Chapter 1; The Influence of Television Violence

15

CHAPTER I

OF

T H E I N F L U E N C E T E L E V I S I O N V I O L E N C E

We teach our children merely by acting in front of them. They learn observationally. They see what our explicit and implicit values are and by and large they adopt them. I think that's how television works (Liebert, 1976, p. 9 0 ) .

We will first examine what can be said about the influence of violence seen on television, based on 'research conducted in that area. We will not include and examine, one by one, every study done on the subject, A review of that sort would require a book in itself. In addition, Andison (1977) and Hearold (1979) have already made such a survey. Preferably, we should like to invite the reader to join us on a short flight above this research territory. If we fly very high, so that in addition to research into television violence, studies on the influence of other kinds of television programs come into view, we should be able to make out some 2,500 research studies (Comstock, 1980b). Some of these studies show the brighter side of television; however, we will not concern ourselves with that here. We will shift our attention to the darker side. If we train our eyes only on research concerned with television violence it will mean, according to Rubinstein (1980), considering some 1000 studies. In order then to see what kind of studies have been done and what problems have emerged from them, we will first examine this part of the territory in its entirety. We will then review the hypotheses that have been tested and determine what kind o i effects TV violence can have. But before we start on that we will first have to delimit the terrain. This is done by indicating what we mean by television violence and aggression.

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

16

WHAT IS AGGRESSION?

As most of the research conducted concerns itself with aggressive behavior, it is first required to determine what we mean by aggression. As soon a s that is clear, we can quickly get an idea of when we are dealing with a case of television violence. The fact is, we use the terms aggression and violence interchangeably, so that violence on television becomes equivalent to aggression on television. Instead of a violent program, we also talk of an aggressive program. By this we simply mean that a program has a great deal of violence in it. As opposed to what is customary in such cases, we will not be citing, explaining and comparing all the conceptions formulated in the past, to then ultimately produce our own definition making the previous ones superfluous. As many authors have already presented a summary of the different definitions, such a "stroll through a semantic jungle" (Bandura, 1973) can be dispensed with. But we will indicate some central problems that are encountered in defining aggression. In an attempt to create a definition endorsed by as many psychologists as possible, we will propose one that is as devoid of originality a s possible. It should be made clear from the very start that we will only refer to aggression--or violence, identical as we have determined them to be--when dealing with a category of human behavior. Consequently, animal aggression will be left out of consideration (though, obviously, it exists). Natural violence (storms and so forth) will likewise be excluded. We limit the notion of aggression even a bit farther by requiring that the acts o f aggression are committed by demonstrable people. With this extra requirement, structural violence, for example, the injustice done to the Third World, remains outside the definition. We will also ignore aggression between nations or other groups. Researchers agree on at least one point: behavior is only aggressive if it causes some kind of damage. In this context, we can think of such matters as injury, injustice, evil or offense. There is also concensus of opinion that this damage may have a physical character, it may be of a psychological nature or concern someone's belongings. At this point the consensus ends and the differences of opinion begin. The intention behind aggression

The most important difference of opinion concerns the desirability and/or necessity of including the intentions of an ag-

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

17

gressive act in the definition. Obviously, including the intention of the act has a manifest disadvantage. It is impossible to see an intention. As a result, one is forced to infer intentions from observable behavior. But it is also possible to ask the perpetrator after the fact. The chance of error in both cases, however, is far from remote. Several aggression psychologists have therefore tried to keep motives outside the definition. However, such attempts have been only moderately successful. This is not surprising, for if concretely observable behavior--for example hurting someone--is automatically labeled as aggressive, there would be some curious consequences. Dentists and physicians, at least those not of a gentle persuasion, would then daily be committing acts of aggression. Some aggression theoreticians have solved this problem by defining aggression objectively, but simultaneously adding a number o f limitations that result in the dental profession's maintaining its integrity. Because this is not very convincing, most psychologists include the notion of intention in the definition and simply accept the fact that it will lose some of its objectivity. An action is therefore only aggressive when it is aimed at doing others harm. You are therefore not committing an aggressive act if you accidentally step on someone's toe. If by doing s o your intention is to hurt someone, however, it is aggressive. Hostile and instrumental aggression

Such a definition is, o f course, not completely free of complications either. If an aggressive act is believed to be committed only if an action is aimed at hurting others, this then suggests that aggressive acts are only committed for the pleasure one gets from doing damage. Of course, this does occur and we might then refer to it as hostile aggression. But in many cases, the harm to be done is not an end but a means. This latter case is often referred to as instrumental aggression. Here the aggressor does not do harm for harm's sake, but to achieve something else. That goal could be s o admirable and generally accepted that we might call it prosocial aggression, for example in cases where one defends an underdog. Other examples of instrumental aggression are aggression within the framework of self-defense and fighting to show who is the strongest. In passing, we should like to note that the fact that there is such a thing as prosocial aggression means that aggression is not by definition "bad." There are also some other forms of instrumental aggression most of us, in practical terms, would not wish to do without. Examples are self-defense and the use of aggression by civil servants in maintaining law

18

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

and order, at least insofar as it remains within the constraints of that law. The notion of instrumental aggression is therefore in contrast to hostile aggression. If both types of aggression are to be reduced to a common demoninator, it is probably better to speak of ''consciously injurious behavior ." Such a denomination requires that the aggressor is conscious of the fact that he is doing injury. But that would not seem sufficient, for if you step on someone's toe by accident, you know you have hurt someone but you did not want to. Consciously harming others must therefore mean that the harm is done deliberately, regardless of whether this harm is a means or an end. Of course, Bandura (1973) remarks, instrumental and hostile aggression can only be clearly distinguished at a conceptual level. In practice, what first appears to be hostile aggression--for example beating up an unsuspecting passer-by--may still have an instrumental character. In the example above, this would be the case if, for example, in a youth gang this action counts for a score determining someone's position within the group hierarchy (Bandura, 1973). Attempted aggression

It is necessary to introduce yet another refinement, for in defining aggression as deliberately harming others, we assume that the aggressive act is successful. That would mean that an assassination attempt missing its mark would run no risk of being regarded as aggressive. This point has obviously not escaped attention, and Buss (1971), for example refers to an "attempt to deliver noxious stimuli, regardless of whether it is successful" (the italics are ours). This problem is solved by defining aggression as a deliberate attempt to harm others (successful o r not). Aggression towards oneself

It may further be asked whether the term aggression should be reserved for attempts to do injury to others. Is there not also something like self-destruction, in which case aggression is directed towards oneself? In Freud's depth psychology there is mention of self-destruction, and it is even seen as an important driving force in human behavior. According to Freudian theory, the only reason this inwardly directed force does not drastically reduce individual life expectancy is that, as fortune would have it, we are capable of turning this aggression, originally directed against ourselves, towards the out-

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

19

side world. Good news for the individual, but it does mean that we can virtually forget about the prospects for a society free of violence, We make these remarks in passing because we are not at all referring to self-destruction as a mysterious, instinctive force but as an instance of individuals deliberately injuring themselves, as in a serious suicide attempt. Most social psychologists, however, do not recognize selfdestruction as a form of aggression. They regard aggression as a social phenomenon, which in fact need not mean anything more than that at least two people are needed for acts of aggression, an aggressor and a victim. In the case of self-destruction, aggressor and victim are united in one person. The struggle is then internal, a process which can hardly be regarded as social interaction. Looked at from the social psychologists' point of view, self-destruction is therefore not included in the definition of aggression. From an individual psychological perspective, however, nothing should prevent us from classifying self-destruction as aggression. We should be so inclined, as well, were it not for the fact that in the psychological literature, self-destruction is usually excluded from the definition of aggression. In defining aggression, we had agreed to apply as little originality as possible--the confusion is great enough as it is--and therefore acquiesce in the majority opinion. Direct and indirect aggression

But even when the social psychological position is taken, there is still room for differences of opinion. We have already seen that from this point of view, aggression is something that exists between at least two persons, or--put more accurately-assumes there is both an aggressor and a victim. In some social psychological publications, aggression is further limited to actions involving not only two parties, but requiring that both parties are in one another's presence and involved in direct social interaction. De Ridder's definition of aggression (1980), in a study expressly limited to direct social interaction situations, is placed at this level of analysis. Indirect aggression "behind someone's back,'' for example, speaking ill of someone or destroying someone's belongings in their absence, is not regarded by De Ridder as aggression. But according to the majority of psychologists, indirect aggression should be regarded as aggression. We whole-heartedly concur with this majority view; we can think of no reason why an action ceases to be aggressive if the victim in question is not a direct witness to it.

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

20 The relation aggressor

- victim

A last disagreement concerns the destruction of belongings that cannot be regarded as someone's property. If we have understood Wiegman (1975) correctly, throwing a stone through a neighbor's window is aggression, but shattering a window of a bank should not be regarded as aggression. Wiegman wishes only to refer to aggression if--directly or indirectly--there is a clearly demonstrable interpersonal relationship between the aggressor and the victim. As banks are usually the property of a collective of shareholders, there is no clearly demonstrable victim, and therefore no aggressive act has been committed. Of course, there is a psychological difference between breaking windows at the neighbor's and at the Chase Manhattan, but that is no reason to exclude the destruction of non-personal property from the definition of aggression. A

definition of aggression

We therefore regard aggression to be human behavior which deliberately attempts to cause injury to other people or things that are not one's own. The aggression can be physical or non-physical, it can be direct or indirect, and regarded as either a means or an end. There we have a definition totally lacking in originality, but one which to our mind reasonably reflects how most psychologists regard aggression.

OBJECTIVE VERSUS SUBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS Obviously, criticism of this definition is possible. We already saw that o u r definition is not "objective," because it refers to the unobservable motives underlying the action. The definition is not "objective" in another sense as well. As did De Ridder (1980), it is possible to assert that we have used the subjective notions people--in our case psychologists--have about aggression. This would seem, however, to be unavoidable. Indeed, definitions are a question o f agreement, and the agreement in question only increases in strength if as many people as possible hold to it. The definition posited is not based on any kind of self-evident principle, but aims at intersubjectivity: agreement among researchers. And in that sense, we hope that our definition is objective. Presumably, we will not convince De Ridder (1980) with this argument, for he suggests giving up entirely the search for a

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

21

supra-individual definition of aggression. To him, the only way out of the problem is to take completely the position of the "naive" observer. From this point of view, behavior is aggressive if someone regards it as such, and if no one experiences an action as aggressive, then that action simply 1 s not aggressive. With this point of view, De Ridder joins the attribution theoreticians who assert that aggression I t ( . . . ) like beauty and truth, is in the eyes of the beholder" (Blumenthal et al., quoted in Tedeschi, Brown, & Smith, 1 9 7 4 ) . From this position, whether or not an action has an aggressive character is purely a matter of opinion. The point of view of those involved determines whether or not behavior is aggressive. From this point o f view, aggression can only be defined subjectively, and in order to determine whether or not an action is aggressive, those involved must be heard. Defining aggression is then reduced to an attribution problem. If one wishes to investigate in what cases aggression occurs, one must then investigate in what instances there is a tendency to label an action as "aggressive." According to Bandura ( 1 9 7 3 ) , this tendency is particularly great when the impression is conveyed that the aggressor is personally responsible for her or his actions and when those actions are believed to have been done with ill intent. In addition, the value judgments of the observer play an important role in the evaluation (Tedeschi et al., 1 9 7 4 ) . There is a tendency to only regard behavior as aggressive if it is unacceptable. If then police, for example, charge on demonstrators, this action will be experienced and labeled differently according to the the norms embraced by the observer. If such a police action is considered justified, the tendency is not to regard it as aggressive. If, however, this action meets with disapproval, the tendency is to regard it as aggressive. In De Ridder's view ( 1 9 8 0 ) , the norms of the observer play a decisive role in the experience of aggression. He therefore explicitly includes the norms of the observer in his subjective definition of aggression. According to De Ridder, an action is aggressive if the observer believes it to result in an "unpleasant experience" for the victim and to violate interaction norms. Put simply: an action is aggressive if it is believed to be unpleasant for the victim, and if the observer further believes that people should not treat one another that way. De Ridder's definition is important to our perception study because it can serve as a basis for determining the extent t o which children experience the substance of a violent program a s aggressive. It is impossible to investigate this by having the children indicate how much "violence" or "aggression" there is in TV programs, for those are not terms children use daily.

22

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

We therefore sought a description that linked up as best as possible with the referential framework used for evaluating aggression in television programs. The children were asked to indicate to what extent the people in the program do "terrible things." Presumably, this question contains both elements of De Ridder's definition. It is likely that if a child believes that "terrible things are done" in a program, it is expressing the belief that the actions were "unpleasant" for the victim; and if the actions are felt to be "terrible," it presumably also means that they are considered to be unacceptable. De Ridder's subjective definition of aggression is useful as a guide in operationalizing the child's experience of the amount of violence in TV programs. This does not mean we hold to his suggestion of abandoning an objective definition of aggression. First of all, it is quite possible to use both an objective and a subjective definition. This provides the opportunity of investigating to what extent objective violence is subjectively experienced as such. Secondly, we believe it undesirable to abandon an objective definition of violence. Without an objective definition one easily drifts into subjective quicksand. Even the most blatant violence can then be interpreted as non-aggressive, at least from the perpetrator's point of view. If we were to use only a subjective definition, it might even be feared that aggression would only have victims. After all, we are all very good at excusing and rationalizing our own behavior. Hence, in no time the culprits are "gone with the wind." In brief, the notion that violence lies exclusively in "the eyes of the beholder" is going too far. We attach much importance to the subjective point of view, but there is no reason to codify this view by labeling it as the only correct or possible one. The question whether an objective definition is to be preferred to a subjective definition also plays a role in measuring the amount of violence on television. The customary way of determining this is by analyzing the content of a selection of television programs. Without exception, such analyses are done by "experts" on the basis of an objective definition. This definition determines whether or not an action is aggressive and on that basis the scoring and counting begins. This, for example, is the approach used by Gerbner and his associates. In our study, this question is important in determining the "aggression diet." By this we mean the portion of television violence children have actually "consumed." In measuring the aggression diet, it must not only be determined how often children have watched violent programs, but also how much violence the programs contain. In our study, the latter is done subjectively; we use the mean violence ratings o f the children

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

23

themselves. In other studies--e.g. Baarda, Kuttschreuter, and Wiegman (1982)--an objective approach is used. In that approach, adult experts determine, on the basis of a content analysis of video tapes, how much violence there is in the observed programs. In Chapter 5 (in which we shall discuss what children themselves feel to be violent programs) we will examine which approach is preferable: the objective approach or the subjective approach we have used.

TYPES OF TELEVISED VIOLENCE Now that we are to introduce some distinctions into the violence on television, it proves valuable to have maintained an objective definition of violence, for without that support, we should run out of things to say. Here we will discuss the most important distinctions; not because it is so interesting, but simply to make clear that the research conducted applies only to a portion of television violence. Actual and fictional violence

As opposed to aggression in real life, it is useful to make a distinction between actual and fictional violence on television. With actual TV violence we mean the broadcasting of real-life violence. Most obviously, we can think of the violence seen in news and current affairs programs. Actual violence is also seen in documentaries. The violence seen in sports programs can also be classified as actual television violence. These are primarily cases of the broadcasting of violence in football matches and in the boxing ring. In all these cases, the television broadcasts violence that takes place outside the doors of the television studio. In a number of instances, however, the studio itself produces actual violence. It is possible, for example, to regard consumer programs in which the malpractices of manufacturers and shopkeepers are exposed as programs devoted to the use of prosocial verbal violence. But the studio creates very little actual violence itself, for it is more advantageous to make as amiable an impression as possible upon the viewing public. Assessing the influence of actual television violence is primarily guess-work, for the effects of that kind of violence have rarely been investigated. Research efforts have been almost exclusively concerned with fictional television violence. By fictional violence we mean the fantasy violence of the tele-

24

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

vision drama. It should be noted, however, that it is difficult to defend researchers' limiting their investigations to fictional violence, for there is no reason to assume that actual violence has any less influence. Nevertheless, it is understandable that concern has been concentrated upon the influence of fictional violence. In the case of fictional violence, there is no intrinsic necessity for making o r broadcasting the program containing it. This argument does not apply for actual violence. Obviously, if the studios were to delete such violence from broadcasts, they would be seriously defaulting in their journalistic duty. Feature programs and cartoons Of course, the term "television drama" should be interpreted broadly. Contrary to what is often believed, this term not only covers television plays, but also movies and cartoons. The influence of cartoons--and for that matter puppet shows as well--has only been investigated with young children. Researchers have reserved movies solely for older children and young adults. Physical and verbal violence The research conducted has been almost exclusively concerned with programs in which physical violence was most prominent. Apparently, verbal violence is considered to be of secondary importance. The one-sided attention paid to physical violence is expressed, among other things, by the definition Gerbner et al. (1978) use in their analysis of violence on American television. With the exception of verbal threats of physical violence, verbal violence is excluded entirely from the analysis. Verbal violence frequently occurs in television programs in which physical violence is also prominent. Verbal violence can be found in comedy programs as well; after all, jokes are often made at the expense of others. Of the effects of these kinds of programs we know next to nothing. The reality orientation of television drama Finally, we can classify the television drama into three categories with respect to its orientation t o reality. Closest to reality is the so-called docudrama. In these programs, what has actually occurred is reproduced, for example a serial on the life of general Eisenhower. A bit farther from reality are a category of programs that might be referred to as realistic or

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

25

believable programs. I n t h e s e kinds of programs, s i t u a t i o n s a r e p o r t r a y e d t h a t have never o c c u r r e d , b u t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o imagine t h a t t h e y might have. F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s a c a t e g o r y of programs we r e f e r t o a s fantastic o r unbelievable. What t h e s e programs show i s n o t only f i c t i o n a l , b u t it i s a l s o i m p o s s i b l e t o imagine it e v e r having t a k e n p l a c e i n r e a l l i f e . O f c o u r s e , whether o r n 0 t . a program i s b e l i e v a b l e depends i n p a r t upon t h e viewer i n q u e s t i o n . I n g e n e r a l , it can be s a i d t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s have i n d i c a t e d a c l e a r p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e u s e of b e l i e v a b l e programs. Put more a c c u r a t e l y : programs have u s u a l l y been used t h a t a r e b e l i e v a b l e f o r t h e age group i n q u e s t i o n . Types of TV violence investigated A l l i n a l l , it i s c l e a r t h a t a s i f by p r i o r agreement, r e s e a r c h e r s have made a c a r e f u l s e l e c t i o n among t h e programs t h a t can i n p r i n c i p l e be c l a s s i f e d a s v i o l e n t programs. The emphasis has been one-sidedly l a i d upon programs w i t h f i c t i o n a l v i o l e n c e , w h i l e a c t u a l t e l e v i s i o n v i o l e n c e has been g r o s s l y d i s r e garded. The emphasis has a l s o been upon programs w i t h p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e ; by and l a r g e programs showing o n l y v e r b a l v i o l e n c e have been excluded from a n a l y s i s . And w i t h i n t h e subcategory of f i c t i o n a l programs w i t h p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e , t h o s e programs i n p a r t i c u l a r have been s e l e c t e d t h a t a r e b e l i e v a b l e f o r t h e age group i n q u e s t i o n . One kind of f i c t i o n a l p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e h a s , however, been excluded and t h a t i s b l a t a n t s e x u a l v i o l e n c e . We do n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s , however, t o be a s e r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n . Unless one has a v i d e o r e c o r d e r , a l o t of money and c u r i o u s i n t e r e s t s , such programs a r e n o t u s u a l l y t o b e found on t h e t e l e v i s i o n s c r e e n . To t h e e x t e n t s o f t porno might be c l a s s i f i e d among t h e v i o l e n t programs (something, by t h e way, o u r o b j e c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n does n o t a l l o w ) i t should be noted t h a t t h e e f f e c t s of t h a t kind of program on c h i l d r e n have o b v i o u s l y n o t been i n v e s t i g a t e d .

