Regan Bloss
Nikki Morrell
Honors English IV
November 20, 2011
The Vexations of Vehement Visual Violence
Millions of kids grow up watching cowboy shoot-em-ups, weekend "creature features," and good ol' cops-and-robbers crime dramas; however, with so much violence on our televisions today, the question of whether television violence is having a negative effect on society begs to be answered. To answer this question it is imperative to examine the biological perspective of aggression, then analyze the academic criminologist perspective, before determining how big of a negative impact media violence really causes. In a nutshell however, media violence, more specifically television violence, has a profound biological impact, which causes significant measurable effects on criminal behavior and resulting negative effects on society.
Neurobiologist Dr. Debra Niehoff, in her science-journal article “The Biology of Violence,” explains that violent behavior is a result of a developmental neural process. It is not a trait that someone is born with or someone grows out of, instead violent behavior is developed through a series of interactions between a person and his or her environment. These interactions trigger emotional responses, which are recoded in the nervous system by means of chemical messengers, or neurons. Niehoff extrapolates on this fundamental neural concept by analyzing the link to actual aggression. If the "dialogue" between a person’s environment and themselves is largely positive, then a persons nervous system is more likely to develop in a "socially acceptable" way. On the contrary, negative environmental impacts on a person impair a person’s ability to cope with the challenges of life, which in turn harbors "socially unacceptable" behavior. Often times, a person who has experienced a negative environment will overreact and feel threatened all the time, or under react and not fear punishment, authority, or getting hurt. Either way, a person’s judgment is seriously impaired when being exposed to negative occurrences, which includes viewing violent television shows (Heins 32-33).
This theory is re-affirmed by professor of psychology at Stanford University, Albert Bandura, who explains the social-cognitive theory of aggression from a cognitive-neoassociationistic perspective. The theory “contends that people observe important role models, make inferences and attributions, and acquire scripts, schemas, and normative beliefs that then guide their subsequent behavior,” (Bandura, Martino, Chory-Assad).
Critics of this theory disregard its evidentiary support, which proves that a person’s experiences, including watching violent shows, are the causational factor in aggression, because there are a number of third-factor variables to take into account. That is exactly why Dr. Rowell Huesmann, collegiate professor of communication studies and psychology in the Institute for Social Research of the University of Michigan, performed a number of correlational studies, which monitor the relationship between watching violent TV and acting aggressively. Huesmann’s fifteen-year study controlled the myriad of third-factor variables, including prior aggressive behavior, by localizing specific variables and then testing for each one (Huesmann, Martino). The evidence concludes that the social learning of violence through the media is a direct cause of aggression. This is because biologically people are more likely to act in an aggressive way if they are repeatedly exposed to violent experiences where the aggressor is either praised or not reprimanded for his actions (Hearold, Martino). In other words, monkey see, monkey do.
By the same token, television violence is a key facet to societal aggression and criminal activity says criminologists and ethical perspectives alike. Joanne Savage, assistant professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society in the School of Public Affairs at American University, alludes to the fact that people are ethically obligated to oppose violent television shows because they inherently harbor aggressive behavior and impact society in a negative manner. Likewise, if one believes in societal justice and the notion that taking ones life is a dire action, then one should also acknowledge any susceptible threat to causing aggression, including watching a violent television, by being apposed to it. Simply put, social cognitive theory and moral justification obligate those who are opposed to aggression and death to oppose any external factor that causes aggression or death, including violent media (Heins 34-37).
The final component in answering the initial question also seems to be where most of the debate lies. To what extent is violent-media-caused aggression affecting society? Part of the answer lies in solving for the common misconception that experimental data and real-world situations are compatible. Unfortunately and inconveniently they are not. The fact is, while the measurable affects of media violence, with regards to criminal behavior, are statistically significant, they are comparatively small when determined in the real world (Heins 34).
Consequently, while studies and theories like those performed and formulated by Huesmann and Bandura statistically and logically prove that media violence has a profound effect on society, real-world conditions, which include incalculable variables, are the reason for media violence having little direct effect on society. In any event, the logic behind social-cognitive theory and years of research, which provide substantial evidentiary support that media violence has a negative impact on society, cannot merely be disregarded due to its incompatibility with the real world. Instead, it would be pragmatic to take into account such evidence when determining a solution to the mounting problem of societal aggression. After all, “difficulties exist to be surmounted,” (Emerson).
Works Cited
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chory-Assad, Rebecca M., and Dana E. Mastro. Violent Videogame Use and Hostility
among High School Students and College Students. N.p.: Department of Communications, n.d. Boston College. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.
<http://icagames.comm.msu.edu/VGU&H.pdf>.
Emerson, Ralph W. The Essential Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. N.p.: n.p., n.d.
Web. 20 Nov. 2011.
<http://thinkexist.com/quotation/difficulties_exist_to_be/182179.html>.
Hearold, S. L. (1986). A synthesis of 1043 effects of television on social behavior. In G.
Comstock (Ed.), Public communication and behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 65–133). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Heins, Marjorie, Joanne Cantor, Henry Jenkins, Debra Niehoff, and Joanne Savage.
Violence and the Media. Nashville: First Amendment Center, 2001. 22-27. Print.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C. L., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal
relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, 201–221.
Martino, Steven C., Rebecca L. Collins, David E. Kanouse, Marc Elliott, and Sandra H.
Berry. Interpersonal Relationships and Group Processes. N.p.: n.p., 2005. 2-3. Rand Corporation. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/2008/RAND_RP1312.pdf>.
