Animated Violence, and it's Effect on Children Research Paper

 Television blankets the world. Over the last 20 years, areas of the world that couldn't receive broadcasts are now being covered by either high definition signal, cable, or satellite broadcasts. An overwhelming majority of the world either has a television in their homes, or quick access to one. From almost the beginning of television history, children have been a desirable advertising demographic. One of the most popular forms of children's entertainment, has always been the cartoon. Unfortunately the cartoon, in its original form was aimed at adults, and an adult level of violence was often included, in the context of comedy. How violence affects childhood development has been a concern for many leading authorities and advocates of children's development. Unrealistic (or unrealized) repercussions have presented children with an obscured worldview.

To better understand my research question, (Does animated violence affect children?) I divided a wide range of research into three categories: children's perception of violence, media violence’s affect on children, and how violence is treated today. I began with children's perception of violence to understand the effect on children's development, and this will set the tone for the rest of my research. To give weight to this type of structure, I also divided this category into what research says are the more relevant topics in this category. They are major effects, minor effects, and parental roles.

Children's Perception of Violence

Several researchers Cook, Kestenbaum, Honaker, and Anderson (2000) agree that animated violence is directly related to major effects on children. They argue that “viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed” (para. 6). This affects animated violence's affect on children because it has proven to influence their development. I agree with Browne, Hamilton, and Giachritsis (2005) who also argues that “violent or aggressive media produced short-term effects in individuals' arousal, emotions, and thoughts, as well as their relative frequency of both aggressive and fearful behaviors” (p. 80).

Another important topic in children's perception of violence is the more subtle effects. Researchers such as Kendeou (2005) state that “young children tend to focus much of their attention on observable actions instead of internal causes such as characters’ intentions” (p. 102). This is supported by Condry (1989) who also argues that ”children’s understandings of what they view on television also may be in?uenced by their ability to transfer knowledge from what they see in the media to what they do in daily life which, in turn, depends to some extent on their ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality” (p. 102). This validates my idea that children's perception of violence is dependent on context and parental instruction. Further research that examines parental roles might also show that parental influence and guidance on context and repercussion are helpful for children to understand the right and wrong of cartoons.

It is also important to discuss parental roles when considering children's perception of violence. Research shows that “(children) can differentiate cartoon characters engaged in life-like activities from those engaged in pretend activities” (Rosen et al., 1997, p. 102). To get a better sense of children and more specifically parental roles, I examined the writing of researchers such as Wainryb (1993) and Smetana (2006). Their work showed that kids inherently understand the negative moral position of violence. This information helped me to better understand if animated violence affected children because the context of animation helps children compartmentalize the images of violence.

Where in children's perception of violence I found that viewing aggressive or violent material tended to, if unchecked by parental mediation, cause some sort of aggressive behavior, play, or verbiage, in this section I will continue to discuss the effects of animated violence on children through the measured effects of animated violence. Using the same structure as my first category, I will begin this section with the separation of comedic and non-comedic violence.

Media Violence's Effect on Children

Much research has been done to study the effect of media violence on children, and it tends to show that media violence is universal (Groebel, 1998 p.6). Most children across the planet are exposed to violence through various media, but “research has shown that children's cartoons have the highest frequency of television violence, but the public does not view cartoons as violent (Howitt & Cumberbatch, 1975; NTVS, 1997 p.5). This may be because “humorous elements in cartoons are thought to signal viewers that seriousness of the events they are watching should be down played.” (Kane, Suls, & Tedeschi, 1977 p. 549). Researchers such as Gunter (1985) have shown that “when the victim shows a high degree of pain and suffering, it becomes difficult for the viewer to trivialize the televised violence. Moreover, when the perpetrator acts remorseful and sorrowful following an act of violence, the violence is perceived as more serious than when the perpetrator does not express such emotions” (p.550). When examining the effect of animated violence on children, it is important to differentiate between comedic and non-comedic violence.

One of the major effects of childrens consumption of animated violence is their perception of reality and the repercussions of violence. Research from Hemamalini, Arum, and Rajan (2010) shows “children often do not realize that it hurts to hit someone else because they see it all the time on TV. Everyday a cartoon character is beaten up, injured, or killed, only to return in the very next episode, good as new. As a result, children learn that there are only a few, if any repercussions, for committing violent acts. Young children do not process information in the same way as adults. Nor do they have the experience or the judgment to evaluate what they see” (p. 141.) They also note “broadcasters do admit the possibility of viewing violence on television over a period of time, may have a desensitizing or trivializing effect particularly on children, irrespective of their age” (p. 140.)

