The Effects of Media Violence on Children
A Background Paper researched and written by:
Jane E. Ledingham, Ph.D., C.Psych.
C. Anne Ledingham
John E. Richardson
Additional copies in English or French, as well as additional resource
materials, are available from:
National Clearinghouse on Family Violence
Family Violence Prevention Divsiion
Health and Welfare Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada MA 1B5
Tel.: 1-800-267-1291
TDD line: 1-800-561-5643
Fax: 613-941-8930
The views expressed in this book do not necessarily reflect those
of Health Canada. Contents may not be commercially reproduced but
any other reproduction, with acknowledgements, is encouraged.
Cat. H72-21/91-1993E
ISBN 0-662-20716-5
Introduction
There is a large body of research that documents the way in which
exposure to television influences children generally, and much of
this relates to the effects of exposure to violent content in programming.
The majority of studies reviewed below deal with these two areas
of content. However, the media that children are exposed to are
broader than television alone. There is almost no research on the
effects of violence portrayed in newspapers or books on children,
and very little on the effects of films (either shown in theatres
or shown in the home on VCRs) and video games. What little research
there is on these latter subjects will be noted, but in general
it is the research on television that has served as the model for
how exposure to violence in the media affects children. This is
probably because watching television is such a high frequency event
for children and because violence is portrayed on television as
occurring much more frequently than it is encountered in everyday
life. We will, nevertheless, attempt to extrapolate from these findings
to speculate on how changes in medium and technology may alter the
way that children are affected.
The Effects of Television on Children
Research has given us some important information on how children
of different ages respond to television and what they are capable
of learning from this medium. Before examining the effects of violent
programming in particular, we will examine this more general context
of effects.
In Canada, almost all households have at least one television set;
in 1986, 98% of homes had a television (Liebert & Sprafkin,
1988). Along with ownership of a television come changes in the
way that time is allotted within the family unit. A Canadian study
that documented the changes in how families spent their time before
and after television was introduced into a small town reported that
time spent sleeping, at social gatherings outside the home, in conversation,
in leisure activities such as reading, knitting, and writing, doing
household tasks, and involved in community activities and sports
was reduced after television became available (Williams & Handford,
1986). Bronfenbrenner (1973) has commented that the major impact
of television may not be in the behaviours that it induces but rather
in the behaviours that it preempts.
Television viewing time rises from about 2 1/2 hours per day at
the age of five to about four hours a day at age twelve. During
late adolescence viewing time levels off at 2 to 3 hours per day
(Liebert & Sprafkin, 1988). At six months of age, a child will
attend to a children's television program almost 50% of the time
(Hollenbeck & Slaby, 1979). At two years of age, the child will
attend 78% of the time to a children's program, but will still imitate
the actions of a live model more than those of a model on the television.
However, by three years of age, the child will attend 95% of the
time to a children's show and will imitate a televised model to
the same extent as a live model (McCall, Parke, & Kavanaugh,
1977). Nevertheless, until after the age of four, the child does
not watch television in a systematic fashion. How much attention
a child pays to a television show is determined by the level of
comprehension demanded by the show's content and form and by the
presence of distracters such as other children; children pay more
attention when the show presents information that they can comprehend
easily and pay less attention when other children are present to
interact with (Anderson, Alwitt, Lorch, & Levin, 1979; Anderson,
Lorch, Smith, Bradford,& Levin, 1981). Visual information is
remembered better than auditory information by preschoolers (Hayes
& Birnbaum, 1980; Hayes, Chemelski, & Birnbaum, 1981). When
there is an adult who comments on the action, the child remembers
more information (Watkins, Calvert, Huston-Stein, & Wright,
1980) and is more likely to imitate what he or she has seen (Grusec,
1973). Thus, adults have an important impact on how television affects
children.
The sophistication of children's attitudes towards television content
changes dramatically over time: 34% of children aged five to seven
believe that commercials always tell the truth (already a very low
percentage), but this drops to 5 % by the age of eleven to twelve;
relative to the attention paid to programs, attention paid to commercials
drops by 21 % between the ages of five and seven and by 42% between
the ages of eleven and twelve (Ward, Reale, & Levinson, 1972),
Television is used frequently by parents as a babysitter or distraction
device, and the frequency of use depends upon the education of the
parents. Parke (1978) reports that 53% of mothers and 44% of fathers
with grade school education, versus 21 % of mothers and 19% of fathers
who are college educated, use television as a babysitter. Probably
at least some of the differences in rates reported in this study
are due to the availability of other caretakers for parents of different
socioeconomic levels.
The Relationship between Violent Content and Children's Aggressiveness
The type of study carried out to examine the effects of watching
violent content on television has changed over time. Initially,
many of the studies were true experiments in which children who
had been randomly assigned to different groups were exposed to different
types of television programs. The strength of this approach is that
differences in behaviour between the treatment groups can be unequivocally
attributed to differences in the content of the television shows
rather than to differences between the types of children who chose
to watch more or less violent television. These studies demonstrated
that children exposed to either a real person or a cartoon character
behaving aggressively on television would subsequently behave more
aggressively than children who had not seen aggressive acts modelled
(e.g. Bandura, 1965; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963; Liebert &
Baron, 1972). In general, this research indicated that children
are more likely to imitate aggression when the perpetrator of the
violence is rewarded or at least not punished and when the violence
is presented as justified. Although violence presented as real appears
to promote aggression more in adults than violence described as
fictional, fictional violence also seems to make aggression more
likely than programming without violent content (Atkin, 1983). Whether
aggression is presented in a realistic way or in cartoons may, however,
make no difference to children's propensity to imitate it
(Hearold, 1986). When characters use aggressive means to reach prosocial
ends (a frequent combination on television) young children understand
less of the message of the show than when characters behave consistently
in a totally good or totally bad fashion; they also act more aggressively
after seeing a mixed prosocial-antisocial character than when the
character has behaved consistently in a totally prosocial way (Liss,
Reinhardt, & Fredriksen, 1983). Thus, for very young children,
justifying the motivation for aggressive actions does not seem to
eliminate the influence of exposure to aggressive acts.
