Research on the Effects of Media Violence Whether or not exposure to media violence causes increased levels of aggression and

violence in young people is the perennial question of media effects research. Some experts, like University of Michigan professor L. Rowell Huesmann, argue that fifty years of evidence show "that exposure to media violence causes children to behave more aggressively and affects them as adults years later." Others, like Jonathan Freedman of the University of Toronto, maintain that "the scientific evidence simply does not show that watching violence either produces violence in people, or desensitizes them to it." Many Studies, Many Conclusions Andrea Martinez at the University of Ottawa conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in 1994. She concluded that the lack of consensus about media effects reflects three "grey areas" or constraints contained in the research itself. First, media violence is notoriously hard to define and measure. Some experts who track violence in television programming, such as George Gerbner of Temple University, define violence as the act (or threat) of injuring or killing someone, independent of the method used or the surrounding context. Accordingly, Gerber includes cartoon violence in his data-set. But others, such as University of Laval professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise, specifically exclude cartoon violence from their research because of its comical and unrealistic presentation. Second, researchers disagree over the type of relationship the data supports. Some argue that exposure to media violence causes aggression. Others say that the two are associated, but that there is no causal connection. (That both, for instance, may be caused by some third factor.) And others say the data supports the conclusion that there is no relationship between the two at all. Third, even those who agree that there is a connection between media violence and aggression disagree about how the one effects the other. Some say that the mechanism is a psychological one, rooted in the ways we learn. For example, Huesmann argues that children develop "cognitive scripts" that guide their own behaviour by imitating the actions of media heroes. As they watch violent shows, children learn to internalize scripts that use violence as an appropriate method of problem-solving. Other researchers argue that it is the physiological effects of media violence that cause aggressive behaviour. Exposure to violent imagery is linked to increased heart rate, faster respiration and higher blood pressure. Some think that this simulated "fight-or-flight" response predisposes people to act aggressively in the real world. Still others focus on the ways in which media violence primes or cues pre-existing aggressive thoughts and feelings. They argue that an individuals desire to strike out is justified by media images in which both the hero and the villain use violence to seek revenge, often without consequences. In her final report to the CRTC, Martinez concluded that most studies support "a positive, though weak, relation between exposure to television violence and aggressive behaviour." Although that

relationship cannot be "confirmed systematically," she agrees with Dutch researcher Tom Van der Voot who argues that it would be illogical to conclude that "a phenomenon does not exist simply because it is found at times not to occur, or only to occur under certain circumstances." What the Researchers Are Saying The lack of consensus about the relationship between media violence and real-world aggression has not impeded ongoing research. Heres a sampling of conclusions drawn to date, from the various research strands: Research strand: Children who consume high levels of media violence are more likely to be aggressive in the real world In 1956, researchers took to the laboratory to compare the behaviour of 24 children watching TV. Half watched a violent episode of the cartoon Woody Woodpecker, and the other 12 watched the nonviolent cartoon The Little Red Hen. During play afterwards, the researchers observed that the children who watched the violent cartoon were much more likely to hit other children and break toys. Six years later, in 1963, professors A. Badura, D. Ross and S.A. Ross studied the effect of exposure to real-world violence, television violence, and cartoon violence. They divided 100 preschool children into four groups. The first group watched a real person shout insults at an inflatable doll while hitting it with a mallet. The second group watched the incident on television. The third watched a cartoon version of the same scene, and the fourth watched nothing. When all the children were later exposed to a frustrating situation, the first three groups responded with more aggression than the control group. The children who watched the incident on television were just as aggressive as those who had watched the real person use the mallet; and both were more aggressive than those who had only watched the cartoon. Over the years, laboratory experiments such as these have consistently shown that exposure to violence is associated with increased heartbeat, blood pressure and respiration rate, and a greater willingness to administer electric shocks to inflict pain or punishment on others. However, this line of enquiry has been criticized because of its focus on short term results and the artificial nature of the viewing environment. Other scientists have sought to establish a connection between media violence and aggression outside the laboratory. For example, a number of surveys indicate that children and young people who report a preference for violent entertainment also score higher on aggression indexes than those who watch less violent shows. L. Rowell Huesmann reviewed studies conducted in Australia, Finland, Poland, Israel, Netherlands and the United States. He reports, "the child most likely to be aggressive would be the one who (a) watches violent television programs most of the time, (b) believes that these shows portray life just as it is, [and] (c) identifies strongly with the aggressive characters in the shows." A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2003 found that nearly half (47 per cent) of parents with children between the ages of 4 and 6 report that their children have imitated aggressive

behaviours from TV. However, it is interesting to note that children are more likely to mimic positive behaviours 87 per cent of kids do so. Recent research is exploring the effect of new media on childrens behaviour. Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman of Iowa State University reviewed dozens of studies of video gamers. In 2001, they reported that children and young people who play violent video games, even for short periods, are more likely to behave aggressively in the real world; and that both aggressive and non-aggressive children are negatively affected by playing. In 2003, Craig Anderson and Iowa State University colleague Nicholas Carnagey and Janie Eubanks of the Texas Department of Human Services reported that violent music lyrics increased aggressive thoughts and hostile feelings among 500 college students. They concluded, "There are now good theoretical and empirical reasons to expect effects of music lyrics on aggressive behavior to be similar to the well-studied effects of exposure to TV and movie violence and the more recent research efforts on violent video games." Research Strand: Children who watch high levels of media violence are at increased risk of aggressive behaviour as adults In 1960, University of Michigan Professor Leonard Eron studied 856 grade three students living in a semi-rural community in Columbia County, New York, and found that the children who watched violent television at home behaved more aggressively in school. Eron wanted to track the effect of this exposure over the years, so he revisited Columbia County in 1971, when the children who participated in the 1960 study were 19 years of age. He found that boys who watched violent TV when they were eight were more likely to get in trouble with the law as teenagers. When Eron and Huesmann returned to Columbia County in 1982, the subjects were 30 years old. They reported that those participants who had watched more violent TV as eight-year-olds were more likely, as adults, to be convicted of serious crimes, to use violence to discipline their children, and to treat their spouses aggressively. Professor Monroe Lefkowitz published similar findings in 1971. Lefkowitz interviewed a group of eight-year-olds and found that the boys who watched more violent TV were more likely to act aggressively in the real world. When he interviewed the same boys ten years later, he found that the more violence a boy watched at eight, the more aggressively he would act at age eighteen. Columbia University professor Jeffrey Johnson has found that the effect is not limited to violent shows. Johnson tracked 707 families in upstate New York for 17 years, starting in 1975. In 2002, Johnson reported that children who watched one to three hours of television each day when they were 14 to 16 years old were 60 per cent more likely to be involved in assaults and fights as adults than those who watched less TV. Kansas State University professor John Murray concludes, "The most plausible interpretation of this pattern of correlations is that early preference for violent television programming and other media is

one factor in the production of aggressive and antisocial behavior when the young boy becomes a young man." However, this line of research has attracted a great deal of controversy. Pullitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes has attacked Erons work, arguing that his conclusions are based on an insignificant amount of data. Rhodes claims that Eron had information about the amount of TV viewed in 1960 for only 3 of the 24 men who committed violent crimes as adults years later. Rhodes concludes that Erons work is "poorly conceived, scientifically inadequate, biased and sloppy if not actually fraudulent research." Guy Cumberbatch, head of the Communications Research Group, a U.K. social policy think tank, has equally harsh words for Johnsons study. Cumberbatch claims Johnsons group of 88 under-one-hour TV watchers is "so small, it's aberrant." And, as journalist Ben Shouse points out, other critics say that Johnsons study "cant rule out the possibility that television is just a marker for some unmeasured environmental or psychological influence on both aggression and TV habits." Research Strand: The introduction of television into a community leads to an increase in violent behaviour Researchers have also pursued the link between media violence and real life aggression by examining communities before and after the introduction of television. In the mid 1970s, University of British Columbia professor TannisMcBeth Williams studied a remote village in British Columbia both before and after television was introduced. She found that two years after TV arrived, violent incidents had increased by 160 per cent. Researchers Gary Granzberg and Jack Steinbring studied three Cree communities in northern Manitoba during the 1970s and early 1980s. They found that four years after television was introduced into one of the communities, the incidence of fist fights and black eyes among the children had increased significantly. Interestingly, several days after an episode of Happy Days aired, in which one character joined a gang called the Red Demons, children in the community created rival gangs, called the Red Demons and the Green Demons, and the conflict between the two seriously disrupted the local school. University of Washington Professor Brandon Centerwall noted that the sharp increase in the murder rate in North America in 1955 occurred eight years after television sets began to enter North American homes. To test his hypothesis that the two were related, he examined the murder rate in South Africa where, prior to 1975, television was banned by the government. He found that twelve years after the ban was lifted, murder rates skyrocketed. University of Toronto Professor Jonathan Freedman has criticized this line of research. He points out that Japanese television has some of the most violent imagery in the world, and yet Japan has a much lower murder rate than other countries, including Canada and the United States, which have comparatively less violence on TV. Research Strand: Media violence stimulates fear in some children

