Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
31 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Why is this an issue of debate?
|
Because as society decries the rise in violence people attempt to discern the causes for the increase in crimes like murder, rape, robbery, and assault.
|
|
|
What does society blame as responsible for the rising cause in violence?
|
Media, particularly television programming.
|
|
|
How many acts of violence will a child witness before entering middle school.
|
By the time a child graduates from elementary school a child will witness in excess of 100,000 acts of simulated violence on tv. Lower economic status individuals may view even more.
|
|
|
What do critics say of the claim that watching tv causes aggression in children?
|
Critics argue that it is not what is on TV that bears responsibility for this surge in violence. Rather they say programming is reflective of the level of violence in contemporary society. They say while watching tv may be associated with violence it doesn't necessarily mean it CAUSES violence.
|
|
|
What do people who think violence causes aggression in children think the government should do?
|
They want congress to regulate the ratings, viewing times, and amount of violence that can be shown on American TV. Those on the other side of the issue argue that this would infrings on the first amendment rights.
|
|
|
Huesmann Article What types of studies have been done to suggest the effect of violence on children.
|
Numerous experimental studies, many static observational studies, and a few longitudinal studies indicate that exposure to violence on TV is related to violent behavior.
|
|
|
Huesmann Article Why does violence lead to agression in children?
|
Long term effects which children are generally believed to be primarily due to long term observational learning of cognitions (schemas, beliefs, and biases) supporting agression. Whereas short term effects with adult and children are recognized as due to priming, exitation transfer, or imitation of specific behaviors.
|
|
|
Huesmann article- long term relations have been found by observational learning of what three social-cognitive structures?
|
1. Schemas about a hostile wirld.
2. scripts for social problem solving that focus on aggression. 3. Normative beliefs that aggression is acceptable. |
|
|
Huesman Article-What is a major alternative explaining the long-term effects?
|
Desensitization theory which is based on the fact that humans seem to have an innate negative emotional response to blood, gore, and violence. Increased heart rate, sweat, and self reported discomfort often accompany viewing. With repeated exposure the observer becomes desensitized thus proactive-instrumental agressive acts become easier to commit.
|
|
|
Huesmann theories which suggest why a child would choose aggressive TV
|
One theory is that agressive behavior stimulates exposure to violence and thus endangers the observation between them. Observational studies of aggressive children do show the aggressive child is more likely to provoke others who then respond aggressively. Aggressive children feel happier and more justified if they believe they are not alone in their aggression and viewing media violence makes them feel happier because it convinces them they are not alone.
|
|
|
Huesmann third variable theory
|
A wide variety of demographic, family, and personal characteristics are known to be correlated both with TV viewing and with aggression, such as social class and IQ. These third variable explanations shouldn't be confused with developmental perspectives on observational learning and desensitizational theories which assign imortant roles to parenting, intellectual ability, and social class. Parents TV habits and child rearing practices also influence children's TV habits. Early parenting factors such as harsh punishment, rejection of the child, and lack of discipline also cause aggression by the child.
|
|
|
Huesmann Experimental study results
|
In children (both boys and girls) those who were exposed to violent videos behave more aggressive directly afterward. The demonstration of a relation is achieved in the field as well as in a lab. Evidence from field studies correlates to aggressiveness of children to the amount of TV they have watched.
|
|
|
The Huesmann study in 1960. What did the results reveal?
|
THey did a study in 1960 on 856 youth and found that boys' early childhood viewing of violence caused aggressive and antisocial behavior 10 years later. A 22 year follow up revealed that early aggression predicted later criminality.
|
|
|
Huesmann Study in 1977 results
|
This study was 3 years long and took place in 5 countries. TV habits of children as young as first grade predicted childhood aggression even after initial levels of aggression were controlled. In most countries the more aggressive children watched more TV, preferred more violent programs, identified more with aggressive characters, and percieved TV violence as more like real life than other children did.