On t h e b a s i s of t h e r e s e a r c h conducted, it i s a p p a r e n t l y i m p o s s i b l e t o make any g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t s about t h e i n f l u e n c e of v i o l e n c e s e e n on t e l e v i s i o n . The r e s e a r c h o n l y a l l o w s f o r c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i n f l u e n c e of t e l e v i s i o n programs w i t h f i c t i o n a l p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e . And t h o s e c o n c l u s i o n s a r e i n p a r t bound t o t h e kinds of programs used ( u s u a l l y non-comedy and b e l i e v a b l e programs) and t h e age group i n q u e s t i o n . On t h e b a s i s of t h e r e s e a r c h conducted, f o r example, we can o n l y s a y something about t h e e f f e c t s of c a r t o o n s on p r e s c h o o l e r s . What e f f e c t t h i s kind of program has on o l d e r c h i l d r e n remains shrouded i n mystery. The one-sided a t t e n t i o n p a i d by r e s e a r c h e r s t.o p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e i s , by t h e way, n o t only expressed i n t h e i r s e l e c t i o n

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD’S-EYE VIEW

26

of programs. This is also the case in their selection of behavioral effects. Experimental researchers in particular have rarely investigated the influence of television violence on verbal aggression, aggressive attitudes or perceptions of violence. The reason for this, according to Stein & Friedrich (1975), is primarily the fact that physical aggression is more easily observable. In addition, the criterion-referenced validity of measurements for physical aggression is usually higher. THE FUNCTIONS SERVED BY TELEVISION The influence of television violence has been determined with the aid of several methods of investigation. In addition to experimental laboratory research, there have been individual case histories, experimental field studies and several forms of correlational research. In the rest of this chapter, however, the attention will be focused for a large part on experimental research. Not because we feel that the experiment is the only way of acquiring knowledge about the influence of television violence. To our mind, every method of investigation has its pros and cons, and in order to get a good picture of the actual influence of television violence, it is necessary to get an overall view of the studies done. The experiment does have one advantage that should not be underestimated: it can provide insight into the mechanisms that underly the effects of television violence. Whereas other forms of research primarily demonstrate whether television violence has a certain effect, experimental research can provide insight into the question of how we should picture this effect. We therefore regard the experiment as a research method indispensable in explaining the effects of television violence. That is not to say that we are blind to the limitations of this form of research. In part, these limitations are to be found in the questionable possibility of generalizing laboratory results to everyday life. It can also be questioned to what extent demand characteristics determine the results of these experiments. We will return to both these questions later on. In addition, yet another aspect implied by the experimental approach can be questioned, that is, its outlook on the communication process. The e f f e c t s approach

It is in particular this last point for which effects research has been sharply criticized. Critics reproach effects researchers for assuming a naive model of television influence, in

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

27

which power i s e x c l u s i v e l y i n t h e hands of t h e media and t h e p u b l i c a r e no more t h a n p a s s i v e s u b j e c t s . Indeed, i n e x p e r i mental e f f e c t s r e s e a r c h , programs a r e shown and i t i s d e t e r mined t o what e x t e n t v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e s t i m u l i o f f e r e d a r e accompanied by a change of b e h a v i o r i n t h e " v i c t i m s . " During such an experiment, t h e p a r t i c i p a n t i s f o r c e d i n t o a p a s s i v e and dependent r o l e ; t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r makes a l l t h e d e c i s i o n s , t h e s u b j e c t must w a i t and see. According t o t h e c r i t i c s , such a n approach b e t r a y s a m e c h a n i s t i c n o t i o n of t h e communication p r o c e s s . Through a kind of one-way t r a f f i c , t h e omnipotent medium of t e l e v i s i o n i s assumed t o i n f l u e n c e t h e d e f e n s e l e s s and s u s c e p t i b l e c h i l d , f o r b e t t e r o r f o r worse. E f f e c t s res e a r c h e r s a r e even sometimes accused of confirming t h e p u b l i c ' s view t h a t t h e media have a "hypodermic n e e d l e e f f e c t . " Accordi n g t o t h i s view, t h e e f f e c t of t e l e v i s i o n can be compared t o a serum t h a t i s i n j e c t e d d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e bloodstream; i t works immediately and r e s i s t a n c e i s f u t i l e . The c r i t i c i s m r a i s e d i s , i n p a r t , misplaced. That e f f e c t s r e s e a r c h e r s a r e accused i n p a r t i c u l a r of a d h e r i n g t o a s o r t o f hypodermic n e e d l e t h e o r y i s , i n f a c t , a c a r i c a t u r e . Most e f f e c t s r e s e a r c h e r s a r e f u l l y aware of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e a r e many v a r i a b l e s t h a t i n t e r v e n e i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t i m u l u s and r e s p o n s e . These i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s a l t e r t h e r e s p o n s e s t o f i l m s t i m u l i , implying t h a t f i l m s produce no direct effects.

I t i s therefore incorrect t o believe t h a t e f f e c t s researche r s see t h e i n f l u e n c i n g p r o c e s s a s a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d occurr e n c e . I t does a p p l y , however, t h a t i n t h e communication model s u g g e s t e d by e f f e c t s r e s e a r c h , the arrow of i n f l u e n c e o n l y p o i n t s from t h e medium i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e r e c e i v e r . I t i s t r u e t h a t w i t h some o r most c h i l d r e n , t h i s arrow meets up a g a i n s t a n i m p e n e t r a b l e armor, b u t t h e d i r e c t i o n i s c l e a r : from t h e medium t o t h e c h i l d . T h i s view i s indeed o n e - s i d e d , f o r a c h i l d i s n o t merely p a s s i v e , r e c e p t i v e and r e a c t i v e . I t i s a l s o a c t i v e and t a k e s i n i t i a t i v e s . And i n s o f a r a s i t concerns t h e u s e of the media, t h e c h i l d w i l l t r y t o choose t h e medium t h a t w i l l maximally s a t i s f y i t s needs.

The functions approach This l a s t p o i n t i s emphasized i n t h e s o - c a l l e d uses and gratifications approach. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o g i v e a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s approach, f o r i n f a c t i t i s a n umbrella term c o v e r i n g a number of t h e o r i e s and models (Blumler, 1979). To i l l u s t r a t e , we can u s e t h e view Von F e i l i t z e n (1976) has o f t h i s approach. A b a s i c assumption i s t h a t t h e r e c e i v e r u s e s t h e media a c c o r d i n g t o t h e needs he o r s h e b e l i e v e s t h e d i f f e r e n t

28

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD’S-EYE VIEW

media or their content can satisfy. Individuals are selective and consciously choose a certain medium or product of a medium according to the functions they can have for them. What medium an individual chooses is in part dependent upon the availability of the media that can fulfill the function required. According to Von Feilitzen, the functions the media have for an individual are directed by individual needs which, in turn, are dependent upon psychological and social factors. Because the functions of the media often play a central role in the uses and gratifications approach, it is also possible to simply speak of a functions approach (Murray & Kippax, 1981). According to Windahl (1981), the functions approach distinguishes itself from the effects approach in the following ways: 1. The functions researcher is not interested in what the media do to people, but in what people do to the media. 2. The user o f the media is active instead of passive. 3 . The departure point for the analysis is not the medium but

the user. 4 . It results in a model of the reception process (the stimuli side remaining underexposed). 5. Instead of responses, consequences are studied: for example whether or not the use of a medium results in the gratification of certain needs. It is clear that the functions approach implies an entirely different outlook on the communication process. Whereas the effects approach implies a model of influence in which the arrow moves from the medium to the child, in the functions approach the arrow moves from the child to the medium. In this latter approach, the child is not defenseless or susceptible but can take care of itself perfectly well. And in fact, the functions approach implies a remarkable outlook on the child. It suggests a precocious child sitting in front o f the television, knowing exactly what it wants and, with a superior smile, appraising the true value of all it sees. A child does not only not allow itself to be fooled by television, it is also expected to know what its motivation is: The knowledge acquired about the functions of the media are directly deduced from what the child says about them. The child is therefore seen as a rational being, consciously and deliberately choosing the media it needs and capable of explaining that choice as well. As McQuail (1979) has observed, criticism of the functions approach is altogether possible. Among other things, it is not to be expected of children--any more than of adults--that they should have complete insight into what motivates them to choose a particular medium. After all, much of what motivates u s

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

29

remains out of (our own) sight. In addition, the assumption that medium behavior is based on a conscious and rational choice is contrary to findings that the use of media is often habitual and non-selective. If the effects approach may be accused of one-sidedness, the same can be said of the functions approach. All the more surprising that communication scientists often take one of the two positions, thereby rejecting the position of the other. Though there are certainly reseachers who value both these approaches, it is still possible to speak of two different schools holding to either the functions approach or the effects approach. The adherents of the effects approach are mostly to be found in the United States, those of the functions approach mostly in Europe (Murray & Kippax, 1981).

We believe both approaches are very valuable, each in turn showing one side of the coin. And if that coin is left on one side, we shall never get a good look at the other. But if we do turn it to the functions side, we discover that there is hardly anything engraved on it. While functions researchers have, rightly, gone .to pains to criticize the effects approach, they have hardly investigated what functions violent programs have for children, let alone what the consequences of these functions are for the influence of violent programs. In the research conducted, the emphasis has primarily been upon the functions the media have in general, to the neglect of the functions fulfilled by the specific content of those media (Von Feilitzen, 1976; McQuail, 1979; Dorr, 1981).

The amusement function From this research, two points have become very clear. Firstly, television is for children a multi-functional medium. Secondly, the most important function is the amusement function. Children watch television in the first place to amuse themselves, to relax and sometimes to simply pass the time. For this purpose, they have a preference for programs that are "exciting," "funny," and "good" (Von Feilitzen, 1976). According to Van Lil (1978), "exciting and funny" are also the two demands children make upon television programs. Undoubtedly, violent programs often meet these criteria (though this varies from child to child). The informative function

Along with amusement and excitement, television can have a number of other functions. In all of the studies, children

30

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

indicate they learn something from watching television. Hence, according to the children themselves, television actually has an informative function. This does not mean, however, that children watch television with the intention of learning something. This only applies to a minority of the children (Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee, 1972) and it is an age-related phenomenon (as children get older they are more inclined to watch television in order to learn something). Nonetheless, children of all ages actually learn from television. As is the case with newspapers, television provides information about the world around you. The informative function of television does not stop with the news or other informative programs, since amusement programs can also be informative. According to children, television can give you new ideas, teach you to do new things and show you what is right and wrong. Television therefore not only promotes exploration of the world but also of one's own existence. According to (eleven year-old) children, the television is more important in this last respect than the newspaper, a book or talking with others (Hooft & Thunissen, 1980). The social function

An additional conclusion generally appearing in this research is that television has a social function. Firstly because television programs are important topics of discussion: Children of primary school age often talk to one another about what they have seen on television (more than about any other medium). In the jargon of the communications sciences, television therefore has an agenda-setting function for children: Television determines what children talk to one another about. It has been established that this often actually occurs, but which programs children prefer to talk about and what they say to one another has hardly been investigated. Television is also an important topic of conversation as it is being watched. And the content of the program need not be the only topic either. In particular, unexciting programs can be a source of an animated conversation. On the one hand, television can reduce contact between family members, but on the other hand also be a source of verbal interaction (Taal & Kohnstamm, 1979). Family observation studies, done at different social levels, will have to show whether the former or the latter dominates. The fact that children can have almost real contact with figures on the television screen can also be regarded as a social function (Von Feilitzen, 1976). This indicates an uncustomary view of the notion "social.'' The idea is that children sometimes experience an almost friendship relationship with

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

31

the television characters. This is sometimes referred to as para-social interaction. The escapist function

In the literature, an extensive discussion has been devoted to the question whether or not television has an escapist function. It is feared that by watching a lot of television, children will withdraw socially and then be unable to deal with life's everyday problems. However, usually this function is regarded less negatively and is meant to indicate that television is a means of temporary escape from problems one experiences. In such cases, television would appear to fulfill a rather useful function. Contrary to what was originally assumed, television appears not to have a very important escapist function (Von Feilitzen, 1976; Brown, 1976; Hooft & Thunissen, 1980). That is not to say that television has no escapist function at all. It only means that a minority of children claim to look for an escape through television, It appears easier to forget reality with a book, a comic strip or a record (Hooft & Thunissen, 1980). The functions of violent programs

As stated above, the functions of violent programs for children have hardly been investigated. But the fact that children say that television in general--both the informative and amusing programs--has an actual informative function, is certainly important to our story. Children say they get ideas from television programs, learn about good and evil and get an idea of reality. If television has such functions, programs with violence can also have such functions. Functions research therefore suggests that programs with violence can influence the notion children have of reality, can give children ideas and contain lessons as to when violence is suitable and how it should be used. So we see how one can start with functions and ultimately arrive at effects. Effects and functions approaches are therefore not incompatible (Windahl, 1981). Later, looking at the results of effects research, we will ascertain to what extent violent programs fulfill the suggested functions.

EFFECTS INVESTIGATED Discussions on the influence of television violence are usually dominated by the question whether seeing such violence induces

32

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

or reinforces aggression, and most of the research done has been devoted to this question as well. We, too, will be devoting a large part of the discussion to aggression effects. This possibly creates the impression that in viewing television violence, only behavioral consequences are in question. Such a misunderstanding should be combatted immediately, for the influence of television violence need not at all be limited t o behavior. In addition, it is questionable whether the influence of television violence should primarily be sought in the area of behavior. In order to emphasize that seeing television violence has also been connected to non-behavioral effects, we will first summarize the different effects that have been subjected to investigation. At this juncture, we will only briefly point out these effects; the research involved will be discussed later. The effects of media can be categorized according to a large number of viewpoints. McLeod and Reeves (1981) mention no less than eight classification criteria. Our list, however, will contain just two of them. Firstly, the time it takes for an effect to become visible: short versus long-term effects. Secondly, the domain in which the effect takes place: cognitive, affective, or behavioral effects.

Aggressive behavior Both the short and the long-term effects of television violence on aggressive behavior have been identified. In research into short-term effects, the experimental method (both field and laboratory studies) has been used. The following short-term effects on aggressive behavior have been investigated: a. It was first investigated whether after seeing television violence, children are influenced in the kind o f aggressive behavior they display. In particular, it has been determined whether children imitate what they have seen in violent programs. We then refer to an imitation effect, in which children display aggressive behavior apparently copying what they have just seen in the program. In order to ensure that the aggressive behavior displayed has been derived from the program, the studies conducted usually showed programs containing unusual forms of aggressive behavior, the assumption being that the children are not yet acquainted with them. With that assumption, the occurrence of an imitation effect also points to a learning effect. If after seeing television violence children display previously unknown behavior, they have obviously learnt new forms o f aggressive behavior. The effect of both learning and imitation effects need not be short-lived, but with just a few exceptions, the occurrence of long-term effects has not been investigated.

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

33

b. In addition, it has been investigated whether television violence prompts or encourages (heightened) aggression. In such cases we refer to an instigation effect. In fact, the occurrence of an imitation effect assumes an instigation effect as well. In order to distinguish between the two, we only refer to instigation in cases in which the aggressive behavior displayed is already a part of the child's behavioral repertoire. An instigation effect can concern the frequency, the duration or the intensity of the aggressive behavior. We then speak of an instigation effect when after having seen television violence, children display already learnt aggressive behavior more frequently, longer or more intensely. c. Finally, a third possible short-term effect of television violence is when seeing it results in a reduction of aggressive behavior. In such cases we refer to a reduction effect. There have been but a handful of studies aimed at investigating such an effect. The long-term influence of television violence on aggressive behavior has been estimated by means o f (transversal or longitudinal) correlational studies. Important here is the question whether in the course of time, seeing television violence results in an increased (or reduced) habitual aggressiveness in children. Other behavioral effects

Apart from television violence's influence on aggressive behavior, a number of other behavioral effects have been identified. In particular, some research has been done into the possible influence of television violence upon the occurrence of a number of different behavioral phenomena, such as prosocial behavior, fantasy play and nightmares or other sleep disturbances. The influence of TV violence on prosocial behavior has in particular been identified for its short-term effects. The same, of course, applies for nightmares and sleep disturbances. The possible influence of seeing television violence upon the frequency with which children engage in fantasy play, however, has been ,primarily identified for longterm effects. Aggressive attitude

With respect to the influence of television violence upon aggression, attention has also been paid to the possible effects on children's aggressive attitudes. Attitudes cannot be altered

34

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

by a single program, which is why this effect has usually been determined after a long period of time. Among other things, it has been investigated whether seeing television violence results in children's more easily accepting violence as a solution to problems or conflicts. In an exceptional case, however, it was also investigated whether seeing television violence can stimulate prosocial attitudes. Emotional reactions

Research has also been done into the affective influence of television violence. Among other things, it has been investigated to what extent violent programs evoke emotional reactions in the short run (during or immediately after the program): either heightened arousal or temporary fright. It was also investigated whether in the course of time these temporary reactions lessened. In such cases, we refer to a desensitization effect. With desensitization, some researchers only refer to cases in which programs bring about less physiological activity, but we see no reason to exclude consciously experienced emotions from the definition of desensitization. We therefore refer to desensitization when there is a reduction in emotional reactions--emotional arousal or consciously experienced emotions--after frequent or repeated viewing of television violence. At the experiential level, we might refer to an insensitivity to violence: we are less emotionally touched by it. In the literature, desensitization is sometimes equated with habituation. It is true that these two concepts are closely related, but we do not regard them as identical. We refer to habituation when frequent viewing leads to the belief that violence is "normal": one gets used to it and i s less inclined to recognize actions as being violent (a reduced readiness to see violence). A distinction should be made between desensitization to violence in television programs and to violence in real life. The latter has hardly been investigated. A number of studies, however, have very explicitly made a connection between frequent viewing of television violence and the perception of violence in real life. In this connection, the assumption was not that seeing a great deal of violence on television is accompanied by a reduced inclination to be afraid of violence in real life or to experience violence as such. On the contrary: the researchers in question assume that frequent viewing of television violence results in the viewer's becoming more sensitive to violence in real life. It is assumed that due to experiences of violence on television, the viewer would be inclined to overestimate the frequency of violence in reality.

THE INFL UENCE 0F TELEVISION VIOLENCE

35

In addition, it would make the viewer more fearful and more on guard in social contacts (social paranoia effect). Distorted view of reality The assumption that seeing television violence results in an overestimation of the frequency with which violence occurs in reality also implies the existence of a cognitive effect, namely, a distortion of the views one has of reality. Violent programs may influence the experience of reality in other ways as well. For example, it is feared that seeing violence in programs confirms the viewer's stereotype attitudes towards the roles of men and women, towards minority groups, towards certain social classes, and so forth. In addition, violent programs may give viewers notions, false or otherwise, about other aspects of reality portrayed in them (for example how justice in America is administered). After a review of this assorted mixture of possible effects, one thing in particular stands out: the effects investigated are often one another's opposites. Most researchers have investigated whether seeing television violence instigates aggressive behavior. But in a number of studies, it was also investigated whether seeing television violence reduces the occurrence of aggressive behavior. In most cases, it was determined whether frequent viewing of television violence reinforces aggressive attitudes. But in exceptional cases, it was also investigated whether or not seeing television violence promotes prosocial attitudes. Finally, although most reseachers believe that frequent viewing of television violence has a desensitizing effect, some researchers believe it does quite the opposite. As we already mentioned in the introduction, our argument gets quite complicated here perforce. Researchers simply do not agree with one another on all matters. It is the task of the reviewer to judge who is right, or rather who is right in which instance. First, we will attempt such a judgment for the possible influence of television violence on aggressive behavior.