Despite the tight experimental controls employed, the tradition
of laboratory research has been criticized on several grounds. First,
the short time frame of these studies did not permit assessment
of the more enduring effects of repeated exposure to violent content.
Second, most of these studies were carried out in the rather artificial
environment of the laboratory, making it difficult to know whether
results would generalize to the home or to a community environment.
Freedman (1984), for example, has argued that the effects of exposure
to violence may have been overestimated by only showing children
an unrepresentative sample of the most violent shows (when television
includes a mix of both violent and nonviolent programming) and that
children may have assumed that the experimenters condoned or at
least expected the children to behave aggressively. Freedman also
suggested that aggression measured towards a blown-up doll designed
to be hit in play (the Bobo doll used in many of these early studies)
may not reflect real aggression. However, this argument is rendered
less plausible by the fact that a study by Johnston, Deluca, Murtaugh,
& Diener (1977) found a very substantial relationship (correlations
of the magnitude of .70) between reports from peers and teachers
of a child's aggressiveness and the frequency with which the child
hit the Bobo doll during a play session.
Later studies tend to have been conducted in the natural environment
and to have examined the effects of exposure to violence over a
longer period of time. These studies have the advantage of being
more readily generalizable to the real world, but prevent us from
drawing unequivocal conclusions about cause-effect relationships
because of the fact that there was no random assignment to groups
and no control over the major variable of interest: for example,
some children may have watched more violent television than others
from the beginning of the studies and it may be that those who did
were different in other important ways on additional variables as
well, and that these other differences rather than the differences
in violence watched produced the later negative consequences. Below
we will summarize the major findings of each of these traditions
of research.
Most of the studies reviewed below do not assess directly the total
amount of violence that individual children actually watch daily
on television. Rather, shows are judged on the basis of an analysis
of one week of programming as to their typical level of violence
and children report which are their preferred shows and how often
they watch them. From this, an estimate of the amount of violence
they will be exposed to is computed. Some studies assume that, since
the rate of violent content is so high on television, a measure
of total television watched will be a good index of exposure to
violence, since the more television one watches, the greater one's
exposure to violence will be. Except for families that monitor their
children's viewing very carefully this may not be a bad assumption,
since the overall rate of aggressive acts on television is quite
high. Williams and her colleagues (Williams, 1986) have described
the planning and execution of a very significant study on the effects
of television on children's aggressiveness. The study began shortly
after it was learned that a Canadian town which had not previously
been able to receive television transmissions was going to be able
to receive television transmissions in the near future. The researchers
planned to assess children's behaviour both prior to and after the
coming of television in this town (Notel) and to compare it to the
behaviour of children in two very similar towns that received either
one television channel (Unitel, which only received CBC) or more
than one channel (Multitel, which received CBC plus American programming)
throughout the period of study. The strengths of this study were
that it provided a long-term assessment of the effects of watching
TV (over a two-year period), that it was not conducted in the laboratory
but very much in the real world, and that it did not compare children
who watched more television with those who watched less due to differences
on individual or family factors but rather compared children who
initially probably would have watched television if it had been
available to children for whom television was already available.
Aggression was measured by observations of children's interactions
in the schoolyard during free play, by teacher ratings, and by peer
ratings. Longitudinal observations of 45 children first observed
in grades one and two and reevaluated two years later indicated
that both verbal and physical aggression increased over this two-year
period for children with no access to television initially who later
had access to television, but not for children who could watch one
or more television channels throughout the study. Virtually identical
results were obtained when children tested at the beginning of the
study were compared with a different group of children in the same
grade level tested two years later. Moreover, this increase in aggressive
behaviour was not just present among a subgroup of sample representing
the most aggressive children. Children in the town with no access
to television initially were classified as either high or low aggressive
on the basis of their scores before television arrived; these two
groups did not differ two years later on their level of aggression,
amount of television watched, or number of favourite shows listed
that were classified as violent.
The findings of this study strongly suggest that television viewing
is related to aggression. Furthermore, because the results were
similar for the town with one Canadian television channel and the
town with Canadian plus American channels, it appears that the absolute
number or type of channels available is relatively unimportant.
In other words, since Unitel, which received only CBC, produced
a profile very much like Multitel, which received U.S. channels
as well, it does not seem possible to argue that government-run
television in Canada produces very different effects from programming
produced in the private sector. In fact, Williams (1986) argues
that CBC programming does not differ markedly from programming on
other networks in rates of violence and noted that CBC documentaries
of war and other violent actions may provide one important medium
for the exposure of children to violent content.
Two results were somewhat problematic. First, the researchers had
hypothesized that Notel would have lower levels of aggression than
Unitel and Multitel at the beginning of the project. Although children
in Notel did become more aggressive over the two year period following
the introduction of television, the levels of physical and verbal
aggression in this town were not lower initially than those in the
two towns that already had television reception (except that children
in Notel were less verbally aggressive at Time 1 than children in
Multitel). Second, amount of television watched at the initial time
of testing by the children of Unitel and Multitel did not significantly
predict the amount of aggression seen two years later (although
aggression assessed in the follow up period was predicted by television
viewing assessed at the same time).
A series of studies by a group of researchers including Lefkowitz,
Eron, Walder, and Huesmann have contributed substantially to our
knowledge of how the violence portrayed on television affects children.
The first of these studies initially assessed the aggressiveness
of 875 children (as measured by the reports of their classmates)
and their preference for violent television shows in grade 3 (as
measured by maternal report). Ten years later about half of these
subjects were reassessed on the same variables. The results indicated
that children's preference for violent television in grade 3 was
significantly related to aggressiveness 10 years later for boys
but not for girls (Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, & Huesmann, 1977).
