Conclusions on guns in movies study unsubstantiated, misleading

When I read scientific publications on the impact of violence in the media, I am always ambivalent and skeptical. In my gut, intuitively, I believe that violence in the media must have an effect on youth. Yet, my understanding of research in this area tells me that the effect is not as significant as my intuition would have me believe.

In a recent study, Brad J. Bushman, Ph.D., of Ohio State University, Columbus, and his colleagues found that violence in films has more than doubled since 1950 (Pediatrics 2013 Nov. 11 [doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1600]). The researchers go on to suggest that the presence of guns in those films might increase the aggressive behavior of young people.

"In the wake of recent shooting sprees, legislators and the lay public are discussing possible ways to reduce youth violence," Dr. Bushman and his colleagues wrote. "What is conspicuously absent from these discussions, however, is the fact that just seeing a weapon can increase aggression, an effect dubbed the ‘weapons effect.’ "

I do not doubt the authors’ findings; for example, over the past 20 years the presence of guns in films has indeed increased dramatically. However, I think their conclusion that violent media can have harmful effects on children and youth through an increased weapons effect are misleading. Furthermore, their conclusions strike me as one-dimensional. My experience as a psychiatrist over the last 40-plus years tells me that behavior is multidetermined.

The authors tout the following joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children endorsed by several national health organizations: "The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children." The statement was signed by several organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Still, the joint statement also seems misleading to me.

My understanding of the 30 years of research on violence in the media is that although such violence has been shown to increase aggression, it does not necessarily cause an increase in violence. Aggression is a very broad term. At its lowest level, it can include alertness, initiative, curiosity, motivation, attentiveness, and exploratory behavior.

At the next level, aggression can encompass self-assertion, for example, the attempt to establish, maintain, and expand one’s boundaries and integrity while not intruding into the territory of others. Following self-assertion, there is dominance or the capacity to exert an influence on the behavior of other people or groups in an intended direction (also known as power), with the foundation of dominance being grounded in coercion, for example, the expectation of great rewards or punishments for certain kinds of behavior.

Authority, which is a form of dominance, is legitimized by legal, professional, or social mores and might be legitimate (authority conferred by virtue of law or formal designation), charismatic (authority bestowed by virtue of having "winning ways" with people, or traditional (authority granted out of respect for longevity).

Although hostility is a form of aggression, it includes behavior or attitudes intended to hurt or destroy an object or the self. Moreover, violence is a subcategory of hostility that occurs when there is the use of force to injure physically. Lastly, hatred is a form of aggression when the injury or destruction of an object, self, or situation is the end rather than a means to an end.

Former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher’s seminal report on youth violence concludes that the average effect sizes of exposure to media violence on various measures of aggression range from small (r = 0.15) to quite large (r = 0.64). The evidence that exposure to media violence is a risk factor for violent behavior is more limited, with small average effect sizes of r = 0.06 in cross-sectional surveys, r = 0.13 in experimental studies, and r = 0.00-0.22 in longitudinal studies. Taken together, findings to date suggest that media violence has a relatively small impact on violence. The effect on aggression is stronger, ranging from small to moderate.

Finally, the Pediatrics article does not take into account the protective factors that prevent violence in the media from taking hold of young minds. I wrote about these protective factors in a Clinical Psychiatry News commentary published in May 2013.

In that piece, I cited the seven field principles that prevent risk factors:

• Rebuilding the village/constructing social fabric (known as building collective efficacy) – a good example of this is the creation of block clubs in which everyone on the block looks after one another and everyone’s children.

• Providing access to modern and ancient technology – both biotechnical and psychosocial.

• Improving bonding, attachment, and connectedness between people; resiliency research shows that if a young person has a good relationship with a caring adult who has the youth’s best interest at heart, that relationship is protective of the youth’s successful outcome.

• Providing an opportunity to improve self-esteem – a sense of power, a sense of models, a sense of uniqueness, and a sense of connectedness.

• Increasing opportunities to learn social and emotional skills of target recipients; a good example of this is anger management skills (technically known as affect regulation).

• Reestablishing the adult protective shield and monitoring risky behaviors by adults, thereby providing a sense of safety; a good example are the security procedures at the entrance to Chicago public schools.

• Minimizing the effects of trauma by cultivating learned helpfulness out of learned helplessness (aka, mastery), thus generating hope.

In summary, the authors are to be commended for documenting the increase in gun violence in the movies. However, to leap to unfounded conclusions that this has resulted in an increase in violence is an error.

Dr. Bell is professor of psychiatry and public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also serves as a staff psychiatrist in the psychosis program in the department of psychiatry at the university, staff psychiatrist at St. Bernard’s Hospital, and staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Outpatient Family Practice Clinic in Chicago. Dr. Bell is the former president and CEO of the Community Mental Health Council and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry) at the university.