How is comedic violence different from action based animation? Research from Kirsh (2005) states, “contextual factors in comedic cartoons foster the trivialization of violence. In particular, the perpetrators of cartoon violence are frequently rewarded (i.e., legitimized) and unremorseful. Moreover, the pain and suffering of the victims are often minimized, absent, or comedically presented” (p. 550.) Comedy tends to mask the violence within a characters action, decreasing both children's and parent's perception of the reality of an action (Nathanson & Cantor, 2000, p.552) Interesting research has been done in regard to the connection between comedic animation and action based: “Youth watching the violent cartoons were more disobedient and less tolerant of delay. Moreover, youth who exhibited high levels of aggression prior to the experiment became more aggressive if they watched the violent cartoons than if they watched the nonviolent cartoons” (Friedrich and Stein, 1973.)

It seems the effects of both types of violent animation geared towards children are paradoxically similar. In Kirsh's (2005) study he found “the viewing of violent media can remove/reduce (i.e., disinhibit) reservations that youth might have with regards to performing aggressive acts already in their repertoire (p.552).” Research from Lovass (1961) shows “children viewing animation involving human-like figures that hit and bite one another chose to play with an aggressive toy (i.e., a hitting doll), as opposed to a non aggressive toy (i.e., a ball in a cage), in a greater percentage than children seeing a nonviolent cartoon (p. 552)”, which agrees with Mussen and Rutherford (1961), “laboratory experiments using non-comedic, violent cartoons demonstrated increases in aggressive behavior towards inanimate objects (p.554.)”

Comedic violence, while often over the top in both it's execution, and repercussions, is shown to effect children in negative ways. “Humorous elements in cartoons are thought to signal viewers that seriousness of the events they are watching should be down played. As a result, a cognitive transformation occurs, rendering material that might otherwise be considered grave as whimsical” (Kane, Suls, & Tedeschi, 1977, p.549). The disconnect with reality may be a factor in the effect on children. “In many cases, the humorous context in which injuries are depicted increases the likelihood that children will imitate the behaviour”(Hemamalini, Arul Aram & Rajan, 2010, p.139) Maybe most seriously is the effect on already maladjusted children. “If comedy does, in fact, camouflage violence, then perception of non-humorous violent media as funny should reduce the perceived severity of that violence. By viewing violence as humorous (even in the absence of humor), it becomes less disturbing and less harmful to the victim. As it turns out, bullies tend to perceive their own acts of violence in a manner consistent with how they perceive violent cartoons. Bullies tend to dehumanize their victims; they do not perceive their own acts of aggression as particularly harmful; and they tend to have a positive attitude towards the use of violence. Thus, it should be of no surprise that aggressive adolescents perceive humor in violent cartoons that are lacking in comedic elements. They tend to enjoy violence, be it in reality or animated fantasy (Moeller, T. G. 2001 p. 554).

In the final topic of “how animated violence effects children,” I am going to be examining how animated violence is treated today. From the research in my first two categories, it is indisputable that there is a negative effect on children. I will be researching how government has interceded in broadcast television aimed at children, what technology has been put in place to help protect children from animated violence, and what parents can do for their children.

How Violence is Treated Today

Congress's concern's regarding children and television were initially addressed in the early fifties (United States Congress, 1952). Television was a new format, at the time, with only three broadcasting channels licensed, and in 1955 only 64% of the population owning television sets (Murray, 2003). Although no policies were formed, this started the ball rolling toward the Eisenhower Commission, enacted by President Johnson in the 1960's, to figure out if there was a link toward exposure to television violence and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr (Ibid, 2003). Unfortunately, the subject was not widely studied, at that time, but a greater collection of data is available now.

In 1972, the Surgeon General released a report, 12 years in the making, linking television violence to likely aggressive behaviors in children (Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, 1972; Murray, 1973). This ground breaking report was followed by extensive research by Congress, the Surgeon's General office, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The work of these offices resulted in President Clinton signing The Children's Television Act of 1990. Part of this act meant “broadcasters would be required to air three hours of educational programming for children each week” (Murray, 2003, p.12). While this has been important in limiting childrens exposure to animated violence, it has not prevented it (Murray, 2003, p.14)

One of the most controversial technologies to help protect children to the exposure of animated violence is the V-chip. The V-chip is a set of technologies included in every television over 13 inches, made after the signing of Telecommunications Act of 1996. The technology works by allowing viewers to block certain levels of sexual or violent content. The level of content is encoded and bundled with television programming, by broadcasters (Balkin, 1996, p. 1131).

These content codes work on six levels of age appropriateness, and for programs that are not explicitly broadcast for children, further filtered for sex, violent language, and depictions of drug use (FCC, 2003, para. 5). This rating system, “known as "TV Parental Guidelines," was established by the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable Television Association and the Motion Picture Association of America” (Ibid, 2003, para. 4) Interestingly, this system was established and implemented voluntarily by these broadcasting companies (Ibid, 2003, para. 3).