|
|
|
Huesmann current study
|
Had been confirmed in the short run but now they are looking at a follow up from the 1977 study of 557 children growing up in Chicago. Tracked down most of the participants. Interviewed them and their spouses and collected data from state archives.
|
|
|
Huesmann current study answered 4 major questions what were they?
|
1. To what extent does childhood exposrure to media violence predict young adult aggression and violence?
2. Are there gender differences in the predictability? 3. Does the extend to which the child viewer identifies with the aggressive character or believe the plot is realistic affect the strength of the prediction? 4. To what extent does any long term relation seem to be due to more agressive children liking to watch violence or seem to be due to some environmentally family or personal "third variable" that stimulates both childhood violence viewing and childhood and adulthood violence? |
|
|
Current Huesmann study findings
|
Huesmann study found that violence viewing between ages 6-9 and children's identification with same/sex tv characters were significantly correlated with adult aggression. This went for both males and females. These childhood habits predicted increases or decreases in aggressive behavior. For both male and female more childhood exposure to TV violence and greater childhood id with same sex aggressive tc characters and a stronger childhood belief that violent shows tell about life just like it is predicted more adult aggression regardless of how aggression was as a child. Upper 20% of TV viewers scored higher on aggresssion tests as adults compared to the other viewers. They also displayed antisocial tendencies and violent behaviors as adults. The reason why female findings never showed up before may be because before it wasn't considered proper for violence to be used by ladies and women typically went with normative beliefs about appropriate female roles. However, as time went on now violence was roccelated for both.
|
|
|
Huesmann current study portrayed three major differences.
|
1. Early violence viewing correlated with adult physical aggression for both male and female participants but correlated with adult indirect aggression only with females. This is most likely because it is more acceptable for them in most socities.
2. Although id with same sex aggressive TV characters and the perception of vilent tv shows telling about life like it is predicted adult aggression for both genders these factors exacterbated the effect of tv violence viewing only for male participants. Boys who watched tv viplence were most at risk for adult aggression. Possible reason girls unaffected is because they have more cognitive and emotional desensitization to violence than to observational learning. 3. Apparent in structural models. For both male and females no significant statistical effect of childhood aggression on adult TV viewing. Females may be more probe to use vilent media to make themselves feel better and more justified about their own behavior. |
|
|
Huesmann implications for the prevention of violence
|
Follow up:
Not as big of a deal for teens and adults. They aren't as susceptible. Vilent media can affect any child from any family just like smoking a cigarette no matter who you are or how many times you do it each time makes you more likely to get lung cancer. Violent tv programs that have the most deleterious effects on children are not always the ones that adults believe are the most violent. Rather it is the ones which the child identifies twith the perpetrator of the violence. If the child sees the perpetrator as telling it like it is and as being rewarded that's a prblemt WE must recognize that it's much cheaper for violent films to be produced on average a reg show costs 1,094, 000 vs. violent tv only 998,000. |
|
|
Huesmann what age should be screened most closely?
|
Ages 2 - 14
|
|
|
Huesmann what can we do to reduce harmful effect
|
Parents can limit time kids watch
Parental co-viewing and commenting on the violence lessens aggression Effects of violence on second graders is counteracted by a shchool based attitude change intervention that inculates them with beliefs that violennce should not be imitated. |
|
|
Fowles The Whipping Boy Why does he call children viewing violence the whipping boy?
|
He says television violence is a whipping boy, a stand in for other clashes, real or imagined.
|
|
|
Fowles Why does he think TV violence has become the exemplary whipping boy?
|
First, it is a large target, oresent in one form or another in virtually every household in America. Second, if one puts on blinders, they might see some correspondence between the mayhem on the TV screen and real life aggression. Both televised entertainment and the world deal in hostilities. Third and most important, television violence attracts no champions; the very idea of defending it seems silly to most people.
|
|
|
Fowles Reasons why violence is attacked High Vs. Low
|
He claims the attach is in part an attack by the upper class and their partisans on popular culture. The push to reform TV is simply the latest manifestation of the struggle between the high and the low; the dominant and the dominated.Americans constantly make class judgments about one another.
