Answer the multiple-choice questions based on the content of the selection.

Question

Is TV violence getting worse? If we look strictly at the amount of programming that contains violence, the numbers have not changed very much over the past 30 years. Content analyses consistently show that roughly 80% of all programs in prime time contain some kind of violence.
Children’s programming (e.g., Saturday morning cartoons) actually is the “worst” offender with about 94% of the shows containing violence. And children do watch a lot of television—on average, about 30 hours a week. The intensity of the violent portrayals may have increased, and the availability of “pay per view” channels may have increased violent offerings, but the overall pattern has remained much the same.
The real question is not so much how much violence is on TV, but rather, what are the effects of viewing violence? Although there is some disagreement in the literature, the consistent finding is that viewing violence has a negative effect. The effect may not consist of direct imitation of some violent behavior, but is typically more subtle and results in desensitization to aggression. There are some very important qualifications to be made here; for example, the effect may be neutralized by one’s ability to separate fantasy from reality. Nonetheless, we should be concerned about the level of violence in the media.
One of the major factors determining whether media violence results in enhanced aggression is the viewer’s ability to separate fantasy from reality, mentioned above. If the viewer believes that the media portrayal is “real,” then heightened aggression is likely to follow. However, when the viewer believes that the media image is purely fantasy, then increased aggression is far less likely. Leonard Eron has shown that a
simple three-hour training program in which children are shown how special effects are used to create violence
is sufficient to prevent increased media-related aggression at a one-year followup. So whether the World Wrestling Federation, for instance, will increase aggression in viewers or not depends, in part, on whether one sees the WWF as real or fantasy. In essence, if you realize that the violence is faked, you will not be as likely to respond in an aggressive manner.
When the violence is real (for example, a clip of a war scene on the nightly news), the effects can be the same as with fictional violence. In fact, you might argue that the effects should be more profound. First, the emotional reaction to the clip is likely to be more intense. After all, this is a real act of violence, and people are likely to feel anger, disgust, etc. To the extent that the clip produces a strong emotional response, you would predict from Excitation-Transfer theory that aggressive behavior is more likely with acts of actual violence.
It is important to remember that many factors may be operating here (for example, type of commentary, length of clip, etc.). Furthermore, TV violence leads to aggression only in those who are ready to aggress (e.g., those who are frustrated, angry, and so forth). Violence on television does not automatically trigger aggression.
Did TV violence cause Columbine? The suggestion has been made that TV violence (or violent video games) was, in fact, the cause of the Columbine shootings. There is an enormous amount of research on the effects of media violence. In general, the research indicates that media violence can influence subsequent aggression in those individuals predisposed to such behavior. What I am suggesting here is that watching media violence may increase aggression, but only in the individuals who are angry, frustrated, or have lowered inhibitions towards aggression in the first place. It is also important to remember that the effects of watching filmed violence are relatively short-lived. You may see increased aggression if it is measured relatively soon (e.g., within 30 minutes) after exposure to the media violence. This is not to say that there are no long-term effects—there are, e.g., desensitization to cues associated with violence, social learning, and so on.
So, did TV violence cause Columbine? I do not think that it is quite that simple. Some form of media violence may have influenced Harris and Klebold. However, this would not have happened in a vacuum. Violent images may have desensitized the aggression and made it seem normal. But the images would not have generated the frustration or supplied the firepower used by Harris and Klebold. Media violence by itself is not the culprit.

1. Approximately what percent of all programs in prime-time television contain some kind of violence?
a. 94
b. 80
c. 100

2. On average, how many hours per week do children watch television?
a. 80
b. 3
c. 30

3. A major factor in determining whether media violence results in aggression is
a. the viewer’s ability to separate fantasy from reality.
b. the level of violence in the media.
c. parental guidance.

4. According to the passage, the worst offenders in regard to television violence are
a. soap operas.
b. prime-time dramas.
c. Saturday morning cartoons.

5. The author suggests that viewing violence
a. causes direct imitation of violent acts.
b. results in a desensitization to aggression.
c. separates fantasy from reality.

Answer 1

1. b.
2. c.
3. a.
4. c.
5. b.