Television and Violence

[Strelnikov]

Jeffrey G. Johnson of Columbia University conducted a 17-year study of 700-plus people, to determine the effect of TV viewing habits on violent behavior. The results were reported in the current issue of the journal "Science". His findings: Children who grow up watching more TV violence are at increased risk for aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood. The results held true both for people who had a previous history of aggression and for those who did not, meaning that it's not simply a matter of the violence-prone being more avid TV watchers.

Among 14-year-old boys who watched less than one hour a day, 8.9% were involved in violent or aggressive acts by ages 16-22. For those who watched 1-3 hours a day, the rate was 32.5%. Over 3 hours a day, 45.2%. The corresponding rates for girls were 2.3%, 11.8%, and 12.7%.

Earlier, less-rigorous studies have made the same connection between violent behavior and consumption of violent movies and video games. Older members will recall that social conservatives have been making the same TV/violence connection for 40 years. It became obvious within 10 years of the time TV became common in American homes.

Media spokesmen have made self-serving denials of this for years, usually combined with ad-hominem attacks calling their critics "censors". I'll be interested to see how they deal with this study. My guess is that they'll simply fail to report it, thus making it a non-event. It won't be the first time they've done that, either.

Bottom line: Parents, turn the TV off. Tell your kids, especially boys, to play ball or read a book instead.

Strelnikov

 

[red indian]

Very interesting....

Are there any stats on 42 yr old males who take an axe to the tv when ever Celine Dion opens her gob?

 

[General Zod]

My thoughts

ROFLMAO at Red Indian
Strel these are just my thoughts and opinions on the matter
What did people like Adolph Hitler,Josef Stalin,or countless other maniacal dictators throughout history watch on t.v.or the movies to make them so violent? Sadly violence has been part of human history Just because a person watches violence on the screen doesn't make them do violent things I watched a lot of Japanese sci-fi shows and movies&read superhero comics when I was growing up Did I do violent things or try to act them out in real life? No i didn't
But if I did try it I would get a spanking to end all spankings
Personnally I feel kids playing sports leads to more violent behavior,especially FOOTBALL Who are some of the biggest bullies in school? The jocks and popular crowed At least they were when I went to school

 

[Krokus]

Nope

Here is another thing that we can do nothing about. Leave it be.

 

[red indian]

Good point Zod

Even the English dont mess with the sweaty socks unless we have to, (and then we sort them out) not sure what krokus is on about, "leave it be"?? is he jesus or something? the reverend krokus says we must not disscuss this subject "Amen" yeah right, and i am a forest fan!!!

 

[red indian]

Sweaty Socks?

it means "jocks"! which means Scottish. Glad to clear that up for you.

 

[red indian]

"Forest"

this means Nottingham Forest Football Club who I hate with every strand of DNA of my being because I am from Derby, "Up the Rams!!" (glad to be of service to all you Americans)

 

[red indian]

"Rams"

This means Derby County Football Club who are known as the "Rams" and have been since 1884 so dont bother me with the American version who have been up and running since....let me see...err...a week last thursday?

 

[qjakal]

Info for Red...

Hey buddy...you can keep typing and write more than one paragraph per post...when the little bar gets to the bottom of the bleeding box it will still accept more letters...you're wearing out the "submit post" button, ya silly foreigner....lol. 😉 Q

 

[venray]

Re: Info for Red...

Hey buddy...you can keep typing and write more than one paragraph per post...when the little bar gets to the bottom of the bleeding box it will still accept more letters...you're wearing out the "submit post" button, ya silly foreigner....lol. 😉 Q

Glad you cleared THAT up!😀

 

[GuitarPeteTklr]

Cleared Up? Hmmm.....

*GuitarPeteTklr wonders how much "reforestation" will be neccessary to "restore the forest" after initially buying into the popular notion in this thread that the reason he could not "see the forest" was that "the trees were in the way..."*
😕 😀

 

[JoBelle]

ok, so I just wrote a well thought out reply post to this thread and it was QUITE long. When I hit submit, it gave me the message that I can't post anymore. 🙁 So, this is a test. If it works, my apologies to y'all for having to read it..and I'm going to try my post again..if I can remember it all!! DAMN! GRRRRRRRRRowl.
Jo

 

[Prime]

Did ya ever start reading something and get more confused as you went along?

