This is an improvement especially as far as citing your sources. However, you either did not read, understand, or follow the comments on your first draft. You were supposed to add quotations to your claims as well as examples of research to support your argument.
21838422
Essentials of Psychology
Research project number 05020500
I have chosen to discuss the role that media violence plays in aggression in children, specifically as related to Albert Bandura’s experiments. I specifically chose this topic based on Bandura's observations with his famous Bobo doll study (which has been very influential in linking media exposure to violent aggressive behavior in children). In researching this paper, I hope to find an answer to satisfy my curiosity as to whether the media is to blame to the extent that Bandura would have us believe or are there other forces accountable. Is it logical to blame media for the escalating violence or are there other forces at play? On one hand Bandura, conducted a study where children saw a film of an adult beating the Bobo doll wildly and then most mimicked that behavior but on the other hand, the results of that study stated 88% of the children copied that behavior, not 100%. Is there a possibility that aggression could be taught, as Albert Bandura suggests (Bandura, 1976 p. 206-208)? Although there is no definite answer to this question there are some studies which revealed that we have centers for aggression in our nervous system. Contemporary researchers implied that diencephalon has a very important role in manifestation and control of aggression. Structures of diencephalon responsible for aggression are called limbic system. There are differences among people regarding excitation of this system and those differences can be only explained by genetics (Siever, 2008). Due to this reason my hypothesis is that while media may play a role in desensitizing children to aggressive or violent behavior it however, does not create violent or aggressive behavior in children. Instead, the main reason for aggressive behavior is genetics and nervous system.
Claim 1: My first claim is that if media violence is related to aggressive and violent behavior than everyone should be violent and aggressive. To use Bandura's Bobo doll study as an example, 88% of the children who participated mimicked the behavior of the models but the other 12% did not (Bandura, 1973: p.72). This indicates that not all children who observe aggressive acts will manifest aggression. There are differences among children regarding the readiness to act violently. Social learning theory does not provide explanation for these differences in children’s behaviors. Since social learning theory focuses only on observation it can be assumed that it ignores individual differences, biological state, genetic and brain. Ray Jeffery (1990) believes that behaviors are biological and not learned (Jeffery, 1990: p. 238). Jeffery also believes that behaviors can be passed down from generation to generation, which may explain why children of abusers are likely to grow up to be abusers. According to Huesmann, (1984) “The stability of aggression across generation is the product of both constitutional and environmental factors” (p. 1133). This means that aggression cannot only be explained by situational variables but also by genetics. Jeffery’s research shows that people do not react the same when witnessing a violent act and that: “While some may faint; others may vomit, or may have an increased heart rate” (Jeffery, 1990: p.238). These are all “biological responses which are ignored by the social learning theory” (Jeffery, 1990 p.239).
Some researches prove that violence in media can trigger but not cause aggressive behavior. For instance Brosius, Esser and Scheufele (Brosius & Esser, 1995; 1995; 1996; Esser, Scheufele & Brosius, 2002) showed that reports in media about key events can give impulse to aggressiveness in individuals, but only if there is a fertile ground (for instance if the populace recognized “problem with strangers” in the country or preparedness for violence in potential offenders). These findings are explained with the help of social learning theory and short-term imitation. However, media are not the only to blame here. Brosius and his associates emphasize that media do not cause violence; instead, they only suggest that there is imitation of the displayed behavior, but only for the group of already worried, burdened and prepared for aggression individuals (Esser, Scheufele and Brosius 2002, p 35). This can be explained by personality traits in individuals who are more prone to develop negative attitudes towards certain group of people and individuals who have hostile tendencies and negative attitudes toward minorities are often referred to as “authoritarian personality” (Adorno et al. , 1950).
Claim 2: Media violence can be the way for children to vent their frustrations without becoming physically violent. There are scientists who proved, to some extent, that watching violent scenes, especially when negative consequences of aggressive behavior are accented, can have hampering and inhibitory effect. While observing, watchers develop fear from aggression which later lowers the preparedness for aggressive acts (Grimm, 1999). In his research the preparedness for aggression in examinees lowered by watching violence in the movies and Grimm characterized this effect as an impact of negative learning. The results of a study conducted by S. Feshbach and R.D. Singer proved just the opposite of the Bobo doll. The study used two test groups of boys who were exposed to either a violent or non-violent television over a six-week period. The boys who were only shown the non-violent broadcast displayed more aggressive behavior than the boys that were shown the violent shows they claimed that:” they exposure to aggressive content in television did not produce an increment in aggressive behavior” (Feshback & Singer, 1971: p247). Moreover, Feshbach's hypothesis is supported by what is called the Catharsis effect (Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Melody, W.H., 1982: p.40), which theorizes that the boys were able to vent their aggressive thoughts and feelings though relation and not act those aggressions out physically. This means that catharsis has a purifying effect on behavior.
Claim 3: If media can be held responsible for aggression and violence then shouldn't it also be praised for bravery and good-deeds in our civilization (Cooke, 1993, p.L19)? There have been countless programs that have demonstrated heroism and kindnesses as there have been those which have demonstrated the ugly side of human nature. Patrick Cooke (1993) believed that people went along with the theory that television violence causes aggression because we need to be able to justify the violence and aggression in others. Cooke also believed that television could be used as an instrument of teaching both in education and forming good role models. He also believed that if violence in TV causes more aggression than it should also be attributed to the good qualities of people (Cooke, 1993).
In conclusion, for the following reasons I believe that, although it opened a path for new researches, the Bobo doll study has many omissions. The sample study used was flawed by not using children of different socio-economic backgrounds. It is not documented what the children's home life's were like, nor did it seem to be considered whether the children had prior exposure to violence, abuse, or aggression or for that matter, were already displaying violent or aggressive behavior. There is also speculation that the children in the study were mimicking the behavior of the model because they viewed it as instructions. In later studies, it was concluded that children didn't automatically mimic aggression and that they actually rationalized the context of aggression.
There is violence in everyday life which causes the public to wonder about its nature and the easiest way is to blame it on the media. The modern lifestyle includes the need for quick, convincing and acceptable explanations and violence in media is offered as the main, closest to common sense causer. Media are too often and too quickly pronounced as guilty without accepting research which demonstrate the complexity of causes of violent actions. We should be able to look at the greater picture and accept the fact that other factors are also important in manifesting aggression such as biological background and nervous system.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Bandura, A. (1998). The Social Learning Theory Retrieved May 28, 2013, from FSU Criminology website: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/bandura.htm
Cooke, Patrick. "TV Violence? Says Who?" New York Times 14 Aug. 1993, late ed.: L19.
Feshbach, S., & Singer, R.D. (1971). Television and Aggression Retrieved May 22, 2013, from APA PsycNET website: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/96/2/227/
Gerbner, G., Gross, L.P., Melody, W.H. (1982), “Violence and Aggression, Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implication for the Eighties”: General Psychology: NJ
Grimm, J. (1999) Fernsehgewalt. Zuwendungsattraktivitat – Erregungsverlaufe – sozialer Effekt. Zur Begrundung und praktischen Anwendung eines kognitiv-physiologischen Ansatzes der Medienwirkungsforschung am Beispiel von Gewaltdarstellungen. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen
Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). The stability of aggression over time and generations.
Jeffery, C.R. (1990) Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Prentice Hall, NJ
Siever, L. (2008). "Neurobilogy of aggression and violence“. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(4), 429-442.
Wortman, C. & Loftus, E. (1981), Psychology: New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
