Transcript Comparison of Homicide Rates Across Countries # 1 United States:11,877,218 # 2 United Kingdom:6,523,706 # 3 Germany:6,507,394 # 4 France:3,771,850 # 5 Russia:2,952,370 # 6 Japan:2,853,739 #

Comparison of Homicide Rates Across Countries
# 1 United States:11,877,218
# 2 United Kingdom:6,523,706
# 3 Germany:6,507,394
# 4 France:3,771,850
# 5 Russia:2,952,370
# 6 Japan:2,853,739
# 7 South Africa:2,683,849
# 8 Canada:2,516,918
# 9 Italy:2,231,550
# 10 India:1,764,630
# 11 Korea, South:1,543,220
# 12 Mexico:1,516,029
# 13 Netherlands:1,422,863
# 14 Poland:1,404,229
# 15 Argentina:1,340,529
# 16 Sweden:1,234,784
# 17 Belgium:973,548
# 18 Spain:923,271
# 19 Chile:593,997
# 20 Thailand:565,108
The Violent Crime Clock
Although the rates of violent crimes in the United States have
declined in recent years, they are still distressingly high, as these
averaged statistics illustrate, and are much higher than they were
several decades ago. (Based on Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics.)
In the United States in 2002, there was, on average:
One MURDER
One FORCIBLE RAPE
One AGGRIVATED ASSAULT
One VIOLENT CRIME
every 32 minutes
every 6 minutes
every 35 seconds
every 22 seconds
Aggression/Violence --- Some Statistics
• Overall, an estimated 1,417,745 violent crimes occurred in the U.S. in 2006
Year
Homicide
rate
1990
10.0
1991
10.5
1992
10.0
1993
10.1
1994
9.6
1995
8.7
1996
7.9
1997
7.4
1998
6.8
1999
6.2
2000
6.1
2001
7.1
2002
6.1
2003
6.1
2004
5.9
2005
6.1
2006
6.2
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics
See: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/hmrttab.cfm
Aggression
Laboratory Research Outline
Violent Stimuli
• Type (e.g., real, justified)
• Amount (dose )
Predisposed to aggress
(e.g., previously angered
or frustrated)
Experimenter Demand
Situational Factors
Aggression Measures
• Shock administration
• Punching a doll
Samples
Grade school children
Adults
Gender
Longevity of Effects
(short versus longterm)
Over or underestimates of real-life
aggression
Aggression
Field Research
Consistency of results (significant on some measures but not others
Magnitude of effects
Arousal as a moderating variable
Aggression
Correlational Research
Should the correlations between viewing violence and aggression increase with age
Gender differences
Bi-directional correlations (e.g., earlier viewing related to later aggression; later
viewing related to earlier aggression aggression)
Comparison of the Effect of Violent Media on Aggression
with Effects From Other Domains
Smoking and lung cancer
Media violence and aggression
Condom use and sexually
transmitted HIV
Passive smoking and lung cancer
at work
Lead exposure and children’s IQ
Nicotine patch and smoking
cessation
Calcium intake and bone mass
Homework and academic
achievement
From Bushman, B.J., & Anderson, C.
A. (2001). Media violence and the
American public: Scientific facts
versus media misinformation,
American Psychologist, June/July,
477-489.
Asbestos and laryngeal cancer
Self-examination and breast
cancer
-.2
-.1
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
Children’s shows
Prime-time shows
80
70
60
% of
characters
50
40
30
20
10
0
Violent
characters
Victims of
violence
Perpetrators or
victims of violence
General Aggression Model
Long-term effects occur due to the development of very accessible knowledge structures and
emotional desensitization. Each violent media episode is a learning trial where rehearsal of
aggressive thoughts and aggression-related emotions occur. These lead to chronically accessible
hostile attitudes, beliefs, and scripts
Exposure to Violent Music
Study 1 & 2 Procedure?
Study 1 Findings: Violent song lead to significantly greater amounts of state
hostility
Study 2 Findings: Violent song produced higher similarity between aggressive
and ambiguous word pairs. Violent song had much smaller contrast scores.
Study 3?
Incorporating the role of arousal and trait hostility
• No differences in arousal levels by song type
• Trait hostility was related to state hostility
• Those hearing a violent song had higher state hostility scores
• Word pronunciation: Violent songs increased the accessibility of aggressive words
Study 4?
