Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
case study in violent behavior
Describe the role of heredity and environment of violent behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: case study in violent behavior
The popularity of professional wrestling programs has sky rocketed since the early nineties, and with it so has the popularity of the regular weekly programs that depict it. This is good for business of course, more viewers means more money. But with the rise in popularity of these programs there has also been a rise in violence and incidents that are related to these programs as well. The die-hard fans of professional wrestling will argue that there is no real danger in performing the acts they see in the show, or that there is no way that these shows could cause violence in viewers because it is clearly fake. And they have a valid point, there is no real danger if you are a trained professional who has been practicing the techniques for years and know how to properly perform them. Fans will argue that there is no problem with the shows, that there is no violence being caused by them but the scholars would argue otherwise. Psychologists such as Matthew Bernthal (Bernthal 2005) and Jablonski (Jablonski 1995) have both done research that would argue against these die-hard fans, that have specific examples of violence in viewers and could prove there may indeed be a problem with viewing these programs regularly. This is where my research paper comes into play, is there indeed a problem? Do these programs prevent unnecessary violence? And if so, how do they cause it? Even though the fans will say that the programs are harmless and don’t cause violence in the viewers as long as they understand it is fake, there is indeed research that proves that these professional wrestling programs have caused violent acts in viewers and this research is able to provide specific examples and studies that prove it.
With this research I will use ...
... middle of paper ...
...restling." School Psychology International 26.2 (2005): 224-242.
DuRant, R., Neiberg, R., Champion, H., Rhodes, S., & Wolfson, M. (2007). Viewing professional wrestling on television and engaging in violent and other health risk behaviors by a national sample of adolescents. Journal Of Adolescent Health, 40(2), S26.
Jablonski, C. K. and Zillmann, D. (1995) ‘Humor’s Role in the Trivialization of Violence’, Media Psychology: Periodical for Individual and Mass Communication 7: 122–33.
Ridberg, R. (2002). Wrestling with Manhood: Boys, Bullying, and Battering. Northhampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.
Tamborini, R., Skalski, P., Lachlan, K., Westerman, D., Davis, J., & Smith, S. L. (2005). The Raw Nature of Televised Professional Wrestling: Is the Violence a Cause for Concern?. Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(2), 202-220
Kaplan, R.M. & Singer, R.D. (1976). TV violence and viewer aggression: A reexamination of the evidence. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 33-70.
Coakley, J. J., & Donnelly, P. (2007). Violence in Sports . Sports in society: issues & controversies (9th ed., pp. 198-199). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Wrestling is more than just a sport; it is a way of life. And for those who enjoy its opportunities, it is something that takes the mind off of all of life’s troubling times, and puts one man against another to get their hand raised. Competition makes everything evolve, and there is no other sport that epitomizes what competition truly is. Wrestling spans the entire globe, and although it incorporates several different styles and many National and World events, remains overlooked by most.
In “Who Killed Benny Paret?,” Norman Cousins discusses why sports are as violent as they are, when they can be safe and still as physically challenging. Cousins’ thesis blames society for the extreme brutality in sports, “The primary responsibility lies with the people who pay to see a man hurt.” (Cousins, 340) In “Why We Crave Horror Movies,” Stephen King takes a different approach by explaining why people watch gruesome and blood filled moving. Without others playing out our own sick fantasies, or fueling our blood drive, we would be more inclined to becoming violent. We, as humans, want to see blood and guts that are as real as possible to make us feel more comfortable, and to feed the “hungry alligators.” (King, 2) The initial need to release of primal and violent instincts are catered to through visual stimulation such as bloody boxing matches, and gruesome horror films.
Television with its far reaching influence spreads across the globe. Its most important role is that of reporting the news and maintaining communication between people around the world. Television's most influential, yet most serious aspect is its shows for entertainment. Violent children's shows like Mighty Morphing Power Rangers and adult shows like NYPD Blue and Homicide almost always fail to show human beings being able to resolve their differences in a non-violent manner; instead they show a reckless attitude that promotes violent action first with reflection on the consequences later. Contemporary television creates a seemingly insatiable appetite for amusement of all kinds without regard for social or moral benefits (Schultze 41). Findings over the past twenty years by three Surgeon Generals, the Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence, the American Medical Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical authorities indicate that televised violence is harmful to all of us, but particularly to the mental health of children (Medved 70-71).
The entertainment is what people love to watch like boxing and other sports. these types of sports have very high risk of injury that can affect the players because they entertain people who watch them. in the essay “Who Killed Benny Paret?” by Norman cousins is an example of violence in sports. In this story a boxer Benny Paret, died from taking many hits to the head, which cause so much damage to the brain which cause his body to shut down which caused his death. Violence in sports is caused by fans, media, managers, and by the players themselves because of un-sportsmanship.
