Posted at 08.10.2018
Children watch an average of three to four hours of tv set daily. Tv can be a powerful affect in expanding value systems and shaping patterns. Unfortunately, much of today's television programming is violent. A huge selection of studies of the effects of TV violence on children and teenagers have found that children may, become "immune system" to the horror of assault and gradually recognize violence in an effort to solve problems.
Sometimes, watching a single violent program can increase aggressiveness into children's who view shows in which violence is very sensible, frequently repeated or unpunished, will imitate what they see. Children with mental, behavioral, learning or impulse control problems may become more easily affected by TV assault. The impact of Television set assault may be immediately obvious in the child's behavior or may surface years later, and teenagers could even be influenced when the family atmosphere shows no trend toward assault.
While TV violence is not the only real cause of intense or violent patterns, it is clearly an important factor.
Because there is a lot of violence in both adult and children's programming, just limiting the number of time children watch television will probably reduce the amount of hostility they see. Parents should watch at least one episode of the programs their children watch. Because of this they'll know what their children are enjoying and be able to talk about it with them. If they visit a violent occurrence, parents can consult with the youngster what caused the type to act in a violent way. They also needs to point out that kind of patterns is not quality, not just how people usually solve their problems. They can ask their children to talk about other ways the type would have reacted, or other nonviolent answers to the character's problem.
Parents can outright ban any programs that they find too unpleasant by causing sure they're appropriate before your son or daughter watches them. Also you can restrict their taking a look at to demonstrates you feel tend to be more beneficial, such as documentaries, educational shows and so forth. It's also a good idea to ensure your child has a multitude of free-time activities in addition to TV, video games, and the Internet. Activities like reading, playing with friends, and athletics can all play a essential part in assisting your child create a healthy body and mind.
Effects of Multimedia Violence
The effect of media violence appears to be a heated issue among analysts and the public as well. According to David Gauntlett, "despite many decades of research and a huge selection of studies, the contacts between people's use of the media and their subsequent behavior have remained persistently elusive. " (Gauntlett, 1998). He also declares "that the media results research has quite regularly taken the incorrect approach to the mass media, its followers, and society in general. " (Gauntlett, 1998). I agree with this declaration, I think that the environmental and cultural influences have been neglected in the majority of the research done on this topic.
In all the research that I've read through, I have found that the analysts engaged have many disagreements. I visited the Media Understanding Network website and found articles where Andrea Martinez did a review of all the medical writing for a Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Percentage. "She figured the lack of consensus about media effects reflects three "grey areas" or constraints within the research itself. " (Mass media Recognition Network, Par. 2) The three "grey areas" are that advertising assault is hard to establish, research workers disagree over the partnership, and the ones that agree dispute the way that a person influences the other. It appears that the result of media assault is hard to analyze and prove the kind of connection it offers with aggressive behavior. In my opinion, it is hard to verify the partnership because there are way too many external factors that require to be taken under consideration. Environmental and ethnic influences, to me, seem like an important part that should be considered and in every the research I have seen it isn't. Relating to Martinez, there is "a confident, though weak, relationship between contact with television violence and aggressive habit. "
Violence in the marketing can have different effects. I personally feel that it differs from each individual, but also that it depends upon each individual's environmental and ethnical influences. According to one website, there are four different mental health effects that can occur from violence in the media, they are Direct, Desensitization, Mean World Symptoms, and Catharsis. Within the direct effect individuals who watch a whole lot of violence on tv could attain aggressive behavior or be more favorable towards violence. Personally i think that what sort of mass media portrays certain things is performed in ways to purposely have an impact on people's emotions. There are certain instances where I do feel that the violence being shown in the press can cause anger, but it is in the way it is represented not because of the violence within it. In desensitization, the viewers may become less delicate to violence occurring and less hypersensitive to the pain assault can cause. Individuals who reside in violent conditions or cultures see assault a lot and can become desensitized to violence and therefore would be prone to react aggressively. When surviving in these surroundings it becomes more of a learned behavior rather than a reaction to the assault in the advertising. With Mean World Symptoms, the audiences may begin to see their environment as a violent place. If you ask me, I would think the individuals who develop this syndrome are sensitive from what they see or are involved in. For someone to honestly think that the entire world around them is a violent place and to not see the good that does occur is extremely hard for me personally to comprehend. Catharsis can possibly be a positive result by actually minimizing the aggression. I feel that these effects would have a lot to do with the individual as well as their environment concerning how they'll be affected. I have noticed though, that a lot of of the research does indeed seem to leave out environmentally friendly and cultural results. These effects, to me, seem to have a big impact on whether or not there would be a connection between advertising assault and aggressiveness.