Further follow ups of this group of subjects indicated that boys'
reports of how often they watched preferred violent television shows
significantly predicted the rates and seriousness of criminal offenses
at the age of thirty even after the influence of the boys' initial
aggressiveness and IQ had been removed (Huesmann, 1986b).
A subsequent cross-cultural study involving this group of investigators
explored the extent to which viewing of violent content had a similar
effect in countries in which both societal attitudes towards aggression
and the content of and access to television programming varied widely
(Eron, Huesmann, Brice, Fischer, & Mermelstein, 1983; Huesmann
& Eron, 1986a; Huesmann, Lagerspetz, & Eron, 1984). The
strength of this approach is clearly that it can test the robustness
of the violence-aggression relationship across a wide range of cultural
conditions. The countries included in the study were Australia,
Finland, Poland, and the United States. These countries differ widely
in homicide rates (with the U.S. having the highest rates and Poland
the lowest), rates of television ownership, and number of hours
per day when programming is available (with the U.S. having the
highest rates and Israel and Finland having the lowest rates, respectively).
Children were followed from grade 1 to grade 3 and from grade 3
to grade 6 in each country. Measures were obtained of aggressiveness,
preference for violent programming, frequency of viewing, perceived
realism of programming, identification with television characters,
preference for sex-typed activities, involvement in fantasies of
aggressive or heroic acts, and intelligence of the child, and nurturance,
rejection, punitiveness, achievement orientation, aggressiveness,
viewing habits, fantasy involvement, and socioeconomic status of
parents.
Huesmann, Lagerspetz, & Eron (1984) compared the results obtained
in the U.S. and Finland in some early analyses from this study.
They found that the amount of violent television watched significantly
predicted aggression two years later for both boys and girls in
the U.S. and boys in Finland. For boys in both countries, later
aggression was much higher in those who not only watched a great
deal of violent TV but also identified highly with the characters
they watched.
In all countries, children's overall TV violence viewing and identification
with TV characters were positively correlated with their aggressiveness,
as was how real they perceived the violent programs to be. This
was true even when initial levels of aggressiveness was controlled
for. Neither social class or intelligence accounted for the relationship
of early TV habits to later aggression, although lower social class
and intelligence were correlated with higher TV viewing in most
countries. The relationships were stronger for boys but also existed
for girls. In the United States only, there was also a significant
relationship for both sexes between higher levels of early aggression
and higher levels of later violent TV watching. Huesmann (1986a)
concludes that there is remarkably strong evidence in support of
the hypothesis that viewing violent television content increases
later aggression in a wide range of cultures with quite different
television environments and quite different attitudes to aggression.
As in many other studies, parental factors were also found to be
associated with children's aggressiveness. Children who were more
aggressive generally had more aggressive parents who were more dissatisfied
with them and punished them more severely (Huesmann, 1986a).
Eron et al. (1983) have suggested that there is a period
between the ages of 6 and 10 in which children are particularly
sensitive to the effects of television because viewing time is at
a maximum and aggressive behaviour is still increasing but children
still regard television as quite realistic. They argue that this
age is thus a particularly important one to target for intervention.
Another approach to evaluating the evidence on the relationship
of television viewing to aggression is to use meta-analysis to summarize
statistically the results of a very large number of studies. Hearold
(1986) carried out a meta-analysis of 230 studies which investigated
the effects of television on social behaviour. About 60 % of these
studies were laboratory studies, 30 % were survey studies, and 10
% were field studies. Hearold concluded that there is stronger evidence
for a relationship between watching violence on television and later
aggressive behaviour for boys than for girls. In general, research
using news programs produced larger effect sizes on later aggression
than research using Westerns or crime and detective shows. Overall,
however, studies demonstrating the link between positive TV programs
and subsequent prosocial behaviours produced larger effect
sizes than studies examining the link between negative TV programs
and subsequent aggression.
Does Violence on Television Affect Only Children Who
are Already More Aggressive?
This question is not easily settled. Joy, Kimball, & Zambrack
(1986) found that in Notel both children who were high on aggression
and children who were low on aggression before the introduction
of television became more aggressive after television was introduced.
In contrast, Josephson (1987) reported that exposing more aggressive
groups of boys to televised violence resulted in higher levels of
subsequent aggression than exposing them to a nonviolent show. In
contrast, less aggressive groups of boys had higher levels of subsequent
aggression after the nonviolent show than after the violent show.
Part of the problem appears to involve the fact that there is a
feedback loop between watching violent television and being aggressive.
Exposure to violence does appear to increase aggression, but being
aggressive also seems to increase preferences for violent television,
perhaps because the fact that aggressive behaviour leads to peer
rejection means that aggressive children have fewer options for
alternative activities (Huesmann, 1986b).
What are the Mechanisms by Which Exposure to Violence Might
Affect Children?
The simplest way of describing how watching television violence
leads to aggression is that children observe novel aggressive behaviours
and learn vicariously that aggressive acts are rewarded. They store
these new behaviours in memory as part of the repertoire of actions
that are available to get them what they want. This model of observational
learning was first elaborated by Bandura (1965). Clearly, the more
real children perceive violent televised scenes to be and the more
they believe the characters are like them (identification), the
more likely they will be to try out the behaviour they have learned.
Extensions of this explanation for how televised violence changes
behaviour have made reference to how memories of aggressive behaviour
are stored and recalled. Huesmarm (1986b) has argued that fantasizing
about aggressive acts strengthens the scripts previously learned
that are encoded in memory. He has also stressed the importance
of cues in the environment for retrieving particular patterns of
aggressive behaviour. A number of researchers have in fact demonstrated
that providing toys that appear in scenes of televised violence
the children have just seen or that are associated with aggression
more generally will markedly increase the amount of aggression that
children show (Potts, Huston, & Wright, 1986; Josephson, 1987).
