Does Exposure to Media Violence Promote Aggressive Behavior?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
At least two facts presented by each side of the critical issue
At least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue
Some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with the Pro side of the issue
Some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with the Con side of the issue
The credibility of the authors of each argument and an explanation
The author that I agree with and an explanation
The side supported by contemporary research and specific examples
Conclusion
References

Introduction

One of the major changes that have been prominent in the social environment is the satiety of the mass media. Proponents believe that ferocious television programs are promoting violence in the society whilst the opponents claim that media violence only instigates excitement, thus making youngsters more dynamic.

This paper analyzes the impact of media violence on behavior, beliefs, and values of youths by censoriously comparing the sentiments of Nancy Signorelli and Jonathan Freedman.

At least two facts presented by each side of the critical issue

Signorelli, a proponent of the idea that media violence imparts brutal behavior to its viewers, provides a number of facts to support her position. One of the facts is that longitudinal studies indicate that boys who were exposed to violent imagery at the age of eight became radical as well as rebellious at the age of eighteen and started participating in criminal acts by the time they were thirty.

Secondly, she shares a recent intercultural research done on twelve-year children. According to the study, violent individuals, especially those who reside in ferocious environments, utilize the media in asserting their mindset and beliefs, which are then armored by the media programs.

Freedman also supports his position by providing several facts. He states that laboratory experiments show that media violence is not harmful rather it arouses the moods, and thus helps people to perform their duties more energetically than those individuals who are exposed to non-violent media imagery (Coyne, 2007).

Secondly, he disapproves the longitudinal as well as cross-national researches that attempt to support the theory that real-world brutality is influenced by media violence. The studies have more non-supportive results instead of supportive ones. For instance, he notes that only 39 per cent of laboratory experiments results were in line with the causal belief whilst 41 per cent of the experiments were unreliable.

At least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue

Signorelli shares her reasons to back her sentiments. One of her main arguments is that ferocious activities in television programs make viewers to adapt a perception that the world is a creepy environment. Secondly, Signorelli asserts that violent imageries portrayed in the media do not reveal the negative impact of violence on its perpetrators.

Consequently, this aspect inculcates the idea that violence is an ethical behavior and it can be performed in certain scenarios (Escobar-Chaves & Anderson, 2008).

This idea can motivate youngsters to concur that violence is a good character because of their premature judgment. Furthermore, Signorelli notes that media violence may influence viewers to become insensitive to ferocity and accept a ruthless society mainly because they frequently watch it in the media.

On the hand, Freedman argues that ferocious acts revealed in the media play no role in promoting violence by providing a number of facts. First, he states that violent media programs do not create the acuity that violence is a moral conduct or evil behavior. The main intent for these programs is to entertain.

He argues that since the imageries do not portray any messages related to morality, it is coherent to conclude that they have zero impact on behavior, values, and beliefs of the viewers. Furthermore, Freedman argues that what promotes violence in society is the exposure to real-world brutalities rather than the media.

He also claims that there is no proof that can confirm that media violence causes desensitization (Mustafa, Hülya & Serdal, 2011).

Some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with the Pro side of the issue

The strengths of the pro side lie on laboratory experiments and numerous studies conducted on the issue. For instance, Signorelli uses a research that was conducted in South Africa as one of her proofs that media violence has a negative impact on the morality of its viewers. According to the research, incidents of manslaughters escalated among the white South Africans when television was introduced in the country.

Furthermore, the argument of Signorelli that most individuals are ready to accept media violence can only affect a third party, but not them is a strong statement. “Third-person effects” discloses that people are aware that media violence has a negative impact on values and behaviors of the viewers, but are just not ready to accept the fact (Christopher, 2009).

However, the weak point of Signorelli’s facts are the results of the laboratory experiments that she presents to back her position. They are more non-supportive results than supportive.

Furthermore, she also admits that not every person’s character can be affected by media violence. These weaknesses can make one to assume that those that become radical in the society do not do so because of the media, but rather because of other factors, which remain concealed (Mustafa, Hülya & Serdal, 2011).

Some of the strengths and weaknesses associated with the Con side of the issue

Freedman’s strengths lie on how he disapproves most of the researches done by the pro side. He asserts most of the researches are not consistent whilst others have very low magnitude of between one and two. Moreover, his sentiment that violent imagery displayed in the media are designed to entertain and not to approve or disprove violence is a strong argument.

