Photo credit: Pixabay
by Rosa Renzi
An ongoing debate on whether the exposure of violence in films, TV, video games and more has a direct influence on aggressive behaviours has been raging for decades – and shows no sign of abating.
Does media violence cause a substantial increase of real-life crime, or is everyday crime simply reflected in the media?
It’s a “chicken or the egg” kind of discussion, and – spoiler alert – one that is still open.
“I do not mind violence in films. However, I believe that sometimes it can be overused specifically in films that do need to be that violent,” said Kostas Karavasilis, 21, a filmmaker who will soon graduate with a BA in Film and Television Production at London Metropolitan University.
His comments are reflective of a common ground about the use of violence in media: that violence in films may serve a purpose, but sometimes, perhaps more often than not, is gratuitous.
It’s also worth mentioning that depicting violence is a matter of taste, felt by both the audience towards violent content, and the framework in which the film is using it.
Photo credit: Pixabay
Violence in media increases the likelihood of aggressive behaviour in the short and long-term, according to many academics. They say such violence increases hostile perceptions and attitudes, and desensitizes individuals to violent content.
However, they were not able to gather enough evidence, so they rather talk about “probabilities” and “likelihood”.
“One of the key difficulties in establishing any kind of causal link between violent media and violence is that consumption of violent media is very widespread, yet serious violence remains relatively rare,” said William Hughes, a lecturer in Criminology at London Met. “So, it would seem that most people are not impacted by their consumption of violent media.”
He adds that there is no real statistical proof of a direct correlation between violence on screen and in real life. “While violent media has become more prevalent over recent decades, there is no indication that violence has increased, with homicide rates remaining fairly static over recent decades.”
On the other hand, other scholars reject the idea of a direct connection between real life violence and media violence, stating that the link still needs to be proven.
It is true that, for many people, violence is hard to witness no matter in what form. But it’s worth considering the difference between real life violence and media violence, because they have a different physiological and psychological impact on people.
However, “individuals exposed to higher levels of movie violence did not demonstrate any evidence of emotional desensitization, but their blood pressure reactivity to violent videos showed more pronounced habituation effects that may indicate physiological desensitization to televised violence,” according to the Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
Interestingly enough, a US study explored violent films released between 1995 and 2004, and noticed a decrease in violent crimes that correlated with an increase in violent movies. The study reported that “for each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, violent crime decreases by 1.9% and 2.1%, respectively. Nonviolent movies have no statistically significant impact”.
This curious coincidence suits perfectly Aristotle’s theory of emotional catharsis, for an audience who experiences the “thrills and spills” of a fictional story. People seek that “discharge”, but where is the line that defines when enough is enough, and when it’s too much?
These are tough questions, and again, they all go back to the “chicken or the egg”.
Leave a Reply