See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303283407

Television violence: 60 years of research

Article · January 2003

CITATIONS READS

15 6,132

2 authors:

Victor C Strasburger Barbara J. Wilson

University of New Mexico University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
201 PUBLICATIONS   4,007 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   1,487 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Death of Childhood View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Victor C Strasburger on 11 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHAPTER 5

Television Violence: Sixty Years

of Research
Victor C. Strasburger and Barbara J. Wilson

TELEVISION VIOLENCE
The debate about media violence has been raging for 60 years. In 1954,
Senator Estes Kefauver, then chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on
Juvenile Delinquency, held hearings on whether television violence was con-
tributing to real-life violence in the United States. When questioned, net-
work executives claimed that the available research was not conclusive
(Liebert & Sprafkin, 1988). A half-century later, hundreds of research studies
and several government reports provide conclusive evidence that media vio-
lence can have harmful effects on viewers (e.g., Bushman & Huesmann, 2012;
Council on Communications and Media, 2009; Media Violence Commission,
2012; Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan, 2014). Yet some industry representa-
tives and a few researchers (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010; Gunter, 2008) con-
tinue to argue that television violence is harmless entertainment (see Figure
5.1). How much is actually known about the impact of media violence on
children and adolescents, what sorts of studies have been done, and how
convincing are the data? Are the media part of the problem of violence in
society or, as some TV executives suggest, does television merely reflect the
violence that is occurring in society?

VIOLENCE IN AMERICAN SOCIETY

In the debate over television violence and its impact, observers cannot even
seem to agree on the answer to this simple question: Is American society
becoming more or less violent? According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and

A4155C_Gentile.indd 135 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 136 Media Violence and Children

Figure 5.1

Source: Copyright © Sidney Harris; reprinted with permission.

Delinquency Prevention (www.ojjdp.gov), the juvenile arrest rate for murder

in 2011 was at its lowest point since 1980, the arrest rate for aggravated assault
was at its lowest point since the early 1980s, and the arrest rate for forcible
rape in 2010 was one-third of its 1991 peak (U.S. Department of Justice,
2013). The 1.6 million juvenile arrests in 2010 were 21 percent lower than in
2001. Yet the recent mass shootings in Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown have
raised new concerns about a culture of violence in the United States. And
despite some downward trends in violence, the statistics are still alarming:

• In 2010, there were nearly 1,000 murders in the United States involving known
juvenile offenders.
• According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. juvenile murder rate is the
third highest in the world and the highest in the Western world (World Health
Organization, 2002).
• Homicide is the second leading cause of death among 10- to 24-year-olds in the
United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2010).
• In 2010, simple assault arrest rates were almost double those in 1980 for nearly all
age groups, but especially for teens and young adults (see Figure 5.2).

A4155C_Gentile.indd 136 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 137

Figure 5.2
Rates of Aggravated Assault

Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Statistical Briefing Book;
available at http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05306.asp?qaDate⫽2010
(released on December 17, 2012).

• According to the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) of 15,425 high school
students, 33 percent had been in a fight in the previous year, 5 percent carried a gun
to school in the past month, and 20 percent were bullied in school the previous year
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012).

Although short-term trends in violence may be debatable, what is clear

is that violent crime has increased dramatically since the advent of television
50 years ago. From 1960 through 1991, the U.S. population increased by
40 percent but the violent crime rate increased by 500 percent (Grossman &
DeGaetano, 1999). Moreover, homicide rates may not be the best indicator
of whether violence is increasing. For one thing, murder is the least fre-
quently committed crime. For another, people are now able to survive being
shot because of extraordinary advances in medical care (Grossman &
DeGaetano, 1999). Some experts contend that levels of aggravated assault—
interpersonal violence—provide a far more appropriate index of how violent
society has become (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999), and these have risen
dramatically during the past 50 years (see Figure 5.3). Perhaps more impor-
tantly, most of the real-world aggression that children will experience
personally is bullying, relational aggression, and cyberbullying. Although
these types of aggression are clearly harmful, they do not show up in national
crime statistics. Levels of in-person bullying and cyberbullying vary widely,

A4155C_Gentile.indd 137 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 138 Media Violence and Children

Figure 5.3
Violent Crimes in America: A Comparison of Murder, Assault and
Imprisonment Rates 1957–2005

Source: Statistical Abstract of the U.S., FBI Annual Crime Report, and Bureau of
Justice Statistics Prison Statistics Report. Killology.com.

from 9 to 35 percent, depending on the age group and time frame studied
(Strasburger, Jordan, & Donnerstein, 2012).
In some provocative research, Centerwall (1992) argued that historical
changes in violent crime can be tied to television violence. In a 1992 study, he
examined white homicide rates in South Africa, Canada, and the United
States, and found that in the latter two countries, 10 to 15 years elapsed
between the introduction of television and a subsequent doubling of the
homicide rate—exactly what one would expect if TV violence primarily
affects young children (see Figure 5.4).
As Centerwall predicted, urban homicide rates rose before rural rates (tele-
vision was first introduced into urban areas), rates rose first among affluent
whites (minorities could not afford early TV sets), and rates increased earlier
in those geographical areas where TV was first introduced. South Africa was
used as a “control” nation because it closely resembles Western countries, yet
it did not have any television until 1973. Predictably, homicide rates in South
Africa have now begun to climb as well (Thomson, 2004). Based on his statis-
tical analyses, Centerwall (1992) asserted that long-term exposure to TV
violence is a causal factor in approximately half of all homicides in the United
States and that 10,000 homicides could be prevented annually if television
were less violent. These are intriguing arguments based on data that go well

A4155C_Gentile.indd 138 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 139

Figure 5.4

Source: JAMA.

beyond typical correlational analyses. Still, the findings do not meet stringent
cause-and-effect criteria and thus are open to alternative explanations.

HOW VIOLENT IS AMERICAN TV?

American television is arguably one of the most violent media landscapes in
the world. Early estimates indicated that the average American child or teen-
ager viewed 1,000 murders, rapes, and aggravated assaults per year on tele-
vision alone (Rothenberg, 1975). A later review by the American Psychological
Association puts this figure at 10,000 per year—or approximately 200,000 by
the time a child graduates from high school (Huston et al., 1992).
In the largest assessment, researchers at four universities collaborated on
the National Television Violence Study (NTVS), which represents the most
comprehensive content analysis ever attempted of American television. From
1994 to 1997, over 2,500 hours of content were assessed each year across 23
different channels, including the broadcast networks, independent broadcast,
public broadcasting, basic cable, and premium cable (Smith et al., 1998;
Wilson et al., 1997, 1998). Over the three years of the study, a steady 61
percent of programs contained some violence. However, the prevalence of
violence varied considerably by channel type. More than 80 percent of
programs featured on premium cable contained violence, whereas fewer than
20 percent of programs on public broadcasting did (see Figure 5.5).

A4155C_Gentile.indd 139 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 140 Media Violence and Children

Figure 5.5
National Television Violence Study

Source: Reprinted from Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan (2014), with permission.

The researchers also examined how violence is portrayed on television. As

it turns out, contextual features such as whether a perpetrator is attractive and
whether the violence is punished are more important than the sheer amount
of aggression in trying to understand the potential harm a portrayal might
pose for viewers (for a review, see Wilson et al., 1997). Several conclusions
were drawn from the three-year content analysis:

• Violence on television is frequently glamorized. Nearly 40 percent of the violent inci-

dents were perpetrated by “good” characters who could potentially serve as role
models for young viewers. In addition, a full 71 percent of violent scenes included
no remorse, criticism, or penalty for violence at the time that it occurred.
• Violence on television is frequently sanitized. Nearly one half of the violent incidents
failed to show physical harm or pain to the victim, and fewer than 20 percent of the
violent programs portrayed any long-term negative consequences of violence to the
victim or the victim’s family.
• Violence on television is often trivialized. More than half of the violent incidents fea-
tured physical aggression that would be fatal if it were to occur in real life. Yet
40 percent of the violent scenes included some form of humor.
• Very few programs emphasize an anti-violence theme. Across the three years of the
study, fewer than 5 percent of violent programs featured an anti-violence message.
In other words, almost all TV violence is glamorized or celebrated in the storyline.

A4155C_Gentile.indd 140 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 141

Although televised violence could be shown for educational or prosocial purposes

(that is, to teach the true horror that violence begets), it typically is designed for
entertainment purposes and to bring in the largest number of viewers (see chapter
1, this volume, for more on the economics of media violence).

More recent studies confirm the findings of the NTVS (Glascock, 2008;
Linder & Lyle, 2011). Although violence on television is pervasive, it is even
more common in shows targeted specifically to children. Nearly 70 percent
of children’s shows contain some violence, whereas 57 percent of non-
children’s shows do (Wilson et al., 2002). Furthermore, a typical hour of chil-
dren’s programming contains 14 different violent incidents, compared with
6 per hour in all other programming. The context of violence is also different
in children’s programs. For example, children’s shows are even less likely than
other types of shows to depict the serious consequences of violence. Children’s
programs are also more likely to portray violence as humorous. Of course,
most of the programs targeted to children are animated cartoons.

IS TV STILL IMPORTANT?
With all of the new technology that has been developed in the past two de-
cades (e.g., the Internet, cell phones, smartphones, iPads), many people now
seemingly ignore the impact of “old media” (TV, movies, videos) on children
and adolescents. That is a serious mistake. Young people spend more than
seven hours a day with a variety of different media, but despite all of these new
media, TV predominates, even for teenagers (see Figure 5.6) (Rideout, Foehr,
& Roberts, 2010). And the presence of a bedroom TV increases the average
number of hours of media use to more than 11 hours per day (Rideout, Foehr,
& Roberts, 2010). What has changed is that TV is not necessarily viewed on
the TV set in the living room anymore—increasingly, older children and teens
are downloading shows to their computers, smartphones, iPads, and cell
phones. In one national survey, about 60 percent of young people’s TV viewing
is done live via a TV set, but the other 40 percent is now either time-shifted or
viewed online or on mobile devices (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010). In an-
other more recent survey, 74 percent of respondents report watching video via
the Internet and more than half say they watch video on a mobile phone at least
once a month, and 28 percent at least once a day (Nielsen, 2012).

