660382

research-article2016

GCQXXX10.1177/0016986216660382Gifted Child Quarterlyetin et al.

Article

Effects of Violent Media on Verbal Task

Performance in Gifted and General
Cohort Children

Gifted Child Quarterly

18
2016 National Association for
Gifted Children
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0016986216660382
gcq.sagepub.com

Yakup etin1, Jonathan Wai2, Cengiz Altay1, and Brad J. Bushman3,4

Abstract
Violent media immediately grab our attention. However, violent media also detract attention from other cues. A large body of
research shows that violent media impair attention and memory, critical resources for academic performance, such as verbal
tasks at school. The present study tested whether gifted children are more insulated or more vulnerable to these violent
media effects. Gifted (n = 74) and general cohort (n = 80) 10-year-old children were randomly assigned to watch a 12-minute
violent or nonviolent cartoon. A verbal task was completed before and after the video. Results showed that gifted children
outperformed general cohort children on the verbal task after watching a nonviolent cartoon, but not after watching a violent
cartoon. Thus, the violent video eliminated the typical advantage gifted children have on verbal tasks. These findings suggest
that the harmful effects of violent media on verbal tasks are greater for gifted children than for general cohort children.
Keywords
violent media, giftedness, IQ, sensitivity, verbal task performance
Children will watch anything, and when a broadcaster uses
crime and violence and other shoddy devices to monopolize a
childs attention, its worse than taking candy from a baby. It is
taking precious time from the process of growing up.
Newton Minow (Federal Communications Commission:
To Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency,
New York Post; June 19, 1961)

Violence in the media is often used to grab our attention. In

the news today, a common phrase is, If it bleeds, it leads.
That is, violent, gory news stories often become the leading
news stories. It makes good theoretical sense that violence
grabs our attention. Evolutionary theory proposes that people
are hardwired to attend to violent cues because they are associated with survival (Buss & Duntley, 2006). A by-product of
evolutionary attention to violent cues is that violent cues are
emotionally arousing (Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2010).
However, violent cues not only grab our attention, they
divert attention away from other cues. Neuroscience research
suggests that violent cues have attentional priority because of
their arousal capacity (for a review, see Lull & Bushman,
2015). The cues directly responsible for emotional arousal
benefit from enhanced attention, whereas the cues not responsible for emotional arousal suffer from impaired attention
(Mandler, 2014). In other words, violent cues are processed
as central cues, whereas surrounding cues are processed as
peripheral cues. Peripheral cues are less likely to be attended
to and remembered than are central cues (e.g., Echterhoff &
Wolf, 2012; Yeari, Oudega, & van den Broek, 2016).

Attention and memory are required to perform many

tasks, perhaps especially at school. A large body of research
shows violent media impair attention and memory. For
example, a recent meta-analytic review showed violent
media impair memory for advertisements (Lull & Bushman,
2015). Previous research has also shown that violent media
impair learning foreign languages (Lull, etin, & Bushman,
2015) and impair school performance (etin, Lull, elikba,
& Bushman, 2015). The present research was designed to
replicate and extend these findings by testing whether violent media also impair verbal task performance and the
potential moderating role of giftedness on the effects.

Is Giftedness a Protective Factor, Vulnerability

Factor, or Unimportant Factor for Violent Media
Effects on Verbal Task Performance?
Gifted children may differ in important ways from their same
age peers, perhaps being more immune or more vulnerable to
1

Fatih University, Istanbul, Turkey

Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
3
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
4
VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
2

Corresponding Author:
Brad J. Bushman, School of Communication, The Ohio State University,
3016 Derby Hall, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Email: bushman.20@osu.edu

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on September 13, 2016

Gifted Child Quarterly

the effects of violent media on verbal task performance.

