|
Several studies suggest that viewing violence on screen prompts aggressive behaviour in children. Parental control of TV viewing and responsibility on the part of programmers is urgently required but there is surprisingly little debate or action on this issue, says clinical psychologist Malavika Kapur
Films play the most potent role in transmitting culture to children -- intentional or not, beneficial or not. Films have an unavoidable and arresting presence, reflecting and shaping social identities and behaviours. However, films need to be developmentally appropriate, that is, they have to be at the level of understanding at the cognitive, language, emotional, social and moral levels of the child, at each phase of the child’s development. Themes, language, constructs and actions are understood by the child differently when she/he is two or three, five or six or seven or ten years old. Earlier, parents and children had to go and see the movie in a picture hall. A major transition occurred with the advent of television, as films now became accessible in the home. Visual media such as cinema, TV, video, cable and satellite TV, and computer games have a major impact on children. There are undoubtedly beneficial effects in terms of education, but that is not the point of discussion here. Since the advent of television, a number of studies have measured the short- and long-term impact of TV viewing on children, in the laboratory and in field settings. The Indian scenario In the Indian context, there are some typical viewing habits. - Adults and children share TV viewing and very few programmes are suitable for young children.
- Adults and children alike view TV into the late hours thus depriving children of much-needed sleep and causing longer exposure to TV.
- There are accounts of reduced interest in school work both in cities and rural areas.
- Especially since the advent of video, cable and satellite, there is unlimited supply of unsuitable material in one’s own home.
- Use of TV as a babysitter.
- Viewing of TV is encouraged instead of play. Play promotes the overall development of children.
My own experience with children brought to a child guidance clinic reveals that the impact of indiscriminate TV viewing, regardless of the age of the child, has serious repercussions. A four-month-old child who continually viewed television interacted poorly, failing to make eye contact with caretakers, while a nine-month-old child sitting on a mother’s lap while the latter watched TV reacted to violent scenes with fear. Long-term social and emotional deprivation coupled with long hours of TV viewing has been encountered in some children prior to the onset of some symptoms of autism. Short-term manifestation of aggression, whining, temper tantrums and fear soon after hours of TV viewing too has been noted. In an interesting experience of 800 tribal primary school children (Kapur 2007), complete absence of aggression, hyperactivity, and attention deficit was noted, while in 400 urban children 10 were over-active and one suffered from hyperkinetic syndrome (Ommen A, Kapur M and Sarmukaddam 1987). I view the above as examples of violence against children. Studies on the impact of TV A study conducted in the USA, Canada and South Africa provides interesting data about the impact of TV viewing in the population at large. Centerwall (1989) studied homicide rates in the white population in the USA and Canada before 1974, and in South Africa, where TV was introduced after 1975. In the USA, between 1945 and 1974, homicide rates rose from 3.00 to 5.8 per 100,000 (an increase of 93%) and in Canada from 1.3 to 2.5 per 100,000 (a 92% increase) while in South Africa, in the same period, there was a decrease of 7%, from 2.7 to 2.5 per 100,000. In South Africa between 1973 and 1983, after TV was introduced, there was a 56% increase and a 130% increase in 1987. In contrast, in the USA and Canada there has been no further increase since 1974, suggesting that a saturation point has been reached. What relevance does this data have for the effect on children? On further analysis Centerwall (1989) reported that there was a lag time of 10-15 years between the introduction of TV and doubling of the homicide rate. Serious violence appeared to have first begun with children, then adolescents and young youth in the first generation of TV viewers. This has important implications for those concerned with the effect of media on children. Early reports on children and the relationship to consequent physical and verbal aggression came from Joy et al (1973) in a study of a small Canadian town which they called ‘Notel’, before and after the introduction of TV, and two control towns that already had TV. A cohort of 45 first- and second-graders was observed for two years on objectively measured acts of physical aggression such as hitting, biting etc. Rates did not change in the control groups, but in Notel, it increased by 160% after the introduction of TV. Eron and Huesmann (1984) followed up a cohort of 875 children in a semi-rural US county and reported that TV viewing at eight years predicted serious crime acts by the