Teaching Students About Violent Media Effects

Abstract

Although violent entertainment has existed for centuries, the media have made it more accessible than ever before. In modern societies, people are immersed in media, like fish in water. Using hand-held devices, people can consume media just about anywhere they want, anytime they want. Moreover, violence is a common theme in the media, and research has consistently shown that violent media can have harmful effects on consumers, such as making them more aggressive and more numb to the pain and suffering of others. Teaching students about the harmful effects of violent media is challenging because many students love to consume violent media, and believe they are somehow immune to any harmful effects. This article reviews the scientific evidence on violent media effects, discusses some reasons why people deny violent media effects, and offers suggestions for how to teach students about violent media effects.

Keywords

media violence video games aggression desensitization

Throughout history, violent entertainment has been tremendously popular. Humans probably have been entertaining themselves with violent spectacles since the beginning of time. Consider just a few historical examples. Between 2000 BCE and 44 CE, the ancient Egyptians entertained themselves with plays reenacting the murder of their god, Osiris (Takuri, 2017). Seth hated his brother Osiris and devised a plan to kill him. After secretly obtaining the exact body measurements of Osiris, Seth made a beautiful box (like a coffin) that fit him perfectly. Seth invited his brother and 72 conspirators to a feast and said he would give this box to the person it fit perfectly. Several conspirators tried to get inside the box, but it did not fit them. Then Osiris got inside.

“I fit exactly, and the box is mine!” said Osiris.

“It is yours, indeed, and shall be so forever!” replied Seth.

The conspirators then slammed the lid, nailed it shut, and sealed it with molten lead. Osiris suffocated inside.

Another popular form of violent entertainment was the gladiator games, which were most common in ancient Rome (Epplett, 2017). Gladiator games were introduced to Rome in 264 BCE when the sons of Junius Brutus honored their father by having three pairs of gladiators fight each other to the death. Julius Caesar similarly honored his father in 65 BCE by having 320 pairs of gladiators fight one another. The gladiators were typically prisoners of war, slaves, criminals, or Christians who refused to worship the Roman gods. The Colosseum, which could hold about 50,000 spectators, was built between 75 and 80 CE to house the gladiator games. In the dedication of the Colosseum, up to 10,000 animals died. In the celebration of Trajan’s conquest of Dacia, 11,000 animals and 5,000 pairs of gladiators died. Saint Augustine made the following comment about gladiator games in 380 BCE: “The society has become addicted to gladiator games and is drunk with the fascination of bloodshed.”

Spectators of Olympic Games dating to 648 BCE saw competitors engage in a dangerous sport called “pankration,” which literally means “all force” (Arvanitis, 2003). Opponents could do almost anything to each other (e.g., wrestling, hitting, kicking, throwing, and choking) except biting, gouging the eyes, and attacking the genitals. Pankration was part of the Olympic Games for about 1,000 years.

Public executions have also been very popular throughout history. The first recorded burning for heresy occurred in Britain in 1222. In the 16th century, Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary), daughter of King Henry VIII, burned 274 people to death during her 5-year reign. Burning was not the only form of public execution in Britain either. Executions at the permanent gallows at Tyburn (west of London) drew large crowds of spectators. Public executions were brought to America from Britain. For example, in the Salem witch trials, which occurred in colonial Massachusetts between 1692 and 1693, more than 200 people were accused of practicing witchcraft (the “Devil’s magic”), and 20 were publicly executed (Blumberg, 2007). The last public execution in the United States (U.S.) occurred in 1936 in Owensboro, Kentucky, where a Black man named Rainey Bethea was hanged before a crowd of 20,000 for raping and killing a 70-year-old woman. Newspapers described vendors selling hot dogs, popcorn, and drinks at the hanging. An article in Time magazine (“Party,” August 24, 1936) reported, “Every bar was packed to the doors. Down the main street tipsy merrymakers rollicked all night. ‘Hanging parties’ were held in many a home” (p. 5).

Definitions

Before I go further, it is important to define three key terms: (a) aggression, (b) violence, and (c) media violence. Aggression refers any behavior intended to harm another person who does not want to be harmed (Baron & Richardson, 1994). Violence is any behavior intended to cause extreme physical harm (e.g., injury or death) to another person who does not want to be harmed (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). For example, one person intentionally hitting, kicking, shooting, or stabbing another person is an act of violence. But, by this definition, a husband who calls his wife every name in the book would not be committing an act of violence. Thus, all violent acts are aggressive, but only acts intended to cause extreme physical harm are classified as violent. This definition of violence can also be applied to media violence, which is any behavior intended to cause extreme physical harm to another media character who does not want to be harmed (Bushman, 2017). Media characters can be actual people, animals, realistic characters, fictitious characters, or cartoon characters.

