Violence on Television

Distribution, Form, Context, and Themes

Barrie Gunter, Jackie Harrison, Maggie Wykes

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• ISBN:
  9781135653392
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Concern about violence on television has been publicly debated for the past 50 years. TV violence has repeatedly been identified as a significant causal agent in relation to the prevalence of crime and violence in society. Critics have accused the medium of presenting excessive quantities of violence, to the point where it is virtually impossible for viewers to avoid it. This book presents the findings of the largest British study of violence on TV ever undertaken, funded by the broadcasting industry. The study was carried out at the same time as similar industry-sponsored research was being conducted in the United States, and one chapter compares findings from Britain and the U.S.A. The book concludes that it is misleading to accuse all broadcasters of presenting excessive quantities of violence in their schedules. This does not deny that problematic portrayals were found. But the most gory, horrific and graphic scenes of violence were generally contained within broadcasts available on a subscription basis or in programs shown at times when few children were expected to be watching. This factual analysis proves that broadcasters were meeting their obligations under their national regulatory codes of practice.

Chapter 1

Violence on Television: The Parameters of Concern

Concern about television violence has centered on its capacity to cause both harm and offence. These consequences of violent portrayals are not the same, yet they are often conflated in debates about the responsibilities of broadcasters toward their audiences and the need for tighter regulation of programs. The alleged harms of television violence have numbered among the most publicly debated and scientifically investigated social issues (Cumberbatch, 1989; Gunter, 1994; Paik & Comstock, 1994; Potter, 1999). Offence is a matter of personal taste. The notion of harm is distinct from taste. A violent portrayal may be regarded as distasteful, but may not result in any harmful side effects. Elsewhere, audiences may enjoy a screen portrayal of violence. But, the same portrayal can also be scientifically demonstrated to give rise to potentially or actually harmful consequences if one viewer decides to copy it or if certain sections of the audience become either more accepting of such behavior or more afraid of becoming victims of such violence themselves.

The fact that some viewers may dislike televised violence may be insufficient testimony to back calls for its abolition or for stronger regulation and control of its appearance. For one thing, those critics of television violence may comprise an unrepresentative minority of the viewing population as a whole. For another, the content they wish to bring under tighter control may have no immediate or lasting adverse effects on audiences. In contrast, certain forms of televised violence may pass without comment and comprise important ingredients defining the entertainment value of a program. Yet, a case could be made for such content to be restricted or banned should convincing scientific evidence emerge that exposure to it can cause serious harms for viewers. Maintaining this balance between the need to allow broadcasters to satisfy audience tastes and needs, and avoidance of offence or harm is an ongoing problem for media regulators.

Other issues also have an important bearing on whether televised violence represents a problem in need of serious action by social policymakers and the regulatory agencies charged with implementing rules and codes of practice. Discussion about violence has been at the heart of a wider debate about the principle of media censorship and regulation. Whereas many broadcasters have developed their own codes on the presentation of violence in programs to which producers of news, drama, and other forms of entertainment are expected to adhere, in some countries more fundamental questions have been asked about whether censorship is appropriate at all.

In the United States, for example, there is an uneasy tension between the enactment of legislation that curtails the content of broadcasts and the fundamental value of free speech, especially as it applies to the press (and other media) as outlined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Here, it is regarded as fundamental to the principle of a democratic society for the media to be able to publish anything without political hindrance. At the same time, there is public recognition of a need for some flexibility in the interpretation of free speech rights, where some published speech might act against the best interests of the public and society at large. There may be cases when the restriction of speech is the safer social option, especially when there is a suspicion that it reduces the chances of occurrence of adverse or potentially harmful consequences. This type of argument has been used to endorse U.S. government attempts to limit the negative social effects of televised violence (Roberts, 1998).