THE IMPACT OF TV VIOLENCE ON VIEWER AGGRESSION

No single factor propels a child or a teenager to act aggressively. Instead,
the causes of such antisocial behavior are complex and multifaceted.
Hormonal and neurological disorders, impulsivity, and child temperament
have been identified as risk factors (Garbarino, 2001; Losel & Farrington,
2012; Ramirez, 2003), as have environmental forces such as poverty, drug use,

A4155C_Gentile.indd 141 30/06/14 12:41 PM

A4155C_Gentile.indd 142
Figure 5.6
Media Use, by Age

Source: Rideout (2010).

30/06/14 12:41 PM
 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 143

and lack of parental affection (Duke, Pettingell, McMorris, & Borowsky,

2010; Lee et al., 2012). But because the expression of aggression is a learned
behavior (Eron, 1997), the media too have been identified as a risk factor (see
chapter 2, this volume; Bushman & Huesmann, 2012; Comstock & Powers,
2012; Gentile & Bushman, 2012). Several methodologies have been used to
study the effects of TV violence on aggression. Experiments are controlled
studies in which people are randomly assigned to receive a treatment (e.g.,
watch something violent on television) or to serve in a control group, and
afterward their responses are measured. Experiments can be conducted in a
laboratory or in a more naturalistic, field setting. Because all other variables
are held constant and only the treatment is manipulated, experiments are the
best method for establishing cause-and-effect relationships. However, exper-
iments can be criticized for being artificial and for focusing on short-term
effects only. Correlational studies typically involve large-scale surveys that
ask people about their media habits and about their aggressive behavior. The
samples are commonly more representative than those used in experiments,
and the results reflect more natural, ongoing behaviors in the real world. Yet
it is difficult to ascertain causality when variables are simply correlated or
shown to relate to one another at a single point in time: Do media habits in-
fluence aggression or do aggressive people seek out violent media? To address
this issue, longitudinal studies follow the same sample of individuals over
time. This approach allows for the testing of long-term effects and for ascer-
taining whether early media habits predict subsequent behavior or vice versa.
Given that each method has particular strengths but also certain limita-
tions, no single approach can definitely address the problem. However, by
aggregating research across the different methods, we can draw certain con-
clusions about the impact of media violence (Bushman & Huesmann, 2012).
Using each of the methods as a framework, we provide an overview of the
evidence below.

Experimental Studies
Some of the earliest research on television violence was conducted in the
1960s by Albert Bandura and his colleagues. In a series of classic experiments
(Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961; 1963a, 1963b), Bandura observed the behavior
of nursery school children in a playroom that was filled with toys, among
them a Bobo doll (a punching bag with a sand-filled base and a red nose that
squeaked). The purpose of the experiments was to investigate the circum-
stances under which children would learn and imitate new aggressive behav-
iors. To test imitation, children typically watched the following filmed
sequence on a TV set before being allowed to play:

The film began with a scene in which [an adult male] model walked up to an adult-size
Bobo doll and ordered him to clear the way. After glaring for a moment at

A4155C_Gentile.indd 143 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 144 Media Violence and Children

the noncompliant antagonist the model exhibited four novel aggressive responses, each
accompanied by a distinctive verbalization. First, the model laid the Bobo doll on its side,
sat on it, and punched it in the nose while remarking, “Pow, right in the nose, boom,
boom.” The model then raised the doll and pummeled it on the head with a mallet. Each
response was accompanied by the verbalization, “Sockeroo . . . stay down.” Following
the mallet aggression, the model kicked the doll about the room, and these responses
were interspersed with the comment, “Fly away.” Finally, the model threw rubber balls
at the Bobo doll, each strike punctuated with “Bang.” This sequence of physically and
verbally aggressive behavior was repeated twice. (Bandura, 1965, pp. 590–591)

Bandura and his colleagues varied the endings to this film across different
experiments. In one study (Bandura, 1965), for example, children were ran-
domly assigned to one of three conditions: (a) a model-rewarded condition, in
which the model was called a “champion” and was treated with a soft drink and
an assortment of candies; (b) a model-punished condition, in which the model
was severely scolded and called a “bully”; or (c) a neutral condition in which the
model received no rewards or punishments for his behavior. Afterward, each
child was escorted to the playroom that contained the plastic Bobo doll, along
with three balls, a mallet, a dollhouse, and assorted other toys. The results
revealed that children in the model-rewarded and neutral groups displayed sig-
nificantly more imitative aggression than did children in the model-punished
group. The fact that the no-consequences condition resulted in just as much
aggression as the reward-condition did suggests that so long as no punishments
occur, children are likely to imitate a model’s behavior.
Other research by Bandura et al. (1963a) found that children could learn
new aggressive behaviors as easily from a cartoon-like figure as from a human
adult, a result that clearly implicates animated TV shows as an equally un-
healthy teacher of aggression. Although Bandura’s experiments have been
criticized as artificial because children were merely hitting an inflated punch-
ing bag, other laboratory research has shown that young children will aggress
against a human being dressed as a clown just as readily as they will against a
Bobo doll (Hanratty, O’Neal, & Sulzer, 1972). Furthermore, field experi-
ments that have been conducted in more naturalistic settings indicate that
aggression can be targeted to peers as well. In one study, preschoolers who
watched ordinary violent TV programs during breaks at school displayed
more aggressiveness on the playground than did children who viewed non-
violent programs over the same 11-day period (Steuer, Applefield, & Smith,
1971). Two decades later, elementary school children exposed to a single epi-
sode of The Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers displayed more verbal and physi-
cal aggression in the classroom than did children in a no-exposure control
group (Boyatzis, Matillo, & Nesbitt, 1995). In fact, the treatment group com-
mitted seven times the number of aggressive acts, including hitting, kicking,
shoving, and insulting fellow students, than did the control group.
In summary, a large number of well-controlled experiments dating back to
the 1960s demonstrate that television violence can cause short-term

A4155C_Gentile.indd 144 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 145

Table 5.1
Risky Versus Educational Depictions of Violence in the Media

Media themes that encourage the learning of aggression

“Good guys” or superheroes as perpetrators
Violence that is celebrated or rewarded
Violence that goes unpunished
Violence that is portrayed as defensible
Violence that results in no serious harm to the victim
Violence that is made to look funny
Media themes that discourage the learning of aggression
Evil or bad characters as perpetrators
Violence that is criticized or penalized
Violence that is portrayed as unfair or morally unjust
Violence that causes obvious injury and pain to the victim
Violence that results in anguish and suffering for the victim’s loved ones

Source: Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan (2014). Reprinted with permission.

aggressive behavior in some children. In addition, by carefully manipulating

the program content in some of these studies, researchers have found that
certain types of portrayals are more likely to encourage the learning of
aggression than others are (for review, see Huesmann, 2007, and Wilson
et al., 2002). In other words, not all television violence is alike in the risk that
it poses to viewers. Table 5.1 summarizes some of the contextual features of
violence that encourage the learning of aggression in viewers as well as
features that can actually discourage such learning.

A Unique Quasi-Experiment
In 1986, an unusual study was conducted in Canada to assess the effect that
the introduction of television would have on a particular community (Williams,
1986; see MacBeth, this volume, for a detailed review). Children in a Canadian
town that had no television (labeled “Notel”) were compared with children in
two nearby communities that had only one station (“Unitel”) or multiple
channels (“Multitel”). The three communities were similar in size and socio-
economic characteristics; the major different was the presence and amount of
television available. However, the study is called a “quasi-experiment” rather
than a true experiment because children were not actually randomly assigned
to the different communities at the outset.
Data were collected on children in all three communities prior to 1974,
when television was first introduced in Notel, and then in a two-year follow-
up. In each town, children received scores for aggression based on observa-
tions of their play behavior, teacher ratings, and peer ratings. The researchers
found that Notel children showed significant increases in physical and verbal

A4155C_Gentile.indd 145 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 146 Media Violence and Children

Figure 5.7
Mean Levels of Physical and Verbal Aggression before and after the
Introduction of Television in the Notel Community in Canada

Source: Adapted from Joy et al. (1986).

aggression after the introduction of television (see Figure 5.7), whereas

children in the other two communities showed no significant change in
aggression during this same time period (Joy, Kimball, & Zabrack, 1986).

Correlational Studies
In the 1970s, many researchers studied large populations of children and
teens to determine whether heavy viewers of TV violence were more likely to
show aggressive behavior. Such studies were partially a response to criticisms
that laboratory experiments might be too artificial, use “play” measures of ag-
gression, actually condone aggression by having adult experimenters encourage
violent viewing, and only measure short-term effects (Freedman, 1984, 1986).
One critic of the research put it more graphically: “Viewing in the laboratory
setting is involuntary, public, choiceless, intense, uncomfortable, and single-
minded. . . . Laboratory research has taken the viewing experience and turned it
inside out so that the viewer is no longer in charge” (Fowles, 1999, p. 27).
Nevertheless, the correlational studies support the same patterns that have
been documented in laboratory experiments. Some of the major early studies
include the following:

• A survey of 2,300 junior and senior high school students in Maryland

(McIntyre & Teevan, 1972). Each student was asked to list four favorite TV pro-
grams, which were then analyzed for violent content. Self-reports of aggressive

A4155C_Gentile.indd 146 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 147

behavior, ranging from fights at school to serious encounters with the law, were
obtained. The study found that aggression scores were positively associated with
the degree of violent content in favorite programming.
• A national sample of 1,500 19-year-old males (Robinson & Bachman, 1972).
Those who expressed a preference for violent programming were significantly
more aggressive in their self-reported behavior.
• A study of 850 fourth through sixth graders in Michigan (Dominick &
Greenberg, 1972). The researchers found that the greater the exposure to TV vio-
lence, the more the children perceived violence as an effective solution to conflict
and a viable option for themselves. The findings held up for both boys and girls.
• A combined Maryland/Wisconsin study of more than 600 adolescents
(McLeod, Atkin, & Chaffee, 1972). The adolescents were asked how often they
viewed 65 prime-time programs that had been rated for violent content by inde-
pendent coders. The teens were also asked how often they had engaged in various
forms of aggressive behavior, as well as how they would likely respond to a series of
hypothetical situations. A modest positive correlation was found between violent
TV viewing and overall aggressive behavior, even when variables such as IQ,
academic performance, and socioeconomic status were statistically controlled.
• A large-scale study of more than 1,500 English 12- to 17-year-old males
(Belson, 1978). Originally commissioned by the CBS television network, this proj-
ect involved a representative sample of adolescent males and employed meticulous
measures of TV exposure and aggressive behavior. Exposure to TV violence was
positively associated with less serious forms of aggression, but the connection to
more serious forms of aggression (antisocial and criminal acts) was even stronger.
Males who viewed large amounts of violent TV content committed a far greater
number of seriously harmful antisocial and criminal acts than did matched peers
who were light viewers. More recent studies support these early patterns. One
large-scale study of more than 30,000 adolescents from eight different countries
found that heavy TV viewing was significantly associated with higher verbal aggres-
sion and verbal bullying, even after controlling for gender and age. In the three
countries in which teens spent a lot of their weekend time viewing TV (United
States, Poland, Portugal), there was also a positive relationship between television
exposure and physical bullying (e.g., kicking, shoving) (Kuntsche et al., 2006).

