Sociology

Is There Desensitization Funk, J.B. et al. (2004)

Polit, Beck and Hungler (2001) defined research as systematic inquiry that uses well articulated, standardised and disciplined methods to answer questions or solve problems. This definition implies that research efforts, in whatever guise or ramification, is intended to create knowledge that is relevant or add to what is already known in the field of study. Research is expected to develop, refine and expand the horizon what is known, and also attempt to proffer answers to the unknown (Laws and Marcus, 2003). Arguably, for a researcher to achieve these intents and purposes, heshe must not only use standard and discipline methods to carry out the required experiments, but must also present the results and reports of the study in a lucid and well articulated manner. This review paper intends to evaluate and critique the report of a study that investigated the relationship between exposure to real-life or media violence and aggression in children. This review intends to examine, critically, the presentation of the report, the findings of the research and how it fits into the existing literature or research body on the investigated topic. More importantly, this review also intends to examine the evidences used by the author to support the studys conclusions, and lastly, the strength and weakness of the research.

Brief Summary of the Major FindingsArgument of the Paper
Funk, Bechtoldt-Baldacci, Pasold and Baumgardner in this paper joined the several hundreds of author, researchers and groups who have investigated the relationship between the growing presence of violence in the mass media and the increasing rate of violent and aggressive behaviours witnessed in children, teens, adolescents and the general population. The authors clearly stated in the first sentence of this papers abstract that there is a general belief that frequent exposure to real life or mass media violence may alter cognitive, affective, and behavioural processes, possibly leading to desensitization (2004 23). Arguing that desensitisation, a perceived major outcome of exposure to violence, is difficult to measure or quantify, the study, intended to determine the relationship, if any, between real life and media violence and the concept of desensitisation, as measured through related characteristics.

The authors concede with several other researchers that desensitisation is one of the primary mechanisms through which exposure to media violence affects children. They therefore defined desensitisation as the attenuation or elimination of cognitive, emotional, and, ultimately, behavioural responses to a stimulus (p 25). This corresponds with the other definitions of desensitisation, such as diminished psychological or emotional responsiveness to a stimulus after repeated exposure to it (Bartholow, Bushman and Sestir, 2006 532) or habituation of certain natural emotional reactions due to repeated exposure to emotionally activating media or video game (Huesmann, 2007 S10). However, unlike the other definers  of desensitisation quoted above, the paper under review suggest that despite the severally made claims that desensitisation is a primary outcome of exposure to media violence, empirical documentation of such a concept is limited. They contend that the paucity of literature or research linking media violence exposure to desensitisation derives from the fact that desensitisation as a concept is difficult to measure or quantify. As such, they chose to measure desensitisation through related emotional or cognitive processes which are affected by or related to it.

The authors, therefore, chose moral evaluation as a related characteristics influenced by desensitisation. The choice of moral evaluation is based on the contention that when desensitization occurs, the process of moral evaluation is disrupted because the individual does not perceive or respond to the cues that are necessary to initiate evaluative processes. As a result, actions may be taken without consideration of their moral implications (p.25). Two processes, empathy and attitudes towards violence, were chosen as yardstick to measure moral evaluation. Defending their choice, they authors argue that Blunted empathic responding may reflect primarily emotional desensitization, while cognitive desensitization may be apparent in stronger pro-violence attitudes (p25 quoting Eron, 2001). In sum, the major arguments of the paper can be summed as thus exposure to real life and media violence, especially video game, due to the fact that it requires active engagement from the player, can possibly lead to desensitisation to violence. However, desensitisation, as a process, is difficult to measure, thus, the effect of exposure to violence on moral evaluation of violence and aggression, as reflected by empathy and attitudes towards violence, is investigated instead.

To measure empathy and attitudes towards violence, one hundred and fifty fourth and fifth graders were recruited for the experiment. The children were recruited from religiously oriented private elementary schools and day-care centre. The sample included eighty two (82) boy and sixty eight (68) girls with an average age of 9.99. Demographically, 58 percent of the sample was European Americans, while 24 percent was African Americans. The authors admitted that while the sample adequately represented the community in ethnic composition, it is somewhat better educated and likely to be of somewhat higher socioeconomic status than the general population (p. 27). Four research tools were administered on the children in the presence of an investigator after consent has been received from parents and the children. After analysis of the data retrieved, the authors find that while exposure to video game violence was related to lower empathy and stronger pro-violence attitudes in the investigated children, exposure to violence in movies was associated with only stronger pro-violence attitudes. Therefore, if lower empathy and stronger pro-violence attitudes indicate desensitisation to violence, then exposure to violence in these media, does indeed, lead to desensitisation, they opined.

