Since the creation of television parents, teachers, mental health professionals, and legislators have yearned to understand the impact of television programs on society. Perhaps the most debated and concerning is the impact of the portrayal of violence in the media. According to Emanuel Tanay, MD, a retired Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Wayne State University and a forensic psychiatrist for more than 50 years, “Violence in the media has been increasing and reaching proportions that are dangerous” to the safety of the nation (Kaplan). She expresses how the incredible amount of violent content in today’s media is not positive for the development of the nation for numerous reasons. The typical American’s life is saturated with media exposure. From watching the morning news while getting ready for work, to a final scroll through Facebook before bed, society is constantly connected. With that being said, the media holds a great amount of power that should not be overlooked. The media influences trends of what to wear, how to decorate, what to eat, and what is considered cool which may seem harmless at first, but has the potential for abuse by corporations or politicians in the hope of financial gain. Although Food Network and shows like What Not to Wear don’t pose much of a threat, the more violent side of media holds just as much power. Violence in the media has a large, and relatively negative, impact on society. Exposure to media violence impacts society by causing desensitization, aggressive behaviors, a misinterpretation of crime and self-esteem issues in men.

A large part of research on the effects of violent media exposure is focused around children. This is due to the fact that children are at the most impressionable state in their lives. Children up to the age of 8 cannot accurately distinguish what they see in movies and on television shows from reality. On average children ages 2-8 spend 30 hours a week watching some sort of video media, if the content they are being exposed to is violent the results can be potentially harmful. Because the line between the make believe violent scenarios and reality is blurred, many children become desensitized to violent content. Thus, real life violence can be seen as normal and does not result in the anxious arousal that one might expect (“Violence”). As stated by Eugene V. Beresin MD, Director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Residency Training at Massachusetts General Hospital, “[children] may come to see violence as a fact of life and, over time, lose their ability to empathize with both the victim and the victimizer” (Beresin). Therefore, children become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others around them and this often results in aggressive, bullying behaviors. 

 Many researchers have demonstrated that very young children, particularly those under the age of four, will imitate the aggressive actions they have seen on TV when interacting with their peers. For example, consider the cultural trend that many children view superheroes as role models and foreshadow as to how this idea can alter their mental development in the future. In reality super heroes are violent and their violent actions are commonly rewarded with praise. The use of violence to knock off bad guys becomes “cool” and the idea of using violence as a righteous cause is created. The scenario of using violence in a righteous way can translate into a justification of using violence in real life to retaliate against victimizers. Hence, vulnerable youth who may have been victimized by a bully may be tempted to use violence as a way of problem solving because that is what their role models would do.

 These types of situations are not specifically reserved for young children, exposure to media violence can have harmful effects on people of any age. Research by psychologists Leonard Eron, L. Rowell Huesmann and several other psychologists have found that “children who watched many hours of violent content on television when they were in elementary school tended to show higher levels of aggressive behavior when they became teenagers” (“Violence”). Perhaps the most well-known, tragic, and extreme example is that of the Columbine High School shooting. Media violence is not the only cause to the shooting, there were many factors that played into it, one major key being that the boys were mentally ill. However, the two teenage boys, who murdered a teacher and 12 schoolmates, while injuring 21 others, lived lives that were centered around violent media content. The two spent an ample amount of time invested in violent video games. Psychologist have concluded that their illnesses impaired their ability to see the difference between the video game world and real life, much like the way children blur that line. Emmanuel Tanay’s comment on the situation is that the mentally ill “are naturally more vulnerable, because they are in the community, they are sick, and they may misinterpret something.” (Kaplan). Psychologist suggest that the boys could have been inspired to lash out to solve their problems by the games that they played. Similar to the idea of a child lashing out at a bully because they had seen such actions from their role models. 

Critics have often dismissed the theory of violent video games playing a role in the shooting, claiming that mental illness is the only concerning issue in the case. This is not completely fair to assume, although mental illness does play a notably important part in the crime, had there not been a violent stimulus in the boy’s lives and instead they had been exposed to more acceptable and positive problem solving techniques, they may not have felt the need to go to such extremes as they did. Aside from the real-life violence and aggression that can be provoked from exposure to media violence, it can also cause people to misinterpret the world around them. Media effects are also highly perceptual, “they provide us with the meanings by which we view the world” (Jeffery). People who watch a lot of violent media content are more likely to believe that they have a high risk of being a victim of a violent crime, that their neighborhoods are more unsafe, and that crime rates are, in general, increasing. These viewers are more likely to be in favor of stricter laws, harsher sentences, and “buying watchdogs, guns, and locks to protect themselves” (Jeffery). In reality, statistics show that the number of violent crimes has been falling. In fact, as reported by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, “the overall violent victimization rate (ex. rape and assaults) decreased by 40% from 2001 to 2010” and has stayed relatively stable since (Kaplan). Yet the public’s perception continues to be that number of violent crimes committed is increasing. 