The samples in most of these correlational studies are impressively large

and the measures of aggression are presumably more realistic than those
collected in lab studies. However, correlational research suffers from the
so-called “chicken-and-egg” dilemma: Do aggressive children choose to
watch more TV violence, or does TV violence cause aggressive behavior? To
help untangle the direction of causality, longitudinal studies are useful
because they assess the same sample of children or teens over time.

Longitudinal Studies
Some of the most powerful evidence that television has an impact on young
people’s behavior comes from longitudinal studies. Several major studies have

A4155C_Gentile.indd 147 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 148 Media Violence and Children

been conducted by different groups of investigators on different samples of

children and teens, and most of them point to a strong connection between
early exposure to TV violence and subsequent aggressive behavior.
In one of the earliest studies, Huesmann and his colleagues followed a co-
hort of children over a 22-year period (Huesmann & Eron, 1986; Huesmann,
Lagerspetz, & Eron, 1984; Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder & Huesmann, 1972).
The original study began in 1963, with a sample of 875 third graders (age 8)
in New York. The researchers were initially interested in the impact of differ-
ent parenting styles on children’s aggressive behavior. As a means for disguis-
ing their purposes, the researchers included what they thought were some
“innocent” questions about media use in their interviews of parents. But
when the data were examined 11 years later, the researchers realized that TV
viewing habits seemed to have played a substantial role in the development of
aggression. In other words, the findings showed that exposure to TV violence
during early childhood was predictive of higher levels of aggressive behavior
at age 19 (see Figure 5.8). By contrast, the reverse was not true: being more
aggressive at age 8 did not predict greater consumption of violent program-
ming at age 19. Consequently, the notion that more aggressive children tend
to view more violence on TV was not substantiated. Interestingly, the TV/
aggression link held only for boys, not for girls. This may be due to the types
of aggression shown on TV and the types measured (physical aggression
rather than other forms of aggression). However, the TV/aggression link
persisted even when IQ, socioeconomic status, and overall exposure to TV
were statistically controlled.
Ten years later, this same cohort was again studied, only this time the data
revealed a link between exposure to TV violence at age 8 and self-reported
aggression at age 30 among males (Huesmann, 1986; Huesmann & Miller,
1994). In some of the most provocative data reported, childhood TV habits
also predicted criminal arrests for violent behavior at age 30 (see Figure 5.9).
Based on these longitudinal patterns, Huesmann (1986) argued that:

Aggressive habits seem to be learned early in life, and once established, are resistant
to change and predictive of serious adult antisocial behavior. If a child’s observation of
media violence promotes the learning of aggressive habits, it can have harmful life-
long consequences. (p. 129)

In a separate cross-cultural study, Huesmann and Eron (1986) followed

more than 1,000 children in the United States, Australia, Finland, Israel, the
Netherlands, and Poland over a three-year time period. For every country
except Australia, early viewing of TV violence was significantly associated
with higher subsequent aggressive behavior, even after controlling for a
child’s initial level of aggressiveness. This widespread pattern was found de-
spite the fact that crime rates and TV programming differed substantially
among the different nations. Furthermore, the pattern was found just as often

A4155C_Gentile.indd 148 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 149

Figure 5.8
TV Violence Watched in 3rd Grade Correlates with Aggressive Behavior
at Age 19 for Boys

Source: Reproduced from Liebert and Sprafkin (1988).

Figure 5.9
Does Preference for Violent TV at Age 8 Correlate with Criminal Activity
at Age 30?

Source: Adapted from Huesmann (1986).

A4155C_Gentile.indd 149 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 150 Media Violence and Children

for girls as for boys in three of the countries, including the United States.
Thus, Huesmann’s earlier findings that seemed to pinpoint only boys now
could be extended to girls as well. Contradicting the earlier 22-year longitu-
dinal study, there was some evidence in this cross-cultural study that early
aggression did predict subsequently higher levels of violent viewing.
Huesmann now argues that the relation between TV violence and aggression
is probably reciprocal: early viewing of violence stimulates aggression, and
behaving aggressively then leads to a heightened interest in violent TV
content (Huesmann, Lagerspetz, & Eron, 1984).
A more recent longitudinal study by Huesmann and his colleagues inter-
viewed over 500 grade school children and then re-surveyed them 15 years
later. Again, the researchers found that heavy exposure to TV violence in
childhood predicted increased aggressive behavior in adulthood; but now the
pattern was the same for both boys and girls (Huesmann, Moise-Titus,
Podolski, & Eron, 2003).
Focusing on an even younger age group, Singer and Singer (1981) studied
141 children from nearly 50 different New Haven, Connecticut, kindergar-
tens over a one-year period. The researchers found a significant relation
between children’s viewing of TV violence (as recorded in daily diaries by
parents) and their aggressive behavior as observed in free play at school. The
relation held for both sexes and was strongest in those viewing the most vio-
lence on TV. In a subsequent five-year study, Singer, Singer, and Rapaczynski
(1984) tracked 63 boys and girls from age four to age nine. Again, they found
that those who watched the most violent programming as preschoolers
displayed the most aggression at age nine, even when controlling for initial
levels of childhood aggression.
Additional evidence that early viewing can predict later aggression comes
from a 17-year study by Johnson and his colleagues (Johnson, Cohen, Smailes,
Kasen, & Brook, 2002). The researchers tracked a random sample of 707
children from two New York counties. The children were between the ages
of 1 and 10 at the outset of the study. They were assessed repeatedly, begin-
ning in 1975, with family interviews, personality profiles, individual
interviews, and questionnaires. In addition, adult criminal records were ob-
tained from the state and the FBI in 2000. Results revealed that amount of
time spent watching TV during early adolescence was associated with a
subsequent increase in the likelihood of committing aggressive acts against
others, particularly for males (see Figure 5.10). This relation persisted even
when other important variables were controlled, such as previous aggressive
behavior, childhood neglect, family income, neighborhood violence, parental
education, and psychiatric disorders. Notably, the study assessed total TV
viewing time rather than viewing of violent content, but the results are still
quite impressive, especially given that it is the first longitudinal study to link
adolescent TV habits to adult aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a,
2002b).

A4155C_Gentile.indd 150 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 151

Figure 5.10

Source: Johnson, Cohen, Smailes, Kasen, & Brook (2002).

The most recent evidence comes from a large-scale study conducted in

Dunedin, New Zealand (Robertson, McAnally, & Hancox, 2013). Researchers
identified a birth cohort of 1,037 individuals born in 1972–1973, and then
tracked them at regular intervals from birth to age 26 years. Results revealed
that young adults who had spent more time watching TV between the ages of
5 and 15 were significantly more likely to have a criminal conviction, a diag-
nosis of antisocial personality disorder, and more aggressive personality traits
than were those who had been light TV viewers (Figure 5.11). The association
withstood controlling for sex, IQ, socioeconomic status, previous antisocial
behavior, and parental control (Robertson, McAnally, & Hancox, 2013).

Meta-Analyses
A meta-analysis is a quantitative review of the research on a given topic, in
which the results from a number of separate studies are summarized (see chap-
ter 13 of this volume). Using meta-analytic statistical techniques, a researcher
can combine individual studies to yield a picture of the overall pattern across
different investigations (O’Keefe, 2002). Meta-analyses result in numerical
estimates of the size of an effect across all the studies taken together.
A number of meta-analyses have been conducted on the literature pertain-
ing to the impact of media violence on aggression. All of them have found

A4155C_Gentile.indd 151 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 152 Media Violence and Children

Figure 5.11
Proportion of Male and Female Adults with a Criminal Conviction as a
Function of Their Childhood (between the Ages 5 and 15 Years) Television
Viewing Habits

Source: Robertson, McAnally, & Hancox, 2013; reprinted with permission.

support for the hypothesis that exposure to TV violence increases the likeli-
hood of subsequent aggressive or antisocial behavior. The earliest meta-
analysis looked at 67 studies, involving a total of about 300,000 people
(Andison, 1977). Cumulatively, the results revealed a weak positive relation-
ship between exposure to TV violence and subsequent aggression.
Roughly 10 years later, Hearold (1986) examined 230 studies, some of
which looked at the impact of TV on prosocial behavior and others of which
examined the impact on antisocial behavior. Isolating just those involving
antisocial behavior, Hearold found an average effect size (analogous to a
correlation coefficient) of 0.30 (see Figure 5.12). According to scientific
convention, an effect size of 0.10 is considered to be small, 0.30 medium, and
0.5 large. In an update several years later, Paik and Comstock (1994)
examined 217 studies and found an almost identical effect size of 0.31.
Two smaller meta-analyses focused only on a subset of the published
studies on the impact of TV violence. Wood, Wong, and Chachere (1991)
looked at those experiments in which children’s aggressive behavior was actu-
ally observed in social interactions with peers after exposure to TV violence.