Televised violence can also change the attitudes that individuals
hold about the world, resulting in perceptions that violence is
more common or more acceptable than it actually is. Drabman &
Thomas (1974, 1976) demonstrated that children who had watched a
violent film tolerated more extreme aggressive behaviour in other
children before calling in an adult for help with the situation
than did children who had seen an exciting but nonviolent film or
no film at all. In essence, these children appeared to have been
desensitized to the significance of aggression. More accepting attitudes
towards aggressive behaviour may subsequently prevent the child
from inhibiting his or her own aggression. Thus, to the extent that
viewing violence on television creates an unrealistic world view
and value system for the child in terms of what constitutes acceptable
behaviour, the child may behave in a manner which is inappropriate
in real life settings.
How Much Does Violence on Television Matter, or How Much of
the Differences
Among Individuals on Aggression is Accounted for by the Effects
of Television?
Hearold (1986) presents a comparison of the average effect sizes
from studies of televised violence and studies of a variety of other
educational and medical treatments. Overall, the average effect
size for televised violence on aggression is about half that obtained
for the influence of tutoring on mathematical skills, slightly smaller
than that of drug effects on psychotics, and about twice the effect
size obtained for achievement by reducing class size from 30 to
15. Hearold (1986) concludes that the effect, although small, is
certainly not negligible; she argues that part of the reason why
the effect size of prosocial programs on prosocial behaviour is
larger may be that these effects are generally intentional, and
attempts are made to maximize them, while the effects of violent
TV content on aggression are largely unintentional.
One standard method for determining the importance of different
variables is to compute r2 which reflects the proportion
of variance accounted for by a given variable. However, Rosenthal
(1986) has demonstrated that, even though violence on television
may account for only 10 % or less of the variance in aggression
scores, this is not a trivial relationship in terms of its practical
consequences, since it is equivalent to an ability to reduce rates
of aggressive behaviour from about 62 % to about 38 %.
Potts et al. (1986) had pairs of preschool boys watch television
programs that had either high or low levels of violent content.
The boys then played with toys that had either aggressive connotations
(including a Bobo doll, boxing robots, and Star Wars figures) or
prosocial connotations (including a foam basketball and hoop and
ambulance and paramedic figures). Rates of aggressive and prosocial
play during the play session were tabulated. Their results indicated
that the level of violent content in the television show had a weak
effect relative to the effect of type of toy presented. That is,
much more aggressive acts were observed when toys with aggressive
connotations were present than when toys with prosocial connotations
were presented. In contrast, viewing a television show with more
violent content produced no differences in subsequent aggressive
behaviour, but actually led to higher rates of helping the peer
partner and turntaking with play objects than did viewing a television
show with less violent content. The authors concluded that "the
demand qualities of the immediate environment can be made sufficiently
strong to override the effects of a brief exposure to different
types of television content" and that "the accumulated findings
to date indicate that the effects of television content and form
depend on the environmental circumstances surrounding the child".
The Relationship between Television Watching and
Fearfulness
Increased aggression may not be the only consequence of watching
televised violence. Exposure to violence in programming may also
increase fears and anxieties about becoming the victim of a violent
act. Bryant, Carveth, & Brown (1981) asked undergraduates who
had been randomly assigned to groups to select their television
fare according to several guidelines. Light viewers were asked to
watch very little television. Heavy viewers were asked to watch
at least 28 hours of television per week. After six weeks, heavy
viewers reported that they believed themselves to be more likely
to become victims of violence than did light viewers regardless
of their initial levels of anxiety and whether the violence they
saw was justified or unjustified. Thus, watching television may
lead to the development of attitudes that portray the world as a
more dangerous place than it actually is because violence is more
salient and frequent on television than it is in most real life
experiences. In fact, it seems that paradoxically television may
both desensitize individuals to violence and sensitize them to it.
Perhaps perceiving oneself as more vulnerable to violence also serves
to legitimize violent actions as a defence.
The Probable Impact of
Expanded Cable Access, VCR Use,
and Videogame Exposure on Children
Expanded cable access and VCR use should function to increase the
choices in programming that exist at any one moment for children
to watch. By itself, this process could make it possible for children
to increase either their prosocial diet or their antisocial diet
of TV fare. Much of the use that children make of this increased
choice will thus depend on factors such as the degree of monitoring
that parents carry out of their children's viewing.
Research on videogames is in its infancy, but in many ways parallels
the research that has investigated the effects of television. However,
researchers have pointed out that playing videogames differs from
watching television in that the former activity involves much more
active involvement. One drawback of this research is that most of
the studies have investigated the effects of only very short exposure
to videogames and assessed only very short-term (namely the immediate)
consequences. Perhaps because of these factors, the research to
date is largely inconsistent and inconclusive.
Cooper & Mackie (1986) assigned 84 children from grades four
and five to pairs. One member of the pair played either a violent
or a nonviolent videogame or did maze puzzles for eight minutes
while the other children watched. The pairs of children were subsequently
observed in free play to determine how long they played with violent
or nonviolent toys. Finally, children were asked to push a button
to show how much a hypothetical child should be punished for doing
a bad thing and rewarded for doing a good thing. They found that
girls, but not boys, who had been exposed to the violent videogame
played more with the aggressive toys and changed activities more
often than those who had been exposed to the nonviolent videogame
or the mazes. There were no differences between groups on the amount
of punishment or reward given to the hypothetical child. Graybill,
Strawniak, Hunter, & O'Leary (1987), in a similar study, paired
146 children from grades two to six. One of the paired children
played one of three violent or one of three nonviolent videogames
for a total of 14 minutes while the other child watched the game.
Each child was then individually given an opportunity to anonymously
help or hurt a child playing a game in a different room (the child
did not really exist) by pushing one button to make a handle easier
to turn or pushing another button to make the handle hot. There
were no differences in behaviour towards the other child between
groups who had played or observed the violent videogames and groups
who had played or observed the nonviolent videogames. The results
from both these studies indicated no differences between those who
had actually played the videogames and those who had observed. Schutte,
Malouff, Post-Gorden, & Rodasta (1988) found no differences
in the free play of slightly younger children aged five to seven
who had been exposed to either a violent or nonviolent videogame,
but the children were only observed playing for five minutes.