TV AND AGGRESSION: THREE KINDS OF HYPOTHESES just mentioned, the researchers do not always agree with one another. This disagreement is strongest with respect to the relationship between television violence and aggression. The current hypotheses developed in this area can be classified into three types:

As

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

36

a. reduction hypotheses: seeing television violence reduces the viewer's aggression; b. "no-effectffhypotheses: aggressive television programs have little or no effect upon the viewer's daily life; c. stimulation hypotheses: aggressive television programs result in an imitation or instigation of aggression. Something to scratch one's head about in wonderment. Apparently, researchers support very contradictory hypotheses. And to make it more complicated, each of these notions are, in turn, supported from several different theoretical points of view. So even among the supporters of, say, the reduction hypothesis, there is no agreement about the mechanisms by which television violence reduces aggression. We will be reviewing all these different theoretical notions. To give the reader an idea of how it is possible that such contradictory opinions exist, we will first let representatives from all three persuasions have their say. These representatives speak expressly for themselves, for others sharing similar views might have chosen to defend them in a different fashion. A

child psychiatrist

Psychiatry is the very discipline to look for a representative of the reduction hypothesis, for the adherents of this hypothesis are often to be found there. We have chosen the child psychiatrist De Levita (1980). It is of interest to know what he bases his point of view on. Not, in any case, upon the research literature concerning television violence, for he frankly admits "not being very well acquainted" with it. This does not discourage him from making clear-cut statements concerning the influence of television violence on children, for he has other informational sources. Firstly, he has very considerable experience with children whose problems were such that temporary admission to a clinic was considered necessary. A second information source De Levita mentions are his observations of his own children. Finally, as a psychistrist, he is, of course, theoretically well-equipped. In short then, his statements about the influence of television violence on "the" child are based on his clinical experience, observations at home and--judging from his arguments--analytical psychology. According to De Levita, children are often neglected: they often receive much too little attention. His practice has taught him that some very seriously neglected young children have been "emotionally kept alive" entirely by television programs. De Levita (1978) describes, for example, the case of Fred, "a television-fed child." For some time television was

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

37

the only intellectual and cultural nutrition offered to him. In this case, De Levita (1978) concludes, television seems to have acted "as a compensation for the lack of stimulation by the mother; it, s o to speak, kept his mental apparatus busy and filled his empty receptors" (p. 1 3 2 ) . Television can then be a kind of substitute for parental attention. Function researchers would say that television can fulfill an escapist function. De Levita believes that television often has such a beneficial function, for there are "many children that are lacking something." Contrary to what research has suggested, the escapist function would then be one o f television's important functions. Secondly, De Levita (1980) made a noteworthy observation at home. He had rented a number of films and shown them to a group of preschoolers. By chance, one o f these films happened to be about harpooning whales: I t ( . . .) a film to take away your appetite, I might say; before we knew what was happening, it appeared on the screen, with hooks, blood and all." The film was not only endured, but was such a success that for months afterwards the children badgered him to show that nice film again. From this observation, De Levita concludes: "I do not know where the myth originated that children cannot bear aggression and that it is therefore not good for them." Presumably the notion is that if children are not frightened by what they see in a film, it can do them no harm. Hence, there is nothing wrong with children watching violence on television, s o long as they do it cheerfully. Finally, De Levita has his own--obviously Freudian-inspired--notions of aggressiveness. He believes all people have aggression in them, and one way or the other it has to come out, even in a gentle and friendly environment. If children have no opportunity to express their aggression, it somehow accumulates until it bursts out. Children are therefore aggressive in nature and the trick is to s o channel that aggression that it at least becomes possible to get along with one another in an acceptable fashion. Violent programs can play an "exceptionally useful role" in that channelling process. It is not entirely clear how we are to picture this mechanism exactly. De Levita asserts that in violent programs a " ( . . .) lot is symbolized which can be very useful at all levels of development.'' Although De Levita has never actually said as much, we should probably imagine this as a kind o f transfer process which takes place while watching the programs. Just as in psychoanalytic therapy, where patients can transfer their feelings about others to the therapist, a child watching a violent program might be able to get rid of its surplus energy to the television. In any case, psychoanalists now and again

38

TY VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

provide this kind of explanation for a reduction effect. De Levita does not, by the way, regard every violent program as suitable, for it appears to be necessary that there should be some sort of moral to the story "so that the aggression, however nasty, should not go completely unpunished." A sociologist So much for the opinion of a child psychiatrist. If we are looking for a representative of the "no-effect" hypothesis, we should be advised to consult the field of sociology, for the

adherents of this hypothesis are often to be found there. Halloran (1980), a leading communications scientist and originally a sociologist, is a worthy exponent of this hypothesis. Contrary to De Levita, Halloran does not begin his analysis with the child. His analysis starts from society. And indeed, he finds the question as to whether television violence contributes to aggression insufficient. He believes it is better to seek an explanation for the occurrence of gross (punishable) violence in society. The determinants of violent crimes--for that is Halloran's subject--should especially be looked for in all kinds of macrosociological determinants: poverty, the class system, rapid social change, the industrial revolution, and so forth. Of course, Halloran also realizes that there are determinants of aggression that can be found at a lower level, but if we wish to understand the occurrence of violence in society, we must look for its causes in particular in the way society is organized. Looked at in this fashion, the influence of television must be negligible. It is true that there is psychological research suggesting that television violence can contribute to aggression, but Halloran asserts that his own research into delinquents' experiences with the media did not indicate that these differ from those of non-delinquents. At the level of society, television can therefore hardly be an important source of aggression. In addition, most of this psychological research is of American origin, and cannot simply be generalized to Europe. Finally, those experiments were put together very artificially, and are open to all kinds of methodological criticism; they concern "relatively simpleminded causal stimulus-response approaches" which in turn are open to criticism. According to Halloran then, television is not an important source of gross violence in society. But television need not be completely ineffective either. Although it has never been investigated, Halloran can particularly imagine that television causes frustration among the underprivileged members of socie-

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

39

ty, for night after night, the television confronts them with people who are considerably better off than they are. Dramatized violence may also create in people a feeling of unsafety. This can lead to a confirmation of the s t a t u s quo and create an atmosphere in which, as it were, any proposal for the strengthening o f the police is met with applause. In addition, the actual violence on television may exercise some influence. In particular, certain types of presentation in the media may result in the public's getting the impression that certain minority groups are especially responsible for the violence in society. In addition, by devoting particular attention to situations that get out of hand, the media more o r less provoke violence; a demonstration has a much smaller chance of getting into the media i f the police are not called in to disperse it. All of this does not mean, however, that televison violence is an important determinant of aggressive behavior. A psychologist

Finally, an adherent of the stimulation hypothesis can best be found in psychologists' circles, for they are its staunchest supporters. Again we choose among them someone with an explicit opinion on the matter. Liebert ( 1 9 7 4 ) is then the man we are looking for. Liebert has at least this much in common with De Levita that he starts with the child. There the agreement ends, and a resemblance to Halloran's point of view i s also hard to find. The experiments Halloran just dismissed as "simple-minded" are the very source Liebert draws upon. According to Liebert, experimental research shows that through violent programs, children learn new aggressive techniques. Violent programs then, teach children how to be aggressive. In addition, violent programs contain another and more general message, namely that violence pays. Analyses of the contents of violent programs show that in them, violent methods are usually used to achieve an end. The notion thus conveyed is that violence is a means of getting what you are after. But, De Levita would counter, in violent programs, evil is ultimately punished, is it not? True, Liebert would undoubtedly respond, the villain in violent programs is almost always punished. After all, at the end of the program there is usually a fight or a shoot-out in which the hero finishes the wretch o f f . The violence of the hero, however, is another matter altogether. He is rewarded with "a promotion, a blond and a bottle of champagne: super heroes have been known to obtain all three, plus a vacation in the sun." Hence, violence is discouraged if it is the "bad guy," but is encouraged and inevitably rewarded if it concerns those with the law on their side.

40

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'SEYE VIEW

According to Liebert, this is problematical, because whether we are children or adults, we all believe we are in the right. Did A1 Capone not say on his deathbed: "All I ever tried to do was bring people a little happiness"? And as we all know, are we not all just good people in a bad, bad world? According t o Liebert, the mechanism by which seeing television violence can lead to aggression is an extremely comprehensible one. Television is a kind of teacher one learns from simply by watching. One sees how it fares with others who make use of violence. If you have the wrong motives, you get punished; but if you are in the right, violence is not only permitted, it is also rewarded. In addition, television teaches you how to do it. Three conflicting opinions So much for the explicit opinions of a child psychiatrist, a

sociologist and a psychologist. Three conflicting opinions, but hopefully it is now somewhat clearer how it is possible to get such different answers to the same question. First of all, it would appear to be related to the disciplines themselves. This fact alone leads to a different approach to the problem. De Levita begins his reflections with the observation that the neglect of children is a serious problem. The sociologist Halloran begins by asking himself how the occurrence of violent crimes in society can be explained. And the psychologist Liebert introduces his considerations by pointing to the great number of violent actions to be seen on television. These "intro's" are not insignificant, for if the departure point is different, there is every likelihood that the destination will be different as well. In fact, the different introductions reflect different interests and preoccupations. While someone from another discipline might not have thought of it, it is quite understandable for a child psychiatrist, when writing about children and television violence, to begin by pointing to the problem of pedagogical neglect. De Levita is, after all, confronted daily with the consequences. Undoubtedly, his observations have been colored by the fact that television provided some assistance in preventing some of the children in his care from being ruined altogether (helped them "stay alive"). Halloran, on the other hand, has an entirely different preoccupation. He is interested, in fact, in a social issue; gross violence in society. In fact, Halloran reformulates the question, for he is not interested in knowing if television can

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

41

promote aggression, but whether a rise in the statistics on violent crimes can be attributed to violent programs. If the question is so formulated, it is not surprising that the conclusion is ultimately reached that television contributes little in this regard. Logically then, Liebert's thinking does not appeal to Halloran at all. Halloran is not interested in a child hitting a plastic blow-up doll (or, if you will, its own little sister). This only interests him if such youthful violence portends a murderer in the making. Liebert, in turn, has little affinity for the questions that so concern Halloran. His introduction to the problem does not concern such phenomena as class differences or poverty. His point of departure is the individual. Whereas Halloran only gets interested at the point at which a football stadium gets dismantled, Liebert is already concerned when after seeing violent programs, children more often choose a mask that causes a baby to cry. In fact, then, Halloran's and Liebert's points of view are not contradictory; they are simply addressing different issues. Halloran may be correct in thinking that television's influence on the occurrence of violent crimes is negligible, while Liebert may be correct in thinking that violent programs stimulate "small-scale" aggression. But we might at least expect Liebert and De Levita to reach the same conclusion. However, they appear to be addressing different issues as well, for to Liebert, aggression is destructive behavior. De Levita, however, has a different point of view altogether. To him, aggression is also something good, even indispensible, for if you do not get rid of that aggression, you yourself are the one to pay. "Without aggression, you cannot do anything," De Levita says, "without it, learning is impossible, to mention but one kind o f behavior." Presumably, if Liebert were to hear such a remark, he would not be able to make head nor tail of it. Liebert realizes that learning is related to repetition and intelligence, but undoubtedly, he has never run across aggression as a determinant of learning in any introductory work on the psychology of learning. If there is already disagreement on what is meant by aggression, it should come as no surprise that there are differences of opinion as to what the determinants of this phenomenon are. According to De Levita, they are principally to be found in the child itself. Of course, the environment is not entirely without significance. But even if the child's parents are darlings, its own aggression must and shall be got rid of. In addition, having parents who are too nice is a mixed blessing, for then the child has no occasion to rid itself of those parental ties through a little healthy aggression. Liebert sees

42

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

the source of aggression not so much in the child as in the environment. Aggression is something you learn, and one learns not only by doing but also by seeing. Observing others is therefore a powerful instrument in learning aggression. In the past, children had to make do with observing models in their own immediate surroundings, but now there is television as well, That medium is crammed full of models a child can learn a great deal from. To Halloran, however, the notions of both Liebert and De Levita are just too narrow. In his view, it is not so much the amount of attention a child gets or which models it associates with that are important to the development of aggression, but whether the family has proper housing, or can make ends meet. To Halloran, it is all society's fault. In light of the different preoccupations, questions, definitions and theoretical angles, it should also come as no surprise that the three scholars have different ways of dealing with the research literature on this subject. De Levita has no use for that literature at all, for even without it he knows how television's influence works. After all, he has his clinical experience. Although there was no prime-time in Freud's Vienna, De Levita believes it possible, on the basis of analytic theory, to make specific statements on what effect violent programs have on children. On the other hand, Halloran and Liebert have consulted the research literature, but they assess it differently. Halloran rejects the experimental literature on theoretical grounds, while Liebert swears by it. Halloran's methodological conscience is, by the way, rather selective. While he rejects the results of experimental research, he displays confidence in questionable sociological research presumed to show that by watching a lot of dramatized violence on television, the adult viewer will develop increased feelings of unsafety. It is also worth noting that Halloran only talks of the influence of television violence on adults, while it would seem more logical that such a phenomenon would affect children. This is a rather symptomatic foible of the communications sciences. Communications researchers seem to prefer to conduct their studies among the ones paying for the television. Research among children is often left to researchers from other disciplines. A partial consequence of this is that the research results obtained are looked at from different "standards of evidence" (McLeod & Reeves, 1981). To many psychologists, the field survey is a rather poor instrument, while communications researchers often delight in sending interviewers afield. Inversely, psychological researchers often swear by the experiment, a method which many communications researchers believe to indicate no small amount of na'iveti.

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

43

It should be said that we believe all three researchers are, in part at least, right. We have no doubt whatsoever that De Levita is correct in asserting that clinical experience indicates that television can help totally neglected children to stay emotionally alive. However, clinical experience is a rather narrow basis for making statements about what effect television has on "normal" children. True, Freud's theory is brilliant, but it is almost impossible to deduce falsifiable predictions from it. So we believe De Levita is right insofar as he refers to the influence of television on children with such serious problems that temporary residence at a clinic is considered necessary. His clinical experience (or depth psychology) can also be a rich source for hypotheses on how televion affects "the" child. Whether these hypotheses hold true, however, cannot be determined by intuition; that is a question for empirical research. It is quite possible that what Halloran says is to a large extent correct, for little research suggests that seeing television violence is an important determinant of criminal violence. So far as we know, only Belson (1978) has discovered a clear relationship between television violence and serious violent crimes. However, Liebert presumably is correct in asserting that television can be a source of "petty" aggression, for research indeed appears to point in that direction. In the following pages we will first present an overall view of the research in this area, and consider what general conclusions can be drawn from it. After having investigated some of the problems interpreting this research presents, we will then discuss the different reduction, stimulation and "noeffect" hypotheses.

FIVE TYPES OF RESEARCH From a methodological point of view, we can classify the research into the influence of television violence on aggression into five categories. Case

histories

First of all, there are the case histories. Most books on the influence of television violence include some tall stories about extremely violent crimes seemingly copied from programs recently seen on television. Undoubtedly, such things occur, but this may have concerned children--or adults--with patholo-

44

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

gical inclinations. I t is therefore not unlikely t h a t the s u b j e c t s i n q u e s t i o n would have committed a s i m i l a r o f f e n s e even if t h e y had n o t s e e n t h e example on t e l e v i s i o n . On occasion, however, a v i o l e n t program may give people i d e a s t h e y presumably would n o t have thought of without i t . Bandura (1973) provides a p e r t i n e n t example. I n t h e f i l m Doomsday Flight, a b l a c k m a i l e r announces t h a t a bomb has been placed i n an a i r l i n e r t h a t w i l l explode a s soon a s t h e p l a n e a t t e m p t s t o land ( i t i s an a i r - p r e s s u r e bomb). I n t h e f i l m a l l ends w e l l : The p i l o t l a n d s t h e p l a n e a t a runway a t h i g h e l e v a t i o n . The a i r l i n e companies, however, had t h e i r hands f u l l w i t h t h i s f i l m . After both n a t i o n a l b r o a d c a s t s i n t h e United S t a t e s and i n A u s t r a l i a , and l a t e r r e g i o n a l r e r u n s i n San F r a n c i s c o and Miami, t h e a i r l i n e companies had t o d e a l w i t h a c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r number of bomb s c a r e s . On a s m a l l e r s c a l e , something s i m i l a r occurred during r e c e n t n a t i o n a l e l e c t i o n s i n Holland. Someone g o t t h e i d e a of s p o i l i n g t h e v i c t o r y c e l e b r a t i o n of t h e s u p p o r t e r s of t h e L i b e r a l P a r t y i n Breda by s t a r t i n g a bomb s c a r e and a s soon a s t h i s was announced, b o t h t h e Labor and t h e Communist p a r t i e s experienced t h e same i n Amsterdam. The filmmaker Kotcheff (1976) a l s o provides an example i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t e l e v i s i o n can give u n s t a b l e people i d e a s . I n England, he d i r e c t e d a t e l e v i s i o n f i l m t a k i n g p l a c e i n t h e London Underground. For t h i s , he contacted London T r a n s p o r t . A f t e r t h e company's p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s s e c r e t a r y had read t h e s c r i p t , he phoned Kotcheff i n p a n i c . He was concerned about t h e s c r i p t ' s opening scene, i n which a man throws himself i n f r o n t of an oncoming t r a i n . The p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s s e c r e t a r y begged Kotcheff t o d e l e t e t h e scene, f o r he was a f r a i d t h a t a f t e r s e e i n g t h e f i l m a t l e a s t "half a dozen people would commit s u i c i d e i n e x a c t t h e same way t h e day a f t e r t h e b r o a d c a s t . " His p l e a s were i n v a i n , because Kotcheff assumed he was h e a v i l y e x a g g e r a t i n g . A f t e r t h e b r o a d c a s t , t h e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s secret a r y phoned Kotcheff again. A day a f t e r t h e b r o a d c a s t , f i v e people had thrown themselves i n f r o n t of t r a i n s .

Survey studies A second form of r e s e a r c h i s t h e survey s t u d y . I n t h e s e s t u d i e s , viewing frequency or p r e f e r e n c e measures a r e c o r r e l a t e d with measures of a g g r e s s i v e n e s s o r a g g r e s s i v e a t t i t u d e s . These c o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d i e s have q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t l y shown t h a t t h e r e i s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between viewing v i o l e n t programs and c e r t a i n i n d i c a t o r s of a g g r e s s i o n . The c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e , howe v e r , u s u a l l y low and i n g e n e r a l do n o t e x p l a i n more t h a n 10% of t h e v a r i a n c e . I n a d d i t i o n , i t i s n o t c l e a r what causes what. Moreover, t h e r e i s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n can be

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

4s

explained by the relationship each correlated variable has with a common determinant. It does appear, however, that the relationship between television violence and aggression cannot be explained by the fact that aggressive juveniles have a stronger preference for violent programs (Comstock, 1980b). Correlational research does, in any case, show that there is a relationship between television violence and aggression. Of course, this does not demonstrate the existence of a causal relationship. Nevertheless, the fact that a positive relationship has been discovered at least allows for this possibility (indeed, if no relationship is found at all, there can also be no causal relationship). A s we have mentioned, the relationship is not very strong. However, as Stein and Friedrich (1975) have remarked: "Given the many factors affecting aggressive behavior, it would be surprising if high correlations occurred." To this they add--but this can be questioned--that the fact that television violence is significantly related to aggression means that it i s a "powerful" relationship. Panel studies Longitudinal research with a so-called time-lagged correlationa l design provides more control of what is being investigated. Eron, Huesmann, Lefkowitz, and Walder (1972) have conducted such a study. This study has been the subject of considerable controversy. In a sample o f eight-year-olds, the relationship between the preference for television violence and aggression was determined. Similar measurements were made again ten years later. Eron et al. (1972) concluded: "The single most plausible hypothesis is that a preference for watching violent television in the third grade contributes to the development of aggressive habits." This conclusion has been strongly challenged on methodological grounds. Among other things, it has resulted in an extensive discussion in American Psychologist (Becker, 1972; Howitt, 1972; Kaplan, 1972; Kay, 1972), a discussion summarized in Kenny (1975). Doubts have been raised with respect to the high attrition in the sample (more than 50%), a change in measuring instruments during the course o f the study and the very low reliability of the measurement instruments used. Armour (1975) has made a secondary analysis of the original data using several causal models. He concludes that Eron et al. did not use the proper causal model. Armour asserts that "the safest conclusion is simply that the study does not establish a causal relationship between television violence and aggression in one direction or another" ( p . 90). Recently, the discussion--once again in American Psychologist--has again flared up (Sohn, 1981; Eron & Huesmann, 1981;

46

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

Kaplan, 1982). The discussion cannot, by the way, be characterized as entirely professional. Eron and Huesmann (1981) accuse Sohn (1981) of "ignorance," because the latter is presumed to be unaware of the fact that recent research has shown an explicit causal relationship between television violence and aggression. According to Eron and Huesmann, those who refuse to acknowledge this belong to a "far out group of fanatics." Kaplan (1982) retorted in kind. Recently, Eron (1982) appears to have backed down. In the article in question, Eron presents the first data of a new longitudinal study done with two partially overlapping samples in the period between 1977 and 1979. The age group covered ranged from the first to the fifth years of primary school. The children were followed for three years, and measurements were taken at yearly intervals. It concerned an international study that was done in the United States, Australia, Finland, Poland, and Holland. In his article, Eron (1982) presents the first findings (in Table 11.4--see Chapter 11--we will present the relationships between television violence and aggression found in this international study, including those we found in our own research). In Eron's article, the results of path analysis are not yet included. Nevertheless, he appears to have revised his opinion that television violence is more likely to lead to aggression than the reverse. Eron (1982) says literally: "It is now apparent that the relation does not just go in one direction. Although we have demonstrated that television violence i s one cause of aggressive behavior, it is also probable that aggressive children prefer to watch more and more violent television" (p. 210). Hence, Eron now assumes that there is a circular relationship in which seeing a lot of television violence leads to more aggression, and, simultaneously, aggressive children are more inclined to watch violent programs. The latter interpretation seems to be more plausible than the original one. Based on the same research, Huesmann (1982) presents data showing that the forward cross-lagged correlations were not much larger than the reverse cross-lagged correlations and the same-age correlations. A recent study of Milavsky, Stipp, Kessler, and Rubens (1982) raises further doubts about an interpretation in which television violence is seen as the only cause for the television-aggression relationship. The study showed that the unique contribution of early TV violence viewing to later aggression (in addition to that explained by stability in aggression and the relation between early television violence viewing and early aggression) was very small.