A4155C_Gentile.indd 152 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 153

Figure 5.12

The researchers’ goal was to isolate causal studies that employed the most
realistic measures of aggression. Once again, across 23 such experiments,
there was a significant effect of media violence on aggression. Hogben (1998)
examined only those studies that measured naturalistic viewing of TV
violence, eliminating any investigation in which viewing was controlled or
manipulated. Even with this limited group of studies, he too found a signifi-
cant relation between viewing of TV violence and aggressive behavior.
However, the effect size was smaller than that observed when all types of
studies are considered (Hearold, 1986; Paik & Comstock, 1994).
The most recent large-scale meta-analysis by Bushman and Anderson
(2001) examined 212 studies of the effects of media violence, looking for pat-
terns over time. The researchers found that since 1975, the size of the effect
between media violence and aggressive behavior has steadily increased. There
are at least four possible explanations for this trend: people may be spending
more time with the media and consequently with violent portrayals; the sheer
amount of violence in entertainment programming may be increasing; scien-
tific methods for studying the effects of media violence may be improving;
and/or the entertainment industry may be changing the way in which vio-
lence is portrayed by making it more graphic or realistic, hence heightening
the potential for harmful effects on viewers (Bushman & Anderson, 2001).

A4155C_Gentile.indd 153 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 154 Media Violence and Children

In general, all six of the meta-analyses reported here have documented a

positive and significant relation between media violence and aggression. The
size of the effect varies, although two studies agree that it is roughly around
0.30. Another way to interpret this statistic is that roughly 10 percent of the
variance (0.32) in aggressive or antisocial behavior can be attributed to expo-
sure to TV violence. If we use this effect size, it means that in the midst of all
the complex and multiple causes of violence, television is responsible for
roughly 10 percent of the aggression observed in a typical sample of individu-
als. And this statistic is likely to represent a substantial underestimate for
several reasons (Comstock & Strasburger, 1993). First, the unreliability of
measurement reduces the degree of association that can be determined. In
media research, the measures of behavior and of exposure are far from per-
fect. Second, there are virtually no control subjects available with truly low or
zero exposure to TV. Even low-exposure groups experience some amount of
viewing and knowledge about TV violence, thus narrowing the range of
associations possible. Third, the standard analytic approaches used in this
field appear to be overly conservative because they partial out shared variance
among collinear variables (Gentile & Bushman, 2012). Nevertheless, even a
1 percent effect can be significant when considering large populations of
child or adolescent viewers.
As it turns out, the link between media violence and aggressive or antisocial
behavior is actually stronger than many commonly accepted cause-and-effect
associations, such as the relation between calcium intake and bone mass, or
between condom use and decreased risk of contracting HIV (Bushman &
Huesmann, 2012). And the effect is only slightly smaller than that between
smoking and lung cancer, which is nearly 0.40 (see Figure 5.13). Just as not
everyone who smokes will develop lung cancer, not everyone who views
violence on TV will become violent. But the risk is there and it appears to be
quite significant.

Accumulation of Evidence
Collectively, then, there is a great deal of evidence linking media violence
to aggression. Experimental studies have established a cause-and-effect
relationship in short-term situations; surveys have documented this pattern
in large samples of youth; longitudinal studies show that early exposure is
predictive of increases in aggression over time; and meta-analyses of all this
research show a consistent link between exposure to media violence and
aggressive behavior across all types of studies. To be sure, no media researcher
today would claim that watching a single violent film or television show
directly and immediately causes a person to commit aggressive behaviors.
Instead, repeated and cumulative exposure to media violence is seen as a risk
factor that contributes to the development of aggression over time (see
chapter 2 of this volume).

A4155C_Gentile.indd 154 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 155

Figure 5.13
A Comparison of the Media Violence-Aggression Lin with Othr Public Health
Relationships that have been Established Scientifically

Source: Reprinted from Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan (2014), with permission.

Despite fairly strong convergence of findings, there are a few researchers

who raise doubts about the evidence. Gunter (2008) has highlighted the
shortcomings of particular studies and argues that effect sizes are small.
Ferguson and Kilburn (2009, 2010) have conducted their own meta-analyses,
whereby they include unpublished studies and exclude studies with poor mea-
sures of aggression. They find a much smaller effect size (but still significant!),
and conclude that there is little evidence that media violence increases aggres-
sive behavior. Ferguson and Kilburn’s work has been criticized by some of the
most renowned media scholars in the field (Bushman, Rothstein, & Anderson,
2010; Huesmann, 2010; see chapter 12, this volume, for details).
Beyond the research community, several of the major health-related
professional associations in the United States (e.g., American Medical
Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of
Pediatrics) have each independently reviewed the accumulated evidence from
the last 50 years; they all assert that exposure to screen violence increases the
risk of aggressive behavior among youth.

WHY DOES TV VIOLENCE ENCOURAGE AGGRESSION?

There are several well-supported theories that help explain how media vio-
lence can contribute to aggression (see chapter 4, this volume). Observational
or social learning theory is perhaps the oldest and most popular theoretical
explanation. According to Bandura (1977), children learn new behaviors by
direct experience or by observing and imitating others in their social

A4155C_Gentile.indd 155 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 156 Media Violence and Children

environment. The rewards or punishments that role models experience are

crucial in determining whether certain behaviors will be imitated. As dis-
cussed above, children are more likely to imitate a behavior that is rewarded
or that goes unpunished (Bandura, 1965). Even Hollywood seems to accept
this theory. As a well-known producer once stated:

I’d be lying if I said that people don’t imitate what they see on the screen. I would be
a moron to say they don’t, because look how dress styles change. We have people who
want to look like Julia Roberts and Michelle Pfeiffer and Madonna. Of course we imi-
tate. It would be impossible for me to think they would imitate our dress, our music,
our look, but not imitate any of our violence or our other actions. (Cited in Auletta,
1993, p. 45)

In the 1980s, Bandura (1986) revised his theory to include cognitive pro-
cessing variables in observational learning. Now called social cognitive the-
ory, the updated version acknowledges that differences in a child’s attention
to and retention of a model’s behavior can help explain imitational responses.
This larger framework also allows the theory to extend beyond behavioral
outcomes, and to include the learning of aggressive attitudes and normative
beliefs from observing a model (Bushman & Huesmann, 2012).
As an extension of social learning, Huesmann (1986, 1988) has proposed a
theory involving cognitive scripting. Cognitive scripts are mental routines that
are stored in memory and are used to guide behavior (Abelson, 1976). According
to Huesmann (1998), violent television programs provide young people with
scripts that encourage the use of aggression. Once learned, these scripts can be
retrieved from memory at any time, depending on the similarity between the
real situation at hand and the fictional event, as well as the circumstances
surrounding when the script was first encoded (Huesmann, 1998). When an
aggressive script is retrieved, it can be reinforced and broadened to a new set of
circumstances (Geen, 1994). In this way, repeated exposure to media violence
can encourage a child to develop a set of stable cognitive scripts that emphasize
aggression as a typical response to social situations (see Figure 5.14).
Two other theories focus more on how the media might prompt or trigger
already learned aggressive behaviors. Zillmann’s (1991) excitation transfer
theory maintains that media violence can have an impact simply because it is
arousing in nature. According to the theory, exposure to TV violence can
generate excitement that, because it dissipates slowly, can transfer to other
emotional experiences. If a person is already feeling angry or hostile, a stimu-
lating violent TV show can increase the intensity of those feelings and thereby
increase the potential for aggressive responding (Zillmann & Johnson, 1973).
Because of its arousal properties, even erotic media content can increase
aggressive responses in angry or frustrated individuals (Zillmann, 1971).
Berkowitz (1984) proposed a cognitive cueing or priming theory to ac-
count for the short-term instigational effects of media violence (also known

A4155C_Gentile.indd 156 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 157

Figure 5.14
Use of Scripts in Social Situations

Source: Reprinted from Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan (2014), with permission.

as cognitive neoassociation theory). According to Berkowitz, a violent tele-

vision program can activate or “prime” aggressive thoughts in a viewer.
Several conditions can encourage these aggressive thoughts to be turned into
aggressive action, including intense feelings of negative affect or anger
(Berkowitz, 1990), justification for aggressive behavior (Jo & Berkowitz,
1994), and cues in the environment that relate to the program just viewed
(Jo & Berkowitz, 1994). In one of the first tests of this theory, Berkowitz and
Rawlings (1963) conducted a classic experiment using Champion, a boxing
film starring Kirk Douglas. One group of college males viewed a scene in
which Kirk Douglas is brutally beaten; another group viewed a nonviolent
track meet. An experimental assistant—named either “Bob” or “Kirk”
Anderson—angered some of the subjects beforehand. The researchers accu-
rately predicted that aggression (as measured by willingness to give electric

A4155C_Gentile.indd 157 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 158 Media Violence and Children

shocks to the assistant) would be triggered when the subjects were angered;
when they saw a violent movie that primed aggressive thoughts; and when
there was a “cue” in the environment (i.e., name of the target) that resembled
the movie. Dozens of similar experiments have been conducted since, with
similar results (Comstock & Strasburger, 1990).
Together these four theories can account for most of the processes by which
media violence might contribute to aggression. Social cognitive theory focuses
on how particular television programs can teach novel aggressive behaviors to a
child, whereas script theory helps explain how cumulative exposure can foster
the development of aggressive habits and routines during childhood. In con-
trast, excitation transfer and cognitive priming are applicable to those situations
in which media violence seems to trigger immediate violent responses, particu-
larly among those who are predisposed to act aggressively, as well as those who
already have a repertoire of aggressive behaviors at their disposal. More recently,
Anderson and Bushman (2002a) developed the General Aggression Model
(GAM), which attempts to integrate these smaller theories into one unifying
framework. GAM focuses on both individual and situational factors that can
influence aggression; it acknowledges that cognitions, emotions, and arousal
interact in ways that produce aggression; and it accounts for the initial develop-
ment as well as the persistence of aggressive behavior (see chapter 4).

