Does viewing violent media really cause criminal violence?

represents an attempt to fill this void and provide a resource for those who do not wish to delve intofour decades of original research in order to assess this line of investigation. Studies are evaluated

based on contemporary standards of research in the field of criminology. Although the possibility that

television and film violence has an impact on violent criminality remains, it is concluded here that,

despite persistent published reviews that state the contrary, the body of published, empirical evidence

on this topic does not establish that viewing violent portrayals causes crime.

D 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Television violence; Media violence; Violent crimeA methodological review

Joanne Savage*

Department of Justice, Law and Society, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20016-8043, USA

Received 9 September 2002; received in revised form 26 October 2003; accepted 30 October 2003

Abstract

The topic of media violence has been the subject of heated debate in recent decades. There is a vast

empirical literature on the effects of television on aggression but no published comprehensive review

has ever focused on those studies that use criminal aggression as their outcome. The present paperAggression and Violent Behavior

10 (2004) 991281. Introduction

A vast empirical literature on the impact of television exposure on aggression has accrued

over the last four decades, mostly in the fields of psychology and broadcasting. Reviews of

this literature typically conclude that there is evidence that viewing violent media is as-

1359-1789/$ see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.10.001

* Tel.: +1-202-885-2974.

E-mail address: jsavage@american.edu (J. Savage).

sociated with aggression (e.g., Donnerstein & Linz, 1995; Huesmann & Miller, 1994; Paik &

Comstock, 1994; Wood, Wong, & Chachere, 1991). It is not this particular conclusion that is

going to be called into question in the present paper. Instead, the present paper focuses on the

extension of that conclusion to apply to violent or criminal behavior. For example,

Donnerstein and Linz (1995) conclude that studies strongly suggest that exposure to media

violence is a causal factor in criminal behavior, (p. 250). Palermo (1995) writes There is no

doubt . . . that excessive and extended exposure to television violence may promote violencein some children . . . (p. 19). Huesmann and Miller (1994) summarize, . . . the existingempirical studies do provide support for the conjecture that the current level of interpersonal

violence in our societies has been boosted by the long-term effects of many persons

childhood exposure to a steady diet of dramatic media violence (p. 155), and Sege (1998)

concludes, Although this phenomenon is complex and multifactorial, with deep historical

roots, one of the best documented causes of the modern upsurge in violence appears to be

childhood exposure to television violence (p. 129).

This idea has been reified through the popular press and other published works. Although

many publications have tamed their rhetoric on this topic in recent years (Anderson and

Bushman, 2002), one still may find many highly overstated comments on the TV violence

violent criminal behavior relationship. For example, in the abstract for a recent piece on the

effects of television violence we find: More than 1000 studies have proposed a link between

teen violence and violent TV programs (Mudore, 2000, p. 24). Bergenfield (1994) writes,

Thirty years of research have proved that exposure to TV violence is hazardous to childrens

health and welfare (p. 40). The medical community has been very active in recent years on

this topic and literature searches on media violence result in many hits related to statements

by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. A report on

the policy statement for the American Academy of Pediatrics quotes it as saying that

Exposure to and the influence of media violence directly correlates to violent behavior

(Chatfield, 2002; p. 735). Articles with titles such as Teaching Kids to Kill (Grossman,

2000) and Televisions Bloody Hands (McCain, 1998) are commonplace.

It is likely that it is this kind of rhetoric from the popular press (vs. the more carefully

worded scholarly summaries) that has inspired calls for action. For example, the American

Medical Association has expressed its vigorous opposition to television violence and its

support for minimally restrictive measures to protect children from the harmful effects of

such programming (American Medical Association, 1993). A report released by Senator

Orrin Hatch as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman is said to blame television for 10% of

youth violence, to identify media violence as one of the principal causes of youth violence,

and to recommend 14 actions federal government should take to counter effects of media

violence on youth (as reported by Albiniak & McConnell, 1999). Representative Henry Hyde

forwarded the Hyde Amendment, also known as the Childrens Defense Act in 1999,

which would have made it a federal felony, punishable by 5 years in jail, to expose children

under 17 to materials with sexual or violent content (reported by Reid, 1999).

Due to the immense attention media violence effects have received from policymakers, it is

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128100paramount for criminologists to evaluate the literature for its implications for crime. Of

course, there are many reasons why one might expect that viewing violence would affect

violent behavior. Basic principles of learning would suggest that small children will imitate

behavior (Bandura, 1977). If the scenes viewed are exciting, this may also provide physical

stimulation (excitation) that might have an immediate effect on behavior and, perhaps, a

rewarding sensation that would then be associated with violence (classical conditioning).

There is also the likelihood that vicarious reinforcement would affect the viewerwatching

the perpetrator of violence receiving rewards for violent behavior might provide important

information to the viewer about the consequences of behaving violently.

