THINKING CRITICALLY Does Watching Violence on Television Make People More Violent

197
Cognitive Processes in Learning
FIGURE
5.16
Observational Learning
Mean imitative aggression scores
14
Bandura found that after observing an
aggressive model, many children imitate
the model’s acts precisely, especially if the
model’s aggression was rewarded.
12
10
8
6
4
2
Experimental
groups
Control
groups
Aggressive model rewarded
Aggressive model punished
Nonaggressive model
No model
Source: Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1963).
Bandura found that children who saw the adult rewarded for aggression showed the
most aggressive acts in play (see Figure 5.16). They had received vicarious conditioning, a kind of observational learning through which a person is influenced by
watching or hearing about the consequences of others’ behavior. The children who had
seen the adult punished for aggressive acts showed less aggression, but they still learned
something. When later offered rewards for all the filmed aggressive acts they could perform, these children displayed just as many of these acts as the children who watched
the adult being rewarded. Observational learning can occur even when there are no
vicarious consequences; many children in the neutral condition also imitated the
model’s aggression.
Like direct reward and punishment, observational learning is a powerful force in the
socialization process through which children learn about which behaviors are—and are
not—appropriate in their culture (Bandura, 1999). For example, children show longterm increases in their willingness to help and share after seeing a demonstration of
helping by a friendly, impressive model (Schroeder et al., 1995). Fears, too, can be
learned partly by watching fearfulness in others (Kleinknecht, 1991).
I
vicarious conditioning A kind of
observational learning through which a
person is influenced by watching or
hearing about the consequences of
others’ behavior.
T H I N K I N G C R I T I C A L LY
f observational learning is important, then
surely television—and televised violence—
Does Watching Violence
must teach children a great deal. It is estion Television Make People
mated that the average child in the United
States spends about three hours each day
More Violent?
watching television (Annenberg Public Policy
Center, 2000). Much of what children see is
violent. In addition to the real-life violence portrayed on the news (Van der Molen,
2004), prime-time entertainment programs in the United States present an average of
five acts of simulated violence per hour. Some Saturday morning cartoons include
198
Chapter 5
Learning
more than twenty per hour (American Psychological Association, 1993; Gerbner,
Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994). As a result, the average child will have witnessed at least
8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other acts of televised violence before finishing elementary school, and twice that number by age 18 (Annenberg Public Policy
Center, 1999; Kunkel et al., 1996; Parents Television Council, 2006).
Psychologists have long speculated that watching so much violence might be emotionally arousing, making viewers more likely to react violently to frustration (Huston
& Wright, 1989). In fact, there is evidence that exposure to media violence can trigger or amplify viewers’ aggressive thoughts and feelings, thus increasing the likelihood
that they will act aggressively (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Bushman, 1998). Televised violence might also provide models that viewers imitate, particularly if the violence is
carried out by the “good guys” (Huesmann et al., 2003). Finally, prolonged viewing of
violent TV programs might “desensitize” viewers, making them less distressed when
they see others suffer and less disturbed about inflicting pain on others (Aronson,
1999; Smith & Donnerstein, 1998). Concern over the influence of violence on television has led to the development of a violence-blocking “V-Chip” for new television
sets in the United States.
■ What am I being asked to believe or accept?
Many have argued that watching violence on television causes violent behavior in viewers (Anderson et al., 2003; Anderson & Bushman, 2002b; Bushman & Huesmann, 2000;
Eron et al., 1996; Huesmann, 1998). In 1993, a National Academy of Sciences report
concluded that “overall, the vast majority of studies, whatever their methodology,
showed that exposure to television violence resulted in increased aggressive behavior,
both contemporaneously and over time” (Reiss & Roth, 1993, p. 371). An American
Psychological Association Commission on Violence and Youth reached the same conclusion (American Psychological Association, 1993).
■ Is there evidence available to support the claim?
Three types of evidence back up the claim that watching violent television programs
increases violent behavior. First, there are anecdotes and case studies. Children have
poked one another in the eye after watching the Three Stooges appear to do so on television. And adults have claimed that watching TV shows prompted them to commit
murders or other violent acts matching those seen on the shows (Werner, 2003).
Second, many correlational studies have found a strong link between watching violent television programs and later acts of aggression and violence (Johnson et al., 2002).