Most people can agree with his opinion because none of the brutal programs in television advise people to be violent, rather it is a personal judgment by the viewers (Escobar-Chaves & Anderson, 2008). However, there is some weakness when he states that he has no evidence to prove that media violence does not idealize ferocity. This argument confirms that he agrees that media violence plays a role in escalating violence in society.

The credibility of the authors of each argument and an explanation

Both Signorelli and Freedman provide strong arguments to support their positions on the issue. However, Signorelli offers more credible arguments than Freedman does. Signorelli provides several laboratory experiments and studies to prove the credibility of her position.

Though the experiments have several non-supportive results, there is a consistent proof that media violence affects the lives of its viewers negatively (Joanne, 2008). On the other hand, Freedman fails to present evidence to show that people exposed to media violence have normal lives. The author has majorly based his argument in criticizing the experiments and studies presented by the proponents.

It is wrong for Freedman to argue that the researches and experiments are not consistent. Researches always have some erroneous components, but these elements do not make the research findings wrong (Boxer, et. al., 2009).

The assumption by Freedman that violent imagery arouses excitement and makes viewers more energetic has no evidence. The arguments of Freedman could have been more credible if he had presented a number of evidence to support his position.

The author that I agree with and an explanation

I agree with Nancy Signorelli for she has successfully provided several laboratory and field experiments as well as cross-national and longitudinal studies to prove her opinions. The media plays a core role in molding an individual’s character. Although most of the viewers do not imitate the ferocious behaviors displayed by the media, the violent imagery has long-term effects.

A constant exposure to media brutality causes physical as well as emotional adaptation to violence. It also cultivates fear among viewers. The evidence provided by Signorelli, especially the increase of violence in South Africa after television was introduced in the country, confirms the negative impact of media ferocity.

It is incorrect to focus on the irregularities witnessed in the studies whilst the researches provide consistent proofs that there is a mutual association between media violence and the escalating cases of ferocity in the real world (Escobar-Chaves & Anderson, 2008).

The side supported by contemporary research and specific examples

Recent studies show that exposure to media violence promotes aggressive behaviors. The studies reveal that youngsters normally emulate violent acts they watch on the media as they play with their age mates. According to the researches, children who are below the age of four cannot differentiate between facts and fictions and may consider brutality as a normal incident (Beresin, 2010).

Generally, the brutalities portrayed in the media always focus on conflict resolution. The movie stars are usually ferocious, but celebrated for their acts. Youngsters start viewing them as mentors and try to imitate what they do in the movies (Beresin, 2010). The young viewers also become insensitive about violence as they consider it as a proper method of dealing with conflicts or evil individuals in the society (Joanne, 2008).

Conclusion

Media ferocity is a major threat to the escalating incidents of real-world violence as well as hostility. There is solid evidence from several studies that violent fictional video imagery promotes hostility.

Both Signorelli and Freedman have shared their sentiments about this contentious issue and their opinions should be taken into consideration whenever addressing this matter. However, participants must be ready to present credible evidence when supporting or opposing this issue because media continues to play a significant role in the society especially in determining morality.

References

Beresin, V. (2010). The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions. Retrieved from https://www.aacap.org/

Boxer, P., Huesmann, L., Bushman, B., O’Brien, M., & Moceri, D. (2009). The Role of Violent Media Preference in Cumulative Developmental Risk for Violence and General Aggression. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 38(3), 417-428.

Christopher, F. (2009). Media Violence Effects: Confirmed Truth or Just another X- File? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 9(2), 103-126.

Coyne, S. (2007). Does Media Violence Cause Violent Crime? European Journal on Criminal Policy & Research, 13(3/4), 205-211.

Escobar-Chaves, S. L., & Anderson, C. (2008). Media and Risky Behaviors. The Future of Children, 18(1), 147-180.

Joanne, S. (2008). The Role of Exposure to Media Violence in the Etiology of Violent Behavior: A Criminologist Weighs In. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(8), 1123- 1136.

Mustafa, D., Hülya, G., & Serdal, S. (2011). Assessing the Relationship Between Television Programme Choices and Aggression Tendencies in Children Going Through Early Adolescence Early Adolescence. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(4), 257-261.

Click Here To Order Now!