THE MYTH OF CATHARSIS

In his Poetics, Aristotle suggested that theatregoers could be purged vicari-
ously of their feelings of grief, fear, or pity. The idea that aggression can be
“purged” through exposure to fantasy violence is derived from psychoana-
lytic theories of various “energies” coursing through the body like ancient
“humours,” just waiting to be drained (although this is an incorrect interpre-
tation of what Aristotle was saying; Gentile, 2013). Obviously, this is an idea
that has been quite popular in the Hollywood community (Plagen, Miller,
Foote, & Yoffe, 1991) and even among the general public. A few early studies
seemed to support the notion of catharsis (Feshbach 1955, 1961), but they
had methodological problems (see Liebert & Sprafkin, 1988). Furthermore,
the scientific evidence reviewed above overwhelmingly shows that media
violence has quite the opposite effect. In other words, in over 40 years of
research there has been no substantiation of the catharsis theory (Gentile, 2013;
Huesmann, Dubow, & Yang, 2013).

Relational or Social Aggression

Aggressive behavior is not always physical in nature. Increasingly, develop-
mental psychologists and pediatricians have come to realize that there are
more subtle forms of aggression, such as gossiping, spreading rumors, or en-
gaging in insulting or mean talk (Ostrov & Godleski, 2010). Such relational

A4155C_Gentile.indd 158 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 159

Figure 5.15
Types of Verbal and Nonverbal Social Aggression in Programs Popular
among Children

Source: Reprinted from Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan (2014), with permission.

or social aggression is intended to harm another person emotionally rather

than physically. Social aggression seems to be more common among girls
than boys (Spieker et al., 2012).
Recent research indicates that social aggression is quite common on televi-
sion. A content analysis of the 50 most-watched programs among 2- to

A4155C_Gentile.indd 159 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 160 Media Violence and Children

11-year-olds found that 92 percent of the shows contained social aggression

(Martins & Wilson, 2012a) (see Figure 5.15). Furthermore, a typical hour of
such programming featured 14 different incidents of social aggression.
Several studies have assessed whether there is a link between media
exposure and relational aggression (see chapter 7, this volume):

• A study of preschoolers found that media exposure was positively associated with
physical aggression for boys and relational aggression for girls (Ostrov, Gentile, &
Crick, 2006).
• A recent longitudinal study of more than 400 grade school children found that
heavy exposure to media violence at the beginning of the school year predicted
higher levels of both physical and relational aggression later in the year (Gentile,
Coyne, & Walsh, 2011).
• Martins and Wilson (2012b) specifically examined programs high in social aggres-
sion and found that among elementary schoolers, exposure to such content was
significantly related to greater social aggression for girls but not for boys.

MEDIA VIOLENCE AND FEAR OF VICTIMIZATION

By far, most of the research to date has concentrated on the impact of
media violence on aggression. However, in recent years increasing attention
has been paid to two other types of effects that can occur as a result of watch-
ing violent programs and movies: fear and desensitization (Cantor, 2009;
Cantor, Byrne, Moyer-Gusé, & Riddle, 2010; Farr, 2012; Krahe et al., 2011;
Potter, 1999; Smith et al., 1998a, 1998b; Wilson et al., 1997).
Experiencing short-term fright reactions to the media is a common occur-
rence and often is a consequence of viewing material that is violent. According
to one study, more than 90 percent of college students could vividly remem-
ber a film or TV program that caused them intense fear when they were
young (Harrison & Cantor, 1999). TV news stories may be particularly scary
for younger children (Riddle, Cantor, Byrne, & Moyer-Gusé, 2012; Otto et
al., 2007). Chapter 6 in this volume, by Cantor and Riddle, provides an
overview of short-term and even long-term fright reactions to the media,
particularly those experienced by children. Such fear, which is intensely
emotional and often physiological, can be contrasted with another type of
fear that is more cognitive and even attitudinal in nature—fear of victimiza-
tion (Potter, 1999).
Gerbner and his colleagues have coined the term “mean world syndrome”
to explain how heavy viewers of TV develop a greater sense of mistrust and
apprehension about the real world (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli,
1994). According to their theory, television “cultivates” a view of social reality
in viewers. Studies of children as well as adults support this; heavy viewers of
television routinely perceive the world as a more violent place and give higher
estimates of their own risk of being a victim of violence than do light viewers

A4155C_Gentile.indd 160 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 161

(see Morgan, Shanahan, & Signorielli, 2009). Though most of the evidence
to support cultivation theory is correlational in nature, there are a few experi-
ments demonstrating that repeated exposure to television violence can
elevate fear and anxiety about real-world violence (Bryant, Carveth, & Brown,
1981; Ogles & Hoffner, 1987). There is also longitudinal research showing
that early exposure to adult-oriented violent TV programs is positively
correlated with children’s beliefs that the world is a fearful and dangerous
place (Singer, Singer, & Rapaczynski, 1984).
Cultivation theory has been critiqued on both methodological and concep-
tual grounds (Hawkins & Pingree, 1980; Hughes, 1980; Potter, 1993), and in
1980, the theory was refined to acknowledge that the cultivation relationship
might vary across different subgroups of individuals (Gerbner, Gross,
Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980). More recently, researchers have been testing
cognitive processing models to help explain the cultivation effect (Shrum,
2009). In spite of these rigorous challenges to the theory, the data have been
remarkably consistent over time (Potter, 1999). Indeed, a meta-analysis of
over 20 years of cultivation research found a small but consistent relation
between exposure to television and perceptions of violence in the real world
(Morgan & Shanahan, 1996). As Shrum (2001) stated, “The notion that the
viewing of television program content is related to people’s perceptions of
reality is virtually undisputed in the social sciences” (p. 94).

MEDIA VIOLENCE AND DESENSITIZATION

Desensitization refers to the idea that repeated exposure to a certain stimu-
lus can lead to reduced emotional and physiological responsiveness to it. In
clinical settings, desensitization techniques are used to treat people’s phobias.
If desensitization to media violence exists, it could explain the public’s appar-
ent callousness towards this issue and its acceptance of even more violence in
television programming and movies (Strasburger & Comstock, 1993). In
their book High Tech, High Touch: Technology and Our Search for Meaning, three
critics of modern culture write (Naisbitt, Naisbitt, & Philips, 1999):

In a culture of electronic violence, images that once caused us to empathize with the
pain and trauma of another human being excite a momentary adrenaline rush. To be
numb to another’s pain—to be acculturated to violence—is arguably one of the worst
consequences our technological advances have wrought. That indifference transfers
from the screen, TV, film, Internet, and electronic games to our everyday lives
through seemingly innocuous consumer technologies. (pp. 90–91)

Do studies support the notion of desensitization? The answer is an un-

qualified yes. Research shows quite clearly that physiological arousal becomes
lessened with continued exposure to media violence (Cline, Croft, & Courrier,
1973). Subjects’ heart rates and skin conductance decrease over time during

A4155C_Gentile.indd 161 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 162 Media Violence and Children

Figure 5.16

prolonged exposure to violence, even within a single program (Lazarus &

Alfert, 1964). In one study, both children and adults showed less physiologi-
cal arousal during a scene of real-life violence after viewing a violent drama
on TV (Thomas, Horton, Lippincott, & Drabman, 1977).
A far greater concern, of course, is whether this physiological numbing trans-
lates into a callousness or indifference to violence (see Figure 5.16). Numerous
experiments suggest that it can. In one early study, children who had been ex-
posed to a violent television show were less ready to intervene when a pair of
preschoolers broke into a fight than were children who had seen a nonviolent
TV program (Thomas & Drabman, 1975). In fact, many of the children in the
violent viewing group never left the room to get help even though they had
been instructed to do so. Other studies also have documented a callousness to
real-world aggression in children after exposing them to fictional portrayals of
violence (Drabman & Thomas, 1974; Molitor & Hirsch, 1994).
Perhaps not surprisingly, adults show the same effect (Bushman & Anderson,
2009). For example, several experiments have shown that exposing college
students to a series of slasher films makes them less sympathetic toward an
alleged rape victim and more inclined to hold her responsible for her own rape
(Donnerstein & Smith, 2001; Linz, Donnerstein, & Penrod, 1984).

A4155C_Gentile.indd 162 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 163

Figure 5.17
Perceptions of Domestic Violence Victim Days after Desensitization to
Media Violence

Source: Reprinted from Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan (2014), with permission.

Clearly, desensitization is not only a real and verifiable process, it also has
important implications for society. Have levels of media violence increased
because the American population has become desensitized? Have Americans
become less empathic with victims of violence? Are Americans less willing to
come to the aid of a victim now than they were 50 years ago? Could desensi-
tization explain some of the recent schoolyard shootings (Strasburger &
Grossman, 2001)? Could it also explain why certain elements in society are
willing to consider inflicting the death penalty on mentally ill perpetrators or
imprisoning 12-year-old juvenile offenders for life? These are all debatable
issues that underscore the importance of continuing to examine desensitiza-
tion as a harmful outcome of repeated exposure to media violence.
One interesting question remains: Is desensitization a transitory or a per-
manent byproduct of media violence? Can people become resensitized to
real-world violence? In a 1995 experiment, male college students were
exposed to three slasher films during a six-day period (Mullin & Linz, 1995).
In a supposedly unrelated experiment, they were then asked three, five, or
seven days later to watch a documentary about domestic abuse. Results
revealed that those who had seen the slasher films only three days earlier were
less sympathetic to domestic violence victims and rated their injuries as less
severe than did a control group (see Figure 5.17). However, those who had
viewed the slasher films five and seven days earlier showed levels of sympathy
that had “rebounded” to the baseline level of the control group. In other
words, desensitization seemed to diminish after a three-day period. Of course,
the notion of resensitization requires that a person no longer be exposed to

A4155C_Gentile.indd 163 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 164 Media Violence and Children

violent media during the “recovery” period, something that is virtually

impossible these days if any media are consumed.
One important element of desensitization is that it appears to be a rela-
tively automatic (and autonomic) process. Therefore, people are not aware
that they have become desensitized—although they may be perfectly willing
to accept that others have been. This tendency is called the “third-person
effect,” a well-documented phenomenon whereby people assume that others
are influenced more by the media than they themselves are (Perloff, 2009).
The challenge, then, is to discover ways in which viewers can be made aware
of the potential for desensitization to occur, especially among those who
consume a great deal of media violence.

CAN TELEVISION VIOLENCE BE PROSOCIAL?

