Television can be regarded as the single most influential medium of communication nowadays because of the magnitude and the following that it possesses worldwide. It had installed its necessity in practically every household in developed, developing and even underdeveloped countries. Indeed, its popularity has reached a point where it became a part of the family, and its participation in the development process can no longer be ignored.
Particularly prone to the influences of television are children and teenagers who spend extensive hours in front of the television set. In fact, by the time American children are 18 years old, they have spent more time watching television than any other activity except sleep (Huston, Wright, Rice, Kerkman, and Peters, 1990). Moreover, their experiences with television begin long before exposure to school or, in many cases, any socialization agent other than the family. Thus, television had established itself as a potent force in molding personalities. However, does personality development of children rests on the four corners of the small screen? Specifically, does violence among children and teenagers associated to television shows? A bulk of literature had been arguing this matter for the longest time.
Several theories hypothesize that television violence contributes to the development of aggressive behavior. An alternative hypothesis is that some or all of the associations is due to a preference for violent television programs among aggressive individuals (Johnson, Cohen, Smailes, Kasen and Brook, 2002). Research has provided support for both hypotheses. Both conclusions supported by case studies seem plausible in proving their point however, taking factors such as television viewing as the dependent variable in the analysis of violence is insufficient. A necessary issue is the interdependence of several factors that may lead to the violent/nonviolent behavior of children and adolescents. Primary of which is the environmental factors that shapes and in effect dictates the personality of the child. Arguably, parents are still the most crucial agent in the socialization process.
Moreover, the environment also plays a critical role in the tendency of a child to be violent. It has also hypothesized that certain environmental characteristics, such as living in an unsafe neighborhood and being raised by neglectful parents increases the likelihood of both aggressive behavior and viewing televised violence. This hypothesis has not been extensively investigated (Johnson, Cohen, Smailes, Kasen and Brook, 2002). Thus, this paper highlights these two factors in relation to violence among children and teenagers. Further, while television is a factor in aggression among children and teenagers, this paper espouses that it is not the primary reason but rather the environment that surrounds him, principally the family.
Most young children use television in an environmental context in which parents and siblings select programs and parents’ regulate or encourage viewing (Huston, Wright, Rice, Kerkman, and Peters, 1990). In this context, television viewing is not the principal purpose but rather, an acquaintance activity where family members can enjoy their time together. Because of its convenience, it can be readily the favorite past time of the family. Television can readily be conceived as a default option for spending time; chosen when nothing else interferes or has strong appeal and rather automatically returned to when other activities end (Huston, Wright, Rice, Kerkman, and Peters, 1990).
However, there is the downside effect of doing this recreation activity. Many critics and theorists have proposed that TV viewing displaces other activities that are valuable for intellectual or social development. At least two different reasons for such displacement have been considered. The first is based on the functional equivalence of TV to other activities (Huston, Wright, Marquis and Green, 1999). Therefore, it might displace, or be displaced by, activities that serve similar functions for the individual user. The second hypothesis basis for the displacement is that TV is more attractive, available, and perceptually demanding, while being less cognitively complex and requiring less physical and social activity, and socializing (Huston, Wright, Marquis and Green, 1999). Tagged as the “dumb machine”, television feeds the viewer who is not required to think. The mental pause that one experiences in front of the boob tube makes children susceptible to the influences of television. Entertained, the probability of focusing on the characters that might prove to be heroes in the film makes them want to imitate it in real life. Heroes such as Robinhood had profound effects on the perception of children on their concept of a hero and coolness; while Robinhood may be a philanthropist and helpful to the needy, his methods are not exactly harmless.
Moreover, psychologists’ emphasis on cognitive and individual determinants of television use may have led us to underestimate the importance of social forces both inside and outside the home on children’s television viewing experiences (Huston, Wright, Rice, Kerkman, and Peters, 1990). Most television viewing occurs with family members; it is not simply a matter of individual choices by a young child (Huston, Wright, Rice, Kerkman, and Peters, 1990). What is viewed also depends on what is available at what times; hence, it is subject to the influence of events and family time schedules, as well to decisions by broadcasters, cable companies, and parents about what kinds of programming to supply (Huston, Wright, Rice, Kerkman, and Peters, 1990).
