Assessment 3

By CRAIG A. ANDERSON, MA, PhD

I Of course, like most young men and

women of that era, I had grown up wit- nessing thousands of killings and other acts of aggression in a wide array of television shows and films. Today’s youth are even more inundated with media violence than past generations, mostly from entertainment sources but also from news and educational media. And even though the public remains largely unaware of the conclusiveness of more than six decades of research on the effects of exposure to screen media violence, the scientists most directly involved in this research know quite a bit about these effects.

The briefest summary of hundreds of scientific studies can be boiled down to two main points. First, exposure to media violence is a causal risk factor for physical aggression, both immediately after the exposure and months, even years, later. Second, in the absence of other known risk factors for violence, high exposure to media violence will not turn a normal well-adjusted child or adolescent into a mass killer.

SOME DEFINITIONS One reason for much of the confusion and debate among even highly edu- cated citizens, health care profession- als and even a few scientists is that when media violence researchers use certain terms and concepts, they have somewhat different meanings than when the general public uses the same words.

By “aggression,” researchers mean “behavior that is intended to harm

another person who does not wish to be harmed.” Thus, hitting, kicking, pinching, stabbing and shooting are types of physical aggression.

Playing soccer or basket- ball or even football with

energy and confidence are not usu- ally considered acts of aggression, even though that is what most coaches mean when they exhort their charges to “play aggressively.” Somehow, the phrase “play assertively” doesn’t have the same ring to it.

By “violent behavior,” most mod- ern aggression and violence scholars mean “aggressive behavior (as defined above) that has a reasonable chance of causing harm serious enough to require medical attention.” Note that the behavior does not have to actually cause the harm to be classified as vio- lent; shooting at a person but missing still qualifies as a violent behavior.

By “media violence” we mean scenes and story lines in which at least one character behaves aggressively towards at least one other character, using the above definition of “aggres- sion,” not the definition of “violence.” Thus, television shows, movies, and video games in which characters fight (Power Rangers, for example), or say mean things about each other (often

HEALTH PROGRESS www.chausa.org JULY - AUGUST 2016 59

killed my first Klingon in 1979. It took place in the computer center at Stanford University, where I was playing a new video game based on the Star Trek televi- sion series. I was an “early adopter” of the new technology of video games, and

continued to be so for many years, first as a fan of this entertainment medium, and later as a researcher interested in the question of what environmental factors influ- ence aggressive and violent behavior.

Media Violence Effects on Children, Adolescents and Young Adults

Today’s youth are even more inundated with media violence than past generations, mostly from entertainment sources but also from news and educational media.

S U F F E R I N G V I O L E N C E

JULY - AUGUST 2016 www.chausa.org HEALTH PROGRESS 60

called relational aggression), or kill bad guys, all are instances of media violence, even if there is no blood, no gore, no screaming in pain. By this definition, most modern video games rated by the video game industry as appropriate for children — up to 90 percent, by some estimates — are vio- lent video games.

AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE Short-term and long-term effects of violent media use on aggressive behavior have been demon- strated by numerous studies across age, cul- ture, gender, even personality types. Overall, the research literature suggests that media violence effects are not large, but they accumulate over time to produce significant changes in behavior that can significantly influence both individuals and society.

For example, one of the longest duration stud- ies of the same individuals found that children exposed to lots of violent television shows at age 8 later became more violent adults at age 30, even after statistically controlling for how aggressive they were at age 8.

Similar long-term effects (up to three years, so far) on aggressive and violent behavior have been found for frequent exposure to violent video games. One six-month longitudinal study found that frequent violent video game play at the begin- ning of a school year was associated with a 25 per- cent increase in the likelihood of being in a physi- cal fight during that year, even after controlling for whether or not the child had been in a fight the previous year.

Short-term experimental studies, in which children are randomly assigned to either a vio- lent or nonviolent media expo- sure condition for a brief period, conclusively demonstrate that the media violence effects are causal. In one such study, for example, chil- dren who played a child-oriented violent video game (i.e., no blood, gore, screaming …) later attempted to deliver 47 percent more high- intensity punishments to another child than did children who had been randomly assigned to play a nonviolent video game. Even cartoonish media violence increases aggression.