Lastly, the paper reasoned that the stronger effect noticed with video game violence exposure could be a result of the fact that in video games, empathy is not adaptive, moral evaluation is often non-existent, but pro-violence attitudes and behaviours are repeatedly rewarded, coupled with the intense engagement and activity required in playing video games, because such engagement may increase the probability that game behaviours will generalize outside the game situation (p. 34). The experiment did not record significant effect of Television violence exposure, because, according to the authors, it is possible that the children have become so desensitised to television violence that they do not consider it worth mentioning. The paper concluded that the relationship observed between sources of violence exposure and the indicators of desensitisation measured does not automatically translate into causality. As such, they recommended that further studies should address causality in addition to the relationships between several measures of desensitisation and all potential sources of violence exposure in real-life and in the media.

Evidence Used by the Authors to Back Up their Claims
Over the last four decades or thereabout, a growing number of authors and researchers have investigated the effect of exposure to media violence on child, teenage and adult aggression. As a result, a massive body of literature on the topic have accumulated with time, as is evidenced from the various empirical studies available (see Anderson et al. (2003) Anderson and Bushman (2001) Freedman (2002) for example). It is expected, therefore, that any study on the topic should have a huge literature base to draw from. Examining the paper under review with this lens, there is no denying the fact that the authors did a great job. They drew their arguments and contentions from an extensive literature base. Looking at the reference page for example, the works cited in the 13page report numbered more than fifty (50) especially in the literature review section, there is sufficient reference to back up every claim made. However, evidence presented to back up some claims was either not sufficient or contradictory.

The claims specifically of interested here includes the assertion that desensitisation, as a process or concept is difficult to measure or quantify, the claim that moral evaluation constitute a process that relates to and can be used to measure desensitisation and the suggestion that empathy and attitudes towards violence are valid processes that reflects moral evaluation. In support of their claim that measuring desensitisation is problematic, the authors made reference to the study of Farrell and Bruce (1997) where 473 inner city middle school students were surveyed to determine their level of exposure to community violence and their level of distress and aggression. The study, reportedly, found no significant relationship between violence exposure and distress, although it did find that higher exposure was related to more aggression in girls.

The authors further cited the study of Drabman and Thomas (1974), where children who were exposed to a movie containing violence later took significantly longer time to seek adult assistance to stop what they thought was an altercation between younger children, compared to children that did not view the movie. This study was reportedly replicated by Molitor and Hirsch in 1994, using more contemporary materials, yet reporting the same result. Thus, confirming that viewing violence increases tolerance for violent behaviour, which is desensitisation to violence, as defined by Carnagey, Anderson and Bushman (2007). In the opinion of this writer, asserting that desensitisation is difficult to measure and backing such assertion with a study that found no significant relationship between exposure to real life violence and aggression in children and two other studies that reported desensitisation in children as a result of exposure to violent movie content, is at best contradictory.

Furthermore, the first study that found no significant relationship between real life violence and aggression can be considered a poor reference, since it is generally accepted that violence in real life is considerably low compared to violence in the mass media, especially in video game playing where active engagement is required. In addition, several other studies have shown the relationship between exposure to violent content in TV, movies or video games and desensitisation to violence. Examples include the Carnagey, Anderson and Bushman (2007) study that employed physiological indices to show desensitisation and the Bartholow, Bushman and Sestir (2006) study that measured brain activity to prove desensitisation after exposure to violent media content and other similar studies.

However, nothing said so far takes away from the fact that measuring empathy and attitudes towards violence as processes that reflect desensitisation has, indeed, provided another dimension to the study of media violence and aggression in children. Also, the paper sufficiently explained these processes and how they relate to moral evaluation of violence, which is a key mechanism operative in desensitisation. Several useful and valid references were used to support the choice of empathy and attitudes to violence as indicators of desensitisation. For example, almost ten (10) scholarly articles ranging dating 1986 to 2002 was used to support the argument that attitudes towards violence is indeed a valid measure of desensitisation. The authors also backed the results and conclusion of the experiment with several scholarly articles that further add to the strength and validity of the paper. In sum, most of the claims made in the paper were backed with sufficient and valid peer reviewed journal articles, with the exception of the point raised above. Although, one would have expected the authors to make reference to the several professional groups that have published position papers or carried out experiments on the issue under review.

