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
No comments:
Post a Comment