The Media Awareness Network had a whole lot of other articles pertaining to media violence, however the majority of the study had been finished with children. One test in particular seems to have stuck in my mind as a result of age of the kids involved. I sadly did not print out up this post and cannot think it is online any more. From what I remember, they showed a certain band of 2-3 season olds a violent toon while exhibiting another group a non-violent toon. If they put both groupings in the same room to experiment with, the small children that observed the violent cartoon were more extreme than the small children that did not watch the violent animation. Many other researchers however stated that study wasn't very helpful because cartoons are meant for comedic relief. In this study, it seems sensible that the toddlers acted aggressively because that is what they had just seen. Toddlers, especially at this years, imitate what they see and hear. Given that they were shown violence they acted out what that they had seen. I really do not think this might be a precise way to check the effects of media assault or to prove a romantic relationship between media violence and aggressive habit, I think it showed that an individual would have to reinforce the child letting them know that what they see is not what they must do. If someone were to instruct them this then they will know when they are elderly that they should not be violent or competitive. Young children have yet to learn that violence is not the response, and in a standard setting, the kid behaving aggressively would be corrected so they might know that it was the incorrect thing to do.
In my own opinion Personally i think there is absolutely no correlation between press violence and extreme behavior, if there is a correlation I believe it to be always a very weakened one. Correlational method is defined in our booklet as, "a numerical value that implies the durability and course of the relationship between two factors. " (Timber, Solid wood, and Boyd, 2004). Therefore, a correlation would be whether or not there's a relationship and when there is how strong or fragile that romantic relationship is. My personal belief is the fact just because an individual pieces a violent movie, takes on a violent video game, or listens to violent lyrics, does not imply that person will venture out and react more aggressively or react out what they have observed or heard. To me, it seems to be good sense that discovering or experiencing violent functions or behaviors does not imply someone should duplicate those habits or acts. Personally i think that if one were raised with any type of morals or principles, then they would know the difference between right and wrong and an specific would know that they shouldn't go and perform what they saw or heard. I strongly believe that the way an individual is raised directly affects how things affect see your face and if they're raised in a happy non-aggressive environment then they would not act aggressively as a result of the assault in the press. When someone is aware right from wrong, Personally i think that they might know not to respond aggressively unless they are in a situation where aggressiveness is warranted. Granted, there are a few instances where you might not know these differences. Personally i think that children of a certain years have not completely learned about morals and prices, so they do not know that what they have seen or heard are the wrong things you can do. That is why legally, a minor under the age of 14 can't be held responsible for their activities. Minors under 14 have not yet completely discovered right from incorrect and, therefore, cannot competently make decisions. That is why I don't feel you may use children in any kind of research aiming to define the relationship between media assault and aggressive tendencies. There are also psychological disorders that may prevent a person from comprehending the difference between right and incorrect. People with suprisingly low IQ's also may have trouble understanding the variations between right and incorrect. Once again, people with these types of disorders can't be held responsible for their actions legally because they cannot competently make these decisions. In my opinion, the majority of men and women that commit these violent works and then blame it on the advertising had no-one to teach them the distinctions between right and incorrect, or had no person around who cared to instruct them these exact things. Unfortunately, there are also people that blame the press to try and have an excuse to get out of the consequences of the behaviors or activities. Personally i think that, in children, it is up to the parents to teach them what is acceptable and what's not, also to coach them that what they see and listen to is not always the correct move to make. I feel that population is blaming multimedia violence for intense behavior when, generally, the blame should be laid on the those who brought up and cared for the individual. It was their responsibility to raise these individuals with the knowledge to learn the difference between right and wrong and also to know that being extreme or violent is never the answer.
From what I have learned the effect of media violence is hard to evaluate which is just as hard to explain if there is a relationship and how strong or fragile that relationship is. The research on the consequences has yet to produce anything conclusive and each researcher's results change as to if the relationship between the violence and intense behavior is strong or weak. In the end, I maintain my belief that this will depend upon the individual and their environment and culture concerning whether or not there's a relationship and exactly how strong or weak that relationship is.