The most sophisticated and widely accepted perspective on the relationship between

viewing violent TV and aggression has been forwarded by Huesmann (1986a). Huesmann

and Miller (1994) argue that . . . the most plausible hypothesis is that habitual exposure toviolent television programs teaches children aggressive habits which are maintained well into

adulthood (p. 165). Huesmanns theory is based on the proposition that social behavior is

guided by cognitive scripts that are stored in a persons memory. Aggressive people are those

who regularly retrieve and employ scripts that emphasize aggressive responding. Children

can learn aggressive scripts from many sourcesincluding watching television. The process

is reciprocaltroubled and aggressive children often watch more television and identify with

television characters to a greater extent than other children, and watching more television

reinforces these violent scripts. The theory also addresses other complexities such as the

importance of cues in the environment necessary for the retrieval of scripts.

However, although the theory makes sense, and there are a very large number of studies

that examine the effects of media exposure on aggression, there are comparatively few studies

that actually measure the effects of media violence on criminal aggression. The majority of

the published studies alluded to in the popular press use, as an outcome measure, a measure of

aggression that is not violent nor criminal. Most typically, they employ a shock box where

subjects are told to administer shocks to another individual in a learning scenario. The

outcome measure is often the maximum level of shock that each subject chooses to

administer, and evidence of an effect is demonstrated if the group who had viewed a violent

television show in an earlier experimental session set shock levels at a higher level, on

average, than a group who viewed a control program.

Kaplan (1984) questioned the validity of using laboratory measures of aggression, such

as the shock machine, for understanding real-life violence and aggression and concluded

that naturalistic observation in field settings held the greater promise for understanding this

phenomenon. Although most scholarly works provide very carefully worded conclusions

based on such studies, the belief prevails that watching violent television or movies causes

violent behavior. There are some obvious reasons why one might question the general-

izability of findings using this type of outcome to behaviors that are violent and criminal.

For example, there is a psychological difference between pressing a button and hitting or

shooting someone directly. There is also the matter of demand characteristics of the

experimental situation, where subjects are told to shock the other personthere is no rule

or law against itand, indeed, they are being encouraged to do so (see Felson, 1996, for

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 101further discussion). We can imagine that many ordinary people who would not be willing to

violate the law or harm others normally might be willing to administer pain or harm to

another person in a setting where it is legal and expected (e.g. as part of service in the

armed forces, as a police officer, or as a nurse who must give a shot to a patient) and where

retaliation is unlikely to occur. There is no empirical basis for the assumption that there is

an uninterrupted linear relation between legal, laboratory aggression and crimes such as

aggravated assault and robbery. Given that the law, social disapproval, socialization, and

formal punishment stand between this type of aggression and criminal aggression, the

assumption is dubious at best.

The purpose of the present paper is to provide a review of all the published studies, in

English, that examine the effects of viewing television or film violence on criminal

behavior. Because previous reviews related to this topic are plentifully available, the

present paper will emphasize the methodological problems that cause one to question the

conventional wisdom. This is not the only review that has expressed skepticism regarding

the aggressionviolence relationship (see discussions by Felson, 1996; Freedman, 1984,

1986, 1988, 1992; Jensen, 2001; McGuire, 1986; Zimring & Hawkins, 1997). However,

the present review is the only comprehensive review of the literature limited to studies

that examine the effect of media violence on behavior that is criminally violent; that is,

the overt expression of physical force against another individual and that might constitute

criminal behavior, broadly defined. This review highlights the methodological issues that

are relevant for understanding whether viewing media violence causes violent criminal

behavior and, as such, it is hoped that it will provide a resource for those who want to

understand the effects of media violence on crime but who do not wish to delve into the

original literature themselves. Because the majority of reviews of this topic have

suggested that viewing media violence causes violent behavior, great care is taken here

to point out the plentiful evidence that contradicts this conclusion.

Empirical articles and reviews of the literature were identified, first, by using an

electronic search of books and articles through a major university consortium database.

Criminal Justice Abstracts was also consulted for recent years. Then, the bibliographies

of all the items obtained were reviewed and empirical articles referenced therein were

evaluated. This process was repeated until all empirical articles were obtained that fit the

established criteria. Inclusion of studies was based on outcome measure; only studies

where criminally violent behavior or analogous behavior are used are reviewed.

Violent and analogous behavior includes behavior that is both physically hurtful or

coercive and violates a rule, law, or norm. For example, in the present analysis, although

the use of electric shock in a teacherlearner experiment is not included (because while

it may be physical and harmful it is not a violation of a rule or law), children pushing,

hitting, or kicking one another is included because it is physical and possibly harmful

and violates rules that are probably well known to the children. This is seen as analogous

to criminal violence, whereas following instructions in an experimental paradigm is not.

