Basic HTML Version
6
various viewing conditioos -
live,
fi lm, or TV - was negligible.
From this experiment two basic con–
dusions were reached. The experience
of seeing violence tended to reduce the
child's inhibitions against acting in a
violent manner. Secondly, the expe–
rience helped shape the
form
of the
child's aggressive behavior.
Dr. Leonard Berkowitz and other
leading social scieotists have reached
similar condusions through their labo–
ratory research.
After careful study of al! such avail–
able research, the National Commission
on the Causes aod Prevention of Vio–
lence was moved to warn: "We believe
it
is reasonable to conclude that a con–
stant diet of violent behavior on tele–
vision has an adverse effect on human
character and attitudes. Violence on
television encourages violent forms of
behavior, and fosters moral and social
values about violence in daily life
which are unacceptable in a civilized
society."
Yet even after all of these test results
controversy still rages. A high-level
group, the Surgeon General's Scientific
Advisory Committee on Television and
Social Behavior, had to be appointed to
further investigate the impact of tele–
visen violence on the behavior of
children.
The majority of researchers assigned
by the Surgeon General's Advisory
Committee to investigate the effects of
television violence are tentatively reach–
ing the same conclusions - that TV
violence encourages violent forms of
behavior.
Noted researchers
J.
R. Dominick
and Bradely S. Greenberg report in
their research,
Girls' Attit11des toward
Vio/mee as Related to TV Expomre,
Family Attit11des, and Social Class
( 1971), said that: "The greater the leve!
of exposure to TV violence, the more
the child was willing to use violence, to
suggest it as a solution to conflict, and
to perceive it as effective."
Said researchers Mcleod, Atkin and
Chaffee in
Adolescents, Parents, and Tele-
11ision Use
( 1971), " ... the more the
child watches violent television fare, the
more aggressive he is likely to be as
measured by a variety of self-report
measures."
The
PLAJN TRUTH
Dr. Robert M. Liebert, Department
of Psychology, State University of New
York at Stony Brook, and Dr. Robert
A.
Baroo, Department of Psychology,
Pur–
due University, in a report to the 1971
American Psychological Association
Convention, mentioned that sixteen out
of eighteen experimental studies from
"seven of the eight research teams,
present evidence which supports the
hypotbesis that viewing aggression can
instigate subsequent aggression amoog
observers."
TV
Violence Is Harmful
But Jet us ask ourselves sorne com–
monsense questions. Do we waot our
children
to
murder someone? Or even
to
Jearn how
to murder someone? Of
course not. No normal parent wou1d.
Then wby allow your child to watch
someone else get murdered ?
Wby
let
your child experience the vicarious par–
ticipation in a murder on television?
Why fill a child's mind - and yours
for that matter - wíth killing and all
manner of violence?
Said Dr. Frederick Wertham, a psy–
chiatrist who is reputed to be tbe
world's leading authority on human
víolence, in the October 1962,
Ameri–
can
Jot~t-nal
of Psychiatry,
"The relent–
less commercialism and the surfeit of
brutality, violence and sadism has made
a profound impression on susceptible
young peopJe. The result is a distortion
of natural attitudes in the direction of
cynicism, greed, hostility, callousness
and iosensitivity."
Over fifteen years ago Dr. Wertham
warned that young people were going
to commit more and more serious aod
violent crimes.
He was right. Today there is a spiral–
ing rise of violent crimes committed by
young people. There has been a 300%
increase in robbery arrests among 10- to
14-year-olds between 1958 and 1970.
And more than 50% of all FBI-indexed
crime is committed by teen-agers under
18.
Is tbere any connection between these
facts and our TV viewing habits?
The reader can form his own con–
clusions. lt is, however, very dangerous
to assume that such a powerful medium
as television would have no effect on a
November 1971
very impressionable entity
the
human mind.
Does all this mean a person should
yank the television cord out of the wall
socket or take an axe to the TV set?
No, not necessarily.
The television set of itself is not
the problem.
lt
only receives what
broadcasters choose to sell and
all–
diences choose to watch.
Nor is tele–
vtston the only media source for
violence. But it is uoquestionably the
largest and most influential source.
The TV industry canoot be held
solely responsible for television violence
either. The television industry is very at–
tuned to
a11dience
ratings. Alter all,
there does have to be a certain amount
of
demand
for it by the TV audience.
Witness those who got so vehemently
angry when parts of their favorite
shoot-em-up western was pre-empted
by an important announcement con–
cerning the American nation. They
veritably stormed the network by phone
because of it.
W h at
You
Can
Do
The way to protect your children
from watching so much violence on
television is to be more selective in
the programs
vou
watch.
Programs that glamorize crime and
emphasize illicit sex, cruelty and vio–
lence, should obviously be eliminated
from your home viewing. Crime and vio–
lence should never be accepted as a
major theme of a program for children,
or even adults for that matter.
Along with being selective about
what you and your household watch on
TV, be sure to watch programs
together.
Scientific studies show it's ac–
tually best if parents watcb TV
with
their children, especially small children.
When parents watch television wi th
their children and comment on fallacies
or wrong actions which sometimes creep
into "good" programs, the effect of
these fallacies and wrong actions on
children is minimized. Remember, many
so-called "family" programs are filled
with various forms of rebellion, dis–
respect for authority, aod lying. Chil–
dren should not be allowed to assume
that this sort of conduct is acceptable.
Another important television viewing
(Contin11ed on page 47)