|
Abstract
|
Community violence that victimizes children is an unmitigated evil that is exacerbated by vast economic and social forces that leave people in central cities and the rural countryside adrift on seas of rolelessness, hopelessness, group disintegration, and alienation. The contemporary drug scene and the easy availability of guns greatly intensify violence on a local scale, while crimes of violence, especially with guns, appear to be level or declining in the nation as a whole. Claims that the persistently high levels of violence in mass media, mostly television, are largely responsible for violence in society represent narrow views of very large issues. These narrow views overlook essential elements of both phenomena--violence and media. Direct models of interpersonal violence in families and in the community probably give rise to more violent behavior than indirect models in media. Disinhibitory and provocative aspects of media probably do as much or more to trigger violent behavior than violent narratives and violent actions. Comprehensive meta-analysis indicates that prosocial messages on television can have greater effects on behavior than antisocial messages. These data support the contention that mass media can play a strong and positive role in alleviating some of the distress of victims of community violence, and in redirecting the behavior of some of its perpetrators so as to protect the children.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this paper by Friedlander was to frame the issues associated with community violence, mass media, and child development. Solutions to the problems associated with these issues were offered. These included, among other concepts, the development of a theoretical model to account for the outburst of aggression in individuals, and the identification of the positive roles of mass media.
METHODOLOGY:
The author provided a non-experimental literature review of the pertinent literature on community violence, mass media and child development. A theoretical model of "threshold activation" of aggression in individuals was also discussed.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
First, the author directed his argument towards the causation and prevention, research and treatment of community violence effects on children. The author commented that although the research on the effects of the media on children has been reliable, it has had no great influence on media industry practices, media violence levels or child-rearing practices.
The author targeted four task areas in the study of community violence and its effects on children: 1) the examination of children's violence experience as a formidable "developmental disorganizer" that negatively effects a child's psychological growth, 2) the accumulation of first-grade epidemiological data on community violence as a base for the formulation of goals and long-term change evaluation, 3) knowledge accretion on how mass media, and individual and situational factors fit together in the manifestation of violent behavior in the community, and 4) the pursuit of pragmatic methods of protecting children from community violence. It was suggested that the concept of child protection should include a reduction in the incidence of community violence.
The author argued that where societal crime and violence were pervasive, almost everyone in the community was a participant in it (e.g., as victims, perpetrators, witnesses). Children were believed to be the ones who should be, and probably can be, protected under the auspices of a 'special' category in such an environment. The author stated that macrosystemic elements (e.g., systemic poverty) needed to be considered when attempting to understand community violence problems and their effects on children. It was stated that trust and security in relationships, which according to the author were the psychological foundations of a healthy society, were being undermined by violence in the community. The author argued that chronic community violence impacts a child's capacity to adapt and feel competent as an independent, successful and achieving adult (e.g., in educational achievement, employability, and in maintaining positive interpersonal relationships).
The author stated that the media have impacted the community by redefining politics and the electoral system, church affiliation, entertainment, and as suggested by some critics (Meyrowitz, 1985; Postman, 1981; as cited by the author) the media have redefined childhood. The author contended, however, that it would be naive for anyone to suggest that children's exposure to violence on the television or on video be controlled, since mass media was a pervasive and irreversible aspect of everyday life. It was argued that when media, poverty and community disorganization were combined, the function of parents as the agents who filter the external world to their children was being made almost impossible. The author contended that to make progress in dealing with the issues of community violence and mass media violence it needed to be recognized that everyone was embedded within a "mass media biosphere." For example, Finnegan's (as cited by the author) ethnographic characterization of the youth drug trade in New Haven, Connecticut revealed that youths' were motivated to be violent since it earned them respect and status to be seen on television.
The author suggested that an understanding of where the community violence problem was, who was involved in it, and its duration was essential for its reduction. The author reported that community violence was an historical phenomenon. Also, that it existed in rural communities and could be just as dangerous in those areas as in inner-city slums. It was suggested that base line data on community violence was needed so that causes and forms of violence could be ascertained, and accurate intervention strategies could be implemented.
The author contended that once the demographics of community violence were learned, and community violence was acknowledged as a pattern of criminal behavior, the critical distinction between prevalence (i.e. the proportion of the population involved in criminal behavior) and incidence (frequency with which criminal activity occurs) of violent crime could also be learned. The author stated that prevalence of violent crime was either level or decreasing in the U.S.A., but that the incidence of violence was increasing. The rising incidence could be seen in the increase in frequency and severity of violence. This rise was attributed to two factors in particular; the frequent use of guns among groups and individuals in the drug trade, which led to an increase in the intensity of violence; and social changes such as structural unemployment which sustained the length of time an individual was involved in criminal activity since there was no job market. The author argued that since the media focused on highly prominent individual occurrences of crime, they gave the public the impression that criminal offence prevalence had increased. However, as suggested by Kleck (as cited by the author) this is largely a media construction. The author argued that the inclination of the media to over-report made it even more important that professionals be knowledgeable of issues as they exist in reality.
