Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Media violence and youth aggression

2017; Elsevier BV; Volume: 1; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/s2352-4642(17)30033-0

2352-4650

Bryant Furlow,

Child Development and Digital Technology

The link between violent media—movies, television, and video games—and aggression among children and teenagers is both well established and widely misunderstood, experts told The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. Many people misunderstand the research, believes Victor Strasburger (University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA). Exposure to violence in any media is an established risk factor for aggression in children and adolescents—but only one of many. “There will never be a study linking mass murder to violent video games; mass murders are sufficiently rare that it would take a study of millions of people”, Strasburger explained. Most media violence research involves youth aggression rather than violence, noted Douglas Gentile (Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA). Aggression is defined as any behaviour—physical, verbal, or relational—that is intended to do harm, he said, whereas violence is “a very narrow subtype of aggression that is physical and extreme, [and] that can cause severe bodily damage or even death”. Exposure to violent media is associated with increased child and adolescent interpersonal aggression, as well as decreased empathy and prosocial behavior, Brad Bushman (Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA) noted. “Just like some people are more susceptible to cigarettes than others, some people are more susceptible to violent video games than others”, Bushman said. “In general, younger children are more affected by violent media because they have difficulty distinguishing between reality and fantasy before about age 7 and have difficulty understanding motives for aggression—such as when aggression is justified.” Brain development continues until at least the mid-20s, Bushman said. Routine exposure to violent media can desensitise youth. Video games give them practice thinking aggressively, which can have ramifications for their interpersonal interactions in the real world, Gentile said. Children who play violent video games develop a “hostile attribution bias”, meaning they are more likely to attribute aggressive intent to others—to perceive social interactions as hostile and intentionally so. “They stop assuming that somebody bumping into them is an accident and start assuming the other person meant to do it, and quickly reorient their attention to that person and respond”, Gentile said. “We tend to do the things that come to mind first—the thing we've been practicing most.” But precisely how the resulting aggression is expressed depends on cultural norms and other factors. “It doesn't look like the aggression they've practiced in the games”, Gentile pointed out. That holds true for boys and girls alike, research suggests. Girls tend to be less attracted to playing violent video games than are boys; but when they do, they are more likely to hit other children than girls who do not play these games, Gentile noted. “The slope of effect is the same but the level of game-playing and aggression are both higher for boys”, he said. “I was initially surprised by that but the more I thought about it, the less surprised I became. This is learning. It's a practice effect.” There is also a dose–response effect, with the time spent playing games affecting outcomes like school performance and obesity, and the level of game violence affecting aggressive behaviour, Gentile noted. Dutch adolescents from high-conflict families or who have more socially aggressive peer groups are more likely to become more aggressive following exposure to violent television or video games, according to Karin Fikkers (University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). “Concerns about media violence exposure are warranted for youth growing up in adverse social contexts”, Fikkers concluded. “For adolescents growing up in high-conflict families or who perceive high aggression among their peers, media violence may be an additional contributing factor for aggressive behaviour. Still, even for these more vulnerable adolescents, the effect of media violence on aggression was small, both in terms of absolute size and relative to family conflict and perceived peer aggression.” Surprisingly, some other teens appear to become less aggressive following exposure to media violence. “Among teens in positive or neutral social contexts—environments without aggression in the family or peer group—media violence exposure was either not related to aggression, or related to lower aggression at a later time”, Fikkers said, although she was quick to note that this finding needs to be replicated and more closely studied. “This finding is inconsistent with many other studies”, Bushman cautioned. There are three reasons to suspect that violent video games might be even more harmful than violent television programmes and films, Bushman reasoned. First, video game players are actively involved in the depicted violent story. People learn better when they are actively involved. Second, violent game players are more likely to identify with a violent character because they are linked to that character. “If the game is a first-person shooter, players have the same visual perspective as the killer”, he said. “If the game is third person, the player controls the actions of a violent character from a more distant visual perspective.” Research shows that people are more likely to behave aggressively in the real world when they identify with a violent character, Bushman said. Violent video games also reward violent behaviour, with points or advancement to the next game level, thus reinforcing learning, Bushman pointed out. Some games offer praise for killing an enemy, such as a voice telling the player, “nice shot!”. People are more likely to repeat behaviors for which they have been rewarded, Bushman said. In one study, children were tested in pairs. By random assignment, one child played a video game (either violent or non-violent, which was also randomly determined) and the other child watched. Aggression was measured through real-life incidents during a free-play session at school (eg, hitting, kicking, pushing another child). The results showed that boys who played the violent video game were more aggressive afterwards than were boys who merely watched the violent game. An emerging field of media violence research is youth communication on social media, where real-world trauma often plays out online and online aggression can trigger real-world violence, noted Desmond Patton (Columbia University, New York, NY, USA). “Social media is creating a space for young people to cope with, process, and respond to their lived environment”, he explained. “For young people who live in economically challenged, violent neighbourhoods, comments on social media may include expression of loss and grief, trauma, aggression, and threats as a small percentage of their overall communications. However, those conversations may have potentially serious consequences if they spill over into the real world.” Gang-involved youth engage in traditional online behaviour like shopping or emailing friends, but Patton's research revealed that these adolescents also display aggression online. “Many gang-involved youth on social networking sites report the hardships and atrocities they experience in their communities, such as being denigrated by police and coping with the death and loss of family and close friends”, Patton explained. “But youth also use social media to incite dares, taunt rival gangs, brandish weapons, make threats, and plan violent acts—behaviours described as Internet banging or cyberbanging.” Online aggression can spill into real-world violence—for example, when a post deemed disrespectful about a deceased rival gang member triggers a physical confrontation. In Chicago, gang-involved youth “communicate entire threats in an emoji”, Patton found. An angry face, gun, or bomb emoji can convey real-world death threats. Clinicians, parents, and teachers who wish to help reduce the negative effects of violent media on children and adolescents should start by becoming educated about the research evidence, Bushman advised. “Do not rely on the mass media for reliable and valid information about media violence effects”, he cautioned. “The entertainment industry is marketing a harmful product, and they want people to believe the scientific evidence is inconclusive.” When seeking to reduce a teenager's aggressive behaviour, changing their social context is likely to have a bigger impact, but changing exposure to media violence is often a more realistic intervention, Fikkers noted. “It is therefore good [for practitioners] to know that attempts to reduce media violence exposure—especially when done in an autonomy-supportive way—may be a small but significant step in the right direction for youth in difficult circumstances”, she said. In North America, video games, like movies, are rated for age appropriateness by the industry-created Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). Children under age 17 should not be playing M-rated video games (ie, mature—may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language), Bushman said. Screen time should be limited to 2 h or less per day, and children's access to television and computers should be limited to a “much used common room” in the home rather than a bedroom or private place, Bushman advised. Parents should clearly communicate prohibitions on violent video games to the parents or caregivers of their children's friends. Computer security software can be set to block access to violent media. It is also important for parents to set a good example by avoiding violent media themselves, Bushman noted. “If parents and older siblings have a heavy diet of media violence, then younger children will be exposed to more media violence as well”, he cautioned. Communication is key, experts agree. “Parents can watch and discuss media with their children”, Bushman explained. “If a character behaves in a violent way, parents can talk about it with their child. Researchers call this co-viewing—and it works. Co-viewing allows parents to discuss with their child how unrealistic the scene really was, what motivated the characters to use violence, what a better response could have been, how the character might have solved the problem differently, and what the painful consequences of violence are.”