Impact of TV Violence on Children*

Caroline S. de Leon** Philippine News and Features (Vol. XVII, No. 12/2) E-mail: pnf@phil.gn.apc.org CHILDREN in Metro Manila now spend about three hours a day in front of the television screen. An average child is estimated to have watched 5,000 hours of television by the time he or she enters first grade and 25,000 hours by the end of high school --- more time than would be spent in a classroom earning a college degree. Television has become a potent agency of socialization because like the family, school, and peers, it directly provides the child with experiences which shape their attitudes and influence their behaviors. In evaluating television's influence on children, it is important to view this medium as an element in a matrix of influences in a child's social environment. Television seems to become a growing source of parental anxiety. Parents worry most of all about the amount and kinds of programs their children watch, and definitely these fears are legitimate. According to the American Psychological Association Task Force Report on Television and American Society, by the time the average American child (one who watches two to four hours of television daily), leaves elementary school, he or she will have witnessed at least 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other assorted acts of violence on television. Unlike books, television programs are easily accessible to children. In a book culture, parents exercise control over the flow of information by selecting the type of books according to the child's reading readiness. Television presents the same information to adults and to children of all ages; and so parents often find it difficult to censor their children's viewing without censoring their own. Understanding of TV How much do children understand what they watch on TV? According to research, before age seven, children have difficulty integrating separate scenes into a continuous story line. Instead, they treat each scene as an isolated incident and are unable to relate a TV character's behavior to its prior motives and eventual consequences. Thus, young children cannot see the connection between violence and its consequences if the perpetrator of violence gets to be punished only at the end of the program.

Studies show that young children recall little information that is central to the plot of a story. Their difficulty stems from their inability to differentiate what is essential to the plot and what is peripheral. Character actions, especially those showing physical actions and confrontations, are remembered better than scenes offering explanations for their actions. Children find it hard to recall scenes recounting inner feelings that explain previous events. Young children also have a hard time distinguishing make-believe from reality. A five-year-old child wondered why an actor who "died" in one TV program "came back to life" in another show; and if Superman can fly, why can't he (the child) even if he wears a Superman cape. Children observe that cartoon characters manage to recover from severe violent acts almost immediately. This kind of exposure could lead them to interpret that in real life, people who are victims of violent acts do not really get hurt at all. A conversation between an author and a six-year-old clearly illustrates the kind of message a child gets from a cartoon program: "Why is GI Joe your favorite show?" "Because it has a lot of fighting." "Who would you like to be like when you grow up?" "I want to be like Rambo because he has a big gun." "What happens to the bad guys you shoot?" "They die." "And what happens to you?" "Nothing." Young children who watch a lot of television tend to believe that it is all right to hit someone if one is angry and have a good reason. Effects of TV Violence The link between violence on television and aggression in children has been so thoroughly studied that few would dispute its strength. Over the past forty years, more than 3,500 researches of the effects of TV violence have been conducted in the U.S., not to mention those done in other countries. Because of the gravity of this concern psychologists, child experts, and the medical community have decided to treat televised violence as a serious public health issue that needs to be immediately addressed for the public own safety and well-being.

TV Guide conducted a study in 1992 of one day in the life of television. The results of an analysis of 180 hours of programming on 10 channels (affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and PBS; one non-affiliated station, WDCA, the USA Network, MTV, and HBO) revealed a total of 1,846 acts of violence. There were 175 scenes in which violence resulted in one or more fatalities; 389 scenes depicted serious assaults; 362 scenes involved gunplay; 673 involved punching, pushing, slapping, dragging, and other physically hostile acts; and 226 scenes of menacing threats with a weapon. Well over a third of all the violence (751 scenes) involved some sort of life-threatening assault. An eye-opener is that cartoons were found to have the most number of violent scenes (471). The amount of violent acts per hour rose from 25.5 in 1988 to 32 in 1991. The study concluded that violence remains a pervasive, major feature of contemporary television programming. A study in 1991 by the National Coalition on TV Violence on 100 nationally- distributed cartoons showed that 50 percent glorified violence or used it to entertain. According to the study, cartoons have three times as many acts of violence than prime television. Among those listed as most violent were: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, G. I. Joe, Tom and Jerry Kids, and Bugs Bunny and Pals with 68 acts of violence per hour. Child psychologists point out that it is a misconception to consider cartoons as harmless just because they are funny. The theme of cartoons such as Popeye is that any problem can be solved by brute force which one acquires by eating spinach. In being funny and fast paced, cartoons may tend to reduce a child's perception of danger, pain, and suffering. One of the most ambitious longer-term studies was that conducted by Dr. Leonard D. Eron in 1963 who examined a group of eight-year-olds in a small upstate New York town which covered children, their teachers as well as parents, and finding a relationship between television viewing and aggression Eron followed up these children ten years later, when they were 18 years old, and again found a relationship between television viewing and aggression. He concluded that there were some long-term effects of television viewing on later aggressive behavior. In the 1980's, Eron again followed up these individuals at age 30. This time he found that there was a relationship between early television viewing and arrest and conviction for violent interpersonal crimes, spouse abuse, child abuse, murder, and aggravated assault. The more frequently the participants watched TV at age eight, the more serious were the crimes they were convicted of, the more aggressive was their behavior