THE INFL UENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

47

If the television-aggression relationship may be understood circularly, then the child is not only a passive victim (television viewing results in aggression), but also an initiator (aggressive children watch more TV violence). An effect and a functional view are here combined. Experimental field studies

A fourth research method used provides even more control of the

course of events: the experimental field study. These field studies are done in settings (for example, children's homes, nursery schools, summer camps) where it is possible to control to some extent the children's viewing behavior. The researcher determines which groups of children are shown violent or "neutral" films. It is a form of quasi-experimental research in which the (cumulative) effect of one to two weeks of watching violent films is estimated. The results of these field studies are not entirely consistent. In one case (Feshbach & Singer, 1971)) a reduction effect was found. This has been contested on methodological grounds (Liebert, Sobol, & Davidson, 1972; Liebert, Davidson, & Sobol, 1972) and only partially refuted (Feschbach & Singer, 1972a and 1972b). In all, about a dozen field studies have been conducted. Most of them are discussed in Murray and Kippax (1981), a number of less well-known Canadian field studies among them. With the exception of three studies, in which no significant effects were found, these field studies argue for a stimulation effect, though such an effect was sometimes only found in children who were the most aggressive to start with (Leyens, Parke, Camino, & Berkowitz, 1975; Parke, Berkowitz, Leyens, West, & Sebastian, 1977). A majority of the experimental field studies, then, suggests that seeing television violence can stimulate aggression. But it is no law of the Medes and Persians: the relationship in question is not found consistently and in some studies is limited to the most aggressive children. Laboratory experiments

In a fifth form of research, the laboratory experiment, there is a maximal amount of control (which, by the way, must be paid for in other areas). In all, approximately 75 experiments have been conducted (Comstock, 1980b). In reviewing the different hypotheses on television influence, we will discuss in depth the nature of these experiments. We will suffice here with the observation that with a few exceptions, the experiments conducted suggest the existence of a stimulation effect.

48

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD’S-EYE VIEW

Reviewing the results of the different types of research conducted, one is forced to conclude that the stimulation hypothesis is the most plausible one. Indeed, correlational studies almost always show a positive relationship between television violence and aggression. Most longitudinal research also suggests that television violence can contribute to aggression, although presumably, this relationship is circular (with aggression also contributing to the watching of television violence); and according to one study the causal effect of television violence on aggression was negligible. And finally, a majority of the field experiments and a vast majority (just short of 90%--Andison, 1977) of the laboratory experiments conducted suggest that seeing television violence can result in an increase in aggression. This overall conclusion is confirmed in the meta-ahalyses of Andison (1977) and Hearold (1979). According to their analyses, more than 75% of the studies conducted point in the direction of either a positive correlation or a causal relationship between seeing aggression on television and aggressive behavior. The remaining 25% of the studies usually show no relationship (Andison: 19.2% of the total number of studies) and, at times, a reduction effect (4.2%).

THE POWERLESS RESEARCHER Does this now prove that television violence increases aggression? No, nothing has been proved. And there is nothing to be proved, because scientific research does not work that way. At best, research can demonstrate the untenability of hypotheses. From the point of view of logic, however, it is impossible to prove that a hypothesis is valid. In the course of research it is, however, possible to increase the confidence enjoyed by a hypothesis. Research can make a hypothesis more plausible, but not prove its validity. Can it then be said that on the basis of research it is likely that seeing television violence increases aggression? We are now asking the right question, but it is difficult to answer it unequivocally. In fact, the answer varies with the source that is being consulted. For some, it is an open and shut case. For example, Huesmann (1982) believes that the research justifies the following unequivocal statement: “Violence viewing and aggressive behavior clearly are positively related ( . . . ) . The weight o f evidence strongly suggests that observational learning and attitude change induced by television violence are contributing in the positive relation.”

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

49

(p. 1 3 4 ) . That should be clear enough. Such clarity can be seen in many reviews. For others, the matter is more complicated. Comstock (1980b), for example, states that research does, indeed, indicate that seeing television violence increases the chance of aggression. However, he hastens to add that there are a number of c a v e a t s , that is, matters in which caution should be exercised, among other reasons because s o little is known about the functions television violence serves for children. For example, he does not exclude the possibility that television violence may also evoke empathy and socially desirable reactions. With good reason, Comstock also states: "We know very little about the degree of social harm." There are also researchers, however, who believe that the research does not justify the conclusion that seeing television violence increases aggression. Kaplan and Singer (1976), Howitt and Cumberbatch (1975), Bergler and Six (1979) , and Freedman (1984), all hold this opinion. It is useful to mention these reviews explicitly, for this point of view is rarely found in reviews. How is it possible that reviewers of the same sources can draw such different conclusions? In part, it has to do with the scientific attitude of the reviewer. According to McLeod and Reeves (1981), there are two types of reviewers, namely Type One Worriers and Type Two Worriers. These two types o f worriers can in particular be distinguished by the kinds of errors they most wish to avoid. The first type of worrier is especially afraid of drawing too strong a conclusion. They are inclined to believe that media have no effect. When confronted with a correlation of 0.40, a Type One Worrier hastens to remark that only 16% of the variance has been explained. Type Two Worriers, however, are tormented by a different kind of fear altogether. They are worried about overlooking a possible media effect. A worrier of the second type therefore scrutinizes every possible effect, but rarely worries about the percentage of explained variance. It should be clear that those denying that television violence increases aggression are typical members of the Type-I Worriers. Those who believe sacredly and unreservedly in such an effect are sooner to be found among the Type-I1 Worriers. Other reviewers, for example Comstock (1980b), attempt to combine the wide-range exploratory behavior of the Type-I1 Worriers with the caution o f the Type-I Worriers. A s McLeod and Reeves (1981) have remarked, this double-worry approach would appear to be the best one.

In addition, the conclusions seem in part to be inspired by the way the literature is studied. We suspect Van Meel's (1975) distinction between broad and narrow c a t e g o r i z e r s is appropriate here. Whether or not the author has made a formal study of the literature, the task, in essence, is always one of sorting out the research already conducted into different catego-

50

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

r i e s . Some reviewers make do w i t h few c a t e g o r i e s . These a r e t h e broad c a t e g o r i z e r s . O t h e r s need a l a r g e number of c a t e g o r i e s , o f t e n d i v i d i n g a c a t e g o r y i n t o s u b c a t e g o r i e s . Obviously, t h e s e a r e t h e narrow c a t e g o r i z e r s . The broad c a t e g o r i z e r s make few d i s t i n c t i o n s and i n s o doing s i m p l i f y r e a l i t y . I t appears t h a t broad c a t e g o r i z e r s a r e o f t e n u n c r i t i c a l : They admit i r r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l i n t o t h e i r t a r g e t c a t e g o r i e s . They tend towards u n c r i t i c a l o v e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , and r e q u i r e l e s s time i n d e c i d i n g i n t o which c a t e g o r y something belongs. The narrow c a t e g o r i z e r s , on t h e o t h e r hand, have t o i n v e s t more energy i n t o s t r u c t u r i n g t h e i r r e a l i t y , f o r they have t o make many d i s t i n c t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e need more time t o decide. I n t h e many reviews of t h e r e s e a r c h on t e l e v i s i o n v i o l e n c e , b o t h t y p e s of reviewers can e a s i l y be recognized. I f without r e s e r v a t i o n s t h e f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n i s drawn t h a t t e l e v i s i o n increases aggression, w e a r e without exception dealing with a broad c a t e g o r i z e r . The c o n c l u s i o n s o f narrow categor i z e r s a r e always a g r e a t d e a l more complicated. The d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s reached i n some reviews a r e a l s o a r e s u l t of t h e w r i t e r ' s p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e . For example, f o r both Kaplan and S i n g e r (1975) and Howitt and Cumberbatch (1975), who conclude t h a t a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e l e v i s i o n v i o l e n c e and a g g r e s s i o n has never been convincingly demons t r a t e d , t h e c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e r e s e a r c h p r o v i d e s grounds f o r measures r e s t r i c t i n g t h e b r o a d c a s t i n g of t e l e v i s i o n v i o l e n c e . I n t h i s c a s e , i n f a c t , t h e t e l e v i s i o n companies a r e i n t h e "dock" and t h e "judge" must d e c i d e i f t h e evidence i s unequivocal enough t o b a s e such measures on i t . I n such a c a s e , of course, t h e "accused" r e c e i v e s t h e b e n e f i t of t h e d o u b t , and i s always a c q u i t t e d f o r t h e r e i s simply no w a t e r - t i g h t p r o o f . Legal and cogent proof simply cannot be g i v e n because t h e f i v e r e s e a r c h methods used a r e each s u b j e c t t o methodological c r i t i c i s m . Even i f a l l t h e s t u d i e s were without e x c e p t i o n t o suggest t h a t t e l e v i s i o n v i o l e n c e promotes a g g r e s s i o n , it would s t i l l be p o s s i b l e t o ma i n t a i n t h a t such a r e l a t i o n s h i p has n o t been demonstrated convincingly. The f a c t i s , whether o r n o t t h e e f f e c t i n q u e s t i o n a c t u a l l y e x i s t s , r e s e a r c h e r s a r e simply n o t a b l e t o so desi g n t h e i r s t u d i e s t h a t a l l p o t e n t i a l methodolog i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s a n t i c i p a t e d . Here we run up a g a i n s t Hoogs t r a t e n ' s (1979) powerless r e s e a r c h e r . However competent res e a r c h e r s a r e , and whatever t h e y do, t h e y can never completely a n t i c i p a t e methodological c r i t i c i s m . For t h e f a c t a l o n e , f o r example, t h a t a r e s e a r c h e r conducts an experiment can a l r e a d y be a reason t o d i s m i s s t h e r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s . I n an experiment, it i s n o t t h e c h i l d t h a t s e e k s t h e s t i m u l i b u t t h e r e s e a r c h e r who imposes s t i m u l i upon i t . The c r i t i c may t h e n remark t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h method a s such a l r e a d y

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

51

distorts the picture. But the critic may also wait until the research proposal has been disclosed, for then, too, there are unquestionably opportunities for having a shot at the experimental design. To score, the critics need only limit themselves to the operationalization of aggression. Even without having seen it, the critic can remark that the operationalization only covers very subtle and mild forms of aggression. Otherwise, of course, the researcher would get into serious trouble with the children’s parents. In addition, the critic can score once again by remarking that in the experiment, the researcher in fact sanctions the aggression. After all, a permissive atmosphere surrounds all these experiments; if a child is aggressive, researchers would be the last ones to do anything about it, for that is exactly what they are waiting for. The critic, however, can then point out that in real life, aggression often has repercussions. It is therefore questionable whether the findings of such an experiment can be generalized to reality. Even in the perfectly hypothetical case that someone should succeed in designing an experiment that is beyond all criticism, a critic would still be able to persist in asserting that the experiment says very little. In such a case, the critic can simply reply that only a temporary effect has been demonstrated, one which will not last. When the researcher then attempts to demonstrate the same effect six months later, the critic can then remark that in the meantime so much has happened that any differences found are uninterpretable. If the researcher then tries to satisfy the critic with a field experiment, she or he will undoubtedly be told that the results of this quasi-experiment could be explained by anything. Of course, correlational research would be altogether futile. And if the final bet is causal-correlational research, then the first question the researcher will be asked is which variables have been left out of the causal model chosen. So we see, each research method has some or another weakness that the critic can utilize in explaining away the research results obtained. And in fact, this is the approach used in the reviews of Howitt and Cumberbatch (1975), Kaplan and Singer (1976), Bergler and Six (1979), and Freedman (1984). Every study suggesting a positive relationship between television violence and aggression is dissected down to the methodological bone. And it goes without saying that after this operation the conclusion is reached that research has not cogently demonstrated that there is a clear relationship between television violence and aggression. In itself, the methodological criticism leveled by the authors in question is usually not entirely unfounded, for in-

52

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

deed, each of the research methods used has its demonstrable and often specific problems. Often these are offset by specific merits. For example, the loss of real-life authenticity in an experiment is offset by a gain of control. And with a field study, the reverse is true. Each method of research, then, has its pros and cons. In and of themselves, none of the different research methods allows for explicit conclusions. It is another matter, however, if these different research methods lead to corresponding results. In that case, it can be argued that the mutual shortcomings of the different research methods neutralize one another. In the research into the relationship between television violence and aggression, the different methods of research--a majority of them, at least--do, indeed, all point in the same direction. On the basis of this overall view, we would indeed seem justified in drawing the conclusion that the stimulation hypothesis is the most plausible one. We therefore contest the views of Howitt and Cumberbatch (1975), Kaplan and Singer (1976), and Bergler and Six (1979), who ultimately assert that the research supports a choice for the "no-effect'' hypothesis. The research suggests that the stimulation hypothesis is considerably more plausible. Before finalizing this conclusion, we will first have to consider the matter from a different angle. Up to now, we have presented the researcher as a powerless individual who can never get it right. In doing s o , we have only presented one side of the coin. In certain respects, researchers are not powerless at all; indeed, they have everything well under control. Researchers, then, are also powerful and they do not let that power go unutilized. This in particular applies for a number of choices that are made in designing experiments. This is important, because we suspect that the way researchers have used this power has in part determined their experimental findings.

THE POWERFUL RESEARCHER The researcher, and the researcher alone, decides how the experiment will be set up. True, there are a number of practical conditions governing this work, but by and large the researcher has a free hand in shaping the experiment he or she conducts. In our case, for example, this applies to the choice of films used, the type of subjects invited and the experimental design chosen. The impression we now have is that in experimental research in particular, choices have often been made that have maximized the chances of uncovering a stimulation effect. It would appear that researchers have done everything

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

53

to obtain results favorable to the stimulation hypothesis and avoided everything that might be unfavorable to such a result. As we see it, this tendency is visible in the films used in the experiments. Earlier, we stated that in experimental research in particular, there is a preference for programs having a believable or real character for the age group in question. Puppet shows and cartoons, for example, were only used in experiments with young children. Presumably, this age group experiences such programs as no less authentic than programs in which real, flesh-and-blood people appear. Of course, a preschooler knows very well that a puppet and a person are not one and the same. However, its experience of the two is similar. Preschoolers’ reactions to Bert and Ernie in Sesame Street need certainly not be any different than to human actors figuring in that program. You need only have experienced children at a puppet show once to understand what we mean. As soon as older childeren are involved (from about the second year of primary school), however, no researcher would even consider for a moment using a puppet show or cartoon in an experiment. This is understandable for puppet shows; the children have already outgrown them. But they do watch cartoons by the score. Neither would any researcher consider for a moment experimentally investigating, for example, the influence of a comedy caper or a slapstick, both being types of programs often containing a great deal of violence. Fantasy programs thoroughly detached from reality are also not considered for these experiments. The type of programs experimental researchers do use are (sequences from) war films, campus riots, and so on. There is therefore a great preference for the kind of program somewhat older children see as realistic. Presumably, this choice is not coincidental, but is probably inspired by the expectation that such programs are most likely to evoke aggression. There have also been no attempts to determine the influence upon aggression of programs presumably having a prosocial effect. For example, no researcher seems to have had any interest in investigating the aggression effects of a TV serial like Holocaust. And in general, there has been little research conducted into the influence of programs with violence that for the average viewer simply evokes repugnance and disgust. That research is especially directed towards demonstrating a stimulation effect is also expressed in the way in which aggression is operationalized. A point of criticism of experiments with young children was, for example, that their aggression was usually not measured as directed towards p e o p l e . How was that criticism met? By choosing, of all things, a clown as the object of aggression, the very way to maximize the occur-

54

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

rence of aggression. Clowns are the very individuals that many children feel they can vent their aggression upon under all circumstances (which, incidentally, can easily be explained on the basis of observational learning theory). When, for example, the Dutch television clowns, Bassie and Adrian, mingle with their youthful public, it is rarely a pleasure for them. There are even children who shake their hands while holding pieces of glass in them. Indeed, the volunteers who played the clowns in the experiments in question had a rough time of it, judging from the many bruises they incurred (Eysenck & Nias, 1978). The following is but another example suggesting that research is one-sidedly directed towards confirming the stimulation hypothesis. Imitation effects have only been investigated in young children. This is the age group for whom imitation is more or less a labor of love. But any attempts to find in the literature research determining if imitation effects can also be traced in older children will be fruitless. Also with respect to the selection of subjects for their experiments, researchers seem to do everything in their power to maximize the chances of uncovering the effects they are seeking. Andison (1977), for example, concludes that a majority of the studies included in his meta-analysis only refer to men or boys. Only one of them appeared to be conducted with girls only. Studies conducted with young adults, in particular, were done only with men. McCormack (1978) sees sexist motives behind this selection. We have an alternative explanation: It seems easier to establish aggression effects in boys than in girls. Finally, it is noticeable that personality traits are rarely included as concomitant variables in experimental studies. If this had been done more often, it would have been clearer for which children violent programs have a reduction effect or no effect at all. As often no distinction is made among "types" of children, it remains possible to draw such general conclusions as "television violence leads to aggression." With a mixed design, it would be clearer that a violent program's aggression-heightening effect need not apply to all children. In brief, we suspect that researchers have, consciously or not, often set up their experiments in such a way that the chance of uncovering a stimulation effect was as great as possible. As a starting strategy, there is no objection t o such an approach. After all, an often cited piece o f advice from Kurt Lewin is that one should start a series of experiments as "strongly" as possible. Lewin meant here that in initial experiments, it is advisable to choose a manipulation strong enough in any case to elicit the occurrence of the effect anticipated. It is often forgotten, however, that Lewin said more than just that. He also advises using "weaker" manipula-

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

55

tions in follow-up experiments so that the limits of the treatment become clear. Researchers, then, seem to have s o used their powers that they were singularly aimed at verifying the stimulation hypothesis, while they have all but omitted doing research directed ‘at falsifying it. Rarely, then, have researchers actually looked for violent programs for which the stimulation hypothesis does not appear to apply. Researchers have also devoted little attention to children who appear to be not or less susceptible to aggression effects. And there has been little research done into the conditions under which the stimulation effect no longer occurs. This has two implications. Firstly, by and large, the research leaves u s in the dark as to where the limits of the stimulation hypothesis are. Secondly, the overall picture of the experimental findings does not allow us to deduce the frequency with which the stimulation effect occurs. Therefore, the fact that approximately 90% of the experimental studies support the stimulation hypothesis cannot be translated into a statement about the frequency with which violent programs elicit a stimulation effect.

THE OVERALL PICTURE OF THE RESEARCH As we have just seen, experimental researchers have done everything within their power to have the stimulation hypothesis confirmed. Does this observation then undermine our earlier observation that the stimulation hypothesis is the most plausible one? No, such conclusions cannot be drawn from this, for field researchers, for example, did not have the manipulative power of the experimental researcher. They had the control of neither the direction nor the height of the correlations. The researchers who conducted field experiments were also only moderately capable of manipulating reality to meet their own ends. Nevertheless, a majority of these studies point in the direction of a stimulation effect. We therefore maintain our conclusion that in general, frequent viewing of violent programmes has the effect of heightening aggression. But we have to qualify that statement in several ways. Firstly, this is certainly not to say that all violent programs have the effect of heightening aggression. Such a conclusion assumes that in experimental research, the effect of a random sample of violent programs has been investigated, and this requirement has certainly not been met. What experimental research suggests is that a certain type of violent program stimulates aggression, that is, the serious (non-comical)

56

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

violent program having a believable character for the age group in question. What the situation is with the other types of violent programs remains entirely to be seen. Secondly, this is also not to say that violent programs have the effect of heightening aggression in all children, for not all children need be susceptible to the aggression-stimulating effect of violent programs. It is not at all to be discounted that one and the same violent program inhibits aggression in one child while stimulating it in another. After all, children are not blank pages to be enscribed upon passively by the content of violent programs. Children have experiences, preferences, values, opinions, norms, and s o forth. What one child willingly accepts may be fundamentally rejected by another child. Not all children, then, are susceptible to aggression-stimulating effects of violent programs. It is not known, however, how large this group is. Thirdly, we have also not asserted that violent programs that do stimulate aggression always have that effect. It may depend upon the child's mood. It may also depend upon whether the child is watching alone or with other children. It makes a difference what kind of remarks are made while the child is watching, and so on. The effect of violent programs is therefore also dependent upon the situation. Fourthly, we have also not asserted that frequent viewing of violent programs contributes significantly to the child's aggressiveness. In principle, it is plausible that violent programs contribute only slightly to the aggressiveness of relatively many children. But is just as plausible that violent programs contribute greatly to the aggressiveness of relatively few children. All we can ascertain i s that frequent viewing of violent programs i s a dubious activity. As Comstock (1980b) states, "we know very little about the degree of social harm." Fifthly and finally, what we have not asserted is that research has disqualified the reduction and "no-effect" hypothesis altogether. True, the stimulation hypothesis is the most plausible, but that is not to say that it is always applicable. As we stated earlier, some violent programs may very well have the effect of reducing aggression. The same is conceivable for certain children and situations. We will now examine what reduction hypotheses have been formulated and what research has to say about them. After that we will be discussing the stimulation and "no-effect" hypotheses.

