|
 |
Sponsors: AAFCS Massachusetts Avenue Building Assets Fund Helen LeBaron Hilton Fund, ISU Iowa Association of Family and Consumer Sciences Elva Davies Fund The Ready to Learn Service of Iowa Public Television Iowa State University Extension to 4-H Youth Development Iowa State University Extension to Families. |
Dr. Huesmann Addresses Your Questions L. Rowell Huesmann, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and Communication Studies at the University of Michigan and Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Social Research What is the influence of the "wrestling" and "sexual aggression" (as seen on TV) on the life of a child? The same psychological principles apply for viewing these types of shows as any other. I would expect children who habitually watch wrestling to be more likely to wrestle with peers and to use the kinds of behaviors they see in wrestling to help solve social conflicts with others. If by sexual aggression one means aggression by a male at a female in the context of a sexual relation or as part of a sex act, the same psychological laws apply. The viewer who watches these kinds of portrayals over and over is more likely to use these kinds of scripts in sexual interactions. Furthermore, to the extent that the portrayed scenes are sexually arousing, sexual arousal will become a cue or prime for such aggressive scripts making the use of aggressive scripts more likely when one is sexually aroused. How much prevention has been done to combat media violence? Are there any existing organizations or groups that advocate against media violence or a group or law that would cause censorship of those violent programs? Prior censorship is not permitted by the USA constitution. The courts have repeatedly ruled that out. However, our greatest concern should not be for what adults see, but for what children see. Long term effects are large only for children. A large number of childrens groups and public health groups are working to educate the public about the dangers of media violence to children. But more importantly, perhaps, sponsors are very sensitive to public taste. There is much less sex than violence on television because sponsors perceive that the public is offended by sex more than by violence. If one really wants to reduce violence in the public mass media, one should let sponsors know that it is unacceptable. Why do we have a society that has an insatiable desire to watch violence? What is the pay off? There are different theories about this. Almost all psychologists agree that violent shows attract viewers because they have 1) a lot of action and movement, 2) a lot of suspense which produces tension and pleasurable release from tension, 3) music that also attracts attention, 4) plots that do not require a deep level of thinking. Some psychologists have speculated that humans experience pleasure from watching others get hurt while they themselves are safe, but there is little evidence to back up this idea. There is evidence however that once people start behaving violently themselves, they like watching others do the same because it makes them feel better (justified). How does the attachment theory fit in with the discussion of media violence? The theory suggests that lack of attachment to caring adults in the first 3 years of life create a need to affiliate with other stimuli (strangers, etc.). If another stimuli is in fact with uncaring adults and media, will that combination significantly increase aggression? I think it fits in an important way. We know that children
who identify more with the heroic, aggressive characters on TV
and in movies are more likely to adopt the scripts they see those
characters using and acquire the beliefs about retaliation and
aggression that those characters seem to have. To the extent
that a child has no one in their life with whom they can identify
or affiliate with or attach with, the child would certainly be
more likely to develop strong identification with media characters
and thus be more likely to imitate their behaviors. What do you think about the educational movies such as documentaries that are shown in schools that show a lot of violence? Is the education more important than the short or long term effects? This is always a difficult question. Part of it depends on how the violence is portrayed. If the violence is portrayed as heroic and justified, I would be very careful about showing it much to children. On the other hand it is teaching important lessons about conflict and violence (e.g. Schindler's List), then I think showing it may actually reduce violence in the long run. I also have no concerns about "wildlife" documentaries that show animal aggression. Children know these are animals and not people. A more difficult question concerns how great literature that includes violence should be portrayed for children, e.g. Macbeth, Hamlet. My own view is that again the benefits from understanding the themes in great literature about human failings and the consequences of them outweighs concerns about effects of violence. Remember, a few exposures to violence every year are not going to turn an otherwise gentle child into a violent child. It is the repeated day in and day out exposures to violent TV, movies, and video games that we need to be concerned about most. Have you reviewed David Grossman's video "Teaching kids to kill", which ties violent video games to similar affects as military training? (without military debriefing) Would you comment on the validity of this? I have seen the video and talked with Col. Grossman. He certainly is knowledgeable about what the army has done. I think the important point is that the army has recognized the power of video games to teach. The same fundamental laws of observational learning and reinforcement that predict that a soldier's brain synapses will be changed by playing these games to make him a more efficient killer predict how a child's brain synapses will be changed by playing these games to make the child more violence prone.
Yes, they are, I am sure. Children learn from observing positive role models as much as they learn from observing negative role models. The problem is that the violent role models may attract more viewers and be observed more. Who takes the responsibility for those adults who have mental health issues? Government, media or parents? I think the answer is that everyone has to take responsibility for the effects of media violence-- the producers, the parents of the children watching, and the government. It is too easy for each group to find an excuse not to anything and to leave it up to others. Is exposure of aggression inflicted on oneself less harmful than aggression inflicted on others? It may be less harmful to others, but it is certainly harmful to the viewer. Viewers can learn scripts for harming themselves as easily from observing others as they can learn scripts for harming others. What about the idea that, "I watched a lot of this, nothing happened to me?" Communication researchers even have a word for this kind of thinking. It is called the "third-person" effect. It is a very common phenomena to think that a problem is widespread among "other" people, but not a problem at all among people you know including yourself. Where do you think we are headed in the future? Do you think the amount of violence in the media is going to continue to escalate, or do you think public awareness of the problem is going to reverse the trend? I am optimistic. I think public opinion will eventually reverse the trend. The public will pressure the politicians who will pressure the mass media, and eventually there will be change. Research regarding brain development suggests brains continue to develop into adulthood or adolescence until age 22 on average. Shouldn't we extend the effects of viewing media violence through adolescence? How have you determined only short term effects on adolescence? I would not be surprised if there were quite significant long term effects on late teens. Experiments have shown clear short term effects. However, the evidence for long term effects is more marginal. Please post a list of television programs and cartoons that would be good to watch. As a scientist I would be reluctant to get into the business of endorsing commercial programs. But I think it is easy for parents to decide for themselves. What do you want your child to learn? If you want your child to learn to behave like the characters in a program then have your child watch that program. What is the role of the "martial arts" on a continuing basis in the life of a child to adult behavior model? I don't see any special significance to martial arts. You said that it takes more money to make nice family movies than it does to make violent movies and that is why we have more violent movies. Given that special effects are often included in violent movies and cost a lot of money to produce, how can your statement above be true? Please explain. Of course, I am only talking about averages. I am sure that special effects in movies like Pearl Harbor and Star Wars do indeed cost a lot. But the writers 'and stars' salaries for non-violent hit TV programs like Seinfeld and the Cosby Show also cost an enormous amount. And consider the interpersonal violence in many standard violent TV shows. The special effects often consist of simple simulated fist fights, simulated slow strangulations, and so on. I doubt that these cost a lot. And often they are mostly irrelevant to the plot. They are there to attract viewers. |
|