Media Violence

Although violent entertainment is ancient, because of mass media, it is more accessible now than ever before. Television (TV) was introduced to the U.S. at the 1939 World’s Fair in New York. Two years later, the Federal Communications Commission licensed and approved the first commercially available TV stations. Since then, TV ownership has increased both in the U.S. and in other developed countries. Worldwide, more than 1.4 billion households now own at least one TV set, representing 79% of total households (Butts, 2013). Virtually all households in the developed world now own a TV set, as do about 69% of households in developing countries (Butts, 2013). The percentage of TV owners is lowest in some African countries due to limited access to electricity. People today can also consume media on computers, tablets, and handheld devices. On these different media platforms, people can play video games; listen to music; read books; and watch TV programs, movies, and videos.

Apparently, the thirst for violent entertainment has not changed much from the ancient past. Violence is a common theme in TV programs (e.g., Hetsroni, 2007), films (e.g., Bushman, Jamieson, Weitz, & Romer, 2013), video games (e.g., Hartmann, Krakowiak, & Tsay-Vogel, 2014), music videos (e.g., Martin & Collins, 2002), and even advertisements (e.g. Jones, Cunningham, & Gallagher, 2014). Indeed, violence is a common theme even in media rated as appropriate for children, such as G-rated films for general audiences (Yokota & Thompson, 2000). The amount of violent content in the media also appears to be increasing over time. For example, the number of acts of gun violence in PG-13 films (for ages 13+) has more than doubled since the rating was introduced in 1985 (Bushman et al., 2013).

Violent Media Effects

Social scientists have conducted hundreds of studies on the link between exposure to violent media and aggression and violence (for meta-analytic reviews, see Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Anderson et al., 2010; Bushman & Huesmann, 2006; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014; Paik & Comstock, 1994).

Experimental studies have shown that exposure to media violence causes people to behave more aggressively immediately afterward. In one experiment (Konijn, Nije Bijvank, & Bushman, 2007), for example, 112 teenage boys were randomly assigned to play a violent or nonviolent video game for 20 min and then rated how much they identified with the video game character. After gameplay, the boys competed with an ostensible partner to see who could press a button faster when a light turned green. (In reality, the boys competed against a computer.) The “winner” got to blast the “loser” with loud noise through headphones. The results showed that violent game players were more aggressive than nonviolent game players, especially if they identified with the game character. These boys were even willing to deliver noise levels loud enough to supposedly cause permanent hearing damage.

Although laboratory experiments have been criticized for being conducted in unnatural settings with “artificial” measures of aggression (e.g., painful electric shocks, loud noise blasts, or spicy hot sauce given to a partner), field experiments have produced similar effects in natural settings with realistic measures of aggression. The main concern, however, is about the long-term cumulative effects of exposure to violent media. Numerous longitudinal studies have shown that exposure to violent media as a child predicts aggressive and violent behavior many years later as an adult. For example, in one longitudinal study, children exposed to violent media at ages 8–10 were nearly twice as likely to have assaulted their spouses 15 years later as young adults (Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron, 2003).

Exposure to violent media can also have other harmful effects, such as increasing aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure; Anderson et al., 2010). Exposure to violent media can make people more fearful of becoming victims of violence themselves (Gerbener & Gross, 1976). Exposure to violent media can also increase hostile appraisals and biases, so that people view the world as a hostile place (Bushman, 2016). Exposure to violent media can decrease helping and feelings of empathy Anderson et al., 2010). In one field experiment (Bushman & Anderson, 2009; Study 2), for example, 162 violent and nonviolent moviegoers witnessed a young woman with an injured ankle (actually an accomplice to the experimenter) drop her crutches outside a movie theater and struggle to pick them up. By random assignment, the woman either dropped her crutches just before the movie, as people were entering the theater, or just after the movie, as people were exiting the theater. An observer used a stopwatch to determine how long it took people to help her. People who had just seen a violent movie took 26% longer to help the woman than those who had seen a nonviolent movie. In contrast, there was no difference in the amount of time it took moviegoers to help the woman before the movie, which ruled out the possibility that less helpful people were more likely to attend the violent movies.

