Effects of Media Violence on Aggression

first we need a study of the kids playing without watching anything & seeing who is violent. than a second study of all the kids watching violent content & seeing who was violent. than a third study of all the kids watching nonviolent content & seeing who was violent.
how much do you want to bet that the vast majority of the violent ones will always be violent?
as nakia posted, the shows we watched as kids were always about killing somebody(cowboys and indians, GIs and nazis) yet we didnt turn into raving serial killers.
as far as violent cartoons go, look at the japanese. you dont see them going totally b@tsh!t crazy like kids in some other countries & those are some of the most violent cartoons anywhere.

 

I think we're losing focus here. The article BTA cited compared the harmful effects of smoking on society vs. the harmful effects of media violence. But I think we’re getting too hung up on smoking, rather than focusing on media violence. The smoking angle is IMO just trying to give a new (and IMO somewhat irrelevant) twist to the argument. The two really aren’t comparable – producers of media violence are, almost by default, interested on the impact that their work has on other people, whereas proponents of smokers’ “rights” don't care. In the end, though, both are harmful - the question of which is more harmful is almost irrelevant.

 

Personally I think we are comparing Blackberries and Cranberries. This is one time I think statistics would be useful. can't believe I said that First the violence would need to be clearly and scientifically linked to the game play. I just had a friend my age die from lung cancer. How many people have died because someone played a violent game? Isn't there another thread somewhere about a researcher who questioned the link between violent games and violent behavior? And if we are talking about extremely gruesome and horrendous violence in games how many people play them? Wouldn't a person who enjoyed or fantasied violence choose that type of game because that is what they like?

Further more I ask again what constitutes violence? I enjoyed the Roller-coaster Tycoon games but even that at crashes and people getting killed in it. Some one who enjoyed violence could create a park where the everything crashed and thousands where killed. In CoTN I got annoyed at one of my cities and just smashed the whole thing. Hokay no one got killed they just became vagrants. Adult humans have choices and responsibilities. My favorite BGII/ToB was RPing a self-center neutral evil character. Does that make me evil? Self-centered I'll agree to but evil? Nakia is a good rogue. She only steals from evil rich folks to give to good poor folks.

 

No, it does not prove it, but if you are submitted to anything enough, you will start to accept it, even if it is on a subconscious level. That is the reason why many women in the U.S. are so concerned with how much they weigh and how big their breasts are - from an early age, society and media is showering them with images of 'beautiful' women who are waist size 2 and a C cup and telling them they have to be that way. It is the same reason why men think they have to be sex-driven muscle machines - media portrays male role models to be emotionless, built men who deserve to be sexually satisfied. If society and media drown you with something enough, you begin to believe it. So yes, I do think increasing violence in media can cause people to be more aggressive.

 

With the recent birth of my son, my wife and I have discussed this issue as it concerns him. We have decided that we'd like to place some limits on what our son sees and does regarding TV, internet, games, etc. I think it is entirely up to individual parents to do this for their children - we don't need any type of ban on violent media.

I agree with Tal that attempting to form any link with second hand smoke and media violence is futile. It is possible to ban smoking in public areas, but still allow it in private homes. If we were to place a ban on violent media it would necessarily also have to be banned in private homes to have an effect. After all, the media is a PUBLIC resource. Anyone with a TV can see violent programs, anyone with a radio can pick up violent speech or music, and anyone with a computer or game system can use it to play violent games. So there's really no way to ban in publicly, but keep it available privately, like smoking.

To put it another way, it's easier to avoid second hand smoke than it is to avoid media violence. In that sense, I also agree with Barmy that most people can avoid breathing in second hand smoke. The only instance where it's unavoidable is if you happen to be a kid who has parents that smoke in the house. Once you're an adult, you can avoid second hand smoke in your house by not allowing visitors to smoke in your house. You can avoid second hand smoke in your car by not allowing visitors to smoke in your car. Since I'm not aware of any place of employment that allows people to smoke inside the building, you shouldn't have to deal with it there, either. Heck, even most restaurants and bars are now smoke-free so you shouldn't have to deal with it when you go to any public place at all. All of this, of course, is a fairly recent development. As recently as 20 years ago, you could smoke in most public areas. This kind of proves the point - you can ban people from smoking publicly but allow them to do it privately. Again, I don't see how this would work with violent media.

Up until this past summer, I smoked. I don't smoke now, but I personally cannot understand how vehemently some people react to smokers. I agree that parents should not smoke in the house if they have children. I smoked for 15 years, but I never smoked in my own house, nor did I smoke in anyone else's house. The only places I smoked were outside, or in my car with a window down. If I was driving my car with a passenger who didn't like the smell of smoke, I was considerate enough to not smoke while they were in the car. Most places of employment have a designated area outside (away from the entrance of the building) where you can go and have a cigarette. There's absolutely no reason to go to that area other than to have a cigarette, so non-smokers are not affected. Second hand smoke is avoidable, and can easily be accomplished without banning smoking, but I can't see how this can be accomplished with violent media.

 

Any nut job that brings that into the real world usually becomes significant. Of the millions that played Doom, how much attention was on them as opposed to the two kids that shot up the school. The bottom line is that it's a few bad apples could lead some overreactionaries to throw out the whole basket...

Do the words Danger to Self and Others mean anything in this debate? A few with obvious problems mean that the rest of us can't enjoy what we want? Are you advocating a society dumbed down to the lowest common denominator?

 

I think I'm what chev would call a 'freedom-lover', so I guess I'll stick my head in (not that we haven't had this conversation before or anything...).

I am convinced that there is worthwhile evidence to support the whole violent media leads to more aggressive behaviour. I'm not going to say that this is necessarily true, or necessarily the whole story, but sure, I can accept that there are credible studies which point to that conclusion.

