TV Violence vs. Violent Behavior

The Monster Limo Weblog : Come take hits from our blog!

Democratic Underground

TV Violence vs. Violent Behavior

The Associated Press reported a recently published study which examined the effect of "violent media viewing" (their words, not mine) and its effect on late childhood and early adulthood aggressive and violent behavior. This has been a political topic of some debate over at least the past decade, resulting in such changes as parental advisory stickers on CD’s and the "V-chip" in newer television sets. Proponents of this theory include such high-profile political names as Senator Joseph Lieberman, as well as former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper Gore.

Essentially, the conventional wisdom is that children who watch violent TV or play violent video games grow up to be more violent. Not that children ought to be exposed to gratuitous violence (and I certainly don’t think they benefit from it), but there is something of an oversimplification of factors inherent in these kinds of attitudes. It seems logical that there could be a link between an overly-impressionable child’s exposure to violence and violent behavior later in life, but the reasoning that this would suggest that all children who are exposed to violent TV would become violent is an exaggeration. While violent TV could have an effect on behavior, there are so many other factors (most of them immeasurable or uncontrollable) that could contribute to the phenomenon that the effect of television by itself is impossible to determine.

Essentially, the theory that the two things are related seems a rush to a conclusion solely to find a conclusion, a solution that ignores any problems that the solution cannot directly address. Behaviors and personalities are formed by a complex system of factors; given the hundreds or thousands or millions of little things that have a hand in influencing who someone is; wouldn’t it be irresponsible to start attributing sources of certain behaviors to only a small handful of causes? Doing so is like assigning a simple answer to a complex question just to have an answer at all.

Obviously, acts of extreme violence are far less common than exposure to violent media. Because of this discrepancy, it is perhaps not outlandish to suggest that the people who are susceptible to such influence fit a very specific psychological profile, which could be influenced by anything from socioeconomic environments to genetic makeup. Such a profile could include anything from actual mental illness to intelligence to less obvious details such as insecurity, etc. To simply say, absent any conclusive study, that violence in the media causes kids to be violent later in life is overly simplistic to the point of sounding suspiciously political and unscientific.

That said, the AP article from early this week about the study was of some interest. In essence, the study itself appears far less conclusive than the AP article seems to suggest it is.

There are quite a few bits of background information given in the study that are of interest. Basically, the real world application of the study’s results is to determine whether violent media effects violent behavior to the point that controls ought to be placed on such violent media (such as warning stickers, "v-chips," etc.). One quote that seems to contradict the power of the direct effect, due to other random and mostly uncontrollable factors, is this: "Most researchers of aggression agree that severe aggressive and violent behavior seldom occurs unless there is a convergence of multiple predisposing and precipitating factors such as neurophysiological abnormalities, poor child rearing, socioeconomic deprivation, poor peer relations, attitudes and beliefs supporting aggression, drug and alcohol abuse, frustration and provocation, and other factors." Therefore, speaking pragmatically, if any proven links between violent media and violence are only very mild absent secondary causes, is there really anything to "fix"?

Peppered throughout the introduction of the study are references to these possible "third variable" factors that the researchers themselves seem to dismiss as less than relevant causes of later aggression. At several points are various other contributing factors mentioned. "Children of lower socioeconomic status (SES) and lower IQ are known to watch more TV," the study says. Later in that same paragraph, it goes on to say, "Of course, early parenting factors such as harsh punishment, rejection of the child, and lack of discipline are also known to influence subsequent aggression by the child." Aside from a brief disclaimer that "this study…is limited by the actual third variables included in this study," there isn’t really a discussion about the relationship of these variables and how they relate to the findings of the study.

Background information and other relevant factors notwithstanding, the methods of the study itself are not quite the hard scientific methods one might assume, but rather methods that appear at times even a little sloppy and certainly not conclusive. Essentially, the study was conducted by following a group of 557 kids in the Chicago area from the late 70’s until the mid 90’s and interviewing them at three different points regarding their viewing of violent media and their aggressive behavior later on.

