So, For my entrance exam to get into uni. The computer science guys at Strathclyde gave me a simple question I had to answer. The question was: "To what extent is there a link between media violence and violence in youth culture". Here is my essay. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated and feel free to add your thought about this subject to the thread.
For many years now the debate surrounding how violence, that is heavily featured in video games, Television and Movies, has an adverse effect on children who play them and as such cause these children to commit acts of violence, has raged on. Many feel that the violence that is glamorised in todays popular games, sitcoms and movies make violence an attractive prospect. However, many feel no such link to violence exists and that the responsibility lies with officials such as the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), Pan European Game Information (PEGI) and most of all with the parents, who must take responsibility for their parenting and allowing their child to view or play violent material.
Since violent video games became a main stay in todays youth culture, many have argued that they have an adverse effect on children who play them. Many have argued that the study carried out by The Indiana University School of Medicine show that playing video games significantly increase emotional arousal and subsequently decrease inhibition and self control. Children who were involved in this study played a violent game for 30 minutes and later had an MRI. The MRI showed that children who had played a violent game for any period of time were subject to a negative effect on the brain which was not present in children who played a non-violent game. In a similar study, John P. Murray of the University of Kansas found that the same effect was present when children were viewing short clips from the violent movie Rocky IV. Many look at these studies and argue that their must be a direct correlation between media violence and actual violence. Similarly, the demand for increasingly violent types of media is becoming more prevalent in todays society. The video game Manhunt is one such example of this. In 2004, Manhunt was removed from leading video game stockists due to the murder of Stefan Pakeerah, a fourteen year old. Pakeerah was murdered by his friend Warren Leblanc. Both of whom were addicted to the game according to many accounts. After the withdrawal of the game, increased demand was evident. Many argue that the youth in todays culture have become desensitised to violence and highlight cases such as this as reason to condemn media violence.
Although this evidence may be compelling, many have argued that even though a link may exist between real world violence and media violence, other factors have to be taken into account. One such factor is a lack of care from parents. An example of this is the responsibility a parent has to ensure that a child grows up in a loving, caring environment. A study carried out by psychologists at Birmingham University have found that children who come from violent homes are more likely to view violent material. Also, further studies into this area have shown that children are more likely to imitate the behaviour of their parents more than imitate the violence that is available in the media. Advocates of this view will also argue that it is not the responsibility of the creators of violent video games, movies or television shows to ensure that children are not violent. Any media that is to be put into the public domain is first heavily scrutinised by media watchdogs and classification boards such as the BBFC and video game classifiers PEGI. Both associations are leading figures in classifying media and as such many fee that they have a responsibility to ensure that violent media is rated properly. However, many object to this view as even although a violent piece of media is rated at the highest possible rating an adult would have to purchase the media for a child. Many highlight this lack of responsibility by parents as the main reason for child violence and not the media itself. As mentioned before, in the case of Stefan Pakeerah, video game violence would seem to have been the key factor in the murder. However, police have since denied the claim that media violence was to blame and cited robbery as the main reason for Pakeerahs death. It is also interested to note that Pakeerah was the only one of the two to own the game, his murderer, Leblanc, did not. Also, it is claimed by Joseph Lieberman, a senator in the United States, that the average American child watches 40,000 dramatised murders by the time he or she turns 18. However, two thousand, two hundred and thirty four children were convicted of murder in 1990. This may be a shocking total but if we consider the overall amount of children living in the United States of America (72,293,812), 0.003 percent of children have been convicted of murder in the United States. This figure accounts for all children who have been incarcerated and as such does not tell us the factors that led to their incarceration such as psychological problems. If we were to deduct people with psychological difficulties from the 0.003 percent of children who are convicted of murder, the percentage would be very small indeed and verging on miniscule. As such, any claims that violent media leads to violent crimes such as murder, are unfounded. Similarly, this is also the case in the situation of Kayla Rowland, who was just six when she was shot and in the chest and killed by a classmate. The perpetrator had no idea of what he had done and it was later found out that the he had come from a broken home, growing up around drugs and guns. Police later admitted that it was due to this fact, that he had carried out the murder and was not because of the violent movies he watched. One such example of evidence that supports this is a study that was carried out by Joseph A. Wickliffe of Yale university found that children become violent mainly due to other circumstances such as low-income, growing up with a lone parent and abuse in the home and at school and not due to media violence.
In my opinion, both sides have valid arguments but I have to believe that real world violence does not come from violent forms of media but in fact comes from deep rooted psychological disorders and broken homes. Many argue that playing violent video games and watching violent movies contribute to loss of inhibition and low self control, However, as we can see, just as many surveys and studies found that violent media does not lead to violent behaviour. Also, many contribute real world crimes such as murder to violence that is prevalent in video games as in the case of Stefan Pakeerah. However, this is not a valid argument as his murderer did not own a the same violent game as Pakeerah did. In my opinion, violent media may have some negative effects on children but it is way off the mark to claim that it leads to violence in a real world environment. I am of the belief that the responsibility to make sure that children are either kept away from violence, or taught how to deal with problems in a non violent way falls directly on the shoulders of the child themselves or their parents. I think I have proved well that although media violence may have a small effect on children, children already have more violence around them in their everyday lives coming from abusive parents or broken homes have more of an effect on a child than a movie or game ever will.