Giftedness is a protective factor for many outcomes.
Longitudinal research from multiple samples of gifted children have shown that they grow up to have high educational,
occupational, and creative achievement (Lubinski &
Benbow, 2006; Park, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2007; Wai, 2014;
Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2005) and report high psychological well-being as children (Kroesbergen, van Hooijdonk,
Van Viersen, Middel-Lalleman, & Reijnders, 2016) and as
grown adults (Lubinski, Benbow, & Kell, 2014; Terman,
1925; Terman & Oden, 1947). Given the network of positive
correlates surrounding general intelligence that provides the
majority of gifted children with many benefits and perhaps a
head start in life (Jensen, 1998; Lubinski, 2004), they have
better outcomes in multiple domains (Janos & Robinson,
1985; Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002). Because
giftedness is a protective factor for many other negative outcomes, it might also be a protective factor for the effects of
violent media on verbal task performance.
In contrast, gifted children might be more vulnerable to
violent media effects, perhaps because the violence is more
upsetting and distracting to them. Previous research suggests
gifted children can be more sensitive than general cohort
children (Dabrowski, 1979; Piechowski, 2006; Silverman,
1994; Webb, Gore, Amend, & DeVries, 2007). Relatedly,
gifted children may have socioemotional difficulties and
need special assistance to help them overcome these issues
(Altman, 1983; Delisle, 2005; Lovecky, 2004; Piechowski,
2006). Thus, exposure to violence might impair verbal task
performance more in gifted children than in general cohort
children.
It is also possible that giftedness might have little to do
with the effect of violent media on verbal task performance.
In some ways, gifted children may be similar to the general
population in that they resemble their age peers in some
aspects and somewhat older children in other aspects (Dauber
& Benbow, 1990). Apart from a positive network of correlates surrounding their higher intelligence and higher
achievement, gifted children may be quite similar on many
variables compared with the general population and might
react similarly to their same-age peers when exposed to violent media.

Overview of Present Study

This study attempts to determine whether the effect of violent media on verbal task performance differs as a function of
giftedness. Specifically, is giftedness a protective factor, vulnerability factor, or unimportant factor when it comes to violent media effects on verbal task performance?
One hypothesis is that a higher degree of giftedness would
serve as an insulating factor. This would fit with the literature
showing that higher intelligence is related to a wide array of
positive external correlates. In other words, higher intelligence or giftedness is related to higher outcomes in other

domains, so why would violent media exposure be any

different?
Another hypothesis is that a higher degree of giftedness
would serve as a debilitating factor. This would fit with the
literature showing gifted students (or perhaps some subset of
them) are more prone to socioemotional difficulties. In other
words, perhaps greater sensitivity might lead to interference
with productivity through heightened anxiety or diminished
attention.
We pit these two competing hypotheses against one
another in the hope that our experiment might provide insight
into the effects of violent media on verbal task performance
in students who are or are not gifted. Specifically, the present
experiment tested whether giftedness moderates the effect of
violent media on verbal task performance in gifted and general cohort 10-year-old children.

Method
Participants
Participants were 74 gifted children (38 girls, 36 boys) and 80
general cohort children (36 girls, 40 boys) in a single Turkish
private school. All children were in the fourth grade and were
10 years old. We chose fourth graders for this study because
that is the grade in which children focus on learning vocabulary. This private school includes a Gifted Students Unit. For
a child to be classified as gifted, he or she needed to score
above 130 on the revised Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
ChildrenRevised, which has been validated in Turkish
(Savar & ahin, 1995). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
ChildrenRevised has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation
of 15. Thus, a score of 130 is about the 98th percentile. As the
term gifted used in this article implies an intelligence score
in the top 2% of a continuous distribution, the comparison
population can be considered general cohort. We use these
terms and definitions throughout the article for consistency
and clarity. All participants received parental consent (rate =
100%) and also gave their own assent (rate = 100%).

Procedure
Participants were told the purpose of the study was to see how
well they could remember vocabulary words under certain conditions, and that they would complete a vocabulary test before
and after watching a cartoon. Participants generated words
from different letters, eight for the pretest (A, L, M, , C, E, B,
H) and seven for the posttest (I, D, N, O, F, K, T). The two
groups did not differ in terms of the frequency of use in the
Turkish language (p > .38 based on Wikipedia, 2015; p > .34
based on Turkcebilgi, http://www.turkcebilgi.com/). The nine
least common letters (, Z, G, , V, C, , P, J) were excluded.
For each letter, participants were given 1 minute to list as
many words as possible that began with that letter. For example, for the letter A participants could list the words apple,

