Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Violence in movies and its effect on society
Media violence and behavior
Violence in movies and its effect on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Violence in movies and its effect on society
The Impact of Violence in Film and TV on Empathy
The effects of violence in film and TV on people has been greatly studied, especially in relation to consequent violent behaviour and psychological impact and trauma on children, teenagers and young adults. However, most studies point towards inconsistent findings, making it difficult to draw accurate conclusions from them (Felson, 2000). Nonetheless, the majority of them seem to look for findings in the viewer’s behaviour and reaction to direct exposure to violence. Thus, if every possible effect, both on physical and psychological levels, was separately and thoroughly studied, without the expectation of immediate and obvious findings, maybe we could then analyse them as a whole and finally have a homogeneous conclusion on whether violence in film and TV does have a negative impact on society or not. Therefore, in this essay I will narrow down my analytic frame by exposing and analysing the impact of violence in film and TV on the viewer’s empathy and how that affect humans as a society.
desensitization refers to the gradual reduction in responsiveness to an arousal-eliciting stimulus as a
…show more content…
That is, violence in films stereotypes both the average aggressor and the victim when these do not match official records. For example, according to Warr, M. and Stafford, M. (1983), even though most people would say women and the elderly are the most likely to experience violence and crime due to their vulnerability, according to official records, in real life, the victims are black young males more often than not . Meaning that, even if film and TV do generate empathy for victims, it does it in an unrealistic way that can not be applied to real life. This indicating that, not only is TV and film generating an unnecessary fear in society, it is distracting us from what we should in fact be more cautious
2. According to Sobchack, contemporary screen violence greatly differs than portrayals of violence in years past. Today, violent scenes are careless and lack significance because we as audiences have become calloused and desensitized to any acts of violence. She states that there is “no grace or benediction attached to violence. Indeed, its very intensity seems diminished” (Sobchack 432). Senseless violence, gruesome acts, and profound amounts of gore are prevalent in movies today, and because even this is not enough, it must be accompanied by loud blasts and noise, constantly moving scenes to keep audiences stimulated and large quantities of violence for viewers to enjoy what they are watching. Decades ago, it was the story that was engaging to audiences and filmmaking was an art.
One could easily dismiss movies as superficial, unnecessarily violent spectacles, although such a viewpoint is distressingly pessimistic and myopic. In a given year, several films are released which have long-lasting effects on large numbers of individuals. These pictures speak
In Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451, Mildred, the protagonist’s wife, casually sits in the parlor watching as “three white cartoon clowns chopped off each other’s limbs to the accompaniment of immense incoming laughter.” (Bradbury 94). Mildred watched and laughed as the clowns deformed each other; it was her way of entertainment. But “An online classroom dedicated to psychology, noted that “Children who view violence are more likely to have increased feelings of hostility, decreased emotional response to the portrayal of violence, and injury that lead to violent behavior through imitation.” (Scribner). But for many people, they not only see violence on television, but also in live screenings. Domestic violence consumes the lives of “4,774,000 women and 1,509 men” (Statistics) in the United States alone. But domestic violence is also present in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. “He caught her, shrinking. He held her and she tried to fight away from him. He slapped her face, he grabbed her again, and shook her.” (Bradbury
This article also makes referral comparison to another genre of film “Unlike in other genres (detective, thriller), there is usually neither sympathy for the victims of Evil nor admiration for heroes opposing it.”(Kord, 2016) Violence is what triggers the guilt in the audience and what starts to make them speculate of their morality. “Violence may well be the horror film’s way of hacking away at its audience to engage with guilt. Admit who you are. Admit what you did.” (Kord, 2016) The author questions other theorists with an ample amount of valid research from validated
Representations of violence in the media (defined as through news, film, and television) throughout history have contributed to desensitization to violent actions.
...d areas, including sympathy/empathy unresponsiveness and its negative outcomes, are the topics for future researches that can help us develop our understanding of emotional responses to fiction and emotional education. The fact that most of the concepts related to the issue raised in the text can refer to numerous types of processes implies on needing and developing other theories and researches. Therefore, in my opinion, in his essay “Empathy and (Film) Fiction” Alex Neill well-studied the concept of identification, empathy and emotional response to the film and, moreover, visualized the new “fresh” understanding of the significant value of the empathetic responses.