With all this knowledge, what can parents do to protect their children from violent images within the cartoons they watch? The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians advise parents to limit their children's television viewing to 1 to 2 hours per day (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1990). One researcher goes so far to say “children's exposure to television and television violence should become part of the public health agenda” (Centerwall, 1992, para. 26). The most universal suggestion is “parents should guide what their children watch on television” (Ibid, 1992, para. 27).

I wanted to find out how animated violence effects children, because I want to make sure I'm armed with all the knowledge possible to guide my children with their media consumption. I organized my research by looking at children's perception of violence, then it's effect, and finally how it is treated today. In my first category, I found that children have a hard time processing violence, even in a humorous context, because they haven’t developed an appropriate morality. In the second category, I found that nearly all research found a negative effect on children. My final category of research shows that the government and many children's advocate groups warn of the harmful effects of viewing animated violence.

It seems that in every facet of research, television is omnipresent in homes, and often over watched. Because almost every child is exposed to television, there is a great scientific interest in the effect of all types of media on childhood development. Based on this research, I would suggest that children's exposure to television be limited, and closely monitored. It will be interesting to see how internet content is filtered for children, and how the instant, on-demand media effects children.

Bibliography

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Communications. Children, adolescents, and television. Pediatrics. 1990;85:1119-1120.

Balkin, J. M. (1996, January 1). Media filters, the v-chip and the foundations of broadcast regulation. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1256&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=v-chip&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C20&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Browne, K, D,, & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C, (2005), The influence of violent media on children and adolescents: A public-health approach. Joumal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 365, 702-7

Condry, J. (1989). The psychology of television. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cook, D. E., Kestenbaum, C., Honaker, L. M., & Anderson, E. R. (2000). Joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children. Paper presented at Congressional public health summit. Retrieved from http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm

FCC (2003, July 8). Retrieved from http://transition.fcc.gov/vchip/

Friedrich, K. L., & Stein, A. H. (1973). Aggressive and prosocial television programs and the natural behavior of preschool children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38, 1−110

Groebel, J. (1998). The UNESCO Global Study on Media Violence: A joint project of UNESCO, the World Organization of the Scout Movement and Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

Report presented to the Director General of UNESCO, UNESCO, Paris

Gunter, B. (1985). Dimensions of television violence. Aldershot, UK: Gower

Hemamalini, S., Arul Aram, I., & Rajan, P. (2010, may 31). Impact of violent images in chutti television. Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/JMCS/PDF/pdf2010/July/Hemamalini et al.pdf

Howitt, D., & Cumberbatch, G. (1975). Mass media violence and society. New York: John Wiley

Kane, T. R., Suls, J. M., & Tedeschi, J. (1977). Humour as a tool of social interaction. In A. J. Chapman, & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It's a funny thing, humour (pp. 13−16). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Pres

Kendeou, P., Lynch, J. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., White, M.J., & Kremer, K. E. (2005). Developing successful readers: Building on early comprehension skills through television viewing and listening. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33,91–98. doi:10.1007/s10643-005-0030-6.

Kirsh, S. J. (2005, october 7).Cartoon violence and aggression in youth. Retrieved from http://www.ksu.edu.sa/sites/KSUArabic/Research/ncys/Documents/r352.pdf

Lovass, O. I. (1961). Effect of exposure to symbolic aggression on aggressive behavior. Child Development, 32, 37−44

Moeller, T. G. (2001). Youth aggression and violence: A psychological approach. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Murray, J. P. (2003, July 17). Children and television violence. Retrieved from http://mediacultureonline.de/fileadmin/bibliothek/murray_violence/murray_violence.pdf

Mussen, P., & Rutherford, E. (1961). Effects of aggressive cartoons on children's aggressive play. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 461−464.

Nathanson, A. I., & Cantor, J. (2000). Reducing the aggression-promoting effects of violent cartoons by increasing the fictional involvement with the victim: A study of active mediation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 125−142

Rosen, C. S., Schwebel, D. C., & Singer, J. L. (1997). Preschoolers attributions of mental states in pretense. Child Development, 68, 1133–1142. doi:10.2307/1132296

Smetana, J. G., Toth, S. L., Cicchetti, D., Bruce, J., Kane, P., & Daddis, C. (1999). Maltreated and non-maltreated preschoolers' conceptions of hypothetical and actual moral transgressions. Developmental Psychology, 35, 269–281. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.26

Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior

(1972). Television and growing up: The impact of televised violence. Washington, D.C.: U.

S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Wainryb, C., & Turiel, E. (1993). Conceptual and informational features in moral decision making. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 205–218. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2803_2.

United States Congress. House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (1952).

Investigation of Radio and Television Programs, Hearings and Report, 82nd Congress,

2nd session, June 3-December 5, 1952. Washington, D.C.: United States Government

Printing Office