When I read scientific publications on the impact of violence in the media, I am always ambivalent and skeptical. In my gut, intuitively, I believe that violence in the media must have an effect on youth. Yet, my understanding of research in this area tells me that the effect is not as significant as my intuition would have me believe.

In a recent study, Brad J. Bushman, Ph.D., of Ohio State University, Columbus, and his colleagues found that violence in films has more than doubled since 1950 (Pediatrics 2013 Nov. 11 [doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1600]). The researchers go on to suggest that the presence of guns in those films might increase the aggressive behavior of young people.

"In the wake of recent shooting sprees, legislators and the lay public are discussing possible ways to reduce youth violence," Dr. Bushman and his colleagues wrote. "What is conspicuously absent from these discussions, however, is the fact that just seeing a weapon can increase aggression, an effect dubbed the ‘weapons effect.’ "

I do not doubt the authors’ findings; for example, over the past 20 years the presence of guns in films has indeed increased dramatically. However, I think their conclusion that violent media can have harmful effects on children and youth through an increased weapons effect are misleading. Furthermore, their conclusions strike me as one-dimensional. My experience as a psychiatrist over the last 40-plus years tells me that behavior is multidetermined.

The authors tout the following joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children endorsed by several national health organizations: "The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children." The statement was signed by several organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Still, the joint statement also seems misleading to me.

My understanding of the 30 years of research on violence in the media is that although such violence has been shown to increase aggression, it does not necessarily cause an increase in violence. Aggression is a very broad term. At its lowest level, it can include alertness, initiative, curiosity, motivation, attentiveness, and exploratory behavior.

At the next level, aggression can encompass self-assertion, for example, the attempt to establish, maintain, and expand one’s boundaries and integrity while not intruding into the territory of others. Following self-assertion, there is dominance or the capacity to exert an influence on the behavior of other people or groups in an intended direction (also known as power), with the foundation of dominance being grounded in coercion, for example, the expectation of great rewards or punishments for certain kinds of behavior.

Authority, which is a form of dominance, is legitimized by legal, professional, or social mores and might be legitimate (authority conferred by virtue of law or formal designation), charismatic (authority bestowed by virtue of having "winning ways" with people, or traditional (authority granted out of respect for longevity).

Although hostility is a form of aggression, it includes behavior or attitudes intended to hurt or destroy an object or the self. Moreover, violence is a subcategory of hostility that occurs when there is the use of force to injure physically. Lastly, hatred is a form of aggression when the injury or destruction of an object, self, or situation is the end rather than a means to an end.

Former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher’s seminal report on youth violence concludes that the average effect sizes of exposure to media violence on various measures of aggression range from small (r = 0.15) to quite large (r = 0.64). The evidence that exposure to media violence is a risk factor for violent behavior is more limited, with small average effect sizes of r = 0.06 in cross-sectional surveys, r = 0.13 in experimental studies, and r = 0.00-0.22 in longitudinal studies. Taken together, findings to date suggest that media violence has a relatively small impact on violence. The effect on aggression is stronger, ranging from small to moderate.

Finally, the Pediatrics article does not take into account the protective factors that prevent violence in the media from taking hold of young minds. I wrote about these protective factors in a Clinical Psychiatry News commentary published in May 2013.

In that piece, I cited the seven field principles that prevent risk factors:

• Rebuilding the village/constructing social fabric (known as building collective efficacy) – a good example of this is the creation of block clubs in which everyone on the block looks after one another and everyone’s children.

• Providing access to modern and ancient technology – both biotechnical and psychosocial.

• Improving bonding, attachment, and connectedness between people; resiliency research shows that if a young person has a good relationship with a caring adult who has the youth’s best interest at heart, that relationship is protective of the youth’s successful outcome.

• Providing an opportunity to improve self-esteem – a sense of power, a sense of models, a sense of uniqueness, and a sense of connectedness.

• Increasing opportunities to learn social and emotional skills of target recipients; a good example of this is anger management skills (technically known as affect regulation).

• Reestablishing the adult protective shield and monitoring risky behaviors by adults, thereby providing a sense of safety; a good example are the security procedures at the entrance to Chicago public schools.

• Minimizing the effects of trauma by cultivating learned helpfulness out of learned helplessness (aka, mastery), thus generating hope.

In summary, the authors are to be commended for documenting the increase in gun violence in the movies. However, to leap to unfounded conclusions that this has resulted in an increase in violence is an error.

Dr. Bell is professor of psychiatry and public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also serves as a staff psychiatrist in the psychosis program in the department of psychiatry at the university, staff psychiatrist at St. Bernard’s Hospital, and staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Outpatient Family Practice Clinic in Chicago. Dr. Bell is the former president and CEO of the Community Mental Health Council and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry) at the university.