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on September 13, 2016

etin et al.
animal, air, about, amount, and so on. However, participants
were told not to write the plurals for the same word (e.g.,
apple, apples) and not to write verb conjugations of the same
verb (e.g., play, played, playing, will play, plays). Three
independent teachers scored the tests. There was 100%
agreement among teachers for test scores.
Between the pretest and posttest, participants were randomly
assigned to watch either a nonviolent (Arthur) or a violent
(Bakugan) cartoon for 12 minutes. The nonviolent cartoon,
Arthur, is an American Canadian educational television cartoon
series for children. It is about the life of 8-year-old Arthur Read
(an anthropomorphic aardvark), his friends, family members,
and their everyday interactions. The specific episode participants watched was about Buster the rabbit, a friend of Arthur,
who saves a cat that was stuck in a tree. The violent cartoon,
Bakugan, is a Japanese Canadian action adventure television
series. The title comes from the Japanese words baku meaning to explode and gan meaning sphere, so Bakugan are
small spheres that explode into powerful Bakugan monsters.
The main character, Dan Kuso, and his friends fight Bakugan
monsters using swords and other weapons to save Vestroia (the
parallel universe) and the Earth from complete destruction.
Participants rated how much they liked the cartoon (1 = I dont
like it at all to 5 = I like it very much), how violent they thought
it was (1 = not at all violent to 5 = very violent), and how often
they watched this series of cartoons at home (1 = I never watch
it to 5 = I always watch it). The violent rating was used as a
manipulation check to ensure that the violent cartoon Bakugan
was more violent than the nonviolent cartoon Arthur. The liking
and home exposure ratings were used as covariates. These cartoon ratings also served a secondary functionthey allowed us
to indirectly test whether gifted children were more upset and
distracted by the violent cartoon than were general cohort children. Gifted children might like the violent cartoon less and find
it to be more violent in comparison with general cohort children.
The parents of gifted children might also restrict their exposure
to violent cartoons in the home.
Finally, participants received an oral debriefing. The
experimenter explained the purpose of the study to participants and answered any questions they had. Participants
were thanked for taking part in the study and were given contact information in case they had questions later.

Results

Figure 1. Violence ratings of nonviolent and violent cartoons by

gifted and general cohort children.
Note. Violence ratings ranged from 1 = not at all violent to 5 = very violent.
Capped vertical bars denote 1 standard error (SE). The violence ratings
means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for the four groups are as
follows: general cohort, nonviolent cartoon (M = 1.80, SD = 0.69, n =
40); general cohort, violent cartoon (M = 3.73, SD = 1.15, n = 40); gifted,
nonviolent cartoon (M = 1.27, SD = 0.51, n = 37); gifted, violent cartoon
(M = 4.57, SD = 0.50, n = 37).

SD = 0.66), F(1, 150) = 442.97, p < .0001, d = 3.09. Thus, the

manipulation of violent content was successful.
Violence ratings were analyzed using 2 (violent vs. nonviolent cartoon) 2 (gifted vs. general cohort) analysis of
variance (ANOVA). As expected, the violent cartoon
received higher violence ratings than did the nonviolent cartoon, F(1, 150) = 442.97, p < .0001, partial 2 = .75. Overall,
violence ratings did not differ for gifted and general cohort
children, F(1, 150) = 1.59, p > .20, partial 2 = .010. However,
there was a significant interaction between cartoon content
and giftedness, F(1, 150) = 30.59, p < .0001, partial 2 = .17
(see Figure 1). Gifted children gave the violent cartoon
higher violence ratings than did general cohort children, F(1,
150) = 23.05, p < .0001, d = 0.93. In contrast, general cohort
children gave the nonviolent cartoon higher violence ratings
than did gifted children, F(1, 150) = 9.11, p < .003, d = 0.87.

Liking Ratings

Gender Differences
There were no main or interactive effects involving gender
for the number of words generated. Thus, the data for boys
and girls were combined.

