Basic HTML Version
20
feelings of hostility in childhood can
cause neurotic difficulties in later life.
It can readily be seen why defenders
of
violence in TV programming resort
to this argument, for if it is true, or as
long as people believe it's true, then
murder is medicine and trauma is
therapy!
This belief is so ingrained in educa–
tional and psychological thinking as to
have virtually become a modern-day su–
perstition. Child psychology books are
full of it and again, important author–
ities subscribe to it, thus keeping the
myth alive.
Here are just two examples of high–
powcred experts endorsing the "ca–
tharsis" position. Dr. D. McLean, super–
intendent of Parramatta Psychiatric
Hospital, NSW, Australia, told an au–
dience at Sydney University recently
that violent teJevision programs could
be a positive help in lowering man's
natural aggressivc potential. He stated
that, "This type of programme does
fulfill [ satisfy] sorne of man's aggres–
sive instincts"
(The A11sJralian,
July
1,
1968).
Another Briton, Lord Hill, the out–
spoken d1airman of BBC, while ad–
dressíng 500 educators at a conference
of the Association of Assistant Masters
in Southampton, .England, flatly stated
that, "Television violence may reduce
real life violence"
(Daily Express,
January
2, 1969).
Myth
#
2
Debunked:
To cling to
the "catharsis" argument in 1970 is
almost pathetically archaic in view of the
volume of solid research evideoce avail–
able to disprove it. Since
1962
at least
four comprehensive and independent
studies have dearly clemonstrated that
long exposure to telcvision aggression
generates a corresponding impulse in a
child - yes, even a
normal
child.
Perhaps the most interesting if not
most conclusive study was done by
Alfred Bandura and associates. Briefly,
what they did was to expose one group
of children to real-life episodes of phys–
ical aggression (striking, punching,
kicking, etc.); another group to the
same aggressive episodes in motion
pictures; anda third group to aggression
shown in movie cartoons.
Following the exposure the childreo
The
PLAIN TRUTH
were observed in a situation where they
were free to behave aggressively and
what do you think happened? You
guessed it! They copied the belligerent
behavior they had observed with great
relish, vigor, and enthusiasm
u·itholfl
anJ coaching.
Common sense is again
confirmed!
Just to summarize the findings for
you, here are the points to remember in
the words of the researchers: "The
re–
sults of the ... study provide strong
evidence that exposure to filmed aggres–
sion heightens aggressive reactions in
childreo ... the available data suggest
that, of the three experimental condi–
tions,
expomre to hmnans on film
(
or
TV)
portMying aggression was the most
in{/11mtial
in eliciting and shaping ag–
gressive behavior." And finally, "The
view that the social learning of aggres–
sion through exposure to aggressive film
content is confined to deviant children
finds little support in our data."
In
other words, these were
normal children
who were stimulatecl to violent behav–
ior
(Journal of Abnormal and Social
Ps}Cholog;,
Vol.
66, 1963,
pp.
3·11).
Yes, children
do
imitate the aggres–
sive acts and 'they
do
try out techniques
they see in TV programs about thugs,
burglars, rioters, and even hero figures
who settle every disagreement with vio–
lence.
Let's stop flying in the face of reason
and !ay this "catharsis" myth to rest,
never to be mentioned again. The argu–
ment that violence on viewed television
produces a beneficia! effect must be
totally discounted as scientifically
unsound.
Myth
#
3:
That criminal behavior
which seems to be triggered by viewing
television violence only occurs in persons
who are psychologically
upredisposed"
to commit such acts in the first place.
Support for this myth comes mainly
from "expert" opinion. But, the argu–
ment that there is no research proving
an indisputable cause and effect con–
nection between criminal bebavior and
televiewing is often thrown in for good
measure.
Understandably, this theory enjoys
great favor with TV producers and
writers because it whitewashes them of
any responsibility. They would have you
January,
l970
believe that if anything evil is done as a
consequence of viewing their programs,
the person committing the act wanted to
do it anyway - he was
predisposed
to
do the foul deed regardless. Therefore,
at most, the program only acted as a
trigger-mechanism for an already dis–
torted miod.
Myth
#
3
D ebunkecl:
Now this
raises a troublesome dilemma for the
supporters of this myth, namely,
How is
111ch a predúposition acq11ired?
We
can't account for it as an inborn or
inberited trait - no respectable psy–
chologist would agree to that. Today we
are
environmentalists.
We explain aU
behavior in terms of the past personal
and social experiences of an individual's
Jife. Remember, the byword is, "Nobody
is boro bad - society made him what he
is !" That being the case, then any
pre–
disposiJion
to víolence must be ac–
counted for by an individual's own
experiences with violence.
Carrying the logic a step further we
ask, "What is the greatest source of ex–
posure to violence for iofants, chi ldren
and youth today?" Answer:
TELE–
vrsroN!
The inescapable conclusion has to be
that
televisio11 itself
is the heaviest con–
tributor to
antisocial predispositions
in
our society today! Violeoce in television
programming conditioos the mind,
teaches the techniques, and then precipi–
tates the action. To summarize simply,
"Violence breeds violence."
No, ít is not the deviates alone, as we
saw in Bandura's study, who are stimu–
lated to brutal behavior by TV, but nor–
mal children as well.
In his book,
T elevision and the
American Character
-
A Psychiatrist
Looks al T eievision,
Dr. Eugene David
Glyno offered this sobering speculation
regarding the long-run effect of unre–
stricted televiewing. "Those traits," he
said, "that
sick
adults now satisfy by
television can be presumed to be those
traits which children exposed to tele–
vision ... all through the character–
forming years may be expected to de–
velop."
There
is the predisposition that
television is teaching
a pre–
disposition to
mental illness.
Is it hap–
pening in your home?
Far from blaming others, TV produc-