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

57

REDUCTION HYPOTHESES The catharsis hypothesis

The best known and most popular reduction hypothesis is the catharsis hypothesis. Catharsis means "cleansing" or "purification," and refers to a relieving or purging of emotions. In fact, this notion is used in two senses. On the one hand, actual aggressive behavior is presumed to (temporarily) reduce one's willingness to be aggressive. Such a postulate is found in both the frustration-aggression hypothesis and in Freudian aggression theory. This (rather implausible) postulate we will leave undiscussed here. On the other hand, seeing others behave aggressively is presumed to have a diminishing effect on aggression. This latter notion lies closer to the context in which Aristotle, from whom the notion originates, spoke of catharsis to start with. Aristotle believed that plays dramatizing events that elicit feelings of pity or fear can lead to a release of such feelings. Artistotle never discussed aggression in this context (Comstock, 1980a), but in the course of time, the notion developed that by seeing violence, aggression, too, could be released. Feshbach (1961)) the best known proponent of the catharsis hypothesis, does not believe that catharsis occurs automatically. Violent programs only have the effect of reducing aggression when children have been made angry beforehand. Only a single study has suggested the existence o f a catharsis effect. Feshbach (1961) found that students who had been insulted before seeing a violent program, later judged the insulter more favorably than after seeing a neutral program. Berkowitz and Rawlings (1963), however, dispute that this was a case of catharsis. To their mind, the program Feshbach used had incidences of unjustified violence, which presumably was rejected by the viewers. This may have elicited inhibitions with respect to all forms of violence, and hence also with respect to the insulting party. The results of their contra-experiment confirm this interpretation. In addition, Feshbach conducted, together with Singer (1971) a field study in residential schools. In the experiment in question, it was indeed found that after receiving a substantial "diet" o f aggression, children were less aggressive than those in a control group. These children were, however, initially more aggressive, so that the findings may have been the result o f statistical regression (Kaplan & Singer, 1976). It has therefore not been at all demonstrated that violent pro-

58

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

grams reduce feelings of aggression through emotional release. Neither does the research provide a reason to believe that seeing violence in real life has a cathartic effect (Milburn, 1980).

The empathy hypothesis

Actually, the catharsis hypothesis is based on a curious notion. It suggests in fact that seeing an eating scene takes away one's appetite. This does not sound very plausible. It is a different case when the viewer finds the food, or the way it is eaten, unappetizing. In fact, the empathy hypothesis is based on just such a notion. Seeing television violence is presumed to result in reduced aggression if the viewer experiences the violence as distasteful. Such a notion would seem very plausible. Kaplan and Singer (1976) cite a number of studies confirming this hypothesis. Seeing a victim suffer, in particular, appeared to have a reduction effect, however only with participants who had not been made angry beforehand. With seriously provoked participants, seeing a victim suffer proved to have a reinforcing effect. The empathy hypothesis is also supported by an experiment conducted by Biblow (1973). Biblow's experiment suggests that, after seeing a violent film, anxious children are less inclined towards aggressive behaviour. In conclusion, research has not confirmed the catharsis hypothesis. Nevertheless, there are indications that seeing violent programs can serve to reduce aggression, in particular if viewers experience what they see as unpleasant or frightening. Of course, it is not at all unimaginable that there are other conditions under which violent programs may reduce aggression. Berkowitz (1962), for example, believes it is possible that viewers who are angry about something may be distracted from their anger by violent programs, as they might be by any other kind of program (attention shift). In addition, Berkowitz believes that a violent program may reduce aggression if the viewer can imagine that the victim on the screen is the same as someone she or he has fallen out with. Humor may also reduce aggression, because humor changes the meaning of the content of the program (Leyens, 1977). Finally, it has been suggested that violent programs provide the viewer's fantasy with material upon which to further daydream. However, it is less plausible that this serves to reduce aggression, for research suggests that indulging in fantasies about violence is more likely to stimulate aggression (Leyens, 1977).

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

59

STIMULATION HYPOTHESES The elementary arousal hypothesis <

According to the elementary arousal hypothesis, the root of the aggression-stimulating effect of violent programs is to be found in the heightening of physiological arousal. It is also referred to as a "general arousal"-hypothesis. Tannenbaum and Zillmann (1975) refer to an elementary arousal hypothesis because they have developed alternative models providing a more complex interpretation. Tannenbaum discovered the importance of the arousal elicited by films through, among other things, an experience at Expo '67 in Montreal. There, in a circular hall, a film was shown on nine screens that had been filmed by nine cameras simultaneously. The audience stood in the middle of the hall. A sequence was shown featuring a high speed car chase, in which, among other things, cameras were mounted on the car conducting the chase. The film shows how the car in front rides through a city and turns sharply to the left. The car conducting the chase, in which you yourself seem to be sitting, then follows. At this point, according to Tannenbaum, "everybody gasps audibly," he as well. He stayed through a second showing, determined not to allow himself to be influenced by film trickery. He was able to suppress the audible "gasp," but not that queasy feeling in his stomach. "Awareness was inadequate to overcome the response," Tannenbaum reports disappointedly. He saw the film six times or s o , and the feeling diminished somewhat but that strange queasiness in his stomach remained. It is this nearly unrestrainable arousal that is presumed to be responsible for the aggression-stimulating effect o f violent programs. The mechanism involved here is extremely elementary; the program elicits physiological arousal. This arousal functions as an energizer; it is a state of acute excitation which intensifies behavior. This drive state, however, is undirected: It does not direct behavior but intensifies it a bit. Immediately after the program, this heightened physiological activity has not yet completely subsided, leaving some residual arousal. It is this residue that has the effect of making any activity undertaken immediately after the program more intense than would otherwise have been the case. What the hypothesis does not say is that a violent program encourages aggression. One does what one would otherwise have done, but--due to residual arousal--with increased energy and intensity. And the more one is egged on by a program, the more forceful the behavior that follows. Thus a violent program only stimulates aggression if after the program there is an opportu-

60

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

nity to express aggression and, in addition, if one goes in for it. The experimental paradigm in question provides that opportunity; the subjects are made angry beforehand. A confederate of the experimenter, acting as a fellow subject, applies electric shocks when he does not agree with the subject's opinions (in later experiments, the confederate makes derogatory remarks about the subject's intelligence). The subject, thus provoked, is then shown a program. During the viewing, the subject's physiological arousal is measured. Afterwards, the roles are reversed. Not knowing that this serves to measure aggression, the subject may now apply shocks to the confederate. This is done with the BAM: BUSS' Aggression Machine, the most frequently used device for measuring aggression in experiments with adults. In the context of an "experiment on learning," the subject may thus apply shocks to the confederate to correct erroneous responses. Duration and/or intensity of the shocks are used as measures of aggression. The experiments in question--all discussed in Tannenbaum and Zillmann (1975)--show that an arousing erotic fi m induces more aggression than a non-arousing aggressive film. The conclusion is that it is not the content of the film that s decisive but the extent to which the film causes physiological arousal. This also makes clear that the effect of stimulating aggression is not an attribute of violent programs alone. According to the elementary arousal hypothesis, any exciting program--regardless of the content--stimulates aggression, although only on condition that the inclination to commit an aggressive act was present to start with. Two-factor theory

According to Tannenbaum and Zillmann (1975), the elementary arousal hypothesis is not always sufficient. At times, the mechanism must be presumed to work in a more complicated fashion. It appears that in some experiments, differences in aggression were found without corresponding differences in arousal. At times, the reverse also occurred, that is, differences in arousal were not followed by corresponding differences in aggression. These findings resulted in a revised model in which two factors are distinguished, the first being arousal and the second disposition towards aggression. According to the new model, programs only have an aggression-stimulating effect if both factors are present. Among other things, this model harks back to Schachter's (1964) emotion theory. This theory states that if no immediate explanation can be found for experienced arousal, there is an inclination to attribute that arousal to

61

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE some cause. Obviously, such a p r o c e s s ready-made e x p l a n a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e .

does n o t occur i f

a

The model r e q u i r e s t h a t one i s angry b e f o r e one goes t o s e e a program. I n t h e experiments i n q u e s t i o n , t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e once a g a i n a s s i s t e d by t h e c o n f e d e r a t e of t h e experimenter i n t h i s r e g a r d ; t h e c o n f e d e r a t e provokes t h e s u b j e c t . The a r o u s a l t h e s u b j e c t t h e n e x p e r i e n c e s need n o t be a t t r i b u t e d t o anything i n p a r t i c u l a r . A f t e r a l l , t h e o r i g i n i s c l e a r : The p r o v o c a t i o n . T h i s emotional e x p e r i e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s w i t h i n our s u b j e c t an a g g r e s s i v e d i s p o s i t i o n . This i s a c o g n i t i o n : The s u b j e c t wants t o s t r i k e back. This d e s i r e does n o t d i m i n i s h e a s i l y . Confronted once a g a i n w i t h t h e c o n f e d e r a t e , t h e s u b j e c t e x p e r i e n c e s t h e same d e s i r e . I n t h e new model, t h i s c o g n i t i o n i s now viewed a s a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e occurrence of a v i o l e n t program's a g g r e s s i o n - s t i m u l a t i n g e f f e c t . This c o g n i t i o n g i v e s behavior a d i r e c t i o n : I t e n s u r e s t h a t t h e s u b j e c t w i l l want t o behave aggressively. When t h e s u b j e c t i s now shown a v i o l e n t program, a r o u s a l i n c r e a s e s . This may a l s o s u s t a i n t h e angry c o g n i t i o n and t h e a r o u s a l t h a t accompanies it. When c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e confedera t e immediately f o l l o w i n g t h e program, t h e s u b j e c t w i l l a t t r i b u t e t h e experienced r e s i d u a l a r o u s a l t o t h e program j u s t viewed. I n t h a t c a s e , t h e program does n o t have t h e e f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g a g g r e s s i o n . However, i f t h e s u b j e c t i s n o t conf r o n t e d with t h e c o n f e d e r a t e u n t i l a few minutes a f t e r t h e end o f t h e program, i t w i l l have t h a t e f f e c t . Then t h e s u b j e c t no l o n g e r r e a l i z e s t h a t t h e r e s i d u a l a r o u s a l i s due t o t h e program and a t t r i b u t e s i t t o t h e p e r s o n w i t h whom he had a bone t o p i c k . This erroneous a t t r i b u t i o n (misattribution) i s regarded a s a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e occurrence of a program's aggression-stimulating e f f e c t . According t o Tannenbaum and Zillmann (1975) m i s a t t r i b u t i o n c a n e a s i l y occur a f t e r s e e i n g v i o l e n t programs. Most people do n o t c o n s i d e r a r o u s a l from s e e i n g a f i l m t o be pronounced enough t o warrant any a t t e n t i o n , and hence t h e y do n o t e x p e c t it t o a f f e c t t h e i r b e h a v i o r . A f t e r s e e i n g t h e program, t h e r e i s t h e r e f o r e more i n c l i n a t i o n t o a s c r i b e any remaining r e s i d u a l a r o u s a l t o t h e f i r s t person one runs i n t o , r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e program i t s e l f .

I t should be noted t h a t both t h e elementary a r o u s a l hypot h e s i s and t h e more complex v e r s i o n j u s t d i s c u s s e d r e q u i r e a g r e a t d e a l b e f o r e a v i o l e n t program can s t i m u l a t e a g g r e s s i o n . Obviously, b o t h models r e q u i r e t h a t t h e programs i n q u e s t i o n should induce a f a i r amount of a r o u s a l . They a l s o r e q u i r e t h a t a f t e r t h e program, some of t h a t heightened a r o u s a l remains, f o r once t h e a r o u s a l l e v e l r e t u r n s t o normal, t h e r e w i l l no l o n g e r be an a g g r e s s i o n - i n t e n s i f y i n g e f f e c t . I n a d d i t i o n , b o t h models

62

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD’S-EYE VIEW

require that quite apart from the program, the subject should somehow have developed an inclination towards aggressive behavior, for the aggressive content of the program is of no concern. The subject must therefore have something against someone in the vicinity and that someone has to be in the right place at the right time, otherwise the effect of the program will have passed. It is therefore very expressly a transient effect. Estimates vary from a few minutes (Zillmann, Hoyt, & Day, 1974) to at most an hour (Berkowitz, 1971). Nothing is said of possible cumulative effects. Such cumulative effects are quite possible. After all, if individuals were to regularly react more aggressively as a result of properly or improperly attributed arousal, this might become a part of their reinforcement history. For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that Zillmann (1978) has constructed an even more complex model. Zillmann’s new model is highly speculative and contains many as yet unverified postulates. To the two factors put forward in 1975 he adds a third. The new component is a cognitive process which, among other things, has a corrective effect on emotional reactions regarded as inappropriate. The classical conditioning hypothesis

In the stimulation hypotheses just discussed, the aggressive content o f the programs was, in fact, irrelevant. Any program would “do” as long as it elicited sufficient arousal. According to Berkowitz (1970), however, the specific content of the program does play a role. Through classical conditioning, Berkowitz believes, aggressive responses can be connected with certain situations or stimuli in someone’s environment. In other words, aggression may be a conditioned response to certain cues from the environment. Berkowitz believes that viewers can associate the violence in programs with other violent scenes they have experienced in the past. In that case, stimulus generalization may occur, implying that the violent film stimuli elicit the same response as the original stimuli. However, this does not necessarily mean that the likelihood of aggression will increase. If such violence is associated with violence one finds repugnant, it may even inhibit aggression. According to Berkowitz, then, the viewer’s mind is not a blank page. Viewers carry with them their own experiences and expectations and this helps to determine what the effect of a violent program will be. Berkowitz, too, believes that violent programs only have the effect of stimulating aggression if participants are angered

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

63

before seeing the program. By and large, the experimental procedure is identical to the one we saw earlier with Tannenbaum and Zillmann (1975). Prior to the program, the subject is provoked by a confederate of the experimenter, after which the program is shown. Finally, within the context of a "learning experiment," subjects are given the opportunity to strike back at their original tormenter. A number o f these experiments are summarized in Kaplan and Singer (1976). Berkowitz has shown that (in comparison to neutral programs) violent programs elicit more aggression if the confederate who has provoked the subject has something in common with what is shown in the program. In each case, a boxing film was used. Subjects now appear to react more aggressively if beforehand the confederate is introduced as a boxer, or if the confederate has the same name as either the boxer or his victim in the film. It also appears that instructions to identify with the aggressor in the film enhance aggression. As Kaplan and Singer (1976) rightly remark, in these experiments too, a great deal is required before a program can have an aggression-stimulating effect. First of all, the participant has to be made angry beforehand. Secondly, there must be disinhibiting cues in the program which viewers can relate to the victim they will take it out on after the program has ended. Finally, the viewer must experience the violence in the program as justified, for if the violence is regarded as unjustified, programs have an inhibition effect or no effect at all. As the violence of the "good guy" in the standard violent program is usually regarded a s justified, this last requirement would not appear to greatly limit the aggression-stimulating effect . There has been some discussion concerning the demand characteristics that can possibly play a role in this experimental design. Demand characteristics could be described as the "silent hints" of the experiment; there is a danger of the participants' guessing the intention of the experiment through its structure. In the case discussed above, the participants might guess that after seeing a violent program, they are expected to be unusually aggressive and behave accordingly. The latter assumes that subjects are inclined to do the experimenter a favor. However, as research indicates, experimental subjects are often less cooperative than is assumed. The opposite--a screw you effect--is just as possible. A matter of debate is, however, whether the measured aggression is actually aggression. According to a study by Kane, Joseph, and Tedeschi (1976), students apprised o f the experimental procedure do not believe so. They were hardly inclined to regard getting back at someone as aggression, assuming at

64

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

least that the punishment fits the crime. Getting back at someone was only seen as aggression if the retaliation was more severe than the original provocation. Looking at it from our objective definition of aggression, we disagree. To our mind, aggression does not stop being aggression when someone else starts. A different matter is, however, that subjects may regard the application of shocks in the post-communication phase as a form of "assistance." After all, they are requested to assist the confederate within the framework o f a so-called experiment on the effect of punishment on learning. In order to avoid such an interpretation in later experiments, Tannenbaum and Zillmann (1975) offered subjects an opportunity to reward as well as punish the confederate's behavior. The desensitization hypothesis

Desensitization is an effect attributed to repeated or frequent viewing of violent programs. As we shall see in a later section, there is indeed research indicating that violent programs can have a desensitizing effect. Desensitization is also seen, however, as a mechanism that can explain the aggression-stimulating effect of violent programs. An extremely lucid defense of this notion is provided by Eysenck and Nias (1978). They start by pointing out that desensitization is a method used in treating fears, phobias, and so forth. Treatment is then aimed at making the patient less sensitive to the feared objects and situations. As an example, they describe the case of a woman who no longer dares to go out for fear of finding spiders in her path. Treatment is then directed towards counter-conditioning: a different response must be associated with the conditioned stimulus (spiders). Prior to the treatment, a fear hierarchy is constructed, ranging, for example, from a small spider at a great distance to a gigantic spider that overwhelms the woman in bed. Starting with the lowest rung of the ladder, the woman, in a state of relaxation, is asked to imagine a very tiny spider. Fear being incompatible with relaxation, this tiny spider should not scare her anymore. When she is successful in this experience, the therapist proceeds to the next step. It is a well-known method, also used by mothers to help their children overcome fear of the water. Barriers are dismantled gradually. With aggression, there are also barriers. Eysenck and Nias first discuss how they could weaken these barriers, assuming that they wanted to do s o . It would then be inadvisable to expose the person to real violence; the result would only be disgust and fear. One should start with fictional violence, and show it in a relaxing environment--at home or in a warm, com-

THE INFLUENCE (3F TELEVISION VIOLENCE

65

fortable cinema. Then all the vital elements for desensitization are present: relaxation and violence situated at the bottom of the hierarchy of fears. To avoid selecting a program too high in the hierarchy, a parent can look through the television guide beforehand to check if the program contains any blatant violence. And if it nevertheless gets out of hand, the child can always look the other way or switch off the television. Eysenck and Nias believe it is no exaggeration to say that if the Martians should wish to topple our civilization, the media in their present form would be an excellent tool. If desensitization works so well with phobic patients, why should it not work for television viewers? Eysenck and Nias do not give an answer to that question, but one can be provided. Among other reasons, the "treatment" can fail because the patient's immediate surroundings are not exactly rushing to cooperate in the effort. And obviously, such cooperation is of vital importance. With almost painful accuracy, care must be taken that a child should experience no negative consequences in doing things it is no longer afraid of, for a sound thrashing as a response to a first hesitant attempt at aggression is comparable to putting a tarantula in the bed of the woman described above, just for a laugh. In such a case, it is to be feared that the treatment would have to be started all over again. Secondly, the "treatment" requires that frequent viewing of violent programs not only results in the patient's taking more lightly the violence in programs, but also, and in particular, the violence in real life. Curiously enough, relatively little research has been conducted in this area. But as we shall see, proof of desensitization for real-life violence has been meager indeed. This does not, of course, exclude the possibility that the mechanism described can play a role in the aggression-stimulating effect of violent programs, for this mechanism is a subtle and unconscious process research has difficulty in tracking down. However, Eysenck and Nias' description of this mechanism is somewhat too simple. It should not remain unmentioned that in fact, the desensitization hypothesis also implies that the aggression-stimulating effect of violent programs will decrease in the course of time by other means. After all, in all of the explanations discussed above, including Berkowitz's, the physiological arousal violent programs can elicit is seen exclusively or in part as the cause of the stimulation of aggression. There is no doubt that such arousal will decrease in the course of time, so that in fact, explanations for the effect of violent programs hinging on excitation predict that this effect will diminish in the long run. With increasing age of the subjects, however,

66

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

these hypotheses do not entirely lose their strength, for the plausibility of the arousal hypotheses has been demonstrated in particular with young adults. The contagion hypothesis According to Wiegman's (1975) contagion hypothesis, the aggression-stimulating effect of violent programs can, in part, be explained in terms of behavior contagion. According to this notion, violent programs are presumed to have a direct hypodermic needle effect, a process which according to Wiegman is comparable to the following situation. Lying on a quiet beach, enjoying nature, someone suddenly notices a cloud of smoke on the horizon, which changes, from one moment to the next, his entire behavior. He gets up, gazes in the distance, asks for binoculars, and so on. At such a moment, an individual's behavior is entirely determined by external circumstances. If a similar process is to occur with violent programs, three conditions must be met. Children must be animated by what they are watching. Secondly, they must give the program their undivided attention. Finally, the violence must be a sufficiently salient component of the program. I f these three conditions are met, television should unconsciously have a very direct contagious effect. In this model, there are no intervening variables at all. Prior inclinations towards aggression need not be present. Neither the violent actor nor the child itself need be rewarded for the behavior in question. To test this explanatory model, preschoolers were shown an aggressive, an affiliative or a neutral film version of a puppet show. After the film the young subjects were given a mask test. In this test, the preschoolers had to choose either an "ugly" mask (which made a fictitious, and therefore hidden, baby in a playpen cry) o r a "gentle" mask (which made the so-called baby laugh gleefully). The children were aware of the consequences of their choice: The experimenter first demonstrated it to them. According to Wiegman's report (1975), the test was true to life. The children repeatedly asked to see the baby in the playpen. As predicted, the aggressive film evoked the most aggression, the neutral film a bit less and the gentle film the least. In this way, Wiegman has made plausible that a violent program can have an instigation effect without the violent actor's being rewarded and without creating an aggressive disposition beforehand. However, Wiegman was unable to demonstrate a hypodermic needle effect. Only a subgroup of the children proved susceptible to the contagion effect (40% of the girls and 25% of the boys chose a gentle mask after the aggres-

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

67

sive film). In addition, girls were less susceptible in general--after any of the films--than boys. Obviously, something must be intervening between the film and the response. Observational learning theory

With the exception of the desensitization hypothesis, the explanations for the aggression-stimulating effect of television violence discussed s o far have exclusively or primarily provided insight into the possible short-term effects of violent programs. Social learning theory (Bandura , 1973; 1977; 1978), however, provides an explanation that can also shed light on the long-term effects. This theory provides a special view of the development and regulation of aggressive behavior. According to social learning theory, aggression is a form of behavior which, like most other forms of behavior, is learnt. One learns through all one's activities. In addition to learning by doing, learning through observation is easily as important. According to Bandura, a child's social behavior is to a large extent determined by the way others behave. A child learns by observing: It sees how others go about it and how they fare. In the context of this study, the section of social learning theory concerned with learning by observation is of immediate importance. We call this an observational learning theory. Observational learning theory attempts to chart how the social behavior of the observer is affected by observing the behavior of others. From the point of view of observational learning theory, a child is surrounded not by people but by examples. From this point of view, a child's world is filled with models. Observational learning takes place when a child patterns its own behavior according to the example these models provide. The confrontation between a child and a model is called modeling. Of course, a child is primarily faced with models in its immediate environment (live modeling). But a child is also confronted with models through a medium such as television (symbolic modeling). Obviously, it is this form of modeling that is important in this context.