The need to tighten legislation and accompanying regulatory controls over televised violence has resulted in part from a growing public concern about this issue. This allegedly growing concern has been fueled, in part, by evidence that has emerged from the significant body of published scientific research concluding that violent television content can harm viewers. Children, teenagers, and adults are all regarded as potentially susceptible to a range of undesirable psychological side effects following exposure to such material. It has been contended that violent portrayals provide imitable problem-solving actions, often enacted by attractive role models, that may be copied by members of the audience. Televised violence may lend justification to the use of violence by viewers themselves. Routine exposure to such content may also cause viewers to become used to witnessing violence and to adopt a less caring attitude about victims of violence. Equally, regular viewing of violence on television could create an impression among viewers that it reflects on the status of society, which as a result may be viewed as a more violent, dangerous and frightening place to live (Donnerstein, Slaby, & Eron, 1994; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994; Paik & Comstock, 1994; Potter, 1999).

One solution to this conflict between a fundamental democratic principle and an increasingly urgent need to curtail the alleged antisocial effects of media violence has been to move away from the notion of regulatory restrictions on transmitted content and toward the idea of empowering media consumers. In practice, this solution requires the provision of more and better quality information about programs in advance of transmission so that viewers can decide whether or not they want to watch. This information should have special value for parents who wish to decide on the suitability of particular programs for their children.

In the United States, new legislation was introduced in 1996 encouraging the television industry to create a voluntary code for rating programs or to have one imposed by the broadcast industry regulator, the Federal Communications Commission (Spitzer, 1996). This proposed ratings system was also to be linked with the so-called V-chip (viewer chip) technology installed in TV sets. Under the 1996 US Telecommunications Act, all new TV sets from 2000 on must include this technology. V-chips enable viewers to block out reception of programs rated as unsuitable for children.

Much debate surrounding the V-chip, the rating system for program content, and other possible solutions reflected the conflicting concerns about protecting the public from adverse effects of media violence while preserving the integrity of the First Amendment. The press in the United States provided widespread coverage of this subject and frequently represented tighter broadcasting legislation as a threat to free speech (Hoffner, 1998). This concern was not hard to understand. The acceptance of tighter regulation of broadcast content might represent the thin end of a wedge that might eventually lead to closer examination of practices followed by the press themselves.

In the pursuant political debate about this issue, political opinion was sensitive to the allegedly prevailing public opinion on the matter. This sensitivity is understandable given the potential political ramifications of unpopular public policy decisions. Indeed, even the courts exhibited sensitivity to contemporary trends in public opinion when asked to rule on the debate, acting therefore as a barometer of social mores (Marshall, 1988).

This book examines the nature of violence on television in the United Kingdom. The research on which this investigation is based consisted of a large content analysis of terrestrial and satellite broadcast television output in the mid-1990s. As such, it comprises a descriptive study of the representation of violence on television. Although such data cannot demonstrate anything about the impact of televised violence or about public opinion toward it, there are important reasons why links should be made between purely descriptive analyses of programs and the potential of their content to give rise to certain types of audience reaction. First, a descriptive analysis of the nature of television violence establishes how serious a problem it represents. Whereas a critical press may accuse broadcasters of loose controls over content and cite findings from public opinion surveys in support of such accusations, the only way to arrive at a comprehensive definition of the nature of what programs present to viewers is to conduct a direct analysis of programs themselves. Second, research into media violence effects and audience reactions to programs has identified specific features of violent portrayals and of the programs in which they might appear that mediate audience responses. This means that not all forms of violence give rise to the same audience reactions. Further, the same violence shown in different program settings and contexts may give rise to varying effects or reactions among viewers. Hence, the measurements taken by a content analysis can be designed to take account of these factors and to indicate the extent to which certain types of violence—which exhibit attributes rendering them likely to give rise to particular types of audience response—occur.

The need to include this kind of measurement sensitivity in content analysis studies of televised violence was increasingly emphasized by scholars working in this field during the last decade of the 20th century. Following earlier studies of audience perceptions of television violence, which indicated a need to go beyond a single definition of violence in the analysis of its on-screen representation (e.g., Gunter, 1985; Hodge & Tripp, 1986; Van der Voort, 1986), a number of studies in the 1990s embraced different levels of content measurement (Mustonen & Pulkkinen, 1993; National Television Violence Study, 1997, 1998; Potter et al., 1995, 1997). Some researchers have also referred to the need to employ a system that does not simply quantify violence in its totality, but also classifies the nature of its occurrence in terms of “risk factors” (National Television Violence Study, 1997). The latter represent attributes of violent portrayals identified in the media effects literature as playing important mediating roles in relation to the intensity or nature of viewers’ responses to violence.

IMPORTANCE OF POTENTIAL HARM

The notion of risk factors in relation to the classification of television violence is important because it represents a conceptual link between the purely descriptive methodology of content analysis and the findings on harmful media violence effects. Although content analysis does not measure media effects, it can meaningfully embrace knowledge of such effects, especially where there is evidence that specific types of psychological impact are enhanced or reduced by the presence of mediating variables in association with violent portrayals.

The key risk factor attributes identified by the National Television Violence Study (1997) were nature of perpetrator of violence, nature of target of violence, reason for violence, presence of weapons, extent and graphicness of violence, realism of violence, rewards and punishments associated with violence, consequences of violence for victims, and the presence of humor. These attributes have been identified in media effects research as having a mediator role in relation to learning of aggression from media, desensitization to violence consequent on exposure to media violence, and enhanced fear of personal victimization following regular exposure to media violence (National Television Violence Study, 1997, 1998).

In addition to the risk factors, it is also important to be aware of developmental differences in the way viewers react to television content. Children may respond to televised violence differently from adults. Hence, some attributes are especially significant in relation to the way children might react. The rewards and punishments associated with violent portrayals are especially important in this context. Children may learn aggressive behavior patterns from watching television. The likelihood with which such learned behaviors may be reenacted by children can depend on whether on-screen perpetrators of these behaviors are rewarded or punished for their actions. Rewarded on-screen violence is more likely to be copied, whereas punished on-screen violence inhibits the learning of aggression among young viewers (Bandura, 1986; Paik & Comstock, 1994). However, for young children to grasp the consequences of on-screen portrayals of violence, it was usually necessary for associated rewards or punishments to occur immediately after these behaviors. Children younger than age 10 have been found to be less able to grasp the links between motives and events and events and their consequences when these elements are widely separated in the narrative of the program (Collins, 1983).

Relating their catalog of on-screen violent portrayals to the known mediators of screen violence effects, the National Television Violence Study (1998) reported for mainstream U.S. network and cable television that the perpetrators of violence were mostly human, adult, White, and male, and they were more often bad guys than good guys. The targets of violence exhibited a similar character profile to perpetrators. Most violence was committed for reasons of personal gain, anger, or self-protection. Around one in three violent interactions were portrayed as justified. Guns were used in about one in four violent interactions. In addition, most televised violence was fictional but nevertheless appeared to be fairly realistic and feasible in real life. Most violence was not punished immediately; punishments were usually meted out at the end of the program. Good guys tended not to be punished for their use of violence, however. More than one half of all violence produced no observable harmful or painful consequences to victims, and very little violence was shown in graphic detail. Four in ten violent scenes were presented in a humorous context. Such an analysis, therefore, went beyond earlier numerical quantifications of violent acts on screen, to elaborate the extent to which potentially harmful portrayals of violence occurred. To go beyond this level of analysis, it will be important to discover more about the prevalence and position (in terms of program and time and day) of violent depictions that combine a number of high risk attributes. These will be the portrayals to which closest regulatory or consumer advisory attention should be given.

IMPORTANCE OF PERCEPTION AND OPINION

The importance of public opinion about television violence stems, in part, from its political and legal significance. Public support for censorship, for example, provides important ammunition for those political lobby groups who would wish to see more restrictive legislation introduced to curb the alleged harms of media violence. Such ammunition may be especially significant in countries like the United States, where calls for increased censorship conflict with the fundamental democratic value of protected free speech. A number of studies have indicated, however, that public support does exist for censorship of certain forms of media under appropriate circumstances. Such restrictions have received public support where they relate to violent media (Fisher, Cook, & Shirkey, 1994; Rojas, Shah, & Faber, 1996), pornography, and especially sexual violence (Fisher et al., 1994; Gunther, 1995; Thompson, Chaffee, & Oshagen, 1990).

In the United Kingdom, public opinion about violence on television is significant because broadcasting legislation requires television producers to take necessary steps to ensure that their programs do not cause offence to viewers. Supplementary codes of practice flesh out this legal requirement, and codes on the depiction of violence are published to provide guidelines to producers both in the public and commercial sectors of television broadcasting.

The significance of public opinion data to the classification of television program content represents a tricky question in its own right. In order to determine whether such data have any value at all in this context, it is essential to examine carefully the nature of the questioning used in surveys and whether the opinions measured provide any real clues concerning how people think or feel about particular types of violence.

There is a prevailing understanding, regularly fed by newspaper-sponsored opinion polls, that the public generally believes there is too much violence on television. Such polls also reputedly reveal a significant degree of concern among the public about the possible harms caused by televised violence, especially where children are concerned. Unfortunately, few polls yield data about use of policy or editorial decisions. Frequently, these polls oversimplify public attitudes and lack the focus to pinpoint whether there are specific types of content about which citizens are mostly concerned (Gunter & Stipp, 1992). There are three other factors that should be underlined about public attitudes concerning television violence. First, viewers may at the same time voice concern about violence on television in general while exhibiting little concern about violence in specified programs that contain violence, provided the presentation of the violence is judged to be appropriate to the story line and not gratuitous (Gunter & Wober, 1988). Second, viewers may find verbal descriptions of specific types of television violence potentially offensive, but are still willing to concede the right of others to watch such material should they wish to do so (Gunter & Stipp, 1992). Third, survey respondents may be more willing to perceive potential harm in media violence for others than for themselves, a pattern of response known as the “third-person effect” (Hoffner et al., 1999; Innes & Zeitz, 1988; Rojas et al., 1996).

The third-person effect has emerged as a particularly sensitive predictor of support for strict censorship of media. Whereas most people believe themselves to be relatively immune to adverse or harmful effects of media, they do not believe the same thing about others. The greater the perceived likelihood of adverse media effects on society or on people other than themselves, the greater the support for stricter censorship of sex and violence in the media (Fisher et al., 1994; Gunther, 1995; Hoffner et al., 1999). Greater exposure to sexual or violent media content, however, was associated with less willingness to censor such content (Fisher et al., 1994; Gunther, 1995). Those who apparently view television violence regularly wish to retain unrestricted access to their preferred entertainment. Some researchers have interpreted this finding as evidence for a desensitization effect, with heavier viewers of violence being less personally worried about it and less inclined to see it as harmful (Donnerstein et al., 1994; Hoffner et al., 1999).

These results do not indicate if particular kinds of violence are regarded as being especially problematic as potential sources of offence or harm to viewers. To find out more about this point, researchers need to use methodologies that measure viewers’ perceptions of violence more directly. Such research has identified a variety of factors that influence individuals’ judgments about the seriousness of violent actions and interactions.

In a study not directly connected with media, Forgas, L. B. Brown, and Menyhart (1980) examined the way people classified real-life aggressive scenarios. This investigation was concerned with the attributes individuals take into account when determining whether or not a particular act is defined as aggressive. Four principal characteristics emerged in this respect: (a) the perceived likelihood that the act would happen in everyday life, (b) the degree to which the sympathy lies with the aggressor or victim, (c) the degree to which the aggressor was provoked or performed a premeditated first strike, and (d) the degree to which the act was officially sanctioned or likely to evoke punishment.

In ascertaining the way viewers respond to specific content features, one approach has been to obtain opinions about extracts of media content in which those features have been isolated. In this context, for instance, media researchers have explored viewers’ perceptions of televised violence or the emotional reactions of children to frightening media content.

The immediate reactions of viewers to program excerpts have been measured in the context of identifying the attributes taken ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Violence on Television: The Parameters of Concern
• 2 Issues of Measurement and Analysis
• 3 Amount and Distribution of Violence on Television
• 4 Form of Violence on Television
• 5 Motives and Consequences of Violence on Television
• 6 Gender and Violence on Television
• 7 Children and Violence on Television
• 8 Violence in Soaps
• 9 News Values and Violence
• 10 Violence on Television in Britain and the United States
• 11 Violence on Television and Helping the Audience
• Bibliography
• Author Index
• Subject Index