In 1972, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a statement on the link between exposure to violent media and antisocial behavior, which includes aggression and violence:

It is clear to me that the causal relationship between televised violence and antisocial behavior is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action…There comes a time when the data are sufficient to justify action. That time has come. (Steinfeld, 1972)

Since the Surgeon General’s statement, many other professional medical and scientific organizations have issued statements about the potentially harmful effects of exposure to media violence. These organizations include the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the Australian Psychological Society, the Canada Action Agenda, the International Society for Research on Aggression, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, and the United Nations. (These statements are available on my webpage: http://u.osu.edu/bushman.20/statements-on-media-violence-effects-by-major-scientific-groups/)

The Surgeon General warning was about violent TV programs and films. But what about violent video games? There are at least three reasons to believe that violent video games might be even more harmful than violent TV programs and films.

First, whereas TV watching is passive, video game play is active, and people tend to learn better when they are actively involved. Suppose, for example, you want to learn how to fly an airplane. What would be the best method to use: reading a book, watching a TV program, or using a video game flight simulator?

Second, players of violent video games are more likely to identify with violent characters. For example, if a video game requires a player to be a first-person shooter, players have the same visual perspective as the killer. If the game takes a third-person perspective, the player controls the actions of the violent character from a more distant visual perspective. In a violent TV program, viewers might or might not identify with a violent character. Research has shown that people are more likely to behave aggressively when they identify with a violent character (e.g., Konijn et al., 2007).

Third, violent games directly reward violent behavior, for example, by awarding points or by allowing players to advance to the next game level. In some games, players are rewarded through verbal praise, such as hearing the words “Nice shot!” after killing an enemy. It is well known that rewarding behavior increases its frequency. In TV programs, reward is not directly tied to the viewer’s behavior.

There are also empirical data supporting these assertions. In one study (Polman, Orobio de Castro, & Van Aken, 2008), for example, children were randomly assigned to play a violent video game, watch someone else play the violent game, or play a nonviolent video game (i.e., control). Aggression was measured through peer nominations of real-life aggressive incidents during a free-play session at school (e.g., hitting, kicking, and pushing another child). The results showed that boys who played the violent video game were more aggressive than boys who observed someone else play the game, even though they saw the same images.

Why Do People Deny Media Effects?

Given the overwhelming scientific evidence indicating that violent media can make people more aggressive, one might wonder why people would deny these effects. There are several reasons why (e.g., Huesmann & Taylor, 2003; Strasburger, Donnerstein, & Bushman, 2014). Below, I briefly describe seven of these reasons.

Third-Person Effect

Researchers have consistently found that people believe the media have a much stronger effect on others than on themselves—this is called the third-person effect (Davison, 1983). In one illustrative study (McLeod, Eveland, & Nathanson, 1997), 202 University of Delaware students were randomly assigned to read either violent rap music lyrics or misogynistic rap music lyrics. Participants then estimated the effects of such lyrics on them personally, on other students who attended the University of Delaware, on “people your age in cities like New York and Los Angeles,” and on “the average person.” Participants reported that both types of lyrics would affect other groups more strongly than themselves.

People may also believe that violent media only affect some “susceptible” people (e.g., people with mentally illness, aggressive people); it will not, however, affect them personally. In sum, people seem to think that they are somehow immune to media effects.

Faulty Reasoning

I cannot count the number of people of people who have told me, “I play violent video games, and I’ve never killed anyone.” I usually explain that it is not surprising they have not killed anyone because very few people kill anyone, regardless of whether they play violent video games. In the United States, for example, fewer than 5 people per 100,000 are murdered each year (U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016). It is very difficult to predict rare events, such as murder, using exposure to violent media or any other factor. One can, however, predict less extreme and more common violent behaviors from media violence viewing (e.g., spousal abuse; see Huesmann et al., 2003). People fail to consider the low base rates for rare events.

Cognitive Dissonance

According to cognitive dissonance theory, conflicting thoughts cause psychological discomfort—called cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). For example, if people frequently play violent video games and think the games are fun, they may feel uncomfortable when they read about research studies showing that violent games can be harmful. The easiest way to reduce this discomfort is for people to rationalize their behavior by bringing their attitudes into line with their actions. One easy way to do this is to discount the research evidence as biased, flawed, or inconclusive. And in fact, research shows that this is exactly what gamers do (e.g., Nauroth, Gollwitzer, Bender, & Rothmund, 2014).