A sharp distinction should be made between learning (acquiring) behavior and the actual exhibition (performance) of that behavior. By watching television, a child can learn new forms of behavior. However, whether or not a child puts these new acquisitions into practice is another matter (performance of behavior). This distinction is particularly important because the learning of behavior i s regulated by different mechanisms than the performance of learnt behavior. In the case of learning from the television, it is irrelevant whether or not the

68

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

behavior p r e s e n t e d i n t h e model i s rewarded o r punished, f o r t h e c h i l d can l e a r n something from it whatever t h e consequences a r e i n t h e model i t s e l f . These consequences a r e , however, important w i t h r e s p e c t t o b r i n g i n g what i s seen i n t o p r a c t i c e . I f t h e model i s punished, a c h i l d w i l l q u i c k l y d i s r e g a r d t h e example. I f , however, t h e model i s s u c c e s s f u l - - i t i s rewarded o r a t l e a s t n o t punished--the example can have a contagious effect. According t o s o c i a l l e a r n i n g t h e o r y , o b s e r v i n g models on t e l e v i s i o n can have t h r e e main e f f e c t s . F i r s t l y , new forms of behavior can be l e a r n t from models. Secondly, observing models can weaken i n h i b i t i o n s ( d i s i n h i b i t i o n ) o r s t r e n g t h e n them ( i n h i b i t i o n ) . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e behavior i n q u e s t i o n i s a l r e a d y p r e s e n t i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e h a v i o r a l r e p e r t o i r e . I n a d d i t i o n , of c o u r s e , t h e behavior i n q u e s t i o n must b e s u b j e c t t o i n h i b i t i o n s . A t h i r d e f f e c t , which i s l e s s important i n t h e p r e s e n t c o n t e x t , i s t h a t o b s e r v i n g models can f a c i l i t a t e s o c i a l behav i o r , i n which c a s e t h e s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e behavior of o t h e r s i s encouragement t o do l i k e w i s e . According t o Bandura, f o u r mutually r e l a t e d subprocesses play a r o l e i n observational learning. F i r s t l y , observational l e a r n i n g presupposes attentional processes, f o r a s with o t h e r kinds of l e a r n i n g , o b s e r v a t i o n a l l e a r n i n g does n o t occur autom a t i c a l l y . A t t e n t i o n must be p a i d t o t h e behavior i n t h e t e l e v i s i o n models and i t s s a l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s must be d i s t i n guished. What a c h i l d sees on t e l e v i s i o n i s n o t r e c e i v e d und i s t o r t e d . A c h i l d observes s e l e c t i v e l y and what i t observes i s t o an important e x t e n t determined by c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e child i t s e l f . A viewer's preferences d i r e c t the a t t e n t i o n , as does t h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of t h e model. L a s t , b u t c e r t a i n l y n o t l e a s t , it i s important whether o r n o t what i s observed has f u n c t i o n a l r e l e v a n c e f o r t h e viewer. However, a t t e n t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t . What i s observed must a l s o be s t o r e d , f o r i f it i s f o r g o t t e n , it cannot have any e f f e c t . Bandura's second subprocess, retention process e s , i s therefore a l s o necessary. Retention i s f a c i l i t a t e d i f what has been observed i s s t o r e d i n t h e form of c l e a r images. I n a d d i t i o n , i t i s of g r e a t importance whether o r n o t t h e c h i l d can e x p r e s s i n words what it has s e e n , €or s t o r e d i n t h i s f a s h i o n i t i s l e s s e a s i l y f o r g o t t e n . F i n a l l y , Bandura s e e s mental r e h e a r s a l a s a means of p r o t e c t i n g what has been l e a r n t from being f o r g o t t e n . Observations s a f e l y s t o r e d i n memory a r e n o t however t h e end of t h e s t o r y , f o r t h i s does n o t mean t h a t a c h i l d i s capable of p u t t i n g what i t has observed i n t o p r a c t i c e . Such c a p a b i l i t y u s u a l l y r e q u i r e s t h e n e c e s s a r y p h y s i c a l a b i l i t i e s and motor s k i l l s . Without them, it i s impossible t o perform t h a t which

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

69

has been stored into memory. This third subprocess Bandura calls motor reproduction processes. Even if one is quite capable of putting such behavior into practice, it does not automatically follow that one will actually do s o . Before this can occur, a fourth subprocess comes into play: reinforcement and motivational processes. As we have already stated, these depend upon how the model itself has fared. If it ends well, then the model has a more contageous effect. The modeling situation need not be comparable to that of the child. A child thinks ahead; if it foresees negative sanctions, a child will not be particularly anxious to follow the example. However, if a child believes that it will have favorable consequences, it will be more inclined to put the example into practice. Bandura (1973) does not suggest that a child automatically copies behavior it sees on television. Before such imitation occurs, a variety of things can interfere with that process. First of all, a child may be totally indifferent to the model behavior in question simply because it does not see a relation between that behavior and its own existence. In addition, the child may fail to see the behavioral directions suggested by the model behavior. And even if these directions are perceived, they may be lost again through inadequate symbolic representation in the memory or through insufficient mental practice. In addition, even if a child would simply love to imitate The Incredible Hulk, it may not have the physical capabilities to do do. Finally, for whatever reason--and Bandura suggests primarily anticipated negative consequences--a child may simply not be prepared to put what it has seen on television into practice. Of course, a child need not learn only specific aggressive behavior from violent programs. After all, it is equipped with cognitive facilities with which it can absorb and process information. The social learning theory is expressly a cognitive theory as well, which places great emphasis upon the cognitive processing of information. The theory therefore allows for a child's drawing general as well as specific lessons from television programs; with respect to violent programs, for example, the message that violence pays. In addition to influencing its behavior, observing television models may also influence a child's opinions, values and attitudes. For example, it is possible that children may base an opinion or an attitude concerning a minority group upon the way in which such a group is presented in television programs. It is clear that social learning theory does not only lend itself to explaining the effect of television violence on aggression. It also sheds light on other kinds of effects: changes in attitudes, effects upon the perception of reality, and so forth.

70

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VlEW

A s we already stated, observing models in violent programs need not automatically encourage the occurrence of aggressive behavior. Among other things, this depends upon the way children perceive violent programs. Unfortunately, the theory does not elaborate on this particular aspect. According to observational learning theory, watching violent programs can encourage or influence the occurrence of aggressive behavior in the following ways: 1. Firstly, violent programs can provide indications of how to act aggressively (acquiring new aggressive behavioral patterns). 2 . Secondly, violent programs can provide indications for the most functional behavior in a particular situation (which kinds of behavior are rewarded and which are punished). 3 . Thirdly, violent programs may suggest particular ideas (cf. the Doomsday F1 ight effect) . 4 . Fourthly, seeing violent programs may remove inhibitions with respect to aggressive behavior. Among other things, this may occur through desensitization (removal of fear of aggression). In addition, disinhibition can occur as a result of the notion that others (the television models) also act aggressively. In this context, it is also important how people in the violent program itself react to such aggressive behavior. If it is played down, this may also have a disinhibiting effect. 5. Finally, the emotional arousal evoked by violent programs may also have the effect of stimulating aggression. Unlike the theories discussed earlier, this is not regarded as a necessary condition for the occurrence of an aggression-stimulating effect. Arousal facilitates such an effect, but it is not a "must." A disinhibition effect need not at all mean that after seeing a violent program, a child might be expected to spontaneously run rampant. In fact, Bandura seems to pay little attention to impulsive behavior at all. To his mind, a child's behavior is to a large extent under cognitive control. The possible consequences of its behavior largely determine what a child will and will not do. In fact, this would seem to support a rather hedonistic notion of behavior; a child is continually preoccupied with solliciting rewards and avoiding unpleasant experiences. In the introductory chapter, we have already provided an example of the type of experiment Bandura, along with others, has conducted to support this theory. However, the theory is not at all dependent upon these experiments alone, because the

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

71

social learning theory is a kind of sponge, gratefully absorbing notions developed and investigated from other theoretical points of view. For that reason, we have discussed the sociallearning theoretical notions last, for in them are to be found the broad lines of the theories previously discussed, adapted and fit into a larger framework. Only with younger children has it been experimentally established that seeing violent programs can result in imitation effects, and then only with the aid o f programs specially compiled for those experiments. In addition, the criterion situation had much in common with the situation displayed in the films. In fact, the experiments in question have only established that violent programs may encourage children to imitate: whether this will actually occur is another matter altogether. First of all, television programs for preschoolers are usually careful in their treatment of violence. And the violence these preschoolers do see can certainly not always be translated into behavior children are actually capable of. Possibly, copying what is seen on television is more an exception than a rule. The violence displayed in most violent programs is so far removed from the daily reality o f young children that it would be difficult to copy exactly. Imitating violent acts from television drama is presumably also an exceptional phenomenon with older children or adults. The disinhibition effects suggested by the social learning theory would appear to us considerably more important. We also regard possible influences upon a child's notion of violence (perception of and attitudes towards violence) as more important than the direct examples children are presented with in violent programs. Presumably, the hidden curriculum has more influence than the exact content of the lesson. Contrary to what is often thought, the raison d'gtre of social learning theory is not imitation effects alone. It is to this theory's credit that it also makes plausible the notion that violent programs also contain general lessons.

NO-EFFECT HYPOTHESES Concerning the "no-effect'' hypotheses, we can be brief. Kaplan and Singer (1976) distinguish two types. The first version is based upon experiments and experimental field studies that showed that television violence had no influence at all. There are, indeed, such studies, but they are in the minority. A second version is based upon specific experimental conditions

12

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

within an experiment, that, unlike other conditions, had no effect on aggression. A number of experiments suggest, for example, that violent programs only have the effect of stimulating aggression in subjects that have been provoked beforehand. What this second version of the "no-effect" hypothesis in fact says is that the aggression-stimulating effect of violent programs is related to specific conditions. The evidence for both types of "no-effect" hypotheses is rather weak. It would seem rather illogical to conclude that a phenomenon does not exist simply because it is found at times not to occur or only to occur under certain conditions. In fact, that is not what most proponents of a "no-effect" hypothesis really claim. They claim that in general, the effects of television violence are negligible. It is also possible to regard Halloran's (1980) opinion, discussed earlier, as a third version of a "no-effect'' hypothesis. His claim, then, is that television violence does not play a significant role in causing blatant violent offenses.

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS HYPOTHESES Now that the different reduction, stimulation and "no-effects" hypotheses have been summarized, the time has come for an assessment. We have already established that the fact that, in general, the stimulation hypothesis is the most plausible, does not mean that there are no conditions under which the other two hypotheses apply. Contrary to what is implied in many reviews, the reduction hypothesis cannot at all be discounted. However, the catharsis hypothesis--a type of reduction hypothesis--seems highly unlikely. To the extent research suggested that a catharsis effect exists, the effect in question seemed more interpretable as inhibition of aggression. Viewed from this angle, violent programs do not so much provide an outlet for aggressive emotions or impulses as that they suppress them. In particular, this can occur when children are "struck" by the violence in programs: They experience it as unpleasant and are frightened by it. This is the basis of the empathy hypothesis. Research has not shown the catharsis hypothesis to be very plausible, but with certain films or certain types of children, the empathy hypothesis may certainly apply. The stimulation hypotheses discussed often attach a role to physiological arousal. Curiously enough, most stimulation hypotheses assume that heightened arousal increases the likelihood of aggression, whereas the desensitization hypothesis

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

73

would appear to assume the very opposite. This seeming contradiction can be cleared up if it is realized that these hypotheses pertain to different emotions. If it is postulated that heightened physiological arousal has the effect of encouraging aggression, it is seemingly assumed that the heightened arousal is accompanied at the experiential level by emotions which can either stimulate aggression (anger) or at least do not inhibit it. Proponents of the desensitization hypothesis seemingly presume that heightened physiological arousal is accompanied by emotions that interfere with aggression (fear). The desensitization hypothesis, then, is actually close to the empathy hypothesis. Both hypotheses are based on the assumption that there is less likelihood of aggression if children are "troubled" by violence they see in television programs. The hypotheses in which heightened arousal plays a primary or exclusive role in explaining the aggression-stimulating effect of violent programs are very expressly concerned with short-term effects. It is seldom possible to establish how long a media effect will last. In this case, however, it i s extremely possible; estimates vary from five minutes to an hour. The excitation effect in question is not only of very short duration, it also assumes that the person in question is aggressively inclined before seeing the program. In addition, the potential victim of this aggression must appear on time, otherwise the program's effect will have worn off. Undoubtedly, such an excitation effect does occur, but it hardly seems a reason for excessive concern. All the more so because the group with the highest risk factor--the "glued-to-the-tubers"--would appear to have a natural defense mechanism (desensitization) at their disposal. The classical conditioning theory is also heavily dependent upon circumstances; here, as well, anger prior to the program is a prerequisite. In addition, the person responsible for this anger must be so helpful as to be available after the program for counter-aggression. A second requirement is that someone in the program has something in common with this person. This effect, as well, seems to give little cause for alarm. It is also unlikely that "no effect" advocates will change their minds by being referred to the contagion hypothesis, for here, too, the effect is both minimal and very short-lived. Of course, what all this research does not tell us is what the cumulative effect of the repeated occurrence of all kinds of short-lived "mini-effects" is; by and large, we can only make some conjectures. This also applies to the "creeping" effect the desensitization hypothesis would seem to indicate. slowly but surely, emotional reactions to violence should

74

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

decline. This definitely applies for television programs; less clear is how this applies to violence in real life. To our mind, the social-theoretical view of the matter has several advantages. First of all, there is a generous amount of room in this theory for explanatory mechanisms suggested by competing hypotheses. The social learning theory also supports the notion that the arousal elicited by programs can stimulate aggression, albeit that its effect is only regarded as facilitating this process. The social learning theory also endorses the disinhibiting effect that desensitization, in the course of time, can have. A second advantage of social learning theory is that it concerns itself directly with program content; programs include messages containing both specific and general lessons. It is this very aspect that is seriously neglected by other stimulation hypotheses. Thirdly, the theory is not limited to short-term effects. On the contrary: An important part of the analysis is devoted to what is required if what is seen is to make a lasting impression. Fourthly, the theory allows for the influence of violent programs on attitudes and perceptions of reality. Lastly, but not least, the processes are very comprehensible. However, the theory does not only have advantages. Because it is a very broad theory, it contains a large number of blind spots and in many areas, its empirical foundation leaves much to be desired. With respect to the "no effect'' hypotheses, we are inclined to agree with Halloran's assessment that there is insufficient evidence that watching violent programs contributes significantly to the development of violent offenses. Only Belson's (1978) study suggests otherwise, but at the same time, there are many studies that do not.

WHICH CHILDREN? Very little is known about the characteristics in children that make them most susceptible to the aggression-stimulating effect of television violence. It would seem reasonable to assume that young children are more susceptible than older children. Curiously enough, this notion is not confirmed in the meta-analyses of Andison (1977) and Hearold (1979). By further analysis, however, these findings do not tell us much, for the research method, measures of aggression, and the design of the studies analyzed differ greatly per age group. It is therefore not very useful to compare the frequency per age group with which studies suggest an aggression effect. Where research fails, however, common sense may be of assistance. Along with

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

75

Stein and Friedrich (1975), we are inclined to conclude that older children are less susceptible, because they have more "behavioral and cognitive controls and more ability to distinguish fiction from reality, and are more sensitized to adult values and prohibitions about aggression." It is rather generally accepted that children who are aggressive (anyway) are more susceptible (Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee, 1972; Stein & Friedrich, 1975; Dorr & Kovaric, 1980). This was found in experiments with young children (Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee, 1982; Friedrich & Stein, 1973), and in those with older children as well (Hartmann, 1969; Parke et al., 1977). Less agreement exists concerning the differential susceptibility of boys and girls. It is usually assumed that boys are more susceptible than girls (Dorr & Kovaric, 1980). However, Stein and Friedrich (1975) point out that experiments emphasizing physical violence probably underestimate the influence upon girls. It would be possible to obtain a better estimate if researchers would devote more attention to more subtle forms of aggression. According to Linni (1978), research has shown that insecure and frustrated children are more easily influenced. The same is presumed to apply f o r children who are at odds with parents and peers. The literature upon which these conclusions are based is not mentioned. It is true that there are indications that children with these characteristics frequently have a greater preference for violent programs, and are more inclined to have escapist motives in watching television. To our knowledge, however, there is no research directly demonstrating that these children are more susceptible to the aggression-stimulating effect of television violence. It would, however, seem plausible that on average, the children in question are more aggressive, in which case the increased susceptibility may be reduced to the characteristic discussed earlier. In general, it would be reasonable to assume that children who watch a great deal of violent television and display a large preference for it are more susceptible. In addition, incidental studies suggest that children that take particular pleasure in the violence committed in a film react more aggressively after having seen such a program (Ekman et al., 1972), while children that are frightened by them react less so (Biblow, 1973). Finally, it may be assumed that the family is greatly influential with respect to a child's susceptibility. The study of McLeod, Atkin, and Chaffee (1972b), for example, showed that for children from families where the parents advocated nonvio-

76

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

lent solutions to conflicts, the correlation between television violence and aggression was considerably lower.

WHICH FILM PORTRAYALS? Several studies directly investigated what program variables have an influence upon the aggression-stimulating effect of violent programs. Because it plays a central role in our study, we will discuss one of these variables, the perceived reality of program content, at greater length. In ten experimental studies, it was investigated whether violent films or sequences experienced as realistic or credible result in a greater increase of aggression than programs regarded as unrealistic or fanciful. In some of these experiments, the behavioral effects were investigated of programs differing in both content and perceived reality. This applies to the studies, conducted among primary school children, of Feshbach (1972; experiment l), Noble (1973), and Hapkiewicz and Stone (1974). With the exception of Feshbach's study, which showed no significant differences, it appeared that the programs most closely resembling reality resulted in the greatest amount of aggression. In Hapkiewicz and Stone's study, however, this effect was only found among the boys. It is easier to interpret the studies in which program content was held constant and the perceived reality varied by either introducing identical program sequences in different ways (either as news broadcast or as a movie sequence) or by so editing the program that the sequence in question was preceded by a sequence suggesting a difference in reality. Three studies of this kind were conducted among children. The results of these studies consistently showed the greatest amount of aggression under conditions in which programs are presented as being real-life (Feshbach, 1972, experiment 11; Atkin & Wood, 1976; Sawin, 1977). As was the case with Hapkiewicz and Stone (1974), Sawin (1977) was only able to establish such an effect among boys. In addition to these studies with children, four experiments were conducted with adult male students, most of whom were first-year psychology students. In these studies, as well, program sequences were presented either as news or as a movie. With the exception of Meyer's (1972) study, aggression was greatest after seeing the "news program'' (Berkowitz & Alioto, 1973, experiment 11; Thomas & Tell, 1974, and Geen, 1975). In eight of the ten experimental comparisons, then, the greatest aggression was found--among the boys, at least--with

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

77

the most realistic programs or sequences. Belson’s field study (1978) also suggests that programs regarded as realistic or credible are quicker to stimulate aggression. Belson analyzed the violence on British television and classified the violent programs into 25 categories. In addition, he recorded how often a sample of boys had seen different kinds of violent programs and how often they were guilty of serious violence. Through a kind of ex post facto-analysis, in which an attempt was made to rule out rival hypotheses by a matching procedure, he then tried to determine which kinds of violent programs contribute significantly to the aggressiveness in boys. Belson concludes that among others, programs containing a realistic type of violence contribute to aggressiveness. On the other hand, very fanciful programs (cartoons B la Tom and Jerry, science fiction programs and slapstick comedies) appear to make no such contribution. In addition to the perceived reality or realism, several other program variables have been investigated. These variables have, in fact, been mentioned in the discussion of the effects hypotheses. Social learning research suggests that more aggression is elicited by programs in which violence is rewarded or goes unpunished. Research inspired by the classical conditioning hypothesis demonstrates that more aggression is elicited by programs in which violence is given the aura of justification. Finally, there is research which demonstrates that highly exciting content, violent or otherwise, is more likely to elicit aggression (arousal theories).

