Plugged In

by Patti M Valkenburg

  Effects Are Neither Universal Nor Uniform

  While researchers often talk about media violence as though it is a homogenous entity, the reality is that media violence takes many different forms. A documentary containing violent scenes that is meant to inform viewers cannot be compared with a movie in which a character attacks his enemies with a chainsaw. In other words, it is not difficult to predict that the effects of viewing Schindler’s List will differ from those of Terminator Genisys. Research has shown that five contextual features of media violence increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior. They are summarized in table 7.1.31

  Table 7.1. Contextual features of media violence that may increase aggression

  Contextual Feature

  Effect

  Perpetrators are appealing.

  The effects of media violence are heightened if the perpetrators are appealing and invite children or adolescents to identify with them.a

  Violence is rewarded.

  Role models or heroes are often rewarded for their violent acts.b When they receive compliments or win the admiration of their beloved, they communicate that violence pays and that it is a successful way of resolving conflicts.c

  Violence is justified.

  The media often depicts violence on the part of the good guys as justified. It is meant to help or protect someone, or to save the world. Children are much less perturbed by justified violence than unjustified, senseless violence.d It is justified violence, in particular, that increases aggression.

  Violence has no consequences.

  The consequences of violence (pain, wounds) are rarely depicted in children’s television shows.b These portrayals of violence increase aggression because they cause children or adolescents to believe that they do not need to take violence seriously.

  Violence is arousing.

  Media violence that leads to physical arousal stimulates aggression.e When violence is combined with action and stirring music, young children in particular may become agitated and display aggressive behavior afterward.

  Source: a Haejung Paik and George Comstock, “The Effects of Television Violence on Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis,” Communication Research 21, no. 4 (1994).

  b Barbara J. Wilson et al., “Violence in Television Programming Overall,” in National Television Violence Study 2, ed. Center for Communication and Social Policy (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998).

  c Albert Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986).

  d Marina Krcmar and Patti M. Valkenburg, “A Scale to Assess Children’s Moral Interpretations of Justified and Unjustified Violence and Its Relationship to Television Viewing,” Communication Research 26, no. 5 (1999).

  e Craig A. Anderson et al., “Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Psychological Bulletin 136, no. 2 (2010).

  Developmental, Dispositional, and Social Vulnerability

  While these contextual features of media violence are important, it is also important to remember that just as media violence is not homogenous, neither is the audience. It is reasonable to expect, for example, that children growing up in highly violent homes or in violent neighborhoods may experience media violence differently from peers growing up in safer homes or communities. In fact, research has shown that three global factors can increase or decrease a relationship between media violence and aggression, namely, developmental factors (for example, age or cognitive development), dispositional factors (an aggressive temperament), and social factors (an aggressive social environment).

  Research suggests that media violence seems to affect younger children more than older ones, and children under the age of seven are the most vulnerable.32 One reason for this is that younger children interpret violence in animated movies and cartoons just as seriously as realistic media violence. They cannot comfort themselves with the thought that what they are witnessing is imaginary, and this inability prevents them from distancing themselves from what they see. Another reason is that younger children have a harder time than older ones in regulating their emotional and physical arousal. They quickly experience arousal while watching action-packed cartoons and movies, which helps explain why media violence effects are particularly pronounced in this age group (see also chapters 4 and 5).

  Research has also shown that boys are more affected by media violence than girls. Most researchers believe this is because boys are more interested in media violence than girls, thus increasing the likelihood of their being influenced by it.33 Research also indicates that youth who have an aggressive temperament and a heightened need for sensation are more vulnerable to negative effects of media violence. Violent media content more often aligns with the dispositions of these youth, and as a result of this congruity, their processing of violent content is more fluid and aesthetically pleasurable—which in turn may lead to amplified media effects.34

  Finally, while development and disposition are crucial factors to consider when studying media violence effects, the social setting in which youth develop is just as important. In particular, researchers have found that when children or adolescents see things in the media that resemble their everyday lives, they are especially susceptible to media effects (often referred to as a resonance effect).35 In the case of media violence, youth who live in a social environment that rejects violence may well learn aggressive behavior from the media. But because their environment imposes severe sanctions on aggression, they will not be inclined to put what they have learned into practice. Alternatively, for youth living in an environment where violence is treated as an acceptable behavior, it becomes much more likely that they will accept the messages contained in violent media. For example, our own research has demonstrated that media violence had a significant effect only on teens growing up in high-conflict families.36 Similarly, other researchers have shown that children who are confronted by violence in their daily life, for example, in the form of bullying, are more vulnerable to the effects of media violence on aggression than are their peers whose lives are less violent.37

  Conclusion

  Despite decades of investigation, researchers are still asking questions about the influence of media violence on youth. In recent years, there has been more recognition that not all media violence leads to aggressive behavior. Scholars increasingly are asking how the context of aggression in the media (for example, whether it is justified or rewarded) influences effects, and how and when viewing indirect aggression (spreading rumors, trying to get others to dislike a peer) leads to effects. As the field continues to progress in sophistication, we hope to see increased efforts to understand the antecedents and multiple consequences of different types of violent media exposure. It is only through such work that we can refine our theories and develop better predictions about how, for whom, and why media violence effects occur.