Apparently though, viewing selectivity cannot be exercised all the time. Left alone, children are prone to spend their time in front of the TV screen. There was a significant association between the amount of time spent watching television during adolescence and an early childhood and the likelihood of subsequent aggressive acts against others (Johnson, Cohen, Smailes, Kasen and Brook, 2002). This association remained significant after previous aggressive behavior, childhood neglect, family income, neighborhood violence, parental education, and psychiatric disorders were controlled statistically (Johnson, Cohen, Smailes, Kasen and Brook, 2002). It postulates further that the habit of watching television and violent shows will eventually be the cause of violent behaviors among children and even on their adolescent years.
This analysis is shared by Johnson, Cohen, Kasen and Brook’s (2002) with their findings that one index of adolescent aggression was associated with subsequent television viewing after the covariates were controlled is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a bi-directional relationship between television violence and aggressive behavior. Thus, although aggressive individuals may spend somewhat more time watching television than do other individuals, this tendency does not appear to explain the preponderance of the association between television viewing and aggressive behavior (Johnson, Cohen, Smailes, Kasen and Brook, 2002).
This was contradicted by Wiegman, Kuttschreuter and Baarda (1992) who investigated the extent of children’s exposure to aggressiveness and prosocial television models in drama programmes and leads to changes in their aggressive and prosocial behavior in the long term. Results indicated that the large number of moderating variables that were tested showed that there were no significant correlations between television viewing and perceived reality and aggression, use of fantasy, and intelligence (Wiegman, Kuttschreuter and Baarda, 1992). However, there was a positive correlation between television viewing and aggression on parental characteristics namely specifically punishment behavior (Wiegman, Kuttschreuter and Baarda, 1992).
Thus, the proper guidance and motivation by parents is the most basic factor in controlling the amount of time spent on watching. Given the potential impact of television on children, the control of their viewing is of major concern. Such control is often regarded as the parents’ responsibility; although evidence suggests that relying on parents is often a poor safeguard (Hough and Erwin, 1997). Parental control over children’s viewing habits appears to have been declining for several decades. Rubenstein (1983) found that although there was much parental concern about the levels of sex and violence on their television, parents exerted a relatively low level of control over what their children watched.
Parents and suitable parenting appears to be the factor in reducing television viewing and thus, violence or aggressive behavior. Hough and Erwin (1997) examined a substantial number of personal characteristics; they found out that the only variable that predicted children’s attitudes toward violence on television was the number of hours spent watching television on school days. However, a preliminary exploration of the relationship among the predictor variables had shown a number of intercorrelations indicating that the impact of television on aggression is mediated by the number of hours of television viewed on school days (Hough and Erwin, 1997).
A finding of primary importance on the study made by Potts and Wright (1986) was the rapid action facilitated boys’ attention, but violent content did not. The results indicated that it is the forms of television rather than the violent content, which attract and hold children’s attention (Potts and Wright, 1986).
In addition, the environmental setting had pronounced effects on boys’ social play in all treatment conditions (Potts and Wright, 1986). In general, prosocially cued toys elicited prosocial behavior (Potts and Wright, 1986). These findings are in accord with various theoretical positions, which emphasize the role of physical settings and cues as determinants of behavior. The effects of the television content and form manipulations on social behavior were weak, compared to the toy cuing effects (Potts and Wright, 1986). High action in television had virtually no effects on children’s social behavior (Potts and Wright, 1986). One major reason for the absence of effects of the television manipulation s may be that the strong demand qualities of the toys led to restricted variance in children’s behavior (Potts and Wright, 1986). That is, the cuing properties of the toys had overriding effects on the rates of many of the aggressive and prosocial behaviors observed (Potts and Wright, 1986).
