Brad J. Bushman Ph.D. Get Psyched!

Why do people deny violent media effects?

Many people ignore overwhelming scientific evidence on violent media effects.
Posted Feb 18, 2013

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201302/why-do-people-
deny-violent-media-effects

As a researcher of violent video games, there is one question that I am constantly asked:
“I’ve played violent video games for years.  Why am I not a killer?” My answer is
usually pretty simple.  You come from a good, stable home.  You have friends.  You
weren’t bullied in school.  You have a healthy brain. Violent behavior is very complex
and is caused by many factors, usually acting together. Violent video game exposure is
not the only risk factor for violence, or even the most important factor, but it is not a
trivial factor either.

People want to believe that if millions of people play violent video games and they
don’t all become killers, then those games must be harmless. Unfortunately, that’s not
true.  We haven’t “proven” video games directly cause violence because it can’t be
proven. There is no way to ethically run experiments that see if some threshold of
playing a violent game like Call of Duty may push a person into violence. But that
doesn’t mean we are left without evidence. We know that video game violence is
certainly correlated with violence[1] – just like smoking is correlated with lung cancer.
However, this does not mean that the research does not show causal effects; in fact it
does, over and over again. We recently conducted a comprehensive review of 136
articles reporting 381 effects involving over 130,000 participants from around the
world.[2] These studies show that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts,
angry feelings, physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure), and aggressive
behavior. Violent games also decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for
others. The effects occurred for males and females of all ages, regardless of what
country they lived in. So the question then becomes why people and journalists
repeatedly shrug off this compelling body of work. Psychological theories offer six
reasons why.

Fallacious Reasoning

Many people think that violent media have no effect because they’ve never killed
anyone after watching a violent TV program or film or after playing a violent video
game. It is not surprising that people who consume violent media have not killed
anyone because very few people kill anyone. For example, fewer than 5 people per
100,000 are murdered each year in the United States.[3] It is very difficult to predict
rare events, such as murder, using exposure to violent media or any other risk factor.
However, murder is the most noticeable violent event to most people; so when they
don’t have “available” in memory many cases of people viewing media violence and
then murdering others, they ignore the very low base rate for murder and incorrectly
conclude that media violence has no effect.[4] They do this despite the fact that one can
predict less extreme and more common violent behaviors from media violence viewing.
For example, in one 15-year longitudinal study, heavy viewers of violent TV shows in
first and third grade were three times more likely to be convicted of criminal behavior
by the time they were in their 20s, and were significantly more likely to abuse their
spouses and assault others.[5]

Cognitive Dissonance Reduction

According to cognitive dissonance theory, conflicting thoughts cause psychological

discomfort (called “cognitive dissonance”).[6] For example, if people frequently play
violent video games and think they are fun, they feel uncomfortable about the thought
that violent games may also be harmful. The easiest way to reduce this discomfort is for
people to rationalize their behavior by bringing their attitudes into line with their
actions. Thus people might reason, “I enjoy violent games and it would be disconcerting
to think something I enjoy might be harmful; therefore, the research must be wrong.” Of
course violent media isn’t the only thing people enjoy that might harm them. There are
many other examples, such as French-fries, chocolates and other unhealthy food,
alcohol, tobacco, and street drugs.

Psychological Reactance Theory

Most of us don’t like it when people tell us what to do. According to psychological
reactance theory[7], we desire to have freedom of choice and therefore have a negative,
aversive reaction (called “reactance”) to having some of their our or options taken away
by other people or by external forces. Reactance produces three main consequences.
First, it makes you want the forbidden option more and/or makes it seem more
attractive. Second, reactance may make you take steps to try to reclaim the lost option.
Third, you may feel or act aggressively toward the person who has restricted your
freedom (e.g., researchers like me who study violent video game effects!). Consistent
with reactance theory, research has shown that labels designed to warn consumers about
potentially objectionable material in TV programs, films, video games, and music often
have the opposite effect of making them more interested in the “forbidden” media.[8]

Catharsis Theory

According to catharsis theory, expressing anger produces a healthy release of emotion

and is therefore good for the psyche. For example, people may think that killing
enemies in a violent video game will help them get rid of their anger. Catharsis theory,
which can be traced back through Sigmund Freud to Aristotle, is elegant and appealing,
but it has not stood up to scientific scrutiny.[9] Indeed, expressing anger often has the
opposite effect of increasing angry feelings and aggressive impulses. Because people
often feel better after expressing anger, they incorrectly assume that catharsis theory is
true. However, people also feel good after eating chocolates or French fries or drinking
beer or taking street drugs. A good feeling is not the “acid test” of whether something
actually works. Research also shows that the good feeling is positively (rather than
negatively) linked to aggression.[10]

Third Person Effect

Researchers have consistently found that people believe the media have a much stronger
effect on others than on themselves—called the third-person effect.[11] People may also
believe that media violence may affect some “susceptible” people (e.g., the mentally
ill), but it will not affect them personally. The third person effect may be related to
reactance theory. If viewers admit that the media is influencing them, then they would
also have to admit they are being controlled to some extent by the media.