age of 30, particularly in boys (Columbia Cohort study). Most of the Canadian and US studies of the effect of prolonged childhood exposure to TV (two years or more) show that prolonged TV viewing does contribute to later physical aggression, though all of them do not reach a statistically significant level (Centerwall 1989). A South African study by Conradie et a1 (1987) of 10,000 white children of whom 2,200 were followed up for five years -- two years before and three years after the introduction of TV -- reported a significant increase in physical and verbal aggression, suggesting that it was a cumulative process. A large study by Unesco in 1996-97 of 5,000 12-year-old students, spanning 23 nations, revealed that they indulged in more than three hours of TV viewing a day, which was next only to school attendance in terms of time spent on any activity. The study found that children turn to violence to solve problems. Several other landmark reports back this finding: the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (Baker and Ball, 1969); Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior (1972); the report on children and television drama by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1982); National Institute of Mental Health’s Television and Behavior Report (NIMH, 1982; Pearl, Bouthilet and Lazar (1982); National Research Council (1993) Violence Report; and reports from the American Psychological Association's Task Force on Television and Society (Huston, et al, 1992) and the Commission on Violence and Youth (American Psychological Association, 1992; Donnerstein, Slaby and Eron, 1992). In all these reports, the harmful effects of media violence on the behaviour of children, youth and adults who watch such programmes has been clearly brought out. In 2001, the Centre for Advocacy and Research (CFAR) studied the impact of media violence on children in five Indian cities (Delhi, Lucknow, Calcutta, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad with children between 6 to 12 years old. It reported high and consistent levels of violence on TV in all forms of programming. These studies appear to suggest that viewing violence on screen facilitates subsequent aggressive behaviour in children. However, those in the media industry ask an ingenious question: Would you become a serial murderer after seeing a movie on the theme? Some suggest that viewing such an incident may even be of cathartic value. Some believe that a statistical significance of probably 2% is not something to be concerned about and that there are other, more important, contributors such as poverty, family violence etc. They argue that predisposing personality traits make some children more vulnerable than others. Thus there are several nuanced positions one can take: a) Only vulnerable children with non-supportive families and low socio-economic status and who extensively view TV violence are likely to end up as criminals, while for the majority it is an innocuous or even an educative medium. However, research trends have changed a good deal in recent years. While the US Commission on Causes and Prevention of Violence in 1969 had stated that TV was not the principal cause but a contributing factor of violence, along with low income and unstable homes, the 1982 update has supported a closer relationship. b) Aggression is a learnt behaviour. Studies by Milavsky et al in 1992 suggested a small effect -- along with other predictors such as environment -- on personality. British and Finnish studies tend to support the environmental viewpoint. Experimental studies showed that violence is learnt in different ways through the visual media: - Imitation
- Activating latent tendencies for aggression
- Desensitisation to sympathy for the victim.
- Accept violence as normal way to conflict resolution.
c) In a dynamic approach to the understanding of aggression, Centerwall (1994) highlighted the role of TV in the development of the super-ego, replacing the family which was the sole influencing agent before the advent of TV. He even claimed that if TV technology had not been there, there would have been 10,000 less homicides, 70,000 rapes and 70,000 other minor crimes each year in the USA. d) The developmentalists highlighted stages of moral development where between the ages of 1 and 4 there is self-centred morality, at 5 years more acceptable morality, between 5 and 7 years preoccupation with justice, and between 8-14 years concern that people should think well of them. Thus what the child views and understands depends on his/her stage of development. What it means to the programmer may be understood quite differently by the child at different stages of development. e) The industry views and portrays content in the following ways: - A notion that it’s all fun and a way to while away time.
- Child receives distorted images which he/she has not had experience of; this is especially dangerous when love, sex, and violence are equated.
- Brutality is portrayed to escalate the appeal to the jaded.
- Victims are portrayed as sub-human and, thus, are not to be pitied.
- Victims deserve violent treatment.