Violence Ratings
As expected, the violent cartoon was rated as more violent
(M = 4.13, SD = 0.99) than the nonviolent cartoon (M = 1.55,

Liking ratings were analyzed using 2 (violent vs. nonviolent

cartoon) 2 (gifted vs. general cohort) ANOVA. Overall,
children liked the nonviolent cartoon more than the violent
cartoon, F(1, 150) = 103.25, p < .0001, partial 2 = .41.
General cohort children liked the cartoons more than gifted
children did, F(1, 150) = 22.68, p < .0001, partial 2 = .13.
However, there was a significant interaction between cartoon
content and giftedness, F(1, 150) = 56.87, p < .0001, partial
2 = .28 (see Figure 2). Gifted children liked the violent

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on September 13, 2016

Gifted Child Quarterly

Figure 2. Liking ratings of nonviolent and violent cartoons by

gifted and general cohort children.

Note. Liking ratings ranged from 1 = I dont like it at all to 5 = I like it very
much. Capped vertical bars denote 1 standard error (SE). The liking
ratings means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for the four groups
are as follows: General cohort, nonviolent cartoon (M = 3.90, SD = 0.93,
n = 40); general cohort, violent cartoon (M = 3.50, SD = 1.30, n = 40);
gifted, nonviolent cartoon (M = 4.32, SD = 0.47, n = 37); gifted, violent
cartoon (M = 1.62, SD = 0.86, n = 37).

cartoon much less than did general cohort children, F(1, 150)
= 75.69, p < .0001, d = 1.69. In contrast, gifted children
tended to like the nonviolent cartoon more than did general
cohort children, F(1, 150) = 3.86, p < .052, d = 0.57.

Home Exposure
Home exposure to cartoons was analyzed using 2 (violent
vs. nonviolent cartoon) 2 (gifted vs. general cohort)
ANOVA. At home, children were exposed to the nonviolent
cartoon series significantly more than the violent cartoon
series, F(1, 150) = 27.31, p < .0001, partial 2 = .15. Overall,
general cohort children tended to watch the cartoons more
at home than did gifted children, F(1, 150) = 3.39, p < .067,
partial 2 = .022. However, there was a significant interaction between cartoon content and giftedness, F(1, 150) =
28.99, p < .0001, partial 2 = .16 (see Figure 3). Gifted
children watched the violent cartoon much less than did
general cohort children, F(1, 150) = 26.10, p < .0001, d =
1.05. In contrast, gifted children watched the nonviolent
cartoon more than did general cohort children, F(1, 150) =
6.27, p < .014, d = 0.66.

Words Generated
Posttest scores were analyzed using a 2 (violent vs. nonviolent
cartoon) 2 (gifted vs. general cohort) analysis of covariance,
with pretest scores used as a covariate. As expected, posttest

Figure 3. Amount of exposure to nonviolent and violent

cartoons among gifted and general cohort children.

Note. Home exposure ratings were made on a 5-point scale (1 = I never

watch it, 2 = I rarely watch it, 3 = I sometimes watch it, 4 = I often watch it,
5 = I always watch it). Capped vertical bars denote 1 standard error (SE).
The home exposure ratings means, standard deviations, and sample sizes
for the four groups are as follows: General cohort, nonviolent cartoon (M
= 2.90, SD = 1.06, n = 40); general cohort, violent cartoon (M = 2.93, SD
= 1.14, n = 40); gifted, nonviolent cartoon (M = 3.46, SD = 0.56, n = 37);
gifted, violent cartoon (M = 1.78, SD = 1.03, n = 37).

scores were significantly higher for children who saw a nonviolent cartoon than for children who saw a violent cartoon, F(1,
149) = 1033.54, p < .0001, partial 2 = .87. As expected, gifted
children had higher posttest scores than did general cohort children, F(1, 149) = 4.26, p < .041, partial 2 = .028. However,
there was a significant interaction between cartoon content and
giftedness, F(1, 149) = 51.76, p < .0001, partial 2 = .26 (see
Figure 4). As expected, gifted children who saw the nonviolent
cartoon had higher posttest scores than did general cohort children who saw the nonviolent cartoon, F(1, 149) = 22.20, p <
.0001, d = 0.77. In contrast, posttest scores did not significantly
differ for gifted and general cohort children who saw the
violent cartoon, F(1, 149) = 2.04, p < .16, d = 0.23. Not surprisingly, pretest and posttest scores were strongly related, F(1,
149) = 339.55, p < .0001, partial 2 = .70, r = .49.
This interaction remained significant even after controlling for how much participants liked the cartoon and how
much they were exposed to it at home, F(1, 147) = 34.16, p
< .0001, partial 2 = .19. Indeed, the liking and home exposure covariates were both nonsignificant, F(1, 147) = 0.036,
p < .85, partial 2 = .000, and F(1, 147) = 0.045, p < .84,
partial 2 = .000, respectively.
Table 1 contains correlations between the four measures
(i.e., violence ratings, liking ratings, home exposure, words
generated at posttest) for the overall sample, and for general
cohort and gifted children separately. As can be seen Table 1,

