TV and Film ViolenceDoes the violence in films and on TV contribute to violence in society?This question has been debated for decades. During that time some 2,500books and articles have been written on the effects of TV and film violenceon human behavior. In this article we’re going to summarize some the latest thinking on thissubject.The results of one of the most extensive studies ever done on the subjectof violence and TV were released in 2003.Researchers followed 329 subjects over 15 years. They found that those whoas children were exposed to violent TV shows were much more likely to laterbe convicted of crime. Researchers said that, “Media violence can affectany child from any family,” regardless of social class or parenting.Girls who watched more than an average amount of violence tended to throwthings at their husbands. Boys who grew up watching violent TV shows weremore likely to be be violent with their wives.Researchers concluded in Developmental Psychology that, “Every violent TVshow increases a little-bit the likelihood of a child growing up to behavemore aggressively.”We’ll look at more of the research in a moment.Canada was one of the first countries to extensively research this issue. The results of their studies prompted some of their engineers to devise the“V-Chip.” As you may know, the V-Chip allows parents to lock out TVprogramming they consider objectionable to their children.Although the concern in Canada was primarily violence (hence the V-chip),in the United States there is also great concern about sexualcontent—probably more than in most other industrialized societies. Hence,the V-chip can be programmed to screen out both violence and sex.The issue of sex, which has resulted in quite different research findings,is discussed here and here, so in this article we’ll focus on the issue of
film and TV violence. | ||Because ours is a puritanically-based society||and we have problems with depictions of sex, ||we tend to eroticize violence. ||For many people this creates an unfortunate, ||often even unconscious, link between sex and ||violence. || from “Sex Research, Censorship, and the ||Law” || |Cause-Effect ProofStudies done in both the United States and Canada have shown a positiverelationship between early exposure to TV violence and physicalaggressiveness in later life. Even so, a clear cause-effect relationship is complicated by the fact thatchildren are typically exposed to many stimuli as they grow up, many ofwhich could play a role in later behavior. For example, during a child’s life we can’t discount the role of suchthings as violent video games, the social values of parents and peers, orgeneral living conditions.If you eat something that you have not tried before and immediately getsick, you will probably assume there’s a direct relationship between thetwo events.And if at some later date you forget about your first experience and eatthe same thing again, and immediately get sick again, you can be fairlysure that whatever you ate makes you sick. No rocket science here, just clear cause and effect. Unfortunately, the cause and effect in many other areas of life are not asreadily apparent.A few decades ago you would see doctors in TV commercials endorsing aparticular brand of cigarettes. And many medical doctors smoked. Not today. Today the evidence is clear: smoking is the number one cause of preventableheath problems and premature death in the United States. Although for yearsthe cigarette manufacturers suppressed evidence that linked smoking tohealth problems, eventually the cause-effect relationship became obvious toanyone who wanted investigate the facts.Unlike the cause and effect in the example of your eating something and
immediately getting sick, the effects of cigarette smoking aren’timmediately apparent. It’s only years later that many smokers develop lungcancer, heart problems, emphysema, sexual problems, etc. In the same way—after looking at years of accumulated data—we’re nowrecognizing a relationship between violence in the media and socialproblems. A summary of much of the research and its consequences can befound in the book Visual Intelligence—Perception, Image, and Manipulationin Visual Communication by Ann Marie Seward Barry.|The results of a study released in March, ||2002 that tracked 700 male and female youths ||over a seventeen-year period showed a ||definite relationship between TV viewing ||habits and acts of aggression and crime in ||the later life. ||All other possible contributing environmental||elements, such as poverty, living in a ||violent neighborhood, and neglect, were ||factored out of this study. ||According to one of the authors of the study,||the findings help cement the link between TV ||and violence. The study is detailed in the ||Science journal. |Violence and TV RatingsIt’s well known that TV violence holds an attraction for most viewers andthis attraction translates into ratings and profits. Because of this mostmedia executives have been reluctant to admit that media violence is in anyway responsible for violence in our society.If it weren’t for the ratings and profits involved, producers wouldundoubtedly be much more willing to acknowledge the harm in TV and filmviolence and do something about it. Instead, we have such things as the American Medical Association findingthat shows that in homes with premium cable channels, or a VCR or DVD,children typically witness 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders bythe time they reach the age of 18.After many high school students died in a shooting rampage at Columbine
High School in Littleton, Colorado in April, 1999, many people were quickto blame the media. Violent video games and a well-known film were seen ascontributing factors. Even so, millions of young people were exposed toboth of these influences throughout their lives without going on amurderous rampage. But when you add extreme anger, easy access to guns,and an indifferent and amoral attitude toward the lives of others, theresults can be very different.In 1992, TV Guide commissioned a study of a typical 18-hour TV broadcastday to determine levels of violence. The networks and the more popularcable channels were monitored for “purposeful, overt, deliberate behaviorinvolving physical force or weapons against other individuals.”There were 1,846 acts of violence that broke down this way.In looking at the role of the broadcast outlets in the violence equation TVmogul Ted Turner said: “They’re guilty of murder. We all are—me too.”