For many years now the debate surrounding how violence, that is heavily featured in video games, Television and Movies, has an adverse effect on children who play them and as such cause these children to commit acts of violence, has raged on. Many feel that the violence that is glamorised in todays popular games, sitcoms and movies make violence an attractive prospect. However, many feel no such link to violence exists and that the responsibility lies with officials such as the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), Pan European Game Information (PEGI) and most of all with the parents, who must take responsibility for their parenting and allowing their child to view or play violent material.
Since violent video games became a main stay in todays youth culture, many have argued that they have an adverse effect on children who play them. Many have argued that the study carried out by The Indiana University School of Medicine show that playing video games significantly increase emotional arousal and subsequently decrease inhibition and self control. Children who were involved in this study played a violent game for 30 minutes and later had an MRI. The MRI showed that children who had played a violent game for any period of time were subject to a negative effect on the brain which was not present in children who played a non-violent game. In a similar study, John P. Murray of the University of Kansas found that the same effect was present when children were viewing short clips from the violent movie Rocky IV. Many look at these studies and argue that their must be a direct correlation between media violence and actual violence. Similarly, the demand for increasingly violent types of media is becoming more prevalent in todays society. The video game Manhunt is one such example of this. In 2004, Manhunt was removed from leading video game stockists due to the murder of Stefan Pakeerah, a fourteen year old. Pakeerah was murdered by his friend Warren Leblanc. Both of whom were addicted to the game according to many accounts. After the withdrawal of the game, increased demand was evident. Many argue that the youth in todays culture have become desensitised to violence and highlight cases such as this as reason to condemn media violence.
Although this evidence may be compelling, many have argued that even though a link may exist between real world violence and media violence, other factors have to be taken into account. One such factor is a lack of care from parents. An example of this is the responsibility a parent has to ensure that a child grows up in a loving, caring environment. A study carried out by psychologists at Birmingham University have found that children who come from violent homes are more likely to view violent material. Also, further studies into this area have shown that children are more likely to imitate the behaviour of their parents more than imitate the violence that is available in the media. Advocates of this view will also argue that it is not the responsibility of the creators of violent video games, movies or television shows to ensure that children are not violent. Any media that is to be put into the public domain is first heavily scrutinised by media watchdogs and classification boards such as the BBFC and video game classifiers PEGI. Both associations are leading figures in classifying media and as such many fee that they have a responsibility to ensure that violent media is rated properly. However, many object to this view as even although a violent piece of media is rated at the highest possible rating an adult would have to purchase the media for a child. Many highlight this lack of responsibility by parents as the main reason for child violence and not the media itself. As mentioned before, in the case of Stefan Pakeerah, video game violence would seem to have been the key factor in the murder. However, police have since denied the claim that media violence was to blame and cited robbery as the main reason for Pakeerahs death. It is also interested to note that Pakeerah was the only one of the two to own the game, his murderer, Leblanc, did not. Also, it is claimed by Joseph Lieberman, a senator in the United States, that the average American child watches 40,000 dramatised murders by the time he or she turns 18. However, two thousand, two hundred and thirty four children were convicted of murder in 1990. This may be a shocking total but if we consider the overall amount of children living in the United States of America (72,293,812), 0.003 percent of children have been convicted of murder in the United States. This figure accounts for all children who have been incarcerated and as such does not tell us the factors that led to their incarceration such as psychological problems. If we were to deduct people with psychological difficulties from the 0.003 percent of children who are convicted of murder, the percentage would be very small indeed and verging on miniscule. As such, any claims that violent media leads to violent crimes such as murder, are unfounded. Similarly, this is also the case in the situation of Kayla Rowland, who was just six when she was shot and in the chest and killed by a classmate. The perpetrator had no idea of what he had done and it was later found out that the he had come from a broken home, growing up around drugs and guns. Police later admitted that it was due to this fact, that he had carried out the murder and was not because of the violent movies he watched. One such example of evidence that supports this is a study that was carried out by Joseph A. Wickliffe of Yale university found that children become violent mainly due to other circumstances such as low-income, growing up with a lone parent and abuse in the home and at school and not due to media violence.
In my opinion, both sides have valid arguments but I have to believe that real world violence does not come from violent forms of media but in fact comes from deep rooted psychological disorders and broken homes. Many argue that playing violent video games and watching violent movies contribute to loss of inhibition and low self control, However, as we can see, just as many surveys and studies found that violent media does not lead to violent behaviour. Also, many contribute real world crimes such as murder to violence that is prevalent in video games as in the case of Stefan Pakeerah. However, this is not a valid argument as his murderer did not own a the same violent game as Pakeerah did. In my opinion, violent media may have some negative effects on children but it is way off the mark to claim that it leads to violence in a real world environment. I am of the belief that the responsibility to make sure that children are either kept away from violence, or taught how to deal with problems in a non violent way falls directly on the shoulders of the child themselves or their parents. I think I have proved well that although media violence may have a small effect on children, children already have more violence around them in their everyday lives coming from abusive parents or broken homes have more of an effect on a child than a movie or game ever will.
