Pharmakos
The Culture of modern society has been characterized by inventions of
advanced technologies, such as television, computers, cell phones and other electronic devices which have become daily essentials to people and gradually replace the roles of other necessities in people’s day-to-day livings. These advancements and creations also raise the issue of media violence: Does media violence influence people’s aggressive and violent behavior?
After collecting and examining data on media violence, one arrives at the
conclusion that people’s aggressive and violent behavior does not emerge because of exposure to media violence, but rather this behavior is already encoded in people since birth. Media violence, therefore, only has a very little and insignificant influence, if any existed, on violent and aggressive behavior in people. Psychologists find that third variables, such as personality, exposure to domestic abuse and gender, determine people’s levels of aggression and violence, not media violence. In addition, studies also suggest that people who are more prone to violent and aggressive actions intentionally seek out media violence—thus increase their exposure to media violence—more than people who are nonaggressive. Lastly, engaging in forms of media violence—such as playing violent video games, watching violent dramas—helps people relieve themselves from aggressive feelings and brings them back to emotionally stable states.
Since the nineteenth century, when psychology gradually became a field of
study, it was established that personality, exposure to domestic abuse and gender role have dominating effects on people’s behavior. However, media violence has only become a form of entertainment in recent decades as television becomes a must-have in households. Thus, is it fair to blame media violence for violent and aggressive behavior in individuals who are already violent and aggressive? According to Christopher J. Ferguson, an associate professor at the Texas A&M International University, “personality characteristics and direct physical abuse significantly predicted violent crime[, while exposure] to television and video games violence were not significant predictors of violent crime” (396). Ferguson obtained his Ph.D. degree in clinical psychology from the University of Central Florida in 2004, and has since then devoted his career into research on violent behavior, examining it from the combined impact of genetics, family environment, personality, mental health, and media violence. In “Personality, Parental, and Media Influences on Aggressive Personality and Violent Crime in Young Adults,” Ferguson et al. identify “trait aggression, or a tendency to respond to both threatening and ambiguous circumstances with heightened hostility, [is] best predicted by endogenous factors such as biological sex and the personality trait of neuroticism” (409). The argument presented by Ferguson et al. is also supported by many studies which demonstrate that boys are more prone to aggressiveness than girls because of their different evolutionary and physical features, thus it is obvious that boys will act and respond aggressively more than girls do. Through twin studies, researchers discover that genetic factors also contribute to individuals’ personality and behavior. Lastly, “[since] personality characteristics are the nexus of attitudes, beliefs, and values guiding [people’s] cognitive and affective interactions with the social environment,” the concern for the influence of personality and other factors on violent behavior should receive more attention (Kraaykamp and Eijck 1676). Specifically, as Andrew J. Kalnin, et al. have pointed out in “The Interacting Role of Media Violence Exposure and Aggressive-Disruptive Behavior in Adolescent Brain Activation during an Emotional Stroop Task,” “individuals with preexisting aggressive-hostile personality traits have demonstrated increased vulnerability to effects of violent media in behavioral studies” (13). Dr. Andrew J. Kalnin, MD., is an associate professor of radiology at the Ohio State University College of Medicine who also practices neuroradiology, pediatric radiology and diagnostic radiology in Columbus, Ohio. In his study, Kalnin approaches his research on media violence effects through the examination of “the relationship between brain activation and history of media violence exposure in adolescents, using functional magnetic resonance imaging” (12). Through this experiment, Kalnin et al. demonstrate that “individuals with [aggressive disruptive-behavior disorders] or related disorders have a lower amygdala response to emotionally arousing stimuli than healthy controls…indicating desensitization or neural dysfunction” (13). Ferguson et al. also support the position of Kalnin et al. as they argue that “aggressive or antisocial personality…may be related to frontal lobe deficits” (399). Since brain is in control of one’s personality and every aspect of life, reduced activation in the amygdala and other parts of the brain will then significantly influence people’s behavior and response when interacting with the world. To further the point, the study of Kalnin et al. also finds that reduced amygdala response to violent words, pictures, or videos are more evident in individuals with aggressive disruptive-behavior disorders or related disorders than in healthy individuals—thus indicating that the amygdala of individuals with those disorders is already habituated to accept violence, and it becomes less a problem for those individuals to accept violence (Kalnin et al. 17). “This investigation provides evidence that the manner in which past exposure to media violence influences brain activity is modified by the presence of aggressive personality characteristics,” and violent and aggressive behavior in people are not caused by exposure to media violence (Kalnin et al. 16).
