Originally posted by Bardock42
Are there studies how awareness coupled with exposion to violence on TV are compared to complete ingorance on the subject?
I'm not overly familiar with the work, but I would think it would be testing for levels of aggression coupled with parental or other authority figures (or even just information) that indicates that what someone is seeing isn't real, that this is not how you deal with problems in everyday life.
A main problem with stuff like TV violence is that it primes certain responses to similar stimuli. So for instance, when you get nervous walking through a car park at night, its because you have seen the Sopranos (or other media where people have been attacked there [this is not to say there aren't just naturally creepy things about car parks]). Its the same phenomena, just now its some kid pushing your kid on the playground, and instead of being mature he socks the other kid in the face. Was that because he had seen similar things done in movies? No, absolutly not. Is the violent response more accessable as a choice for him after being exposed to the media, absolutly. What the "awareness" would do, is either inhibit the violent response as "inappropriate" or even better "awareness" would create new responses that would be more accessable.
I think a major problem with anti-violence awareness is that all the other choices to violence, especially for children, are telling adults, walking away, or doing other things that don't allow the child to keep their dignity and also back down. The situation I used can also be further complicated, since I, and I am sure others, would not be to disapointed in my child if he hit someone who instigated violence with him.
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
The problem with most of these studies is that there are to many variables to account for and not a proper way to setup a control.
I agree to an extent. The problem is that the media and the way the studies are presented everywhere other than in journals has such a bias and an agenda to prove that media is horriblly damaging to children and society.
The conclusion of "rise in aggression" is almost useless when describing human behaviour. When I get mad, I like to paint or make music. Other people work out or do other very constructive things. "aggression" in many situations can be beneficial and is a very intrinsic part of an autonomus individual's personality.
*EDIT: I may have fell into the very same trap of understanding that I just critiscized the media for. Aggression is not anger, though I think my point can be valid if expressed as "I have ways of venting aggression that are at least non-destructive.
I agree that there are lots of variables in determining how people act and how media effects will be seen in society, but to measure a rise in aggression due to a direct cause, I think that is something we know fairly well.