  It would be convenient to offer a simple yes-no answer to the question whether media violence leads to particular types of aggression, but this chapter has demonstrated that such an easy answer does not exist. Multiple meta-analyses demonstrate that, in general, media violence has a statistically small-to-moderate effect on subsequent direct aggressive behavior, an effect particularly pronounced among younger children, boys, children with an aggressive temperament, children with an increased need for sensation, and children that develop in harsh homes or peer environments. In other words, not all children who consume violent media content will experience increased aggression—either immediately or in the long term.

  Some scholars argue that these effects are too small to be important and that rather than focusing on media violence as a predictor of aggression, we should focus on risk factors with more robust associations with aggression. We, however, believe it is equally important to identify the effect of media violence—particularly by identifying which youth are most vulnerable to media violence. With a growing array of movies,
TV shows, and games available, and with digital entertainment becoming increasingly privatized, there is a greater likelihood than ever before that children will be exposed to media violence at an early age. Only if we can understand who is most vulnerable to these effects can we develop adequate initiatives to counteract or prevent this group from experiencing undesirable effects of media violence.

  8

  MEDIA AND EMOTIONS

  “It’s long,” said the Knight, “but very, VERY beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it—either it brings TEARS to their eyes, or else—”

  “Or else what?” said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.

  “Or else it doesn’t, you know.”

  —Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass (1871)

  We can all remember a time when a movie brought tears to our eyes, when a suspenseful television show made the hairs on our arms stand up, when a terrifying movie replayed itself in a nightmare, when we bent over laughing during a comedy, and when a video game made our heart race as we feverishly tried to defend ourselves from impending death. These and other examples highlight what we know to be true—entertainment media can evoke powerful emotions in youth (as well as adults). In this chapter, we take a look at this emotional pull. How is it that entertainment media can make children and teens fearful, agitated, and even sad—all while they know they are seeing fictional content? And does the experience of emotion differ across childhood, or is it, perhaps, more universal? To answer these and other questions, we review key theories on emotion and discuss the role of child development in the experience of media-induced emotions, using fear as a case study. Finally, we review the tragedy paradox: why do we often enjoy watching horror movies and tearjerkers even though they make us feel afraid or sad?

  Why Fiction Evokes Emotions

  In recent decades, researchers have grown increasingly interested in children’s and teens’ emotional responses to media entertainment. On the one hand, this increased interest reflects the fact that beginning in the 1980s, the field of psychology began to pay closer attention to emotions. On the other hand, it reflects the changing entertainment media landscape. Thanks in part to technological developments, entertainment media have become more realistic, dramatic, and shocking. This is true of adult-directed content as well as content that targets children and adolescents. And with this increasingly realistic, dramatic, and shocking content, entertainment media are increasingly able to evoke powerful emotional responses in audiences. The question is why. Although it is easy to see why viewers may experience emotional responses such as fright, joy, or anger when watching nonfictional content (for example news, documentaries), it is a bit more challenging to understand why fictional content can similarly evoke intense emotions in youth (as well as adults). After all, this content is not real—so why do users seem to experience it as such? Psychological theories of emotion help us answer this question.

  The Law of Apparent Reality

  Psychological theories of emotion assume that people’s emotional responses to a stimulus depend on the reality status of that stimulus. We immediately feel frightened when we hear a fire alarm, but if the alarm turns out to be false, our fears melt away. If we hear that a loved one is sick, we feel shock and sadness. If the doctor’s diagnosis turns out to be incorrect, our sadness is lifted. The intensity of our emotions is related to how real we perceive the threat to be. Nico Frijda incorporated this emotional process into a psychological law that he called the “law of apparent reality.”1 According to this law, emotions are elicited by events that individuals regard as real, and the intensity of their emotions corresponds to the degree to which they experience the events as real.

