & welfare and journalism.
A common-sense assumption is a logical deduction based on ordinary experience or on facts known to many people but not acquired through specialised knowledge. It is an assumption made through ‘street wisdom’, not formal education. For the case of violence in the media causing violence in society the ‘common-sense’ comes from looking at the issue from the perspective of observational learning. We all know that we can learn by observing and mimicking others therefore if we observe violence in the media we may learn and mimic that; it is just common-sense!
Professor Elizabeth Newson used this common-sense approach in her report Video Violence and the Protection of Children (1994); commissioned to support a proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. Initially it attracted huge media interest by claiming it had definitively established the link between media violence and real-world violence. However, following the hype it became apparent that no definitive link had been established, with Newson merely drawing inferences from individual case studies such as the Bulger case and the torture of teenager Suzanne Capper by her classmates. Although lacking credibility, the Newson report was influential in that it introduced the concept of psychological harm into government policy about video censorship (www.screenonline.org.uk).
Researchers and professionals have argued for decades about whether or not the depiction of violence in the various media actually causes violence in society. Some studies suggest a direct causal relationship (Newson, 1994; Huesmann, 2007), and others have concluded that there is no association whatsoever (Savage & Yancey, 2008; Barker, 2001). Most studies have focused on television violence and have concluded that there are some negative effects related to watching violent or aggressive behaviour on TV (Felson, 1996). They do not necessarily indicate a direct cause-and-effect relationship; they suggest that exposure to media depictions of violence increases the risk of the viewer engaging in subsequent aggressive behaviour. However, similar patterns of behaviour have been documented following the viewing of non-violent comedy films (Cumberbatch, cited in Barker, 2001). The effects of exposure to violence in the media are by no means inevitable and may be amplified or reduced by a variety of other factors. Research into the effects of violent computer games, has begun to draw similar conclusions (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). However, from a sociological perspective it is clear that the relationship between media portrayal of violence and subsequent violent behaviour is extremely complex. There are a number of interacting variables which play an important role in determining who will be affected, by what material, and in what way. Several factors such as the context in which the violence is portrayed, the age of the player/viewer combined with a number of other social and psychological variables are important for determining the potential impact and effect of media violence. Also significant is the participant’s ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and justified or unjustified use of force (Brown, 1996).
Despite the complexity of the issue, Huesmann (2007) stated that violence in film, television and computer games raises the risk of aggressive behaviour in viewers and poses a serious threat to public health. “The only effect slightly larger than the effect of media violence on aggression is that of cigarette smoking on lung cancer,"(p11)
In his article Huesmann breaks down the short-term effects of exposure to media violence to.
1) Priming processes,
2) Arousal processes,
3) Immediate mimicking of specific behaviours
In dealing with the long-term content effects, he describes
1) More lasting observational learning of cognitions and behaviours (i.e., imitation of behaviours),
2) Activation and desensitization of emotional processes.
In tackling this Huesmann has clearly looked at it through the lens of observational learning and in doing so has contributed nothing to back-up his incredible claims. Instead he has simply answered the question: ‘Can the media be used to educate?’ which we already know the answer is ‘yes’, and completely by-passes the real questions of ‘what are these young people being taught?’ and, ‘does that ‘education’ lead them to commit acts of violence?’
Barker (2001) in his response to Newson points out that research in advertising has brought about some important information in the area of media influence. First, researchers found that advertising has to be ‘targeted’ to be valuable; advertising depending on ‘vicarious contact’ –seeing an advert not aimed at us- is ineffective. That means that we would already have to closely identify with the character perpetrating the violence to have any effect. He points out that the many of the demonized films such as Childs Play 3 actually have a moral message; the story is told from the perspective of the young hero who the audience is guided to identify with against the ‘violent’ villain that is hunting him.
The other important discovery by the advertising industry is that products associated with negative images or feelings are not successful. Thus, the films the campaigners attack are the ones least likely to be influential because they are associated with feelings of fear, anxiety, shock and general negativity. In fact, the only advertising that reports success with negative images are those “intended to make us think critically” (2001, p38), such as educational videos and health & safety advertisements.
Pro-censorship lobbyists generally ignore these facts and instead claim that it is proven that violence in the media causes real-world violence. Of course, this is intended to foster a belief that the solution to violence in society is to ban depictions of that violence and gloss over the real factors that contribute to violence. Similarly, the mainstream media generally only reports on new research findings that facilitate sensational headlines implying that depictions of violence in entertainment films and computer games are the cause of violence (Cumberbatch, 1994). This serves to again reinforce the ‘common-sense’ of the tabloid-reading population.
