Aggression can be defined as ‘behaviour performed with intent to harm another’, whilst Violence can be defined as ‘behaviour designed to cause physical injury or damage’. It would be safe to say that both of these actions took place during the London riots. Bandura and Walters (1963) believed aggression could not necessarily be explained using the traditional learning theory; where direct experience was seen as responsible for the acquisition of any new behaviour. The revised Social Learning theory suggests that we are also able to learn through observing others’ behaviour and the outcomes of that behaviour. This would suggest that many rioters were simply ‘copying’ behaviour they witnessed in others. Due to the large amount of televised material surrounding the riots many spectators may have been encouraged to join in as they saw the existing rioters reaping rewards for their actions. This is heavily supported by the Bobo doll study conducted by Bandura et al (1961) results of which show that those within the sample that were exposed to a model acting aggressively toward the doll reproduced a large amount of the aggression and violence they had witnessed, however those that had experienced a model who was non-aggressive toward the doll exhibited virtually no violence toward the toy.
Huesmann and Moise (1996) suggested five ways in which exposure to violence in the media may lead to aggression, these were; Observational learning and imitation, Cognitive priming, Desensitisation, Lowered physiological arousal and Justification. The London riots can be used to support all sections of this theory such as observational learning and imitation, as individuals are more likely to imitate behaviour shown on television if they respect the ...
... middle of paper ...
...ssive by around 50% than those who watched moderate amounts. This would suggest the link is unpredictable. Theorists such as Feshbach and Singer (1971) believe that watching violence has beneficial, cathartic effects and that arousal caused by viewing violence in the media allows one to release pent-up aggression without resorting to violence themselves. One drawback of Belson’s research is that it does not include the genre of television watched by the sample. This could have negative effects on the internal validity as it is not specific to violent and aggressive television.
Works Cited
Belson (1978)
Feshback and Singer (1971)
Bandura and Walters (1963)
Huesmann and Moise (1996)
Bandura et al (1961)
Philips (1983)
Giles (2003)
Jacklin and Maccoby (1974)
Hyde (1984)
The Guardian newspaper
BBC news online
Oxford Psychology A2 complete companion textbook
Eron, L.D., Huesmann, L.R., Lefkowitz, M.M. & Walder, L.O. (1972). Does television violence cause aggression? American Psychologist, 27, 253-263.
Most people use second hand information as their core source of information about crime, this source of information usually being the media. When carrying out sample research in Birmingham, Susan Smith (1984) discovered that 52% of people obtained most of their information about crime from the media, 36% obtained it from hearsay or alleged experiences of friends and neighbours, 3% from their own experiences, and 1% from the police service themselves (cited in Jones, 2001; 8). However the media tend to exaggerate upon areas of criminal activity causing a moral panic. ‘A moral panic is a semi- spontaneous or media generated mass movement based on the perception that some individual or group, frequently a minority group or subculture, is dangerously deviant and poses menace to society. These panics are generally fuelled by the media, although not always caused by, media coverage of social issues… These panics can sometimes lead to mob violence… (newsfilter.co.uk).
Popular Culture and Violent Behavior Introduction In 1871 E.B. Taylor defined culture as 'that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs, and many other capabilities and habits acquired by... [members] of society. '[1] Taylor was talking about 'high' culture, an aristocratic view of the past-times such as ballet, theatre and art. Popular culture, on the other hand, is a form of 'low' culture and is based primarily on marketing, mass production and revenue.
Media violence leads people to have violent behavior. Media violence leads people at ideological offensive, and leads those to implement the violent behaviors because their ideological offensive could be justified in media. In the media, violence behavior always lends color to be beautiful, cool and proper. It conveys fallacy ...
There is a "general consensus among social scientists that television violence increases the propensity to real-life aggression among some viewers," and yet, paradoxically, "there is presently little evidence indicating that violence enhances program popularity" (Diener & DeFour, 1978). Top government studies insist, "violent material is popular" (Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, 1972). Differing conclusions may be viable. One leading social psychologist flatly states, "evidence suggests that violence on television is potentially dangerous, in that it serves as a model for behavior -- especially for children" ...
Zillman, D. & Weaver, J. Effects of Prolonged Exposure to Gratuitous Media Violence on Provoked and Unprovoked Hostile Behavior.
In a research analysis of Media and Violence, studies show that “Although the typical effect size for exposure to violent media is relatively small ... this ‘small effect’ translates into significant consequences for society as a whole” (“Media and Violence: An Analysis of Current Research”, 2015). This states violent behaviors can come from the smallest variables, or clips from videos, which is why it is important for parents to control what their kids see, read, and watch, and limit the amount of violence exposure.
The mass media is a vehicle for delivering information and to entertain. But implications that the media do more harm than good concerning its practices and its effects on the public. The two main categories of mass media are print media and electronic media. Although they overlap in some areas, they differ mostly in the subject matter they cover and in their delivery methods. Research had been conducted in using both these forms to gauge the impact that each one has on the public. Print media tends to be more factual based whereas electronic media tend to focus more on visual aids to help relay the information. The public’s fear of crime has an impact on the public agenda of policy makers. Fear of crime not only affects individual but may also have an impact on the laws that affect crime control and prevention.
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).
In an article written by Kevin D. Browne and Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis out of Lancet, dated 2/19/2005, Volume 365 in issue 9460, on page 702 a collection of research shows short-term effects increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behavior in younger children, especially in boys. It also shows research stating that there is a very weak correlation directly between media violence and acted out aggression. This article basically states that violent media being watched by children does impression and arouse some, but does not associate strongly with violent acts. This would help explain the fact that millions of kids watch violent television shows and remain nonviolent.
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...
But just how much does it affect them? If they affect children at all? Separating other factors that can influence violent behavior is almost impossible. Can you really separate media violence from all the other factors that can influence violent behaviors? (Rochman.) Real life has more of an effect than fantasy violence (Cutler.) For instance, children who have a parent who went to jail are more likely to go to the jail than children who watch the violent animated cartoon Happy Tree Friends.If a child has have abusive parents or siblings, ther...
This argument assumes that, under normal conditions, worry about violence reduces its use. Media may, however, inspire aggressive behaviour by desensitising children to the effects of violence. The more televised violence a child watches, the more acceptable aggressive behaviour becomes for that child. Frequent viewing of television violence may cause children to be less anxious about violence.
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).
...onditions that ensure an adequate counterbalance increasing consumption in some cases, end up having a negative effect on children. Children learn best through demonstration followed by imitation, with rewards for doing things the right way. While not all are affected the same way, it can be said that, in general, violence in the media affects attitudes, values and behaviors of users. You run the risk that children end up understanding that it is reasonably practicable to resort to violence. The fear is that the models of aggressive behavior can be considered suitable. Thus, in an investigation, a good proportion of children (third) defined as normal acts of violence they had seen him mightily little. It is not; here is a risk of direct imitation, but rather a change in terms of reference: where extreme violence appears to be normal any more light may seem harmless.