In recent years, there have been several inter- vention studies designed to test whether reducing exposure to screen violence over several months

or longer can reduce inappropriate aggressive behavior. These randomized control experiments have found that, yes, children and adolescents randomly assigned to the media intervention con- ditions show a decrease in aggression relative to those in the control conditions.

HOW MEDIA VIOLENCE INCREASES AGGRESSION How does exposure to media violence lead to increased aggressive behavior? Media violence scholars have identified several basic psychologi- cal processes involved. They differ somewhat for short-term versus long-term effects, but they all involve various types of learning.

Short-term effects are those that occur imme- diately after exposure. The main ways that media violence exposure increases aggression in the short term are:

Direct imitation of the observed behavior Observational learning of attitudes, beliefs

and expected benefits of aggression Increased excitation Priming of aggression-related ways of think-

ing and feeling

In essence, for at least a brief period after view- ing or playing violent media, the exposed person thinks in more aggressive ways, feels more aggres- sive, perceives that others are hostile towards him or her and sees aggressive solutions as being more acceptable and beneficial.

The short-term effects typically dissipate quickly. However, with repeated exposure to vio- lent media, the child or adolescent “learns” these short-term lessons in a more permanent way, just as practicing multiplication tables or playing

chess improves performance on those skills. That is, the person comes to hold more positive beliefs about aggressive solutions to conflict, develops what is sometimes called a “hostile attribution bias” (a tendency to view ambiguous negative events in a hostile way) and becomes more con-

One of the longest duration studies of the same individuals found that children exposed to lots of violent television shows at age 8 later became more violent adults at age 30.

fident that an aggressive action on their part will work.

There also is growing evidence that repeated exposure to blood, gore and other aspects of extremely violent media can lead to emotional desensitization to the pain and suffering of others. In turn, such desensitization can lead to increased aggression by removing one of the built-in brakes that normally inhibits aggression and violence. Furthermore, this desensitization effect reduces

the likelihood of pro-social, empathetic, helping behavior when viewing a victim of violence.

Interestingly, these same basic learning and priming effects account for the fact that expo- sure to nonviolent, pro-social media can lead to increased pro-social behavior.

SCREEN TIME EFFECTS For a number of years, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended very strict limits on children’s exposure to any types of screen media, including TVs and computers, primarily because of concern about attention deficits. For example, they recommend that children under the age of 2 years have no exposure to electronic screens, even nonviolent media. Recent research with chil- dren, adolescents and young adults suggests that both nonviolent and violent media contribute to real-world attention problems, such as attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactiv- ity disorder. Furthermore, these attention prob- lems are strongly linked to aggressive behavior, especially impulsive types of aggression.

Another emerging problem with video game usage goes by various addiction-related labels, such as video game addiction, internet addiction and internet/gaming disorder. Research across multiple countries and various measures of prob- lematic game use suggests that about 8 percent of “gamers” have serious problems with their gam-

ing habit. That is, their gaming activities inter- fere with significant aspects of their lives, such as interpersonal relationships, school or work activ- ities. This newer research literature suggests that for some individuals, video game problems look much like gambling addiction.

MAGNITUDE OF HARM News media often report exaggerated claims about “the” cause of the most recent violent trag-

edy, whether it is a school shooting or another mass killing. Sometimes the cause that is hyped by these stories is violent video games; other times it is mental illness, or gun control, or lack of gun control.

Behavioral scientists (and reason- ably thoughtful people in general) know that human behavior is complex, and it is affected by many variables. Violence researchers in particular know that such extreme events as homicide cannot be

boiled down to a single cause. Instead, behavioral scientists (including violence scholars) rely on what is known as risk and resilience models, or risk and protective factors.