when drinking; and the harsher was the punishment they inflicted on their own children. Essentially the same results emerged when the researchers examined another group of youths for three years in a suburb of Chicago. Similar findings were found when the study was replicated in Australia, Finland, Israel, and Poland. It is also probable that aggressive children prefer to watch more violent television programs, Eron said in 1982. Aggressive children are unpopular and because their relationship with their peers may not be satisfying, they tend to spend more time watching television compared to their more popular peers. The violence they see on television serves as an assurance that their behavior is appropriate. As they apply new coercive techniques learned from television, they become more unpopular and they are driven more into television watching. Perhaps the most comprehensive assessment of violence on American television in the history of social science research can be said to be that of the National Television Violence Study (NTVS) commissioned by the U.S. Congress to examine for a period of three years (1996 to 1998) the amount of television violence and the manner this is presented across 23 broadcast and cable channels in the U.S. 1. Content analysis of some 2,700 programs from 1994-95 to 1995-96 television season revealed that violence on television is glamorized, and frequently sanitized. Perpetrators of violence are often the "good characters" who therefore become role models to children. They rarely show remorse at the time they engage in aggression and are seldom condemned by others or immediately apprehended. Violence is typically shown with little or no harm to the victim. In fact, more than half of the violent incidents on television depict on physical injury or pain to the victim. 2. Portrayals that have a high risk of teaching aggression to children under seven are concentrated in the very programs and channels targeted to young viewers. Of all program forms, children's programs contain the greatest number of high-risk violent portrayals. Of all channel types, child-oriented basic cable (Cartoon Network, Disney, and Nickelodeon) contains the most high-risk portrayals for children. Regulating TV violence The urgency and seriousness of this issue on media violence has reached global proportions. A worldwide concern has prompted parents, educators, advocacy groups, and mental health professionals

to launch protest activities and public discussions on how children can be protected against harmful media influences. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by 191 countries by the end of 1997 (all States except the US and Somalia is an example of a global collaborative effort to draw up guiding principles for decision-makers. A number of nations have introduced legislation, self-regulatory codes by association of broadcasters, and other measures to minimize the influence of television violence Different countries have adopted various measures such as the U.S. classification of programs such as PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned and R-Restricted. This labeling, which was criticized for its lack of specificity of content, was amended in 1997 to include letters which indicate whether the rating level was due to sex, violence, coarse language. Other measures include scheduling TV programs unsuitable for children "later" in the evening (called "watershed). Just when "later" is varies with different countries which may be between 7:00 in the evening to 12 midnight; advisories at the beginning and during the program ("scenes of violence intended for adult audience); a visual signaling system with color coding such as green for family, yellow for parental guidance, and red for adult programming (used in Italy). Being tried out in the U.S. and Canada is the V-chip, a microchip which can be incorporated in a television set or cable selector. This device can program the chip to block the signal of programs with a classification which exceeds the level considered pre-selected as acceptable. The Children's Television Act of 1990 in the U.S. did set some limits on the amount of advertising in children's programming and did set some expectations that stations applying for license renewal will have to explain how they have served the educational needs of children in their broadcast area. In the Philippines a number of bills were filed to mitigate the negative effects of televised violence. House Bill 19183 proposes a ratings system for TV programs. House Bill 10183 provides that cartoons featuring violence and unethical conduct should be aired only during times when young children are not usually watching. The Kapisanan ng Mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas has its code and internal guidelines. Relevant sections pertaining to responsibility towards children are:

- Children's programs shall not present violence, whether physical or psychological, as a means to resolve conflicts and problems. - Children's programs shall not emphasize perverted sex and undue violence. - Penalties have been stipulated for violations of these rules. These include fines ranging from P5, 000 to P15, 000, suspension of KBP privileges, expulsion from KBP membership, to recommendation to the National Telecommunications Commission for suspension of station lease for the fourth offense. Some argue that the KBP is incapable of enforcing its rules and that the rules are seen more as a show to convince the public and the government that self-regulation works to forestall any attempt by either congress or NTC to regulate the industry. Self-regulation has been seen as a ploy of broadcasters to protect their interests. At a recent hearing of the House Committee on Public Information, Davao Oriental Representative J. Mayo Almario sought for the immediate banning of violent cartoons which include Voltes V, Mazinger Z, and Daimos. These three cartoon series were among those banned during the late 70's due to strong protests from nongovernmental organizations. This measure, which seeks to regulate the airing of violent animation series on public television, has elicited strong protests from different sectors. Some view the proposed ban as a "Marcosian edict" which would open the floodgates to censorship. Young parents who watched these cartoons as children defend the series by saying that they grew up all right. Others contend that lawmakers should learn to trust parents regarding what their children can or cannot watch. Debates concerning the role of government in implementing policies to control television content continues to rage. The larger policy questions involving televised violence need to be addressed. Aren't the harmful effects of violence serious enough to justify some form of regulation? Since legal, economic, and political considerations contribute to the problem of finding a universally acceptable resolution of the problem, some form of solution may lie in parents, educators, and children themselves. What can be done Parents should watch at least one episode of programs their child watches to know how violent they are. When viewing together, they can discuss how the conflict could have been solved without the violence. They should explain to the child how violence in entertainment is "faked" and not real. Such interventions, whether at

the personal or family level can moderate the impact of violent scenes on children. Adult explanation improves children's understanding of plots, characters, and events. Co-viewing with children can provide occasions for parents to discuss values, beliefs, and moral issues. Parents should also set clear guidelines on the time and length of television viewing. Parents can also encourage their children to find pleasure in other mass media, such as books and newspapers. They can select books that highlight the themes in programs which children have viewed on television and discuss with them what was the same and what was different, as well as their feelings and preferences about characters and scenes, and the way they are presented in both media forms. At the school level, the inclusion of media literacy courses in school systems can be very effective. Children can be taught to be more discriminating viewers and can be helped to understand the influence and the effects of television and other media. Teachers should point out that real violence actually hurts, has negative consequences, and that there are other ways than violence to solve real-life problems. Several major organizations in the US such as the Center for Media Education, Center for Media Literacy, Mediascope, National Alliance for Nonviolent Programming, and the National Telemedia Council are producing materials for parents and community organizations. One such videotape, The Kids are Watching can be very effective in stimulating classroom discussions on the impact of TV violence. Other possible steps which concerned citizens can take include: 1) urge the broadcaster, cable, and home video industries to adopt a unified ratings system of advisories to parents, labeling programs and movies as to their violence content; 2) make TV violence part of the public health agenda (as with smoking and drunk driving) by means of a vigorous public information campaign on its harmful effects. This can be done through letters to the editor, symposia, TV panel discussions; 3) solicit from government officials their views and policies on televised violence, and then vote accordingly during election day. Another approach involves working with the industry to introduce changes in the role that advertising plays in supporting children's programming. Advertisers can be encouraged to shift (at least in the area of children's programs) from advertising to increase corporate profit to underwriting to enhance corporate image. If television has been able to teach violence, the power of this same medium can be harnessed to mitigate the negative effects of televised

violence. Just as it has played a major role in public health and environmental awareness, television can be used to solve the problem of violence. One of the greatest weapons of the consumer is to boycott products sponsoring violent programs and to write manufacturers of the reason for the boycott. Those who sponsor programs with positive, wholesome messages, on the other hand, should be supported and commended. Television producers do get pressured to respond to strong public opinion. Perhaps the most effective approach in dealing with this problem of television violence should be systemic and multilevel---changes must take place at the home, school, and industry levels. Though researches have all pointed to the association between televised violence and aggression in children, what a child learns from television may be "a product of the broader relationship among medium, child, and parent" Thus, active, responsible parental involvement in the child's television viewing does make a great difference. The power to initiate change should come from the "market"-- not a market that passively laps up unhealthy and disturbing programs that assault young, sensitive minds, but a market that is critical, enlightened, and imbued with a strong resolve to protect children's well-being and right to wholesome entertainment. *This article is abridged from an unpublished paper. **The author is Chair of the Department on Family Life in Miriam Colleges Graduate School, Quezon City.