Book Review
Aggression 
Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence. Jonathan L Freedman. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2002. 222 p. CAN$24.95.
Reviewer
rating*: Excellent
Review by: Jan Volavka, MD, PhD
Orangeburg, New York
Public opinion, many experts, and many professional organizations agree that viewing violence on television causes aggressive behaviour in real life. The main purpose of this controversial book is to suggest that this is not necessarily so. The book succeeds in this mission.
The writing is unusual. Although ostensibly intended for a general audience, most of the text consists of rather technical, detailed analyses of several dozen individual studies that relate viewing television violence to aggressive attitudes or behaviours in viewers. Survey research, laboratory experiments, field experiments, longitudinal studies, and studies of desensitization are discussed in separate chapters. For most studies, Freedman reviews a summary of their methods and results and then arrives at his own interpretation of the data and conclusion. These interpretations and conclusions do not always agree with those provided by the authors. Freedman frequently concludes that what the authors thought was firm evidence supporting a causal relation between viewing violent television and aggression is in fact irrelevant or could even be interpreted to support the opposite point of view. There are substantial advantages to this detailed, systematic approach. Freedman clearly separates facts from his opinions and tries to justify his opinions in great detail. This makes the book transparent to the critical reader who has the interest, intelligence, and endurance required to read Freedman’s detailed arguments in their entirety. Fortunately, each of the chapters has a summary that is easy to read and will be useful to readers who do not have the time, expertise, or motivation to wade through the detailed analyses of individual studies.
Survey research and longitudinal studies found correlations between exposure to television violence and overt aggressive behaviour. It has been impossible, however, to demonstrate a causal relation between these 2 variables, and this is one of the principal points that Freedman makes in his book. The correlations could have been brought about by other variables, such as an underlying propensity for both television viewing and aggression. A family-based study reviewed by Freedman, for example, indicated that propensity for aggression and the tendency to enjoy violent movies are genetically determined but are not directly related to each other. Social factors, in a way analogous to the genetic ones, could affect both television viewing patterns and behavioural aggression by the viewers (without direct causal relation between viewing and aggression). Such factors include the family socioeconomic status, level of parental supervision, and peer pressure.
Laboratory experiments are generally more powerful than are other studies in terms of establishing causal relations, and violent films did elicit more aggressive attitudes and behaviours than did other programs, under laboratory conditions. Freedman points out that this effect could have been due to violent films causing more arousal, thus nonspecifically enhancing all kinds of behaviours.
You cannot show one group a film of a prizefight and another group a film of canal boating and argue that the only difference between the two films is the amount of violence. (p 195)
Freedman has clearly mastered his subject and generally has shown commendable restraint in his scientific reasoning and in the wording of his conclusions. When he makes more general statements (for example in his introductory chapter) he seems to lose that restraint; his language becomes somewhat confrontational. Many readers will enjoy Freedman’s iconoclastic polemic, but some may see this as a lack of impartiality. Freedman acknowledges that the work on the book was supported by the Motion Picture Association of America.
On the whole, this is an excellent, thought-provoking book—a useful and much-needed contribution to the largely one-sided debate on television violence. Intensive debate about the contribution of media violence to aggressive behaviour is continuing (1–3). Although the authors of these recent papers would not agree with Freedman’s position, the appearance of these papers in a prestigious journal provides further evidence for the timeliness of Freedman’s book. The book is well produced, and the price is reasonable.
References
1. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ: Psychology. The effects of media violence on society. Science 2002;295:2377–9.
2. Johnson JG, Cohen P, Smailes EM, Kasen S, Brook JS. Television viewing and aggressive behaviour during adolescence and adulthood. Science 2002;295:2468–71.
3. Klopfer PH, Bakshi SN, Hockey R, Johnson JG, Cohen P, Smailes EM, and others. Kids, TV viewing, and aggressive behaviour. Science 2002;297:49–50.
*Reviewer
Rating Scale/ Échelle d’évaluation du réviseur
Excellent / Excellent
Very Good / Très bon
Good / Bon
Fair / Passable
Not recommended / Pas recommandé
|