When I read scientific publications on the impact of violence in the media, I am always ambivalent and skeptical. In my gut, intuitively, I believe that violence in the media must have an effect on youth. Yet, my understanding of research in this area tells me that the effect is not as significant as my intuition would have me believe.

In a recent study, Brad J. Bushman, Ph.D., of Ohio State University, Columbus, and his colleagues found that violence in films has more than doubled since 1950 (Pediatrics 2013 Nov. 11 [doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1600]). The researchers go on to suggest that the presence of guns in those films might increase the aggressive behavior of young people.

"In the wake of recent shooting sprees, legislators and the lay public are discussing possible ways to reduce youth violence," Dr. Bushman and his colleagues wrote. "What is conspicuously absent from these discussions, however, is the fact that just seeing a weapon can increase aggression, an effect dubbed the ‘weapons effect.’ "

I do not doubt the authors’ findings; for example, over the past 20 years the presence of guns in films has indeed increased dramatically. However, I think their conclusion that violent media can have harmful effects on children and youth through an increased weapons effect are misleading. Furthermore, their conclusions strike me as one-dimensional. My experience as a psychiatrist over the last 40-plus years tells me that behavior is multidetermined.

The authors tout the following joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children endorsed by several national health organizations: "The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children." The statement was signed by several organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Still, the joint statement also seems misleading to me.

My understanding of the 30 years of research on violence in the media is that although such violence has been shown to increase aggression, it does not necessarily cause an increase in violence. Aggression is a very broad term. At its lowest level, it can include alertness, initiative, curiosity, motivation, attentiveness, and exploratory behavior.

At the next level, aggression can encompass self-assertion, for example, the attempt to establish, maintain, and expand one’s boundaries and integrity while not intruding into the territory of others. Following self-assertion, there is dominance or the capacity to exert an influence on the behavior of other people or groups in an intended direction (also known as power), with the foundation of dominance being grounded in coercion, for example, the expectation of great rewards or punishments for certain kinds of behavior.

Authority, which is a form of dominance, is legitimized by legal, professional, or social mores and might be legitimate (authority conferred by virtue of law or formal designation), charismatic (authority bestowed by virtue of having "winning ways" with people, or traditional (authority granted out of respect for longevity).

Although hostility is a form of aggression, it includes behavior or attitudes intended to hurt or destroy an object or the self. Moreover, violence is a subcategory of hostility that occurs when there is the use of force to injure physically. Lastly, hatred is a form of aggression when the injury or destruction of an object, self, or situation is the end rather than a means to an end.

Former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher’s seminal report on youth violence concludes that the average effect sizes of exposure to media violence on various measures of aggression range from small (r = 0.15) to quite large (r = 0.64). The evidence that exposure to media violence is a risk factor for violent behavior is more limited, with small average effect sizes of r = 0.06 in cross-sectional surveys, r = 0.13 in experimental studies, and r = 0.00-0.22 in longitudinal studies. Taken together, findings to date suggest that media violence has a relatively small impact on violence. The effect on aggression is stronger, ranging from small to moderate.

Finally, the Pediatrics article does not take into account the protective factors that prevent violence in the media from taking hold of young minds. I wrote about these protective factors in a Clinical Psychiatry News commentary published in May 2013.

In that piece, I cited the seven field principles that prevent risk factors:

• Rebuilding the village/constructing social fabric (known as building collective efficacy) – a good example of this is the creation of block clubs in which everyone on the block looks after one another and everyone’s children.

• Providing access to modern and ancient technology – both biotechnical and psychosocial.

• Improving bonding, attachment, and connectedness between people; resiliency research shows that if a young person has a good relationship with a caring adult who has the youth’s best interest at heart, that relationship is protective of the youth’s successful outcome.

• Providing an opportunity to improve self-esteem – a sense of power, a sense of models, a sense of uniqueness, and a sense of connectedness.

• Increasing opportunities to learn social and emotional skills of target recipients; a good example of this is anger management skills (technically known as affect regulation).

• Reestablishing the adult protective shield and monitoring risky behaviors by adults, thereby providing a sense of safety; a good example are the security procedures at the entrance to Chicago public schools.

• Minimizing the effects of trauma by cultivating learned helpfulness out of learned helplessness (aka, mastery), thus generating hope.

In summary, the authors are to be commended for documenting the increase in gun violence in the movies. However, to leap to unfounded conclusions that this has resulted in an increase in violence is an error.

Dr. Bell is professor of psychiatry and public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He also serves as a staff psychiatrist in the psychosis program in the department of psychiatry at the university, staff psychiatrist at St. Bernard’s Hospital, and staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Outpatient Family Practice Clinic in Chicago. Dr. Bell is the former president and CEO of the Community Mental Health Council and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry) at the university.