Because of the emphasis on certain longitudinal studies in recent years, they are included

although their outcome measure, peer-nominated aggression, represents overt violence

only peripherally.

The review is organized by study methodology starting with aggregate-level studies

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128102(cross-sectional and longitudinal), continuing with individual-level studies (experimental

and quasi-experimental) and ending with correlational studies and prospective longitudinal

Of interest throughout this review is the establishment of temporal order and the

control of spurious factors. Evidence suggests that aggressive people like to watch violentmaterial so the actual causal progression may be opposite that being tested (aggression

may cause exposure to TV violence) or the relationship may be spurious (aggressive

predisposition causes violent behavior and a taste for violent programs). The control

factors of greatest interest here are violence proneness (usually referred to as traitstudies. The review emphasizes methodology, using, as its criteria, methodological

standards in the field of criminology. This methodological approach is important because,

as we shall see, a careful evaluation of numerous studies calls into question the

conclusions reported by their authors and later reviewers.

2. Methodological criteria

Table 1 summarizes the criteria for evaluating studies organized by study type. The

criteria are based on contemporary standards of research in criminology and criminal justice

and knowledge gained from reviewing several decades of television and media research.

Each study was evaluated based on the set of appropriate criteria, although comments in the

text of this paper are restricted to those of greatest relevance for determining the

contribution of that study to our understanding of the effects of media exposure on

criminal behavior.

In each section, more detail will be given on the specific methodological criteria

sought for that particular study type. The criteria that span all of the studies shall be

discussed here. First, for a study to be taken seriously, the authors should report the

measures used and analyses conducted in a systematic fashion so that others could

replicate the study if desired. This should go without saying, but several widely cited

studies in this area do not meet even this basic criterion. Second, sample sizes should be

large enough to make statistical inferences possible. In the interest of saving space, in

this paper comments on sample size are made only when samples are thought to be too

small to allow significance testing.

Measures should be reliable and valid. Reliability is not of great concern in the present

review because many authors took care to demonstrate reliability. With respect to validity,

outcome measures closer to criminal violence should be weighed most heavily. A few studies

using a marginal measure of criminal aggression, peer-nominated aggression, are used and,

all else being equal, studies using this measure should be given less weight. The best

measures of the independent variable, television violence exposure, include a reliable

estimate of television viewing that is weighted by an independent assessment of violent

content of the shows watched. Weaker measures include those where television viewing

overall is used (instead of television violence viewing) or where a rating of preferences for

programs is used rather than an estimate of actual viewing time.

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 103aggressiveness) and parental neglect or abuse because of their likely influence on

television-viewing habits and violent behavior. Studies also control for factors such as

income and parental education fairly regularly, which is important.

Table 1

Methodological criteria for studying the effects of media violence on criminally violent behavior

Common criteria across all types of studies

1. Systematic reporting adequate for replication

2. Adequate sample size for statistical inferences

3. Reliable and valid measures: measures of actual exposure to violent television, outcome measures of violent

criminality analogous behaviors (e.g., hitting, pushing, etc.)

4. Establish or address temporal order

5. Control for potentially spurious factors

6. Test for interactions to demonstrate whether effects are limited to persons with certain characteristics (i.e., trait

aggressiveness/violence proneness)

Criteria for aggregate level studies

Cross-sectional studies

Hypothesis: Jurisdictions where residents are exposed to more violent television are expected to have higher

violent crime rates.

Attention to:.Temporal order.Control for factors likely to be associated with exposure to TV and crime such as SES, education levels, routine

activities, and demographics (e.g., racial composition, age distribution of the population).

Longitudinal studies

Hypothesis: Jurisdictions where there has been an increase in exposure violent television are expected to

experience increases in crime or violent crime.

Attention to:.Assurance that other historical factors were not the cause of the change in crime.A sensible time period including a prespecification of any expected time lags

Criteria for individual level studies

Experiments and quasi-experiments (group comparisons)

Hypothesis: Subjects exposed to violent television will subsequently respond more aggressively than subjects

exposed to a control condition.

Attention to:.Equivalent groups (ideally, random assignment).Realistic viewing experience (complete program, program from normal television).Appropriate control condition (if violent treatment is exciting, control must also be exciting)

Correlational studies

Hypothesis: Subjects who watch more violent television will behave more violently, controlling for

related factors

Attention to:.Measures of violent television exposure and criminal behavior that are developmentally appropriate.Valid measures of exposure (measures of actual frequency of exposure to programs weighted by violence ratings

are best).Temporal orderexposure to television must precede aggression or increase in aggression.Control for important factors that may be associated with both television exposure and antisocialitymost

importantly

Trait aggressiveness

Socioeconomic status (SES)

Intelligence/ability to judge reality

Popularity (when using peer-nominated aggression measures)

Experience of neglect or abuse

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128104

3. Aggregate-level studies3.1. Cross-sectional studies

It could be argued that the most desirable studies for those interested in public healthFinally, the analysis of interaction effects has become the standard in later studies because

evidence suggests that the effects of television violence may be limited to persons with a

predisposition for aggression, and may be opposite for others.

