Since the invention of television, scholars and policymakers have debate the need to regulate certain kinds of content on television. Many worried that depictions of violence and sexuality on television might influence the attitudes and behavior of individuals, especially children, who watched the programs. Others argued that the fundamental right of freedom of speech required the government to stay out of the business of regulating television. Today, the majority of evidence suggests that violent media content does, in fact, contribute to violent behavior. The effects are small and difficult to detect, but many studies have provided evidence to support the conclusion that media violence causes actual violence. As a result, the government should regulate violent content in mass media. Obviously, any regulation must be balanced against claims to freedom of speech. However, regulations that seek to protect children, the most vulnerable group, are justified. This paper will first provide evidence that violent media content contributes to violent behavior, particularly among children. Then, it will outline a few potential explanations for how violent content contributes to violent behavior. Finally, it will propose a system of regulations to reduce violence in society.
Evidence that violent media content can influence the behavior of children dates back to at least the early 1970s. Stein and Friedrich (1972) performed an experiment on a group of children. They showed one group of children episodes of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood and another group of children violent cartoons feature Batman and Superman. In the days after watching the programs, the children who viewed the violent cartoons were more aggressive while playing with and talking to other children. This study provided strong evidence of a causal relationship between viewing media violence and behavior in a way that is at least potentially violent.
A more recent study by Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, and Eron (2003) also found a connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in children. Their study involved a survey of a group of children. The children were surveyed at ages 6 to 9 and again at ages 21 to 23. The adults who viewed a lot of violent media content as children were significantly more likely to be aggressive as adults. Notably, it is possible that the more aggressive individuals were simply drawn to violent content, even as children. However, other experimental studies like the one cited have founded evidence that media violence actually causes changes in behavior. These studies suggest that Huesmann et al.’s (2003) findings are not simply coincidences but rather reflect a direct causal relationship.
The effects of viewing violent media content are not limited to children. Zillman and Weaver (1999) performed an experiment involving media violence on adults. They showed participants violent movies for several days in a row. People who watched the violent movies were described as hostile in their interactions with others, even if they were not provoked. Fortunately, none of the participants in the study went out and murdered anyone. However, it seems possible that the if the participants watched more and more violent films for a longer period of time, some of them might have actually engaged in violent behaviors. The researchers in the studied argued argued that their research showed a causal relationship between viewing violent media content and antisocial, potentially violent behavior.
The fact that even adults are vulnerable to violent media suggests that children are at even greater risk. Children’s minds are less developed and they are less likely to understand the difference between reality and fantasy. They are also more likely to imitate the behaviors they see on television. This implies that even though all people may be vulnerable to violent media, children are in need of special protections.
Unfortunately, there are no truly definitive studies that prove that media violence causes real violence. Clearly, nobody watches a violent TV show and then immediately goes on a killing spree. Human behavior is complicated and researchers can read minds. Often times, people do not even understand their own mental processes when they decide to commit an act of violence. There are simply too many other factors involved for researchers to absolutely prove that certain kinds of media cause certain kinds of behavior. Age of exposure, the type of violent content, and socioeconomic factors all play a role. It is impossible to weed out other kinds of influences in studies. However, there are now many different studies that all suggest the same thing. The evidence that some relationship exists between media violence and actual violence is now very strong. This implies that even though negative effects of media violence are hard to detect, they still exist.
The mechanism by which viewing media content causes violent behavior is a subject of debate, but several potential explanations exist. The most intuitive of these is a concept called desensitization. The idea of desensitization is that, under ordinary circumstances, people respond to violent images with disgust and other negative emotions. For example, the first time many people watch the grizzly beach invasion scene in the movie Saving Private Ryan, they actually feel nauseated. However, when people are exposed to a lot of violence over a long time, they get used it. Instead of feeling disgust or anxiety, they do not feel much at all. It is at least possible that desensitization encourages violent behavior. The idea is that if people are no longer disgusted by violence, there are fewer barriers to them committing violence themselves.
Another possible explanation for how media violence causes actual violence is a theory called priming. The idea behind priming is that media can give people cues about how to behave. Basically, violent media puts the idea of violence in people’s minds. If some one has just witnessed two men in a fistfight on television, for example, then he might be more likely to resort to fighting in his next confrontation with a colleague. Anderson’s (1983) study supported this theoretical explanation. The argument makes intuitive sense, especially since watching a violent scene on TV or in a movie can cause a fight-or-flight response. Basically, if some one is tense from watching Rambo shoot up a bunch of bad guys, they are more likely to throw a bunch in a confrontation themselves.
