Violence and aggression are common features in the mainstream media, video games, and movies. That gives rise to the question of whether there is a relationship between the violence in the media and violent behavior in real life. Do people who are exposed to electronic media violence exhibit higher rates of violence than the general population? This topic has been subject to many studies. The studies give mixed results as to the nature of the relationship between violence in electronic media and violence rates in real life. Also, there is no general agreement among researchers on the extent to which electronic media influences violent behavior. The lack of consensus on the impact of electronic media violence implies that more research on the topic is required so that appropriate mitigation measures can be adopted. Different theories have attempted to explain the relationship between media and violence. Ekeayanwu and Peter (2015) maintain that the theoretical models cannot be taken for facts until empirical research confirms that there is a relationship between violent behavior and exposure to mediated violence. Is the media a product of the contemporary world or did the contemporary world give birth to the media? According to Ekeayanwu and Peter (2015), any theoretical model that seeks to explain the impact of mediated violence should first answer the question. Though many studies may reveal a positive correlation between violent behavior and mediated violence, correlation cannot be taken as causation. The social learning theory is often cited in mediated violence studies. The social learning theory maintains that children have television role models, and they imitate the behaviors of the role models (Cherry, 2011). According to the theory, if a child is consistently exposed to violent characters on television, they are likely to imitate the characters and develop violent behavior (Cherry, 2011). Ekeayanwu & Peter (2015) argues against the social learning theory. They point out that that media programs have diverse characters, ranging from aggressive to non-aggressive. With that said, are children likely to imitate violent characters over non-aggressive ones? Ekeayanwu and Peter (2015) assert that children are more likely to imitate good characters since children love to be treated with affection. A different counter-argument to the social learning theory is that children are more likely to imitate good characters by learning the negative consequences of aggressive behavior on television (Rosenberry & Vicker, 2009). Ekeayanwu & Peter (2015) borrows theoretical constructs from Ngoa (2012). Both studies agree that though there is correlation between mediated violence and violent behavior in children, many factors are responsible for an individual’s behavior. For example, the parenting and the environment in which a child grows play critical roles in shaping a child’s behavior. With that said, Ekeayanwu & Peter (2015) maintain that studies seeking to understand the relationship between mediated violence and violent behavior should take into account all extraneous factors affecting behavior. Besides understanding the impact of violent characters on viewers, it is imperative to understand the impact of media coverage of real-life violence on the viewers. How does crime and violence media coverage affect people’s fears and attitudes toward criminals? Arias (2018) explains that there are two main channels through which the media influences people’s behavior, beliefs and attitudes: the individual channel and the social channel. In the individual channel, the media avails information to their audiences and convinces them to accept it. In the social channel, the media informs their audiences on how other people are reacting to certain information thus enhancing social coordination. The main difference between social and individual channels is that individual channels are based on persuasion while social channels are premised on higher-order beliefs and social coordination. Face-to-face communication is an example of individual channels while mass media broadcasts and publications are examples of social channels. Arias (2018) maintains that social channels are more efficient in effecting behavioral changes than individual channels. This shows that media interventions can be used to change the beliefs, norms, and attitudes of the general population. Arias (2018) focused on voluntary media interventions, but it is important to understand other impacts of the media with regard to violence. Leszczynska (2016) agree with Arias (2019) that the mass media plays a central role in shaping the public’s beliefs and attitudes. Regarding the impact of the media on attitudes towards crime and criminals, Leszczynska (2016) found no significant relationship between exposure to violent media programs and an individual’s attitude towards crime. Also, exposure to violent media programs does not affect a person’s fear of crime (Leszczynska, 2016). Burns and Crawford (1999) contradict the findings of Leszczynska (2016) that the media has no significant influence on the public’s attitudes towards crime. It is worth noting that Leszczynska (2016) focused on violent media programs while Burns and Crawford (1999) investigated the impact of media coverage of real-life violence news. Media outlets are the primary source of information on crime and violence. The attention that politicians and the media give violence cases affects the public attitudes towards crime and their fear of crime (Burns and Crawford, 1999). But is this influence positive or negative? Burns and Crawford (1999) have reservations as to whether media coverage influence on crime attitudes and fear is a good thing. They note that the portrayal of crime in the media could be inaccurate due to disproportionate coverage and personal interests. This section builds on the theoretical constructs discussed earlier. The difference is that the theoretical groundwork section used theories such the social cognitive theory to explain the relationship between mediated violence and criminal behavior; this section discusses the findings on empirical studies. Like Ekeayanwu and Peter (2015), Beresin and Schlozman (2012) assert that a correlation exists between exposure to violence in video games and violent behavior in young people, but there is no causal relationship. A correlation relationship means that exposure to violent video games affects a person’s behavior. The absence of a causal relationship means that violence in video games does not cause violent behavior. While the main focus of Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) was publication bias, the study corroborates the findings of Beresin and Schlozman (2012) that there is no causal relationship between violent video games and violent behavior. Seeing as most literatures indicate there is a relationship between violent video games and violent behavior, it is important to review the nature of the relationship. Is it negative or positive, short term or long term, direct or indirect? Kuhn et al. (2019) contend that playing violent video games does not affect a person’s level of aggression in the short term. Shao and Wang (2019) concluded that the correlation of exposure to violent video games with aggression among adolescents is positive. Yao, Zhou, Li, and Gao (2019) indicate that the relationship between violent video games exposure and adolescent violence is indirect. In summary, there are mixed views as to whether the themes of violence in mass media outlets and other electronic sources influences peoples attitude toward crime. Also, the findings of different studies on the impact of mediated violence and violent video games are conflicting. Though most researchers agree there is correlation between electronic media violence and adolescent aggression, the degree of correlation is not clear. That indicates that more research is needed to establish the impact of violence in electronic media.
References
Arias, E. (2019). How does media influence social norms? Experimental evidence on the role of common knowledge. Political Science Research and Methods , 7 (3), 561-578.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Beresin, E., & Schlozman, S. (2012). Violent Video Games and Movies Causing Violent Behavior. Psychology Today, viewed March , 7 , 2017.
Burns, R., & Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredientsfor a moral panic. Crime, Law and Social Change , 32 (2), 147-168
Cherry, K. (2011). Social learning theory: An overview of Bandura’s social learning theory. The New York Times Company.(online article) .
Ekeanyanwu, N. T., & Peter, A. (2015). Children, Youths and Mediated Violence: A Reflective Evaluation of Some Selected Theoretical Models. The Nigerian Journal of Communication , 12 (1), 50-71.
Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in Eastern and Western nations: Comment on Anderson et al.(2010).
Kühn, S., Kugler, D. T., Schmalen, K., Weichenberger, M., Witt, C., & Gallinat, J. (2019). Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study. Molecular psychiatry , 24 (8), 1220-1234.
Leszczynska, E. (2016). Investigating the influence of mass media On general public attitudes Towards criminals and fear of crime.
Ngoa, S. N. (2012). Agenda-setting: A theory-in-process. Critique and application of communication theories , 1-25.
Rosenberry, J., & Vicker, L. A. (2009). Applied mass communication theory: A guide for media practitioners . Routledge.
Shao, R., & Wang, Y. (2019). Effect of Violent Video Games on Adolescent Aggression: Moderated Mediation Effect of Family Environment and Normative Beliefs. Frontiers in psychology , 10 , 384.
Yao, M., Zhou, Y., Li, J., & Gao, X. (2019). Violent video games exposure and aggression: The role of moral disengagement, anger, hostility, and disinhibition. Aggressive behavior , 45 (6), 662-670.