  While the law of apparent reality is plausible, it precludes the notion that people can feel emotions while watching fictional entertainment. Take the example of the science fiction movie Alien, in which a man writhes in pain just before a baby monster explodes out of his chest. There is nothing even remotely realistic about the scene. Nevertheless, it rouses strong fear responses in viewers. Why do audiences not respond to such fictional depictions as they would to a false fire alarm? In a follow-up to his initial theory, Frijda suggested that viewers see entertainment media depictions as real events that take place in an imaginary world. They fail to spot incongruities and ignore any evidence in the film that the events are not real. They willingly suspend their disbelief. Importantly, however, they can only do this if they perceive the film to be realistic enough to allow it.

  Paul Harris has given a more elaborate explanation for “aesthetic emotions,” or the emotional responses we have to fictional media content. According to Harris, viewers can consume fiction in two ways. First, they can do so in the default mode, by ignoring any information about the film’s reality status that would dampen their emotions. In the default mode, viewers experience emotions not because they believe the content is real, but because—as Frijda had proposed—they leave any information about the content’s reality status out of their assessment. Alternatively, Harris suggests that there are some situations in which viewers do assess the reality status of the media content. They may do this consciously, for example, while watching depictions of torture or other scenes that they find too upsetting. To protect themselves, they discount such scenes by telling themselves that the torture is “fake.” They may also do so unconsciously—for example, because the acting is unconvincing. In both cases, viewers disengage emotionally from the movie. Whether their emotional distancing is conscious or unconscious, they start to question the reality status of the content, and their corresponding emotional responses diminish.2

  An Evolutionary Explanation

  Although both Frijda and Harris offer plausible explanations about why we experience aesthetic emotions, their ideas have never been tested. In addition, no one has ever examined why audiences frequently consume fictional entertainment in the so-called default mode, in which they experience the emotions. Harris offers an evolutionary explanation for this process. At a certain point in prehistory, human beings developed the capacity to use language. Initially, they probably used language only to communicate about the present, for example, to point out an edible plant or to coordinate a group hunt. With time, humans began to convey information obtained at other times and in other places. They began to rely on eyewitness accounts. Sometimes these accounts concerned emotionally charged events, for example, a woman relating how her son had died in excruciating agony after eating a certain fruit. To understand these accounts, the listeners had to form mental images of the fruit and the serious implications of eating it. They also had to feel the emotions that went along with his horrendous experience.

  What if this secondhand information had left our ancestors emotionally numb, and they had responded emotionally only if they themselves had experienced the situation being described to them? Human social relationships would have remained extremely limited, and we would have been incapable of heeding other people’s warnings. We would not be able to anticipate the dangers that others point out to us. After all, a warning is meant to scare listeners so that they avoid the same accidents or mistakes. The human ability to form mental images of secondhand information, together with the ability to empathize with others, has had enormous implications for human evolution. Harris believes that our emotional engagement with fiction is a legacy of our use of language and our ability to picture in our minds what someone else is experiencing. Our emotional response to entertainment media is said to be the small “evolutionary price” that we pay for our interest in and emotional receptiveness to eyewitness accounts.3

  Feeling Fright

  Although there are many exemplars of media content evoking different emotions (joy, anger, sadness, etc.) among young audiences, research on the effects of media-induced fear on youth is perhaps some of the most extensive. Frightening media thus serve as an excellent case study for evaluating how emotion-inducing media influence youth. Entertainment media designed to evoke fear have a relatively l
ong history. For example, in the 1950s, comic strips—once highly popular among (male) adolescents—began to include horror elements. This turned out to be a highly lucrative addition. Even the first monochrome television images could not compete with the macabre, brightly colored graphics and blood-soaked tales of horror comics.4 Shortly thereafter, the film industry started to take note of the popularity of horror content. The Curse of Frankenstein in 1957, for example, led to a series of low-budget movies in which the camera no longer panned away from blood and horrific scenes. After several years, the limited success of these films got the attention of renowned filmmakers such as Alfred Hitchcock. In 1960, Hitchcock released Psycho, which is generally recognized as a turning point in the production of horror movies. The overwhelming success of Psycho led to a flood of imitations, with Hitchcock’s prestige legitimizing the arrival of a type of horror movie featuring macabre murders and realistically depicted mutilations.5

  The emergence of the horror genre brought with it numerous anecdotes of extreme fear experienced by audience members. For example, the summer that Jaws was released, some American newspapers reported that beaches were virtually devoid of bathers. They speculated that people stayed away because they were afraid of being ripped apart by a horrendous great white shark. The infamous scene in Psycho in which Janet Leigh is murdered in the shower similarly left its mark. The urban legend goes that never before or since have transparent shower curtains been as popular as they were when Psycho was playing in movie theaters.