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on September 13, 2016

etin et al.

Figure 4. Number of words generated by gifted and general

cohort children following exposure to a nonviolent or violent
cartoon.

Note. Posttest scores were adjusted for pretest scores. The posttest
score means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for the four groups
are as follows: general cohort, nonviolent cartoon (M = 57.23, SD =
12.24, n = 40); general cohort, violent cartoon (M = 32.85, SD = 8.81, n
= 37); gifted, nonviolent cartoon (M = 88.73, SD = 16.94, n = 37); gifted,
violent cartoon (M = 48.73, SD = 13.04, n = 37).

correlations were much stronger for gifted children than for

general cohort children, suggesting greater gifted sensitivity.

Discussion
This study replicates and extends previous research by showing that exposure to violence impairs performance on a verbal task in both gifted and general cohort children. Gifted
children were affected more strongly by violent media than
were general cohort children in our study. Gifted children
(relative to general cohort children) did not like the violence,
thought it was more violent, and did not watch the violent
cartoons at home as often. After watching a nonviolent cartoon, gifted children generated far more words than general
cohort children did. After watching a violent cartoon, however, the boost for gifted children was wiped out (there was
even a small negative effect).
The large literature showing the impact of violent media
on aggression in children in the general population (e.g.,
Bushman & Anderson, 2015; Bushman & Huesmann, 2006)
extends to the students in the top percentiles of intelligence
or giftedness. Several studies have shown that children with
lower intellectual ability watch more television in general
(e.g., Sprafkin & Gadow, 1986), and more violent television
in particular than do children with higher intellectual ability
(Chaffee & McLeod, 1972; Sprafkin & Gadow, 1986; Stein
& Friedrich, 1972; Wiegman, Kuttschreuter, & Baarda,

1986). Even within a gifted sample, smarter children tended

to watch less television than their general cohort peers
(Makel, Li, Putallaz, & Wai, 2011).
These findings suggest that the hypothesis that higher
intelligence might serve as insulating factors given the connection between general intelligence and many positive correlates (Jensen, 1998; Lubinski, 2004) appears incorrect.
Perhaps, as other scholars have argued (Dabrowski, 1979;
Piechowski, 2006; Silverman, 1994; Webb etal., 2007),
gifted children do indeed appear to be more sensitive than
other children, at least in the context of watching violent videos. This also shows that gifted children are not always
advantaged and may be disadvantaged in certain contexts.
Given some scholars have argued there is reasonably high
overlap between intelligence or giftedness and working
memory capacity (Engle, 2002), perhaps for whatever reason, exposure to violent media, at least in the short term, may
put strong limits on information-processing capacity (Miller,
1956) or introduce a high cognitive load (de Jong, 2010)
for students generally, but even stronger impacts for gifted
students specifically. Perhaps greater sensitivity of the
gifted group led to interference with productivity through
heightened anxiety or diminished attention. After all, the
gifted children in our study liked the violent cartoon less and
found it be more violent than did general cohort children.
This was confirmed by stronger correlations within the gifted
group compared with the general cohort group (see Table 1),
suggesting greater gifted sensitivity.
Some implications of these findings for parents, educators, and policymakers may be that parents with gifted children, especially those high in intelligence, should be aware
that stimuli such as violent media may have a negative
impact both inside and outside of school. Given that how
gifted students utilize their time in and out of school may
have a long-term impact (Makel etal., 2011; Makel, Wai,
Putallaz, & Malone, 2015) similar to compound interest over
time, one should consider the accumulated dosage, both educational (Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010) and otherwise, of the exposure to violent media over a very long
stretch of time. The impact of violent video on verbal tasks in
particular may be important given the heavily verbal nature
of the school system. This may be one debilitating factor to
consider in the development of educational, occupational,
and creative expertise, perhaps leading some students to
underachievement (Siegle, 2013).
Within school, educators might consider ensuring that
even mildly violent media is not presented during class time
and that actual physical altercations between students is kept
to a minimum. Outside of school, parents may want to ensure
their children do not watch violent media before attending to
their homework or studying and that family altercations are
kept to a minimum. More broadly, in all contexts, with the
rise of digital devices and the continuous switching of tasks
and activities, it is difficult to control whether students are
exposed to violent media either in commercials, movies, or

