Gun Violence Trends in Movies

In many shooting sprees, the perpetrator puts on a uniform (eg, hockey mask, trench coat, movie costume, military uniform), as if following a script from a movie. For example, on July 20, 2012, James Holmes bought a ticket to see the new Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado. Approximately 20 minutes after the show started, Holmes left the theater and returned dressed in full tactical gear, carrying several guns and a huge amount of ammunition. He launched 2 canisters that emitted smoke or gas and then began firing into the crowd, killing 12 and wounding 70 others. Holmes identified himself to the police as “The Joker.”¹

It is useful to consider a youth’s life as filled with a succession of social problems that must be solved. Youth learn how to solve problems by observing how others solve similar problems.² By observing others, youth accumulate a set of programs, called scripts, for solving social problems.³ In theater, scripts tell actors what to do and say. In memory, scripts define situations and guide behavior; the person first selects a script for the situation, assumes a role in that script, and then behaves according to it. A script may be learned through direct experience or by observing others, such as violent characters in the mass media.⁴ The media provide scripts for gun use. Gun violence in films might also encourage an association between guns and violence.

In the wake of recent shooting sprees, legislators and the lay public are discussing possible ways to reduce youth violence. What is conspicuously absent from these discussions, however, is the fact that just seeing a weapon can increase aggression, an effect dubbed the “weapons effect.”Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.Leonard Berkowitz, Psychology Professor⁵

In 1967, Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage conducted a study to determine whether the mere presence of weapons could increase aggression.⁶ Angered participants were seated at a table that had a shotgun and a revolver on it or badminton racquets and shuttlecocks in the control condition. The items on the table were described as part of another experiment that the researcher had supposedly forgotten to put away. There was also a second control condition with no items on the table. The participant decided what level of electric shock to deliver to an accomplice of the experimenter, ostensibly to evaluate his or her performance on a task. In reality, the shock was used to measure aggressive behavior. The experimenter told participants to ignore the items on the table, but apparently they could not. Participants who saw the guns were more aggressive than participants who saw the sports items or no items at all.

More than 50 other studies have replicated the weapons effect, both inside and outside the laboratory in both angered and nonangered individuals.⁷ Weapons can even make people aggressive when they cannot “see” them. In one study,⁸ for example, participants who were exposed to words describing weapons (eg, gun) for only 0.17 second were more aggressive afterward than participants exposed to nonaggressive words (eg, water). These findings suggest that there is a strong link between weapons and aggression in memory.

For decades, researchers have studied the effects of exposure to violent media on aggression in children and youth. The evidence from these studies has been reviewed numerous times, and nearly all researchers have reached the same conclusion: exposure to media violence can increase aggression.^8–12 After reviewing the available evidence, 6 public health organizations (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, and the American Psychological Association) endorsed a joint statement that concluded: “The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children.”¹³ Research organizations, such as the International Society for Research on Aggression, have issued similar statements.¹⁴ Many government organizations also have issued statements, including the US Surgeon General, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In summary, virtually all scientific and health organizations have concluded that media violence can increase aggression.

The current study tested a potential source of the weapons effect: the presence of guns in top-selling films. Given that the sight of weapons can increase aggression, and violent media can increase aggression, gun violence in films might be a “double whammy.” Seeing guns in films might also provide youth with scripts for using guns. In particular, we were interested in the presence of guns in violent scenes depicted in PG-13–rated films (ie, for viewers age 13+). The proportion of PG-13–rated films in the top 30 grossing films has increased greatly since the rating was introduced in 1985.¹⁵ Previous research has shown that violence is a common theme in top-selling films and that the amount of violence has increased over time,^16,17 even in G (general audiences)-rated films considered appropriate for viewers of all ages.¹⁸ Research also shows that youth frequently watch extremely violent films.^19,20 Moreover, such films are more accessible today to viewers of all ages than ever before, such as on the Internet and cable. However, previous research has not examined the extent to which gun violence is portrayed in films and whether the use of guns has increased over time, especially in PG-13–rated films that adolescents are most likely to watch. We predicted that the presence of guns in violent scenes has increased in films with PG-13 ratings.