All consequential behavior is influenced by dozens (maybe hundreds) of risk and protective factors. In the violence domain, there are dozens of known risk and protective factors. Growing up in a violent household or seeing lots of violence in one’s neighborhood are two such risk factors. Growing up in a nonviolent household and hav- ing warm, caring parents who are highly involved with child rearing are protective factors. From this perspective, exposure to media violence is one known risk factor for later inappropriate aggression and violence. It is not the most impor- tant risk factor; joining a violent gang is a good candidate for that title. But it also isn’t the least important risk factor.

Indeed, some studies suggest that media vio- lence exposure carries about the same risk poten- tial as having abusive parents or antisocial par- ents. One major difference from other known risk factors for later aggression and violence is that parents and caregivers can relatively easily and inexpensively reduce a child’s exposure to media violence.

WHY BELIEVE THIS ARTICLE? It is easy to find very vocal critics of the main-

HEALTH PROGRESS www.chausa.org JULY - AUGUST 2016 61

There also is growing evidence that repeated exposure to blood, gore and other aspects of extremely violent media can lead to emotional desensitization to the pain and suffering of others.

S U F F E R I N G V I O L E N C E

JULY - AUGUST 2016 www.chausa.org HEALTH PROGRESS 62

stream summary that I have presented in this arti- cle. A simple web search will generate links to any number of them. Many of the critics are supported by the media industries in one way or another, many are heavy users of violent media and so feel threatened by violence research (much like cigarette smokers once felt threatened by cancer research), some are threatened by anything they see as impinging on free-speech rights, and many are simply ignorant about the science. But, a few appear to have relevant scientific credentials. So, a reasonable question for a parent or health care professional to ask is why believe that exposure to media violence creates harmful effects, rather than maintain the much more comfortable posi- tion that there are no harmful effects.

The simple answer is this: Every major profes- sional scientific body that has conducted reviews of the scientific literature has come to the same conclusion. This group includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Associa- tion, the U.S. Surgeon General and the Interna- tional Society for Research on Aggression, among others. I have posted these and other, similar reports online.1

In 1972, former U.S. Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld, MD, testified before the U.S. Senate on his assessment of the research on TV violence and behavior: “It is clear to me that the causal rela- tionship between televised violence and antiso- cial behavior is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action,” he said. “There comes a time when the data are sufficient to jus- tify action. That time has come.”2

In response to one or two vocal critics of the mainstream research community and perhaps to pressure from other groups, the American Psy- chological Association created a new media vio- lence assessment panel in 2013 to assess the asso-

ciation’s 2005 statement and update it. They took a very unusual step to avoid any appearance of bias by excluding all major mainstream media violence scholars from the panel. Instead, the panel was composed of reputable psychological science scholars with expertise in developmen- tal, social and related psychology domains, along with leading meta-analysis statistical experts. Their report, released in 2015, confirmed what the mainstream media violence research commu- nity has been saying for years: There are real and harmful effects of violent media.

Violent media are neither the harmless fun that the media industries and their apologists would like you to believe, nor are they the cause of the downfall of society that some alarmists proclaim. Nonetheless, electronic media in the 21st cen- tury dominate many children’s and adolescents’ waking hours, taking more time than any other activity, even time in school and interactions with parents. Thus, electronic media have become important socializing agents, agents that have a measurable impact.

Many of the effects of nonviolent electronic media are positive, but the vast majority of vio- lent media effects are negative. Parents and other caregivers can mitigate the harmful effects of vio- lent media in several ways, such as by increas- ing positive or “protective” factors in the child’s environment, and by reducing exposure to violent media. This is not an easy task, but it can be done with little or no expense. The benefits of doing so are healthier, happier, more successful children, adolescents and young adults.

CRAIG A. ANDERSON is Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology, and director of the Center for the Study of Violence, Iowa State Uni- versity, Ames, Iowa.

NOTES 1. http://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/Statementson- MediaViolence.html. 2. Jesse Feldman, statement in hearings before Subcom- mittee on Communications of Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Serial #92-52 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972) 25-27.

Some studies suggest that media violence exposure carries about the same risk potential as having abusive parents or antisocial parents.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.