Further, research has supported the argument that “exposure to childhood
abuse may exacerbate neurogenetic propensities toward the development of borderline personality disorder…and other personality disorders…which may place individuals at higher risk for commission of violent crimes” (Ferguson et al. 397). In addition, both Ferguson et al. and Kalnin et al. support the argument that gender effect is also an important element in determining one’s aggressive level—boys tend to act more aggressively while responding to environmental stresses than girls. Moreover, “neurogenetic and environmental abuse factors interact to increase the risk of the development of violence-prone personalities” (Ferguson et al. 401). Hypothetically, Ferguson et al. speculate that “[a] brain that is already genetically hard-wired for more violent behaviors may increasingly mold neurological pathways emphasizing violence in response to environmental abuse” (401). The argument presented take into the account of how family and environmental factors contribute to the further development of violent behavior in people which might have already been built in their genes. Under the influence of their aggressive personality and family abuse, individuals are more willing to engage in violent acts. Kalnin et al. argue that those factors have modified people’s “amygdala activation in response to emotional stimuli,” decreasing their natural “emotional discomfort related to amygdala activity” (17). As for the influence of media violence, it “may act as stylistic catalysts” (Ferguson et al. 401). Ferguson et al. explain,
When an individual high in violence proneness decides to act violently, he or she may then model violence that he or she has seen in the media. As such, the style or form of violence may be socially modeled, but not the desire to act violently itself. (401)
Therefore, one can conclude that media violence does not bring about violent and aggressive behaviors in people, but rather it is only used by individuals who have a desire to hurt others as a model. Media violence cannot create desire to hurt others in people, it does not have a significant influence in changing people’s behavior.
Many psychologists have proved that individuals with aggressive or violent
personality will seek out media violence as a form of sensational stimulation (Kalnin et al. 17). In “Personality, Media Preferences, and Cultural Participation,” Gerbert Kraaykamp, a sociology professor at Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and Koen van Eijck, a professor for Department of Leisure Studies at Tilburg University, The Netherlands, both examine the relationship between personality and media preferences—stating that “the Big Five personality factors contribute substantially to our understanding of people’s cultural tastes and practices” (1675). “Individuals with certain personality styles may be more prone to seek out violent media” comparing to individuals without those personality styles (Ferguson et al. 1200). People are active consumers; if their personality allows them to accept media violence and to see it just as a normal stimulation, then those individuals will intentionally look for media violence. Kraaykamp and Eijck state that “the ‘uses-and-gratifications’ paradigm” can be used to explain people’s “selection and use of media…and the motives underlying media preferences” (1676). Moreover, individuals, who are predisposed to violent behavior due to personality and environmental factors, “actively seek out modeling opportunities that are consistent with an innate motivational system”—media violence is just one of their modeling sources which they can easily get their hands to (Ferguson et al. 401). In addition,
According to information processing theory (e.g. Berlyne, 1971; Ganzeboom, 1982; Kraaykamp & DIjikstra, 1999), the satisfaction people derive from reading books, visiting museums, or attending concerts, depends on their optimal, or preferred, arousal levels… Personality is therefore relevant for understanding individuals’ appreciation of the arts. (Kraaykamp and Eijck 1676)
Arguably, one concludes that people, who desire to commit aggressive and violent acts, are the ones who look for violence in the media; “[the] connections between personality and the entertainment-preference dimensions suggest that people seek out entertainment that reflects and reinforces aspects of their personalities” (Ferguson et al. 1196). However, those who dislike or disapprove violence and aggression will not seek out media violence and certainly will not model the violence in the media; their characters and beliefs will disapprove of the violence in the media, thus eliminating their own acts of possible aggression or violence. “Researchers concerned with entertainment media, and in particular the associations between media exposure and behaviors, should consider media consumption as less of a passive process and more of an active one” (Ferguson et al. 1196).
It has been argued by many psychologists and psychological associations
that media violence has “potential deleterious effects…on the psychological health of viewers” (Ferguson et al. 1195). It is also said that,
In the year 2000 a joint statement of the American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association and several other groups expressed great concern about the negative effects of violent media (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2000). The joint statement concluded that evidence from experimental and correlational studies unequivocally supports the hypothesis that exposure to media violence leads to harmful outcomes. (Ferguson et al. 1195)
Many studies have been conducted to examine the relationship between exposure to media violence and aggressive and violent behavior in people. According to those psychologists, the correlation between media violence and its effects have been well established and proved. It is even further publicly acknowledged that the media should be regulated to reduce contents of violence, or at least limits should be placed on the media to ensure the well-being of the public. However, as already presented earlier, those studies fail to consider third variables, such as personality, exposure to family abuse, gender effect, to be possible causes of individuals’ violent and aggressive behaviors—thus, one can determine those studies to be invalid and unreliable. Moreover, other researchers find that individuals who have high level of media violence exposure are the ones who prefer media violence and who already possessed the trait aggression.
