mass-communication-theory

SOCIAL LEARNING
Chapter 7 Moving Beyond Limited Effects: Focus on Functionalism and Children 193
pent-up aggression and hostility. In television’s early days, many people were anxious
to rationalize their use of this attractive new medium.
There was even early scientific evidence suggesting that catharsis was indeed at
work. Seymour Feshbach (1961) demonstrated what he said was catharsis by insulting
college-age men with “a number of unwarranted and extremely critical remarks”
in an experimental setting and then having them watch either filmed
aggression (a brutal prize fight) or a neutral film (on the spread of rumors). The
men were then asked to evaluate the experiment and the insulting experimenter.
Those who had seen the prize fight were less aggressive in their attitudes than those
who had seen the other film.
But, as F. Scott Andison wrote in 1977 after reviewing twenty years’ worth of
scientific evidence, “We can conclude on the basis of the present data cumulation
that television, as it is shown today, probably does stimulate a higher amount of
aggression in individuals within society. Therefore, it seems reasonable to tentatively
accept the ‘TV violence as a stimulant to aggression’ theory and to reject the
…‘cathartic’ theories” (p. 323). Or as James D. Halloran (1964/65), then director
of Britain’s Center for Mass Communication Research at the University of Leicester,
more directly put it, catharsis is a “phony argument.”
But Feshbach did demonstrate a reduction in aggression after viewing, and he
obtained similar results in a 1971 study (Feshbach and Singer) conducted with
funding from NBC. The research was undertaken in a group home for preadolescent
boys. For six weeks, half of the boys were restricted to watching television
programs with little or no violence while the other half was allowed to watch violent
content. A variety of behavioral measures indicated that the boys viewing the
violent programs were less aggressive. These results may not have been caused by
catharsis, however. The boys who were placed in the nonviolent programming
group may have been frustrated because they were not allowed to watch some of
their favorite shows. Heightened frustration might account for their increased
aggressiveness.
What social scientists would eventually learn, however, is that certain presentations
of mediated violence and aggression can reduce the likelihood of subsequent
viewer aggression. But catharsis is not the reason. Rather, viewers learn that violence
might not be appropriate in a given situation. Think about the first Feshbach
study (1961). Maybe those who had seen the brutal boxing match, who had seen
unnecessary pain inflicted on another human, simply said to themselves, “Aggression
is not a good thing.” Their aggressive drive might not have been purged, but
they might have simply learned that such treatment of another human is inappropriate.
In other words, their inclination toward aggression (remember, they had
been insulted) was inhibited by the information in the media presentation. This
leads us to the theory that is generally accepted as most useful in understanding
the influence of media violence on individuals—social cognitive theory.
Humans learn from observation. There has been some question, however, about
how much and what kinds of behaviors people learn from the media. This debate
has been fueled, in part, by a definitional problem. No one questions whether
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.