A number of studies have reported that watching media violence frightens young children, and that the effects of this may be long lasting. In 1998, Professors Singer, Slovak, Frierson and York surveyed 2,000 Ohio students in grades three through eight. They report that the incidences of psychological trauma (including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress) increased in proportion to the number of hours of television watched each day. A 1999 survey of 500 Rhode Island parents led by Brown University professor Judith Owens revealed that the presence of a television in a childs bedroom makes it more likely that the child will suffer from sleep disturbances. Nine per cent of all the parents surveyed reported that their children have nightmares because of a television show at least once a week. Tom Van der Voort studied 314 children aged nine through twelve in 1986. He found that although children can easily distinguish cartoons, westerns and spy thrillers from reality, they often confuse realistic programmes with the real world. When they are unable to integrate the violence in these shows because they cant follow the plot, they are much more likely to become anxious. This is particularly problematic because the children reported that they prefer realistic programmes, which they equate with fun and excitement. And, as Jacques de Guise reported in 2002, the younger the child, the less likely he or she will be able to identify violent content as violence. In 1999, Professors Joanne Cantor and K. Harrison studied 138 university students, and found that memories of frightening media images continued to disturb a significant number of participants years later. Over 90 per cent reported they continued to experience fright effects from images they viewed as children, ranging from sleep disturbances to steadfast avoidance of certain situations. Research Strand: Media violence desensitizes people to real violence A number of studies in the 1970s showed that people who are repeatedly exposed to media violence tend to be less disturbed when they witness real world violence, and have less sympathy for its victims. For example, Professors V.B. Cline, R.G. Croft, and S. Courrier studied young boys over a two-year period. In 1973, they reported that boys who watch more than 25 hours of television per week are significantly less likely to be aroused by real world violence than those boys who watch 4 hours or less per week. When researchers Fred Molitor and Ken Hirsch revisited this line of investigation in 1994, their work confirmed that children are more likely to tolerate aggressive behaviour in the real world if they first watch TV shows or films that contain violent content. Research Strand: People who watch a lot of media violence tend to believe that the world is more dangerous than it is in reality George Gerbner has conducted the longest running study of television violence. His seminal research suggests that heavy TV viewers tend to perceive the world in ways that are consistent with the images on TV. As viewers perceptions of the world come to conform with the depictions they see on TV,

they become more passive, more anxious, and more fearful. Gerbner calls this the "Mean World Syndrome." Gerbners research found that those who watch greater amounts of television are more likely to:
y y y y

overestimate their risk of being victimized by crime believe their neighbourhoods are unsafe believe "fear of crime is a very serious personal problem" assume the crime rate is increasing, even when it is not

Andr Gosselin, Jacques de Guise and Guy Paquette decided to test Gerbners theory in the Canadian context in 1997. They surveyed 360 university students, and found that heavy television viewers are more likely to believe the world is a more dangerous place. However, they also found heavy viewers are not more likely to actually feel more fearful. Research Strand: Family attitudes to violent content are more important than the images themselves A number of studies suggest that media is only one of a number of variables that put children at risk of aggressive behaviour. For example, a Norwegian study that included 20 at-risk teenaged boys found that the lack of parental rules regulating what the boys watched was a more significant predictor of aggressive behaviour than the amount of media violence they watched. It also indicated that exposure to real world violence, together with exposure to media violence, created an "overload" of violent events. Boys who experienced this overload were more likely to use violent media images to create and consolidate their identities as members of an anti-social and marginalized group. On the other hand, researchers report that parental attitudes towards media violence can mitigate (alleviate) the impact it has on children. Huesmann and Bacharach conclude, "Family attitudes and social class are stronger determinants of attitudes toward aggression (violence) than is the amount of exposure to TV, which is nevertheless a significant but weaker predictor

George Gerbners Cultivation Theory Application Paper

The Sociopsychological tradition of human communication views communication as expression, interaction, and influence and focuses on problems of communication dealing with undesired behaviors or effects (Dr. Craig Lecture, November 9, 2006). While there are many theories that fit into this tradition, Cultivation Theory is one of the most interesting and pertinent in todays world. Cultivation theory, which is a Sociopsychological theory, was primarily developed by the famous communication theorist, George Gerbner during his Cultural Indicator research. Gerbner began his Cultural Indicator research in the 1960s which led to Cultivation Theory; he continued to study, refine, and extend the research for the next twenty years. For purposes of this essay, I will concentrate on a small part of this

research which Gerbner and fellow theorists documented in the Journal of Communication titled "The Mainstreaming of America: Violence Profile No. 11." The research for this journal article included both message system analysis, which was the monitoring of television programming, and cultivation analysis which was an investigation of participants conceptions of social reality (Greunke, 2006). Message system analysis consisted of viewing numerous television programs over many years and analyzing the amount of violence shown. By doing this Gerbner et al. (1980) discovered a television reality in which an act of violence occurred five times an hour, people in law enforcement were far overrepresented, men outnumbered women three to one, and the young and old were underrepresented. In doing his cultivation analysis, Gerbner designed an experiment in which participants were asked a series of questions related to violence. The participants were classified as either high (4 or more hours/day), moderate (2-4 hours/day), or light (less than 2 hours/day) television viewers. This was done in order to determine how much the amount of television viewing contributes to ones perception of reality. Unlike many previous studies, Gerbner focused on perceptions and attitudes rather than behaviors (Chandler, 1995). Gerbner et al. (1980) believed that the amount of exposure to television greatly impacted the strength of cultivation and therefore concentrated his research on these heavy viewers. From Gerbners Cultural Indicator research he developed a theory known as Cultivation Theory. The central claim of Cultivation Theory is that "Television makes specific and measurable contributions to viewers conceptions of reality" (Gerbner et al., 1980, p. 10). Because Gerbner believed that "Television is the central and most pervasive mass medium in American culture" at the time, he analyzed it as opposed to other media (Gerbner et al., 1980, p. 14). Within Cultivation Theory, Gerbner et al. (1980) noticed two main occurrences that illustrate and augment the theory which he termed "mainstreaming" and "resonance." The first, known as "mainstreaming," is when heavy viewers among different demographic groups share a commonality of outlooks cultivated by television that are not shared by light viewers from these different groups (Gerbner et al., 1980). For example, heavy viewers from different income categories answered the "Fear of crime is a very serious personal problem" question more similarly than the light viewers did from different income categories. As would be expected, the light viewers from a lower income were more likely to answer that it was a serious personal problem than light viewers with higher incomes. For heavy viewers, the answers only differed slightly depending on the income bracket. Therefore there was a convergence of outlooks among heavy viewers which Gerbner called "mainstreaming."

The second main phenomenon Gerbner et al. (1980) discovered is known as "resonance." This occurs when what is seen on television is similar to ones life experience and creates a "double dose" of the message which greatly enhances cultivation (Gerbner et al., 1980, p. 15). An example of resonance would be if someone was walking home late at night in the city and was mugged. If a few weeks later that same person watched someone on television get mugged, they would be getting a "double dose" of the message that it is common for people to get mugged. Thus the experience in real life and of watching television would resonate and create a more intense cultivation of this belief in reality. This person would then believe that being mugged is much more common than it truly is. In order to apply Gerbners Cultivation Theory, I decided to conduct a miniature experiment of my own to see how Gerbners theory would pertain to a topic other than violence. Instead of testing violence in television and how it impacts peoples views of how violent the real world is, I decided to test the cultivation effects of an equally common theme in television, namely sexual references. Sexual references, which I considered to be any direct or indirect mention of sex, sexual gestures, obvious sexual ways of dressing and behaving, or any sexual act, are pervasive in todays television environment. Everything from music videos, to family programs, to reality shows, to primetime dramas are saturated with references to sex. The method for conducting this experiment involved, like Gerbners Cultural Indicator research, both message system analysis and cultivation analysis. In terms of the message system analysis, I viewed ten popular adult programs on television over the Thanksgiving holiday break which included a wide variety of genres ranging from Desperate Housewives to part of the Broncos Football game to Real World to 7th Heaven to Law and Order to Sex and the City. For each show I counted the number of sexual references and divided this number by the number of minutes the show was on. The average number of sexual references was equal to one sexual reference every two minutes. Obviously certain shows, such as Sex and the City, made reference to sex far more often than the Broncos game thus it is important to note that the range of sexual references among shows went from one every twenty seconds to one every thirty minutes. Certainly it is apparent that the amount of sexual references greatly depends upon the type of show watched. In general the shows illustrated a television reality in which sex played an extremely important role in society, casual sex was common, people often had dozens of sexual partners during a lifetime, and virginity was lost at a very young age. For purposes of this experiment, I will assume that the real world differs from the television world in that sex only plays a somewhat important role in society, casual

sex is not common, people on average only have a few sexual partners during a lifetime, and virginity is lost at an older age. The bulk of the experiment consisted of cultivation analysis in which I gave a survey to 20 people ranging in age from 24 to 72. It is important to note that this is a very small sample and many of these people were family members and friends and thus do not represent a truly diverse group of people and could likely have produced biased results. The respondents consisted of eight men and twelve women and were all white and of middle to upper class backgrounds living in the Denver Metropolitan area. Like Gerbner, when calculating the results, I divided the people into three groups consisting of light viewers, moderate viewers, and heavy viewers. Even though people in general watch far more television now than they did during Gerbners research, I decided to leave the classification of amount of viewing the same; this was done in order to create an experiment comparable to Gerbners. Thus, five people fit into the light viewing category watching less than two hours of television a day, five fit into the moderate viewing category watching two to four hours a day, and ten fit into the heavy viewing category watching four or more hours of television a day. Similar to Gerbners finding that respondents coming from lower income tended to watch more television than those coming from a higher income background, I found that on average males tended to watch about an hour more television per day than their female counterparts (Gerbner et al., 1980). The survey I administered consisted of background questions and four questions dealing with sex which the respondents had to either circle a number from 1 to 5 representing their views or were given various choices and asked to circle one. The questions consisted of the following: How big of an impact does sex have on society?; How common is casual sex?; How many sexual partners does an average person have in a lifetime?; and What is the average age to lose ones virginity?. The results were tabulated and averaged among viewing categories for each question. For most questions, the results did illustrate Gerbners cultivation theory. Those in the heavy viewing category were more likely than those in the light viewing category to answer in ways that mimic television reality as opposed to actual reality. For example, all participants were asked to answer the question of how big of an impact sex has on society on a scale from one to five with one representing very little impact and five representing an enormous impact. The average answer for light viewers was 2.8 while the average answer for heavy viewers was 3.5. Because television portrays sex as having a larger impact on society than it may actually have in real life, a higher number corresponds more closely to television reality than

to the real world. This exemplifies the central claim of Cultivation Theory for two reasons. First, the higher response from heavy viewers shows that the long-term exposure these respondents have had to television has influenced their perceptions of reality by making them very similar to television reality. Second, even though the cultivation differential between light and heavy viewers is relatively small, it is still measurable and significant. The two main phenomena of mainstreaming and resonance theorized by Gerbner were also illustrated in the responses to certain questions. For the analysis of mainstreaming, I will concentrate on the question of: How common is casual sex? The following graph shows the responses of both light and heavy viewers and is further divided by gender:

This graph provides evidence for mainstreaming because the heavy viewers in both the female and male categories had a very similar response to how common casual sex is. The female light viewers, on the other hand, had a much lower response to how common casual sex is while the male light viewers had the highest response to the question. In terms of Gerbners Cultivation Theory this would suggest that the heavy viewers exposure to television has led them to have a homogenous view of reality (Morgan, n.d.). Regardless of gender, the heavy viewers high exposure to television has led them to perceive the world in a similar way- the way that television portrays reality. Those that are light viewers are less exposed to televisions cultivation of a "mainstream" and thus tend to hold more extreme views than heavy viewers. Resonance, or the "amplification of issues particularly salient to certain groups of viewers," can also be seen in responses to certain questions, especially in the question of: How old is the average age to lose ones virginity? (Gerbner et al., 1980, p. 10). For this analysis I again averaged the results among groups and further divided them by gender. The following graph illustrates the phenomenon of resonance:

This chart shows first that both male and female heavy viewers believed the average age of losing ones virginity was younger than both males and females in the light viewing category. This, according to Gerbner, occurs because people lose their virginity at younger ages in television reality than they do in actual reality. The exposure to television, for the heavy viewers thus must be cultivating the perception of a reality where people lose their virginity at a young age. Second, it is apparent here that the male responses to this question, in relation to female responses, were more affected by high television exposure. This could be explained through Gerbners idea of resonance which states that when issues on television mimic real

life experiences, viewers get a "double dose" of the message. In this case resonance would occur more in males presumably because they are more likely to lose their virginities at a younger age than females. For example, if one of the male respondents had lost his virginity at age 14 and had also seen 14 year old males on television losing their virginities, the perception that 14 is an average age to lose ones virginity would be enforced. Women on the other hand may have lost their virginities at an older age on average. If this were the case, seeing someone on television losing his or her virginity at age 14 would only create one "dose" of the message and would lead to a much weaker cultivation of this view than the men had. Though this miniature experiment is similar to Gerbners Cultural Indicator research, the differences and weaknesses of this experiment must be stressed. Gerbner and his colleagues studied this phenomenon for twenty years while I only spent a week doing research. Also, I had far fewer respondents than Gerbner making my results much less reliable. Finally, the topic of research, violence versus sex on television, may play very different roles in cultivation. Therefore, while this experiment did aid in the understanding of Gerbners theory, it most likely cannot be reasonably relied upon as evidence for the validity of Cultivation Theory. There are many critiques of Gerbners Cultivation Theory which point to both its usefulness and to needed improvements in the theory. One of the main criticisms is that the results are inconsistent. Though the same or similar results were replicated by Gerbner and other communication theorists, other studies have shown conflicting results (Morgan, n.d.). Because the results are inconclusive, some say that the findings cannot be seriously relied upon. This means that it would be irrational to believe Gerbners central claim that television cultivates attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions that are closely aligned with television reality (Chandler, 1995). Similarly, some criticize Gerbner and fellow theorists for not having a sufficient number of participants in the study (Morgan, n.d.). Though the results are statistically significant, some say that they would carry more weight if more people had been involved. I would suggest that in order to respond to this criticism, Gerbner and fellow theorists should have repeated the study more, or involved more people in their cultivation analysis. Additionally many argue that the results from Gerbners Cultural Indicator research show correlation rather than causality (Chandler, 1995). It is difficult to detect which causes which; does viewing more television cause the fear of violence to increase or does the fear of violence cause increased television viewing? Moreover, the two could simply be correlated

through a third common factor such as socioeconomic status. Though this is partially accounted for by Gerbner, some communication theorists such as P. Hirsch argue that "cultivation theory ignores other variables including sex, education, race, and geographic location in the gathering of information" (Greunke, 2006). Another thing completely ignored by Gerbner is the types of programs people are watching and how different types of programs affect cultivation. This would be very interesting and would make the theory more useful because we could then point to actual programs that may be cultivating unrealistic perceptions. Another thing to consider with relation to the usefulness of Cultivation Theory is how true it holds today. First of all, the programs on television today are radically different than they were during the 1960s and 1970s when Gerbner was conducting his research. Perhaps they are even more violent than before and are arguably much more sexual in nature. In addition, people now watch considerably more television than before and on average spend somewhere around 6 hours a day tuned into television. Using Cultivation Theory, one would expect that these changes would cause much more cultivation and thus mainstreaming and resonance for the average citizen. A further thing to consider are the other forms of media in our society such as video games and the internet and what impact they may have in cultivating perceptions of reality. Even though Gerbneret at. (1980) stated that "The television set has become a key member of the family, the one who tells most of the stories most of the time," this may no longer be the case for many people (p. 14). For several, violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto may be telling the stories. Another suggestion I have for Gerbner would be to test the cultivation effects of the exposure to these other types of media since they are now widespread in our society. Overall it is clear that Cultivation Theory is useful for many reasons. It highlights certain aspects of communication which cannot be easily seen from other theories or out of personal intuition. It allows us to determine some of the consequences that long-term exposure to what I would call "television communication" has on individuals. Some of the communication aspects this theory illustrates are that communication is useful in that it influences people both in their perceptions and attitudes. As Gerbner stated, what people view on the television has a small but considerable impact on their attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors (Chandler, 1995). Also, the causes (exposure to television) and effects (cultivation of a television reality) of communication can be seen. The theory also allows us to see that communication does not just happen between individuals, but is possible within different types of media including television. Cultivation Theory allows us to see communication problems as stemming from

an incongruence between the television reality we are often exposed to, and the real world we live in. The problem in this situation is the undesirable effects that exposure to television causes. Unlike some of the other theories we have studied, however, Cultivation Theory does not help us understand many aspects of communication such as what genuine dialogue entails, the machine-like aspects of communication systems, or how power dynamics can distort communication outcomes. George Gerbner was dedicated to freedom, fairness, and equity in the media which is part of what his theory attempts to explain and accomplish (Greunke, 2006). If we rely on Cultivation Theory, it could be extremely influential for advertisers, television programmers, and the average citizen. Whether one considers cultivation to be beneficial or negative to society, it has certainly had an effect on our average perceptions of the real world. It is important as citizens, nevertheless, to remember that the television world does not always, and probably very rarely does, accurately depict the real world we live in.

MEDIA EFFECTS THEORIES Cultivation Theory

y y

Developed by George Gerbner Central Claim: Persistent long term exposure to TV content has small but measurable effects on the perceptual worlds of audience members.

Heavy TV viewing creates an exaggerated belief in a mean and scary world. (Gerbner)

y y

TV has surpassed religion as the key storyteller of our (US American) culture. Vicarious experience?

Video Screen Time How much television do you watch on an average day?
y y y

4 or more hours? 2-4 hours? Less than 2 hours?

How much time daily to you spend on the internet or playing computer games? On-Screen Time Television Viewer Profiles
y y

Heavy viewers: 4 or more hours a day Moderate viewers: 2-4 hours a day

Light viewers: less than 2 hours a day

These distinctions can be applied to Internet and computer game users Cultivation Theory Research Content analyses of prime time television --The TV world --The Violence Index National surveys of TV audience --Classify as heavy, moderate & light viewers --Survey concerning perceptions of real world Calculate Cultivation Effect (or Cultivation Differential) --Overall (across the board) effects --Subgroup breakdowns (Mainstreaming, Resonance) as well. Cultivation Differential The difference in the percent of people giving the television answer within comparable groups of light and heavy viewers. Examples: Comparing light and heavy viewers among college students; among teachers; among senior citizens. Cultivation Effects Why do cultivation effects differ among subgroups? Two explanations: Mainstreaming: Heavy viewers from different groups develop a similar outlook. Resonance: TV content resonates with real life experiences to amplify the cultivation effect in certain groups. What About TV Violence?
y y y

According to Gerbner, violence is TVs principal message. Although other media have violent content, television violence is the most significant. In the 1970s, 2/3rds of prime-time programs contained violence or the threat of violence (Gerbner, 1980).

y y

What about today? According to Gerbner, elderly, children, Latinos, African-Americans, women, and the less educated are most often the victims of TV violence.

TV places marginalized people in symbolic double jeopardy by simultaneously underrepresenting and over-victimizing them.

What about today?

Social Action Theory

y

Developed by Anderson and Meyer

For most of the history of research in mass communication, content has been seen as a silver bullet shot from a media gun to penetrate a hapless audience" (Anderson & Meyer, p. 48).

y y

Audiences are not hapless nor passive. Media audiences participate actively in mediated communication; they construct meanings from the content they perceive.

Social action theory sees communication interaction in terms of actors intent, receivers' interpretations, and message content.

Meaning is not delivered in the communication process, rather it is constructed within it.

Each communication act generates at least three separate and potentially different sites of this construction.

Meanings arise in: 1. The intentions of the producer. 2. The conventions of the content. 3. The interpretations of the receiver. Using Social Action Theory
y y y y

Determine the intentions of the media creator (e.g., producer, actor, writer). Examine the media content (visual, verbal, musical, etc.) Identify possible receiver interpretations. Assess the possible effects on receivers (including you).

Media Effects: An Example Cover Story: By Dan MacMedan for USA TODAY, 26 February 1999

How Bad is Wrestling for your Kids? TV Wrestling

y

Two big enterprises - WCW (owned by Turner/Time-Warner), and WWF (owned by USA Networks).

y y y y y y y

On three nights a week. Pay-per-view events monthly. Over 40 million viewers Wrestling target audience- Men from 18-34 33% of viewers are under age 17 13% are between age 6-11 Often, 7-8 of the weeks 10 top-rated cable shows are wrestling programs.

ModelingBehavior? A report released this week presents data from a study conducted by Indiana University and Inside Edition. The research team monitored 50 episodes of WWF Raw between Jan.12, 1998 and Feb.1,1999. A sampling of specific incidences and the number of times the behavior occurred:
y y y y y y y

Grabbing/pointing to ones crotch - 1,658 Giving the finger - 157 Simulated sexual activity - 128 Satanic activity - 47 Simulated drug use - 42 Urination, talking about/appearing to - 21 Character appearing as a prostitute -20

Media Effects-Music Video? Do music videos have messages? Apply social action theory: --intentions of the artist/producer --content features --viewer/receiver interpretations Any likely effects? Agenda-Setting Theory The Agenda: Not what to think, but what to think about. The Theorists: Maxwell McCombs & Donald Shaw About the theory:
y

It contrasts with the selective exposure hypothesis of cognitive dissonance, reaffirming the power of the press while maintaining individual freedom.

y y

It aligns well with social judgment theory. It contrasts with the selective exposure hypothesis of cognitive dissonance, reaffirming the power of the press while maintaining individual freedom.