Furthermore, studies also find that media violence actually have potential
benefits for people. In Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter, Steven Berlin Johnson, an American popular science author, argues that over the last three decades television dramas and video games, whether violent or not, have become increasingly complex and have fostered higher order thinking skills in people. An author of seven books on the intersection of science, technology and personal experience, Johnson also writes for The New York Time, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, and many other periodicals. According to Johnson, television dramas and video games actually enhance individuals’ cognitive thinking skills and are “good for the brain or the body” (40). In “Needs Met through Computer Game Play among Adolescents,” John Colwell argues that not only did the media train individuals mentally, it also serves as a way of relief for people. To further the point, Colwell, a psychology professor at the University of Westminster, United Kingdom, presents the argument that violent media provides another arena for individuals to get rid of their aggressive feelings. Moreover, it is found that “[persons] who were exposed to either greater amounts of violent television or violent video games reported being no more likely to act in a criminally violent manner than those who were less exposed to media violence” (Ferguson et al. 410). Video game violence “acts as a form of suppressor variable” in which adolescents can relieve their anger (Ferguson et al. 1198). Aggressive play provides a socially acceptable way of expressing aggressive tendencies within a safe fantasy world, and decreases the occurrence of real-life aggressive behavior (Colwell 2081). “A feeling of upset-ness or anger (a negative mood)…can be changed to a more positive mood through game play” (Colwell 2076). Moreover, in the study done by Kestenbaum and Weinstein (1985), it is argued that games serve a homeostatic function for individuals, especially for those who are experiencing conflicts when entering into adolescence (Colwell 2073). Colwell also argues,
Supposed oedipal conflicts are likely to re-emerge during this period, and there may be limited opportunities for resolving resultant developmental stress. Therefore the aggressive content of games, instead of encouraging aggressive behaviour (presumably towards the father), may provide a fantasy arena for the safe expression of aggressive feelings. Also heavy players tended to play more when they felt tense, in order to relax, and that they were more likely to feel guilty after winning against their fathers. (2073)
Real-life aggressive behavior is reduced due to the effects of media violence. Data also support that “adult and youth violence has substantially declined over the past decades in most industrialized nations” (Ferguson et al. 1195). Therefore, one can conclude that media violence actually helps individuals to express their aggressive feelings in the fantasy world, either through game-playing or television-watching; real-life violence is reduced when people have safely expressed their aggressive feelings in those fantasy arenas.
From all the research and data collected and evaluated, it is easy to
conclude that media violence does not play a major or significant role in influencing people’s behavior, while it also helps people to decrease their real-world violent behavior. Personality, exposure to family abuse, gender effects, and other third variables are responsible for aggressive and violent behavior observed in people. As people intentionally seek out media violence to satisfy their tastes and to comfort themselves, media violence helps people to get rid of their aggressive and violent feelings—providing a safe place to express their anger. Overall, media violence is just a scapegoat.
Works Cited
Colwell, John. “Needs Met Through Computer Game Play among Adolescents.”
Personality and Individual Differences 43.8 (2007): 2072-2082. Print.
Ferguson, Christopher J., et al. “Personality and Media Influences on Violence
and Depression in a Cross-National Sample of Young Adults: Data from Mexican-Americans, English and Croatians.” Computers in Human Behavior 27.3 (2011): 1195-1200. Print.
Ferguson, Christopher J., et al. “Personality, Parental, and Media Influences on
Aggressive Personality and Violent Crime in Young Adults.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma 17.4 (2008): 395-414. Print.
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good for You. New York: Penguin Group, 2005.
Print.
Kalnin, Andrew J., et al. “The Interacting Role of Media Violence Exposure and
Aggressive-Disruptive Behavior in Adolescent Brain Activation during an Emotional Stroop Task.” Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging Section 192.1 (2011): 12-19. Print.
Kraaykamp, Gerbert, and Koen van Eijck. “Personality, Media Preferences, and
Cultural Participation.” Personality and Individual Differences 38.7 (2005): 1675-1688. Print.
