THE CONSEQUENCES OF VIEWING MEDIA VIOLENCE:
1.Parents often restrict children from watching violent media, and violent content is rated PG-13
or R to limit exposure for younger children.
2.Longitudinal research shows that violent individuals are not more likely to watch violent TV
than nonviolent individuals (Huesmann et al., 2003).
3.There is a belief that watching violent media can help relieve stress and aggressive impulses,
known as the "cathartic effect." However, most studies do not support this .
4.A large body of research consistently shows that watching violent TV increases aggressive
behavior.
5.Watching TV violence has many negative effects, including increased imitation of violence,
desensitization, and greater acceptance of violence.
6.Studies using natural manipulations (e.g., introduction of TV stations) show mixed results,
such as increased nonviolent theft but not necessarily violent crime.
7.When TV was introduced to a small Canadian town, both physical and verbal aggression in
children increased.
8.After the introduction of TV in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa, homicide rates doubled
over a 15-year period, possibly due to TV exposure during childhood.
9.Many experimental studies confirm a link between TV violence and increased aggression,
although aggression in these experiments is often less severe than real-world violence.
10.Research shows that playing violent video games can increase aggression, though the issue is
complex due to the interactive nature of video games.
11.Playing video games that involve helping behaviors can lead to increased prosocial actions in
real life.
12.Qualitative research suggests that people play violent video games for reasons beyond
aggression, such as sociality and emotional satisfaction
13.Aggressive behavior is influenced by various factors, including gender, personality, stress,
culture, and childhood experiences .
HOW DOES MEDIA VIOLENCE AFFECTS US?
1. IMMITATION VIOLENCE .
2. MEDIA VIOLENCE AND AGGRESSIVE THOUGHTS.
3. MEDIA VIOLENCE AND FEAR.
IMMITATION VIOLENCE:
The imitation of violence is evident in real-life cases like Lionel Tate, who at 14 was convicted
for murdering a 6-year-old after using wrestling moves seen on TV. This ties into Bandura’s
Bobo doll experiment (1963), which showed that children imitate aggressive behaviors they
observe in media. In one study (Hicks, 1965), children who watched a film of a person attacking
a Bobo doll imitated the violence immediately and even six months later, while those who didn’t
watch the film exhibited no aggression. This highlights vicarious learning, where behaviors are
learned by watching others be rewarded for them. Bandura's social cognitive theory explains that
vicarious learning requires four processes: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation.
Media violence easily grabs attention and leads to retention and reproduction, particularly when
children generalize the observed violence. Motivation to imitate aggression increases when the
behavior is rewarded, seen as justified, or perceived as realistic, especially if viewers identify
with the aggressor. A concerning factor is desensitization, where repeated exposure to violence
reduces sensitivity to real-world violence, increasing tolerance for it. Studies, such as those by
Drabman and Thomas (1974), and Engelhardt et al. (2011), show that both TV and video game
violence contribute to this desensitization, making individuals less likely to intervene in violent
situations and more prone to acting violently themselves.
COUNTERING THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENCE IN MEDIA:
To counter the effects of media violence on children, current measures like rating systems can
backfire by increasing the desire, especially among boys, to watch restricted content due to
psychological reactance (the "forbidden fruit" effect). However, based on Bandura’s social
cognitive theory, focusing on the victim’s perspective may reduce the appeal of violence.
Research by Nathanson and Cantor (2000, 2004) showed that when children were encouraged to
empathize with the victim of violence, they enjoyed it less and expressed fewer aggressive
attitudes, especially boys. This suggests that teaching children empathy towards victims can help
reduce the effects of media violence.
MEDIA VIOLENCE AND AGGREGATE THOUGHTS:
1.Neoassociationistic model of media priming (Berkowitz, 1984) suggests that certain stimuli
(e.g., a gun) can increase the likelihood of aggressive thoughts.
2.Priming refers to how a preceding stimulus (e.g., seeing a gun) influences reactions to a
subsequent stimulus (e.g., honking at a driver).
3.Memory nodes store information in associative pathways (e.g., "gun" is linked to "crime"), and
when one node is activated, related nodes can be triggered.
4.Spreading activation occurs when activating one concept (e.g., gun) makes related concepts
(e.g., crime) easier to activate.