How The Research Fit into existing LiteratureResearch
The paper under review asserts that while desensitisation is touted as one of the major outcome of exposure violence in television, movies, video games and internet, it is a process or concept that is difficult to measure or quantify. As a result, empathy and attitudes towards violence were chosen as yardsticks to measure desensitisation. After administering four research tools on the research subjects and analysing the data retrieved, the authors find that video game relates significantly to lower empathy and stronger pro-violence attitudes in children, while movies relate significantly with only stronger pro-violence attitudes. Television and real life violence, on the other hand, show no significant relationship to violence or aggression in children. The author further state that the relationship reported does not indicate causality and that further studies should be carried out in this area.

Reading through some of the hundreds of research reports available on the topic under review and considering the weight of evidence on both causality and effect of violent media content on aggression, one gets the feeling that the paper under review probably under-played the effect of exposure to violence on childrens aggression and violence, immediately and even later in life. Reference to some of these articles should suffice. Anderson and colleagues (2003) reports, one year before the paper under review was published, that in July of 2000, six professional bodies in the United States held a Congressional Public Health Summit and issued a joint statement on the impact of mass media violent content on children. The statement pointed out that entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behaviour, particularly in children. The statement also concluded that the research points overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behaviour in some children (Anderson, et al. 2003 82 Quoting (Joint Statement, 2000). The six organisations that signed the joint statement were the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association. For a study carried out and published in the same country four (4) years later to report that the relationship seen between media violence and children aggression does not indicate causality, and to recommend that more studies be carried out on the issue of causality, appears to downplay the weight of evidence already gathered.

Again, research studies are supposed to build on knowledge available in the field under study however, with the several studies already employing several means to measure and report desensitisation as a result of exposure to media violence, the claim in the paper under review that desensitisation, as a process or concept cannot be measured or quantified is problematic. In Bartholow, Bushman and Sestir (2006), the authors indicate that desensitisation can be measured by studying the amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). They explain that the ERP is associated with activation of the aversive motivational system (p. 532). In the study, thirty nine healthy, male undergraduates were recruited to play violent or non violent video game. They were subsequently exposed to violent images while the amplitude from their P300 was measured. It was discovered that violent images elicited reduced P300 amplitudes among violent, as compared to non-violent video game players. It was also discovered that the reduced brain response in the violent video game players predicted increased aggressive behaviour in a later task. In another study, Carnagey, Anderson and Bushman (2007) employed physiological indices in measuring desensitisation. In the study, were 257 college students (124 males and 133 females) reported their media habits and were then asked to play one of eight violent or non-violent video games for 20min. They were subsequently exposed to a 10min videotape containing scenes of real-life violence while their heart rates (HR) and galvanic skin response (GSR) were monitored. The study found that participants who had played a violent video game had lower HR and GSR while watching the videotape, compared to participants who played non-violent video game. Even if it is assumed that these two studies were conducted years after the study under review, the longitudinal study conducted by Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski and Eron (2003) over a 17year period and reported in 2003, a year before the reviewed study was reported, adds weight to the present argument. Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski and Eron (2003) found out that exposure to television violence was significantly related to violent and aggressive behaviours in children, and even as they grow into adults.

However, as mentioned above, by using empathy and attitudes towards violence as the indices to measure desensitisation, the authors have indeed added another dimension to the study of media violence and aggression in children. They have shown that desensitisation as a process is both emotional and cognitive and that it is reflected in several emotional and cognitive processes. Thus, they have created another lens through the issue of media violence can be investigated.

In sum, the major strengths of the paper under review are
It is well referenced
It adds to the weight of evidence that points to the evil of media violence
It provides another dimension to the study of media violence and aggression in children by investigating empathy and attitudes to violence
The paper is well written. It is concise, lucid and consistent. The message also flows from one section to the other.

Also, the major weaknesses of the paper are
It appears to downplay the weight of evidence showing the relationship between exposure to violence in movies, television and internet, and violence in children
By selecting its sample from religiously oriented schools and children with parents more educated than the average for the community, the study has created a bias that could potentially affect the result of the research.

The paper also does not provide a working definition of violent and aggressive behaviours it used in its evaluation, as researchers have often pointed out that aggression can mean different things to different people.

Although the paper is well written, the language used appears to be very technical. As such, it may not lend itself to clear reading, especially when the reader is not an expert in the topic of research.

The paper under review is a well researched and well written paper. The paper adds to the weight of evidence already gathered on the menace of media violence and its effect on children, both on short term and long term basis. Also, the paper provides sufficient evidences to back up most of its claims, and presents the reader with a view understanding of the issues under investigation. However, the study tends to create a bias in the sampling that could potentially affect the studys result. The paper also tends to downplay the weight of evidence that have been gathered over the last forty (40) years and appears to be written especially for experts in the field to understand. In all, it is a well researched and written paper.