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on September 13, 2016

Gifted Child Quarterly

Table 1. Correlations Between Violence Ratings, Liking Ratings, Home Exposure, and Words Generated at Posttest.
Measure
Violence rating
Liking rating

Home exposure

Posttest score

Violence rating

Liking rating

Home exposure

Posttest score

.60***

.47***
.77***

.58***
.29***

.21**

.15
.90***
.06
.79***
.53***
.79***

.70***
.83***
.13
.70***

.026
.54***

Note. Correlations for the overall sample are above the diagonal. Below the diagonal each cell lists two correlations: correlation for the general cohort (top)
and correlation for gifted children (bottom).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

content shared on social media, and already divided attention

may be further negatively affected for gifted students.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study, like all studies, has limitations. One limitation is
that we did not measure underlying processes that might be
responsible for the observed effects, such as attention. Future
research should attempt to uncover what mechanisms might
explain this studys findings. In particular, exploration of the
idea that higher sensitivity among gifted students might lead
to interference in productivity could be approached through
using a variety of working memory, sensitivity measures, or
other tasks and surveys. Perhaps this would open up a better
understanding of how the broader working memory literature is similar to or different than the literature on gifted individuals, showing when findings are universal in degree and
when they differ in degree depending on the population.
Because the present experiment was conducted with
gifted and general cohort Turkish children, we do not know
for sure whether the results will generalize to other populations. Future research should also assess whether other cognitive abilities beyond just word generation are affected. It
would seem important to examine whether violent media
reduces mental performance more broadly (not just limited
to verbal task performance) and to examine whether emotionally arousing stimuli beyond violent media has a similar
effect (e.g., sexual media).
The children in our study all attended a private school,
and were therefore from higher income families. Perhaps
these risk factors are greatest for gifted students from lowincome and disadvantaged backgrounds, and may be contributing to their underachievement (Wai & Worrell, 2016). This
remains a worthwhile topic for future research.
Future research should also test whether other types of violent media effects differ for gifted and general cohort children,
such as the effects of violent media on aggressive behavior, and
attempt to see whether these findings replicate broadly.
Longitudinal studies have found that the relation between early
exposure to TV violence and later aggression remains robust
even when one controls statistically for differences in

intellectual ability (e.g., Belson, 1978; Eron, Huesmann,

Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1972; Huesmann & Eron, 1986; Singer
& Singer, 1981); however, no study has examined the extreme
right tail of the IQ distribution, such as gifted children in the top
2%. Current work in our lab is investigating this topic.

Conclusion
These findings extend the large literature on the impact of violent media in the general population to gifted students.
Additionally, these findings may have implications for educators, parents, and policymakers in terms of the short-term impact
of violent media on mental performance, and potentially the
long-term consistent dosage of such (and related) stimuli over a
long stretch of time both inside and outside of school.
Newton Minow was right when he pointed out that broadcasters often use violence to monopolize a childs attention.
Attention is critical for performing well in school. Our study
clearly shows that violent media eliminates the edge gifted
children have over general cohort children on verbal tasks.
Because giftedness is a protective factor for many outcomes,
parents of gifted children may think, Oh, violent media will
not harm my child. The present research suggests that this
conclusion is inaccurate and that parents should be vigilant.
The commonly held perception that gifted children can
make it on their own or are insulated from negative effects is
not always true as shown by this study. Gifted children, like
all children, should be allowed to develop their capacities to
their fullest, and optimal talent development (Subotnik,
Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011) requires not only
including positive impacts but also reducing and removing
negative impacts. Perhaps more consideration should be
devoted to the latter when it comes to the gifted.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on September 13, 2016