Anyhow while Jobelle's keyboard is on strike 😛 i can say that i watched a ton of tv as a kid..and i never went on to any violent behavior..nor do i think any of my friends did...i do believe that if tv werent around there would be some other reason researchers would find for violence... it all boils down to things will find a way to happen no matter what...people can get ideas from tv..but they would get then from someplace else along the line anyhow...

 

[JoBelle]

Violence had been a part of human nature since brother first killed brother. Who's to argue that? It is part of our makeup as much as the red blood that courses through our veins.

HOWEVER,
To ignore a trend of semi-epidemic proportions with a verifiable cause among a group of young people, well that is like shooting yourself in the ass, TWICE!😛

One might say that while comparing this short time span of app. 40 years to the millennia past, we may very well be breeding beyond our appropriately fair share of Stalins, Hitlers, and other Machiavellian folk. Can we do something about it? Sure we can. Simply turn off the television. How difficult is that? It's a serious problem with a fairly simple step toward a cure. No one is saying that the horrors, we call men, from times past were created by their environments. What we can say is that the lesser evils, those not acceptable in standard human behavior, are encouraged by providing repetition of violent acts with little or no consequence.

Perhaps part of the problem is that the study was 17 years old. Many of those opposed to the findings as accurate are in their mid 20's, the particular group that knows nothing more than what the study concluded was detrimental to behavior. They have a comfort level and are reluctant to give it up as it might mean they have to rethink ideas that they never questioned. No one likes to question his or her reality...lol..especially if it involves their choice of entertainment. Hence, "Ain't nuthin' wrong with it. Excuse while I now go watch someone's head being blown off. Special effects rock!"

This is why I don't have video games in my house. It's also why miraculously, my television doesn't show movies that most of the demographic studied would find enjoyable.

As far as Red, the Rams suck. Get a new manager. At least you have good taste in music, or I wouldn't be able to tell you to go get my feathers and lie down here.
Jo

 

[strtbottomjim]

A pro historian pointed out a possible flaw with this study:

You have to ask "what is it we're really measuring here"?

Is it possible that the increased TV use is being "caused" by some other factor, and that other factor is ALSO what's causing the violence?

Example: are some kids stupider than others, therefore unable to come up with other entertainment, and are therefore turning to TV?

Are some kids not getting any attention from parents, and are hence left to their own devices, and turn inevitably towards TV?

Are some kids in neigborhoods so dangerous that parents consider TV access safer to outside play?

Low IQ could concievably contribute to violence. Lack of parental attention DEFINATELY could, as could violent neigborhood "hero figures".

Are variables like this being excluded, via IQ tests, or studying the REST of the home area environment? Or are they looking at just one variable (TV quantity) and ignoring anything else? If the latter, that's potentially not accurate.

Finally, just WHAT is each kid watching? Clearly, some kids are watching a lot yet not going violent...was any attempt made at differentiating between nature shows and rap videos with "gangsta" fantasies complete with realistic gunshot wounds?

 

[red indian]

Dont worry folks.....

The situation is now in hand, I intend to have a breathalizer fitted to my PC to prevent any more lager infused ramblings.

 

[guitman69]

Here's my problem with the study. Do they specify what they consider, "violent or aggressive act"?

The recent study that said that kids who go to pre-school are more violent then kids who stay at home ran into this same problem. The researchers included things like yelling at other kids or taking a toy away from another as aggressive acts. A child can't yell at, or take a toy away from another if there is no other child to do it to. It was a pretty big scandle. I can't remember which news show aired the study (it was either 20/20 or Dateline) apologized profusely when it turned out the study was skewed.

That was a case of a researcher trying to prove there own hypothesis. I wonder is this TV study isn't the same.

This is why experiments repeated. You can't accept this study as fact until someone repeats the research and get the same results.

 

[kurchatovium]

I rarely take these studies seriously because they generally are out to prove what the person doing the study already believes is true. This is what guitman69 is eluding to. How do they define violence? How was the study conducted? Are there references to back up how the study was done? Who provided the money to do the study? Answer to these questions can show you how seriously or not to take these studies.

Once there was a study that said that 34% of married women experience abuse in their marriages. Turns out if you found out how the people defined "abuse" it included questions like: "Has your husband ever raised his voice to you in the last year?". Thus the proper way to read the study, which was not they way it was reported, was 66% of husbands had not even raised their voices to their wives in the past year. Big difference in interpretation. Showing this study had a hidden agenda which was to make men look bad and women to look like constant victims of marital abuse.

