Ever since the media-induced violence defense was first introduced in the 1977 Ronnie Zamora murder trial in Florida, a defense which failed on both First Amendment and scientific grounds, media-violence research has fared poorly in the legal arena. Some of the fundamental criticisms concern study designs and the plausibility of generalizing from the relatively benign forms of laboratory-related aggression measures to violent criminality. The interesting and complex study by Zillmann and Weaver purports to correct these conceptual and methodological criticisms and "quiet the critics. . . ."
College students were exposed to four either emotionally intense, violent or emotionally mild, non-violent films over a four-day period. On the fifth day, they were obliged to participate in another, ostensibly unrelated, experiment in which they were either insulted or complimented for their performance by a supervisor. Subjects were hen asked to evaluate the supervisor and her assistant and whether or not their continued assistantship support should be granted.
The main results of the study essentially supported research predictions. Insulted and violence-viewing subjects were less likely to recommend that the assistantships be renewed. Statistical interaction effects were non-significant. The researchers concluded that violent film exposure causes hostile behavior.
Unfortunately, there are major questions about the study's methodology and the careless use of critical terms. For example, the authors slide casually between use of the terms "mean-spirited," "hostile," and "violent" when describing or alluding to the evaluative responses of subjects. These terms are decidedly different in the meaning that they convey.
Furthermore, to equate so-called "hostile," essentially paper and pencil behavior (with no indication to the subjects that their evaluations would actually affect the fate of those evaluated), to watching violent movies and behaving violently in the real-world, is precisely the imprudent reasoning that has led to this body of research being derided by the courts as well as by Hollywood.
Methodologically most disturbing was the study's comparison of emotionally intense, violent vs. emotionally mild, non-violent film exposure. Zillmann's own extensive research shows that it is arousal per se, not the cause of arousal (e.g., violence or sex), that produces the emotional intensity which can later express itself in aggressive behavior. Had Zillmann and Weaver compared the violent films with non-violent but emotionally arousing sports movies (e.g., Downhill Racer), the results may likely not have supported their conclusions about the social impact of screen violence.
Clearly, achieving research goals to establish a causal link between media violence and viewer behavior could, conceivably, mitigate the sole culpability of perpetrators of such allegedly media-induced violence, and send an important message to the entertainment media. Unfortunately, we still need to stay tuned for a study that truly furthers such goals.
Zillmann, D & Weaver III,J.B. (1999). Effects of prolonged exposure to gratuitous media violence on provoked and unprovoked hostile behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29,1, pp.145-165.