Correlational studies

Overall TV viewing (if interest is in violent viewing per se)

Parenting factors (use of television, aggression, disciplinary practices, education, etc.). Simultaneous entry of control factors better than one-by-one control method

Prospective longitudinal studies

Hypothesis: Children who are exposed to a greater amount of violent television over time will behave in a more

criminally aggressive manner later in childhood and into adult life.

Attention to:.A sensible time period.Control of early wave criminal aggression (early control should match as closely as possible later measure of

violent aggression).Sample sizemust be adequate to obtain variance in criminally violent behavior.Measurement of criminal violence at outcome.Control for parental factors such as abuse, neglect, education, etc.

Table 1 (continued)

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 105or violent crime generally would be those that examine aggregate crime levels across

jurisdictions or over time to see if television viewing or violence viewing affect crime

rates. Interest in rates is due, in part, to their relevance for policy. Although we may find

that television violence affects some individuals in the laboratory, if there is no

measurable effect on crime rates it would not be necessary to target it as a priority

for reform. Unfortunately, there have been only two cross-sectional studies and four

longitudinal studies that have attempted to evaluate this matter at the aggregate level.

The most careful of the aggregate cross-sectional studies (and one of the most

important studies overall) was done by Messner (1986), who examined variations in

the violent crime rate within the United States. Messner constructed a measure of violent

television exposure for standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs) within the United

States based on Nielsen audience size estimates of violent shows and found that such

exposure was, contrary to expectations, significantly negatively related to violent crime

rates, controlling for about 10 factors that could potentially confound the relationship.

The findings were robust enough to warrant explanation, and Messner hazarded a routine

activities interpretationperhaps people who watch more violent television are less likely

to associate with deviant peers, to socialize with deviant subcultures, and may avoid

trouble by staying at home.

Lester (1989) compared 20 countries rated for film violence and found no correlation

between film violence and homicide rates. It should be pointed out that the sample size is very

small, the measure of film violence is not described and no control variables are used.

Lesters finding is suggestive that countries high in film violence do not seem to have

higher homicide ratesbut the effect could have been suppressed by a variety of factors such

as wealth that might be associated with greater film violence and less homicide.

3.2. Longitudinal studies

Four aggregate-level longitudinal studies on this topic have been published to date

(Berkowitz &Macaulay, 1971; Centerwall, 1989; Hennigan et al., 1982; Phillips, 1983). These

studies attempt to test whether television exposure overall or certain types of exposure affect

crime trends.

Berkowitz and Macaulay (1971) tested a contagion effect whereby violent crimes were

expected to increase after the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963, and

after the mass murder of eight nurses in Chicago by Richard Speck in July 1966. Graphs of

violent crime trends suggest that unusual increments occurred in overall violent crimes,

aggravated assaults, and robberies following those events. However, the data are not as

convincing as the authors take them to be. First of all, the normal trends for these crimes

vary a great deal from month to month and there was a general increase overall during this

period so that the two unusual peaks are not especially obvious to anyone not looking for

them. Second, the effect was not evident for homicide, and if the effect were really due to

contagion or imitation, we would expect the effect to be more evident for homicide than

for other violent crimes.

Hennigan et al. (1982) conducted a time series analysis of UCR data and concluded that

the introduction of television in the United States was consistently associated with increases

in larceny, but not violent crime, burglary, nor auto theft. Those findings held for both city-

and state-level analyses. The authors compared crime trends for jurisdictions that received

television broadcasts before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) freeze on

broadcasting licenses between late 1949 and mid-1952 to those for jurisdictions that only

received television afterward. It is important to note that Hennigan et al. were looking at the

introduction of television, overall, and their independent variable was not a focused measure

of violence exposure. The illustrations provided in this paper do not provide the visual

analyst a very convincing case, but larceny trends vary at a statistically significant level, in

the hypothesized direction between the two types of jurisdictions. It is important to emphasize

that the finding did not apply to any violent crime and the authors themselves tentatively

attributed the association to the viewing of high levels of material consumption rather than

increased exposure to violent portrayals (supporting a relative deprivation hypothesis

rather than social learning).