It is consistent with a use and gratification approach to television viewers motives (and dependency theory).

It represents a back-to-basics approach to mass communication research, with a focus on election campaigns.

In political media, who sets the agenda?

If we werent here tonight, how many of us would be watching Monica and Barbara (the Lewinsky interview)?

Agenda Setting?
y y

Media agenda and public agenda: a close match. McCombs and Shaw assert that the agenda-setting function of the media causes the correlation between the media and public ordering of priorities.

However, correlation does not prove causation.

Agenda Setting: Who are the people most affected by the media agenda?
y y

Those susceptible have a high need for orientation or index of curiosity. Need for orientation arises from high relevance and uncertainty.

Agenda Setting: Which issues are boosted by media attention?

y

The media seem particularly effective in creating public interest in political candidates and campaign strategy.

y y

Agenda-setting researchers now realize that the campaign itself is the primary issue. Does the impeachment trial illustrate this?

Agenda Setting: Do priming and framing dictate what people think?

y

Priming is a psychological process whereby media emphasis on particular issues not only increases the salience of those issues, but also activates in peoples memories previously acquired information about those issues.

Framing calls attention to some aspects of reality while obscuring other elements, which might lead audiences to have different reactions (McCombs & Shaw)

Media Dependency Theory

y y y

Developed by Ball-Rokeach and DeFluer Key Idea: Audiences depend on media information to meet needs and reach goals. Key Idea: Social institutions and media systems interact with audiences to create needs, interests, and motives in the person.

The degree of dependence is influenced by: 1. The number and centrality of information functions. Media functions include: Entertainment Monitoring government activities Education Social Cohesion 2. Social stability When social change and conflict are high; and established institutions, beliefs, and practices

are challenged; people make new evaluations and choices. In such cases of instability, reliance on media may increase. Media Dependency Theory: Some Questions
y y y y

Do media create needs? Do people turn to media to achieve gratification and satisfy needs? Are media needs personal, social, cultural, political, or all of these? The media are our friends??

CHILDREN AND VIOLENCE IN THE MEDIA WHAT IMPACT DOES VIOLENCE in the media have on children and you? What can we do about it? How do we balance the tension between freedom of expression and the need to protect children? UNESCOS GLOBAL MEDIA VIOLENCE SURVEY The range of media to which children have access has grown rapidly in this generation. Take the books, newspapers, magazines, films, radio, tapes, records, and broadcast television familiar to children of the previous generation, then add dozens of cable t.v. channels, thousands of videos and video games, and millions of Internet sites. The result is a dense electronic bath in which children are immersed daily. This is true not only in the

industrialized countries but increasingly in all societies of the world. What is the impact of this new environment on children, and what is the particular effect of images of violence in the media? To address this question, in i996 and i997 UNESCO conducted the Global Media Violence Survey. More than 5,000 12-year-old students in 93

countries participated, representing all regions of the world and a broad variety of cultural, social, and economic conditions, from countries like Canada andjapan to high-crime neighbourhoods in Brazil and war-ravaged countries like Angola and Tajikistan. Under the supervision of DrjoGroebel of Utrecht University, the study aimed to understand the role of media in the lives of children and the relationship between media violence and aggressive behaviour among children in different settings. The study found that 93% of students who live in electrified urban or rural areas have regular access to television and watch it for an average of three hours a day. This is at least So% more than the time spent on any other out-of-school activity, including homework, being with friends, or reading. There is little doubt that television is the most important medium in the lives of children almost everywhere in the world.

Television, videos, and video games expose children to high levels of violent images on a daily basis. In many countries, there is an average of five to ten aggressive acts per hour of television. Does this violence affect children's behaviour? The study found evidence for a hypothesis called the "compass theory." Depending on a child's existing experiences, values, and the cultural environment, media content offers an orientation, a frame of reference which determines the direction of the child's own behaviour. The child does not necessarily adopt the behaviour portrayed, but the media images provide a model, a standard for what may be considered normal and acceptable. The study found that aggressive male heroes fascinated boys in all cultures. Arnold

Schwarznegger's "Terminator" is known by 88% of the world's i2-year-olds, whether in India, Brazil, or Japan. Boys chose action heroes as their role models more frequently than any other category of media image. The trend was especially strong among boys in highcrime neighbourhoods and war zones. Girls, by contrast, tended to choose pop stars as their role models. The study found evidence that media images reinforce the experiences of children in their real-life environments. Almost half (44%) of both boys and girls reported a strong overlap between what they perceive as reality and what they see on the screen. Many children experience both real and media environments in which violence appears to be natural and the most effective solution to life's problems. Where violence is not a feature of daily life, media portrayals may make it appear to be thrilling, especially when presented out of context. ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE THE MEDIA The UNESCO study is a major contribution to the growing body of evidence that violence in the media does have a harmful impact on children, recognizing that this effect can vary by gender and by the kind of surroundings in which children are living. Many countries of the world have taken steps to introduce regulations, or to pressure the media to adopt forms of self-regulation, to curb the level and amount of violence to which children are exposed on television. The United States has made it mandatory that V-chips be included in all new television sets sold in the country. These allow parents to program their television sets to screen out broadcasts rated above a certain level for violent or erotic material. Canada has introduced a code of ethics for broadcasters that is now a condition of licensing by the Canadian Ratio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). There are problems with these approaches, however. Government regulations raise concerns about state censorship, and voluntary codes of ethics are unsatisfactory in a medium driven by ratings and fierce competition for advertising revenue. Moreover, the V-chip is unlikely

to defeat any determined 12-year-old intent on watching a t.v. program when parents are absent. Among experts, a new consensus has been emerging that emphasizes media

education, at home and in school, to promote critical thinking by youth in relation to all information and images they receive through the media. AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: FOSTERING CRITICAL USE OF THE MEDIA Canada's Media Awareness Network provides resources to parents, teachers, community leaders, and students themselves to promote critical analysis of media content. Teachers can go to its Web site for curriculum materials and lesson plans. Parents can get advice on teaching their children about media messages and establishing good media entertainment habits. The site also provides information on classification systems and guidelines for

movies, television, video games and the Internet. There is also a wealth of information about reports, articles, parenting books, pamphlets and handouts to support media awareness in the home and community. In May, 1999,the CRTC released a milestone report in which it rejected a strategy of attempting to regulate content on the Internet and endorsed the approach of the Media Awareness Network to foster critical use of all media. The CRTC recognized that, in the hands of new media users, "awareness and knowledge can be a powerful tool." Its report cites the Media Awareness Network as an organization that is "dedicated to media education and media issues affecting children and youth," and directs users to its Internet site at www.media-awareness.ca. UNESCO has established the International Clearing House on Children and Violence on the Screen at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. Its main task is to provide data of every kind on children and media violence to people who need it: researchers, decision-makers, media professionals, academics, voluntary agencies, and interested individuals. It gathers and distributes research findings, teaching materials, positive alternatives to media violence, and information on measures taken in different countries to limit violence on television, in films, and in the interactive media. ABUSE OF CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET A similar network is now taking shape around the issue of sexual abuse of children, child pornography, and paedophilia on the Internet. It is made up of specialists in child care and child protection, Internet specialists and service providers, media practitioners, law enforcement agencies, and government representatives. Like the network on children and media violence, it aims to promote the exchange of information and co-operation among

groups concerned with child rights. It plans to broaden its membership to include parents associations, teachers, and other civic groups. THE AIM OF EDUCATION IS to make people active and critical thinkers. Are you critical enough in relation to the media surrounding your daily life? Ultimately, this is the only way that a young person can grow up to be an informed and active citizen in a democratic society.

Children educated to analyze media content learn to recognize the contradiction between their taste for violence on television and their rejection of it in real life. Media education also allows children to become active producers of media content, to learn the methods and language of the media, and to use it in a healthy way as a vehicle way as a vehicle for their own self-expression.

Media violence research From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Research into the media and violence examines whether links between consuming media violence and subsequent aggressive and violent behavior exists. Although some social scientists support this link,[1] methodological and theoretical problems with the existing literature limit interpretation of findings in this area. There is concern among some scholars that media researchers may have exaggerated effects (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009; Freedman, 2002; Pinker 2002; Savage, 2004). For example, a 2008 editorial in medical journal the Lancet concluded that discussions of media violence effects were exaggerated. There are many explanations of aggressive behavior which do not emphasize the role of the media. For example, some researchers have suggested that the pathway to aggression is largely biological/genetic (see the work of Hare, 1993, Larsson, Andershed, & Lichtenstein, in Press, among others), while others have suggested that aggression can be explained by principles of evolutionary psychology.[2] Complaints about the possible deleterious effects of mass media are nothing new, even Plato himself was concerned about the effects of plays on youth.[citation needed] Various media/genres, including dime novels, comic books, jazz, rock and roll, role playing/computer games and many others have attracted speculation that consumers of such media may become more aggressive, rebellious or immoral. This has led some scholars to conclude statements made by some researchers merely fit into a cycle of media-based moral panics (e.g. Gauntlett, 1995; Trend, 2007; Kutner& Olson, 2008). The advent of television prompted research into

the effects of this new medium in the 1960s. Much of research has been guided by social learning theory developed by Albert Bandura. Social learning theory suggests that one way in which human beings learn is by the process of modeling. Contents
y y y y y y y y y

1 Media effects theories 2 Criticisms of media violence research 3 Researchers' response to criticisms 4 Media violence and youth violence 5 Relationship between media violence and minor aggressive behaviors 6 See also 7 External links 8 Footnotes 9 References

Media effects theories The research looking at theoretical mechanisms that link consuming media violence and aggression has resulted in a handful of processes that some scholars suggest may explain any relationship that may exist. Although vocal support for these theories remains in some quarters, particularly among social psychologists, critics have contended that rhetorical support for these theories has generally outstripped largely absent data (Freedman, 2002; Guantlett, 1995; Olson, 2004; Savage, 2004). The first hypothesis, briefly mentioned above, includes Bandura's social learning theory, which projects that media characters who serve as models for aggressive behavior may be attended to by viewers and depending upon whether the behaviors are rewarded or punished, would either inhibit or disinhibit imitation of that behavior.[3] This idea of modeling was observed in Bandura's famous Bobo Doll experiments. In this particular study, Bandura showed a child a video of a model beating up a Bobo doll and then put the child in a room with a Bobo doll to see if he/she would imitate the behavior previously seen on the video. The findings of this experiment would support that through social learning processes there is a causal relationship between consumption of violent media and aggressive behavior. However, Bandura's social learning theory has been revised as it has evolved over time. In 2002, Bandura updated his theoretical perspective in terms of social cognitive theory, which demonstrates how his initial formulation has developed over the years. Furthermore Bandura's experiments have been criticized (e.g. Gauntlett, 1995) on several grounds.