How do you market violence? Can the general public be persuaded to look at unarmed combat as a legitimate sport? Through the course of the paper, I will discuss all the aspects of the marketing mix, and how they are utilized by the mixed martial arts promotion The Ultimate Fighting Championship. I will also discuss the effect of their current marketing stratagem, and the impact to their booming business.
A "hot topic" of discussions today is the issue of violence in the media. After reading about the subject, I am convinced that media violence negatively affects the viewer. The most susceptible are the young.
McMahon, R. (November 2006). Parents, coaches who need time-outs. Adult violence at kids' sports sets a terrible example. Retrieved February 2011 from SFGate.com Website: www.sfgate.com.
Murray, John P. "Impact of Televised Violence." Kansas Journal of Law & Policy. 4.3 (1995): 7-14
Goldstein, Jeffery (1999). The Attractions of Violent Entertainment. Department of Media & Communication University of Utrecht.
Media violence is a topic that has warranted much discussion from active citizens, critics, and scientific researchers on both sides of the argument. In order to better understand the media violence debate a clear definition of violence, or aggression, must be established. However, one of the reasons that the heated discussion over media violence even exists is because of the difficulty in accomplishing this task. “Aggression is a highly complex phenomenon, whose etiology includes a wide variety of psychological, social, and circumstantial factors. 'Measuring' aggression in relationship to such an equally complex substance as the media is incredibly difficult” (Trend 45). Various sources offer different interpretations of aggressive behavior. One of the most popular references which excels in organization and categorization is the National Television Violence Study of 1998. “Violence is defined as any overt depiction of a credible threat of physical force or the actual use of such force intended to physically harm an animate being or group of beings. Violence also includes certain depictions of physically harmful consequences against an animate being or group that occur as a result of unseen violent means” (Federman 18). The importance of this study is that it highlights key aspects of media violence: involvement of animate beings, clear intent to harm, and harm that is physical in nature. Although the American society tends to believe that violent images in the media have powerful negative effects on viewers, especially children, which causes people to commit crimes and demonstrate aggressive behaviors, media violence actually produces minor effects at most, and can even prove advantageous.
Society has been bombarded with violence from the beginning of time. These concerns about violence in the media have been around way before television was even introduced. Nevertheless, there have been numerous studies, research, and conferences done over the years on television, but the issue still remains. Researchers do acknowledge that violence portrayed on television is a potential danger. One issue is clear though, our focus on television violence should not take attention away from other significant causes of violence in our country such as: drugs, inadequate parenting, availability of weapons, unemployment, etc. It is hard to report on how violent television effects society, since television affects different people in different ways. There is a significant problem with violence on television that we as a society are going to have to acknowledge and face.
Television violence causes children and teenagers to be less caring, to lose their inhibitions, and to be less sensitive. In a study on the connection between violence and television done with 1,565 teenage boys over a six-year period in London, William Belson, a British psychologist, found that every time a child saw someone being shot or killed on television they became less caring towards other people (Kinnear 26). William Belson also discovered that every time a child viewed this violence on television, they lost a fragment of their inhibitions towards others (Kinnear 26). In addition to William Belson’s study, studies done by many scientists and doctors show that seeing violence on television causes viewers to become less sensitive to the pain of others (Mudore 1).
Television violence, and media violence in general, has been a controversial topic for several years. The argument is whether young children are brainwashed into committing violent real-world crimes because of violent and pugnacious behavior exposed in mass media. In his article “No Real Evidence for TV Violence Causing Real Violence”, Jonathan Freedman, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and author of “Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence”, discusses how television violence, claimed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), does not cause real-world aggression among adolescents. The FCC determined to restrict violent television programming to late night hours only because their “scientific research” proves of increasing aggression among young viewers (Freedman Par. 2). Freedman goes on to explain that the FCC has no substantial scientific evidence stating that there is a correlation between fictional violence and real-world aggression among young audiences. He has completed research in 1984 and 2002 on the relationship between media violence to actual acts of violence on the street. Because he has completed research projects related to this topic, Freedman’s statistical evidence shows that there is a reduction in youth violence and it essentially does not cause real-world crimes (Freedman Par. 1). The FCC continues to claim that exposure to media violence does in fact increase aggression, and yet their readers continue to believe their fabrications. Freedman argues that people who research media violence tend to disregard and omit the opposing facts. No one type of violence is more effective on aggression than another type. There is no evidence showi...