Watching a violent videogame may make children less likely to behave
in a prosocial fashion. Chambers & Ascione (1987) had 160 children
from grades three, four, seven, and eight play either a violent
or nonviolent videogame or fill out a questionnaire about videogames
for an average of 10 minutes. Children who had played the violent
videogame either alone or competitively with another child donated
significantly fewer of the nickels they had earned to the town's
"poor children" than did children who had played the nonviolent
videogame alone (children who played the nonviolent game cooperatively
did not differ in donations from any of the other conditions). There
were no differences between groups in the number of pencils sharpened
to help the experimenters.
What is the Role of Parents?
Parent can provide the most enduring influence of all adults on
children. Whereas individual teachers and other models disappear
with time, parents endure. They determine what kind of environment
children live in, what sort of toys they play with, and how much
and what type of television their children watch. They also interpret
for children what is happening on the screen. Previously-noted studies
by Grusec (1973) and Watkins et al. (1980) indicate that
adults can have a very significant effect on what children learn
from television and how they react to it. Parents can serve as models,
gatekeepers, and interpreters for television and other important
aspects of the child's life. However, the extent to which they actually
serve these functions is another question. A number of studies have
indicated that direct parent intervention to prevent children from
watching programs with violent or other inappropriate content is
infrequent (Bower, 1973; Mohr, 1979; Streicher & Bonney, 1974).
St. Peters, Fitch, Huston, Wright, & Eakins (1991) found that
parents were most likely to discourage children from watching horror
shows and soap operas, but were largely neutral about crime shows,
cartoons, and superhero shows. St. Peters et al. (1991) also
discovered that the type of show that children and their parents
watched together was more strongly related to adult preferences
than child preferences, so that children's exposure to violence
in crime shows and news programs may largely be a function of parental
choices.
It is probably the whole fabric of parent-child interaction that
affects the ways in which children are affected by television. Parents
model their values repeatedly in a myriad of situations. In some
sense, the way that parents respond to television is just a special
case of this broader pattern of reactions. Rothschild & Morgan
(1987), for example, found that less parental control, both globally
and as measured only in regard to television, was related to higher
levels of fearfulness in adolescents, especially when combined with
lower levels of family cohesion. It thus seems quite possible that
some of the effects attributed to children's exposure to violence
on television may be due indirectly to more general characteristics
of their parents. One of the most frequently replicated predictors
of aggression in children is lack of monitoring and lack of effective
disciplining in parents (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989).
It appears likely that parents who do not check on or effectively
control their children's activities will both have children who
have more opportunities to watch more violent television and children
who can engage in and experience few negative consequences for aggressive
behaviour. Thus, parental monitoring and ineffective discipline
may be critically important variables in determining the link between
viewing of violent content and later aggression in children, while
exposure to violence on television may constitute only one of several
pathways through which the influence of parental characteristics
affects aggression in children. in this context, to make real changes
in how aggressive a child is, it may be necessary to address not
only what the parent does in relation to the television, but also
what he or she does in other interactions with the child.
We should finally point out that parents do have some important
constraints on their influence on children. Particularly as children
get older and spend more time outside the family in the company
of peers, parents exert less influence over them. Eron et al.'s
(1983) identification of the period between 6 and 10 years of
age as a period of particular importance seems to correspond well
to the time when parents can still exert substantial control over
children's behaviour and can also influence their thinking and attitudes
markedly.
Conclusions: The Effects of Violence in the Media on
Children
Schramm, Lyle, & Parker (1961) concluded that "For some
children, under some conditions, some television is harmful. "For.
some children under the same conditions, or for the same children
under other conditions, it may be beneficial. For most children
under most conditions, most television is probably neither particularly
harmful nor particularly beneficial." Although we have not
reviewed here the evidence for the positive effects for children
of television viewing, it is quite clear that they can be substantial,
and may in fact be more significant than the negative effects (Hearold,
1986).
Huesmann & Eron (1986b) have stressed the fact that aggression
in children appears to be causally over determined. That is, there
is a whole , constellation of variables besides exposure to violent
TV content that predict aggression and many of them must be present
for aggression to result. Nevertheless, it does appear that exposure
to televised violence does bear an important and consistent relationship
to aggression. Its significance may lie partially in the fact that
it identifies a discrete focus for some rather straightforward intervention
approaches that are perhaps less sensitive than interventions that
identify a more general focus such as global parental characteristics.
Industry, Community, and Government
Approaches to Countering the Effects of
Violence in the Media
In order to survey initiatives of these three sectors, we contacted
the Ministers of Education in each province and territory, wrote
to each major broadcast network in addition to related organizations
(Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission), and approached community organizations
with interests in the area of exposure to violence and its effects
on children (Media Watch, the Children's Broadcast Institute/Alliance
for Children and Television, Towards A Gentler Society). Each of
these groups was asked to describe any current or future initiatives
designed to address the issue of how violence in the media affects
children. In general, these consultations revealed that there is
much less activity related to this topic than there is to the issues
of the effects of advertising, gender stereotyping, and violence
directed towards women or children in the media. Media Watch, for
example, makes it clear in its mandate that it is concerned almost
exclusively with gender issues. This is particularly surprising
given the amount of attention that the topic of violence on television
has received from government and the community over the last two
decades, most notably in the United States but also in Canada and
other countries.
All private networks referred us to the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters (CAB), who referred us to the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The CRTC has recently
published two reports, available through the CRTC office, that deal
with television and violence. The first (Martinez, 1992) reviews
scientific studies evaluating the effects of televised violence.
The second (Atkinson & Gourdeau, 1992) reviews the findings
of previous public enquiries and reports from the international
arena (Ontario, Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, UNESCO)
and how violence has been regulated in these other countries. These
reviews will serve at least in part as the basis for a new policy
on violence in programming, due in early 1993, which is currently
in the development stage by the CRTC.