Potts and Wright (1986) made two conclusions regarding the effects of television and cuing devises on the behavior of boys. First, the demand qualities of the immediate environment can be made sufficiently strong to override the effects of a brief exposure to different types of television content or form. This finding is consistent with the social learning emphasis on the importance of situational cues in determining social behavior. It also has applied relevance; children’s play environments might be designed to counteract some of the deleterious effects of violent television content. In this context, it is sobering to note that it was much more difficult to find or design toys that promoted prosocial behavior than those that promoted aggression (Potts and Wright, 1986).
Second, the accumulation findings to date indicate that the effects of television content and/or form depend on the environmental circumstances surrounding the child. The public and professional debate about television violence seems to rage on without considering this rather obvious point. It appears that short-term effects of television violence are most likely to be observed in situations where variance is unrestrained by interpersonal or environmental cues (Potts and Wright, 1986).
Bandura’s Ecological Theory (1978) espouses that behaviors are defined by a physical context, human components and standing or expected patterns of behavior. Settings coerce behavior patterns and exclude others. Theories based on learning process extend this model to propose that immediate effects on behavior may lead to lasting characteristics of the participant. As a result, the activities in which children spend their time are likely to affect their skills, attitudes, and behavior patterns, Children not only are influenced by environments but choose their environments on the basis of the individual skills and preferences that they can exercise there (Bandura, 1978).
Huston, Wright, Marquis and Green (1999) reinforced this idea by conducting a study of time use by young children in families with low to moderate incomes. The results provide support for the hypothesis that changes in viewing entertainment TV, but not informative TV, are negatively related to changes in time spent in reading and educational activities (Huston, Wright, Marquis and Green, 1999). Parents’ education and the quality of the home environment were positively associated with individual differences in the time spent watching educational programs and negatively associated with cartoon and general audience viewing (Huston, Wright, Marquis and Green, 1999).
The effects of parental education appear to be mediated by a stimulating environment that may provide alternatives to TV and by parent regulation and selectivity with regard to TV (Huston, Wright, Marquis and Green, 1999. Earlier studies made (St. Peters, Fitch, Huston, Wright and Eakins, 1991) showed that parental regulation led to relatively low viewing of informational programs. Well-educated mothers apparently provide conditions that maintained reading and educational activities somewhat independently of variations in the amount of general audience TV their children watch (Huston, Wright, Marquis and Green, 1999).
Experiments in which parents restricted children’s viewing time have shown an increase in children’s reading activity and creative play, these changes may have been due to parents’ encouragement of other activities and biased parenting rather than to reduce TV viewing per se (Gadberry, 1980).
Time use by young children is likely to depend on opportunities and restrictions provided by the home environment or other rearing environments such as childcare (Huston, Wright, Marquis and Green, 1999). Highly educated parents have children who spend relatively large amounts of time (compared with children of less educated parents) reading and being read to; eating; and engaging in personal care, sports, and family activities (Bianchi and Robinson, 1997).
In addition, when parents have placed restrictions on what children can watch, the children have found many ways of getting around these limitations (Hough and Erwin, 1997). Typical strategies have included watching on another television in a bedroom, sneaking downstairs and watching through a door, or watching at a friend’s house (Hough and Erwin, 1997).
Somewhat less encouraging are reports that parental control over children’s viewing has decreased over the past several decades and that those children who are less subject to parental control (and more able to avoid it) may be the ones who need it most (Hough and Erwin, 1997).
Violence on TV or in games would therefore not cause an otherwise emotionally healthy child to commit a violent act. The children that commit violent acts have problems that run much deeper than simply watching too much TV. Society can be big factor on violence. For one, in more and more families, both parents work, leaving children in the care of older siblings, sitters or home alone. Those that are completely unsupervised are bound to get into some sort of trouble at some point. On the other hand, being with a sitter is not the same as being with a parent that is genuinely concerned with the child’s long term welfare and not simply his immediate behavior. Also, many daycares are overcrowded and, as a result, children don’t get the individual attention that they crave (Powell, 2001).