In explaining the relation of exposure to violent media content and a misperception of crime in the world, psychologist have coined the term “backfire effect”. This term is used to refer to the fact that humans relate to familiar statements as more likely to be the truth than unfamiliar ones (Brown). Media outlets do not limit the coverage of a crime or violent event to one time, people will hear about an incident multiple times over the period of a month, making the crime seem like an ongoing thing. When people are constantly being bombarded by violent crime reports from the media they become familiar with this idea and accept it as true. Many reports of crime lack essential information such as risk factors for victimization, the underlying causes of crime, and overall crime trends. This lack of information leaves the viewer to interpret things in the worst way.

Exposure to media violence can cause the development of negative attitudes and behaviors that can be harmful to a person’s health. Experimental research has shown consistently that media violence “increases blood pressure, negative emotions, and aggressive behavior in the immediate aftermath of exposure, including physical assault (hitting, kicking, choking, wrestling)”, insinuating risky consequences (Brady). The use of violence in the media often becomes a model of both general and extreme risk taking when it comes to one’s health. For example, in Grand Theft Auto players are exposed to a multitude of negative risks including marijuana and other drug usage, excessive drinking, prostitution, and other dangerous criminal behaviors. Males ages 18 to 25 who play Grand Theft Auto reportedly exhibited greater negative after affects, more permissive attitudes toward using marijuana, LSD and other drugs, alcohol consumption, and uncooperative behavior than players of less violent games. The same study found that young men with higher levels of violence in their homes and communities were at greater risk for making poor choices as a result of play violent video games. The strongest results of the study were that “media violence exposure may predispose adolescents and young adults toward greater engagement in general health risk behaviors and toward tension and conflict in social interactions with others”, yet another negative impact of media violence on society (Brady). 

A surprising and often over looked effect of media violence is that it can take a damaging toll on male body image and self-esteem. It is often portrayed in movies and on television that the most attractive and manliest men are the ones that can put up the most fight. The toughest men are most violent and have what society has deemed as the ideal male body, lean and muscular. This conveys to men that they must be aggressive and tough in order to be masculine. They also feel that they must fit the ideal standards In one experimental study, performed on 97 college-aged men, psychologists found “that men exposed to violent narratives accompanied by masculine-ideal characters showed increased body anxiety, and permissive feelings toward body modifications” (Taylor). Although this effect can be considered under researched, it is still valuable to consider when looking at the impacts that media violence has on society. 

Because of the high entertainment value that comes with violent content, it is not logical to say that it should all be banned or discontinued. However, there are ways in which society can reduce the impacts made by exposure to media violence. In regards to the harmful effects of media violence on children there are many easy suggestions that can aid in reducing said effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents limit children to 1-2 hours of television per day, and should watch programs with their children which will allow them to address any objectional content seen. Physicians also suggest that parents and schools should become “media literate”, meaning they should be aware of the trending societal risks involving violent exposure in the media. Whether the case range from a popular television show to video game those responsible for the mental development of children should know how to teach them to understand fantasy versus reality regarding what they see on TV, in movies, and in video games (Beresin). 

In addition, children should learn positive conflict resolution. The importance of preventing children, and possibly people of all age, from using aggressive out lashes and violent behavior as a means of problem solving cannot be understated. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry “has been a strong advocate for television ratings and installation of chips to block certain programs”. The group encourages parents to take more control over the television programs that their children are exposed to and pushes them to talk openly about the violence the children do see, to help kids understand the difference between the TV world and the real world. As argued by author Eugene Beresin, M.D., “physicians, in their role as health promoters, should become more active in educating the media to become more sensitive to the impact of violence on youth”, as physicians hold a higher power and respect and are more likely to grasp the media’s attention (Beresin). Similar actions should be taken when considering the effect of violence exposure on adolescents and teens. Parents should talk to their children, of all ages, to keep the fantasy world of TV and the real world in perspective.

In a TED talk led by Gary Slutkin he introduced himself as, “a physician, epidemiologist, infectious disease control specialist and Founder/ Executive Director of Cure Violence”, who had spent a decade fighting epidemics in Africa (Slutkin). When he returned to the United States he found that violence had spread across America much like the disease epidemic spread through Africa. Slutkin suggests that effects of violence in America can be reversed similarly to the way that disease epidemics are stopped. In the way that tuberculosis is spread from one person who has the disease to another person and then to another and so on, an act of violence is often stemmed from another act of violence and then continues to travel. Slutkin suggest that we must cut off the train of transmitting violence. Although cutting off all violent content is, as stated before, highly extreme, the idea of cutting it off in one’s own home at any level of restriction is not. Viewers have the most control over what they allow themselves, and more importantly their children, to be exposed to.

In conclusion, violence in the media is persistent and growing problem. With ample exposure to media on a day to day basis American’s are always being influenced. From what to wear to where to vacation, the media plays a big role in decision making. Media holds a lot of power over decisions and actions, therefore violence in the media can have a negative impact on those aspects of people’s lives. Exposure to violence in the media can lead to desensitization, aggressive behaviors, a misinterpretation of crime and self-esteem issues in men. However, there are ways to fight these issues stemming from violence in the media. Some suggestions include parents being more involved in what their children, young and old, watch, discussing ways of conflict resolution, reaching out to the media outlets to make them more aware, and taking control over what content is viewed in one’s own home.                                                              Works Cited