The author commented that, based on related research, it was necessary to look further than television or mass media as single factors in the cause or perpetuation of community violence. Rather, it was suggested, that there was a need to look at social, cultural, familial, and cognitive determinants of violent behavior, simultaneously, when attempting to explain aggression (Huesmann & Eron, 1986; as cited by the author). The author stated that although aggression appears to be multicausal, academics have continued to blame and convict television as the major generator of violence. This, it was contended, allows other contributors to community violence to escape scrutiny.
When striving to identify the precursor components of violent behavior, the author suggested that consistent with concepts developed by Reiss (1986; as cited by the author), it was necessary to "segregate the variance" when pulling together information from various disciplines that attempt to solve the same problem. In developing an integrative knowledge about community violence the author suggested that acts of violence be understood as summations of multiple components. The author stated that these components needed to be understood as existing and operative at some level of intensity before violence would occur. The same components were likely to be present no matter the target, or the type of person or group committing the violence. The components may, however, be combined in different ways, in various environments, with different victims and perpetrators.
The author devised an ordinal-sequential model of violence in which Z represented the "threshold of activation" of the violence, and precursor components were explained as sequentially preceding the violence. The ordinality was illustrated as: Y--a releaser or disinhibitor (e.g., alcohol, drugs, anger, rage, crowd or gang effect, subjective imagery); X--a provocation or incentive (e.g., sexual challenge, personal or group challenge to esteem, gang rivalry, ethnic rivalry, interpersonal quarrel, craving for possession, power or control, 'target of opportunity'); W--an interpersonal or contextual constellation of circumstances (e.g., possession of weapon, changes in police surveillance); V--disregard for consequences (e.g., defiance of detection or punishment); U--direct behavioral models (e.g., in the family, among peers, in the neighborhood); T--indirect behavioral models (e.g., images in video, comic books, movies, pop music, etc); S--personal history (e.g., victimization, frustration, reinforcement of prior aggression and violence); R--personality (e.g., decompensated ego structure, impulsive, risk-taking temperament) (p. 75).
The author stated that according to the order of the "segments of the variance," situational causal factors were closer to the threshold of activation. Precursor components that represented an individual's characteristics were further from the threshold of activation. The author argued that these latter ongoing, personal factors were necessary but not ample in themselves for the outburst of violent behavior. It was noted that mass media, as a precursor component of violent behavior, was far from the activation threshold. The author stated that, therefore, although exposure to media violence was certain to have effects on viewers, it did not appear to have the preemptive importance previously attributed to it. The author argued that the model helped to explain why those individuals exposed to chronic and high levels of violence in life and in the media, did not commit violent acts. The author also commented that media exposure has been shown to have positive, pro-social effects on children. The author continued to explain that this did not mean, however, that television did not impact negatively on the problem of community violence. The author contended that the precursor component involving the release of violence and disinhibition of behavioral control, and the precursor component involving provocation to violence, were "segments of variance" associated with mass media and television, which were close to the threshold of activation of violent behavior. The author argued that mass media contributed heavily towards disinhibition. It was suggested that violence was simply the expression of disinhibition and non-controlled behavior.
The author contended that along with the ideology of "consumer individualism" promoted by commercial television and poverty and hopelessness, membership in a violent gang and a prosperous drug trade were, for some individuals, paths of escape from a futile life. The author claimed that both the complexity of the "media biosphere," and the complexity of violence within that biosphere, were necessary considerations when attempting to reduce the incidence of violent behavior.
AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
The author stated that although it would be most effective to treat the underlying causes of community violence, this would be beyond the jurisdiction and skills of mental health and human development specialists. The author recommended several courses of action. These included strengthening neighborhood clinics, family support systems, community social services and school child protection programs. Also the provision of services to individual families and children was recommended. The author suggested that public opinion and public sentiments concerning the needs of children should be sought. It was claimed that the mass media could play a significant and powerful role with regards this dimension of practical action. The author recommended the instigation of highly advanced and refined professional media campaigns that promote the protection of children. The author's intentions would be to utilize the technology of media in order to mobilize change in child protection. The two major goals of this strategy included: 1) reaching at-risk children and providing them with messages that they are wanted, needed and special, and protecting them from harm in the neighborhood and at school with special link up programs, and 2) reaching perpetrators of violence by providing them with the messages that children are wanted, needed and special, and need to be protected, or at least left alone.
The author concluded that when properly directed, television and mass media could function positively as major contributors in alleviating the prevalence and incidence of community violence trauma on children. Additionally, mass media mobilization could significantly advance a commitment towards protection of society's children.
(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 - Child Witness
KW - Witnessing Community Violence
KW - Psychological Victimization Effects
KW - Witnessing Violence Effects
KW - Exposure to Violence
KW - Community Violence Effects
KW - Child Development
KW - Youth Development
KW - Television Violence
KW - Television Viewing
KW - Media Violence Effects
KW - Child Aggression
KW - Aggression Causes
KW - Child Behavior
KW - Child Prosocial Behavior
KW - Child Violence
KW - Violence Causes
KW - Behavior Causes
KW - Sociocultural Factors
Language: en |