|
|
|
FOwles Who does he cite as a source for high vs low
|
Pierre Bourdieu-best known for work on segmentation of society according to preferences in aesthetic taste. He came up with a system of Habitus which is the system of predispositions ingrained in a particular group or social class. It manifests itself in similar thoughts, behaviors, expressions, and leisure pursuits. Another special concept he came up with is capital, approximately equivalent to social power. Cultural capital (preferences gained primarily through education), symbolic capital (prestige and honors), and social capital (whom one knows) work together with financial capital to define a person's location in the overall social structure. Reproduction is the manner by which social classes reproduce themselves and in doing so preserve status differences. He says that taste functions as a marker of social class; therefore, different preferences (such as watching tv violence or not) can be used to situate a person heirarchically. According to this system an attack on TV and violent content would be an attack on the dominant class on the habitus of the dominated.
|
|
|
Fowles take on mass media
|
He says that violent content is delivered via the "mass media" There is no mass there are no masses. Masses are always the others. Masses are other people. When dominant Americans chastise the nonexistent phenomena of the "masses" thwhat they are really edeavoring to do is to parage and suppress the culture of dominated Americans.
|
|
|
What is FOwles take on academics
|
Fowles says academics is when the views on violence come to pass. He says the rewards of academics are middling in terms of financial capital. To have a college degree is to have the credential of the dominant; not to have one is to remain forever among the dominated. Academics strive to regard tv with condescencion or an affected indifference. Professors attitude becomes more pointed when violence is discussed and they are quick to say that tv is dangerously violent. But they seem to offer a doubly honored position they are performing the crucial service of reproducing dominant classes, but they also are breathing life into a key issue in the struggle between the dominant and dominated. Even college professors watch TV and a 9182 study found that media professors didn't restrict children's viewing anymore than anyone else.
|
|
|
Fowles Us Vs. Them
|
Thus the other is a fabrication used both to regulate those classified as the other and to distinguish the culture of those doing the classifying. It is also a mechanism for emphasizing differences and disregarding similarities in order to maintain group solidarity. The dark other is the receipient of an undeniable assualt that plays out in racially charged terms. The anti-TV violence crusaders are people who odn't worry aount their own viewing of violent TV in fact they are less likely to acknowledge violence at all tey are just concerned iwth the dark other--fear of difference, being preyed on, of having one's culture overturend, of invalidating one's identity--are denied expressions elsewhere but are allowed to sneak into the attack on violence.The desire for cultural homogenity produces a heterogeneous mix thus whites are fascinated by music, dance, and clothes of black.
|
|
|
Old Vs Young Fowles
|
He says that adults insist it is the impressionable youth they seek to protect. In a survey adults were found to be ill disposed to children and adolesence referred to them as lacking discipline, rude, and spoiled. But when teenagers were surveyed they said they felt happy in their lives and relationships with adults. ADults fel threatened by the next generation. The next generation turns to video games, tv and movies to escape from parental restraint. Younger viewers watch more TV than older viewers. This iaudience is not so much characterized by class as it is by maturity. Youths don't believe ther's a connection.
|
|
|
Fowles Weaker Vs. Stronger
|
At least 2 cases when wakter can assult stronger. As male domination female resists. Struggle between genders enters into debate over TV violence, it does so as an act of resistance by female against the male. Women are prone to feeling wary of violence even in its flattened symbolic form on TV. Femalse are more likey to report too much violence content. Many groups organized against TV are religious in nature. They stand for religiousosity,conservative beliefs, and family values. TV violence allowes competitive forces to carry their standard forward. Some sort of conservative group may prove useful as we move forward.
|
|
|
Fowles The Big Lie
|
Is that tv violence stimulates aggression in children. While censure is generally directed by stronger party toward the weaker in some instanes it flowes the opp direction. Whatever the immediate source, the energy that breathes life into the whippong boy has lead to a fear of disroder that could overrun society.
|
