MrRING
Android Futureman
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 6,053
I have heard all my life how violent media caused violent behavior.
But, is it all just an urban myth?
What I have heard is that every media has been said to cause problems. That when books were invented, they were considered a detriment to health, and that "Don Quixote" was an outgrowth of that idea - that too many books rots the mind. I'm pretty sure that theatre preformers and plays had a bad rap, and I know that comic books were considered evil in the 1950's due to Fredrick Wertham. Movies were considered the prime corruptor after radio but before television. Then television was considered a vast wasteland, and I believe it was a series of violent cartoons in the late 60's that were considered to be corrupters of youth in tv, as well as violent westerns.
Am I right in that the patten exhibited is that a new media comes out, some portion of it is deemed an evil, immoral corrupter, until a even newer media comes up and is then tied to the "corruption of youth", and so on?
And as to why it seems like an urban legend - I don't think anybody thinks that reading a book, comic book, listening to a radio show, or seeing live theatre is a "corruptor of youth" anymore, or that violence in those media have an effect anymore. TV, yes, I'd say people still worry about it, but it was the last "new media" before the internet, but I bet anti-violence proponents will move away from tv's and into television, particularly because academic papers these days look better if they deal with multimedia.
What brought on this idea today, and why I thought it appropriate for urban legends, is how "violent lyrics" in songs are now considered the detriment to society. Is it the new thing, in that file swapping is such a new phenomenon, that parents think that free internet access to songs is corrupting todays youth? Is this and most of these studies trying to prove "violence in media" just an outgrowth of a urban myth as old as the printed page?
Here is the article, the original link is after it.
Study: Violent Lyrics Linked to Aggressive Thoughts
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Young adults may experience a surge in aggression-related thoughts and feelings after listening to music that contains violent lyrics, new study findings suggest.
Results of the experiments showed that violent songs led to more aggressive interpretations of ambiguous words and increased the relative speed with which people read aggressive versus nonaggressive words.
The study, released Sunday by the Washington, D.C.-based American Psychological Association, included five experiments involving more than 500 college students. It is published in the May issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
In the study, violent songs increased feelings of hostility. The increased hostility was not an effect of differences in musical style or a specific performing artist. Instead, the violent lyrics themselves appear to be responsible for the increase in aggressive thoughts and feelings, according to the report.
Even violent songs that were of a humorous nature increased aggressive thoughts, the study showed. The researchers believe that current findings contradict a popular notion that listening to angry, violent music actually serves as a positive catharsis for people.
"Research on potential violent song effects on aggressive behavior becomes even more important now that we have clearly demonstrated that such songs increase aggressive thoughts and feelings," writes a team led by Dr. Craig A. Anderson of Iowa State University in Ames.
The music industry came under criticism from lawmakers in October for failing to use more descriptive parental advisory labels that specify whether the music contains sex, violence or strong language.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has said that current CD labels give parents enough information without violating the right to free expression.
The RIAA is the trade group for the world's five big labels, including AOL Time Warner Inc., EMI Group Plc, Bertelsmann AG, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music and Sony Corp.
In response to pressure from Tipper Gore, the wife of former Vice President Al Gore, the industry agreed in 1985 to put labels on records that contain explicit sex or violence. At the time, artists said the labels were government-sponsored censorship.
During the five experiments, Anderson's team examined the effects of seven violent songs by seven artists and eight nonviolent songs by seven artists. In some cases the students heard both types of songs by the same recording artist.
After listening to the songs, students were given various psychological tests to measure aggressive thoughts and feelings, including asking the participants to classify words that have both aggressive and nonaggressive meanings, like rock and stick.
"One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," Anderson said in a statement from the APA.
"This message is important for all consumers, but especially for parents of children and adolescents," added Anderson.
Still, Anderson's team points out that any aggressive thoughts or feelings that result from violent lyrics "may last only a fairly short time."
Commenting on the study, the RIAA said "we agree that parents should be educated so they can make their own determinations about what media content is appropriate for their children."
"More than 75 percent of parents are satisfied with our current voluntary labeling program," the group said.
The RIAA noted that it will continue to educate parents on the security, privacy and legal risks posed by illegal activity on music-sharing networks on the Internet.
"Unlike the numerous legitimate online music sites that properly display the Parental Advisory Logo, these unauthorized networks allow easy access to songs without letting parents know what their kids are listening to," the group said.
SOURCE: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2003;84:960-971.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030505/hl_nm/lyrics_thought_dc_1
But, is it all just an urban myth?