The Effects of TV and Film ViolenceThere are many problems in linking media violence to violence in society. First, as we’ve suggested, only a small percent of those who watch violenceare responsible for violent acts.Most of us are seemingly unaffected by it.Even though we can’t establish a simple, direct, cause-and-effectrelationship between media violence and violence in our society, we candraw some conclusions from the data.Studies show that people who watch a lot of TV violence not only behavemore aggressively, but are more prone to hold attitudes that favor violenceand aggression as a way of solving conflicts. These viewers also tend to beless trusting of people and more prone to see the world as a hostile place.An extensive study in five Massachusetts communities found a relationshipbetween viewing media violence and the acceptance of sexual assault,
violence, and alcohol use.Studies also show that media violence also has a desensitizing effect onviewers.As a result, specific levels of violence become more acceptable over time.It then takes more and more graphic violence to shock (and hold) anaudience. History gives us many examples. To cite just one, the famous Roman Circusesstarted out being a rather tame form of entertainment. But in an effort toexcite audiences, violence and rape were introduced in the arena settings. Subsequently, as audiences got used to seeing these things, they thendemanded more and more, until the circuses eventually became violent,bloody and grotesque, and hundreds, if not thousands, of hapless peopledied in the process of providing “entertainment.”Next, media violence is typically unrealistic, simplistic, glorified, andeven presented as humorous.The “bang, bang, you’re dead” sanitized scenario that we so often see on TVor in films communicates nothing of the reality of death or dying. It is only when we see death firsthand or have a loved one killed that werealize that death in film or on TV bears little resemblance to what weexperience in real life. Even the sound of gunshots on TV and in films isso different from real gunshots that people often fail to recognize them inreal life.Next, the consequences of killing, especially by the “good guys,” areseldom shown. Violence and killing are commonly depicted as a ready andeven acceptable solution to problems. To put it simplistically, problemsare solved when the “bad guys” are all dead.The unrealistic element of TV and film violence seems to come as a surpriseto some. A young gang member who was admitted to a New York ER after beingshot seemed amazed to find that getting shot was not only traumatic butexcruciatingly painful. He was blaming the doctors and nurses for hispain, since on TV getting shot didn’t seem to be all that big of a deal.Gene Roddenberry and Star TrekOne of the most successful television series in history, Star Trek, wascreated, produced and (largely) written by Gene Roddenberry, whose primarymessage was peaceful coexistence. The series started in 1966 and itsvarious incarnations continue today. The series has won scores ofhumanitarian awards. Colleges have even offered English courses that focuson the series. Anyone who has followed Star Trek knows that (underRoddenberry) gratuitous violence was never seen as necessary.In the end Gene Roddenberry was proud of the message he delivered weekafter week to millions of people around the world. Earlier, during testimony before Congress, Roddenberry had said: [Television] is the most dangerous
force in the world today.Shortly before his death he was asked what he would like to have as anepitaph. Roddenberry said, just say this: He loved humanity.Based on what their work says about their true feelings, I wonder how manyTV and film producers can say the same today?
Summary and ConclusionsWe have clear indications that the long-term effects of exposure to mediaviolence will lead to undesirable social consequences. These negativesocial effects will undoubtedly be accelerated as violence becomes moregraphic in an effort to attract and hold film and TV audiences.In looking over the evidence of the increasing levels of film and TVviolence it is now taking to satisfy viewers and the resulting effects onsociety, David Puttnam, a noted film director, simply observed, “We aredestroying ourselves.” TV producers clearly face a dilemma in dealing with the apparent conflictbetween the negative effects of TV violence and positive program ratings. So what’s the answer?
First, we have to take a look at how violence is used. Eliminating allviolence from the media is not in keeping with the reality of the humancondition. Violence has always been with us and probably always will be.But the 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders witnessed by normal TVviewers over 18 years is clearly unrealistic and exploitative.Violence is being used as a superficial way of grabbing and holding anaudience.Many TV and film producers have elected to “take a higher road” and notrely on gratuitous violence to capture and hold an audience. This routetypically results in more accolades for their work and more personalrespect from the creative community. But the higher road is often the more difficult one. It takes talent toengage an audience through the strength of your storytelling and productionexpertise.[pic]As a footnote to this topic, there is evidence to show that commercials inviolent TV shows are not as effective in selling products as commercials inother types of TV programming.