One common technique in many violent programs, especially those tar-
geted at children, is to include a prosocial message or lesson at the end of the
plot. Superhero shows such as the Green Lantern and Batman: The Animated
Series employ this strategy in nearly every episode. It is tempting to assume
that such devices might encourage children to behave in prosocial ways, as is
true of many nonviolent programs on television (Mares & Woodard, 2001).
However, research cautions against this assumption. In one study, 68 children
between the ages of 4 and 10 were exposed to an episode of Power Rangers and
interviewed about it afterward (McKenna & Ossoff, 1998). When asked
about the most important thing they remembered from the show, younger
children referred mostly to the fighting sequences in the show. Only the 8- to
10-year-olds referred to the moral theme of the episode—that it is more
important to work than to play. When asked directly what the main theme or
message of the episode was, once again strong age differences emerged. The
oldest children were significantly more likely to recognize the theme than
were those under age eight.
Though younger children may misunderstand these messages, even more
troubling is the potential impact of “prosocial” violence on viewer aggres-
sion. In two experiments, Liss and her colleagues (1983) exposed kindergar-
ten, second-, and fourth-grade children to different versions of a cartoon: a)
a purely prosocial one with no violence in it, b) a prosocial one with violence
in it, and c) a purely violent one with no prosocial theme in it. After viewing
television, children had an opportunity to “help” or “hurt” a peer in a game
situation. The researchers found that regardless of age, children had more
difficulty comprehending the prosocial message when it was couched in
violence than when it was seen with no violence. Consistent with the confus-
ing nature of such messages, the youngest children were more likely to en-
gage in aggression than prosocial helping behavior after viewing the
prosocial-violent cartoon. In other words, the superhero’s violent behavior
was more salient than his prosocial words were. In fact, the prosocial-violent

A4155C_Gentile.indd 164 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 165

cartoon produced more imitative aggression among kindergartners than did

the purely violent cartoon.
These findings suggest that one of the most potent ways to teach aggression
to young viewers is to couch the behavior in a moralistic context. Indeed, vio-
lence that is depicted as being justified is one of the most strongly reinforcing
elements in whether it will be learned or imitated (see Paik & Comstock,
1994). According to Comstock (1991), key factors that determine how
violence will be interpreted by viewers include efficacy, or whether violence
results in the achievement of desired goals, and normativeness, or whether the
violence is portrayed as socially acceptable. Both of these factors are high-
lighted in most action-adventure programs that feature superheroes.
Is it possible, then, for violent programming to ever have a positive impact
on children and adolescents? One unique study suggests that under certain
circumstances, it is possible. In June 1998, Court TV funded a study to assess
this issue (Wilson et al., 1999). More than 500 teenagers from three different
California middle schools were randomly assigned to receive or not receive
the Choices and Consequences curriculum in school. The three-week curricu-
lum involved viewing videotaped court cases about real teens who have en-
gaged in risky behavior that resulted in someone dying. For example, in one
case a group of teens pushed a young boy off of a railroad trestle and he
drowned. Each week, the students watched portions of the trial, discussed the
cases, engaged in role-playing, and completed homework based on the cases.
Compared with the control group, the teens involved in the curriculum
showed significantly reduced verbal aggression and physical aggression. They
also had increased empathy. In other words, exposure to programming that
emphasizes the lifelong negative consequences of antisocial behavior can
have prosocial effects on teens, at least when paired with active discussions of
the content.
Huesmann, Eron, Klein, Brice, and Fischer (1983) demonstrated that a
slightly different curriculum could work with even younger age groups. In
the study, second and fourth graders wrote essays about the unrealistic nature
of violent programming as well as the impact of TV violence on young
viewers. They were then videotaped reading their essays. Compared with a
control group, these children displayed more negative attitudes about TV
violence and decreased their aggressive behavior up to four months after the
intervention.
Thus, violent programming can be used in structured situations to teach
children about the dangers associated with it and with antisocial behavior
more generally. In support of this idea, a recent meta-analysis of nine studies
found that media literacy programs can effectively change how people
respond to screen violence (Jeong, Cho, & Hwang, 2012). However, some
researchers caution that showing violent video clips, even in the context of
media literacy, may inadvertently stimulate aggressive thoughts and attitudes
among children (Byrne, Linz, & Potter, 2009).

A4155C_Gentile.indd 165 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 166 Media Violence and Children

Rather than relying on formal literacy programs, research suggests that

even parents can employ critical viewing strategies that will decrease the
impact of media violence on their children (Nathanson, 1999). Some
programs may teach these lessons without the need for adult intervention.
Hollywood pundits would point to such movies as Boyz in the Hood, Schindler’s
List, and Unforgiven as being powerfully antiviolent. Although there are no
formal studies of the impact of any of these films, all are examples of the fact
that sometimes violence needs to be portrayed in order to convey an anti-
violence message. Clearly, the context that violence is portrayed in is crucial in
determining its impact.

CONCLUSIONS
During the 1990s, the United States was shocked by an apparent epidemic
of schoolyard shootings, ranging from Jonesboro, Arkansas, to Springfield,
Oregon, to Littleton, Colorado. In January 2001, a 12-year-old boy was
found guilty of murdering a six-year-old girl. He said that he was imitating
wrestling moves he had seen on WWF Smackdown by Dwayne “The Rock”
Johnson. The boy weighed 180 pounds, the girl 48 pounds (Clary, 2001). In
2012, the nation was shaken by mass shootings in Tucson, Aurora, and
Newtown. American society seems to be still asking the same question today
as Senator Kefauver asked in 1954: Does media violence cause real-life
violence?
As we have seen, the scientific literature is robust and consistent in sup-
porting the idea that media violence can contribute to the development of
aggressive attitudes and behaviors in childhood and even adulthood. Effect
sizes range from small to medium in size, depending on the types of studies
involved (see Figure 5.18) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002b; Comstock &
Strasburger, 1993).
Certainly, other factors are at work too, including poverty, racism, drugs,
and unique personality factors. Witnessing violence is important as well (Buka,
Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001). In one study of 175 9- to 12-year-olds
who visited a large urban pediatric primary care clinic, 97 percent reportedly
had been exposed to real-life violence (Purugganan, Stein, Silver, & Benenson,
2000). In fact, 31 percent had witnessed someone being shot, stabbed, or
killed. Another study found that exposure to real-life violence, along with
parental monitoring, television viewing habits, and certain demographic
variables, explained nearly half of 2,245 children’s self-reported violent behav-
iors (Singer et al., 1999). If witnessing violence in real life increases the risk of
aggressive behavior, it seems reasonable to expect that witnessing it on TV—
vicariously—should have an effect as well.
American television not only provides countless ways to witness violence,
but it also prominently features gun use in this aggression. For example, one
fourth of all violent interactions on TV involve guns (Smith, Boyson, Pieper,

A4155C_Gentile.indd 166 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 167

Figure 5.18

& Wilson, 2001). Moreover, a typical viewer will witness an average of nearly
two gun-related violent incidents for every hour he or she watches television.
Movies also commonly feature guns. A recent study of the 100 top-grossing
movies between 1995 and 2004 found that 70 percent contained at least one
scene with a firearm (Binswanger & Cowan, 2009). Firearm depictions
accounted for 17 percent of the screen time in these movies, and the majority
of movies were rated PG-13.
Despite their alignment with entertainment media, guns are serious busi-
ness in this country. Among U.S. teens and young adults, the death rate due to
firearms is 43 times higher than among young people in 23 other industrial-
ized countries combined (Children’s Defense Fund, 2012). In 2008 and 2009
alone, over 5,000 children and teens died from guns in this country, which
translates to one young victim every three hours (Children’s Defense Fund,
2012). Although there are no data that directly link the viewing of media
gunplay with actual gun-related offenses in real life, a meta-analysis of 56
experiments found that the mere presence of weapons, either in pictures or in
the actual environment, significantly enhanced aggressive behavior in angered
and nonangered participants (Carlson, Marcus-Newhall, & Miller, 1990).
Obviously, not all children will develop aggressive habits after watching
extensive amounts of television violence. But other outcomes such as fear of
victimization and desensitization are well documented in the literature and

A4155C_Gentile.indd 167 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 168 Media Violence and Children

may actually occur more often and among greater numbers of viewers.
Donnerstein and his colleagues (1994) offer one way to appreciate how
widespread the impact of media violence can be across different types of
individuals. After reviewing the scientific literature, they identified the
following effects:

• an aggressor effect of increased meanness, aggression, and even violence toward

others;
• a victim effect of increased fearfulness, mistrust, or “mean world syndrome,” and
self-protective behavior;
• a bystander effect of increased desensitization, callousness, and behavioral apathy
toward other victims of violence; and
• an appetite effect of increased self-initiated behavior to further expose oneself to
violent material (p. 240).

To return to the beginning of this chapter, Senator Kefauver’s question

from 60 years ago seems somewhat narrow today. Yes, there is a relation
between media violence and real-life aggression. But the relation is certainly
complex and probably reciprocal. If the basic question has been answered,
then the more critical questions for researchers, parents, and makers of
public policy in the twenty-first century are these: What types of violent
portrayals pose the greatest risk of viewers learning aggression, becoming
frightened, or experiencing desensitization? What types of individuals are
most at risk for these effects? What can we do to ameliorate such harmful
outcomes?

REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P. (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision-making. In
J. Carroll & J. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002a). Human aggression. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 27–51.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002b). The effects of media violence on society.
Science, 295, 2377–2378.
Andison, F. S. (1977). TV violence and viewer aggressiveness: A cumulation of study
results. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 314–331.
Auletta, K. (1993, May 17). Annals of communication: What won’t they do. The New
Yorker, 69, 45–53.
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisi-
tion of imitative response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1,
589–595.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A4155C_Gentile.indd 168 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 169

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation
of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963a). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive
models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3–11.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963b). Various reinforcement and imitative
learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 601–607.
Belson, W. A. (1978). Television violence and the adolescent boy. Westmead, UK: Teakfield.
Berkowitz, L. & Rawlings, E. (1963). Effects of film violence on inhibitions against
subsequent aggression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 405–412.
Berkowitz, L. (1984). Some effects of thoughts on anti- and prosocial influences of
media events: A cognitive-neoassociation analysis. American Psychologist, 45,
494–503.
Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A
cognitive neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45, 494–503.
Binswanger, I. A., & Cowan, J. A. (2009). Firearms in major motion pictures, 1995–
2004. Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 66(3), 906–911.
Boyatzis, J., Matillo, G. M., & Nesbitt, K. M. (1995). Effects of the “Mighty Morphin
Power Rangers” on children’s aggression with peers. Child Study Journal, 25,
45–55.
Bryant, J., Carveth, R. A., & Brown, D. (1981). Television viewing and anxiety: An
experimental examination. Journal of Communication, 31(1), 106–109.
Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to
violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
71, 298–310.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public:
Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477–489.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2009). Comfortably numb: Desensitizing effects
of violent media on helping others. Psychological Science, 20, 273–277.
Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2012). Effects of violent media on aggression. In
D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (2nd ed.,
pp. 231–248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bushman, B. J., Rothstein, H. R., & Anderson, C. A. (2010). Much ado about some-
thing: Violent video game effects and a school of red herring: Reply to Ferguson
and Kilburn (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 182–187.
Byrne, S., Linz, D., & Potter, J. (2009). A test of competing cognitive explanations for
the boomerang effect in response to the deliberate disruption of media-induced
aggression. Media Psychology, 12(3), 227–248.
Cantor, J. (2009). Fright reactions to mass media. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.),
Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 287–303). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cantor, J., Byrne, S., Moyer-Gusé, E., & Riddle, K. (2010). Descriptions of media-
induced fright reactions in a sample of U.S. elementary school children. Journal
of Children and Media, 4, 1–17.
Carlson, M., Marcus-Newhall, A., & Miller, N. (1990). Effects of situational aggres-
sion cues: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58,
622–633.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Youth violence. http://www.cdc.
gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv-datasheet-a.pdf

A4155C_Gentile.indd 169 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 170 Media Violence and Children

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Surveillance: United States, 2012. MMWR 2012, 61(SS-4), 1–162.
Centerwall, B. S. (1992). Television and violence: The scale of the problem and where
to go from here. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 22–25.
Children’s Defense Fund. (2012). Protect children, not guns 2012. http://www.
childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-
not-guns-2012.pdf
Clary, M. (2001, January 25). Defense pulls pro-wrestling into murder trial: Today a
Florida jury begins to consider whether a 12-year-old was simply imitating TV
heroes when he killed his playmate, 6; The boy faces life in prison. Los Angeles
Times, pp. A1, A5.
Cline, V. B., Croft, R. G., & Courrier, S. (1973). Desensitization of children to tele-
vision violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 450–458.
Comstock, G. (1991). Television and the American child. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Comstock, G., & Powers, J. (2012). Paths from television violence to aggression:
Reinterpreting the evidence. In L. J. Shrum (Ed.), The psychology of entertain-
ment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion (2nd ed.,
pp. 305–328). New York, NY: Routledge.
Comstock, G., & Strasburger, V. C. (1990). Deceptive appearances: Television
violence and aggressive behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 11, 31–44.
Comstock, G., & Strasburger, V. C. (1993). Media violence: Q & A. Adolescent
Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, 4, 495–509.
Council on Communications and Media. (2009). Media violence (policy statement).
Pediatrics, 124, 1495–1503.
Dominick, J. R., & Greenberg, B. S. (1972). Attitudes toward violence: The inter-
action of television exposure, family attitudes, and social class. In G. A.
Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior: Television and
adolescent aggressiveness (Vol. 3, pp. 314–335). Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
Donnerstein, E., Slaby, R. G., & Eron, L. D. (1994). The mass media and youth
aggression. In L. D. Eron & J. H. Gentry & P. Schlegel (Eds.), A reason to hope:
A psychological perspective on youth & violence (pp. 219–250). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Donnerstein, E., & Smith, S. (2001). Sex in the media. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer
(Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 289–307). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Drabman, R. S., & Thomas, M. H. (1974). Does media violence increase children’s
toleration of real-life aggression? Developmental Psychology, 10, 418–421.
Duke, N. N., Pettingell, S. L., McMorris, B. J., & Borowsky, I. W. (2010). Adolescent
violence perpetration: Associations with multiple types of adverse childhood
experiences. Pediatrics, 125, e778–e786.
Eron, L. D. (1997). The development of antisocial behavior from a learning perspec-
tive. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial
behavior (pp. 140–147). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Farr, J. (2012, July 21). When movie violence helps inspire real violence, isn’t it time
to tone it down? Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-farr/
when-movie-violence-inspi_b_1692208.html

A4155C_Gentile.indd 170 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 171

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The public health risks of media violence: A
meta-analytic review. The Journal of Pediatrics, 154(5), 759–763.
Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation
and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in Eastern and Western
nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(2),
174–178.
Feshbach, S. (1955). The drive-reducing function of fantasy behavior. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 3–11.
Feshbach, S. (1961). The stimulating versus cathartic effects of a vicarious aggressive
activity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 381–385.
Fowles, J. (1999). The case for television violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Freedman, J. L. (1984). Effect of television violence on aggressiveness. Psychological
Bulletin, 96, 227–246.
Freedman, J. L. (1986). Television violence and aggression: A rejoinder. Psychological
Bulletin, 100, 372–373.
Garbarino, J. (2001). Lost boys: Why our sons turn violent and how we can save them.
Smith College Studies in Social Work, 71, 167–181.
Geen, R. G. (1994). Television and aggression: Recent developments in research and
theory. In D. Zillmann, J. Bryant, & A. C. Huston (Eds.), Media, children, and
the family: Social, scientific, psychodynamic, and clinical perspectives (pp. 151–162).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gentile, D. A. (2013). Catharsis and media violence: A conceptual analysis. Societies, 3,
491–510. doi:10.3390/soc3040491
Gentile, D. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Reassessing media violence effects using a
risk and resilience approach to understanding aggression. Psychology of Popular
Media Culture, 1, 138–151.
Gentile, D. A., Coyne, S., & Walsh, D. A. (2011). Media violence, physical aggres-
sion, and relational aggression in school age children: A short-term longitudi-
nal study. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 193–206.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The “mainstream-
ing” of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30(3),
10–29.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with tele-
vision: The cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media
effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Glascock, J. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression on prime-time network television.
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 52, 268–281.
Grossman, D., & DeGaetano, G. (1999). Stop teaching our kids to kill: A call to action
against TV, movie and video game violence. New York, NY: Crown.
Gunter, B. (2008). Media violence: Is there a case for causality? American Behavioral
Scientist, 51(8), 1061–1122.
Hanratty, M. A., O’Neal, E., & Sulzer, J. L. (1972). Effect of frustration upon
imitation of aggression. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 21, 30–34.
Harrison, K. & Cantor, J. (1999). Tales from the screen: Enduring fright reactions to
scary media. Media Psychology, 1, 97–116.
Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1980). Some processes in the cultivation effect.
Communication Research, 7, 193–226.

A4155C_Gentile.indd 171 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 172 Media Violence and Children

Hearold, S. (1986). A synthesis of 1045 effects of television on social behavior. In

G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communication and behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 65–133).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hogben, M. (1998). Factors moderating the effect of televised aggression on viewer
behavior. Communication Research, 25, 220–247.
Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between
exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social
Issues, 42, 125–139.
Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of
aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13–24.
Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive
schemas in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior.
In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research,
and implications for social policy (pp. 1120–1134). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Huesmann, L. R. (2007). The impact of electronic media violence: Scientific theory
and research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S6–S13.
Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Nailing the coffin shut on doubts that violent video games
stimulate aggression: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin,
136(2), 179–181.
Huesmann, L. R., Dubow, E. F., & Yang, G. (2013). Why it is hard to believe
that media violence causes aggression. In K. E. Dill (Ed.), The Oxford hand-
book of media psychology (pp. 159–171). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Huesmann, L. R., & Eron, L. D. (1986). Television and the aggressive child: A cross
national comparison. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Huesmann, L. R., & Miller, L. S. (1994). Long-term effects of repeated exposure to
media violence in childhood. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior:
Current perspectives. (pp. 153–186). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Klein, R., Brice, P., & Fischer, P. (1983). Mitigating
the imitation of aggressive behaviors by changing children’s attitudes
about media violence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 44, 899–910.
Huesmann, L. R., Lagerspetz, K., & Eron, L. D. (1984). Intervening variables in the
TV violence-aggression relation: Evidence from two countries. Developmental
Psychology, 20, 746–775.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal
relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and
violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39,
2001–2021.
Hughes, M. (1980). The fruits of cultivation analysis: A re-examination of television
in fear of victimization, alienation, and approval of violence. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 44, 287–302.
Huston, A. C., Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H. H., Feshbach, N. D., Katz, P. A.,
Murray, J. P., Rubinstein, E. A., Wilcox, B. L., & Zuckerman, D. (1992). Big
world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Jeong, S., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 454–472.