What I have heard is that every media has been said to cause problems. That when books were invented, they were considered a detriment to health, and that "Don Quixote" was an outgrowth of that idea - that too many books rots the mind. I'm pretty sure that theatre preformers and plays had a bad rap, and I know that comic books were considered evil in the 1950's due to Fredrick Wertham. Movies were considered the prime corruptor after radio but before television. Then television was considered a vast wasteland, and I believe it was a series of violent cartoons in the late 60's that were considered to be corrupters of youth in tv, as well as violent westerns.
Am I right in that the patten exhibited is that a new media comes out, some portion of it is deemed an evil, immoral corrupter, until a even newer media comes up and is then tied to the "corruption of youth", and so on?
And as to why it seems like an urban legend - I don't think anybody thinks that reading a book, comic book, listening to a radio show, or seeing live theatre is a "corruptor of youth" anymore, or that violence in those media have an effect anymore. TV, yes, I'd say people still worry about it, but it was the last "new media" before the internet, but I bet anti-violence proponents will move away from tv's and into television, particularly because academic papers these days look better if they deal with multimedia.
What brought on this idea today, and why I thought it appropriate for urban legends, is how "violent lyrics" in songs are now considered the detriment to society. Is it the new thing, in that file swapping is such a new phenomenon, that parents think that free internet access to songs is corrupting todays youth? Is this and most of these studies trying to prove "violence in media" just an outgrowth of a urban myth as old as the printed page?
Here is the article, the original link is after it.
Study: Violent Lyrics Linked to Aggressive Thoughts
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Young adults may experience a surge in aggression-related thoughts and feelings after listening to music that contains violent lyrics, new study findings suggest.
Results of the experiments showed that violent songs led to more aggressive interpretations of ambiguous words and increased the relative speed with which people read aggressive versus nonaggressive words.
The study, released Sunday by the Washington, D.C.-based American Psychological Association, included five experiments involving more than 500 college students. It is published in the May issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
In the study, violent songs increased feelings of hostility. The increased hostility was not an effect of differences in musical style or a specific performing artist. Instead, the violent lyrics themselves appear to be responsible for the increase in aggressive thoughts and feelings, according to the report.
Even violent songs that were of a humorous nature increased aggressive thoughts, the study showed. The researchers believe that current findings contradict a popular notion that listening to angry, violent music actually serves as a positive catharsis for people.
"Research on potential violent song effects on aggressive behavior becomes even more important now that we have clearly demonstrated that such songs increase aggressive thoughts and feelings," writes a team led by Dr. Craig A. Anderson of Iowa State University in Ames.
The music industry came under criticism from lawmakers in October for failing to use more descriptive parental advisory labels that specify whether the music contains sex, violence or strong language.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has said that current CD labels give parents enough information without violating the right to free expression.
The RIAA is the trade group for the world's five big labels, including AOL Time Warner Inc., EMI Group Plc, Bertelsmann AG, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music and Sony Corp.
In response to pressure from Tipper Gore, the wife of former Vice President Al Gore, the industry agreed in 1985 to put labels on records that contain explicit sex or violence. At the time, artists said the labels were government-sponsored censorship.
During the five experiments, Anderson's team examined the effects of seven violent songs by seven artists and eight nonviolent songs by seven artists. In some cases the students heard both types of songs by the same recording artist.
After listening to the songs, students were given various psychological tests to measure aggressive thoughts and feelings, including asking the participants to classify words that have both aggressive and nonaggressive meanings, like rock and stick.
"One major conclusion from this and other research on violent entertainment media is that content matters," Anderson said in a statement from the APA.
"This message is important for all consumers, but especially for parents of children and adolescents," added Anderson.
Still, Anderson's team points out that any aggressive thoughts or feelings that result from violent lyrics "may last only a fairly short time."
Commenting on the study, the RIAA said "we agree that parents should be educated so they can make their own determinations about what media content is appropriate for their children."
"More than 75 percent of parents are satisfied with our current voluntary labeling program," the group said.
The RIAA noted that it will continue to educate parents on the security, privacy and legal risks posed by illegal activity on music-sharing networks on the Internet.
"Unlike the numerous legitimate online music sites that properly display the Parental Advisory Logo, these unauthorized networks allow easy access to songs without letting parents know what their kids are listening to," the group said.
SOURCE: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2003;84:960-971.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030505/hl_nm/lyrics_thought_dc_1