Studies that misinform like this confuse important issues like marital abuse, violence and a host of other issues. Serious scientific studies when done right and without hidden agendas can inform and help people.

Just my humble opinion though.

 

[Strelnikov]

Anybody who is really interested in the validity of this study can find the current issue of "Science" and read it for themselves. Any decent sized public library should have it. But if you just want to throw stones at it because it contradicts your version of reality, have at it. You won't allow yourself to be convinced anyway, because your mind is already made up.

As for myself, I think that murder-as-entertainment coarsens society. This study is confirmation of something I've seen happening over the past 40 years. That's why, as a parent, I've carefully censored the material brought into my house. We would all be better off if more parents did the same.

Strelnikov

 

[Myriads]

Pickles cause Communism. It was reported in the late 80's that over 97% of all communists had eaten a pickle at some point in their life. QED! The connection is clear!

Statistics are the tool of the presenter.

More seriously: If Violence on TV causes violent behavior, then good positive TV should lead to positive behavior. Kids get a steady diet of Sesame street, Mr Rogers, Barny, and the tubbies, and still come out unnice sometimes. Whats up with that?

Or to put the argument in the perspective of an example: The rabid anti-gay collition which states: "Gay characters and positive examples of such on TV turn kids gay". Yes right.... and all the positve hetrosexual characters should have long since converted all the homosexuals to being straight using that logic... What? You only want it to work one way? Oh...... I see, carry on with your fund raising via scaring the bejebies out of your core unthinking members.

Like so much, TV acts as a environmental factor that aids in the realization of the potentials in people. It can be countered by other environmantal factors (such as parental influance) and peer interactions. Behaviors are complex and don't arise out of single causes as a rule. They are a blending of many many inputs. If people were so easy to program as 'see-do' it would make for a very scary world.

Strels statement that TV makes the culture more coarse is true. It does, in that it now presents more images that fall into the 'negative' (as seen by many) area of cultural behavior. And it delivers them in great numbers and with great repitition. This cannot be ignored. Of course it also brings 'good' things to people in large numbers also. It's a mix, the trick is choosing the good bits.

His controling what his kids get to see is the proper counter. He's adding his active voice to the blending process and countering the passive voice of the TV. (consistantly active tend to beat consistantly passive influances in developmental processes) This is exactly what a good parent should do until his children possess the skills to sort the information on their own.

Is violence on TV bad? Probably. But it's the sort of Bad that's like America's fatty diet. It's there. And a thinking person knows when to push away and choose more wholesome eats. The sadness is that many children don't have parents that will (or in many cases can, due to having to work all the time) teach them the basic cultural tools to navigate a society of choice well. And there lies the problem...

Myriads

 

[guitman69]

Anybody who is really interested in the validity of this study can find the current issue of "Science" and read it for themselves. Any decent sized public library should have it. But if you just want to throw stones at it because it contradicts your version of reality, have at it. You won't allow yourself to be convinced anyway, because your mind is already made up.
Strelnikov

With all do respect Strel, have YOU read the study or are you just going off of what you have been told; be it from the media or someone else. It sounds to me like you have just as much a closed mind to the subject as the people you call "stone throwers".

I'm going to stop here, because I don't want this to sound like an accusation. I'm merely stating a point, and I would like you to answer.

 

[kurchatovium]

There are liars, d*mn liars, and statisticians.

Mark Twain

 

[Strelnikov]

guitman69...

I'll try to find a link to the study and post it so you can see for yourself. As for having a closed mind, I know what I've seen these past 40 years and I've drawn what I think are logical conclusions from it.

Strelnikov

 

[TicklingDuo]

I think we need to stop watching television all together, especially these damaging violent shows such as "Family Affair", The Brady Bunch" and "Sesame Street".
And dammnit people, when are we going to end these other insidious habits of ours that affect our children , such as eating food or going outside???

Drew

 

[TicklingDuo]

Actually, if we're talking about the same study...

Psychologists said that a large part of the problem was in not letting out energy (esp. hostile energies) in more productive and active ways. There was no distinction at all in the study as to what types of shows were viewed. We all have pent up aggressions to one degree or another. Many of us are workaholics, etc. as a result. THAT'S not violent behavior. TV can be a negative influence. It can also be a very positive influence. Like everything else in life, it's in the eyes (and heart) of the beholder. TV won't MAKE us do anything.

Ann