The results of this study of self-reported behaviors, like many
others, do not correspond to real-world trends. The authors conclude that
“almost all youths now have online access, and this access may increase
opportunities for children and youths to be exposed to violence,”
“exposure to violence in the media was associated with concurrent reports
of seriously violent behaviors,” and “newer forms of violent media seem to
be especially concerning.”
Indeed, over the last 15 years or so, the proportion of youths with
access to violent internet sites has risen from essentially zero to
virtually 100% as violent forms of “gangster” rap, interactive “first
person” video games, and other newly explicit media proliferated. If
violent media, especially recent online media, were major instigators of
violence by youth, we would expect to see corresponding increases in
teens’ violent crime. Yet during the period that violent media intensified
and burgeoned, police reports, behavior risk surveys, and health reports
consistently show violent crimes and victimizations involving youths
plummeted, often to the lowest levels yet recorded.
FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that from 1992 to 2007, rates of
arrest for violent crime among Americans aged 10-17 fell by 38%, led by
homicide (down 66%) and rape (down 53%); robbery also fell 38%, aggravated
assault dropped 35%, and other sex offenses declined 34%. The National
Crime Victimization Survey, which captures offenses not leading to arrest,
finds a 58% decline in rates of violence involving younger teens, and a
drop of 51% among older teens through 2006—much larger declines than found
for older ages. Other surveys such as Monitoring the Future also show
violence declines. Centers for Disease Control tabulations show rates of
murders of youth are down 54%, and of firearms deaths, down 59%, over the
period.
Violence declines were especially strong among the youngest teens,
preteens, and (in states such as California that separate offenses by race
and ethnicity) among white, non-Hispanic youth—all demographics allegedly
most affected by violent media. These violence declines by youth, among
the largest decreases in violence ever recorded among any American
population, are all the more striking given increased violence arrest
rates among middle-aged adults of age to be their parents.
These strongly contradictory trends represent a major challenge to
research claiming that violence in the media, especially newer media,
incites more violence among young people. While it is technically possible
that other factors reducing violence by youths (what these might be remain
disputed) more than offset increases fostered by media violence, that
would constitute an admission that media are a trivial causal factor
occupying attention that would be better spent investigating genuinely
important causes. Unfortunately, for the most part, researchers have
ignored these trends entirely, dismissed them with casual speculations,
or, worse, pretended that violence among youth must have risen.
Not only does the best evidence indicate that violence by youth has
declined sharply, studies on the subject find that the overwhelming
majority of youth who regularly patronize even the most violent media do
not commit violence. One reason for the discrepancy is suggested by the
present study, which found just 2% of their sample reported having one or
more exposures to violent video, computer, or other internet sites other
than news sites and committing one or more “seriously violent acts”* in
the previous year. What makes this small fraction of youth different from
the large majority of youth who either don’t patronize violent media or
who do but don’t commit serious violence? “Perhaps youth who are violent
are more attracted to violent exposures,” the authors acknowledge. In this
is the case, a youth’s propensity toward violence would precede his
patronage of violent media, which would either passively accompany or
actively redirect and reduce existing aggressive tendencies.
The possibility that violent media might neutrally accompany or even
mitigate real-world violence by serving as a virtual sublimate for the
fraction of youths affected by it has been dismissed summarily by
researchers without serious investigation. It is a difficult hypothesis to
test by means of surveys, unless a longitudinal method can be developed
that accurately pinpoints the time when a youth’s aggressive propensities
first emerged (which may precede the first overtly violent act). The
sublimation (as opposed to emulation and/or desensitization) hypothesis
would seem to require a supplementary qualitative observation and
interview method similar to that employed by Jeffrey Arnett in studying
the complex ways young heavy-metal music fans (including ones disposed to
aggression) integrated their favored media into their lives.
Even if accepted as valid, the findings in this paper do not justify
the authors’ recommendation that a “reduction in youths’ exposure to
violent media should be viewed as an important aspect of violence
prevention.” First, the study and practical violence trends indicate the
vast majority of youth are not driven to aggressive behaviors by violent
media; if there is a small fraction who are, that fraction merits study
and restriction more than tens of millions of youth in general. Second, as
reprehensible as many violent sites and expressions may be to many
researchers, the possibility remains that the more realistic media in
particular play a therapeutic role for at least some patrons whose
experiences have predisposed them to violence. Until research techniques
can be implemented that convincingly reject this hypothesis and reconcile
media violence research findings with real violence trends, announcements
that the media violence “debate is over” and policy recommendations to
restrict youths’ use of objectionable media remain premature.
Mike Males, Ph.D., senior researcher
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
http://www.YouthFacts.org
*A “seriously violent act” included not only committing or
threatening murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, and violent sexual
assault (which are indisputably serious), but also “kissing” and
“touching” another person “when it was not wanted by that person” (which
invites inclusion of instances involving simple miscommunication). Authors
do not provide a breakdown of violent offenses by type.
References
Arnett J (1996). Metalheads: Heavy metal music and adolescent
alienation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (1973-2006).
Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2006. Washington, DC: US
Department of Justice. Available at:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm#full
Federal Bureau of Investigation (1975-2008). Uniform Crime Reports
for the United States, 2007. US Department of Justice (1964-2007). At:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius. Table 38. Arrests by age. At:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_38.html
Monitoring the Future (1975-2005). Questionnaire Responses from the
Nation’s High School Seniors. Annual, 1975-2005. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan, Institute for Social Research. At:
http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs.html#refvols
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2008). WISQARS
injury mortality reports, 1999-2004. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease
Control. At: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
Ybarra ML, Diener-West M, Markow D, Leaf PJ, Hamburger M, Boxer P
(2008). Linkages between internet and other media violence with seriously
violent behavior by youth. Pediatrics.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/5/929
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
eLetters: ![[Read eLetters]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