A4155C_Gentile.indd 172 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 173

Jo, E., & Berkowitz, L. (1994). A priming effect analysis of media influences: An
update. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and
research (pp. 43–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Smailes, E. M., Kasen, S., & Brook, J. S. (2002). Television
viewing and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood. Science,
295, 2468–2471.
Joy, L. A., Kimball, M. M., & Zabrack, M. L. (1986). Television and children’s
aggressive behavior. In T. M. Williams (Ed.), The impact of television: A natu-
ral experiment in three communities (pp. 303–360). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Krahe, B., Moller, I., Huesmann, L. R., Kirwil, L., Felber, J., & Berger, A. (2011).
Desensitization to media violence: Links with habitual media violence
exposure, aggressive cognitions, and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 100, 630–646.
Kuntsche, E., Pickett, W., Overpeck, M., Craig, W., Boyce, W., & deMatos, M. G.
(2006). Television viewing and forms of bullying among adolescents from eight
countries. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 908–915.
Lazarus, R. S., & Alfert, E. (1964). Short-circuiting of threat by experimentally altering
cognitive appraisal. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 69, 195–205.
Lee, C., Cronley, C., White, H.R., Mun, E-Y., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Loeber R.
(2012). Racial differences in the consequences of childhood maltreatment for
adolescent and young adult depression, heavy drinking, and violence. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 50, 443–449.
Lefkowitz, M. M., Eron, L. D., Walder, L. O., & Huesmann, L. R. (1972).
Television violence and child aggression: A follow-up study. In G. A.
Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior: Television
and adolescent aggressiveness (Vol. 3, pp. 33–135). Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Liebert, R. M., & Sprafkin, J. (1988). The early window: Effects of television on children
and youth (3rd ed.). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Linder, J., & Lyle, K. (2011). A content analysis of indirect, verbal, and physical
aggression in television programs popular among school-aged girls. American
Journal of Media Psychology, 4, 24–42.
Linz, D., Donnerstein, E., & Penrod, S. (1984). The effects of multiple exposures to
filmed violence against women. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 130–147.
Liss, M. B., Reinhardt, L. C., & Fredriksen, S. (1983). TV heroes: The impact of
rhetoric and deeds. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4, 175–187.
Losel, F., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Direct protective and buffering protective
factors in the development of youth violence. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 43(Suppl. 1), S8–S23.
Mares, M.-L., & Woodard, E. H. (2001). Prosocial effects on children’s social interac-
tions. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media
(pp. 183–205). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Martins, N., & Wilson, B. J. (2012a). Mean on the screen: Social aggression in
programs popular with children. Journal of Communication, 62, 991–1009.
Martins, N., & Wilson, B. J. (2012b). Social aggression on television and its relation-
ship to children’s aggression in the classroom. Human Communication Research,
38, 48–71.

A4155C_Gentile.indd 173 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 174 Media Violence and Children

McIntyre, J. J., & Teevan, J. J., Jr. (1972). Television violence and deviant behavior. In
G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior:
Television and adolescent aggressiveness (Vol. 3, pp. 173–238). Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
McKenna, M. W., & Ossoff, E. P. (1998). Age differences in children’s comprehension
of a popular television program. Child Study Journal, 28, 53–68.
McLeod, J. M., Atkin, C. K., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). Adolescents, parents, and tele-
vision use: Adolescent self-report measures from Maryland and Wisconsin
samples. In G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social be-
havior: Television and adolescent aggressiveness (Vol. 3, pp. 173–238). Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
Media Violence Commission, International Society for Research on Aggression
(ISRA). (2012). Aggressive Behavior, 38, 335–341.
Molitor, F., & Hirsch, K. W. (1994). Children’s toleration of real-life aggression after
exposure to media violence: A replication of the Drabman and Thomas studies.
Child Study Journal, 24, 191–207.
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (1996). Two decades of cultivation analysis: An appraisal
and a meta-analysis. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 20,
pp. 1–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2009). Growing up with television:
Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & M. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances
in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 34–49). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mullin, C. R., & Linz, D. (1995). Desensitization and resensitization to violence
against women: Effects of exposure to sexually violent films on judgments of
domestic violence victims. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69,
449–459.
Naisbitt, J., Naisbitt, N., & Philips, D. (1999). High tech, high touch: Technology and our
search for meaning. New York, NY: Broadway.
Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental
mediation and children’s aggression. Communication Research, 26, 124–143.
Nielsen Company. (2012). Global report: multi-screen media usage, May 15, 2012.
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/global-report-multi-screen-
media-usage/
Ogles, R. M., & Hoffner, C. (1987). Film violence and perceptions of crime: The
cultivation effect. In M. L. Mclaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 10,
pp. 384–394). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ostrov, J. M., Gentile, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (2006). Media exposure, aggression and
prosocial behavior during early childhood: A longitudinal study. Social
Development, 15, 612–627.
Ostrov, J. M., & Godleski, S. A. (2010). Toward an integrated gender-linked model of
aggression subtypes in early and middle childhood. Psychological Review, 117(1),
233–242.
Otto, M. W., Henin, A., Hirshfeld-Becker, D. R., Pollack, M. H., Biederman, J., &
Rosenbaum, J. F. (2007). Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms following
media exposure to tragic events: Impact of 9/11 on children at risk for anxiety
disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 888–902.

A4155C_Gentile.indd 174 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 175

Paik, H. J., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial
behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516–546.
Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In
J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research
(pp. 252–268). New York, NY: Routledge.
Plagens, P., Miller, M., Foote, D., & Yoffe, E. (1991, April 1). Violence in our culture.
Newsweek, 117 (U.S. ed.), 46–52.
Potter, W. J. (1993). Cultivation theory and research: A conceptual critique. Human
Communication Research, 19, 564–601.
Potter, W. J. (1999). On media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Purugganan, O. H., Stein, R. E. K., Silver, E. J., & Benenson, B. S. (2000). Exposure
to violence among urban school-aged children: Is it only on television?
Pediatrics, 106, 949–953.
Ramirez, J. M. (2003). Hormones and aggression in childhood and adolescence.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 621–644.
Riddle, K., Cantor, J., Byrne, S., & Moyer-Gusé, E. (2012). “People killing people on
the news”: Young children’s descriptions of frightening television news
content. Communication Quarterly, 60, 278–294.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives
of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Robertson, L. A., McAnally, H. M., & Hancox, R. J. (2013). Childhood and adoles-
cent television viewing and antisocial behavior in early adulthood. Pediatrics,
131, 439–446.
Robinson, J. P., & Bachman, J. G. (1972). Television viewing habits and aggression. In
G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior:
Television and adolescent aggressiveness (Vol. 3, pp. 173–238). Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Rothenberg, M. B. (1975). Effect of television violence on children and youth. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 234, 1043–1046.
Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human
Communication Research, 27, 94–120.
Shrum, L. J. (2009). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and
underlying processes. In J. Bryant & M. Oliver (eds.), Media effects: Advances in
theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 50–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Singer, J. L., & Singer, D. G. (1981). Television, imagination, and aggression: A study of
preschoolers’ play. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Singer, J. L., Singer, D. G., & Rapaczynski, W. (1984). Family patterns and television
viewing as predictors of children’s beliefs and aggression. Journal of
Communication, 34(2), 73–89.
Singer, M. I., Miller, D. B., Guo, S., Flannery, D. J., Frierson, T., & Slovak, K. (1999).
Contributors to violent behavior among elementary and middle school chil-
dren. Pediatrics, 104, 878–884.
Smith, S. L., Boyson, A. R., Pieper, K. M., & Wilson, B. J. (2001, May). Brandishing
guns on American television: How often do such weapons appear and in what
context? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication Association, Washington, DC.
Smith, S. L., Wilson, B., Colvin, C., Kunkel, D., Potter, J., Linz. D., & Donnerstein,
E. (1998a). Violence in children’s television programming: assessing the risks.

A4155C_Gentile.indd 175 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 176 Media Violence and Children

Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication

Association, 1998.
Smith, S. L., Wilson, B. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Potter, W. J., Colvin, C., &
Donnerstein, E. (1998b). Violence in television programming overall:
University of California, Santa Barbara study. In National television violence
study (Vol. 3, pp. 5–200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Spieker, S. J., Campbell, S. B., Vandergrift, N., Pierce, K. M., Caufmann, E., Susman,
E. J., & Roisman, G. I. (2012). Relational aggression in middle childhood:
Predictors and adolescent outcomes. Social Development, 21(2), 354–375.
Steuer, F. B., Applefield, J. M., & Smith, R. (1971). Televised aggression and interper-
sonal aggression of preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
11, 442–447.
Strasburger, V. C., & Grossman, D. (2001). How many more Columbines? What
can pediatricians do about school and media violence? Pediatric Annals, 30,
87–94.
Strasburger, V. C., Jordan A. B., & Donnerstein, E. (2012). Children, adolescents, and
the media: health effects. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 59, 533–587.
Strasburger, V. C., Wilson, B. J., & Jordan, A. B. (2014). Children, adolescents, and the
media (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Thomas, M. H., & Drabman, R. S. (1975). Toleration of real-life aggression as a func-
tion of exposure to televised violence and age of subject. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 21, 227–232.
Thomas, M. H., Horton, R. W., Lippincott, E. C., & Drabman, R. S. (1977).
Desensitization to portrayals of real-life aggression as a function of exposure to
television violence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 35, 450–458.
Thomson, J. D. S. (2004). A murderous legacy: Coloured homicide trends in South
Africa. South Africa Crime Quarterly, 7, 9–14.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2013). Juvenile arrests 2011. Available at www.ojjdp.gov
Williams, T. B. (Ed.). (1986). The impact of television: A natural experiment in three
communities. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Wilson, B. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Potter, W. J., Donnerstein, E., Smith, S. L.,
Blumenthal, E., & Berry, M. (1998). Violence in television programming
overall: University of California, Santa Barbara study. In National television
violence study (Vol. 2, pp. 3–204). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilson, B. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Potter, W. J., Donnerstein, E., Smith, S. L.,
Blumenthal, E., & Gray, T. (1997). Violence in television programming over-
all: University of California, Santa Barbara study. In National television violence
study (Vol. 1, pp. 3–268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilson, B. J., Linz, D., Federman, J., Smith, S., Paul, B., Nathanson, A., Donnerstein,
E., & Lingsweiler, R. (1999). The choices and consequences evaluation: A study of
Court TV’s anti-violence curriculum. Santa Barbara, CA: Center for
Communication and Social Policy, University of California.
Wilson, B. J., Smith, S. L., Potter, W. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Colvin, C. M., &
Donnerstein, E. (2002). Violence in children’s television programming:
Assessing the risks. Journal of Communication, 52(1), 5–35.
Wood, W., Wong, F., & Chachere, J. G. (1991). Effects of media violence on viewers’
aggression in unconstrained social interaction. Psychological Bulletin, 109,
371–383.

A4155C_Gentile.indd 176 30/06/14 12:41 PM

 Television Violence: Sixty Years of Research 177

World Health Organization. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, CH:
WHO.
Zillmann, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive
behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 419–434.
Zillmann, D. (1991). Television viewing and physiological arousal. In J. Bryant &
D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes
(pp. 103–133). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zillmann, D., & Johnson, R. C. (1973). Motivated aggressiveness perpetuated by
exposure to aggressive films and reduced by exposure to nonaggressive films.
Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 261–276.

A4155C_Gentile.indd
View publication stats 177 30/06/14 12:41 PM