A third potential mechanism is called social learning. The idea behind social learning is that people learn by watching other people do things. Just like a monkey learns to open a banana by watching other monkeys, people learn to solve problems by watching others. When children watch people use violence on television, they might therefore decide that violence is a good way to solve problems in real life. Bandura (2002) argued that people are very good at picking up behaviors by watching others. There is so much violence on television that it would hard for people not to learn violent behaviors. This is especially true when the hero of a TV show or video game uses violence to accomplish something. If Mel Gibson can save the day by beating up a bad guy, some people might conclude that they can accomplish their own goals by following the same behavior.
The studies outlined above make it clear that media violence has the potential to cause real violence in society. The question is what to do about it. The two most extreme options are to either do nothing or to ban all violence on television. The first option, doing nothing, is unsatisfactory since it would allow the media to cause more and more violence. The second option, however, is equally unsatisfactory. It is probably impossible to ban all depictions of violence in the media. The nightly news, for example, includes many violent stories almost every day. Additionally, violence is difficult to define precisely. Cartoons often show fighting, but that sort of violence seems less damaging than gunfights between real people. Without a clear definition, a total ban on violence is impossible. Furthermore, banning all violence in the media would be a serious violation of free speech rights.
The best solution to the problem of media violence causing actual violence is somewhere between the two extremes. A good first step would be to ban violent programming that is directed at children. For example, the government could prevent television companies from showing violent programs that feature real people during the times when children are most likely to watch TV. Additionally, the government could provide clearer warnings about violence in video games and movies to prevent children from playing and watching them. Even movies rated PG or PG-13 can contain a lot of violent content. A more precise rating system would reduce the chances of impressionable children watching them.
The Internet makes it more difficult to prevent children from accessing violent media content. It is easy for the government to stop broadcasters from airing violent programs, but the Internet is harder to manage. However, many schools already use filtering and firewall technology to prevent students from accessing violent and pornographic material. One solution might be for the government to require that all Internet browsers use the same technology as their default settings. That way, adults could disable the firewalls to access any content that they chose but children would be protected from most of the violence.
Children are more impressionable than adults, so it makes sense to regulate media content for children more than for adults. However, the evidence cited above shows that adults are vulnerable to the effects of media violence, too. The government should take steps to at least reduce the amount of violence people see on a daily basis. The government could require that networks show the most violent television programs during off-peak hours like in the mid-afternoon or late at night. That way, people could still watch the programs if they really wanted to but fewer people would see them inadvertently.
Another step that might reduce the risk of media violence causing actual violence is using disclaimers. The government requires cigarette companies to put warnings on their products about potential health risks. It could do the same thing for violent media content. Just like with smoking, some adults would probably watch violent media content even if they knew that doing so might increase their risk of violent behavior. However, a lot of people might be less likely to watch. Additionally, many television and movie directors might try to avoid violent content so their programs would get less severe ratings. That already happens with many movies. Filmmakers try to avoid getting NC-17 ratings because few people watch those films.
Finally, the government could ban outright the most offensive and gratuitous kinds of violence. Freedom of speech must be protected, but there is no good reason for a film, video game or television show to present rape scenes or blood and gore spewing all over the camera. It is difficult to define the worst forms of violence, but a few criteria include excessive gore, torture, murder of innocent people, and depictions of violence as fun and enjoyable. The same logic could also be applied to video games. Violent games would still be allowed, but only if they depicted fictional beings like aliens and not real people. Additionally, the most violent games that actually glorify violence like Grand Theft Auto, could be banned.
A major concern in any discussion of regulating or censoring the media is freedom of speech. However, media that presents violence for the sake of violence does not contribute much to the kind of political discourse the First Amendment was intended to protect. There is also a strong precedent for regulating certain kinds of media content. The government does not allow broadcasters or even most cable television channels to show pornography or other sexually explicit material. If the government can regulate sex in the media, it should be able to regulate violence in the media as well.
Obviously, the government should be careful about preventing abuse of censorship. Speech that has legitimate value should be allowed, even if it is violent. For example, news programs that feature footage from actual wars must be allowed to continue in the interest of informing the public. However, many television programs and newspapers already avoid showing truly ghastly images to their viewers. It makes sense, then, to restrict gratuitously violent programs that offer no real political or cultural value. The most extreme and despicable depictions of violence can be banned without significantly infringing on civil liberties.
References
Anderson, C.A. (1983). Imagination and expectation: The effect of imagining behavioral scripts on personal intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 293-305.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant and D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (p. 121-153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C. L., and Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relationships between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977-1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, 201-221.
Stein, A. H., and Friedrich, L. K. (1972). Television content and young children’s behavior. In J. P. Murray, E. A. Rubinstein, & G. A. Comstock (Eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol. II: Television and Social Learning (p. 202-317). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Zillman, D., and Weaver, J. B. III. (1999). Effects of prolonged exposure to gratuitous violence on provoked and unprovoked hostile behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, p. 145-165.