I still stand by my position though. I don't need to distort the facts to hold my beliefs on freedom. It is, in my opinion, absurd that a fourteen year old (or whoever) should be restricted from watching MA15+ movies based merely on their age. Not only is it absurd, but it's unenforcable and farcical. Sure, I couldn't go to the movies to see Underworld, but I rented it out a month later. If I had a decent internet connection like the majority of people, I could have downloaded it. The government's attempts to restrict media from certain groups is a silly, worthless, insulting endeavour.

And don't get me started on things that are banned outright. That's just bull****, even by their own standards. There is a logic behind trying to stop children from watching violent or pornographic movies, but trying to stop *everyone* from doing it? That's bull****. People - especially adults - are quite capable of making informed decisions about what they want to watch.

Of course, given that this thread is comparing violent media to smoking, I suppose it could be argued that they aren't and even if they are, the effect it has on people around them is negative enough to warrent banning violent media. Beyond my kneejerk 'get ****ed' reaction (quite valid in its own right ), the comparision is pretty silly. But yeah, others have already attacked that one, so it doesn't really need repeating.

Hey chev (or anyone, really) - I'm not really up with the cartoons that children watch these days. What are they, and what's so violent about them?
The violent TV shows of my childhood that come to mind were Power Rangers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and perhaps Captain Planet (was there actually any violence there?). They certainly shaped our games and probably our thinking too. The amount of times that 'playing power rangers' was banned for its supposed 'violence' was, well, quite large. It was all pretend, of course, but the teachers weren't very good at differentiating.

So what I was actually asking was - are modern children's shows any more violent than this? What's the ratio of violent children's TV to non-violent children's TV anyway? Is there really a problem here, or is it just a load of overstated waffle? 'Cause y'know, I really don't think that the Power Rangers have affected me negatively, and I'm a little doubtful that children's shows are overrun with violence.

 

Ahh, psychology. The false science.

How exactly did these researchers quantify 'aggression'? Balloon popping? Blasts of white noise? What reliable measures!

 

Ghaldring, be fair, now. You may not agree with the results, but they most assuredly used scientifically viable means to come to their conclusions. Psychology is not a false science. It is, however, a soft science. That doesn't invalidate it, though. It just means that their conclusions aren't as, well, conclusive as what you may find in, say, geology.

What everyone is really forgetting, here, is that a single study doesn't really prove or disprove anything. It takes hundreds of studies to form a consensus, and the bulk of the research on violence in the media and it's effects on violence within our society have mostly proven inconclusive, thus far. The results of this particular bit of research are interesting and, if these results can be consistently reproduced, it may well mean that we need to re-examine the overall level of violence in our media. Even without such a consensus, studies like this do at least vindicate the folks who shamed the video game industry into instituting a rating system. Kids, at least, shouldn't really be playing violent games, watching violent films, or listening to Eminem.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think the example you cite above is isolated. I think that it belongs in the same category as what Chevalier rails against so often, the prevalence of casual sex in society. Both are indicative of a relaxing of the standards of acceptable behavior - what used to be extreme conduct that would cause the doer great embarassment is now no big deal. If we can find out why people no longer care about propriety (at a level appropriate for the times, I'm not advocating a return to Victorian manners or anything), we may be able to figure out something that can be done to turn the tide.

I think a large part of this change in standards comes from the globalization of society. When you lived and worked with the same small group of people day in and day out, everything you did would be seen and used as a measure of your character. Now, it's much easier to hide the dirty laundry because we don't see our friends constantly, and the people we do see regularly aren't necessarily our friends. Would you scream obscenities at the driver in the car ahead of you if s/he could hear you, and was the person who was going to fund your next month's rent by buying your crop? Not likely.

Our livelihoods are much less dependent on the good will of those around us, which devalues that good will and frees us to behave in selfish, inconsiderate ways.

 

Well, I don’t disagree with your sentiments, Rally, but I think this is a bit of a comment. Isn't it possible that the lack of propriety is already at a level appropriate for the times, given its prevalence? Yes, some people complain about it (myself included), but you could point to anything and you'd be able to find someone who will have something negative to say.

 

I knew I was putting myself at risk of being labeled a frump, but I never expected it to come from YOU, Dearie!

You make a vaild point, but I don't think consideration for others EVER goes out of fashion. What changes is how that consideration is implemented, based on the media available. The age of IM is going to be be a lot different from the age of handwritten letters, but the basic premise of not wanting to embarass yourself is still there - or SHOULD be there.

 

It takes a to know a

You sound like Emily Post. Again, I don't disagree with you, but things are what they are, and I wouldn't be surprised if they got worse. Which isn't to say that we should just stand by and let it happen without putting up a fight.

 

Drew:

No, just no. Simply because their article appeared in a 'scientific' journal does not mean that the methodology cannot be called into question. That you feel that such articles are above criticism hints at your naivety.

To be quite frank, I fail to see how white noise blasts and balloon popping (two common methods of measuring 'aggression' in such experiments, although I'm not sure what method was used in the experiment being discussed. Source anyone?) is a viable method of quantifying aggression. Merely because 'they say so' does not 'make it so'.

Popping a balloon does not necessarily translate into popping a sapient being's head. IMHO, measures of aggression via such techniques are about as reliable as the reading of entrails.

Now you're engaging in semantics. But I'm not going to bother taking you to task over it, since you admit that inferences draw in the field of psychology are not as reliable as the fields of science which don't involve pulling stuff out of your rear end.

Note that even in the 'hard' sciences, articles published in journals often have their methodology critiqued.

 

Ghaldring, what are your credentials that you think we should give your summary dismissal of the article more credibility than the article itself?