VIEWING CONDITIONS In the standard experiment, a child watches a violent program alone. With the exception of the presence of the experimenter, this is usually also the case during the measurement of aggression. This custom benefits the experimental control. However, it does not make the situation any more realistic, for children do not usually watch television in a social vacuum but together with others. This is important, because programs watched with others may be experienced differently. In particular, any comments made during the program may change the meaning, and therefore also the influence, o f the program. According to a number of experimental studies, discussed in Leyens, Herman, and Dunand (1982b), the comments of adults can strongly alter the influence of violent programs. When disapproval of violent scenes was expressed, aggression following the program appeared to be less. On the other hand, expressions

78

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILDS-EYE VIEW

of approval appeared to have a disinhibiting effect. The social context also influences the measurement of aggression. Children exhibiting the criterion behavior when alone display less aggression than children tested for aggression in pairs. In addition, the presence of an adult in the criterion situation appears to suppress aggression. Comments need not be limited to approval or disapproval; other kinds of comments may also alter a program's significance. A reminder during the program, for example, that it is "just a television program," or pointing out unrealistic details, can strongly alter the way a program is seen. Many parents utilize this fact when a program seriously frightens their children. By simply saying that it is "just a film," a great deal of the fear can be abated. This is a tried and true home remedy, for several research studies, among them that of Speisman, Lazarus, Mordkoff, and Davison (1964), have shown that comments during a program directly influence the emotional reactions. Speisman and colleagues showed a film on the painful initiation rites of an aboriginal Australian tribe (including a circumcision with stone knives). The film's narrative was varied and the physiological arousal (Galvanic skin resistance) was measured during the viewing. There appeared to be considerably less arousal when a remote, disparaging commentary accompanied the film than with commentary emphasizing the painfulness of the operation. What actually happens when comments are made during a program is that the program is viewed from a different frame of reference. By commenting on a program, or providing information about it in advance, the program is seen with different eyes. In this context Leyens, Herman, and Dunand (1982a) speak of decentration, a concept borrowed from Piaget. With this term, they mean a process whereby the viewer takes a distance from the immediate content of the film--the content usually cent r a t e d upon--and concentrates explicitly on aspects usually not regarded immediately (such as the esthetic value of a program, its technical quality or the value orientation it contains). Because the film is viewed differently, it is assumed that decentration alters the program's influence. Leyens and colleagues have also demonstrated as much in a study, albeit with aggressive slides. Subjects given the decentration-assignment to concentrate on the esthetic qualities displayed less aggression afterward than subjects viewing without such an assignment. Finally, we can point to a number of situational variables, which in fact have already been mentioned in passing. During the discussion of research on effects hypotheses, for example, we established that the extent to which a program elicits

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

79

aggression is dependent, among other things, upon such variables as the extent to which aggressors or victims in a program resemble persons in one's own surroundings, the availability of a "victim" in the direct vicinity and whether or not one has been angered beforehand.

ATTITUDES TOWARD AGGRESSION Our discussion on the influence of television violence upon aggressive behavior ends here. Some research has also been done on the influence of television violence upon aggressive attitudes. Evidence of such influence has not, of course, been obtained experimentally, for attitudes are not changed by a single program. It has, however, been demonstrated experimentally that seeing a violent program can encourage an aggressive mood. A study, for example, from Mussen and Rutherford (discussed in Eysenck & Nias, 1978) showed that after seeing an aggressive cartoon, children considerably more often expressed the wish to have a balloon burst (instead of playing with it) than children who had seen a neutral cartoon o r no cartoon at all. Correlational studies show that frequent watching of television violence is usually accompanied by positive attitudes with respect to aggression (Murray & Kippax, 1981). We cannot, of course, draw the conclusion from this that seeing television violence is responsible here. Causal-correlational research studies has not been done. It has however been investigated whether, holding such background variables as socioeconomic status and sex constant, the correlation remained intact. For some attitudinal measures this proved to be the case, for others not. Up to now, research only allows for the statement that the frequency of watching television violence correlates positively with aggressive attitudes. The kind of research required to obtain more insight into the nature of this correlation has yet to be done. It is usually assumed that violent programs have an unfavorable influence upon attitudes. As not all violence is alike, some also assume that violent programs may encourage prosocial attitudes. Such assumptions have been expressed in the cases of such television series as Roots and Holocaust. Both series dramatize the suffering of minority groups: Roots the suffering of Blacks transported to the Americas as slaves and Holocaust the persecution and extermination of Jews during the Second World War. Both series use a dramatic form offering ample opportunities f o r identification. Holocaust's influence has

80

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILDS-EYE VIEW

been investigated in many countries, among them Holland (De Bock & Van Lil, 1981). The Dutch research suggests that the Holocaust series (plus supportive broadcasts) has had a favorable long-term effect on the most relevant attitude variable: attitude towards anti-Semitism. Six months after the broadcast, secondary school students more frequently condemned anti-Semitism. An American study into the influence of the series Roots (Hur & Robinson, 1978) showed that after the broadcast, white viewers had a more favorable attitude towards Blacks compared to white viewers who had not seen the serial. The researchers, however, interpret these results in terms of selective exposure and perception. However this may be, the studies in question once again show that the different kinds of violent programs may not all be judged alike; at times, they may also bring about favorable changes in attitudes. In investigating the influence of such serials as Roots and Holocaust on children's aggression, the empathy hypothesis would seem to be the best starting point. These were, of course, exceptional serials, for violent programs in which sympathy for the victim is nurtured are relatively scarce (Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee, 1972).

OTHER BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS In addition to the influence on aggressive behavior, some research has also investigated a number of other possible behavioral effects. One effect rarely discussed in reviews of the literature is the possible influence of television violence on prosocial behavior. The studies in question have been conducted in particular with young children. Stein and Friedrich (1975) discuss a number of studies that suggest that after seeing a violent program, children display a diminished inclination towards such behavior as sharing, helping and working together. Stein and Friedrich suspect that this effect is confined to studies in which the experimental situation contains a frustrating element, for in two experiments in which such an element was not present, no influence on prosocia1 behavior was found. A study from Tachman and Orme (1981), however, casts doubt upon this interpretation. In this study there were no frustration elements at all. Nevertheless, the study showed that after seeing a violent program, 8 to 10 year olds were less inclined t o share with a "needy child.'' According to Levelt's (1981) review, there are also studies that show that such desirable behavior as waiting for one's turn does not

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

81

particularly improve after children have seen a violent program. Finally, Friedrich and Stein's field study ( 1 9 7 3 ) suggests that children with an aggressive television diet display to a lesser extent such behavioral characteristics as self-control and tolerance for postponement. There is then some indication that through the influence of violent programs, some forms of prosocial behavior are somewhat repressed. In any case, this may be one of the short-term effects of seeing an aggressive program. The nature of these effects depends in part upon the design of the study. Where program and criterion situation have more in common, it is more likely a question of imitation; where this is not the case, the influence upon behavior is a-specific. In the latter case, this influence cannot be interpreted as an imitation effect, and therefore another mechanism must be responsible for the observed effects. It is possible that a program-produced change in children's moods may underly such an influence on prosocial behavior. Friendly programs leave children in a good mood, while programs full of unfriendliness are more likely to have the opposite effect. Under the influence of the shadings of the mood (friendly or unfriendly), behavior may be affected accordingly. Another behavioral effect is that frightenening films may lead to nightmares and s l e e p disturbances. This has never been systematically investigated. But parents do often believe that sleeping disorders are the result of programs children were unable to deal with. The Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee (1972) states: "In the absence of dependable evidence, we can draw no conclusion about the likelihood of sleep disturbances or other manifestations of anxiety in young children." (p. 118). We believe parents are underestimated here. They often know very well that their child cannot deal emotionally with certain types of television programs, and the children themselves share that knowledge. In interviews with primary school children we often heard that children agree with their parents not to watch certain programs because experience has learnt that it gives them a sleepless night. Children make such agreement without any form of regret, for fear and nightmares are no fun at all. This requires further investigation, but for the time being we are inclined to take such stories of parents and children seriously. If many parents say that at times violent programs have such an effect, we assume that the problem must be a real one. In a study we conducted among Dutch parents of primary school children, it appeared that as objections to television violence, parents most often spontaneously mentioned that it frightens the children, disturbs their sleep and gives them frightening dreams (Van der Voort SC Vooijs, 1980).

82

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

It is sometimes asserted that the nice thing about violent programs is that they provide children with material to copy in play and enrich the child's fantasy. Feshbach and Singer (1971) believe that in particular with children with limited intelligence, violent programs can stimulate such pleasantries. Intelligent children are presumed to be already sufficiently equipped with respect to fantasy, whereas less gifted children would need the assistance o f , for example, a medium as television. We think it likely that children regularly create fantasy play from elements of television programs. However, it is very doubtful that frequent watching of television in general, or violent programs in particular, benefits fantasy play. On the basis of their review of the research studies in question, Singer and Singer (1981) conclude as follows:

1. If watching a great deal o f television, and in particular violent programs, is related to anything, then it is more likely related to aggressive behavior than to fantasy play, in particular with younger children. 2 . Children that often imitate in play what they have seen on television are more aggressive and less cooperative. 3 . There are few indications that violent programs have a constructive influence in any way whatsoever, while there are indications of the opposite, including reduced creativity. It should be expressly mentioned here that the forceful conclusions of Singer and Singer (1981) are certainly no reason to immediately condemn television. Their conclusions are based on correlational research. The only thing that has really been demonstrated is that children that spend more time in front of the television participate less frequently in fantasy play, are less creative, and so on. It is very much in question whether the television is responsible for this, because families where parents let their young children (the Singers' primary subject) watch a great deal of television will differ in many other respects as well. Their style of upbringing may be different, their attitude toward aggression may differ, and so forth. It is therefore quite possible that even without the television, these children would participate less in (constructive) fantasy play. Nevertheless, Singer and Singer's review is informative in one respect. Seemingly, the optimistic notion of Feshbach and Singer (1971) that watching violent programs has a positive influence on children's fantasy is not justified. Of course, some television programs may stimulate fantasy play, but aggressive programs do not seem to be suitable for this purpose.

THE LNFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

DESENSITIZATION

83

AND HABITUATION

E a r l i e r w e d i s c u s s e d t h e f a c t t h a t v i o l e n t programs may stimul a t e emotional a r o u s a l and awaken f r i g h t . Another m a t t e r i s what happens w i t h t h o s e emotional r e a c t i o n s i f such programs a r e s e e n a g a i n o r f r e q u e n t l y . The phenomenon whereby r e p e a t e d or f r e q u e n t viewing of v i o l e n t programs r e s u l t s i n a r e d u c t i o n of t h e emotional r e a c t i o n i s r e f e r r e d t o a s desensitization. There i s no doubt t h a t r e p e a t e d viewing of t h e same v i o l e n t program r e s u l t s i n a l e s s e n i n g of t h e emotional r e a c t i o n . The s t u d y of Speisman e t a l . (1964) c i t e d e a r l i e r - - c o n c e r n i n g t h e emotional r e a c t i o n s t o t h e program on t h e p a i n f u l i n i t i a t i o n rites of a n a b o r i g i n a l A u s t r a l i a n t r i b e - - a l r e a d y demonstrated t h a t even w i t h i n one and t h e same program, t h e emotional react i o n can c l e a r l y d e c r e a s e towards t h e end ( b u t p e r h a p s t h e s c e n e s a t t h e end of t h e f i l m were l e s s s h o c k i n g ) . A s t u d y o f A v e r i l l , Malmstrom, K o r i a t , and Lazarus (1972) i s more e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e : A t i n t e r v a l s o f 30 seconds, a sequence a b o u t a n i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t was shown twenty times. Afterwards, a f i l m was shown w i t h t h r e e a c c i d e n t s (among them, o u r twenty-time l o s e r ) . Compared t o a c o n t r o l group, t h e r e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s emotional r e a c t i o n t o t h e well-known a c c i d e n t . But t h i s was not t h e c a s e w i t h t h e o t h e r two a c c i d e n t s ; hence, d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n was l i m i t e d t o t h e r e p e a t e d l y shown sequence. B e r g e r ' s s t u d y (1962) a l s o shows t h a t we a r e l e s s impressed by something w e have s e e n more t h a n once. I n t h i s experiment, s u b j e c t s saw how someone was (supposedly) t e s t e d f o r t o l e r a n c e of e l e c t r i c v o l t a g e . Each time t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s c o n f e d e r a t e j e r k e d h i s arm, t h e s u b j e c t ' s p h y s i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y i n c r e a s e d . However, t h e more i t was r e p e a t e d , t h e l e s s was t h e emotional r e a c t i o n . We have j u s t s e e n t h a t r e p e a t e d viewing of t h e same sequence reduces emotion. As soon a s t h e n o v e l t y wears o f f , t h e r e a c t i o n i s "blunted." Does t h i s e f f e c t a l s o a p p l y t o new v i o l e n t s c e n e s w e have n e v e r s e e n b e f o r e ? The s t u d y j u s t c i t e d of A v e r i l l e t a l . s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s i s n o t t h e c a s e , b u t a s t u d y of Thomas, Horton, L i p p i n c o t t , and Drabman (1977) s u g g e s t s t h e o p p o s i t e . I n t h i s experiment, e i g h t t o t e n - y e a r - o l d s were shown e i t h e r a v i o l e n t p o l i c e drama o r an e q u a l l y e x c i t i n g s p o r t s program. They were t h e n shown on a monitor two c h i l d r e n , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t b o t h were s e a t e d i n a bus i n a playground, and looked a f t e r by t h e one i n charge of t h e experiment. On t h e monitor--of c o u r s e o n l y a v i d e o r e c o r d i n g - - t h e two c h i l d r e n began t o f i g h t . The c h i l d r e n who had seen t h e p o l i c e program showed reduced emot i o n a l a r o u s a l (Galvanic s k i n r e s i s t a n c e ) . The c o n c l u s i o n of Thomas and c o l l e a g u e s i s t h a t t h e p o l i c e program was respons i b l e f o r a reduced emotional r e a c t i o n t o r e a l - l i f e v i o l e n c e .

84

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

As this "real" violence was shown on a monitor, such a conclusion is questionable indeed. Nevertheless, the study does at least show that seeing a violent program results in a new scene of violence making less of an impression. In a replication of the experiment with adults (students), similar results were obtained, at least for the male students. Completely contrary to tradition, female students were also involved in the experiment. The female students remained unaffected by the violent program. Their emotional reaction to the "real" violence shown on a monitor did not diminish at all. Experiments, then, show that emotional reactions decrease upon the second viewing of the same violence or upon seeing new violence immediately thereafter (although this did not apply for young women). This leads u s to believe that when confronted with a new violent program, children that frequently see violence on television will react less emotionally. This does, indeed, appear to be the case. According to a study conducted by Cline, Croft, and Courrier (1973), five to fourteen-yearolds who watch a lot of television display less of an emotional reaction than children that watch little television. The same results were obtained in the study just discussed conducted by Thomas et al. (1977). Therefore, inveterate viewers react less emotionally to violent programs. The question is "why"? Does it result from watching a lot of television, or are other factors (related to frequent viewing) responsible? It is difficult to give an unequivocal answer to that question. We have just seen that when two violent programs are seen in immediate succession, the emotional reaction to the second one decreases. Thus the explanation for the diminished emotional reaction of inveterate young viewers may very well be found in their viewing experience. This explanation is plausible but not clearly demonstrated. Inveterate young viewers, are not the only children who are slower to react emotionally to violent programs. A number of studies, discussed by Watts (1978), show that children who have difficulty empathizing with others react less emotionally to programs. In addition, Watts' own study (1978) shows that emotions are less if violence is more accepted. In the meantime, we may conclude that repeated and frequent viewing of violent programs is accompanied by desensitization, that is, decreased emotional reactions. A s far as we know, this applies only to televised violence, for it has never been investigated how this applies to reactions to real-life violence. How can this desensitization phenomenon be explained? Leyens et al. (1975) find two explanations possible. On the one hand, it can be found in a saturation e f f e c t , through which stimuli lose their eliciting power along the way. On the other

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

85

hand, a cognitive explanation is also possible, in which case we are dealing with a kind of decentration; if the viewer has already seen the program, its aggressive significance is somehow altered. In this latter explanation, desensitization is in fact understood from the point of view of an habituation effect: one grows used to it and experiences it as less violent. Avoiding complicated emotion-theoretical discussions, we can at least establish that desensitization is accompanied by a different kind of experience of violent programs (for example, less empathy). In addition, research shows that seeing a violent program may result in a different view of violence that is shown after it. This is demonstrated in two studies (Drabman & Thomas, 1974; Thomas & Drabman, 1 9 7 5 ) ) in which after seeing a violent program (as opposed to an exciting nonviolent program or no program at all), children were asked to look after two preschoolers on a television monitor. The experimentalist had to leave for a moment and asked them to call if anything went wrong. The preschoolers were supposedly in a bus in a playground. Most of the children did, indeed, report when the preschoolers started fighting, but the children who had not seen a violent program called, on average, after a minute, while the children who had done so waited almost twice as long. Seemingly, their tolerance for violence had increased. Again, the researchers claim to have demonstrated that the tolerance for real-life violence had increased. They indeed had done everything within their power to give the children the impression that the preschoolers on their monitor were actually in that bus in the playground. It is questionable, however, whether the subjects had such an understanding of closed-circuit television as to experience it as completely real. Nonetheless, the researchers have clearly demonstrated that seeing televison violence, does result in experiencing as less violent television violence shown after it. Rabinovitch, McLean, Maikham, and Talbot (1972) have demonstrated that after having seen a violent program, children literally perceive less violence (in comparison to children who have seen a neutral program). After the program, nine pairs of slides were shown, always one violent and one neutral. With the help of a stereoscopic projector, the slides were shown simultaneously to each eye, and so quickly that only one could be perceived. The children then had to write down what they had seen. The group that had seen the violent program perceived fewer of the violent slides. Watching violent programs does then, indeed, have a shortlived habituating effect: The readiness to see violence decreases. However, it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated

86

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

that seeing violent programs also results in habituation to violence in real life. We would expect that children who watch a lot of television show symptoms not only of desensitization but of habituation as well. So far as we know, this has never been investigated.