In addition, this is a time in history where everyone you know has a TV, and almost everyone you know has a computer and/or some type of game system (GameBoy, Nintendo, Sega). This is an exciting time to live in, and there are some positive attributes to all of the technological advances we’ve made. The trade off, though, is that more people are spending a lot of their time either alone, or involved in activities that don’t include much social interaction. As a result of these circumstances, children’s emotional growth is being stunted. They are not learning the social skills and anger management tools necessary to cope with life. These things are just as important as academics and should be taught at school as well as in the home (Powell, 2001).
With the advent of mass media, including television and more recently, video and computer games, children and teenagers are exposed to increasingly higher doses of aggressive images. In many countries, there is an average of five to ten aggressive acts per hour of television. Violence among youth is also on the rise, making it plausible to correlate the two, even though we believe that the primary causes for aggressive behavior in children are to be found in their family environment, and the social and economic conditions in which they are raised (Powell, 2001).
Nonetheless, media plays a major role in the development of cultural orientations, world views and beliefs. Most studies show that the relation between media violence and ‘real’ violence is interactive: media can contribute to an aggressive culture; people who are already aggressive use the media as further confirmation of their beliefs and attitudes, which, in turn, are reinforced through media content. As the basis for this study, we formulated the compass theory. Depending on a child’s already existing experiences, values and the cultural environment, media content offers an orientation, a frame of reference which determines the direction of one’s own behavior. Viewers do not necessarily adapt what they have observed, but they measure their own behavior in terms of distance to the perceived media models. For instance, if cruelty is ‘common’, ‘just’ kicking the other seems to be innocent by comparison if the cultural environment has not established an alternative frame of reference (Huesmann, 2003)
Research shows that parents can protect their children from potentially harmful influences and can even use TV for learning and other age-appropriate developmental activities. Parents (and schools) can teach children critical viewing skills. For example, children can be taught to recognize stereotypes, distinguish fictional from factual portrayal, identify scenes portraying behavior and values that conflict with their own and their family’s values, and think about and describe alternative, nonviolent means of resolving problems. Parental monitoring is a key factor, since the research studies show that increasing guidance from parents is at least as important as simply reducing media violence. Children may learn negative behavior patterns and values from many other experiences as well as TV programs, and parental guidance is needed to help children sort out these influences and develop the ability to make sound decisions on their own (Huesmann, 2003).
Even though having parents conduct their own review of program content is important, competing demands on parents’ time often make this approach impractical. In many households, the children come home before their parents and are left without adult supervision for a part of the day or evening. In these and many other situations, families could benefit from a technology for the parents to block out offensive programs. The more flexible and effective the blocking mechanism for TV, the more useful it will be in accommodating individual family values and choice.
Consequently, this paper had shown that although the effects of television viewing significantly affects the socialization process and the aggressive tendencies of children and teenagers, it is by no means the only reason for this occurrence. Evidence shows that parenting is still the most fundamental socializing force among children. Further, television is only potent on the inclination of parent/s in allowing their children to engage in it. The foundation that parents’ build and their ability to offer other recreational and educational activities largely decrease television viewing and the effects it can have. Subsequently, violence on children is not a phenomenon produced by television but rather; it is in an indirect way the creation of the parent/s.
The significance of building values among children and the selective viewing that parents inculcate in their children will be the determining factor in children’s violence. It is thus imperative that parents monitor their children’s viewing not necessarily on censuring violent shows and programs but by being able to explain the rationality and the significance/insignificance of some television acts.
Television viewing has been the dominant past time of any ordinary child or teenager. It has instituted itself in the nucleus of every individual seeking a convenient yet entertaining past time and further, it has established itself as a part of child rearing among parents. The inevitability of being influenced by television particularly violent films and shows cannot be denied. However, the mitigating factor and ultimately the chief issue is the ability of parents to confront their children on violence issues and take charge in molding their children instead of the television doing it for them. Consequently, television is a neutral medium – it is the actors that take part in viewing that interprets and absorb what it contains.