(By the way, it should be noted that the study doesn’t appear necessarily to have been conceived as a 15 year study from its inception, but rather the results seem to have been the basis for several other studies along the way.)

When the subjects were children (first and second grade or third and fourth grade), they were polled about their TV viewing habits and their classmates were polled about the subject children’s aggressive behavior. The kids were presented with a list of TV shows and were asked how often they watched the shows (in multiple choice fashion – like "every time it’s on," "once in a while," etc.). Their classmates were then given similar style questionnaires for a "peer rating system." They were asked to give responses to pre-suggested questions about the behavior of their classmates, asking whether the classmate in question "starts a fight over nothing," and "pushes and shoves children," etc.

First of all, this style of questioning is very imprecise. Like similar "strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree" questionnaires that are quite common, the standard for answering is unclear. The questions themselves cannot be universally applied, and the prepared responses to choose from are not always indicative of the exact answer – nor is it always entirely clear what the answer would truly be even to a relatively introspective respondent. Also: is a kid who "starts a fight over nothing" aggressive and one who does not do so unaggressive? Who sets these standards and how precise are the children’s answers? And, on that note, let’s not forget that the questions are asked of young children.

After this first group of interviews was concluded, the researchers "tracked down as many of the original boys and girls in that U.S. study as we could find 15 years later when they were in their early 20s. We interviewed them, interviewed their spouses or friends, and collected data on them from state archives." As for what happened in the time period between the two series of interviews, "none of the participants had been contacted during the prior 15 years." From there, this portion of the study – which was to determine the aggressive behavior purportedly linked to early childhood television viewing habits – was then conducted in a manner as inconclusive as that in which the childhood interviews were conducted.

Here is the article’s description of the process of quantifying these now grown-up subjects’ aggressive behaviors:

"The indirect aggression scale included six items such as how often the participant responded by ‘taking the person’s things’ and ‘trying to get others to dislike the person.’ The verbal aggression scale included four items such as how often the participant responded by ‘calling the person names’ and ‘belittling the person’s physical abilities or looks.’ The mild physical aggression scale included three items asking how often the participant responded by hitting, kicking, or shoving the person. The general aggression scale included 12 items based on the original peer-nomination scale for children but that were rewritten for adults. It included such questions as ‘How often do you give the finger to others?’ ‘How often do you start a fight over nothing?’ and ‘How often do you take other people’s things without asking?’ The response scale for all of these frequency measures ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). The severe physical aggression scale included three items about how many times in the last year the participant had ‘choked, punched, or beaten another adult,’ had ‘slapped or kicked another adult,’ or had ‘threatened or actually cut someone with a knife or threatened or shot at someone with a gun.’…We also asked the participants to report their frequency of traffic violations and of committing different kinds of specific crimes and whether they had ever been arrested or convicted. For this purpose we used questions from the National Youth Survey."

Basically, the participants were polled in Cosmo-quiz style about their aggressiveness, which apparently ranges from giving people the finger to stabbing or shooting people. These responses were then ranked solely based on the results of the previous study, providing coefficients and statistics that sought to relate this later behavior to childhood viewing habits. So, based on the results of these aggressive-behavior interviews, the study went on to reach the very specific conclusion that watching violent television leads to violent behavior based on the results of the questionnaires the participants answered when they were children, but not on anything that happened in the fifteen years between the two series of interviews.

There is no way of knowing whether it will ever be proved or disproved that watching violent television leads to violent behavior, but clearly this is not the study to do so. Although it perhaps sheds some light on potential links between the two, it does not prove anything. Because human beings are so complex, it would be difficult to trace patterns of cause and effect for anything in even a single individual, much less a whole society of individuals. The sheer plurality of possible factors involved in the influence of violent behavior is so vast that attempting to pick and choose which are actually causally related could be a complete waste of time. Maybe the study is evidence of a small link, which could be enough to convince some that action is necessary, but it remains unlikely that artificial limitations on violence in the media are going to have any kind of real or lasting effect on violence in our society.

- Marcus-Marcus