Effects on aggressive thoughts and feelings of aggressive music (role of humor)
• Significant main effect for trait hostility
• No-song control group was similar to humorous violent song group
• Humorous non-violent song group had much lower state hostility scores
than the humorous violent song and control group
• Violent and non-violent song groups were NOT significant (p < .07).
Marginally significant?
Study 5?
• The 2 violent song conditions had the highest state hostility scores; stronger for those
who completed the hostility scale first
• No effect for humorous content (p < .09) (Marginally significant?)
• Significant role of trait hostility
~ Overall Issues~
• Role of arousal
• Role of gender
• Role of Trait Hostility (significant but does NOT moderate the
relationship between violent stimuli and state hostility)
• Type of music (e.g., violent, humorous)
Other Issues
Effects on:
Interpersonal
interactions
• State Hostility
• Aggressive thoughts
• Aggression-related thoughts, feelings
• Short vs. Long-term impact
Priming effect
Personality
development
Repeated
exposure
Media Violence and Aggression --- Longitudinal Study
Key Questions
• To what extent does early childhood exposure to media violence predict young-adult
aggression and violence?
• Are there gender differences in the predictability?
•
Does the extent to which the child viewer identifies with the aggressive character
or believes the plot is realistic affect the strength of the prediction?
• To what extent does any long-term relation seem to be due to more aggressive
children simply liking to watch violence or seem to be due to some environmental,
family, or personal “third variable” that stimulates both childhood violence viewing
and childhood and adult aggression?
Sample?
Critical Measures
Children:
• Peer-nominations of aggression
• TV-violence viewing
• Identification with aggressive TV characters
• Perceived realism of TV violence content
Parent Measures
Parenting Practices
(self ratings)
Aggressive personality
Severe physical aggression
Fantasizing about aggression
Rejection of child
Nurturance
Harsh punishment
Mobility orientation
Other Aggression Factors
• Biology and genetics (identical twins studies, r = .30)
• Physiology --- limbic system, hormones (testosterone)
• Pain – discomfort (e.g., heat, frustration, stress)
• Social learning --- modeling (e.g., media influence)
Temperature and Aggression (cont.)
Violent
Crime Ratio
40
35
30
25
20
15
40-57
69-72
78-80
85-88
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
93-95
Temperature and Aggression (cont.)
.6
HBP per
game
.5
.4
.3
< 70
70-79
80-89
90 and above
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
Association Between Violent Stimuli Homicide Rate
• Sports (e.g., Boxing)
Modeling Explanation -• Publicity Effect
• Victim Similarity
(i.e., race of loser)
• War
War and Homicide Rates --- Pre and Post war rates
• Dose of war
• Labeling Issue
Aggressive Cues and Violence
TV Show
Neutral
Violent (swat team and
use of walkie-talkie)
Interview before hockey game
Tape recorder
Walkie-talkie
Played in hockey game
• Those who watched the violent TV show and were interviewed with a walkie-talkie
(aggressive cue) behaved more aggressively
Indirect, Relational and Social Aggression
Indirect: Harm is delivered covertly (verbal or physical)
More common among girls up to age 18
Relational: Intent is to damage relationships or feelings of acceptance,
friendship, or group membership (Generally more frequent among females)
Social: Actions directed toward damaging another’s self-esteem, and/or social
status (combines elements of both indirect and relational but adds harmful
non-verbal behaviors
Frequency of such behaviors on TV?
More common than physical and verbal aggression, especially by attractive
females whose behavior is often rewarded and justified (Coyne & Archer, 2004)
Participants and Method?
422 students in grades 6 -8 (US equivalent)
51% males 45% females
Indirect/Social/Relational Aggression Scale (ISRA)
‘‘Think about all the other members of your year and the way they treated each other in the past
week. Now circle the number of
times that you either heard about or watched the following behaviors taking place in the past week.’’
Sample 1: Frequency
Hearing someone say something nice about someone else
0 1 2 3 4 51
‘‘Now think about how a person would feel if someone else did the following behaviors to
them. Please circle how much you think that each of the behaviors would make a person
feel sad or hurt.’’
