|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this paper by Freedman was to examine the available literature about the effects of television violence upon aggressive behavior. The paper was written as a rejoinder in response to an article directed towards the author's initial literature review.
METHODOLOGY:
In a non-experimental exploratory literature review, the author addressed the concerns of Friedrich-Cofer and Huston (1986) which were presented in an article in which they took issue with some of the points made by the author in an earlier review of the literature on the effects of television violence upon aggression.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The author began by admitting that some of the conclusions drawn by Friedrich-Cofer and Huston were in agreement with those that he himself drew at the conclusion of his initial literature review. These agreements included the belief that the evidence for a causal effect of television violence upon subsequent aggression was not overwhelming, and that the effects of television violence were small, at best. However, Friedrich-Cofer and Huston emphasized the findings of laboratory work in this area, concluding that the experiments showed a generally positive effect of television violence upon aggression. In response to Friedrich-Cofer and Huston's claim, the author examined the findings of a number of laboratory experiments, and found that some studies obtained no significant effect of television violence, one obtained significant effects for real-life aggression in films but not for cartoon aggression, one study found evidence for an effect with third-graders but not for sixth- or tenth-graders, and one found significant effects only for fictional violence and justified real violence, but not after the viewing of unjustified or unspecified real violence. Studies that did show effects did so under inconsistent conditions, sometimes manipulating subjects' initial levels of anger and frustration. The author concluded that the effects found in such studies of the effects of violent programming on aggression are, at best, equivocal, and that results of these studies have been uncritically accepted and contradictions generally ignored. Whilst the author conceded that one could accept the findings of laboratory studies that viewing television violence could increase aggression, the relevance of these studies to the real world was questioned. Viewing one program in the laboratory could have vastly different effects than the steady diet of violent television programs available to audiences, and the attention centered upon the program within the laboratory setting, as well as experimenter demands, were also raised by the author as causes of concern regarding generalizability. In contrast to Friedrich-Cofer and Huston's assertions, studies have shown that observer values can greatly influence levels of displayed aggression. Finally, the author stressed that the use of analogues of aggression, such as pressing a shock button or punching a Bobo doll, precluded the extrapolation of findings to real world aggressive behaviors. The findings of such laboratory studies were seen by the author to be greatly magnified, overestimating the effect of television violence upon aggression. Field studies have been conducted in an attempt to bridge the gap between the laboratory and the real world. Whilst Friedrich-Cofer and Huston claimed that field studies demonstrated similar findings to those conducted within the laboratory setting and suggested a causal effect, the author believed that, overall, these studies too presented inconsistent results, relied upon inappropriate statistics and failed to find a main effect of television violence upon aggression. Turning to correlational studies, Friedrich-Cofer and Huston concluded that results found that early viewing of violence was positively related to later aggression, even when previous aggression was controlled for. However, the author suggested that the effects of early aggression were not often controlled for, and few studies attempted to control for the effects of total television viewing. He also reminded the reader that interpretation of correlational data is difficult, and one must be careful in drawing inferences about causality without ruling out a third factor explanation. The author suggested that some other variable or set of variables leads to a preference for both aggression and violent television. The author concluded that Friedrich-Cofer and Huston based their belief in the causal relationship between aggression and television violence upon laboratory experiments and upon a selective evaluation of field and correlational studies. However, according to the author, the field studies conducted in this area have generally been very weak, and longitudinal studies offer little evidence for a causal relationship.
EVALUATION:
The author presents an interesting and informative discussion of studies of the effects of television violence upon aggression, with relation to comments by Friedrich-Cofer and Huston about his original review of the literature. He reviews the existing findings clearly, and presents a concise and seemingly well-informed series of conclusions about the reliability and the generalizability of study findings. Whilst a more thorough discussion of suggestions for future research would have been helpful, the review represents a useful examination of the relationship between television violence and aggression. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Media Violence Effects
KW - Television Violence
KW - Television Viewing
KW - Aggression Causes
KW - Juvenile Aggression
KW - Child Aggression
KW - Exposure to Violence
Language: en |