Context precedes content. Television viewing does not exist in a vacuum, it is a process where the participants evaluate a given phenomena and it is usually in this exchange of discourses and ideas that a judgment is formed. It is in the context of viewing a violent show and the perspective that is shown by the parents and family members that develops the reactions and judgment of children. We often mistakenly assume that content of a given program is everything however; the central issue is actually the people taking part in the process.
The first nature of a TV set which matters here is the fact that its image is unreal and very coarse. Its unreality, or ‘virtuality’, makes people underestimate the influence of the apparatus. In fact, probably every parent protects his/her children, so that the latter do not experience emotionally strong situations (for instance, a relative’s death, the vision of a bloodstained injured person laying on the street, etc.). Having in mind protecting their children in the best possible form, in big cities they usually lock the house door, raise high walls around it, move to guarded apartment buildings or condominiums, etc. They don’t notice that children need to be guided and controlled (with love), and that the lack of it generates serious psychological problems. Moreover, the coarseness of the image can be verified observing TV images and programs. On soap operas, in general only the actors’ face is focused, because if the whole body were focused, the facial expression would not be noticed; the eyes, nose and mouth would become small stains. With that, the emotions that the actors should transmit would not be noticed.
It is therefore sad to note that there is an increasing decline of parents being able to give the support system of their children. Television neutral as it may seem, is dangerous viewed in the context that the child sees the characters in the television as the actual support system in understanding its content. In the absence of a human presence in television viewing, the child identifies with the character instead of analyzing the perspective given by the entire film. This identification process would prove to be lethal and may lead to the violent nature of children. It is not therefore the television per se that makes children violent but the environment and support system that ought to be provided by family members.
It is thus, not a matter of consequence that children become violent but a matter of choice and child rearing on the part of the parent/s.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bandura, A., The Self-System in Reciprocal Determinism, American Psychologist, 33, 344-358, 1978.
Gadberry, S., Effects of restricting first graders’ TV-viewing on leisure time use, IQ change, and cognitive style, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1, 45-58
Hough, Kirstin and Erwin, Philip, Children’s Attitudes Toward Violence on Television, The Journal of Psychology, 131 (4), 411-415, 1997
Huesmann, Ruel, Children who identify with Aggressive TV Characters and Perceive the Violence to be Realistic are Most at Risk for Later Aggression, Childhood Exposure to Media Violence Predicts Young Adult Aggressive Behavior, According to a 15-Year Study, American Psychology Association, 2003. Available at http://www.apa.org/releases/media_violence.html.
Huston, Aletha, Wright, John, Marquis, Janet and Green, Samuel, How Young Children Spend Their Time Television and Other Activities, Developmental Psychology, American Psychological Associatin, Vol. 35, No. 4, 912-925
Huston, Aletha, Wright, John, Rice, Mabel, Kerkman, Dennis and Peters, Michelle, Development of Television Patterns in Early Childhood: A Longitudinal Investigation, Developmental Psychology, American Psychological Association, Inc., Vol 26, No.3, 409-420, May 1990
Johnson, Jeffrey, Cohen, Patricia, Smailes, Elizabeth, Kasen, Stephanie and Brook, Judith, Television Viewing and Aggressive Behavior During Adolescence and Adulthood, Science, Vol 295, 29 March 2002
Potts, Richard, Huston, Aletha and Wright, Jodn, The Effects of Television Form and Violent Content on Boys’ Attention and Social Behavior, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (41), 1-17, Academic Press, Inc., 1986
Powell, Sheila, Does TV Cause Violence?, Parenting and Family Insight, Creative Marketeam Canada, Ltd., April 21, 2001. Available at http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/5914/37477
Wiegman, O., Kuttschreuter, M., and Baarda, B., A Longitudinal Study on the Effects of Television Viewing on Aggressive and Prosocial Behavior, British Journal of Social Psychology, British Psychological Society, Vol 31,147-164, 1992
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment