[net.women] Violence in public media, emulation on the street

oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (08/18/85)

>	There  have  been  many  studies  done  with  children  that
>	demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt  that  watching  violent
>	behavior on television or file leads to increased aggression
>	and violence in  the  watcher's  behavior.   There  is  some
>	controversy  as  to  whether  this is true of adults, though
>	there is  sufficient  evidence  to  conclude  that  watching
>	violence at least causes a desensitization.
>				  The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)

    A recent article in the journal of the New York Academy of Science's
journal  (whose  title  I  regretfully forget) mentioned studies of when
violence is imitated  by  viewers/readers/etc.   It  seems  that  public
emulation tracks two things:
	1.  Whether the participant  is  a  role  model.   For  example,
Marilyn  Monroe's  suicide  prompted  a statistically significant upward
perturbation in the national suicide rate over the following few  weeks.
	2.   Whether  the  participants are "rewarded" for their violent
behavior.  Apparently, something like a highly publicized  boxing  match
[the  "Thrilla  in Manila" was given as an example] leads to an increase
in the national rate  of  violent  crime,  again  over  a  short  period
following  its  airing.   Apparently  this  effect is strong enough that
hosital emergency rooms bring extra personnel  on  shift  in  the  month
following   such  an  event.   Conversely,  over  a  similar  period,  a
publicized execution seems to have a deterrent effect.

    I  could  go  on  with  boring  details,  but  if  one  accepts  the
researchers'  claims,  the  conclusion  is  fairly  clear:   People  are
influenced by perceived public approbation of certain types of behavior.
If  famous  people  do  something  violent,  that diminishes the average
person's average level of inhibition when considering the same thing, at
least  for  a  while.   Also,  if  the  rewards  of violent behavior are
manifestly desirable, like getting  $8,000,000  for  punching  someone's
lights  out, people are more likely to try it themselves, even if nobody
is waiting around to pay them.

		----------------------------------------   
    Notes:  The research methodology  involved  studying  suicide  rates
over much shorter time periods than usual, (monthly or weekly instead of
annually), and correlating the variations with highly publicized events.
Also,  hospital  and  ER supervisors and scheduling officers were polled
and interviewed.  Presumably, they also checked police records.
    If someone's really interested, I could track down the specifics and
retransmit  them.   However, I just sent this in as flamebait.
		----------------------------------------
    More personal notes:  Not having a good reason to resist the idea, I
provisionally accept the conclusions listed above.  In that case, a film
like  "Rambo"  has  probably  caused  death  and trauma to a significant
number of Southeast Asian immigrants, Mighty Mouse (and the more  modern
equivalents)  have provoked many childish injuries, and pro football and
hockey (let  alone  boxing  and  wrestling)  have  engendered  uncounted
assaults  and  maybe  rapes.   In  contrast,  "Apocalypse  Now"  had the
opposite effect because the  participants'  violence  did  not  lead  to
personal  happiness  or  public  applause,  and sports like baseball and
basketball tend to bring out better qualities in  their  audiences  than
the  two  mentioned  before.  [Just guessing -- I won't stake my life on
it.]
    I  don't  support  eliminating violence from movies or TV.  Nor do I
see  a  contradiction  between  watching  movies  and  making  your  own
instruments  and music, (or going to concerts), except that they compete
for the same blocks of leisure time.  However, I would  support  placing
such  things  in  a  context  that is NOT specifically designed to breed
anti-social behavior.  In the main, such changes should lie in  offering
alternatives rather than restricting what's out there.
    However, lest I sound like a lily-livered,  bleeding-heart,  liberal
Commie  wimp,  I'll  mention that some things should be restricted.  For
example, I see no reason to show boxing on mass media -- those who  want
to see it should finance it with direct payments.  I don't like the idea
of supporting such things with the advertising premiums I pay  on  cars,
toiletries,  beer  or  other  necessities.   Same goes for rassling, but
people who are awake late at night are all degenerates anyway, so what's
the use?
    Whew -- I'm longwinded once I get warmed up, no?	       'Bye all.
-- 

Oded Feingold     MIT AI Lab.   545 Tech Square    Cambridge, Mass. 02139
OAF%OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA   {harvard, ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mitvax!oaf   617-253-8598