First, it is difficult to generalize from aggression toward a bo-bo doll (which is intended to be hit) to person-on-person violence. Secondly, it may be possible that the children were motivated simply to please the experimenter rather than to be aggressive. In other words, the children may have viewed the videos as instructions, rather than incentives to feel more aggressive. Third, in a latter study (1965) Bandura included a condition in which the adult model was punished for hitting the bo-bo doll by himself being physically punished. Specifically the adult was pushed down in the video by the experimenter and hit with a newspaper while being berated. This actual person-on-person violence actually decreased aggressive acts in the children, probably due to vicarious reinforcement. Nonetheless these last results indicate that even young children don't automatically imitate aggression, but rather consider the context of aggression. The second hypothesis is priming, an idea formulated by Jo and Berkowitz in 1967, which was then later revised in 1994. The revised formulation of this theory focused on the belief that media violence might prime thoughts of aggressive behavior and, consequently, make actual aggressive behavior more likely.[4] The priming hypothesis has received only weak and inconsistent support by research in the context of media violence (Freedman, 2002; Savage, 2004). A third hypothesis is Zillman's theory of excitation advancing the notion that the arousalinducing properties of media violence are important for understanding the potency of emotional reactions that occur immediately after exposure.[5] For example, if a viewer becomes angry at a situation following exposure to a depiction of arousing violent media, this arousal could later transfer to that person's anger and intensify itmaking aggressive behavior more likely. Evidence for this theory has generally been absent. The fourth hypothesis advocated to explain the link between media violence and aggression is the idea of desensitization. According to this belief, with repeated exposure to media violence, a psychological saturation or emotional adjustment takes place such that initial levels of anxiety and disgust diminish or weaken. [3] It is thought that the lower level of negative emotion associated with consistent exposure to media violence may reduce the urgency to respond to violence in the real world. The most recent evidence that supports emotional desensitization was reported by Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman in 2007 as it related to violent video games. A sample of college students were assigned at random to play either a violent or non-violent video game for 20 minutes. They were then asked to watch a 10 minute video of real life violence. The students who had played the violent video games were observed to be significantly less effected by the a simulated aggressive act than those

who didn't play the violent video games. However the degree to which the simulation was "believable" to the participants, or to which the participants may have responded to "demand characteristics" is unclear (see criticisms below). Research does seem to suggest exposure to media violence may desensitize viewers to media violence itself. However, support for the belief that this transfers to real-world violence has been weak (Savage, 2004). The fifth hypothesis is physiological activation, which suggests that when children watch TV violence, the neurophysiology of a "phylogenetically-old brain system" is mobilized along with activation of limbic and neo-cortical systems that prepare the organism for motor plans associated with the fight-or-flight response.[3] The authors, Murray et al. (2006), of this theory suggest that responses to media violence may be "preconcious" and have long-term implications that extend beyond the period of exposure. A group of specialists in effects of violence on child development (Schechter et al., 2009) have suggested that the aforementioned neurophysiology is activated also in certain parents who having been exposed to interpersonal violence may gravitate towards violent media in the service of maintaining physiologic homeostasis, and in so doing, precociously expose or "prime" their young children's limbic and neo-cortical systems. [6] Some authors have contended that support for these theories have generally been poor (Freedman, 2002, Pinker, 2002, Olson, 2004; Savage, 2004). Thus debate on the merits of these theories is likely to continue. One alternate theory the Catalyst Model (Ferguson et al., 2008) has been proposed to explain the etiology of violence. According to the Catalyst Model, violence arises from a combination of genetic and early social influences (family and peers in particular). However, media violence is explicitly not considered a causal influence according to this model, considered too weak an influence. Specific violent acts are "catalyzed" by stressful environment circumstances, with less stress required to catalyze violence in individuals with greater violence predisposition. Given that the Catalyst Model specifically deemphasizes media violence, this theory is directly at odds with most learning-focused media violence researchers. A final theory worth mentioning is the Moral Panic theory. Elucidated largely by David Gauntlett[7] this theory postulates that concerns about new media are historical and cyclical. Society forms a predetermined negative belief about a new media (typically not used by elder members of society in power). Research studies and statements by scholars and politicians are designed to confirm the pre-existing belief, rather than objectively study the issue with

care. Ultimately the panic dies out after several years or even decades, but ultimately resurfaces when yet another new form of media is introduced. Criticisms of media violence research Although organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have suggested that thousands (3500 according to the AAP) of studies have been conducted confirming this link, others have argued that this information is incorrect. Rather, only about two hundred studies (confirmed by meta-analyses such as Paik and Comstock, 1994) have been conducted in peer-reviewed scientific journals on television, movie, music and video game violence effects. Critics argue that about half find some link between media and subsequent aggression (but not violent crime), whereas the other half do not find a link between consuming violent media and subsequent aggression of any kind.[8] Criticisms of the media violence link focus on a number of methodological and theoretical problems including (but not limited to) the following (see Freedman, 2002; Olson, 2004; Tedeschi& Quigley, 1996; Pinker, 2002): 1. Failure to employ standardized, reliable and valid measures of aggression and media violence exposure. Although measurement of psychological variables is always tricky at best, it is generally accepted that measurement techniques should be standardized, reliable and valid, as demonstrated empirically. However, a read of the studies involved notes that the measurement tools involved are often unstandardized, sloppily employed and fail to report reliability coefficients. Examples include the "Competitive Reaction Time Test" in which participants believe that they are punishing an opponent for losing in a reaction time test by subjecting the opponent to noise blasts or electric shocks. There is no standardized way of employing this task, raising the possibility that authors may manipulate the results to support their conclusions. This task may produce dozens of different possible ways to measure "aggression", all from a single participant's data. Without a standardized way of employing and measuring aggression using this task, there is no way of knowing whether the results reported are a valid measure of aggression, or were selected from among the possible alternatives simply because they produced positive findings where other alternatives did not. Ferguson and Kilburn, in a paper in Journal of Pediatrics, have found that poorly standardized and validated measures of aggression tend to produce higher effects than well validated aggression measures. 2. Failure to report negative findings. Many of the articles that purport positive findings regarding a link between media violence and subsequent aggression, on a closer read,

actually have negative or inconclusive results. One example is the experimental portion of Anderson & Dill (2000; with video games) which measures aggression four separate ways (using an unstandardized, unreliable and unvalidated measure of aggression, the Competitive Reaction Time Test mentioned above) and finds significance for only one of those measures. Had a statistical adjustment known as a Bonferroni correction been properly employed, that fourth finding also would have been insignificant. This issue of selective reporting differs from the "file drawer" effect in which journals fail to publish articles with negative findings. Rather, this is due to authors finding a "mixed bag" of results and discussing only the supportive findings and ignoring the negative findings within a single manuscript. The problem of non-reporting of non-significant findings (the so-called "file cabinet effect") is a problem throughout all areas of science but may be a particular issue for publicized areas such as media violence. 3. Failure to account for "third" variables. Media violence studies regularly fail to account for other variables such as genetics, personality and exposure to family violence that may explain both why some people become violent and why those same people may choose to expose themselves to violent media. Several recent studies have found that, when factors such as mental health, family environment and personality are controlled, no predictive relationship between either video games or television violence and youth violence remain (Ferguson, San Miguel & Hartley, 2009; Ybarra et al., 2008, Figure 2). 4. Failure to adequately define "aggression." Experimental measures of aggression have been questioned by critics (Mussen& Rutherford, 1961; Deselms& Altman, 2003). The main concern of critics has been the issue of the external validity of experimental measures of aggression. The validity of the concept of aggression itself, however, is rarely questioned. Highly detailed taxonomies of different forms of aggression do exist. Whether researchers agree on the particular terminology used to indicate the particular sub-types of aggression (i.e. relational versus social aggression), concepts of aggression are always operationally defined in peer-reviewed journals. However many of these operational definitions of aggression are specifically criticized. Many experimental measures of aggression are rather questionable (i.e. Mussen& Rutherford, 1961; Berkowitz, 1965; Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Deselms& Altman, 2003). Other studies fail to differentiate between "aggression" aimed at causing harm to another person, and "aggressive play" in which two individuals (usually children)

may pretend to engage in aggressive behavior, but do so consensually for the purpose of mutual enjoyment. (Goldstein) 5. Small "effects" sizes. In the research world, the meaning of "statistical significance" can be ambiguous. A measure of effect size can aid in the interpretation of statistical significance. In a meta-analysis of 217 studies by Paik and Comstock (1994), effect sizes for experiments were r = .37 and r = .19 for surveys, which are small to moderate effects. Most of these studies however did not actually measure aggression against another person. Paik and Comstock note that when aggression toward another person, and particularly actual violent crime is considered, the relationship between media violence and these outcomes is near zero. Effects can vary according to their size (for example the effects of eating bananas on your mood could very well be "statistically significant" but would be tiny, almost imperceptible, whereas the effect of a death in the immediate family would also be "statistically significant" but obviously much larger). Media violence studies usually produce very small, transient effects that do not translate into large effects in the real world. Media violence researchers often defend this by stating that many medical studies also produce small effects (although as Block and Crain, 2007, note, these researchers may have miscalculated the effect sizes from medical research).However the social importance of the effect size has been taken into consideration, which is causing more debate on this particular issue. Sparks et al. suggests that because media audiences sometimes number in the millions that even small statistical effects can actually translate into bigger social problems. For example, if one in several thousand is influenced by a violent TV show to commit a serious act of aggression, the social consequences of several million viewers could be significant.[3] But given the huge size of media audiences, it can be believed that these small statistical effects are practically unpreventable and therefore, do not deserve much attention. 6. Media violence rates are not correlated with violent crime rates. Ultimately the biggest problem for this body of literature is that for this theory to be true, media violence (which appears to have been consistently and unfailingly on the rise since the 1950s) should be well correlated with violent crime (which has been cycling up and down throughout human history). By discussing only the data from the 1950s through the 1990s, media violence researchers create the illusion that there is a correlation, when in fact there is not. Large spikes in violent crime in the United States occurred without associated media violence spikes during the 1880s (when records were first