The industry spends billions on advertising because it knows the impact the visual media can have. The proponents of uncensored programmes fail to recognise the differing levels and stages of maturity and stability in children, the level of imagination children are capable of and, worse, that the use of desensitising and flooding techniques by systematic repetition reduces the original accompanying emotion. The developmental perspective Indiscriminate viewing of visual media, especially with violent content, interferes with normal development according to my own field and clinical experience, psychodynamic and behavioural theories and, most of all, from a developmental perspective. A child’s development in different domains -- physical, cognitive, language, emotional, social, moral and sexual -- occur in a specific, unique fashion in infancy, childhood (early, middle and late) and adolescence (early and late). Any event is seen, understood and responded to differently by children at these different stages. On the other hand, most programmes are created by adults who presume to know the developmental levels of children. A child goes through four stages of cognitive development and his/her understanding of events is limited by her/his understanding at that particular stage. Unless the meaning of the event is correctly explained in a way the child can grasp, she is likely to misunderstand the message. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. But what are the problems in countering this problem? Newson (1994) has rightly stated that even those belonging to a more liberated generation have been naive in permitting the present practices to go unquestioned. What can be done? Here are some suggestions: - Strict control of programmes (unacceptable to the industry and biological protagonists, who believe that it’s heredity that matters and not the environment).
- As the effect on children is particularly devastating, the intervention should be aimed at parental control of TV viewing and promotion of positive moral values in the home environment.
- Programmes should provide healthy role models with pro-socia1 behaviour.
- Promote programmes suitable to different age-groups.
- Public awareness campaigns on the ill-effects and self-denial by the corporate sector which controls the media industry.
- Encourage children to play instead of watching TV in order to promote healthy overall development.
In conclusion, there are many factors that contribute to violence among children. These could be domestic violence in schools and violence in the community emerging out of individual and social causes. These in turn create a cycle of violence among and against children. However, there are child policies and laws in place to counter the above to the extent possible. And while there are organisations working towards the amelioration of family and social pathologies, there is nothing in place to protect our children from the ubiquitous visual media. International and Indian studies mostly agree on the presence of violence in the visual media and blame the media for its negative impact on children, but these findings have mostly been ignored. The reasons may be: i. Because it is obvious that rising violence cannot be attributed to only the visual media. There are other potent causes of violence such as domestic violence, war, riots, impact of natural disasters, which expose children directly to violence. ii. Because correlation does not mean causation. Increasing media portrayal of violence and violence among children and adolescents does not mean that one is caused by the other. iii. The studies should unequivocally prove the cause and effect of violence. The studies thus need to be methodologically sound, fine-grained analysis using cross-sectional and longitudinal methodologies. iv. Most importantly, the effects should be studied in the developmental context, through infancy, childhood and adolescence – as the impact is likely to be very different in the developmental trajectory at different ages. v. The studies also should emphasise intervention strategies in the media, community, and home spheres. (Malavika Kapur was professor and head of the department of clinical psychology at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore. She is now honorary professor at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore) Some readings Bailey S M (1994). Criminal Justice Matters, The Psychologist 7:6, 274. Centerwall B S (1989). Exposure to Television as a Cause of Violence. In Public Communication and Behaviour, Vo1.2, (Ed.) G Comstock, Orlando Fla, Academic Press. Centerwall B S (1994). Television and the Development of the Superego: Pathways to Violence. In Children and Violence (Eds) C Chiland and Young G T, Vol.2, The Child in the Family: N J Jason Aronson Inc. Conradie D P, Heineke M and Botha M P (1987). The Effect of Television Violence on Television Naive Pupils. A follow up study over five years. Pretoria, Human Sciences. Eron L D and Huesmann L R (1984). The Control of Aggressive Behaviour by Changes in Attitudes, Values and Conditions of Learnings. In Advances in Studies of Aggression. (Eds) R J Blanplank and D C Blanchand, Orlando Fla, Academic Press. pp.139-171. Joy L A, Kimball M M and Zabrack M L (1986). Television and Children’s Aggressive Behaviour. In Impact of Television: A National Experiment in Three Communities (Ed.) T M Williams, Orlando Fla, Academic Press. pp.303-360. Kapur M (2007). Learning from Children What to Teach Them. New Delhi: Sage Publications India Private Limited. Milavsky, J R, Kessler R C, Stipp, H and Rubens W (1982). Television and Aggression. A Panel Study, Orlando Fla, Academic Press. Newson E (1994). Video Violence and Protection of Children. The Psychologist 7:6, 272-274. US Commission on Causes and Prevention of Violence. Ommen A, Kapur M and Sarmukaddam S (1987). Psychological Deficits Associated with Hyperactive Syndrome. NIMHANS Journal, Vol.5, pp.109-113. Note: Some of the references not given in the reading list can be obtained through an internet search InfoChange News & Features, July 2009
|