It is not clear what lesson the media teaches about the legitimacy of violence. However, that message is usually redundant with lessons learned from other peers or sources of influence (Barker, 2001). The message is probably ambiguous and is likely to have different effects on different viewers. Young children may imitate illegitimate violence, but their imitative behaviour is likely to have trivial consequences as it is explored and contextualised through play (Savage & Yancey, 2008). Out of millions of viewers, there may be some with highly idiosyncratic understanding of television content who merge their own lives with the fantasy, and as a result have an increased probability of engaging in violent behaviour (Felson, 1996). However, there is no evidence indicating that any violent behaviour would not have occurred otherwise in these exceptional individuals.
In researching this essay I was surprised to find that an internet search for ‘causes for violence in society’ found all sites pointing the finger at the media as the main culprit as though we lived in a peaceful utopia before we had broadcasting. Throughout time sensationalised single-issues have been blamed for the degradation of civilized standards. Some generations are inevitably missing from archives, but it seems that contemporary concerns of out-of-control children have been shared by adults for the last few thousand years. Possibly every generation since has thought that things were getting worse and that children were a new problem in the alleged escalation of crime and violence (Cumberbatch, 1994). Consequently, I believe any proposals to address the ‘media violence problem’ under the guise of reducing violent crime in our society are not likely to succeed. I would recommend moving beyond the censorship inspired media ‘witch-hunt’ and explore other policies for reducing violent crime.
Words – 1,495
References
Anderson, C.A., Bushman, B.J., (2001) ‘Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature’. Psychological Science;12:353–9.
Barker, M., (2001) The Newson Report. A Case Study in ‘common-sense’ In Barker, M. and Petley, J. (eds) III Effects. The media/violence debate London: Routledge, 27-46
Brown, M. (1996) ‘The Portrayal of Violence in the Media: Impacts & Implications for Policy’, Australian Institute of Criminology, June: 1-7
Cumberbatch, G., (1994) ‘Legislating mythology: Video violence and children’, Journal of Mental Health; Dec94, Vol. 3 Issue 4, 485-95
Felson, R. B., (1996). Mass media effects on violent behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 103-128.
Huesmann, L. R., (2007). ‘The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research’. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41 S6–S13
Newson, E., (1994). ‘Video Violence and the Protection of Children’, Report of the Home Affairs Committee, London: HMSO, June, 45-9
Savage, J. and Yancey, C., (2008) ‘The Effects of Media Violence Exposure On Criminal Aggression: A Meta-Analysis’, Criminal Justice and Behavior; 35; 772
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/591456/ - website accessed on 15/4/2010
A common-sense assumption is a logical deduction based on ordinary experience or on facts known to many people but not acquired through specialised knowledge. It is an assumption made through ‘street wisdom’, not formal education. For the case of violence in the media causing violence in society the ‘common-sense’ comes from looking at the issue from the perspective of observational learning. We all know that we can learn by observing and mimicking others therefore if we observe violence in the media we may learn and mimic that; it is just common-sense!
Professor Elizabeth Newson used this common-sense approach in her report Video Violence and the Protection of Children (1994); commissioned to support a proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. Initially it attracted huge media interest by claiming it had definitively established the link between media violence and real-world violence. However, following the hype it became apparent that no definitive link had been established, with Newson merely drawing inferences from individual case studies such as the Bulger case and the torture of teenager Suzanne Capper by her classmates. Although lacking credibility, the Newson report was influential in that it introduced the concept of psychological harm into government policy about video censorship (www.screenonline.org.uk).
Researchers and professionals have argued for decades about whether or not the depiction of violence in the various media actually causes violence in society. Some studies suggest a direct causal relationship (Newson, 1994; Huesmann, 2007), and others have concluded that there is no association whatsoever (Savage & Yancey, 2008; Barker, 2001). Most studies have focused on television violence and have concluded that there are some negative effects related to watching violent or aggressive behaviour on TV (Felson, 1996). They do not necessarily indicate a direct cause-and-effect relationship; they suggest that exposure to media depictions of violence increases the risk of the viewer engaging in subsequent aggressive behaviour. However, similar patterns of behaviour have been documented following the viewing of non-violent comedy films (Cumberbatch, cited in Barker, 2001). The effects of exposure to violence in the media are by no means inevitable and may be amplified or reduced by a variety of other factors. Research into the effects of violent computer games, has begun to draw similar conclusions (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). However, from a sociological perspective it is clear that the relationship between media portrayal of violence and subsequent violent behaviour is extremely complex. There are a number of interacting variables which play an important role in determining who will be affected, by what material, and in what way. Several factors such as the context in which the violence is portrayed, the age of the player/viewer combined with a number of other social and psychological variables are important for determining the potential impact and effect of media violence. Also significant is the participant’s ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and justified or unjustified use of force (Brown, 1996).