Phillips (1983) examined daily homicide rates following heavyweight prizefights and

found convincing evidence of an effect on homicide 3 and 4 days after the events

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128106particularly pronounced after highly publicized fights. The most important criticism of the

analysis is that the 3- to 4-day lag in effect was not predicted a priorione would expect that

if enough time lags were tested, some would turn out to be significant. Furthermore, the effect

was small. Phillips estimated 11.6 extra homicides in the United States per fight and did not

report significance levels for monthly or annual homicide rates. During this period the

number of U.S. homicides was approximately 20,000 per year, which is approximately 1667

per month, and it is probable that a change of 11 or 12 extra homicides per fight would not be

detectable at the monthly or annual level.

Furthermore, one could plausibly speculate that the extra homicides would have oc-

curred eventually anyway. Perhaps a few violent persons murdered someone due to imitation,

excitement, frustration, or altercations associated with the fight or related gambling losses, but

those persons may have been bound to kill someone at some point soon anyway (it is easy to

imagine that a person who would kill in response to a prizefight might do the same if caught

in a traffic jam on a hot day, fired from a job, or faced with a colicky baby at 3 a.m.). Phillips

argues that this is unlikely because there are no corresponding drops in homicide below the

normal level within the 3-week periods he analyzed. However, there is no reason to believe

that all the extra homicides were destined to occur within that period so it is highly

unlikely that such a drop would be evident. Because significance of extra homicides is not

established for monthly or yearly homicides, it is not possible to conclude there were more

homicides in the long run due to prizefights than there would have been otherwise.

A widely cited study by Centerwall (1989) presented a comparison of homicide trends in

the United States, Canada, and South Africa. Centerwall observed that 1015 years following

the introduction of television, the annual incidence of white homicide deaths in the United

States and overall homicides in Canada increased by over 90%, while no such increase

occurred in South Africa, where the government delayed television broadcasting until 1975.

Like Hennigan et al. (1982), Centerwalls independent variablethe introduction of tele-

visionis not a powerful measure of exposure to media violence. Centerwall takes this

comparison as very strong evidence that television causes violent crime and contends that

television is responsible for approximately 10,000 homicides annually (computing a relative

risk based on the fact that reported homicides doubled in the 1015 years after the

introduction of television and assuming, therefore, that half the nations homicides must be

due to television). Centerwall has republished these observations repeatedly and his articles

have been widely cited and accepted as important evidence for a link between television and

crime.

Many strong objections could be raised from this type of analysis. First, it is important to

highlight the fact that Centerwalls (1989) measurement and analysis are not documented in

any systematic way and as such, the study is not replicable and does not meet the scientific

standard normally accepted in the social sciences. Second, the comparison of individual

countries is plagued by a plethora of idiosyncratic, unmeasurable factors that might affect any

one nations crime rates. In this study, no convincing case is made that the United States,

Canada, and South Africa are roughly identical on the myriad social factors associated with

crime that might have changed in the 1950s and 1960s. Centerwall claims that he examined a

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 107wide array of possible confounding factors (including changes in age distribution, urban-

ization, etc.), but he does not present the analysis or the measures used. Most troubling is the

oft-cited estimate that 10,000 homicides a year in the United States are due to television,

also for a variety of reasons that range from a greater emphasis on material gain (Merton,1938) to a decline in small-town informal social control. The extent to which television

influenced these crime trends is yet unclear.

4. Individual-level studies

4.1. Experiments, quasi-experiments (group comparisons)

A dozen studies comparing groups in an experimental or quasi-experimental setting have

been reported. Approximately four to five of these suggest that watching violent television or

films is associated with violent or analogous behaviorbut there are some serious

qualifications. Five of the studies found no effect of violence exposure, and four findings

suggest a negative effectchildren who watched the control television programs were more

violent than those who watched the violent programs. The methodological rigor among these

studies is comparatively better than among those that reported the hypothesized effect.

An early study by Steuer, Applefield, and Smith (1971) matched 10 preschool children

based on their usual exposure to television and exposed half of them to daily treatments of

violent programming (mostly cartoons) and half to nonaggressive programming. Separate

graphs for each of five matched pairs suggest that the children were very similar in aggressive

behavior during baseline (aggressive behavior included hitting, kicking, choking, etc.), and

that three of the children in the experimental condition diverged very visibly from their

matched control in aggressive behavior after the introduction of the TV diet. These findingswhich relies on the tenuous assumption that nothing else changed in the United States and

Canada (but not South Africa) during the 1960s that could have caused homicide to increase.

In the same paper, Centerwall (1989) follows up with the observation that increases in

homicide rates in nine U.S. regions corresponded to the timing of their acquisition of

television. Again, no systematic description of data or analysis is presented; the correlation

between the timing of the acquisition of television and the timing of the regions subsequent

increase in homicide is reported to be .82 (p=.003). It is unclear why regions are used instead

of cities or states, and the sample size is very small. Without further documentation,

Centerwalls findings are merely suggestive and should not be weighed very heavily.

