|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Hartnagel et al. was to examine the relationship between exposure to television violence and violent behaviors.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a quasi-experimental cross-sectional design with a non-probability sample of 2,128 students in junior and senior high schools in Maryland in 1970. Equal numbers of students were selected from each of grades seven through twelve, and students from a primarily black school were over-sampled to allow for more even numbers across ethnicities. Survey questionnaires centered around participants' current favorite shows, defined as those that they tried to watch each time that they were shown on television. In order to control for the effect of total viewing time upon violent behavior, information about total amount of television viewing was included in the survey. Researchers assigned each program a rating of violence, and a mean violence score was computed from each subject's four favorite shows. The ratings were based upon data collected from a previous survey of television critics. Violence was defined as those incidents involving yelling, fighting, shooting or killing. Subjects' perceptions of violence in the single most favorite program was measured via agreement or disagreement with a statement that the main character of the program usually pushed other people around. A measure of the consequences of violence was used to determine if the behavior was rewarded - the person who acted in an aggressive fashion usually achieved what he wanted to, and was able to get his way. Incidence of violent behavior on the part of the subject was measured by frequency of serious fighting at school, hurting someone to the extent that they required bandages, and participating in a group fight against another group of people. Scores were summed across the three items. Demographic information obtained from the survey included sex, race, age, father's occupation, expectations for education, structure of the family unit, grades received in school, participation in various school activities and the number or hours the subjects spent watching television each day. Analysis included rank ordering and measures of gamma association, Pearson correlation and multivariate analysis.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The initial hypothesis was that high average television viewing and exposure to television violence would be associated with high levels of violent behavior. However, low gamma and Pearson correlations only minimally supported this hypothesis. The authors then suggested that respondents who perceived their favorite shows as violent, and who thought that such violence was an effective means for achieving goals, would report higher levels of violent behavior. By examining means, the researchers found that those subjects who perceived their favorite shows as violent did engage in more violent behavior. The second part of this hypothesis was also supported - higher levels of violent behavior were reported by those who perceived the televised violence as effective methods to achieve one's aims. We were cautioned, however, that only a small proportion (5%) of subjects actually reported perceived violence on their favorite shows, despite the fact that about 25% of respondents were in the high exposure to violence category. The authors suggested that people who had viewed large amounts of television violence might have become desensitized to its effects. The third hypothesis concerned the relationships between content of television programs, perception of content and various demographic and social variables. The authors examined which combination of these variables could best sort subjects into higher and lower violence categories. Rather than employing multiple regression techniques, the researchers dichotomized each of the predictor variables in turn in order to split the original sample further and further until no more splits could be made. The power of each of the predictors in reducing error levels was therefore stressed. Analysis involved the following variables: sex, age, race, school grades, education expectations, daily television viewing hours, occupation of father, whether the subject's parents were married or divorced, the number of school activities in which the subject participated, the violence rating of the subject's single favorite show, perception of violence in television and the perceived effectiveness of violence as a means for achieving desired goals. The authors found that perceptions of television violence, perceived effectiveness of violence and rating of the favorite show did not factor in to the analysis. That is, they did not have sufficient explanatory power to reduce the amount of unexplained variance in violent behavior. The authors cautioned, however, that the small numbers of people who perceived their favorite shows as violent might have affected the power of the two perception variables to reduce error. Sex and school grades each had strong effects upon the dependent variable, with males and those subjects with poor grades exhibiting higher levels of violent behavior. Females who watched more television had higher rates of violent behavior, although this relationship did not hold for males. For females who watched more television and who had medium to high school grades, those who were more involved in school activities also exhibited higher levels of violent behavior. Overall, females who watched more television and who had lower grades seemed to exhibit greater violence. Effects of fathers' occupation, family structure and age were only present for males. The first was only significant for those with low grades, with lower status of father's occupation being associated with more violence; family structure was only important for males with medium to high grades; and age only entered the equation for males with medium to high grades from families with married parents. Higher grades, an intact family and being older seemed to protect males from greater levels of involvement in violence. The authors concluded that violence on television did not play a significant role in explaining violent behavior in their total sample or in the various subgroups. In order to examine the possibility that the effects of other variables acted to hide those of the television predictors, the authors performed a two-stage analysis. In the first part of the process, all the social and demographic variables explained as much variation in violent behavior as they could, giving a total of 19% explanation power. The television variables were then applied to the remaining 81% of the variation, but they could not reduce this unexplained variance. The researchers suggested that this finding further confirmed their conclusion of the relative weakness of television violence in explaining violent behavior. Explanations of this lack of power were offered. The authors suggested that the use of actual television programs, rather than simulated shows in laboratory experiments, might have affected results. Also, the use of laboratory settings in previous research might center subjects' attention upon the violent content of the simulated programs that they view - an effect that would not have occurred in this study. The more natural setting of this study might be one explanation of the differing results from previous experimental work. Also possible as an explanation of differences in results was the older age of subjects in this study, in that adolescents might be less susceptible to the impact of violence on television than are younger children, who have traditionally been the subject of previous laboratory work. The difference in the dependent variable was also considered significant - in this study, actual incidents of violence were measured, whereas in laboratories, violence is operationalized as forms of aggression that can safely occur within such a setting. Effects of television violence, however, were thought to be indirect, possibly acting upon values and attitudes about violence and the nature of society. These attitudes might, in turn, have affected the incidence of violent behavior.
EVALUATION:
The authors present an interesting and informative examination of the effects upon violent behavior of a number of various factors. The large sample size and the inclusion of subjects with various social and demographic backgrounds provides good external validity to the study. However, the number of subjects was not reported, and was available only from examining one of the tables in the paper. As a result, much of the report was read without knowing how many people were involved. This made the discussion somewhat confusing. Also unclear was the description of the research strategy involved in the dichotomization of variables and splitting of the sample. Whilst no discussion of the implications of the findings was offered, the provision of possible alternative explanations for the findings was interesting and valuable for future research. Overall, the study represents an interesting foundation upon which to base future research in the field of the effects of television violence upon the violent behavior of adolescents. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Maryland
KW - Aggression Causes
KW - Violence Causes
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Aggression
KW - Television Viewing
KW - Television Violence
KW - Media Violence Effects
KW - Exposure to Violence
Language: en |