Sample 2: Harmfulness
Hearing someone say something nice about them
1——2——3——4
Most common are perceived as least harmful
Gender Differences
Frequency:
Girls = Gossiping
Boys: Making fun of others and hitting
Harmfulness:
Overall, girls viewed specific aggressive items as more harmful than boys,
especially ones measuring indirect and direct relational aggressive behaviors
How would you define pornography?
SUPREME COURT
• Explicit sex
•
Community standards
• Content is without redeeming social value
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be
embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps
I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the
motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
• Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
Antonio Allegri, known as
Correggio
1489?-1534
Venus, Satyr and Cupid
c. 1525
Nude in the Sunlight, 1876,
81x64,5cm.
Paris, Musee d'Orsay.
Jean-Jacques, known as
James Pradier
1790-1852
Satyr and Bacchante
Dated 1834
Marble
Michelangelo's statue of "David."
Violence Against Women --- The Role of Violent vs. and
Sexually Explicit Images
Some Film Type Studies:
• Sexually explicit (e.g., X-rated)
• Sexually aggressive (e.g., rape scenes)
Angered or not
• Violence (e.g., murder, assault)
• “Teen sex” films
• Neutral
Effects on:
Negative attitudes/perceptions towards females
Reactions fo films (e.g., habituation, viewed as less offensive/violent)
Violent behavior
From: Linz, D, G., Donnerstein, E., & Penrod, S. (1988). Effects of long-term exposure to violent
and sexually degrading depictions of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
(5),758-768
Sample of all males who were angered or treated in a neutral manner by a female
prior to viewing one of 3 different film types
Donnerstein, E. (1980). Aggressive Erotica and Violence Against Women. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 269-277
Participants watch 1 film per day for 5 days. Then served as jurors in a
mock jury trial
• Female viewed as more responsible for the attack
• Female seen as resisting less
• Female perceived as being hurt less severely
• Less sympathy for the victim
From: Linz, Donnerstein, and Penrod (1984).
Donnerstein & Berkowitz (1981)
Film Type
• Neutral
• 2 Aggressive Erotic
• Non-aggressive erotic
Film Type
• Neutral
• 2 Aggressive Erotic
• Non-aggressive erotic
Victim Reaction
Positive victim
reaction
Negative victim
reaction
Shock Intensity
(aggression)
Male vs. Female
Target
Victim Reaction
Anger Condition
Positive victim
reaction
Angered
Negative victim
reaction
Not Angered
Films had no effect on male targets whereas both types
of aggressive erotic films increased aggression toward
the female
Angered male subjects were more aggressive toward the
female after viewing either aggressive erotic film but that
only the positive-outcome aggressive film increased
aggression in non-angered subjects.
Frequency:
• R-rated film possess greater number and proportion of aggressive scenes
• R-rated films have more graphic depictions of aggression (Palys, 1986)
• “Porn” films (e.g., “stag” movies) from 1915 – 1972: Rape depictions occurred
about 5% of the time (Slade, 1984). Images of sexual violence is included in
1/3000 pages and in less than 4/1000 pictures
Some General Findings:
• Sexually-aggressive films = highest aggression levels
• Aggression-only films (no sex) = greater aggression than sexually explicit
film and no difference between the sex-only film and the control condition
(Donnerstein, Berkowitz, & Linz, 1986)
This is material suited for prime-time programming!!! So, violent material (sexually
explicit or not) promotes violent behavior
“… depictions of violence against women, whether in a sexually explicit context or
not, should be the focus of concern.” (Linz & Donnerstein, 1990)
“we should be concerned about the detrimental effects of exposure to violent
images both in pornography and elsewhere ---particularly material that portrays
the myth that women enjoy or in some way benefit from rape, torture, or other
forms of sexual violence. The portrayal of this theme is not found only in
pornography. To single out pornography for mire stringent legal action is
inappropriate, based on the empirical research. Mass media depictions portray the
same myth even though they contain little explicit sex or are only mildly sexually
explicit … It is now fairly well documented that violent material, whether
sexually explicit or not, has the potential to promote violent behavior following
exposure” (Linz, Donnerstein, & Penrod, 1987 – in the American Psychologist)
1930s-era female statue representing the "Spirit of Justice” in the Great Hall of
the Department of Justice