Unfortunately, these findings have received a great deal of attention, have been published

and cited in prominent publications, and have been interpreted as support for the conclusion

that television violence causes violent crime.

Although it is contended here that Centerwalls report has received an exaggerated amount

of attention, it is the case that the United States did experience marked, astonishing increases

in reported crime, particularly violent crime and homicide, starting in the early 1960s, and

high rates of violent crime became the norm by the mid-1970s. This phenomenon does bear

explanation and Centerwalls suggestion that television may be responsible is an important

hypothesisnot only because Americans would have been exposed to more violence, but

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128108are some of the more visually convincing, but the very tiny sample size, and matching

procedure (which cannot eliminate many rival hypotheses) prevents statistical inferences.

Feshbach and Singer (1971) studied boys living in three private schools and four homes for

boys in California and New York. One of the earliest field experiments on this topic, the

findings do not support a relationship between viewing violent television and criminal

aggression. Within each institution, boys were randomly assigned to watch a diet of violent or

nonviolent television over a 6-week period. Overall, there were over twice as many instances

of fistfighting, hitting, and kicking among controls as there were among the treatment

group. When the institutions were analyzed individually, the statistical significance of this

finding held for all four boys homes (where, presumably, the boys were more troubled) but

not the private schools.

Although fears have been raised by reviewers that the boys in the control condition were

angry about being deprived of their favorite shows, the authors contend that they made every

effort to reduce possible sources of frustration, permitting boys to drop out and even

permitting a few boys to watch Batman, which was not on the list of nonviolent programs.

Although one could criticize some aspects of the methodology, the very consistent negative

findings across separate sites argue that a diet of violent television does not increase and may

actually reduce aggression of a type that is analogous to criminality among troubled boys.

This conclusion is tempered by the authors report that some of the boys suspected that the

study was about aggression. The effect as reported suggests that either violent television

reduces aggression or that aggression-inducing effects of television are very easily overcome

by minimal social constraints and influences.

Hapkiewicz and Roden (1971) showed children either a violent cartoon, a nonviolent

cartoon, or no cartoon and then watched pairs of them try to watch a peep show with only

one eye hole. There were no significant differences between groups on aggressive

behaviors (85% of which were pushing) measured during this period, although a table

suggests that aggression scores were much higher for the no-cartoon group (the mean score

of 25.8 in the no-cartoon group was approximately double that in the aggressive and

nonaggressive cartoon groups). In a later study, Hapkiewicz and Stone (1974) used a larger

sample and found some evidence of an effect only when realistic violence was shown.

There was no effect of treatment on aggression for girls. The authors concluded that cartoon

violence may reduce aggression.

Friedrich and Stein (1973) observed the play behavior of preschoolers in a naturalistic

setting. Although they collected a large number of measures of various constructs, of

particular interest here is the comparison of the impact of diets of aggressive television

(Batman and Superman cartoons), prosocial television (Mr. Rogers Neighborhood) and

neutral films on physical aggression (the measure of which, unfortunately, included some

types of nonverbal aggression that are not analogous to criminality). The description of

the neutral and prosocial conditions suggests that there was no effort to make them as

exciting as the aggressive TV showsa problem since the effects of a violent program

could be due to the fact that it is exciting. The authors do not report a full analysis of

the dependent variable of greatest interest here, but the analysis of an overall measure of

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 109aggression (which includes mostly noncriminal behavior) revealed a statistically signifi-

cant interaction suggesting that the aggressive TV condition affected children who were

initially high in aggression and not children who were initially low in aggression. This is

an early demonstration of an interaction effect that obtains more frequently in the later,

more analytically rigorous studies.

Leyens, Parke, Camino, and Berkowitz (1975) compared four cottages of institutionalized

boys in a private secondary school in Belgium. The boys lived at the school because they

lacked adequate care at home or had problems with the court, their school, or their parents.

Prior to the experimental treatment, boys in two of the cottages had low base rates of

aggression and boys in the other two had high base rates. During a movie week, children in

one of each of the high- and low-aggressive cottages were shown a violent film each night

while an (almost certainly less exciting) neutral film was shown in the other two cottages

(another important difference in the films is that the violent films were almost all American

and the neutral films were almost all French-language films; the authors refer to them as

comedies). Many types of aggression were studied; for present purposes the most

important was physical aggression, defined as physical contact of sufficient intensity to

potentially inflict pain on the victim (hitting, slapping, choking, kicking). Unfortunately, the

observers did not distinguish between play behavior and real physical aggression.

Results suggested that the violent films induced aggression in the high-aggressive cottage.