Psychological Reactance

Most people dislike being told what to do; they like to be free to make their own choices. When people believe their freedom is being threatened, they experience an unpleasant emotional response called “reactance” (Brehm, 1966). Reactance produces three main consequences. First, it makes people want the option they were restricted from choosing—it makes that option seem more attractive. Second, reactance motivates people to reclaim the lost option. Third, people may feel or act aggressively toward the person who has restricted their freedom. For example, gamers often think media researchers are trying to restrict or ban violent media. (As an aside, I know of no media researcher who has wanted to ban violent media. However, most media researchers do not want children consuming age-inappropriate media.) Regarding the first and second consequences of reactance, research has shown that warning labels can make violent media “forbidden fruit” (e.g., Bushman & Stack, 1996). Regarding the third consequence, this may be one reason why I often receive aggressive e-mails from gamers, one of whom wrote, “People who think video games cause violence should be shot.”

Catharsis

According to catharsis theory, acting aggressively or even viewing aggression is an effective way to reduce anger and aggression. Many Hollywood directors believe in catharsis theory. For example, Alfred Hitchcock, who directed the movie Psycho, said, “One of television’s greatest contributions is that it brought murder back into the home where it belongs. Seeing a murder on television can be good therapy. It can help work off one’s antagonism.” Despite what these directors believe, the scientific evidence indicates that catharsis theory is false. Exposure to violent media increases (rather than decreases) angry feelings and aggressive actions (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Anderson et al., 2010; Bushman & Huesmann, 2006; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014; Paik & Comstock, 1994). After reading the research evidence, one scholar concluded, “It is time to put a bullet, once and for all, through heart of the catharsis hypothesis. The belief that observing violence (or ‘ventilating it’) gets rid of hostilities has virtually never been supported by research” (Tavris, 1988, p. 194).

Denial From the Media

Newspapers and other media sources often deny the link between exposure to violent media and aggression (Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Martins et al., 2013), perhaps because it is in their economic self-interest to deny any harmful effects. It is a paradox, though. On the one hand, the TV industry claims that a few minutes of advertising can sell just about anything. Indeed, a 30-s SuperBowl ad costs about US$5 million (Bentley, 2018). On the other hand, the TV industry claims that the hours of programming surrounding the few minutes of advertising have no effect on viewers. How can this be?

Psychological Processes Are Difficult to Understand

Finally, people do not understand psychological processes (e.g., priming, desensitization, and social learning) as well as they understand biological processes. If one observes a player of violent video games assault another person, it is difficult to know the direct cause of the assault. Was it playing violent video games for hours on end that caused the assault, or was it something else? In contrast, if one sees a chain smoker die of lung cancer, it is much easier to believe that the direct cause of the lung cancer was smoking. One can easily grasp the idea that smoke going into the lungs damages cells and starts tumor growth.

Teaching Students About Violent Media Effects

After teaching students about violent media effects for over 25 years, I have learned one important lesson: Students are not very receptive to the message that exposure to violent media can have harmful effects. Overcoming this resistance is not easy. I believe that education is the answer. I have five suggestions for teachers.

First, it is important to convey to your students that information you presented to them is not simply your opinion. Rather, it is based on hundreds of scientific studies. Of course, not all studies show a link between violent media and aggression (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2015), but the cumulative evidence shows a link. Professional scientific and medical organizations agree. It is important that students base their beliefs on scientific evidence, rather than on unreliable and invalid sources of information (e.g., opinion, common sense, hunches, intuitions, gut feelings, premonitions, instincts, and “alternative facts”). I have found that the best way to do this is to show them the forest (i.e., the results from meta-analytic reviews based on hundreds of studies) and a few trees in the forest (i.e., specific examples of carefully conducted studies).

Second, it is important that your students understand that exposure to violent media is not the only risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior, or even the most important risk factor. But it is an important risk factor that cannot be dismissed as “trivial.” There have been several calls to consider aggression and violence within a risk factor, public health framework (e.g., Browne & Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005; Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2008). This approach considers a number of risk factors that make people more vulnerable to a health risk as well as protective factors that make them less vulnerable. For example, there are several risk and protective factors for heart disease (e.g., smoking, alcohol consumption, high-fat diet, exercise, family history of heart disease). Likewise, there are several risk and protective factors for aggression and violence (e.g., gender, age, attitudes, personality traits, genetic predispositions, provocation, frustration, alcohol consumption, parental abuse, deviant peers, easy access to firearms, exposure to violent media). I believe that violent media effects can best be understood within a risk and resilience framework that considers multiple factors that facilitate or inhibit aggression and violence (Gentile & Bushman, 2012). It is also worth discussing with students that exposure to violent media is one of the few risk factors that can be changed compared to other risk factors (e.g., being a male, having a low IQ, living in poverty, coming from a broken home, being an alcoholic).

