Of The Media On Aggressive Behaviour Essay, Research Paper

There is grounds that promotes the position that

anti-social behavior can be promoted by the media. Some of the effects are

short lived and others will change depending on whether the anti-social behavior

is shown on it? s ain or non. Violent picture games and Television are the chief beginnings of

media force. On Television there is really small aggression

overall. The Gerbner Studies ( 1970? s and 1980? s ) found that in kids? s Television

programmes 20 violent Acts of the Apostless per hr occurred. Since 1967, the per centum of

violent programmes has non increased but the figure of violent Acts of the Apostless per

programme has increased. Halloran and Croll ( 1972 ) found that force was a

common characteristic on Television programmes but non as prevalent on British as it was on

American TV programmes. Cumberbatch ( 1987 ) supported this, happening that 30 % of

programmes had force in them but merely 1 % of Television is violent overall. Gunter

and Harrison ( 1995 ) said that force merely occupies a bantam proportion of Television in

few programmes. They found that 1 % of tellurian Television was violent and less that,

2 % on satellite Television was violent. Altogether there is non really much force on

Television but what there is seems to be concentrated to a few programmes which if

immature kids are exposed to could be damaging to them mentally particularly in

subsequently life. The job with these surveies is that what some people

perceive as violent others do non. In younger kids a little violent act such

as forcing or jostling can be imitated and interpreted as violent. In a longitudinal survey by Lefkowitz et

Al. ( 1972 ) , a penchant for Television force at 8 old ages of age was found to be

related to aggression at the same age. Older kids ( 17-18 old ages old ) who

preferable force on Television were non more aggressive. If a penchant for Television

force was found at 8 old ages old so this was found to be related to force

at 18 old ages old, but a penchant at 18 for Television force was non found to be

related to early aggression. This shows that exposing younger kids to

force on Television in earlier life can hold long-run every bit good as short-run effects

on the kid. Australian research has shown that there

is no important correlativity between early Television force screening and subsequently

aggression. In Poland, the research workers agreed that a greater penchant for

force at an early age was related to ulterior aggression but the effects were

non big and the consequences should be treated carefully. A cross-national study

was carried out by Huesmann and Eron ( 1987 ) across six states ( Holland,

Australia, USA, Israel, Poland and Finland ) and they found that sing

telecasting force at an early age is a forecaster of ulterior aggression.

Cumberbatch ( 1997 ) criticised this survey stating that there was really no

grounds to back up this. The job with longitudinal surveies is that there

could be many other possible intervening variables particularly when analyzing

over a long period. Bandura ( 1963 ) showed kids aggressive behavior on a

movie. It showed grownups in a room hitting a bobo doll. The kids who saw the

movie were compared with kids who hadn? T, the kids who watched the movie

were found to be more aggressive in their drama. This is supported by Liebert

and Baran ( 1972 ) who found that kids watching an aggressive movie

demonstrated a greater willingness to ache another kid. Both of these

research lab surveies show that if kids are exposed to aggression in the

media, although this was set up deliberately, they can go more aggressive.

Both of these surveies are laboratory surveies and the job with these is that

it is hard to generalize findings to existent life state of affairss. A comparing of two metropoliss was made by Hennigan et Al

( 1982 ) ; one metropolis had Television the other didn? T. The presence or absence of Television did non

impact the offense rate and there was no addition in violent offense when the metropolis

without Television got Television. There was an addition in robberies due to people seeing

richness on Television and desiring to possess more. Williams ( 1986 ) supported this

happening that aggression in kid

ren increased when Television was introduced.

Centrewall 91989 ) compared South Africa, Canada and USA. In USA and Canada the

slaying rates increased after Television was introduced. In South Africa the figure of

slayings declined but merely in white people. Therefore these surveies show that if

there is no Television in a certain topographic point so the debut of Television can increase the

offense rate in that topographic point. The job arises in comparing metropoliss, communities

or states because there are excessively many other factors, which could account for

the difference e.g. the cultural differences. There are two accounts of the effects of violent

picture games: the societal acquisition theory proposing that kids will copy

what they have seen on the screen ; and the katharsis theory that suggests that

violent picture games channel a kid? s aggression and halt them from being

aggressive in existent life. Experimental surveies ( e.g. Irwin and Gross, 1995 )

hold found that playing violent picture games increases aggression in kids in

the short-run at least so back uping the societal acquisition theory? s position.

Griffiths ( 1998 ) found that video game force has more consequence on immature

kids, but far less consequence on adolescents and no evident effects on grownups.

There is, on the other manus, really small research into the long-run effects of

violent picture games and at the minute, it is entirely guess of the

effects. The job with faulting the media for violent behavior

is that it is instead like explicating it backwards get downing with the media and

utilizing that to explicate why wrongdoers offend. Hagell and Newburn ( 1996 ) have

found that immature wrongdoers watch less Television than their non-offending opposite numbers

and had small involvement in peculiarly violent programmes in the first topographic point.

Research suggests that kids are victims of the media and are drawn in, the

media? fast ones kids into all sorts of ailment advised behavior? ( Gauntlett,

1998 ) . Research that is more recent has shown that kids are able to speak

critically and intelligently about the media ( Buckingham, 1996 ) and that immature

kids from every bit immature as 7 old ages old are able to do? media literate?

productions themselves. On Television, force is non frequently shown along with the

negative effects perchance taking kids to believe that there aren? t any.

Frequently in add-on, force goes unpunished demoing kids that it is alright

to perpetrate violent Acts of the Apostless, they won? T be punished for it. From this survey called

the National Violence Media Study merely 4 % of violent programmes showed and anti

violent subject and kids? s programmes were the least likely of all to demo

the long-run negative effects of force. Different people interpret

violent Acts of the Apostless in different ways and they can be portrayed in the media for

different grounds. E.g. a adult male had his house broken into, caught the burglars in

his house and he shot them, was this a justified act of force? It was extremely

publicised because of this. Media force in surveies is restricted to

fictional programmes intelligence programmes are exempt. If force in fictional

programmes have such inauspicious effects on people so why Don? T they have the

same effects on people when they are shown in the intelligence? The grounds does demo that the media does hold an

consequence on violent behavior but the difference is really little and as Cumberbatch

said, the consequences should be treated carefully. The media does besides hold

pro-social effects every bit good as anti-social 1s, if the katharsis theory is

correct so it can alleviate aggressive feelings and prevent aggression in existent

life. The media can non be wholly blamed for aggression ; there are other

factors to be considered that could act upon the individual peculiarly a kid.

Research portrays kids as helpless victims of the media? s influence but it

has been shown that kids can critically speak about the media at age seven.

The kid? s upbringing, background, civilization and equals could all act upon any

possible aggressive behavior. The media entirely can non be blamed for all

aggression, other factors have to be taken into history.

3af