One such study tracked people from the time they were six or seven (in 1977) until
they reached their early twenties (in 1992). Those who watched more violent television
as children were significantly more aggressive as adults (Huesmann et al., 1997, 2003)
and more likely to engage in criminal activity (Huesmann, 1995). They were also more
likely to use physical punishment on their own children, who themselves tended to be
much more aggressive than average. These latter results were found not only in the
United States but also in Israel, Australia, Poland, the Netherlands, and even Finland,
where the number of violent TV shows is very small (Centerwall, 1990; Huesmann &
Eron, 1986).
Finally, the results of numerous experiments support the view that TV violence
increases aggression among viewers (American Psychological Association, 1993; Paik
& Comstock, 1994; Reiss & Roth, 1993). In one study, groups of boys watched either
violent or nonviolent programs in a controlled setting and then played floor hockey
(Josephson, 1987). Boys who had watched the violent shows were more likely than
those who had watched nonviolent programs to behave aggressively on the hockey
floor. This effect was greatest for boys who had the most aggressive tendencies to
begin with. More extensive experiments in which children are exposed for long periods to carefully controlled types of television programs also suggest that exposure
to large amounts of violent activity on television results in aggressive behavior (Eron
et al., 1996).
199
Cognitive Processes in Learning
■ Can that evidence be interpreted another way?
To some, this evidence leaves no doubt that media violence causes increases in aggressive and violent behavior, especially in children (Anderson et al., 2003). Others suggest
that the evidence is not conclusive and is open to some qualifications and alternative
interpretations (e.g., Browne & Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005; Freedman, 2002).
Anecdotal reports and case studies are certainly open to different interpretations. If people face imprisonment or execution for their violent acts, how much credibility can we
give to their claims that their actions were triggered by television programs? How many
other people might say that the same programs made them less likely to be violent? Anecdotes alone do not provide a good basis for drawing solid scientific conclusions.
What about the correlational evidence? A correlation between two variables does not
necessarily mean that one caused the other. Both might be caused by a third factor. In
fact, at least two possible “third factors” might account for the observed relationship
between watching TV violence and acting aggressively.
First, certain people may prefer both to watch more violent TV programs and to
behave aggressively toward others. In other words, personality may partly account for
the observed correlations (e.g., Aluja-Fabregat & Torrubia-Beltri, 1998). Second, perhaps poverty, unemployment, or the effects of drugs and alcohol leave certain people
more time to watch television and leave them with frustration or other stressors that
trigger aggressive behavior.
Finally, some researchers question whether the results of controlled experiments on
the effects of televised violence extend beyond the experimental situation or last more
than a short time (Anderson, Lindsay, & Bushman, 1999; Browne & HamiltonGiachristsis, 2005; Freedman, 2002). Who is to say, for example, whether an increase in
aggressive acts during a hockey game has any later bearing on a child’s tendency to
commit an act of violence?
Close to Home © 2003 John McPherson. Reprinted with Permission of
Universal Press Syndicate. All rights reserved.
■ What evidence would help to evaluate the alternatives?
By their nature, correlational studies of the role of TV violence in violent behavior can
never be conclusive. As we’ve pointed out, a third, unidentified causal variable could
always be responsible for the results. More important would be further evidence from
controlled experiments in which equivalent groups of people were given different, longterm “doses” of TV violence and its effects on their subsequent behavior were observed
for many years. Such experiments could also explore the circumstances under which
different people (for example, children vs. adults) are affected by various forms of violence. However, studies such as these create an ethical dilemma. If watching violent
television programs really does cause violent behavior, are psychologists justified in creating conditions that might lead some people to be more violent? If such violence
occurred, would the researchers be partly responsible to the victims and to society? If
some participants commit violent acts, should the researchers continue the experiment
to establish a pattern, or should they terminate the participation of those individuals?
Difficulty in answering questions such as these is partly responsible for the use of shortterm experiments and correlational designs in this research area, as well as for some of
the remaining uncertainty about the effects of television violence.
■ What conclusions are most reasonable?
The violence that may affect children’s
aggressive behavior may not be limited
to what they see on television and in
video games.
The evidence collected so far makes it reasonable to conclude that watching TV violence is one cause of violent behavior, especially in some children, and especially in
boys (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Browne & Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005; Bushman
& Anderson, 2001; Huesmann et al., 1997; Robinson et al., 2001; Smith & Donnerstein,
1998). Playing violent video games may be another (Anderson, 2004; Anderson &
Bushman, 2001). But a cause-effect relationship between watching TV violence and acting violently is not inevitable and may not always be long-lasting (Browne & HamiltonGiachritsis, 2005). Further, there are many circumstances in which the effect does not
occur (Charleton, Gunter, & Coles, 1998; Freedman, 1992, 2002). Parents, peers, and