etin et al.
References
Altman, R. (1983). Social-emotional development of gifted children and adolescents: A research model. Roeper Review, 6, 6568. doi:10.1080/02783198309552757
Belson, W. A. (1978). Television violence and the adolescent boy.
Hampshire, England: Saxon House.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2015). Understanding causality in the effects of media violence. American Behavioral
Scientist, 59, 1807-1821. doi:10.1177/0002764215596554
Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2006). Short-term and longterm effects of violent media on aggression in children and
adults. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160,
348-352. doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.4.348
Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2006). The evolution of aggression. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.),
Evolution and social psychology (pp. 263-286). New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
etin, Y., Lull, R. B., elikba, M., & Bushman, B. J. (2015).
Exposure to violent and sexual media content undermines
school performance in youth. Advances in Pediatric Research,
2(6). doi:10.12715/apr.2015.2.6
Chaffee, S. H., & McLeod, J. M. (1972). Adolescent television use
in the family context. In G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein
(Eds.), Television and social behavior: Television and adolescent aggressiveness (Vol. 3, pp. 149-172). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://files.
eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED059625.pdf#page=158
Dabrowski, K. (1979). The heroism of sensitivity (E. HyzyStrzelecka, Trans.). Advanced Development, 6, 87-92.
Dauber, S. L., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Aspects of personality and
peer relations of extremely talented adolescents. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 34, 10-15. doi:10.1177/001698629003400103
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research,
and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional
Science, 38, 105-134. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
Delisle, J. R. (2005). Once upon a mind: The stories and scholars of
gifted education. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.
Echterhoff, G., & Wolf, O. T. (2012). The stressed eyewitness: The
interaction of thematic arousal and post-event stress in memory for central and peripheral event information. Frontiers in
Integrative Neuroscience, 6. doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00057
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19-23.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00160
Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O.
(1972). Does television violence cause aggression? American
Psychologist, 27, 253-263. doi:10.1037/h0033721
Huesmann, L. R., & Eron, L. D. (Eds.). (1986). Television and the
aggressive child: A cross-national comparison. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz &
M. OBrien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental
perspectives (pp. 149-196). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10054-006
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kroesbergen, E. H., van Hooijdonk, M., Van Viersen, S., MiddelLalleman, M. M. N., & Reijnders, J. J. W. (2016). The psychological

well-being of early identified gifted children. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 60, 16-30. doi:10.1177/0016986215609113
Lovecky, D. V. (2004). Different minds: Gifted children with AD/
HD, Asperger syndrome, and other learning deficits. London,
England: Kingsley.
Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 Years after Spearmans (1904) General
intelligence, objectively determined and measured.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 96-111.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.96
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically
precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for
the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345. doi:10.1111/j.17456916.2006.00019.x
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Kell, H. J. (2014). Life paths and
accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and
females four decades later. Psychological Science, 25, 22172232. doi:10.1177/0956797614551371
Lull, R. B., & Bushman, B. J. (2015). Do sex and violence sell?
A meta-analytic review of the effects of sexual and violent
media and ad content on memory, attitudes, and buying intentions. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 1022-1048. doi:10.1037/
bul0000018
Lull, R. B., etin, Y., & Bushman, B. J. (2015). Violent and sexual
media impair second-language memory during encoding and
retrieval. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 172178. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.10.001
Makel, M. C., Li, Y., Putallaz, M., & Wai, J. (2011). High-ability
students time spent outside the classroom. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 22, 720-749. doi:10.1177/1932202X11424880
Makel, M. C., Wai, J., Putallaz, M., & Malone, P. S. (2015). The
academic gap: An international comparison of the time allocation of academically talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
59, 177-189. doi:10.1177/0016986215578746
Mandler, G. (2014). Memory, arousal, and mood: A theoretical integration. In S.-. Christianson (Ed.), The handbook of
emotion and memory: Research and theory (pp. 93-110). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven plus or minus
two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. doi:10.1037/h0043158
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.).
(2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2010). Evolutionary
social psychology. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 761-796).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting
intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years.
Psychological Science, 18, 948-952. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.2007.02007.x
Piechowski, M. M. (2006). Mellow out, they say. If I only could:
Intensities and sensitivities of the young and bright. Madison,
WI: Yunasa Books.
Savar, I., & ahin, N. (1995). Wechsler ocuklar iin zeka lei
[Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenRevised, WISC-R].
Ankara, Turkey: Trk Psikologlar Dernei.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on September 13, 2016