kept) and 1930s. The homicide rate in the United States has never been higher than during the 1930s. Similarly, this theory fails to explain why violent crime rates (including among juveniles) dramatically fell in the mid 1990s and have stayed low, during a time when media violence has continued to increase, and saw the addition of violent video games. Lastly media violence researchers can not explain why many countries with media violence rates similar to or equal to the U.S. (such as Norway, Canada, Japan, etc.) have much lower violent crime rates. Huesmann&Eron's own cross-national study (which is often cited in support of media violence effects) failed to find a link between television violence and aggressive behavior in most of the countries included in the analysis (including America, and even in studies on American boys). 7. Media violence on TV is a reflection of the level of violence that occurs in the real world. Many TV programmers argue that their shows just mirror the violence that goes on in the real world. Zev Braun,of CBS, in 1990 argued in a debate on the Violence Bill that, We live in a violent society. Art imitates modes of life, not the other way around: it would be better for Congress to clean that society than to clean that reflection of society.[9] Researchers' response to criticisms 1. Regarding instruments used to measure aggression, some media researchers argue that better measures are often not readily available. Also, measuring "violent criminal behavior" in laboratory studies would clearly be unethical, much the same way as experimental studies of smoking and lung cancer would have been unethical (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). 2. Regarding the inconclusive nature of some findings, media researchers often contend that it is the critics who are misinterpreting or selectively reporting studies (Anderson et al., 2003). It may be that both sides of the debate are highlighting separate findings that are most favorable to their own "cause". 3. Regarding "third" variables, media violence researchers acknowledge that other variables may play a role in aggression (Bushman & Anderson, 2001) and that aggression is due to a confluence of variables. Rowell Huesmann has said: "Serious aggressive behavior only occurs when there is a convergence of multiple predisposing and precipitating factors".[10][11] These variables are known as "third variables" and if found, would probably be mediator variables (which differ from moderator variables). A mediator variable could 'explain away' media violence effects, whereas

a moderator variable cannot. For instance, some scholars contend that trait aggressiveness has been demonstrated to moderate media violence effects (Bushman), although in some studies "trait aggression" does appear to account for any link between media violence exposure and aggression. Other variables have also been found to moderate media violence effects (Bushman &Geen, 1990). Another issue is the way in which experimental studies deal with potential confounding variables. Researchers use random assignment to attempt to neutralize the effects of what commonly are cited as third variables (i.e. gender, trait aggressiveness, preference for violent media). Because experimental designs employ random assignment to conditions, the effect of such attributive variables on experimental results is assumed to be random (not systematic). However, the same can not be said for correlational studies, and failure to control for such variables in correlational studies limits the interpretation of such studies. Often, something as simple as gender proves capable of "mediating" media violence effects. 4. Definitions of aggression have improved with time, argue some media scholars. Most researchers agree that aggression, as a construct involves wilful intent to cause harm or intent to another person who would wish to avoid the same. As such the problem may have less to do with the definition of aggression, but rather how aggression is measured in studies, and how aggression and violent crime are used interchangeably in the public eye. 5. Much of the debate on this issue seems to revolve around ambiguity regarding what is considered a "small" effect. Media violence researchers contend that effect sizes noted in media violence effects are similar to those found in some medical research which is considered important by the medical community (Bushman & Anderson, 2001), although medical research may suffer from some of the same interpretational flaws as social science. This argument has been challenged as based on flawed statistics, however (Bloack& Crain, 2007). Block & Crain (2007) recently found that social scientists (Bushman & Anderson, 2001) had been miscalculating some medical effect sizes. The interpretation of effect size in both medical and social science remains in its infancy. 6. More recently, media violence experts have acknowledged that societal media consumption and violent crime rates are not well associated, but claim that this is likely due to other variables that are poorly understood. However, this effect remains poorly explained by current media violence theories, and media violence researchers

may need to be more careful not to retreat to an unfalsifiable theory one that cannot be disproven (Freedman, 2002). 7. Researchers argue that the discrepancy of violent acts seen on TV compared to that in the real world are huge. Some findings looking at reality TV programming appear to support researchers claims. One study looked at the frequency of crimes occurring in the real world compared with the frequency of crimes occurring in the following reality-based TV programs: Americas Most Wanted, Cops, Top Cops, FBI, The Untold Story and American Detective, (Oliver, 1994). The types of crimes were divided into two categories, violent crimes and non-violent crimes. 87% of crimes occurring in the real world are non-violent crimes, whereas only 13% of crimes occurring on TV are considered non-violent crimes.[9] However, this discrepancy between media and real-life crimes may arguably dispute rather than support media effects theories. Media violence and youth violence Several scholars (e.g. Freedman, 2002; Olson, 2004; Savage, 2004) have pointed out that as media content has increased in violence in the past few decades, violent crimes among youth have declined rapidly. Although most scholars caution that this decline cannot be attributed to a causal effect, they conclude that this observation argues against causal harmful effects for media violence. A recent long-term outcome study of youth found no long-term relationship between playing violent video games or watching violent television and youth violence or bullying [12] Relationship between media violence and minor aggressive behaviors Given that little evidence links media violence to serious physical aggression, bullying or youth violence,[12] at present most of the debate appears to focus on whether media violence may have an impact on more minor forms of aggressiveness. At present, no consensus has been reached on this issue. For example in 1974 the US Surgeon General testified to congress that the overwhelming consensus and the unanimous Scientific Advisory Committees report indicates that televised violence, indeed, does have an adverse effect on certain members of our society
[13]

However, by 2001, the US Surgeon General's office, The

Department of Health and Human Services had largely reversed itself, relegating media violence to only a minor role and noting many serious limitations in the research [14] In recent years much of the debate has focused on video game violence. Concerns about links between video game violence and school shootings were largely ruled out by a 2002 report from the US Secret Service and Department of Education, which found little evidence for

increased violent media consumption among such youth.[15] In 2005 the American Psychological Association released a referendum stating that Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased pro-social (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable.[16] However this referendum has since been criticized as the committee involved consisted mainly of scholars invested in anti-game claims reviewing their own work and failing to cite the work of other scholars who had come to differing views
[17]

At least one leading member of this committee was

specifically criticized during the court case ESA, VSDA and IRMA v. Blagojevich, Madigan and Devine (2005) for failing to cite research evidence failing to find links between video game violence and aggression.[18] In 2010 the Australian Attorney General's (AG) Office reviewed the research on video game violence, consisting of the only independent review to date.[19] The Australian AG's Office found the research to be inconclusive at best, contained many flaws and criticized the tendency for significant exaggerations of effects among some scholars. More recently the US Supreme Court reviewed the research evidence on video game violence during the Brown V EMA case (2011). In ruling against a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors, the majority decision criticized the research as "unpersuasive", and noted many methodological flaws in this research.[20] The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions Eugene V Beresin, M.D. Director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Residency Training

Massachusetts General Hospital and McLean Hospital While violence is not new to the human race, it is an increasing problem in modern society. With greater access to firearms and explosives, the scope and efficiency of violent behavior has had serious consequences. We need only look at the recent school shootings and the escalating rate of youth homicides among urban adolescents to appreciate the extent of this ominous trend. While the causes of youth violence are multifactorial and include such variables as poverty, family psychopathology, child abuse, exposure to domestic and community violence, substance abuse and other psychiatric disorders, the research literature is quite compelling that children's exposure to media violence plays an important role in the etiology of violent behavior. While it is difficult to determine which children who have

experienced televised violence are at greatest risk, there appears to be a strong correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior within vulnerable "at risk" segments of youth. In this article, I will briefly review the impact of media violence on children and adolescents, and indicate the vital role physicians can play in helping to diminish this powerful cause of violent behavior. Over the past 30 years there has been extensive research on the relationship between televised violence and violent behavior among youth. Longitudinal, cross-sectional, and experimental studies have all confirmed this correlation. Televised violence and the presence of television in American households have increased steadily over the years. In 1950, only 10% of American homes had a television. Today 99% of homes have televisions. In fact, more families have televisions than telephones. Over half of all children have a television set in their bedrooms. This gives a greater opportunity for children to view programs without parental supervision. Studies reveal that children watch approximately 28 hours of television a week, more time than they spend in school. The typical American child will view more than 200,000 acts of violence, including more than 16,000 murders before age 18. Television programs display 812 violent acts per hour; children's programming, particularly cartoons, displays up to 20 violent acts hourly. How does televised violence result in aggressive behavior? Some researchers have demonstrated that very young children will imitate aggressive acts on TV in their play with peers. Before age 4, children are unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy and may view violence as an ordinary occurrence. In general, violence on television and in movies often conveys a model of conflict resolution. It is efficient, frequent, and inconsequential. Heroes are violent, and, as such, are rewarded for their behavior. They become role models for youth. It is "cool" to carry an automatic weapon and use it to knock off the "bad guys." The typical scenario of using violence for a righteous cause may translate in daily life into a justification for using violence to retaliate against perceived victimizers. Hence, vulnerable youth who have been victimized may be tempted to use violent means to solve problems. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, models of nonviolent conflict resolution in the media. Additionally, children who watch televised violence are desensitized to it. They may come to see violence as a fact of life and, over time, lose their ability to empathize with both the victim and the victimizer.

There are other, new forms of violence to which children and adolescents are exposed. In one recent study, it was demonstrated that 15% of music videos contain interpersonal violence.

