Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

by **Gildarts** 1/7/2014, 3:26 am

DEBATE TOPIC

Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people?

TOPIC LEADER

Kelly

RESEARCH

(provided by Topic Leader)

Kelly wrote:As I said in my weekly debate topic suggestion originally: The American Psychological Association (APA) has conducted four types of media violence studies in attempts to seek determinative answers: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies. Despite that, there is still an ongoing debate as to whether violent video games hold a significant risk factor for destructive behavior.

In addition, the APA has answered to the best of their abilities myths associated with their research and violent media (specifically focused on video games). Highly recommend reading up on their Myths, Facts, and Unanswered questions about violent video games page found here: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx

Any sort of media outlet (such as, but not limited to, television, video games, music, movies) is the abstract definition of "exposure to violence in media." With that said, the American Academy of Pediatrics goes into a full detail about the topic here, I would recommend reading/skimming through it: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/5/1495.full

Two others by video-game-addition.org that correlate heavily to the topic are:
- http://www.video-game-addiction.org/violence.html
- http://www.video-game-addiction.org/symptoms-computer-addiction-teens.html

(provided by Kid)

Kelly has pretty much summed everything up for me Razz

However my standpoint is that I do believe certain media outlets can cause the way people behave, for example if people see a celebrity commit an act the is out of the ordinary in comparison to "normal" people who follow the celebrity are more likely do to so as it is a "trend", a prime example of this would be "twerking" which has increased in popularity after Miley Cyrus done so on live T.V which deviated from the social norm.

Some websites that may help:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/715781#2
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120703162630.htm
http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/can-media-violence-desensitize-you

DEBATE

(provided by Topic Leader)

Kelly wrote: I feel being exposed to violent media is a significant factor for possible aggressiveness and/or violence in individuals. Since the dawn of the computer and the upbringing of general tech/electronics (i.e., television, computer, console/console games, and so on), a vast majority of people find themselves 'hooked on media,' sometimes more than realized.

According to a report made by the American Academy of Pediatrics–in which contains a vast amount of factual research and general information about the exposure to media violence–states: "American children between [the ages of] 8 and 18 years of age spend an average of 6 hours and 21 minutes each day using entertainment media (television, commercial or self-recorded video, movies, video games, print, radio, recorded music, computers, and the Internet). Children between [the ages of] 0 and 6 years of age spend an average of almost 2 hours each day using screen media (television, movies, computers)."¹ As depicted by the graph below², each of the age brackets has increased it’s Internet usage by at least 25% within the last 12 years (years ranging from 2000 to 2012), and this is only the state of Utah, imagine how much higher the statics would be if it took into account all of the states.

Please beware, the following bit of my argument contains extremely sensitive/emotional material, read further at your own discretion. Illustrated below is is the annual mass shooting causalities from 1982 to 2012³:

The highest mass murder causalities recorded on said graph is in the year 2012, where not one, but two calamitous mass shootings. In addition to that, 1999 and onward has four of the highest bloodshed years. There was a lull in the carnage at times (most noteworthy between 2000 and 2004), but there has been a definite increase between 2007-2012 versus any other five year time period before 2007.

"Many are quick to point out that most school shootings in recent years have been carried out by avid gamers, and their games of choice were always dark and violent."⁴ Video games, I reckon, is the biggest culprit behind the increased violence and aggression in people. Why? According to an article by Time, it's estimated that 90% of the children within the United States play video games, and more than 90% of those games involve mature, violent content⁵

Citations
¹ – American Academy of Pediatrics, URL to page used: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/5/1495.full
² – Illustration #1 (increased Internet usage from 2000-2012), URL/credit to: http://broadband.utah.gov
³ – Illustration #2 (mass shooting causalities from 1982-2012), URL/credit to: http://ijamming.net
⁴ – Video Game Addiction Awareness, URL to page used: http://www.video-game-addiction.org/violence.html
⁵ – Time, URL to page used: http://time.com/34075/how-violent-video-games-change-kids-attitudes-about-aggression/

So, what do you all think? Does the media affect how people behave? Why or why not?
Is it possible that media violence can desensitize you?

[CLICK HERE =>] SUBMIT YOUR OWN TOPIC FOR DEBATE [<=CLICK HERE]

by **Kelly** 3/7/2014, 3:15 am

What's everyone's opinion Smile

? I'd really love to see other people's standpoints on this, regardless if for or against.

by **Gildarts** 3/7/2014, 3:43 am

For the sake of debating I am going to disagree with you here.

The media cant essentially desensitize people into wanting to commit crimes or being violent in general, this is mostly because of the fact that we are human being have a mind of our own and a will of our own, that being said we also have our own "Wrong and Rights" mentally, which distinguish what we do every day of our lives.
By saying that the media influences us to be violent is almost like saying that we are being hypnotized to go against our selves and give in to what the broadcaster wants.

by **[ADMIN] Adrijana** 3/7/2014, 4:04 am

Kid wrote:For the sake of debating I am going to disagree with you here.

The media cant essentially desensitize people into wanting to commit crimes or being violent in general, this is mostly because of the fact that we are human being have a mind of our own and a will of our own, that being said we also have our own "Wrong and Rights" mentally, which distinguish what we do every day of our lives.
By saying that the media influences us to be violent is almost like saying that we are being hypnotized to go against our selves and give in to what the broadcaster wants.

I do think that Media can desensitize us to what actual life is like. Let's consider taking someone's life for an example. Media will show us graphic images and allow us to get used to those images over time. Over time our emotions will be disconnected from the idea of taking a life or seeing someone else take a life which can over time...and will lead to acceptance of "playing God".

Now nobody freak out.... I'm not saying that some guy who looks at websites of dead bodies will shoot a place up. What will change with him is lack of concern and motivation to make a change in the society because he may not be able to relate to a situation in a way that our "right vs wrong" mind is supposed to.

We may be born with the "right vs wrong" mentality and conditioned (with the right parents) to respect the basics of "right vs wrong" but this may not follow us our whole lives. Media can change us over time and condition us to see situations considered "wrong" as everyday life and allow us to emotionally accept them as a normal scenario.

by **Kelly** 3/7/2014, 4:21 am

[ADMIN] Adrijana wrote:
Kid wrote:For the sake of debating I am going to disagree with you here.

The media cant essentially desensitize people into wanting to commit crimes or being violent in general, this is mostly because of the fact that we are human being have a mind of our own and a will of our own, that being said we also have our own "Wrong and Rights" mentally, which distinguish what we do every day of our lives.
By saying that the media influences us to be violent is almost like saying that we are being hypnotized to go against our selves and give in to what the broadcaster wants.

I do think that Media can desensitize us to what actual life is like. Let's consider taking someone's life for an example. Media will show us graphic images and allow us to get used to those images over time. Over time our emotions will be disconnected from the idea of taking a life or seeing someone else take a life which can over time...and will lead to acceptance of "playing God".

Now nobody freak out.... I'm not saying that some guy who looks at websites of dead bodies will shoot a place up. What will change with him is lack of concern and motivation to make a change in the society because he may not be able to relate to a situation in a way that our "right vs wrong" mind is supposed to.

We may be born with the "right vs wrong" mentality and conditioned (with the right parents) to respect the basics of "right vs wrong" but this may not follow us our whole lives. Media can change us over time and condition us to see situations considered "wrong" as everyday life and allow us to emotionally accept them as a normal scenario.

To piggyback onto what Adrijana is saying...

The way the media gets to us is not so much a straightforward thing, it's very subliminal. Small suggestions that over time have proven to yield violence. Furthermore, many crime shows dive very deeply into the realism of the crime, down to the mentality of the individual committing the crime. Minds are warped at a young age by overexposed violence, which can result in things ranging from assault to rape.

As Adrijana said, we may be born and instilled by parents "right versus wrong" but with enough subliminal messaging from the news, TV shows/movies, video games, social media outlets, and heck even a variety of websites on the interwebs can really mess a person up and warp the principals of right and wrong.

by **Gildarts** 3/7/2014, 4:23 am

[ADMIN] Adrijana wrote:
I do think that Media can desensitize us to what actual life is like. Let's consider taking someone's life for an example. Media will show us graphic images and allow us to get used to those images over time. Over time our emotions will be disconnected from the idea of taking a life or seeing someone else take a life which can over time...and will lead to acceptance of "playing God".

Now nobody freak out.... I'm not saying that some guy who looks at websites of dead bodies will shoot a place up. What will change with him is lack of concern and motivation to make a change in the society because he may not be able to relate to a situation in a way that our "right vs wrong" mind is supposed to.

We may be born with the "right vs wrong" mentality and conditioned (with the right parents) to respect the basics of "right vs wrong" but this may not follow us our whole lives. Media can change us over time and condition us to see situations considered "wrong" as everyday life and allow us to emotionally accept them as a normal scenario.

Well you argument in a certain prospective can be correct seeing as time is a large factor on this certain topic, however it is much harder to prove this on Adults and easier to prove on Children and Teenagers this is because their minds are still in development and are still sensitive to such exposure, whereas Adults minds are much more emotionally stable and can see how killing another humanbeing is "wrong" and inhumane.
Seeing as only certain Media products do influence people to be violent and our main Media platform for information is the News e.g. newspapers and T.V broadcasting which tell us the Murder and general Crime is "bad" our minds at the late teenage stages tend to adapt more to that than the ones that where fed to use as kids.

Edit: (Feshbach & Singer, 1971) would hypothesize that playing
aggressive video games would have a relaxing effect by channelling latent aggression and
therefore have a positive effect on a child’s behavior.
They stated that people more exposed to violent outlets tend to be less violent in general, this is due to the Cathartic effect (providing psychological relief through the open expression of strong emotions; causing catharsis.)

by **GsKiki** 3/7/2014, 4:58 pm

[NOTE: What is being said in my post is my personal opinion, founded on researches and studies I've read and learned about at college. Please note that research findings are not 100% correct for every single person, but does count for majority, so please don't get offended.]

There has been a lot of researches on this subject, however all of them lack a direct connection between violence and media. Now you can say that media is subliminal (which it 100% is) but if there is no direct connection shown, the theory still stays just a hypothesis.
I think that media can and definitely does affect people, some more some less, but it is not prime concern.
You are all probably aware of the fact that not even scientists can agree on Nature vs Nurture debate. There is a lot of theories and hypothesis. I personally believe in one that kind of brings it both together. It says that every person is born with a possible range for every trait (imagine yourself a ruler on which every trait can be developed in a specific range, 1-10, 5-29, 3-7, ...). Every person is born with a different sized range, for different traits. That is the nature part of person. All of those ranges can be developed via nurture.
This is how that theory comes in handy for this debate.
Let's say 2 people are born with similar range for violence. Person A has a loving, supportive parents/caregivers and it's surrounding will repress the range to the minimum. Person B is growing up in a family where noone cares or supports each other. Chances are (proven by researches) that person B will develop more violent behaviour.
Media can directly influence children only when they still don't quite get the difference between what's real and what's not, and in that age grownup person that is taking care of them is supposed to be monitoring what the child does and watch. They are like sponges and will repeat everything they see. If parents are not supervising what the child is watching, if they are not interested in playing with him/her or raising them, the chances are child will not grow up to learn the difference between what is acceptable and what is not.
So in all honesty, I would never blame it on media, I would blame it on parents/caregivers. Because they are the ones who failed.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everything media does is great. But if you think about it, media is providing people with stuff they wanna see, they put on TV products that will sell, series and movies that will be watched...and who is watching it...people...People are requiring from media to do what it does today. But I will stop here, because this is a subject for another discussion.

by **Leakee** 3/7/2014, 5:06 pm

I think the Bobo-Doll experiment would be really helpful!

by **GsKiki** 3/7/2014, 7:54 pm

Leakee wrote:I think the Bobo-Doll experiment would be really helpful!

It was conducted on children 3 - 6 years old and it was researching how any aggressive exposure (real-life and media) effected children. The findings from that research actually was why I said media can only directly influence young children. Hence why parents are actually responsible for it (children can't choose on their own what to watch, or in what kind of surroundings they are).

by **Kelly** 3/7/2014, 8:39 pm

To an extent, I would agree with you that "parents are actually responsible for it (children can't choose on their own what to watch, or in what kind of surroundings they are," but I feel that the parents aren't entirely responsible. Here is an example, Susan and John have a child, Dave. When Dave's parents take him to school, they don't sit in his classes with him and babysit him, the school (and the staff of the school) are in charge of doing that – of ensuring that Dave has a safe experience learning and developing further.

However, the teachers nor the parents could have predicted the shooting that took place in Connecticut in mid-December of 2012. That was a violent situation that terrified and molded young, impressionable minds. Now I am not saying all of the children affected that day are going to turn out to be bad seeds, nor am I saying that isolated incidents like this are a direct correlation to increase in violence from people, I'm saying that the likelihood of those students being angered over the evasion of their safe haven, sad over the loss of their fellow friends, and emotionally traumatized by it. Trauma can cause people to do unspeakable, often confusing things, take for instance the way returning home soldiers react to the trauma they witnessed.

I feel strongly that violence, especially from media outlets, is capable of minding impressionable people. Yes, adults are fully developed, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're no longer able to be impassioned, it is just possibly harder. For example, Adolf Hitler used his leadership style to impression a massive amount of individuals, and commit acts of violence to those who were not what Hitler wanted them to be. Besides his wife and himself, Adolf Hitler did not kill anyone with his own hands. However, he set up and authorized the mass murder of millions Source.

Another well known example is the warping of minds that Jim Jones did; his "drink the kool-aid" statement is one that's well-known. Over 900 of the members died in Jonestown from drinking the "kool-aid" (cyanide poison) Source.

As proven above, people can be manipulated into believing things, and are impressionable, regardless the age. And that's just individual people, not the broadcast on news and media outlets...

by **GsKiki** 3/7/2014, 9:32 pm

Yes some people are very easy to manipulate, and there is a lot of theories also about how and why, and which people are more prone to manipulation, but I kind of feel that is the topic for another discussion.
Traumatizing experiences are usually not what triggers violence.
What has shown as great influence is children seeing something bad not being punished.
Seeing a shooting irl will not cause the same reaction (if we assume the person is mentally healthy).
I do fully agree tho that (preschool)teachers do share parents responsibility once child is in their hands.

by **Muffins** 4/7/2014, 5:16 am

GsKiki wrote:
Leakee wrote:I think the Bobo-Doll experiment would be really helpful!

It was conducted on children 3 - 6 years old and it was researching how any aggressive exposure (real-life and media) effected children. The findings from that research actually was why I said media can only directly influence young children. Hence why parents are actually responsible for it (children can't choose on their own what to watch, or in what kind of surroundings they are).

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Bobo Doll Experiment was just done to see the effects of observational learning.

by **GsKiki** 4/7/2014, 11:03 am

Muffins wrote:
GsKiki wrote:
Leakee wrote:I think the Bobo-Doll experiment would be really helpful!

It was conducted on children 3 - 6 years old and it was researching how any aggressive exposure (real-life and media) effected children. The findings from that research actually was why I said media can only directly influence young children. Hence why parents are actually responsible for it (children can't choose on their own what to watch, or in what kind of surroundings they are).

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Bobo Doll Experiment was just done to see the effects of observational learning.

Intention of it was to see how exposure to aggressive environment (both irl and media) effects young children. What they didn't expect is that they will find out more about social learning from it, then about their actual hypothesis. Trust me, I've studied this Smile

It is actually not a rare thing to start a research about one thing, and end up getting information about something else from it.

by Sponsored content

Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]

Re: Can being exposed to violent outlets of media be a considerable factor for violence in people? [PASSED]