Explanations for media influence on aggression

• Desensitisation:

  • Under normal circumstances, observing a violent act results in anxiety & empathy with the victim, ie the violence isn't seen as a desirable or normal/ common behaviour.
  • If a person has been repeatedly exposed to violence in the media, they become 'desensitised' to these effects & no longer feel as anxious or sympathetic to the victim.
• Desensitisation:

  • Takes a long time to happen.
  • Desensitised individuals are less likely to notice real life violence & wouldn't have negative attitudes towards the use of violence.
  • All of these things lead to an increase in the likelihood that the person would use aggression themselves.
• Evaluation of desensitisation- strength:

  • Carnagey et al (2007) produced a study that supports the idea that media violence reduces activation of SNS in response to exposure to violence.
  • PPs played either a violent or non-violent game for 20 minutes & then watched a 10 minute film clip containing scenes of real-life violence while their heart rate & skin conductance response (measure of physical arousal) were monitored.
  • Those PPs who had previously played the violent computer game had a lower heart rate & skin conductance response while viewing the filmed real-life violence.
• Evaluation of desensitisation- weakness:

  • Desensitisation can be detrimental, not only does it lead to an increase in aggressive behaviours, but also a reduction in helping behaviours, ie stopping to help someone in distress.
  • Desensitised individuals are 'comfortably numb' to the pain & suffering of others.
• Disinhibition:

  • Under normal circumstances, we are inhibited from being aggressive, because we are socialised with norms against the use of violence.
  • The media portrayal of aggressive behaviour may change the standards of what is acceptable behaviour.
  • This effect works in 2 ways: short term & long term.
• Disinhibition:

  • In the short term- exposure to violence in the media triggers the SNS. In this aroused state, inhibitions are temporarily suppressed by the drive to act (fight/flight).
  • In the long term- exposure to violence in the media causes a gradual shift in social norms of aggressive behaviour. Our society teaches us that violence isn't the answer, however often in the media, violence occurs & can be rewarded or left unpunished, so the viewers guilt & concern are also reduced.
  • This can legitimise/ justify the use of violence in everyday life, as it undermines social sanctions that usually inhibit such behaviour.
• Evaluation for disinhibition- weakness:

  • There are many other factors that can impact on whether a person experiences disinhibition, therefore the theory does not provide a complete account for the influence of media on aggression.
  • For example, age is a factor. Younger children= more drawn into action on TV & less likely to have an awareness of motivations and potential consequences of the violence they have seen.
• Evaluation for disinhibition- strength:

  • The presence of negative consequences following violence in media can make disinhibition less likely.
  • Goranson (1969) showed people a film of a boxing match where there were 2 alternative endings.
  • In one ending, there were no apparent consequences but in the second ending, the loser of the fight was seen to take a bad beating & he ended up dying.
  • PPs who did not see the negative consequences were more likely to behave aggressively after viewing the fight than those who did see the consequences.
• Cognitive Priming:

  • Berkowitz (1984) suggested this explanation as a short-term effect of violence in the media.
  • The cognitive aspect is the violent or aggressive thoughts/ ideas/ schema/ memories & priming refers to a temporary increase in the accessibility of these thoughts, following exposure to violence in the media.
• Cognitive Priming:

  • Observing aggression in the media activates 'the script', ie thoughts about violence which, through association, can activate other aggressive thoughts linked to reality.
  • With these thoughts more accessible, we are more likely to misinterpret (bias) social information in a hostile/ aggressive manner as you are primed for action (eg someone accidentally bumps into you, but you assume it was purposeful).
  • Priming is unconscious.
• Evaluation of cognitive priming- strength:

  • Research support (Bushman 1998)- PPs watched either a 15 minute segment of a violent film or a non-violent film.
  • PPs who watched the violent film subsequently had quicker reaction times to aggressive words than did those who had seen the non-violent film.
  • Video content did not, however, influence reaction times to non-aggressive words.
• Evaluation of cognitive priming- weakness:

  • Other factors are also important, making the theory incomplete.
  • For example, research suggests that the realism of the violence portrayed in the media is an important factor with more realistic violence leading to an increase in cognitive priming & vice-versa.
  • This means less realistic (such as cartoon) violence is less likely to lead to a cognitive priming effect.