Despite the complexity of the issue, Huesmann (2007) stated that violence in film, television and computer games raises the risk of aggressive behaviour in viewers and poses a serious threat to public health. “The only effect slightly larger than the effect of media violence on aggression is that of cigarette smoking on lung cancer,"(p11)
In his article Huesmann breaks down the short-term effects of exposure to media violence to.
1) Priming processes,
2) Arousal processes,
3) Immediate mimicking of specific behaviours
In dealing with the long-term content effects, he describes
1) More lasting observational learning of cognitions and behaviours (i.e., imitation of behaviours),
2) Activation and desensitization of emotional processes.
In tackling this Huesmann has clearly looked at it through the lens of observational learning and in doing so has contributed nothing to back-up his incredible claims. Instead he has simply answered the question: ‘Can the media be used to educate?’ which we already know the answer is ‘yes’, and completely by-passes the real questions of ‘what are these young people being taught?’ and, ‘does that ‘education’ lead them to commit acts of violence?’
Barker (2001) in his response to Newson points out that research in advertising has brought about some important information in the area of media influence. First, researchers found that advertising has to be ‘targeted’ to be valuable; advertising depending on ‘vicarious contact’ –seeing an advert not aimed at us- is ineffective. That means that we would already have to closely identify with the character perpetrating the violence to have any effect. He points out that the many of the demonized films such as Childs Play 3 actually have a moral message; the story is told from the perspective of the young hero who the audience is guided to identify with against the ‘violent’ villain that is hunting him.
The other important discovery by the advertising industry is that products associated with negative images or feelings are not successful. Thus, the films the campaigners attack are the ones least likely to be influential because they are associated with feelings of fear, anxiety, shock and general negativity. In fact, the only advertising that reports success with negative images are those “intended to make us think critically” (2001, p38), such as educational videos and health & safety advertisements.
Pro-censorship lobbyists generally ignore these facts and instead claim that it is proven that violence in the media causes real-world violence. Of course, this is intended to foster a belief that the solution to violence in society is to ban depictions of that violence and gloss over the real factors that contribute to violence. Similarly, the mainstream media generally only reports on new research findings that facilitate sensational headlines implying that depictions of violence in entertainment films and computer games are the cause of violence (Cumberbatch, 1994). This serves to again reinforce the ‘common-sense’ of the tabloid-reading population.
It is not clear what lesson the media teaches about the legitimacy of violence. However, that message is usually redundant with lessons learned from other peers or sources of influence (Barker, 2001). The message is probably ambiguous and is likely to have different effects on different viewers. Young children may imitate illegitimate violence, but their imitative behaviour is likely to have trivial consequences as it is explored and contextualised through play (Savage & Yancey, 2008). Out of millions of viewers, there may be some with highly idiosyncratic understanding of television content who merge their own lives with the fantasy, and as a result have an increased probability of engaging in violent behaviour (Felson, 1996). However, there is no evidence indicating that any violent behaviour would not have occurred otherwise in these exceptional individuals.
In researching this essay I was surprised to find that an internet search for ‘causes for violence in society’ found all sites pointing the finger at the media as the main culprit as though we lived in a peaceful utopia before we had broadcasting. Throughout time sensationalised single-issues have been blamed for the degradation of civilized standards. Some generations are inevitably missing from archives, but it seems that contemporary concerns of out-of-control children have been shared by adults for the last few thousand years. Possibly every generation since has thought that things were getting worse and that children were a new problem in the alleged escalation of crime and violence (Cumberbatch, 1994). Consequently, I believe any proposals to address the ‘media violence problem’ under the guise of reducing violent crime in our society are not likely to succeed. I would recommend moving beyond the censorship inspired media ‘witch-hunt’ and explore other policies for reducing violent crime.
Words – 1,495
References
Anderson, C.A., Bushman, B.J., (2001) ‘Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature’. Psychological Science;12:353–9.
Barker, M., (2001) The Newson Report. A Case Study in ‘common-sense’ In Barker, M. and Petley, J. (eds) III Effects. The media/violence debate London: Routledge, 27-46
Brown, M. (1996) ‘The Portrayal of Violence in the Media: Impacts & Implications for Policy’, Australian Institute of Criminology, June: 1-7
Cumberbatch, G., (1994) ‘Legislating mythology: Video violence and children’, Journal of Mental Health; Dec94, Vol. 3 Issue 4, 485-95
Felson, R. B., (1996). Mass media effects on violent behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 103-128.
Huesmann, L. R., (2007). ‘The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research’. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41 S6–S13
Newson, E., (1994). ‘Video Violence and the Protection of Children’, Report of the Home Affairs Committee, London: HMSO, June, 45-9
Savage, J. and Yancey, C., (2008) ‘The Effects of Media Violence Exposure On Criminal Aggression: A Meta-Analysis’, Criminal Justice and Behavior; 35; 772
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/591456/ - website accessed on 15/4/2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)