CBC forwarded us a letter which pointed out that it does not produce
or acquire children's shows that have significant violent content
due to its longstanding concerns with the effects of media violence
on young audiences.
Radio Québec furnished us with copies of its policy on televised
violence, information on children's shows that address the issues
of dealing with conflict in a prosocial manner and how to develop
critical viewing skills, and information on a working group to eliminate
violence in children's programming which took place in 1991-1992.
They indicated that, while recognizing that violence is part of
life, they undertake to avoid presenting violence that could produce
harmful effects on the child. They also attempt to produce shows
that model more positive approaches to solving problems (Passe-Partout,
Robin et Stella, Catimini) and can actually teach children to be
less influenced when exposed to media violence (Club des 100 watts).
The aforementioned working group to eliminate violence from children's
shows included broadcasters (Radio-Canada, Télé-Métropole,
Vidéotron, TQS, le Canal Famille, Radio-Québec) as
well as a coalition of organizations and pressure groups whose goal
was to eliminate violence from children's programming. The shows
identified as problematic by this coalition had been produced outside
of Canada and were presented by private-sector broadcasting. The
representatives of the broadcasters found it impossible to agree
on a common point of view and recommended that problem be dealt
with case by case by competent authorities.
The Quebec Ministry of Communications forwarded us a copy of a
1992 report, available through their offices, on the family and
television in Quebec (Groupe de recherche sur les jeunes et les
médias, 1992), which describes how families use and interact
around the television set. This document includes statistics on
the frequency with which males and females are depicted as aggressors
and victims in French and English drama series (the rates are quite
comparable for both linguistic groups).
Of the 10 provincial or territorial Ministries of Education who
replied to our request for information, only Ontario specifically
covered the topic of violence in the media in a resource book for
a Media Literacy course designed for intermediate and senior level
students. At the level of the primary grades there is a program
dealing with preventing violence (Second Step), but it does
not specifically focus on media violence. Alberta has prepared a
fact sheet on media violence and children for use in Family Violence
Prevention Month in 1991 and 1992. The article reprinted on this
fact sheet, which appeared originally in the Institute for the Prevention
of Child Abuse's publication Connection in the summer of
1992, suggests that parents turn off the television more often for
children under the age of 10, particularly when action or horror
films are on, encourage more imaginative activities, and teach children
what the real life consequences of aggression are. New Brunswick
and Prince Edward island also had specific courses in media literacy
with more general objectives such as critical viewing skills specified.
Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and the Northwest
Territories cover units dealing with media literacy in courses such
as English, Language Arts, Health, Learning for Living, Personal
Life Skills, and Social Studies. Such courses were much more likely
to have content specified in the areas of advertisements on television,
violence toward women, or sexual abuse than on the topic of violence
on television. In general, without a clearly-specified curriculum,
the onus appears to rest with individual teachers or local districts
to decide whether and how to discuss the influence of television
violence.
The Nova Scotia Education Media Library did list one film that
seemed particularly relevant to the topic: "Shockwaves: Television
in America", Marlin Films, 1984, documents how rates of aggression
increased in a B.C. town that received television for the first
time (the Williams study).
The Quebec Ministry of Education has prepared a package, available
through its office, to facilitate students' discussions of the issues
of sexism and violence in music videos ("Clippe mais clippe égal").
The Children's Broadcast Institute, a national coalition of broadcasters,
producers, writers, advertisers, and children's advocacy groups,
was formed 20 years ago to promote quality television programming
for children. To reach this goal it annually presents awards of
excellence for both French-and English-language programs. This year
the organization renamed itself the Alliance for Children and Television
(ACT). Alan Mirabelli, its chairman, indicated in an interview that
the organization hopes to represent better the interests of parents
and educators in its new format. Several initiatives are currently
being developed. Local workshops on issues such as violence in television
will be offered and reviews of relevant research will be prepared
to better inform parents and teachers, and a regional office will
be opened to serve Quebec. ACT does not directly address the issue
of televised violence; however, by rewarding the creation of shows
that offer more imaginative and prosocial alternatives for children
to watch, the group probably decreases children's viewing of violent
content somewhat.
TAGS (Towards A Gentler Society) is a group initiated in Ottawa
in 1992. Its main goal is to initiate public debate on the effects
of violent toys and television on children. In 1992 the organization
held a toy fair to publicize these issues and to make nonviolent
toys more easily available to parents.
The North York Inter-Agency and Community Council is planning to
hold a conference from May 12 to May 14, 1993 to examine the impact
of violence on young children (up to grade 6) and the implications
of this for parents and other adults involved with children. One
planned focus is how to recognize the influences of the media on
children and how to monitor and influence the media.
The C.M. Hincks Institute in Toronto is currently organizing a
conference on the effects of televised violence on children. The
conference will take place in February, 1993 if funding is obtained,
and will bring together representatives of the television industry
and regulating board (CAB, CRTC, representatives of the various
networks) with advocacy groups, researchers, workers in the area
of children's mental health, and members of the public. The goal
is to promote dialogue and to serve as a vehicle for public education.
The Centre for Media and Values in Los Angeles, California has
produced a media literacy workshop kit, available through its office,
that includes handouts and suggested exercises that can be used
to sensitize parents to the issue of violence in the media.
Suggestions for Future Initiatives in this Area
Lobbying to eliminate all violence from television programming
has been singularly unsuccessful. Part of the problem is that cable
television makes available programming from outside of Canada regardless
of what is done by Canadian networks, but concerns from private
broadcasters about maintaining audiences and about how to define
violent content have also worked against such lobbying efforts.
Working to develop good quality children's programming probably
impacts somewhat on how much violent content children are exposed
to by making available more nonviolent options, but one cannot always
be assured that children will watch these shows and children also
watch shows primarily designed for older audiences.
Nevertheless, encouraging the development of prosocial programming
appears to be important as a means of fostering attitudes and behaviour
that are incompatible with aggression and this approach should be
further supported. Hearold (1986) has demonstrated that these positive
effects of television are especially strong.
One strong recommendation for action is that information packages
be designed for the use of teachers and parents describing what
they can do to counter the effects of television violence on children.
These could be distributed through local schools, community groups,
and treatment agencies. The schools seem to be a particularly important
point of intervention since they reach all children. The existing
media literacy materials that we reviewed had little content directly
related to this topic, so that clearly new content addressing the
issue of violence on television should be developed.
Huesmann, Eron, Klein, Brice, & Fischer (1983) have described
a program that is particularly pertinent to this issue. They reported
on the success of two interventions designed to make children less
susceptible to the effects of violent television content. Both of
these interventions were carried out on children who had the greatest
preference for highly violent shows and reported watching these
shows most of the time. The first intervention, carried out when
the children were in grade 2 or grade 4, involved three hour-long
training sessions designed to point out that characters in the violent
shows behaved differently than most real people, that television
techniques enabled these characters to appear to carry out feats
that were actually impossible, and that the average person used
different methods than the TV characters to solve problems. A comparison
group also watched television and engaged in discussions for three
hours but did not see violent programs and did not discuss the realism
of the televised presentation. There were no differences between
intervention and comparison groups after treatment on the judged
realism of television shows and no changes in either group on peer-assessed
aggression or reported viewing levels of television violence three
months after the intervention. To the extent that the content of
this intervention was similar to many media literacy programs, these
results suggest that simple media literacy courses alone will not
make children less vulnerable to violent content on television.
A second intervention, conducted 9 months later using the same
children, employed more powerful procedures to change attitudes
and behaviour. Children in the treatment group all agreed to participate
in the making of a film to show children who had been "fooled
by television or harmed by television violence or got into trouble
because of imitating it". They wrote out arguments describing
the negative aspects of television violence, were recorded on videotape
reading these arguments, watched the videotapes of themselves and
their classmates, and answered questions about their presentations
during the course of two sessions. Children in the comparison group
also wrote an essay, were videotaped reading it, and viewed their
own and those of classmates, but the theme of the essay was "Why
everyone should have a hobby". After the intervention, the
treatment group held significantly more negative attitudes towards
television than the comparison group and believed it to be significantly
less realistic. More importantly, the treatment group was assessed
by peers as significantly less aggressive than the comparison group
four months following the intervention, despite the fact that rates
of viewing TV violence for the two groups did not differ following
the intervention.
The results of this study strongly suggest that interventions designed
to reduce the negative effects of viewing violent TV content should
actively involve children in generating reasons why television violence
is harmful rather than merely presenting these arguments to them
for their passive consumption. Encouraging their commitment behaviorally
by having them defend their position in public seems to be especially
important component for attitudinal change to occur.
Huesmann et al.'s (1983) second intervention could be used
as a model in the preparation of programs designed for use by teachers
and parents. These programs are based on the principle that reducing
the impact of violent content on children is more important that
attempting to eliminate exposure to violence in the media. In line
with Eron et al.'s (1983) findings, children between the
ages of 6 and 10 would appear to be the most appropriate focus for
these programs. Parental programs could also include suggestions
on how parents can monitor and control children's television viewing
while at the same time preserving the enjoyment of their own viewing
time and more general suggestions for how to parent effectively.
These programs could be publicized through workshops organized for
teachers and parents at the local level and under the sponsorship
of local schools or children's mental health agencies.
Finally, broadcasting networks could also be encouraged to develop
programs designed to help children counter the effects of violent
content through attitudinal change. Having actors associated with
violent roles stress the fact that their characters are fictitious
rather than real and disavow their violent actions in short spots
following programs might help children to place what they have seen
in a more realistic perspective and limit how much they identify
with violent characters.
References
Anderson, D.R., Lorch, E.P., Smith, R., Bradford, R., & Levin,
S.R. (1981). Effects of peer presence on preschool children's television-viewing
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 17, 446-453.
Anderson, D.R., Alwitt, L.F., Lorch, E.P., & Levin, S.R. (1979).Watching
children watch television. In G. Hale & M. Lewis (Eds.), Attention
and the development of cognitive skills. New York: Plenum.
Atkin, C. (1983). Effects of realistic TV violence vs. fictional
violence on aggression. Journalism Quarterly. 60, 615-621.
Atkinson, D. & Goudreau, M. (1992). Summary and analysis
of various studies on violence and television. Ottawa: Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
Bandura, A. (1965). influence of models' reinforcement contingencies
on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Social
Psychology, 1, 589-595.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1963).
Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3-11.
Bower, R.T. (1973). Television and the public. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bryant, J., Carveth, R.A. & Brown, D. (1981). Television viewing
and anxiety: An experimental examination. Journal of Communication,
31, 106-119.
Chambers, J.H. & Ascione, F.R. (1987). The effects of prosocial
and aggressive videogames on children's donating and helping. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 148, 499-505.
Cooper, J. & Mackie, D. (1986). Video games and aggression
in children. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16,
726-744.
Drabman, R.S., & Thomas, M.H. (1974). Does media violence increase
children's toleration of real-life aggression? Developmental
Psychology, 10, 418-421.
Drabman, R.S., & Thomas, M.H. (1976). Does watching violence
on television cause apathy? Paediatrics, 57, 329-331.
Freedman, J.L. (1984). Effect of television violence on aggressiveness.
Psychological Bulletin, 96, 227-246.
Graybill, D., Strawniak, M., Hunter, T. & O'Leary, M. (1987).
Effects of playing versus observing violent versus nonviolent video
games on children's aggression. Psychology, A Quarterly Journal
of Human Behavior, 24, 1-7.
Groupe de recherche sur les jeunes et les médias. (1992).