Third, if the students you teach are adults 18 and older, convey to them that the main concern is about children consuming age-inappropriate media. For example, children under age 13 should not be watching movies rated PG-13 (for ages 13+) or playing video games rated T (for teens 13 and older). Adults should protect children from age-inappropriate media, just like they protect them from other harmful substances (e.g., tobacco products, alcohol, drugs). Although exposure to violent media harms people of all ages, if adults want to consume violent media, that is their choice. However, children should not consume age inappropriate media.

Fourth, you can ask your students the following question: “What theory predicts that observing violence in the home, school, and community harms children, but that observing violence in the media does not harm children?” Although I give my students a few minutes to think of an answer to this question, no student has ever come up with a theory—because there are none.

Finally, you can point out that the average American child, ages 8–18 years, spends more than 7.5 hr per day consuming mass media (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010), which is more time than they spend in school. When I discuss this fact, I ask my students, “How can someone engage in any activity for over 7.5 hr per day, without it affecting them in some way?” I also point out that people want media to affect them. If a TV program, movie, or video game does not affect people, they would become bored and turn it off.

Conclusion

In summary, teaching students about violent media effects is a challenge, but one that I welcome. And I hope you will welcome it, too. Educating students about the scientific research on violent media effects is extremely important. Confronted by the scientific evidence, students just might open their minds a bit to the idea that consuming violent media might be harmful. They might also try to protect younger children whom they know and love from consuming violent media. I hope this article will be helpful to you as you share this important topic with your students.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Some scholars have questioned how robust the meta-analytic results are for violent video game effects, due to possible publication bias (see Hilgard, Engelhardt & Rouder, 2017; but also see response to Hilgard et al., 2017, by Kepes, Bushman, & Anderson, 2017 for a response).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Media violence and societal violence. Science, 295, 2377–2378. doi:10.1126/science.1070765

Anderson

C. A.

Shibuya

Ihori

Swing

E. L.

Bushman

B. J.

Sakamoto

… Saleem

. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173. doi:10.1037/a0018251

Arvanitis

(2003). Pankration: The traditional Greek combat sport and modern mixed martial art. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press.

Baron

R. A.

Richardson

D. R.

(1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Plenum.

Bentley

(2018, 2 1). Why companies spend so much money on Super Bowl ads. Wallstreet Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-companies-spend-so-much-on-superbowl-ads-1517494733

Blumberg

(2007, 10 23). A brief history of the Salem Witch trials. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-brief-history-of-the-salem-witch-trials-175162489/?no-ist

Brehm

J. W.

(1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Browne

K. D.

Hamilton-Giachritsis

(2005). The influence of violent media on children and adolescents: A public-health approach. Lancet, 365, 702–710.

Bushman

B. J.

(2016). Violent media exposure and hostile appraisals: A meta-analytic review. Aggressive Behavior, 42, 605–613. doi:10.1002/ab.21655

10.

Bushman

B. J.

(2017). Aggressive cues: Violent media and weapons. In Bushman

B. J.

(Ed.), Aggression and violence (pp. 184–198). New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Bushman

B. J.

Anderson

C. A.

(2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477–489. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.477

12.

Bushman

B. J.

Anderson

C. A.

(2009). Comfortably numb: Desensitizing effects of violent media on helping others. Psychological Science, 21, 273–277. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02287.x

13.

Bushman

B. J.

Huesmann

L. R.

(2006). Short-term and long-term effects of violent media on aggression in children and adults. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160, 348–352. doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.4.348

14.

Bushman

B. J.

Huesmann

L. R.

(2010). Aggression. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 833–863). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

15.

Bushman

B. J.

Jamieson

P. E.

Weitz

Romer

(2013). Gun violence trends in movies. Pediatrics, 132, 1014–1018. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1600

16.

Bushman

B. J.

Stack

A. D.

(1996). Forbidden fruit versus tainted fruit: Effects of warning labels on attraction to television violence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 207–226. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.2.3.207

17.

Butts

(2013, 12 6). The state of television, worldwide. Retrieved from http://www.tvtechnology.com/opinions/0087/the-state-of-television-worldwide/222681

18.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008, 3 5). Timeline of violence as a public health issue. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/overview/timeline.html

19.

