The scientific evidence does not support the notion that TV and film violence cause aggression in children or in anyone else. So argues Jonathan Freedman, based on his findings that far fewer than half of the scientific studies have found a causal connection between exposure to media violence and aggression or crime. In fact, Freedman believes that, taken to a more controversial extreme, the research could be interpreted as showing that there is no causal effect of media violence at all.
Media Violence and its Effect on Aggression offers a provocative challenge to the accepted norms in media studies and psychology. Freedman begins with a comprehensive review of all the research on the effect of violent movies and television on aggression and crime. Having shown the lack of scientific support for the prevailing belief that media violence is connected to violent behaviour, he then explains why something that seems so intuitive and even obvious might be incorrect and goes on to provide plausible reasons why media violence might not have bad effects on children. He contrasts the supposed effects of TV violence on crime with the known effects of poverty and other social factors, and discusses the difference between television advertising, which, he argues, does have an effect, and violent programs, which do not.
Freedman concludes by noting that in recent years television and films have been as violent as ever and violent video games have become more and more popular, yet during this period there has been a dramatic decrease in violent crime. He argues that this makes it highly implausible that media violence causes aggression or crime.
With the mixed messages parents are getting on the issue of media violence and aggression, this book serves as an educative tool. We are usually treated to misleading sound-bites and talking points regarding the "scientific studies" the author evaluates. Like all science, these studies are not safe from scrutiny. There have been many poorly designed studies in this area and the author calls attention to them. I am dumbfounded by previous reviewers attempt to accuse this psychologist as someone trying to undermine psychology. For scientists: questioning one and anothers' research methods is part of the profession. This is how knowledge advances. The only insults to common sense I see are the studies that attempt to define aggressive behavior as popping a balloon, or thinking about violence after seeing violent movies. Good science can and should stand up to scrutiny. The fact is, psychology has been guilty of some bad science.
Time for someone to talk sense in the face of hysteria Media violence research is badly flawed in many respects. First, every scientist and social scientist who I've ever heard of who studies media violence is opposed to it, so the whole research agenda is biased from square one. Find me a scientist or social scientist who studies it because he/she is indifferent about it or likes media violence. Second, there is a logic problem: I, like everyone else I know, have seen thousands of murders in movies and on television, and yet I have never seriously contemplated murdering anyone. Among those people who have considered it, even only a fraction of them actually commit murder. So the role of mass media in murder, for example, must be extremely small to non-existent. Theories that suggest that we might or will do what we see in the media, such as cultivation theory, agenda-setting theory, social learning theory, socialization theory, etc., utterly fail to explain why so few of us are murderers; such research must admit that mass media play an extremely small to non-existent role in real-world violence. Third, even if media violence is partially responsible for some people being violent occasionally, this flimsy connection is not enough under the First Amendment, or based on common sense, to regulate or ban media violence. If the public wants to save lives, it could do so much more quickly and effectively by banning tobacco, alcohol, automobiles, guns, fast food and junk food. In other words, media violence would be way down the list of items or activities in American life that cause widespread harm and even death. Fourth, all of this research on media violence, even if it proves something, won't make any tangible difference. As a federal appeals court judge showed in an important law review article a few years ago, it's much easier under the First Amendment to regulate media sex in the United States than media violence. The V-chip may be mandatory in TV sets, but most of the other ratings systems and labeling for TV, movies, CDs, etc., have been voluntary by the media industry and could be upheld in court only with the claim (often made, rarely supported) that they protect children. We're not willing under the law to regulate almost anything that adults might see or hear (and I'm not suggesting that we should), as if magically at 18 Americans aren't effected by anything in the media anymore. Moreover, the FCC has been in a deregulatory mood for 20 years regarding TV, then cable, and now the Internet. The FCC has no authority over newspapers, magazines, books, movie theatres or movie rentals. Media and entertainment companies can be held liable for the actions of customers in only very rare cases (such as when a company puts out a book on how to be a hit man, and then someone follows the advice.) In short, regulating or banning movie or TV violence is not going to increase, probably will decrease further, and will become tougher to justify under the First Amendment in any case. Fifth, this leaves those who oppose media violence with two options: appealing to media companies to stop making violent content (and why would they do that, since their job is to make money for stockholders?), or not buy violent media content and try to persuade others not to do the same. Some social scientists may be deluded into thinking that that's what they're already doing: producing research that is negative about media violence and will convince average Americans not to consume media violence anymore. The only problem with this is that the average American doesn't read scholarly journals that publish articles on media violence, and isn't likely to--mostly because average Americans don't read scholarly journals at all, and partially because Americans are anti-intellectual: most of them wouldn't read a well-written scholarly journal article if it fell in their lap. Bottom line: with more than 3,000 studies in the last 50 years on media violence, this whole research stream has gone nowhere fast, and the last thing we need is another study on it. But certain scientists and social scientists have their own agenda, not the least of which is that research on media violence has turned into something of a cottage industry through federal grant money.
An Aggressive Attack on Research and Scholarship Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression is a very peculiar book. It is written in the style of H.L. Mencken--but without the scholarship and care. The book is a biased attack on the science of psychology, the profession of communications, and the common sense of any educated reader.
Anything Goes Trivia
Last Kiss
Megaton Man
Trevor