Gifted Child Quarterly

Siegle, D. (2013). The underachieving gifted child: Recognizing,

understanding, and reversing underachievement. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Singer, J. L., & Singer, D. G. (1981). Television, imagination, and
aggression: A study of preschoolers. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children
and the evolution of society. Roeper Review, 17, 110-116.
doi:10.1080/02783199409553636
Sprafkin, J., & Gadow, K. D. (1986). Television viewing habits of
emotionally disturbed, learning disabled, and mentally retarded
children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 7, 4559. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(86)90018-3
Stein, A. H., & Friedrich, L. K. (with Vondracek, F.). (1972).
Television content and young childrens behavior. In J. P.
Murray, E. A. Rubinstein, & G. A. Comstock (Eds.), Television
and social behavior: Vol. 2. Television and social learning
(pp. 202-317). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED059624.pdf#page=209
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C.
(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.
doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: The mental and
physical traits of a thousand gifted children (Vol. 1). Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius:
The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years follow-up of a
superior group (Vol. 4). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Wai, J. (2014). Experts are born, then made: Combining prospective and retrospective longitudinal data shows that cognitive ability matters. Intelligence, 45, 74-80. doi:10.1016/j.
intell.2013.08.009
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and
occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youth: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 97, 484-492. doi:10.1037/00220663.97.3.484
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010).
Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational
dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 860-871. doi:10.1037/a0019454
Wai, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Helping disadvantaged and spatially
talented students fulfill their potential: Related and neglected

national resources. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and

Brain Sciences, 3, 122-128. doi:10.1177/2372732215621310
Webb, J. T., Gore, J. L., Amend, E. R., & DeVries, A. R. (2007).
A parents guide to gifted children. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Potential Press.
Wiegman, O., Kuttschreuter, M., & Baarda, B. (1986). Television
viewing related to aggressive and prosocial behavior. The
Hague, Netherlands: Stichting voor Onderzoek van het
Onderwijs.
Yeari, M., Oudega, M., & van den Broek, P. (2016). The effect
of highlighting on processing and memory of central and
peripheral text information: Evidence from eye movements.
Journal of Research in Reading. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12072

Author Biographies
Yakup etin is the head of the Department of Foreign Language
Education at Fatih University. His research focuses on language
learning, media effects, and psychology. His research has been
cited in leading Turkish newspapers and international indexed journals. In 2014, he gave a TEDx talk on the effects of media on poor
memory. He has received several awards for excellence in research
from Fatih University.
Jonathan Wai is a research scientist at the Duke University Talent
Identification Program. He studies the talent development of gifted
students and their impact on society and connects that work with
policy and what is going on in the world. His research has been
discussed in Science and The New York Times, and his articles on
talent and gifted advocacy have appeared in Psychology Today, The
Huffington Post, The Atlantics Quartz, Business Insider, National
Review, and The World Economic Forum. He has won multiple
Mensa Awards for excellence in research.
Cengiz Altay is a PhD candidate at Fatih University. He is interested in media, education, and society.
Brad J. Bushman is a professor of communication and psychology
at the Ohio State University and a professor of communication science at the VU University Amsterdam. He is the author of about
200 peer-reviewed journal articles, mostly on violent media effects.
He served on President Obamas Committee on Gun Violence, as a
media violence expert. Following the Newton shooting, he
cochaired a National Science Foundation subcommittee report on
youth violence, and testified before Congress about the report.
In 2014, he received the Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to
Media Psychology and Technology Award from the American
Psychological Association.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on September 13, 2016