Davison

W. P.

(1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1–15. doi:10.1086/268763

20.

Epplett

(2017). Gladiators: Deadly arena sports of ancient Rome. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing.

21.

Ferguson

C. J.

Barr

Figueroa

Foley

Gallimore

LaQuea

… Garza

. (2015). Digital poison? Three studies examining the influence of violent video games on youth. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 399–410. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.021

22.

Festinger

(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

23.

Gentile

D. G.

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. doi:10.1037/a0028481

24.

Gerbner

Gross

(1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 172–199. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x

25.

Greitemeyer

Mügge

D. O.

(2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 578–589. doi:10.1177/0146167213520459

26.

Hartmann

Krakowiak

K. M.

Tsay-Vogel

(2014). How violent video games communicate violence: A literature review and content analysis of moral disengagement factors. Communication Monographs, 81, 310–332. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.922206

27.

Hetsroni

(2007). Four decades of violent content on prime-time network programming: A longitudinal meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 57, 759–784. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00367.x

28.

Hilgard

Engelhardt

C. R.

Rouder

J. N.

(2017). Overstated evidence for short-term effects of violent games on affect and behavior: A reanalysis of Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 143, 757–774. doi:10.1037/bul0000074

29.

Huesmann

L. R.

Moise-Titus

Podolski

C. L.

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, 201–221. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.201

30.

Huesmann

L. R.

Taylor

L. D.

(2003). The case against the case against media violence. In Gentile

(Ed.), Media violence and children (pp. 107–130). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

31.

Jones

Cunningham

P. H.

Gallagher

(2014). Violence in advertising: A multilayered content analysis. In Rifon

N. J.

Royne

M. B.

Carlson

Rifon

N. J.

Royne

M. B.

Carlson

(Eds.), Advertising and violence: Concepts and perspectives (pp. 255–289). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

32.

Kepes

Bushman

B. J.

Anderson

C. A.

(2017). Violent video game effects remain a societal concern: Comment on Hilgard, Engelhardt, and Rouder (2017). Psychological Bulletin, 143, 775–782. doi:10.1037/bul0000112

33.

Konijn

E. A.

Nije Bijvank

Bushman

B. J.

(2007). I wish I were a warrior: The role of wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1038–1044.

34.

Martin

B. S.

Collins

B. A.

(2002). Violence and consumption imagery in music videos. European Journal of Marketing, 36, 855–873. doi:10.1108/03090560210430845

35.

Martins

Weaver

A. J.

Yeshua-Katz

Lewis

N. H.

Tyree

N. E.

Jensen

J. D.

(2013). A content analysis of print news coverage of media violence and aggression research. Journal of Communication, 63, 1070–1087. doi:10.1111/jcom.12052

36.

McLeod

D. M.

Eveland

W. P.

Jr Nathanson

A. I

. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, 153–174. doi:10.1177/009365097024002003

37.

Nauroth

Gollwitzer

Bender

Rothmund

(2014). Gamers against science: The case of the violent video games debate. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 104–116. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1998

38.

Paik

Comstock

(1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 12, 516–546. doi:10.1177/009365094021004004

39.

Party. (1936, 8 24). Time. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,756507,00.html

40.

Polman

Orobio de Castro

Van Aken

(2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children’s aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 256–264.

41.

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: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

42.

Sports Illustrated. (2017, 1 16). Super Bowl commercials: How much does a spot cost in 2017? Retrieved from https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/01/26/super-bowl-commercial-cost-2017

43.

Steinfeld

(1972). Statement in hearings before Subcommittee on Communications of Committee on Commerce (United States Senate, Serial #92–52, pp. 25–27). Washington, DC: United States Government.

44.

Strasburger

V. C.

Donnerstein

E. I.

Bushman

B. J.

(2014). Why is it so hard to believe that media affect children and adolescents? Pediatrics, 133, 571–573. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2334

45.

Takruri

. (2017). 100 African religions before slavery & colonization. (n.p.). Jamal White. Available at: https://www.amazon.com/African-religions-before-slavery-colonization-ebook/dp/B06ZY15MBH

46.

Tavris

(1988). Beyond cartoon killings: Comments on two overlooked effects of television. In Oskamp

(Ed.), Television as a social issue (pp. 189–197). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

47.

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2016). Uniform crime reports. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

48.

Yokota

Thompson

K. M.

(2000). Violence in G-rated animated films. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 2716–2720. doi:10.1001/jama.283.20.2716