Still another new source of violent exposure is access to the Internet and video games. There is little data on the incidence of violence on the Internet; however, there is concern about sites that may advocate violence, provide information on the creation of explosive devices, or reveal how to acquire firearms. There is also little research on the impact of violent video games. We do know, however, that they are extensive and have a role-modeling capacity. The fact that the child gets to act out the violence, rather than to be a passive observer, as when viewing television or movies, is especially concerning to experts.

Child and adolescent psychiatrists, pediatricians and other physicians can have a major impact on the effects of media violence. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has created a list of recommendations to address television violence. It suggests that physicians talk openly with parents about the nature and extent of viewing patterns in their homes. Parents should limit television to 1-2 hours daily and watch programs with their children, enabling them to address any objectionable material seen. Physicians should make parents and schools "media literate," meaning they should understand the risks of exposure to violence and teach children how to interpret what they see on television and in the movies, including the intent and content of commercials. In doing so, children may be increasingly able to discern which media messages are suitable. Schools and homes should teach children conflict resolution. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, along with medical organizations, has been a strong advocate for television ratings and installation of chips to block certain programs. Physicians, in their role as health promoters, should become more active in educating the media to become more sensitive to the impact of violence on youth. We should be speaking up to the networks, cable vendors, local stations, federal agencies, and our political officials to help insure that programming decisions are made with an eye open to the potential consequences to the viewing audience, and that when violence is present, there are adequate warnings provided to the public. The arena of media violence is a new frontier where physicians can promote health through public education and advocacy

It has become something of a clich to observe that despite many decades of research and hundreds of studies, the connections between people's consumption of the mass media and their subsequent behaviour have remained persistently elusive. Indeed, researchers have enjoyed an unusual degree of patience from both their scholarly and more public audiences. But a time must come when we must take a step back from this murky lack of consensus and ask - why? Why are there no clear answers on media effects?

There is, as I see it, a choice of two conclusions which can be drawn from any detailed analysis of the research. The first is that if, after over 60 years of a considerable amount of research effort, direct effects of media upon behaviour have not been clearly identified, then we should conclude that they are simply not there to be found. Since I have argued this case, broadly speaking, elsewhere (Gauntlett, 1995), I will here explore the second possibility: that the media effects research has quite consistently taken the wrong approach to the mass media, its audiences, and society in general. This misdirection has taken a number of forms; for the purposes of this chapter, I will impose an unwarranted coherence upon the claims of all those who argue or purport to have found that the mass media will routinely have direct and reasonably predictable effects upon the behaviour of their fellow human beings, calling this body of thought, simply, the 'effects model'. Rather than taking apart each study individually, I will consider the mountain of studies - and the associated claims about media effects made by commentators - as a whole, and outline ten fundamental flaws in their approach. 1. The effects model tackles social problems 'backwards' To explain the problem of violence in society, researchers should begin with that social problem and seek to explain it with reference, quite obviously, to those who engage in it: their background, lifestyles, character profiles, and so on. The 'media effects' approach, in this sense, comes at the problem backwards, by starting with the media and then trying to lasso connections from there on to social beings, rather than the other way around. This is an important distinction. Criminologists, in their professional attempts to explain crime and violence, consistently turn for explanations not to the mass media but to social factors such as poverty, unemployment, housing, and the behaviour of family and peers. In a study which did start at what I would recognise as the correct end - by interviewing 78 violent teenage offenders and then tracing their behaviour back towards media usage, in comparison with a group of over 500 'ordinary' school pupils of the same age Hagell&Newburn (1994) found only that the young offenders watched less television and video than their counterparts, had less access to the technology in the first place, had no unusual interest in specifically violent programmes, and either enjoyed the same material as non-offending teenagers or were simply uninterested. This point was demonstrated very clearly when the offenders were asked, 'If you had the chance to be someone who appears on television, who would you choose to be?': 'The offenders felt particularly uncomfortable with this question and appeared to have difficulty in understanding why one might want to be such a person... In several interviews,

the offenders had already stated that they watched little television, could not remember their favourite programmes and, consequently, could not think of anyone to be. In these cases, their obvious failure to identify with any television characters seemed to be part of a general lack of engagement with television' (p. 30). Thus we can see that studies which begin by looking at the perpetrators of actual violence, rather than at the media and its audiences, come to rather different conclusions - and there is certainly a need for more such research. (Another study of the viewing preferences of young offenders was commissioned in the UK (Browne & Pennell, 1998), but this made the 'backwards' mistake of showing violent videos to the offenders - putting violent media content onto the agenda from the start - rather than discussing the offenders' everyday viewing choices. The study, which had some methodological flaws (see Gauntlett, 2001), was only able to hint that some violent individuals may enjoy watching violent material more than non-violent people do, if you actually sit the participants down, and show them the videos. Of course such a study is unable to tell us anything about 'media effects'). The fact that effects studies take the media as their starting point, however, should not be taken to suggest that they involve sensitive examinations of the mass media. As will be noted below, the studies have typically taken a stereotyped, almost parodic view of media content. In more general terms, the 'backwards' approach involves the mistake of looking at individuals, rather than society, in relation to the mass media. The narrowly individualistic approach of some psychologists leads them to argue that, because of their belief that particular individuals at certain times in specific circumstances may be negatively affected by one bit of media, the removal of such media from society would be a positive step. This approach is rather like arguing that the solution to the number of road traffic accidents in Britain would be to lock away one famously poor driver from Cornwall; that is, a blinkered approach which tackles a real problem from the wrong end, involves cosmetic rather than relevant changes, and fails to look at the 'bigger picture'. 2. The effects model treats children as inadequate The individualism of the psychological discipline has also had a significant impact on the way in which children are regarded in effects research. Whilst sociology in recent decades has typically regarded childhood as a social construction, demarcated by attitudes, traditions and rituals which vary between different societies and different time periods (Aris, 1962; Jenks, 1982, 1996), the psychology of childhood - developmental psychology - has remained more tied to the idea of a universal individual who must develop through particular stages

before reaching adult maturity, as established by Piaget (e.g. 1926, 1929). The developmental stages are arranged as a hierarchy, from incompetent childhood through to rational, logical adulthood, and progression through these stages is characterised by an 'achievement ethic' (Jenks, 1996, p. 24). In psychology, then, children are often considered not so much in terms of what they can do, as what they (apparently) cannot. Negatively defined as non-adults, the research subjects are regarded as the 'other', a strange breed whose failure to match generally middle-class adult norms must be charted and discussed. Most laboratory studies of children and the media presume, for example, that their findings apply only to children, but fail to run parallel studies with adult groups to confirm this. We might speculate that this is because if adults were found to respond to laboratory pressures in the same way as children, the 'common sense' validity of the experiments would be undermined. In her valuable examination of the way in which academic studies have constructed and maintained a particular perspective on childhood, Christine Griffin (1993) has recorded the ways in which studies produced by psychologists, in particular, have tended to 'blame the victim', to represent social problems as the consequence of the deficiencies or inadequacies of young people, and to 'psychologize inequalities, obscuring structural relations of domination behind a focus on individual "deficient" working-class young people and/or young people of colour, their families or cultural backgrounds' (p. 199). Problems such as unemployment and the failure of education systems are thereby traced to individual psychology traits. The same kinds of approach are readily observed in media effects studies, the production of which has undoubtedly been dominated by psychologically-oriented researchers, who - whilst, one imagines, having nothing other than benevolent intentions - have carefully exposed the full range of ways in which young media users can be seen as the inept victims of products which, whilst obviously puerile and transparent to adults, can trick children into all kinds of ill-advised behaviour. This situation is clearly exposed by research which seeks to establish what children can and do understand about and from the mass media. Such projects have shown that children can talk intelligently and indeed cynically about the mass media (Buckingham, 1993, 1996), and that children as young as seven can make thoughtful, critical and 'media literate' video productions themselves (Gauntlett, 1997, 2005). 3. Assumptions within the effects model are characterised by barely-concealed conservative ideology

The systematic derision of children's resistant capacities can be seen as part of a broader conservative project to position the more contemporary and challenging aspects of the mass media, rather than other social factors, as the major threat to social stability today. Effects studies from the USA, in particular, tend to assume a level of television violence which is simply not applicable in Canada, Europe or elsewhere, and which is based on content analysis methods which count all kinds of 'aggression' seen in the media and come up with a correspondingly high number. George Gerbner's view, for example, that 'We are awash in a tide of violent representations unlike any the world has ever seen... drenching every home with graphic scenes of expertly choreographed brutality' (1994, p. 133), both reflects his hyperbolic view of the media in the US and the extent to which findings cannot be simplistically transferred across the Atlantic. Whilst it is certainly possible that gratuitous depictions of violence might reach a level in US screen media which could be seen as unpleasant and unnecessary, it cannot always be assumed that violence is shown for 'bad' reasons or in an uncritical light. Even the most 'gratuitous' acts of violence, such as those committed by Beavis and Butt-Head in their eponymous MTV series, can be interpreted as rationally resistant reactions to an oppressive world which has little to offer them (see Gauntlett, 1997). The way in which media effects researchers talk about the amount of violence in the media encourages the view that it is not important to consider the meaning of the scenes involving violence which appear on screen. Critics of screen violence, furthermore, often reveal themselves to be worried about challenges to the status quo which they feel that some movies present (even though most European film critics see most popular Hollywood films as being ridiculously status quofriendly). For example, Michael Medved, author of the successful Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values (1992) finds worrying and potentially influential displays of 'disrespect for authority' and 'anti-patriotic attitudes' in films like Top Gun - a movie which others find embarrassingly jingoistic. The opportunistic mixing of concerns about the roots of violence with political reservations about the content of screen media is a lazy form of propaganda. Media effects studies and TV violence content analyses help to sustain this approach by maintaining the notion that 'antisocial' behaviour is an objective category which can be measured, which is common to numerous programmes, and which will negatively affect those children who see it portrayed. 4. The effects model inadequately defines its own objects of study The flaws numbered four to six in this list are more straightforwardly methodological, although they are connected to the previous and subsequent points. The first of these is that