The rate of physically aggressive behavior increased from .015 to .049 from the baseline to

the movie week. Since the measure of aggression includes play fighting, it is not possible to

ascertain the size of the effect on real aggression. One can certainly imagine one or two

boys wanting to imitate the movies in play, and that the violent movies were more imitable

(e.g., one of the violent movies was Zorro [en garde!]). The effect only occurred in the

measures taken immediately after the movie screenings and did not persist through the

noontime observations made on each of the following days (which supports the concern that

the effect was due to arousal or play fighting).

Huston-Stein, Fox, Greer, Watkins, and Whitaker (1981) assigned 66 preschool boys and

girls to four TV conditions: high actionhigh violence, high actionlow violence, low

actionlow violence, and no TV. This approach is important because by using an exciting

comparison treatment, the researchers can disentangle the effect of watching something

exciting versus something violent per se. Subsequent observations of free play suggested that

while serious preschool aggression decreased from baseline in the no-television and low-

action groups, it stayed approximately the same for the high-action groups. There was no

effect of violent content.

Although preschool-type aggression is not closely analogous to adult criminal behavior,

one would expect it to be easier to induce using violent media stimuli. This was not the case

in the Huston-Stein et al. (1981) study. The findings suggest that the excitatory nature of the

material may be related to aggression (though remember, aggression in the exciting TV group

did not increaseit just did not decrease), but that violent content had no effect on aggressive

behavior. The decline in aggression among the low low and no TV groups suggests that

the baseline measures may not have represented typical behavior.

In a natural experiment, Joy, Kimball, and Zabrack (1986) compared three Canadian towns

(Notel, Unitel, Multitel) with varying exposure to television over the period of time during

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128110which television was introduced into the Notel community. Researchers observed greater

increases in schoolyard aggression in Notel than in the other jurisdictions. Like Centerwalls

(1989) work discussed earlier, this study has been cited repeatedly as evidence that exposure

to television causes aggression.

There are several methodological limitations that restrict the generalizability of this study.

First, the communities were not randomly assigned or equivalent in the beginning. The

authors state that Notel (no television) was typical and similar to the comparison community

Unitel (one television station) and suggest that census data and resident reports corroborate

this statement (detail is not provided). A convincing case is made that Notel was not an

unusual town; the reason Notel had no television was simply because it was in a valley, a

geographic blind spot, and the transmitter for the area could not reach it. What is puzzling

is that the youngsters in the three towns had similar levels of aggression during baseline. If

television causes aggression, Multitel (multiple television stations) should have had much

higher levels of baseline aggression, followed by Unitel. Clearly, something else was different

about the Notel childrenor, television does not cause aggression.

Also, the dependent measure included a variety of aggressive schoolyard activities, some

of which were analogous to criminality but many of which were not. One has to wonder to

what extent imitative play fighting played a role in Notels increase in aggression. The

findings of this study are suggestive that the introduction of television was associated with

increased obnoxious playground behavior. It would be more instructive if actual crime counts

in the three towns could be compared.

Violent media exposure is just one of numerous predictors used by Kruttschnitt, Heath, and

Ward (1986) to distinguish between violent inmates and a matched sample of nonconvicted

men. There were significant differences between groups on a retrospective measure of

exposure to violent TV. The authors themselves do not put much confidence in the findings

because the size of the coefficient is smaller than those for a variety of other variables.

However, the finding does favor an effect of violent media exposure. The matched design,

however, has many drawbacks, the most important of which is that predispositions for

aggression were not controlled so the alternative hypothesis that aggressive kids like to watch

violent shows has not been eliminated. Heath, Kruttschnitt, and Ward (1986) expanded on

this analysis and found an interaction effectthat high exposure to television during

childhood years was related to the commission of a violent crime during young adulthood if

violence was also present in the home (p. 186).

Josephson (1987) marked a turning point in this line of researchher methods are a

marked improvement over prior studies of this type. Josephson randomly assigned boys to

watch a violent or nonviolent show and further manipulated frustration and violent cues. Her

primary interest was in the action of aggressive cues and frustration but she does report that,

controlling for initial aggression, frustration, and a variety of interactions, the main effect of

TV violence on floor hockey aggression was negative; the boys who watched violence were

less aggressive as a group than those who watched a control program. She tested interaction

effects and found that violent TV content was associated with higher aggressive behavior

among groups with relatively high average scores on initial characteristic aggressiveness. She

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 111further points out that In most cases, the very opposite effects occurred among groups of

boys with low mean levels of characteristic aggressiveness (p. 888). Again, the interaction

between trait aggressiveness and viewing violence appears to be important.