Another effect is desensitizing children to violence, fighting, and hostility. This connects with empathy because desensitizing more or less decreases the empathy and emotion a person has. Desensitizing is a powerful tool and is used in therapy to” reduce or eliminate certain emotional responses through graded and supervised exposure to anxiety…” (Funk 23-39). For movies, desensitization is incidental because no one is decisively changing someone’s emotions, or at least the movie does not to make the audience become psychologically damaged that they end up hurting others and becoming aggressive.
According to John Davidson's essay Menace to Society, "three-quarters of Americans surveyed [are] convinced that movies, television and music spur young people to violence." While public opinion is strong, the results of research are divided on the effects of media violence on the youth in this country. Davidson wrote that most experts agree that some correlation between media violence and actual violent acts exists, yet the results are contradictory and researchers quibble about how the effects are to be measured (271). Moreover, Davidson is not convinced that the media is the sole problem of violence, or even a primary problem. He points out that other factors, such as "poverty, the easy accessibility of guns, domestic abuse, [and] social instability" may have a greater impact on a child becoming violent than the influence of the media (277). Even though other forces may be stronger, media violence does have some adverse effects on the members of society. If senseless violence on television and in movies had no effect, it would not be such a hotly debated topic. What type of effects and whom they affect are the most argued aspects of the discussion.
From 1949 to 1996 to now, the way people see a story or movie has changed tremendously because of the change in violence. When the short story, “The Lottery” was written , the thought of this was awful, but the thought of this was different in 1996. Back in 1949, violent events are rare, but closer to the 21st century, violent things start to occur more often. When Shirley Jackson’s short story was published, people were so astonished that a human being could write that. Shortly after her short story coming out, people started to take back their prescription from the New Yorker, and they also started to send her many death threats per day. Since the time of the short story coming out, America has experienced more violence, making people in America not angry when they watch this
Many psychologists have studied the effect of the media on an individual’s behavior and beliefs about the world. There have been over 1000 studies which confirm the link that violence portrayed through the media can influence the level of aggression in the behavioral patterns of children and adults (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001). The observed effects include, increased aggressiveness and anti-social behavior towards others, an increased fear of becoming a victim or target of aggressive behavior, becoming less sensitive to violence and victims of violent acts, and concurrently desiring to watch more violence on television and in real-life (A.A.P. 2001). According to John Murray of Kansas State University, there are three main avenues of effects: direct effects, desensitization, and the Mean World Syndrome (Murray, 1995, p. 10). The direct effects of observing violence on television include an increase in an individual’s level of aggressive behavior, and a tendency to develop favorable attitudes and values about using violence to solve conflicts and to get one’s way. As a result of exposure to violence in the media, the audience may become desensitized to violence, pain, and suffering both on television and in the world. The individual may also come to tolerate higher levels of aggression in society, in personal behavior, or in interpersonal interactions. The third effect is known as the Mean World Syndrome, which theorizes that as a result of the amount of violence seen on television and also the context and social perspective portrayed through the media, certain individuals develop a belief that the world is a bad and dangerous place, and begin to fear violence and victimization in real life (A.A.P. 2001).
Desensitization to violence has become a common phenomenon in today’s society. This paper aims to identify and explain the effects that violent media can have on an individual and society as a whole. It has been proven that prolonged exposure to violence in the media can alter an individual’s cognitive processes, ability to empathize with victims of violence, and the way in which they view social norms. Desensitization is most commonly defined as repeated exposure to an event or stimuli that causes an individual to react less and/or become less affected by the event/stimuli. Desensitization to violence is less noticeable than one may think.
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.
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.
As long as violent programmes are shown on TV, the role of the mass media becomes completely different from how it was originally treated. Violence is socially harmful and especially the youth are very prone to such scenes that may strongly affect their psyches. It is true that programmes featuring cruel pictures are marked as ‘only for adults’ but the time when they are emitted is relatively early and the access to them seems to be rather unlimited to young people.
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).