La famille et la télévision. Québec:
Ministère des Communications du Québec.
Grusec, J.E. (1973). Effects of co-observer evaluations on imitation:
A developmental study. Developmental Psychology, 8, 141.
Hayes, D.S., & Birnbaum, D.W. (1980). Preschoolers' retention
of televised events. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Developmental
Psychology, 16, 410-416.
Hayes, D.S., Chemelski, B.E. and Birnbaum, D.W.. (1981). Young
children's incidental and intentional retention of televised events.
Developmental Psychology, 17, 230-232.
Hearold, S. (1986). A synthesis of 1043 effects of television on
social behavior. In G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communications
and behavior: Volume I. (pp. 65-133). New York: Academic Press.
Hollenbeck, A.R. & Slaby, R.G. (1979). Infant visual and vocal
responses to television. Child Development, 50, 41-45.
Huesmann, L.R. (1986a). Cross-national communalities in the learning
of aggression from media violence. In L.R. Huesmann & L.D. Eron
(Eds.) Television and the aggressive child: A cross-national
comparison, 239-257. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Huesmann, L.R. & Eron, L.D. (1986b). The development of aggression
in children of different cultures: Psychological processes and exposure
to violence. In L.R. Huesmann & L.D. Eron (Eds.), Television
and the aggressive child: A cross-national comparison. 1-27.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Huesmann, L.R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation
between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the
viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 125 - 139.
Huesmann, L.R., Lagerspetz, K., & Eron, L.D. (1984). Intervening
variables in the TV violence-aggression relation: Evidence from
two countries. Developmental Psychology, 20, 746- 775. Huesmann,
L.R., Eron, L.D. Klein, R., Brice, P., & Fischer, P. (1983).
Mitigating the imitation of aggressive behaviors by changing children's
attitudes about media violence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 44(5), 899-910.
Johnston, A., DeLuca, D., Mustaugh, K., & Diener E. (1977).
Validation of a laboratory play measure of child aggression. Child
Development, 48, 324-327.
Josephson, W.L. (1987). Television violence and children aggression:
Testing the priming, social script, and disinhibition predictions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 882-890.
Joy, L.A., Kimball, M.M. & Zabrack, M.L. (1986). Television
and children's aggressive behavior. In T.M. Williams (Ed.), The
Impact of television: A natural experiment in three communities
(pp. 303 - 360). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.
Lefkowitz M.M., Eron, L.D., Walder, L.D., & Huessmarm, L.R.
(1977). Growing up to be violent. NY: Pergamon.
Levin, S.R., Anderson, D.R., Lorch, E.P., Smith, R., & Bradford,
R. (1981). Effects of peer presence on preschool children's television-viewing
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 17, 446-453.
Liebert, R.M., & Sprafkin, J. (1988). The Early Window
(3rd ed.)New York: Pergamon.
Liebert, R.M., & Baron, R.A. (1972). Short-term effects of
televised aggression on children's aggressive behavior. In J.P.
Murray, E.A. Rubinstein, & G.A. Comstock (Eds.), Television
and social behavior (Vol. 2): Television and social learning
(pp. 181-201). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Liss, M.B., Reinhardt, L.C. & Fredriksen, S. (1983). TV heroes:
The impact of rhetoric and deeds. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 4, 175-187.
Martinez, Andrea (1992). Scientific knowledge about television
violence. Ottawa: Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission.
McCall, R.B., Parke, R.D., & Kavanaugh, R.D.(1977). Imitation
of live and televised models by children one to three years of age.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
42, Serial No. 173.
Mohr, P.J. (1979). Parental guidance of children's viewing of evening
television programs. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 213-228.
Morgan, M. & Rothschild, N. (1987). Cohesion and control: adolescents'
relationships with parents as mediators of television. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 7, 299-314.
Parke, R.D. (1978). Children's home environments: Social and cognitive
effects. Altman, I., & Wohlwill, J.F. (Eds.) Children and
the environment NY: Plenum.
Patterson, G.R., DeBaryshe, B.D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental
perspective on antisocial behavior on antisocial behavior. American
Psychologist, 44, 329-335.
Potts, R., Huston, A.C., & Wright, J.C. (1986). The effects
of television form and violent content on boys' attention and social
behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41,
1-17.
Rosenthal, R. (1986). Media violence, antisocial behavior, and
the social consequences of small effects. Journal of Social Issues,
42, 141-154.
Rothschild, N. & Morgan, M. (1987). Cohesion and control: adolescents'
relationships with parents as mediators of television. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 7, 299-314.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Post-Gordon, J.C. & Rodasta,
A.L. (1988). Effects of playing videogames on children's aggressive
and other behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18,
454-460.
Schramm. W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E.B. (1961). Television
in the lives of our children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
St. Peters, M., Fitch, M., Huston, A.C., Wright, J.C., & Eakins,
D.J. (1991). Television and families: What do young children watch
with their parents? Child Development, 63, 1409-1423.
Streicher, L., & Bonney, N. (1974). Children talk about television.
Journal of Communication, 24, 54-61.
Ward, S., Reale, G., & Levinson, D. (1972). Children's perceptions,
explanations, and judgments of television advertising: A further
exploration. In E.A. Rubinstein, G.A. Comstock, & J.P. Murray
(Eds.), Television and social behavior. Vol IV: Television in
day-to-day life: Patterns of use (pp.468-490). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Watkins, B., Calvert, S., Huston-Stein, A., & Wright, J.C.
(1980). Children's recall of television material: Effects of presentation
mode and adult labelling. Developmental Psychology, 16, 672-679.
Williams, T.M. (1986). Background and overview. In T.M. Williams
(Ed.), The impact of television: A natural experiment
in three communities.1-38 Orlando FL: Academic Press.
Williams, T.M., & Handford, A.G. (1986). Television and other
leisure activities. In T.M. Williams (Ed.), The impact of television:
A natural experiment in three-communities (pp. 143-213).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
|