5.Priming leads to quicker judgments or interpretations based on the stimulus (e.g., interpreting
an ambiguous act as hostile if a gun was seen earlier).
6.Short-term effect: Aggressive thoughts from media violence (e.g., seeing a gun) are temporary
and fade over time.
MEDIA VIOLENCE AND FEAR:
1.Media violence can cause lasting fear: Certain movies (e.g., Jaws) caused long-term fear
responses, affecting behavior (e.g., avoiding the ocean) years later.
2.Younger children fear scary-looking things, while older children and adolescents are more
scared by realistic and abstract threats.
3.Over 90% of children experience fear from media at some point, leading to nightmares, stress,
and even depression.
4.Younger children use behavioral strategies (e.g., covering their eyes), while older children use
cognitive strategies to manage fear.
5.Heavy TV viewing shapes viewers' perceptions of the world, making them believe the world is
more dangerous and hostile than it is.
6.Watching shows where violent perpetrators are not brought to justice leads to increased
anxiety.
Media violence effects:
Media violence can lead to imitation, increased aggression, and heightened fear, particularly
when violence is perceived as real or rewarded.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE WATCH PORNOGRAPHY?
PORNOGRAPHY:Sexually explicit material meant to arouse the user, unlike simulated sex in
films or TV shows.
•Types of pornography: Erotica (consensual, caring partners), nonviolent pornography (casual,
emotionless sex), and violent pornography (coercive, violent sexual activity, often degrading
women).
•Embedded sexual material: Sexual content within a story, either nonviolent or violent, found in
movies and TV shows.
•Effects of pornography: Research explores harmful effects like increased callousness toward
women and the acceptance of rape myths.
•Experimental studies: Participants, often men, are shown films (e.g., violent or nonviolent
pornography) and then tested on attitudes toward women, rape myths, and judgments in rape
trials.
•Desensitization and harmful effects: Long-term exposure to nonviolent pornography and any
exposure to embedded violent sexual material can lead to desensitization and increased
callousness.
•Erotica's effects: Limited research, but it increases sexual arousal and masturbation tendencies;
inconsistent findings on its therapeutic uses.
•Short-term exposure to nonviolent pornography: Mixed results, showing subtle effects like
increased dominance in interactions with women.
•Violent pornography: Limited research due to ethical concerns, but likely produces similar
effects to embedded violent sexual material.
EFFECTS OF LONG TIME EXPOSURE TO NONVIOLENT PORNOGRAPHY:
•U.S. Government Report (1986): Concluded that substantial exposure to nonviolent
pornography increases sexual violence and coercion, though results were mixed in actual
research.
•Long-term exposure: Typically defined as watching five hours of material over six weeks.
•Impact on attitudes: Exposure to nonviolent pornography is linked to more leniency toward
assailants in rape cases, increased sexual callousness, and negative attitudes toward women,
especially among men with preexisting hostility toward women.
•Attitudes vs. behavior: Men with more negative attitudes often consume more pornography, and
experiments show exposure increases negative attitudes.
•Family values: Research shows that substantial exposure to nonviolent pornography can
decrease sexual satisfaction, increase acceptance of nonexclusive sexual intimacy, premarital and
extramarital sex, and reduce the importance of faithfulness and desire for children.
•Increased interest in extreme content: Viewing nonviolent pornography increases interest in
more extreme forms of pornography like bondage and sadomasochism.
EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO EMBEDDED VIOLENT SEXUAL MATERIAL:
Exposure to embedded violent sexual material has significant negative impacts on thoughts,
intentions, and behaviors, particularly among men, as most research has focused on this
demographic. The adverse effects include increased sexual arousal, heightened rape fantasies,
decreased sensitivity to violent sexual acts, greater acceptance of rape myths, and increased
tolerance for rapists. Men who are more likely to commit rape (if they could do so without
consequences) display increased aggression toward women and are more likely to endorse
callous attitudes about rape after viewing such material. However, it is essential to note that there
is no evidence indicating that exposure to embedded violent sexual material directly leads to
actual rape or assaults against women, largely due to ethical constraints that prevent researchers
from studying this issue directly. Instead, researchers focus on understanding and mitigating the
harmful effects of both embedded and explicit portrayals of violent sexuality.
