Does violence on televison lead to violence in real life? Essay

The debate on television violence has been on going for many years now and has produced a wide and varied set of views and research results. Many well established psychologists have attempted, through various types of experiments and observations, to either support or negate a link between violence on television and the violent episodes in â€Å"real† life. These sets of data have thrown up some interesting views and personal conclusions regarding the subject of television violence, and we will show the varying views and conclusions that some of these psychologists have reached; and by using a respected and well known system we will try to show the views of a small section of our community. Previous research into the link between violence and television Over the years numerous psychologists have produced thousands of experiments and or research to support or negate the link between violence and television. In 1987 a psychologist named Cumberbatch produced data on the actual amounts of violence found to be in British television programmes. He concluded that 30% of the programmes contained some form of violence, with an overall frequency of 1. 14 violent acts per programme and 1. 68 violent acts per hour. Each act of violence lasted an average 25 seconds leading to violence occupying just over 1% of total television airtime. His research showed that in 26% of violent acts death occurred, but in 61% no injuries were shown and the victim was portrayed as being in pain or stunned. In 83% of cases, no blood was shown as a result of a violent act, and considerable blood and gore occurred in only 0. 2% of cases. Cumberbatch also revealed that most perpetrators of violent acts were more likely to be portrayed as â€Å"baddies† rather than â€Å"goodies†, and violence occurred twice as frequently in law breaking than in law-upholding contexts. His research, although neither for or against violence on television, gives us an idea of the amount of violence on television we are exposed to. Howitt and Cumberbatch in 1974 analysed 300 studies of television violence and it’s direct effect on children’s behaviour, they played down the link between television violence and the children’s behaviour. A further study into the relationships between the media and violence carried out by Eron 1987and Phillips 1986 found a different conclusion. They concluded that a positive correlation between the amount of aggression viewed at 8 and later aggression at 30 could be seen. George Gerbner (1989) researched television and its influences on human behaviour and said: † Television influences human behaviour because there are â€Å"routes† or mechanisms whereby the content of television can have an effect on what we do, and how we act. Thus, part of televisions influence comes about because of how we learn (by observation and imitation), because of how we respond to certain kinds of story material (arousal/desensitisation), and because of the structure of our inhibitions and the way television provides the kind of stimulation necessary to release them (disinhibition). I called these behavioural mechanisms, because for the most part the influence was shown on some activity† (p128 The Psychology of Television) Aletha Huston (university of Kansas 1989) studied the effects of television violence on children’s behaviour and stated: † Children who watch violent television programmes, even ‘just funny’ cartoons, were more likely to hit out at their playmates, argue, disobey class rules, leave tasks unfinished, and were less willing to wait for things than those who watched the non violent programmes. â€Å"(p 142 The Psychology of Television) We can see from the varying studies, different results and opinions of these psychologists just how hard it can be to support or negate a link between violence on television and in real life. How the questionnaires were prepared in class In a classroom environment we produced a questionnaire on peoples opinions relating to the link between television violence and real life. The class split into small groups of three or four and discussed possible questions to add to the questionnaire, trying to have a balance of pro television and anti television questions. The individual group questions were discussed and eight questions picked to make up the actual questionnaire, these questions consisted of four pro television and four anti television, the questions were set out so an anti television was followed by a pro television question. The obvious reason for the split into pro and anti television is to try and produce a questionnaire that will give the people taking part a non-biased set of alternate answers.