This is your brain on violent media, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 23-12-2007 @ 12:12 PM by Beachcoma
Bumping this thread up with additional relevant information:

Psychologists explore public policy and effects of media violence on children

Although hundreds of studies link media violence to aggression in children and adolescents, most public policy attempts to reduce children's media violence exposure in the U.S. have failed.[..]

There are also reasons why the public hasn't called for more preventative measures.

"One reason is what's called 'the third-person effect' -- that it's a lot easier to notice these types of effects on other people rather than in ourselves and those closest to us. So most parents don't think media violence affects their kids," Gentile said. "That's partly because media violence effects accumulate slowly and people aren't good at detecting small changes -- even though those changes could be big by the end.

"Another reason is that the news media primarily focus on violent media effects in terms of atrocities like Columbine," Anderson said. "This confusion about equating media violence with extreme atrocities allows people to think that there are no effects on them because we all know that we've watched lots of media violence and never gone on a shooting rampage, but that's not where we should look for the effects. The effects are more subtle. In order to do something seriously violent, one must have multiple risk factors for aggression – media violence is only one risk factor, and it's not the largest one. It's also not the smallest."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think the above points as reported in the news release describe some of the opposition to the study in the OP very well. Furthermore, the article continues that public policy with regards to media violence usually follows a major tragedy, resulting in a knee-jerk type of response. We all know that's not a very good way to go about things.

Here's the link to the abstract for the actual paper: Public Policy and the Effects of Media Violence on Children
Unfortunately, access to the full paper requires a (paid) subscription.


reply posted on 23-12-2007 @ 02:37 PM by Vanitas
reply to post by Beachcoma



I don't even have to read it (all of it) to agree wholeheartedly.

What worries me - and disgusts me more than I could ever say - is the fact that so few of those responsible for spewing mindless blood and gore out into the world want to even consider it, let alone admit it.

And there seems to be NOTHING we can do about it.
Not within the present societal frame of mind, where mediocrity - or worse - can invoke "freedom of speech" to cover its own decay and fallacies.

Just so we understand each other: I am most certainly not advocating curtailing anyone's freedom aynwhere.
But I do think it's absolutely imperative to impose a firm and clear stand on violence on the screen. After all, if the whole world is screaming murder about cigarettes and don't care about those smokers' rights - how come they are not equally or more vociferous about the far worse poison of violence?
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 4 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 5 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 4 days ago with 49 member flags