effects studies have generally taken for granted the definitions of media material, such as 'antisocial' and 'prosocial' programming, as well as characterisations of behaviour in the real world, such as 'antisocial' and 'prosocial' action. The point has already been made that these can be ideological value judgements; throwing down a book in disgust, sabotaging a nuclear missile, or smashing cages to set animals free, will always be interpreted in effects studies as 'antisocial', not 'prosocial'. Furthermore, actions such as verbal aggression or hitting an inanimate object are recorded as acts of violence, just as TV murders are, leading to terrifically (and irretrievably) murky data. It is usually impossible to discern whether very minor or extremely serious acts of 'violence' depicted in the media are being said to have led to quite severe or merely trivial acts in the real world. More significant, perhaps, is the fact that this is rarely seen as a problem: in the media effects field, dodgy 'findings' are accepted with an uncommon hospitality. 5. The effects model is often based on artificial elements and assumptions within studies Since careful sociological studies of media effects require amounts of time and money which limit their abundance, they are heavily outnumbered by simpler studies which are usually characterised by elements of artificiality. Such studies typically take place in a laboratory, or in a 'natural' setting such as a classroom but where a researcher has conspicuously shown up and instigated activities, neither of which are typical environments. Instead of a full and naturally-viewed television diet, research subjects are likely to be shown selected or specially-recorded clips which lack the narrative meaning inherent in everyday TV productions. They may then be observed in simulations of real life presented to them as a game, in relation to inanimate objects such as Bandura's famous 'bobo' doll, or as they respond to questionnaires, all of which are unlike interpersonal interaction, cannot be equated with it, and are likely to be associated with the previous viewing experience in the mind of the subject, rendering the study invalid. Such studies also rely on the idea that subjects will not alter their behaviour or stated attitudes as a response to being observed or questioned. This naive belief has been shown to be false by researchers such as Borden (1975) who have demonstrated that the presence, appearance and gender of an observer can radically affect children's behaviour. 6. The effects model is often based on studies with misapplied methodology Many of the studies which do not rely on an experimental method, and so may evade the flaws mentioned in the previous point, fall down instead by applying a methodological procedure wrongly, or by drawing inappropriate conclusions from particular methods. The widely-cited longitudinal panel study by Huesmann, Eron and colleagues (Lefkowitz, Eron,

Walder&Huesmann, 1972, 1977), for example, has been less famously slated for failing to keep to the procedures, such as assessing aggressivity or TV viewing with the same measures at different points in time, which are necessary for their statistical findings to have any validity (Chaffee, 1972; Kenny, 1972). (A longitudinal panel study is one in which the same group of people - the panel - are surveyed and/or observed at a number of points over a period of time). The same researchers have also failed to adequately account for why the findings of this study and those of another of their own studies (Huesmann, Lagerspetz&Eron, 1984) absolutely contradict each other, with the former concluding that the media has a marginal effect on boys but no effect on girls, and the latter arguing the exact opposite (no effect on boys, but a small effect for girls). They also seem to ignore that fact that their own follow-up of their original set of subjects 22 years later suggested that a number of biological, developmental and environmental factors contributed to levels of aggression, whilst the mass media was not even given a mention (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz&Walder, 1984). These astounding inconsistencies, unapologetically presented by perhaps the best-known researchers in this area, must be cause for considerable unease about the effects model. More careful use of similar methods, such as in the three-year panel study involving over 3,000 young people conducted by Milavsky, Kessler, Stipp& Rubens (1982a, 1982b), has only indicated that significant media effects are not to be found. Perhaps the most frequent and misleading abuse of methodology occurs when studies which are simply unable to show that one thing causes another are treated as if they have done so. Such is the case with correlation studies, which can easily find that a particular personality type is also the kind of person who enjoys a certain kind of media - for example, that violent people like to watch 'violent films' - but are quite unable to show that the media use has produced that character. Nevertheless psychologists such as Van Evra (1990) and Browne (1998, 1999) have assumed that this is probably the case. There is a logical coherence to the idea that children whose behaviour is antisocial and disruptional will also have a greater interest in the more violent and noisy television programmes, whereas the idea that the behaviour is a consequence of these programmes lacks both this rational consistency, and the support of the studies. 7. The effects model is selective in its criticisms of media depictions of violence In addition to the point that 'antisocial' acts are ideologically defined in effects studies (as noted in item three above), we can also note that the media depictions of 'violence' which the effects model typically condemns are limited to fictional productions. The acts of violence which appear on a daily basis on news and serious factual programmes are seen as somehow

exempt. The point here is not that depictions of violence in the news should necessarily be condemned in just the same, blinkered way, but rather to draw attention to another philosophical inconsistency which the model cannot account for. If the antisocial acts shown in drama series and films are expected to have an effect on the behaviour of viewers, even though such acts are almost always ultimately punished or have other negative consequences for the perpetrator, there is no obvious reason why the antisocial activities which are always in the news, and which frequently do not have such apparent consequences for their agents, should not have similar effects. 8. The effects model assumes superiority to the masses Surveys typically show that whilst a certain proportion of the public feel that the media may cause other people to engage in antisocial behaviour, almost no-one ever says that they have been affected in that way themselves. This view is taken to extremes by researchers and campaigners whose work brings them into regular contact with the supposedly corrupting material, but who are unconcerned for their own well-being as they implicitly 'know' that the effects could only be on others. Insofar as these others are defined as children or 'unstable' individuals, their approach may seem not unreasonable; it is fair enough that such questions should be explored. Nonetheless, the idea that it is unruly 'others' who will be affected - the uneducated? the working class? - remains at the heart of the effects paradigm, and is reflected in its texts (as well, presumably, as in the researchers' overenthusiastic interpretation of weak or flawed data, as discussed above). George Gerbner and his colleagues, for example, write about 'heavy' television viewers as if this media consumption has necessarily had the opposite effect on the weightiness of their brains. Such people are assumed to have no selectivity or critical skills, and their habits are explicitly contrasted with preferred activities: 'Most viewers watch by the clock and either do not know what they will watch when they turn on the set, or follow established routines rather than choose each program as they would choose a book, a movie or an article' (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan &Signorielli, 1986, p.19). This view - which knowingly makes inappropriate comparisons by ignoring the serial nature of many TV programmes, and which is unable to account for the widespread use of TV guides and digital or video recorders with which audiences plan and arrange their viewing - reveals the kind of elitism and snobbishness which often seems to underpin such research. The point here is not that the content of the mass media must not be criticised, but rather that the mass audience themselves are not well served by studies which are willing to treat them as potential savages or actual fools. 9. The effects model makes no attempt to understand meanings of the media

A further fundamental flaw, hinted at in points three and four above, is that the effects model necessarily rests on a base of reductive assumptions and unjustified stereotypes regarding media content. To assert that, say, 'media violence' will bring negative consequences is not only to presume that depictions of violence in the media will always be promoting antisocial behaviour, and that such a category exists and makes sense, as noted above, but also assumes that the medium holds a singular message which will be carried unproblematically to the audience. The effects model therefore performs the double deception of presuming (a) that the media presents a singular and clear-cut 'message', and (b) that the proponents of the effects model are in a position to identify what that message is. The meanings of media content are ignored in the simple sense that assumptions are made based on the appearance of elements removed from their context (for example, woman hitting man equals violence equals bad), and in the more sophisticated sense that even in context the meanings may be different for different viewers (woman hitting man equals an unpleasant act of aggression, or appropriate self-defence, or a triumphant act of revenge, or a refreshing change, or is simply uninteresting, or any of many further alternative readings). In-depth qualitative studies have unsurprisingly given support to the view that media audiences routinely arrive at their own, often heterogeneous, interpretations of everyday media texts (e.g. Buckingham, 1993, 1996; Hill, 1997; Schlesinger, Dobash, Dobash& Weaver, 1992; Gray, 1992; Palmer, 1986). Since the effects model rides roughshod over both the meanings that actions have for characters in dramas and the meanings which those depicted acts may have for the audience members, it can retain little credibility with those who consider popular entertainment to be more than just a set of very basic propaganda messages flashed at the audience in the simplest possible terms. 10. The effects model is not grounded in theory Finally, and underlying many of the points made above, is the fundamental problem that the entire argument of the 'effects model' is not substantiated with any theoretical reasoning beyond the bald assertions that particular kinds of effects will be produced by the media. The basic question of why the media should induce people to imitate its content has never been adequately tackled, beyond the simple idea that particular actions are 'glamorised'. (However, antisocial actions are shown really positively so infrequently that this is an inadequate explanation). Similarly, the question of how merely seeing an activity in the media would be translated into an actual motive which would prompt an individual to behave in a particular way is just as unresolved. The lack of firm theory has led to the effects model being rooted in the set of questionable assumptions outlined above - that the mass media (rather than people)

should be the unproblematic starting-point for research; that children will be unable to 'cope' with the media; that the categories of 'violence' or 'antisocial behaviour' are clear and selfevident; that the model's predictions can be verified by scientific research; that screen fictions are of concern, whilst news pictures are not; that researchers have the unique capacity to observe and classify social behaviour and its meanings, but that those researchers need not attend to the various possible meanings which media content may have for the audience. Each of these very substantial problems has its roots in the failure of media effects commentators to found their model in any coherent theory. So what future for research on media influences? The effects model, we have seen, has remarkably little going for it as an explanation of human behaviour, or of the media's role in society. Whilst any challenging or apparently illogical theory or model reserves the right to demonstrate its validity through empirical data, the effects model has failed also in that respect. Its continued survival is indefensible and unfortunate. However, the failure of this particular model does not mean that the impact of the mass media can no longer be considered or investigated. Indeed, there are many fascinating questions to be explored about the influence of the media upon our perceptions, and ways of thinking and being in the world (Gauntlett, 2002), which simply get ignored whilst the research funding and attention is going to shoddy effects studies. It is worrying to note the numbers of psychologists (and others) who conduct research according to traditional methodological recipes, despite the many well-known flaws with those procedures, when it is so easy to imagine alternative research methods and processes. (For example, see the website www.artlab.org.uk, and Gauntlett (2005), for information about the 'new creative audience studies' in which participants are invited to make media and artistic artefacts themselves, as a way of exploring their relationships with mass media). The discourses about 'media effects' from politicians and the popular press are often laughably simplistic. Needless to say, academics shouldn't encourage them.