This is really interesting to me, I love analyzing films and film culture. I always turn to the BBC for science / nature cutting edge news, they are certainly ahead of the curve on that. I'm not surprised that this type of CT is effective, but I'm surprised it's not more widely known. I wonder if actors get the same benefit from being in the movie as those watching it.

Great post, thanks for the references!

What I don't understand is how Mr. Fischoff can
reconcile his argument, made here:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-media-zone/200806/media-violen...

that movies have *no* negative effect on viewers
(i.e. that violent movies do not make viewers
more aggressive) that furthermore his colleagues
who suggest such a thing are "spittle-rich" ranters.

-- With his argument here that movies can have
a profoundly positive effect on viewers.

Unless Mr. Fischoff feels that movies are just so
intrinsically good, that they can only have
good effects on people (never bad).

Perhaps in your third installment, you can explain
the contradiction.

Either movies can have no effect on viewers,
or else movies can good effects *and* bad effects
on viewers.

It does seem to me, Terry, that our agreements overlap. And I certainly intended no strawman arguments. But let me clarify further. Violence in media MAY increase the probability of someone behaving aggressively given that some provocative situation arises where aggression might be an appropriate response and GIVEN that the individual has aggression as a high probability response in his/her aggressive repertoire of responses to this particular situation. Given also that there are no aggression-antagonistic, inhibitory ideas and responses also aroused in that situation (e.g, hitting your mother or your father who may have frustrated you after you watched a violent media event.

Yet, the fact is that arousal from any kind of media images or messages would do the same thing. Excitation from a sexual scene would transfer to all sorts of responses and increase their intensity of expression, including violence but also popcorn eating and walking and talking.

That violence in media can arouse people disposed to violence or people with mental instability is not at issue here. At issue with those putting forth the media-violence connection is its significant impact as a variable in most human violence. Earlier arguments by the same theorists, incidentally, actually did argue that if you watch violence in media you will likely act violence. Over the years they have progressively backed off that simplistic assertion. So now we only have arguments that some people, in some circumstances, may do some violence--but they may not if... Reminiscent of the Revised Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis.

And so it goes. I would worry more, in fact, Terry, about the Old and New Testaments. They have instigated more violence throughout ancient and recent history than any Oliver Stone movie or GTA-IV ever could.

Stuart

Mr. Fischoff writes:

"Yet, the fact is that arousal from any kind
of media images or messages would do the same
thing."

Yes, that's the new defense of violent media,
that all exciting, arousing media cause
aggressive thoughts and feeling.

In response, researchers are now using
exciting, arousing video games and comparing
them to the violent video games.
And guess what, there are real differences
in how the players are effected.

For example:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196600301

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/31/health/webmd/main1849262.shtml

http://books.google.com/books?id=2OHSgcuEU2YC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=viol...

"At issue with those putting forth the
media-violence connection is its significant
impact as a variable in most human violence."

No, there has been *plenty* of human violence
before movies and video games where even
invented. The argument is that exposure to
violent media increases aggressive emotions
and cognition. The more the exposure, the
greater the effect. These increased aggressive
emotions and cognition *may* then lead to
increased aggressive acts.

An analogy would be smoking and lung cancer.
We know that smoking damages the lungs,
the more the smoking the more the damage.
But whether or not the lung damage raises
to the level of actually causing lung
cancer, no one knows for sure. Why? because
there are other variables at play. For
example: general health, genetic disposition
to cancer, exposure to air pollution, etc.
Smoking is one variable among many. We
also know (from correlational studies)
that the more you smoke, the greater your
chances of getting lung cancer.

"Films have a definite charm. And the
synergistic impact of multiple visual and
auditory skills of music, dialogue, lighting,
camera angles, sound effects, enables a film
to bypass ordinary defensive censors in a
viewer. These filmic "effects" get to hidden
or unnoticed cognitions by way of evoked
emotions, or vice versa, and often get there
more easily than any other artistic or
entertainment medium."

Well put. We definitely agree here!

A couple of more studies comparing the effects
of playing a violent video game versus playing
a non-violent video game:

"Dr Sonya Brady of the University of California,
San Francisco, and Professor Karen Matthews at
the University of Pittsburgh say their study shows
that young men are more likely to see others'
attitudes toward them as hostile if they've just
played a violent game."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1612435.htm

"Is there a difference in behavior when violence
is rewarded in a video game (e.g., by praise or
through a higher score) versus when violence is
punished?"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051202094251.htm

And here is a correlational study looking at
the effects of violent media on girls and women.

http://www.ur.umich.edu/9596/Feb06_96/artcl17.htm