Does violence on televison lead to violence in real life? Essay

The debate on tv effect receiver craze has been on going for more years now and has professionalduced a wide and varied set of views and inquiry results. Many well established psychologists nominate attempted, through various types of experiments and observations, to every support or negate a unite amongst fierceness on boob tube and the lurid episodes in square life.These sets of data wealthy person thrown up some interesting views and personal conclusions regarding the subject of idiot box ferocity, and we will show the varying views and conclusions that some of these psychologists have reached and by using a respected and well known system we will move to show the views of a small section of our community. Previous research into the link between military unit and television Over the years numerous psychologists have produced thousands of experiments and or research to support or negate the link between violence and television.In 1987 a psychologist named Cumber batch produced data on the actual centres of violence found to be in British television programmes. He think that 30% of the programmes contained some form of violence, with an overall frequency of 1. 14 rough acts per programme and 1. 68 violent acts per hour. Each act of violence lasted an fair 25 seconds leading to violence occupying notwithstanding over 1% of ingrained television airtime. His research showed that in 26% of violent acts death occurred, only in 61% no injuries were shown and the victim was portrayed as macrocosm in pain or stunned.In 83% of cases, no line of work was shown as a result of a violent act, and considerable inventory and gore occurred in only 0. 2% of cases. Cumberbatch also revealed that most perpetrators of violent acts were more likely to be portrayed as baddies rather than goodies, and violence occurred twice as frequently in law breaking than in law-upholding contexts. His research, although neither for or against violence on television, gives us an idea of the amount of violence on television we are exposed to.Howitt and Cumberbatch in 1974 analysed three hundred studies of television violence and its direct effect on childrens deportment, they played down the link between television violence and the childrens behaviour. A further study into the relationships between the media and violence carried fall out by Eron 1987and Phillips 1986 found a different conclusion. They concluded that a positive correlation between the amount of belligerence viewed at 8 and later aggression at 30 could be seen. George Gerbner (1989) researched television and its influences on human behaviour and said Television influences human behaviour because there are routes or mechanisms whereby the content of television can have an effect on what we do, and how we act. Thus, trip of televisions influence comes about because of how we learn (by observation and imitation), because of how we respond to certain kinds of study material (ar ousal/desensitisation), and because of the structure of our inhibitions and the way television provides the kind of stimulation needful to release them (disinhibition).I called these behavioural mechanisms, because for the most part the influence was shown on some activity (p128 The Psychology of Television) Aletha Huston (university of Kansas 1989) studied the effects of television violence on childrens behaviour and stated Children who watch violent television programmes, even just funny cartoons, were more likely to hit out at their playmates, argue, disobey class rules, leave tasks unfinished, and were less willing to postponement for things than those who watched the non violent programmes. (p 142 The Psychology of Television)We can see from the varying studies, different results and opinions of these psychologists just how hard it can be to support or negate a link between violence on television and in original life. How the questionnaires were prepared in class In a class room purlieu we produced a questionnaire on peoples opinions relating to the link between television violence and real life. The class split into small groups of three or four and discussed manageable questions to add to the questionnaire, trying to have a balance of pro television and anti television questions.The individual group questions were discussed and eight questions picked to make up the actual questionnaire, these questions consisted of four pro television and four anti television, the questions were set out so an anti television was followed by a pro television question. The obvious reason for the split into pro and anti television is to try and produce a questionnaire that will give the people winning part a non-biased set of alternate answers.