MEAN WORLD HYPOTHESIS

Earlier, we saw that frequent viewing of television violence is accompanied by a decreased emotional reaction to violent programs. It was less clear whether or not this also resulted in a decreased sensitivity to real-life violence. According to Gerbner et al. (1981), however, we have nothing to fear in this regard. On the contrary: According to Gerbner's theory, the very opposite is true. Frequent viewing of violent television drama results, according to this theory, in the viewers being more aware of violence in real life. By seeing a great deal o f violent drama on television, heavy viewers develop, among other things, the belief that they are living in a mean world. It makes them suspicious in their contacts with others and confirms their belief that people are only looking after their own interests. According to Gerbner and colleagues, frequent viewing of violent programm not only results in a somewhat paranoid attitude, but also explains why the inveterate viewer is inclined to overestimate the amount of violence in reality. In addition, television may be considered responsible for the inveterate viewer's feeling more frightened and insecure. Because of the huge amount o f TV violence seen, inveterate viewers also resign themselves to their fate. That is why, seen from a macro-sociological point of view, television violence is one of the instruments helping to keep the ruling classes in power. Gerbner calls the process that brings these effects into being cultivation. By frequently sojourning in the symbolic world of television, viewers are affected in their perceptions of reality. If women and non-whites are the frequent butts of violence on television, the viewer gets the impression that these groups are, indeed, made for the tole of the victim. If they see a great deal of fighting on television, viewers simply presume that this is the most normal thing in the world. The assumption is, presumably, that violent programs contain lessons on how reality is put together. The viewer must then experience similarity between what occurs in violent programs and what occurs in daily life. If in the mind of the viewers

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

87

these two realities do not more or less coincide, it is difficult to understand how seeing violence on television could possibly influence their perceptions of reality. Of course, with children it is possible to imagine that they might believe at least a portion of violent drama to the extent that they draw from it lessons concerning reality. It would seem far less likely, however, that adults learn very much about reality from violent television programs. A British study (BBC, 1972), for example, showed that the adult viewer believed that there is very little reality at all in violent television serials. It would therefore be expected that the cultivation theory concerns children. This is, however, not the case at all. In Gerbner's studies, it is the adult who is regarded as the victim of the cultivation effects. Of course, children are also subject to the cultivation phenomenon, but until recently, the evidence upon which the theory is based concerned only adults. Indeed, the research of Gerbner and colleagues does show that viewing frequency is related to the way one views reality. The relationships in question are, however, weak. Gerbner et al. (1981) may certainly not be counted among the Type I-worriers; even the most minimal correlations inspire them to draw strong conclusions. A correlation of 0.12 (explained variance lyk), for example, between viewing frequency and a mean worldindex is seen as a "strong support for the theory of pervasive cultivation of (. . .) exaggerated 'mean world' perceptions." (p. 2 5 4 ) . Statistically, this correlation is significant. It could even be lower, for with a sample of 2121 people, significance is easily reached. Until a number of years ago, Cerbner and colleagues were the only ones active in this research area. Recently, however, this has changed, and it has not done the theory much good either. In an English replication study, for example, Wober (1978) found no significant correlation between viewing frequency and a paranoia-index. A similar result was found in a recent Dutch replication study (Bouwman, 1984). A Canadian study from Doob and MacDonald (1979) a l s o casted doubts upon the theory. These researchers developed the hypothesis that if viewers believe they live in a mean world, it may very well be the case. They conducted a study in neighborhoods in which, objectively speaking, either little o r much violence took place. That there were differences between neighborhoods was all too clear: The ratio between the number of violent crimes committed in a turbulent urban neighborhood and those in a quiet one was 614 : 8 . In a peripheral municipality the ratio was 195 : 6. And indeed, viewers residing in the turbulent areas believed the world to be a less pleasant place. They also watched more television,

88

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

but if that was the factor responsible would seem subject to doubt. In a secondary analysis Hirsch (1981) conducted on Gerbner's data, relatively little of the theory proved to hold true. Introducing a number of rather obvious background variables proved sufficient to reduce the predictive value of viewing frequency to nil. In addition, beliefs held by extreme groups of viewers proved incompatible with the theory. For Gerbner et al. (1981), this was no reason to give up their theory. HOWever, it did lead them to introduce a number of interaction effects through which these contradictory results can be understood. In the meantime, Gerbner and his colleagues have consistently documented a weak but significant association between television (violence) viewing and the public's beliefs and perceptions of reality. According to Comstock (1982), the negative findings resulting from non-American replication studies may not be understood to disprove the cultivation theory. These studies do raise doubts about the existence of a cultivation phenomenon outside the US and Canada, but they give no reason to doubt that such a relationship is common to North America. In the US the relationship exists, but how should it be understood? The secondary analysis of Hirsch (1980) mentioned, suggests that the relationship disappears if controls for sex, age, SES, and other variables are introduced simultaneously. According to Comstock (1982), this and other studies only demonstrate that there are doubts that the relationship between television exposure and fearfulness reflects an effect caused by television. However, in addition to fearfulness (measured by such indices as the estimated risks of falling victim to a crime, or the inadvisability of certain kinds of behavior such as walking in a park), cultivation research has also investigated the relationship between television exposure and pessimism (measured by such indices as respondents' estimations of crime rate and the degree to which the quality of life is worsening). And in the latter case, the introduction of simultaneous control variables did not result in the disappearance of the TV exposure-perceptions relationship. Comstock therefore concludes: "Thus, pessimism appears to function somewhat different in public thought than fearfulness, and there is a stronger likelihood that television contributes to pessimism than that it contributes to fearfulness I' (p. 120). Of course, if a television-perception relationship succesfully bears up to the introduction of one or several statistical control variables, it only gives more confidence in the genuineness of the relationship itself. It does not, however, tell us what causes what. If heavy viewers hold pessimistic

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

89

views about society, this does not necessarily result from their heavy viewing experience. The relationship may also be interpreted the other way around: Because a viewer thinks pessimistically about the world around him, he or she resorts to watching a lot of television. We deem the latter interpretation to be more likely than the former one. A s far as fearfulness is concerned, a German panel study supports this view (Groebel, 1982). A path analysis did not show that watching a lot of television makes the viewer more fearful. The relationship was more the reverse: In time, a high level o f fear appeared to result in more television watching. We also doubt that television is the cause of the relationship between 'TV exposure and pessimism, because we can hardly imagine that adult viewers could possibly find support for such views in dramatized violence. The fact is, we believe it to be very unlikely that ;he average adult viewer regards the standard fictional viol ?nt program as realistic. If such programs are to have any '.nfluence, this would seem to be a requirement. In fact, he cultivation theory would have us take a pessimistic view of 1-he viewer's intelligence. Seemingly it assumes that, to a certain extent, the adult viewer does not grasp the distinction between fiction and reality. There are indeed viewers that would, as it were, consult a doctor from a television drama. However, such I fact does not say anything about the perception o f the averagc adult viewer. It only points to the fact that there are also adults whose intellectual development is comparable to that of a preschooler (for in that stage of life, a child develops the insight that television drama is acted). What we very well can imagine is that seeing real-life violence on television may confirm viewers' notion that they are living in a mean world, in particular in the United States. In the large cities, some local TV stations seem to have a kind of news broadcast in which all the misery in the city is presented in a very sensational fashion. There are extensive reports on murders, fires, and so on. Free-lance camera teams criss-cross the city, listening t o police broadcasts, hunting for hot items to sell to a television station. And the woman who just had to leave her child behind in a burning house is interviewed on the spot, for the viewer must know how she feels. Regular confrontation with that kind of news broadcasts can, indeed, create the impression that the world is not a particularly ideal place to live in. Of course, one can also develop pessimistic views from informative programs showing all the misery in the world. But we deem it highly unlikely that the viewer adopts such views from watching Popeye o r Columbo. Let us summarize. We see at least three reasons why the

90

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VJEW

adult viewer does not draw his or her estimates of crime rates or the quality of life from dramatized violence. Firstly, the violent drama would have to be regarded as believable. We assume that in the case of adults, this requirement is usually not met. It is certainly possible that adults find certain aspects of dramatized violence credible, but it is highly unlikely that they take it to be an important source for their estimates of the crime rate. Secondly, adults have sources of information at their disposal (news broadcasts, newspapers, oral communication) through which they are directly informed about crime (or quality of life) in reality. It would appear plausible that they prefer such sources to Starsky & Hutch. Thirdly, viewers have their own experiences: They can see around them if the crime rate is high or low. Hence, the viewer does not need dramatized violence at all, for such information has already been drawn from other sources. In essence, the cultivation theory is a kind of hypodermic needle theory: Without the intervention of any intervening variable, the viewer is presumed to be symbolically contaminated by watching a lot of television. While adults' pessimism or fearfulness probably is unaffected by watching a lot of dramatized TV violence, it is easier to imagine that children's perceptions are. Children have less access to alternative sources of information, and they may deem some TV drama to be very realistic. As Comstock (1982) mentions, Gerbner and colleagues have recently reported positive relationships between exposure to television and various indicators of fearfulness and pessimism within various samples of American children and adolescents, relationships which seemed to remain after the individual or, in at least one case, simultaneous introduction of various control variables. However, in the absence of secondary analyses and replication studies conducted outside the US, it remains to be seen whether these data cansuccessfully sustain reanalysis, and if the relationships in question also hold in non-American countries.

DISTORTED VIEW OF THE WORLD In addition to notions about such matters as the risks of falling victim to a crime or the actual crime rate, children may borrow other notions about,theworld from television drama. The previous analysis makes clear that we need not fear that children will be affected automatically by the distorted view of the world presented in violent programs. First of all, children must obviously find the programs credible. Secondly,

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

91

it is important whether or not a child has developed distinct opinions through other informational sources (parents, peers, newspapers, and s o forth). Thirdly, a child has experiences of its own. In general, we may assume that violent programs can influence the view children have of reality only if they find the program believable and have not formed distinct opinions from other sources. Of course, the conditions formulated here are certainly not exhaustive. The conditions required by observational learning for the attentional and retention subprocesses must also be met. The information must, then, be noticed, observed, stored and prevented from being forgotten. Consequently, programs have their greatest influence in matters about which viewers have no prior knowledge or experience. Here are a few examples. A child usually has no experience with death, but is confronted with it on television. This explains the reaction of a preschooler who, when told that her grandmother has died, asks, "Who shot her?" (LinnC, 1978). Here, television has seemingly filled a gap in the child's immediate experience. Another example: The average American has never served jury duty, but such juries do appear in any number of violent series. This explains the complaint of an American public prosecutor that instead of doing their work, juries wait for the dramatic entrance of a witness who will solve the entire case (Cohen, 1977). In the cases mentioned, violent programs can directly fill experiential gaps. It is less clear how often this occurs, or how serious this is. Presumably, children get a distorted view of cowboys and Indians, but this would seem to be an effect that can be dealt with. It becomes really serious when, by frequently watching violent programs, children get the impression that violence is "the" way t o solve conflicts, and that violence pays. This leads us into the area of attitudes, which we have already discussed. Most attention has been paid to the possibility that by frequently seeing television programs, children acquire a one-sided view of the roles men and women, and ethnic minorities play in society. Much content-analytical research has been done in this area. This research, which Greenberg (1982) discusses, shows that considerably more men appear in television programs than women. When women do appear, they rarely have an occupation. Women most often display such traits as dependent, well-groomed, friendly and pleasant. On the other hand, men are dominant, knowledgeable, independent, aggressive, active, adventurous and important. This, incidentally, agrees to a large extent with the way men and women are described in Dutch children's books; there, too, men dominate in both the quanti-

92

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

tative and the qualitative sense of the word (Tellegen-van Delft, 1978). Of course, from the cradle on, children are confronted with men and women in certain roles, stereotype or otherwise. Here the television must compete with the child's own experience. It is not very clear who wins this particular battle. It is certain, however, that children who watch a lot of television have considerably stronger stereotype notions on what the roles of men and women are. Again, it is of course unclear as to whether television is responsible for this or the fact that these inveterate young viewers come from particular kinds of families. We are inclined to believe that in this area, the influence of television is not as great as often assumed. With feminism still having a long way to go, television's picture of the sex roles is not always at variance with facts. In many cases the television simply confirms the stereotype attitudes learnt at home. If children have learnt at home to think differently, they will possibly prevail in those attitudes despite the television. Every day they see around them that reality may be otherwise. Television also presents a distorted picture of the vocations in society; professionals and occupations related to the police and the judiciary are overrepresented. The same is the case i n Dutch children's books (Tellegen-van Delft, 1978). We doubt that because of this children are deceived into believing that just about everyone has a higher profession than their own mother and father. But children probably do get a distorted impression o f the occupational groups that are often shown on television. Violent programs possibly give children the idea that the police joyfully get ready for a shoot-out. The picture children get of the "villain" may also be suspect. The information television programs provide about "bad guys" will certainly not inspire children to spontaneously establish a "Youth for Villains"-movement. Television can also provide a distorted picture of ethnic minorities. According to an American content analysis Greenberg (1982) discusses, for example, most Hispanic characters on television work as unskilled and semiskilled laborers, and many of them are cast either as comic characters or in law-breaking and low-enforcing roles. As applies to other role categories, much more research has been done on the characteristics of television's portrayal of ethnic minorities than on the effects of such portrayals on children's perceptions. However, because children are often unfamiliar with certain minority groups, it is quite conceivable that television will influence their views of those groups. According to some studies discussed in Greenberg (1982) "specific programing intended to influence race

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

93

perceptions has a strong likelihood of doing so, but the impact of standard commercial programing has not yet been well identified" (p . 185). Finally, a content analysis shows that children in television programs are almost always happy: 95% of the children are happy and when eating or drinking even 97% (Harris & Voorhees, 1981). But presumably, no child would have to be told that in real life this is not always the case.

ACTUAL TELEVISION VIOLENCE Because the influence of broadcasts of actual violence on television has hardly been investigated, we will limit ourselves to a few observations. Studies discussed earlier have made clear that the influence of actual television violence should certainly not be underestimated. The aggression-arousing effect of a program on a college campus riot proved to be greater if the viewers had the impression that it was a news broadcast. Also in the case of the influence of actual violence on children, we may certainly not expect a uniform reaction. What evokes aversion in one child may have no effect whatsoever on another. According to Snow's study (1974), the psychological reaction to blatant "blood and gore" violence is of an entirely different nature than the reaction, for example, to a horror film. Children may get frightened by a horror film, but the standard reaction to real, bloody violence, is more likely sickness and disgust. Presumably, most of the actual violence children--and for that matter most adults as well--see on television will bear no message for them. In the case of Dutch children, m o s t of the violence seen on television is from countries they will only learn about after they have started geography lessons. If one of the wars shown in news broadcasts lasts a long time, it is then likely that children will be subject to a desensitization effect. But s o far as we know, this has never been investigated. There will, however, be no such desensitization effect if it concerns a war one's own country is involved in. For if "our boys" are involved in such a war, a sensitization effect is far more likely. During the Falkland conflict, the British government was extremely conscientious in preventing the broadcasting of films in which dead or wounded soldiers could be seen just to avoid such a sensitization effect, for it was

94

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

r i g h t l y assumed t h a t t h i s would e r o d e t h e morale of t h e E n g l i s h people. During t h e Vietnam War, American t e l e v i s i o n j o u r n a l i s t s did have access t o t h e b a t t l e f i e l d , and t h e i r newscasts unquest i o n a b l y helped p u t an end t o it. Presumably, t h e most i n f l u e n t i a l form of a c t u a l v i o l e n c e upon European c h i l d r e n i s t h e s o c c e r v i o l e n c e t h e y s e e e v e r y week on t e l e v i s i o n . From such programs, e v e r y boy can l e a r n t h a t it i s " pro f e s s i o n a l " t o t r i p up an opponent a s soon a s he t h r e a t e n s t o make a b r e a k , so long a s it i s done o u t s i d e t h e penalty area. I n a d d i t i o n , b r o a d c a s t s of r i o t s presumably have g r e a t i n s t r u c t i v e val u e : t h e y show how t o go about i t ( b r e a k i n g up s t r e e t s , t u r n i n g o v e r c a r s and b r e a k i n g windows), and i n some b r o a d c a s t s , where t o go. Such b r o a d c a s t s can a l s o be i n s t r u c t i v e with r e s p e c t t o t h e l i k e l i h o o d of b e i n g a r r e s t e d . The s o c i a l learning theory i n d i c a t e s t h a t i f t h a t lik elih o o d i s p r a c t i c a l l y n i l , t h e example w i l l have a much more contagious e f f e c t . I f c h i l d r e n a r e so i n c l i n e d , b r o a d c a s t i n g r i o t s can have both an i m i t a t i o n and a d i s i n h i b i t i o n ( " o t h e r people do it too") e f f e c t . P r i o r coverage w i t h r e s p e c t t o a n t i c i p a t e d r i o t s can have t h e e f f e c t of a d v e r t i s i n g them. Undoubtedly a v a s t m a j o r i t y of t h e c h i l d r e n would r e j e c t r i o t o u s b e h a v i o r . But i f only 1% of t h e c h i l d r e n were i n t e r e s t e d i n such behav i o r , t h a t perce n t a g e i n a b i g c i t y i s s t i l l a l o t of c h i l d r e n . Halloran (1980) has p o i n t e d o u t t h a t because v i o l e n t i n g r e d i e n t s i n c r e a s e t h e l i k e l i h o o d of media coverage, p r e s s u r e groups a r e tempted t o add them t o t h e i r a c t i o n s . Such an e f f e c t seems t o be less r e l e v a n t t o c h i l d r e n . Important, however, a r e t e l e v i s i o n r e p o r t s - - i n p a r t i c u l a r news background programs--on t h e involvement of m i n o r i t y groups i n v i o l e n t crime. One i m balanced broadc a s t on t h e drugs problem i n c i t y c e n t e r s may ve ry w e l l have more e f f e c t t h a n hundreds of v i o l e n t programs p o r t r a y i n g a Black a s t h e l i k a b l e d e t e c t i v e .

CONCLUSIONS F i n a l l y , we w i l l summarize p o i n t f o r p o i n t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t can be drawn from t h e a n a l y s i s . 1.

2.

With a g g r e s s i o n , w e mean behavior which d e l i b e r a t e l y a t t e m p t s t o do i n j u r y t o people o r t o t h i n g s t h a t a r e n o t o n e ' s own. Research i n t o t h e i n f l u e n c e of t e l e v i s i o n v i o l e n c e on subsequent a g g r e s s i o n concerns i t s e l f i n p a r t i c u l a r w i t h

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

95

fictional physical violence. Comical violent programs or violent programs that are unbelievable for the age group involved have been excluded from the studies. 3 . Effects research presents a one-sided picture of the communication process. The functions violent programs have for children should also be regarded in this context, but they have hardly been investigated. 4 . It has been established that above all, children watch television to amuse themselves. In addition, television has an informative and a social function. However, if children wish to forget their cares, they are more inclined to turn to a (comic) book or a record. Children say that from television they get ideas, learn about good and evil and get an idea of reality. This kind of information is also acquired from television drama. 5 . There are three kinds of hypotheses concerning the influence of television violence on subsequent aggression: reduction hypotheses (it reduces aggression), stimulation hypotheses (it increases aggression) and "no effect" hypotheses (it makes no difference). Reduction hypotheses are most frequently supported by psychiatrists, stimulation hypotheses by psychologists and "no effect"-hypotheses by sociologists. 6 . Five kinds o f studies have been conducted into the relationship between television violence and aggression: individual case histories, surveys, panel studies, experimental field studies and laboratory experiments. A majority of each of these kinds of research suggest that there is either a positive correlational or a causal relationship between television violence and aggression. 7 . Nonetheless, the evaluation of the results of these studies is not uniform. Some state without reservation that television violence results in aggression. That is putting it too strongly. A few state that nothing has been demonstrated. This latter group scrutinizes every study separately and buries them under a mountain of methodological criticism. And indeed, the individual studies are open to methodological criticism. However, on the basis of an overall view of the studies, the stimulation hypothesis is the most plausible. 8. Television violence does not have a hypodermic needle effect. Whether it has any influence and what the nature of that influence is, is dependent on a whole complex of intervening factors: characteristics of the child, its environment and the characteristics of the programs shown.

TV VIOLENCE: A CHILD'S-EYE VIEW

96 9.

Television violence is but one of the determinants of aggressive behavior. Other determinants, to be found in the family, the neighborhood, and so forth, are undoubtedly more important. On the basis of research, it is difficult to say how much "social damage" television violence causes.

10. A violent program may also have the effect of reducing aggression. In particular when the violence portrayed is experienced as tasteless or frightening, the occurrence of aggression can be inhibited. 11. Television violence can influence, encourage or intensify aggression by:

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

teaching new forms of aggressive behavior; providing indications as to what behavior is most functional in a particular situation (what is rewarded and what gets punished); drawing attention to forms of violence previously not considered (Doomsday Flight-effect); gradually eliminating fear of aggression (desensitization); disinhibition (among other things by observing others behaving aggressively); increasing physiological arousal (at least when not accompanied by fear) ; changing attitudes towards violence (but this has never been demonstrated through research).

12. Although this has never been demonstrated on the basis of research, young children are presumably most susceptible to the aggression-stimulating effect of television violence. Research suggests that children are most susceptible to program violence if they are aggressive to start with, find it particularly enjoyable, are little frightened by it, and are more inclined to approve of it. Children that watch a lot of television and display a preference for violent programs are also more susceptible.

13. Aggression is increased or made more probable by the following characteristics of programs: '

a. b. c. d.

programs regarded a s realistic or credible; programs in which violence is either rewarded or left unpunished ; program violence regarded as justifiable; exciting programs.

14. The influence of a violent program on aggression is in part dependent upon the reactions of others also watching.

THE INFLUENCE OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE

97

Expressions of either approval or disapproval of violent sequences respectively increase or decrease the chance of aggression. The meaning, and therefore the influence of a program can be altered by comments made during the program. 15.

Frequent viewing of violent programs is accompanied by an increase of aggressive attitudes. A causal relationship has never been demonstrated, but has also never been investigated. At times, violent programs can also encourage prosocial attitudes.

16. Seeing violent programs can result in a brief reduction of such prosocial behavior as sharing, helpfulness and cooperation. There is also some indication that seeing violent programs can result in a reduction of both self-control and tolerance for postponement. Long-term effects in this regard have never been investigated. 17.

According to parents, seeing violent programs at times results in disturbances of sleep and nightmares. Generally speaking, seeing violent programs does not have a favorable effect on children’s fantasy play.

18. Repeated viewing of the same violent program results in a decreased emotional reaction. The same applies when after seeing a violent program a different one is shown. Inveterate young viewers and children who are less able to empathize with others react less emotionally to programs. It has neither been demonstrated nor investigated whether seeing television violence results in desensitization to real violence. 19.

Seeing a violent program also results in a reduced inclination to regard violence seen afterwards as violence. Only the short-term effects have been investigated.

20. The assumption that dramatized violence evokes a suspicious or fearful attitude in adults towards other people has not been demonstrated nor is it very likely. How this affects children is as yet insufficiently clear. 21.

Seeing violent programs can give children false notions about the nature of reality. To the extent that their direct surroundings have provided children with solid notions about the social roles in society, the influence of stereotype portrayals in dramas is very slight.

22.

Presumably, most children are quite divorced from actual television violence. Possibly, the programs that show sports violence have the greatest influence. Television broadcasts of riots are very instructive. For some, they have a disinhibition effect.