Denial From the Entertainment Industry

The entertainment industry frequently claims that violent media do not increase
aggression,[12] even though it is obviously in the economic self-interest of the
entertainment industry to make such claims. In 1972, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a
warning about the harmful effects of TV violence.[13] Since then, the scientific
evidence has grown even stronger, but news reports claim less harm. Indeed, most
Americans aren’t even aware that the U.S. Surgeon General issued a warning about TV
violence in 1972, perhaps because the mass media has not publicized it. The
entertainment industry might be reluctant to admit that they are marketing a harmful
product, much like the tobacco industry was reluctant to admit that cigarettes are
harmful. It is a paradox. On the one hand, the TV industry claims that a few minutes of
advertising can sell soap, salsa, cereal, and even political candidates to viewers. Indeed,
a 30-second ad for the 2013 Super Bowl cost about $4 million.[14] On the other hand,
the TV industry claims that the hours of programming surrounding the few minutes of
advertising have no effect on viewers.

People Don't Understand Psychological Processes as Much as Biological Processes

If you see a violent video game player assault another person, it is difficult to know the
direct cause of the assault. Was it playing violent video games for hours on end, or was
it something else? Psychological processes are not as intuitive as biological processes to
most people. People are probably more accepting of the idea that smoking causes lung
cancer, for example, because it is much easier to grasp the idea that smoke going into
the lungs damages cells and starts tumor growth.

Summary[15]

These processes combine to create an atmosphere in which people come to conclude

that violent media are not harmful, even though hundreds of studies conducted over
several decades have shown that violent media are in fact harmful,[16] and the
overwhelming majority of social scientists working in the area now accept that media
violence poses a danger to society.[17]Most of us don’t like to admit that the things we
enjoy doing might also be bad for us, whether that be playing violent video games or
eating chocolate. One key difference between eating mass quantities of high sugar foods
and playing violent video games is that in the first case, you are the only person who is
harmed by the action, whereas in the second, there is potential to harm others.

Recommended Reading

Huesmann, L. R., & Taylor, L. D. (2003).  The case against the case against media
violence. In D. Gentile (Ed.) Media Violence and Children,   (pp. 107-130).  Westport:
Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Huesmann, L. R., Dubow, E. F. & Yang, G. (2013). Why it is hard to believe that media
violence causes aggression. In K. E. Dill (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Media
Psychology, (pp. 159-171). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 

[1] Savage, J. (2008). The effects of media violence exposure on criminal aggression: A
meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1123-1136.

[2] Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto,
A., Rothstein, H. R., Saleem, M., & Barlett, C. P. (2010). Violent video game effects on
aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 151-173.

[3] U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Uniform crime reports. Washington,
DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

[4] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging
frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.

[5] Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C. L., & Eron, L. D. (2003).
Longitudinal relations between children's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive
and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39,
201-221.

[6] Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

[7] Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic

Press.

[8] Bushman, B. J., & Cantor, J. (2003). Media ratings for violence and sex:
Implications for policy makers and parents. American Psychologist, 58,130–141.

[9] Geen, R. G., & Quanty, M. B. (1977). The catharsis of aggression: An evaluation of
a hypothesis. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
10, pp. 1–37). New York: Academic Press.

[10] Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Stack, A. D. (1999). Catharsis, aggression,
and persuasive influence: Self-fulfilling or self-defeating prophecies? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 367-376.

[11] Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 47, 1-15.

[12] Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American
public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477-
489.

[13] Steinfeld, J. (1972).  Statement in hearings before Subcommittee on

Communications of Committee on Commerce (United States Senate, Serial #92-52, pp.
25-27).  Washington, DC:  United States Government.
[14] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/business/media/a-sellout-for-super-bow...

[15] I would like to thank Dara Greenwood, Jeff Grabmeier, and Rowell Huesmann for
their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this blog.

[16] For a review see Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2012). Effects of violent
media on aggression. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and
the media (2nd edition) (Ch. 12, pp. 231-248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[17] Murray, J. P. (1984). Results of an informal poll of knowledgeable

persons concerning the impact of television violence. Newsletter of the
American Psychological Association Division of Child, Youth, and Family
Services,  7(1), 2.