Three-year Study Documents Nature of Television Violence

ARTICLE REPRINT • From the August 1998 AAP News, the official news magazine of the American Academy of Pediatrics

In 1993, however, public concern over TV violence became so politicized that it extended to Congress, where Sen. Paul Simon issued a threat to the television industry to "control and regulate the amount of violence" in its programming or Congress would make it their business. In response, the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) funded a $3.5 million, three-year research study.

Four prominent universities were selected to assess the nature—not just the number—of violent scenes across the vast TV landscape. Reports would be issued yearly and forwarded to Congress. The academic foundation for the study had been laid by prior research showing the harmful effects of TV programming were threefold: Viewers could learn aggressive attitudes and behavior from watching violence, become desensitized to the seriousness of violence, and become frightened of becoming a victim of real-life violence.

It was postulated that the "nature" of violent scenes differed. Contextual differences could vary; therefore individual contextual features of violent scenes should be measured. The University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Texas at Austin identified and extensively documented 11 features that (after watching) would increase (justified, unrealistic, unpunished or painless violence) or decrease (unjustified, punished or violence showing realistic pain) the risk of harmful effects. The definition of violence stipulated: "The involvement of animate beings, a clear intent to harm, and harm that is physical in nature as opposed to psychological or emotional."

The two universities studied the content of randomly sampled cable and network TV programming 17 hours per day, seven days each week for nine months (October through June) for three years. Beginning in June 1994, drama, comedy, movies, music videos, children's show, cartoons and reality programs (news magazines, documentaries, police shows and talk shows) were analyzed.

Excluded from the study were news, sports and entertainment sports programs. Although not studied, there is no question each of these genres contained violent scenes—from a live suicide on the Los Angeles Freeway to the infamous May 19 Yankee-Oriole base-brawl or the weekly mayhem (both visual and verbal) of televised wrestling.

Two other universities studied parents' and children's responses to content rating advisories and the effectiveness of anti-violence public service announcements on adolescents.

From 1994 to 1997, data gathered from almost 10,000 hours of programming made this the largest sample and most detailed analysis of television content ever examined. Unlike another simultaneous study commissioned by the three broadcast networks looking only at prime-time hours, the National Television Violence Study (NTVS) also incorporated biannual meetings of an Oversight Council of representatives appointed from 17 national organizations concerned with the impact of TV violence on society. Two-thirds of the council's members were appointed from organizations representing medicine (AAP, AMA, American Psychological Association, Society for Adolescent Medicine) as well as the National PTA, the National Education Association and the American Bar Association. One-third were from organizations representing the entertainment industry. The council's role throughout the study was to safeguard its integrity and independence, counsel the researchers, ensure scientific validity and focus media attention on its revealing statistical findings annually.

Across the study's three years, a steady 60 percent of sampled programs contained violent scenes. More important than prevalence was the finding that violence often was portrayed in the contextual manner that earlier research suggested would increase the likelihood of negative effects on viewers, especially children. More than one-third of violent scenes featured "bad" characters who were never punished; 70 percent showed no remorse or penalty at the time violence occurred; 40 percent of all violence included humor; more than 50 percent of the scenes studied showed no pain cues; more than 50 percent of the violent incidents would be lethal or incapacitating if they occurred in "real life." More disturbing, especially for younger viewers is that 40 percent of the violence was perpetrated by attractive (hero) role models.

TV violence that is glamorized, trivialized and sanitized teaches that violence is a solution, and less than 5 percent of violent programs incorporated anti-violence messages.

For younger viewers, many harmful contextual features were seen most often in cartoons. The typical preschooler who daily watches about two hours of cartoons will be exposed to 10,000 violent incidents per year, of which 500 are at high risk of modeling aggressive attitudes and behaviors. One of the most critical and disconcerting NTVS findings suggests that for preschoolers, who have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality, the lesson is violence is "desirable, necessary and painless."

Studying ratings and advisories yielded two significant findings: Motion picture-type ratings may actually attract preteen and teen boys viewing alone, and implementation of the new television program content ratings, begun in 1997, has been erratic and poorly publicized.

Finally, NTVS data prompted recommendations to programmers, policy makers and parents, "the most important consumers of this report" (Pediatricians take note). Future programming that would avoid violence, keep violence incidents low, portray violent scenes realistically and have anti-violence themes was stipulated. Decreasing cartoon portrayals most likely to teach aggression was strongly recommended. And ratings should be designated appropriately, presented orally and more often than 15 seconds visually during a program.

Finally, parents are urged to be aware of the harmful influences on children of viewing repeated scenes of contextual violence that effectively teach aggressive attitudes and behaviors. These scenes in promotions or commercials also were problematic.

The NTVS summary included a warning that, depending on the child's developmental level, cartoon and fantasy-type violence, i.e. sanctioned violence, cannot be dismissed simply because it is unrealistic. Scenes of sanctioned violence by a positive role model with no serious victim consequences should be monitored closely.

The NTVS disclosed new details in identifying the nature of TV violence, including where it occurs, who is doing it, how it is done, who is hurt and who gets punished. Although the council would like to believe this rigorously documented scientific evidence will encourage more responsible programming, ratings designations and utilization, and parental involvement, it realizes TV violence is but one of many factors in the etiology and prevention of violence.

Because television is our children's No. 1 leisure activity, we should not minimize the ongoing impact of its thousands of visual messages on children, especially those at risk for behavioral problems.

NTVS findings reinforced the important role media education and media literacy play in the lives of our nation's children. The AAP Media Matters campaign is one way pediatricians can begin to incorporate these crucial issues into daily interactions with patients and parents. Media Matters materials can be obtained from Jennifer Stone, AAP Division of Public Education, (800) 433-9016, ext. 7870.

Dr. Shifrin is the AAP representative to the Oversight Council of the National Television Violence Study and a member of the AAP Committee on Public Education.

Reprinted with permission. American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP News, August 1998.