REDUCING THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO VIOLENT SEXUAL
MATERIAL:
1.Proposing legal bans on the distribution and sale of violent sexual materials is largely
impractical, as it would likely violate free speech rights in many countries and could
unintentionally include mainstream media like R-rated films.
2.Educating viewers to develop critical viewing skills can help them become discerning
consumers of media. Studies have shown that children who received training to perceive
violence in TV shows as unrealistic exhibited long-lasting reductions in aggressive behavior.
3.Implementing debriefing sessions after exposure to violent sexual material can mitigate
negative effects. These sessions inform participants about the harmful impacts and counter rape
myths. Meta-analyses have shown that educational debriefings effectively negate the adverse
effects of such material.
4.Informing individuals about the potential negative effects of exposure to violent sexual
material before viewing can serve as a preventive measure. This includes explicit warnings and
educational programs that address sexual communication, responses, and myths. Meta-analyses
indicate that prebriefings are often more effective than debriefings in reducing harmful effects.
5.Educational programs that promote respect for others, especially partners, can help mitigate the
negative effects of exposure to violent sexual content.
HOW POLITICAL NEWS COVERAGE AFFECT US?
The influence of political news coverage on public perception has been a topic of discussion
since the early 20th century. An illustrative example is the War of the Worlds radio broadcast,
which demonstrated how media can shape thoughts and beliefs. In his 1922 book, Public
Opinion, Walter Lippmann recounts a case from 1914 involving a small island inhabited by
French, English, and German citizens. When a steamer delivered news of the outbreak of World
War I, the residents’ reality shifted dramatically. Friends became enemies based solely on the
information presented in the newspapers, highlighting how media can profoundly alter people's
perceptions and relationships, even in the absence of immediate changes in their environment.
HOW THE MEDIA INFLUENCE OUR THOUGHTS:
•Early 20th-century views suggested that media had profound effects on perceptions,
exemplified by the War of the Worlds broadcast and Lippmann's observations on public opinion.
•Research in the 1950s and 1960s argued that media have little to no influence on how people
perceive the world, as seen in Senator Knowland’s ineffective telethon.
Despite previous conclusions, media can influence what people think about. For example, public
concern over illegal drug use rose significantly from 1985 to 1989, despite objective measures
showing a decline in drug-related issues.
•This increase in concern correlates with extensive media coverage of drugs during the late
1980s, demonstrating the concept of agenda setting—the media influences what issues are
perceived as important rather than what people think about those issues.
•The public agenda consists of issues the public deems important, the policy agenda reflects
government officials' priorities, and the media agenda consists of topics receiving extensive
media coverage.
•Research indicates that while media often set the public agenda, public concerns can influence
policy agendas, as shown in the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial campaign.
•The availability heuristic suggests that people base their judgments on the ease of recalling
information, making media coverage of specific issues more salient.
Media do not set agendas for local issues; personal experiences often dictate local concerns.
•The Internet allows individuals to customize news consumption, potentially undermining
traditional media's agenda-setting function, though traditional media still has a stronger
influence.
•Political priming refers to how media coverage influences the information used to judge
politicians, impacting public opinion over time.
EFFECTS OF MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT:
1.Trust in the U.S. government has decreased from 75% in 1964 to about 25% in the mid-1990s.
2.This decline in trust has led to lower voter turnout and undermined the effectiveness of
political institutions.
3.Major events like the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, and
various presidential scandals have contributed to the erosion of public trust.
4.The media are often blamed for the declining image of the government, with research
indicating a correlation between negative media exposure and lower trust.
5.Traditional news media provide negative coverage, but radio and entertainment talk shows are
typically more negative towards the government.
6.The impact of negative media on cynicism is unclear; it may either lead to increased cynicism
or attract already cynical individuals.
7.The framing of stories influences public perceptions, with strategy frames often portraying
politicians as self-interested.
8.Negative campaigning emphasizes opponents' character rather than issues, increasing over the
past 30 years and correlating with declining voter turnout.
9.Negative campaigns foster a perception of voting as a lose-lose situation, leading to lower
voter engagement and increased cynicism.
10.The media influence which political issues are considered important and how individuals
evaluate political leaders, contributing to growing distrust in government institutions.
