Critical Analysis - Does Exposure to Media Violence Promote Aggressive Behavior?

Critical Analysis Issue 15 Does Exposure to Media Violence Promote Aggressive Behavior

Tina Sams

PSYCH/515

June 3, 2012

Dr. Barbara Steffens

Critical Issue Analysis

What are at least two facts presented by each side of the critical issue?

Nancy Signoreilli stats that the complement that media and the violence is that 1) children who are the more aggressive type prefer more television and 2) is that buying into the idea that the media violence is realistic and that lead to grater violence for the children when they grow into adulthood (Halgin,2009). With any discussion it is important to determine which came first, it is just like the chicken or the egg. It is whether the aggressive children want to watch the more aggressive television or does the television make the children more aggressive. She does explain that numerous studies have found that causal relation between seeing what happens when the violence portrays the aggressive behavior (Halgin, 2009). Nancy is just talking about the aggressive behavior and not the aggression. There is not much concern if watching the violence temporality because the children will not become aggressive. It is important if the children have a long lasting effect. John Freedman concedes that there is a connection between the violence and the aggressive behavior. Freedman states that the connection is not a very like 1 to 9 percent (Halgin, 2009). This means that watching violent television only affects aggressive behavior 1 and 9 percent and that is not a big effect. There is some pretty strong evidence that the relationship between violent television and aggressive behavior does exist but the connection is very week.

What are at least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue?

Signoreilie puts forward the idea that a violent entertainment could be potentially harmful for children and adults (Halgin, 2009). She also claims that violence may signal that aggression and violence are acceptable modes of behavior (Halgin, 2009). These strong statements seems like a big leap from the data. It would be difficult to explain how watching violence changes our perceptions of the world if there is a connection between the the violence and the aggressive behavior. We are not just products we are we have the ability to control the environment.

Freedman goes in the complete opposite direction and he explains that the excitement has shown to accompany television, and it might be the excitement from simple watching the television. This could actually show and explain the connection between the violence and the aggressive behavior (Halgin, 2009). Freedman also thinks that that real violence can have a large effect on aggression. He notes that crimes have risen and fallen over the years even though the watching of the television has increased steadily over the same amount of years. This seems like a much more logical explanation that Signoreilli's idea that watching the violence on television and it can change the perception of reality.

What are some of the strengths associated with the Pro side of the issue? What are some of the weaknesses?

Signoreilli uses a lot of statistics and cites many studies to make her point. There is a clear pattern of incidents where the violence increases when the TV is introduced into the society (Halgin, 2009). Signoreilli also ignored the fact the there are third parties that might effect the increase of the violence after the introduction of the television. These might include increased exposure to multiple forms of technology, decreased social interaction due to increased TV viewership, or exhibition of predisposed behavioral tendencies that would not have been expressed without television. To sum up her points, Signoreilli makes it well known, but does not consider any alternative explanations that might be more relevant.

What