Sprafkin, Gadow, and Grayson (1987, 1988) used learning-disabled (LD) and emotionally

disturbed (ED) children as subjects. The authors made some effort to use exciting control

cartoons (Lassies Rescue Rangers) and they found no main effect of condition (violent

cartoon vs. control cartoons) on short-term physical aggression in LD kids. Among the

emotionally disturbed children there was significantly more physical aggression during recess

following control cartoons. They also found an interaction such that low-IQ kids behaved

more aggressively after the control cartoon.

An unusual aspect of the design was that all the children saw both violent and nonviolent

cartoons in randomized order from one day to the next so that any effects the researchers

detected would have to be short term. If witnessing violent cartoons has an effect that persists

for days, for example, this type of design would miss it.

In summary, the group comparisons reviewed here provide very little evidence that

viewing violent media is positively associated with spontaneous, physically aggressive

behavior in natural settings. Of the four studies reporting a positive effect, only one did

not have serious doubts cast on the findings by the authors or a critical review. Numerous

studies of greater methodological soundness have found null effects and even negative effects

of viewing violent media on violent behavior.

It is important to point out that this set of studies were short term in nature and do not

provide evidence related to long-term effects of a diet of violent television or film exposure. It

is not necessary for short-term effects to be evident for there to be a long-term effect on

behavior.

4.2. Correlational research

Erons (1963) early study was the starting point for a long series of longitudinal research

conducted by Eron, Huesmann, and Walder (1972) (discussed in the next section). The

original study, not originally designed to test the effects of television, found a correlation

between peer-rated aggression among third graders and the violence rating of the subjects

three favorite television shows. There was also a significant negative relationship between the

number of hours of television viewed (estimated by the mother but not corroborated by

fathers estimates) and aggression. Only simple correlations were reported and no control

variables were used. This finding was in many ways a springboard for several decades of

research on this association. By todays standards, however, the findings leave us wanting;

like many other early correlational studies temporal order has not been established (it could

be that aggressive children simply like violent programsnot that violent programs caused

their aggression), and because no controls were used, we must wonder if the relationship is

spurious.

The other purely correlational studies can be condensed and summarized because they

were very similar to one another in design, and their findings are not ambiguous. Unlike the

other types of studies reviewed here, most of the correlational studies find a significant

positive correlation between exposure to or preferences for violent television and measures of

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128112delinquency or physical aggression (Belson, 1978; McIntyre & Teevan, 1972; McLeod,

Atkin, & Chaffee, 1972a, 1972b; Robinson & Bachman, 1972; Thornton & Voigt, 1984).

Like some studies reported earlier (Friedrich & Stein, 1973; Josephson, 1987), Robinson and

Bachman (1972) found that the relationship between preference for violent television and

aggression was only evident among the group highest in prior aggression.

Some of the correlational results do not support a significant relationship between viewing

violence and violent behavior. A reanalysis of the McIntyre and Teevan (1972) data found

that overall television viewing was associated with violent behavior for girls but not boys

(Hartnagel, Teevan, & McIntyre, 1975). The authors conclude, We are forced, then, to

conclude that the TV violence predictors, both objective and perceived, do not matter

significantly in explaining violent behavior (p. 347). McCarthy, Langner, Gersten, Eisen-

berg, and Orzeck (1975) found that longer viewing hours was associated with higher

scores on fighting and delinquency but not violence of preferred programs.

Of the four types of studies used as categories in the present paper (aggregate, group

comparisons, correlational and prospective longitudinal) the pattern of findings among

correlational studies appears to provide the greatest amount of support for the hypothesis

that exposure to violent television causes criminally aggressive behavior but it is very weak

support. The finding of a correlation between viewing violence or a preference for it and

aggressive behavior is consistent with the hypothesis that exposure to television violence

causes aggression, but it is also consistent with the hypothesis that aggressive children choose

to watch violent programs. Without a proper control for trait aggressiveness in any of these

studies, the causal order cannot be determined. These studies should not be weighed heavily

in an assessment of the evidence even though there are so many of them.

4.3. Prospective longitudinal studies

The prospective longitudinal design is the most relevant to the most prominent explanation

for media effectsthat a diet of violent television and movies over time contributes to the

aggressive socialization of a child who will, over a long period of time, develop aggressive

habits (cf. Huesmann, 1986a; Huesmann & Miller, 1994; Huesmann, Moise, & Podolski,

1997). Several prospective longitudinal studies have been cited widely to support the

hypothesis that viewing violent television causes criminality.

Although prospective longitudinal studies probably are among the highest quality of those

evaluating media violence, most of them use, as their dependent measure, an unsatisfactory

measure of aggression and, therefore, their findings should not be overemphasized. The

measure used is peer-nominated aggression obtained by asking children in a classroom to

nominate which of their classmates behave antisocially (see Table 2). Each subjects score is

based on the number of other children who nominated him or her for the items.

The only items that are relevant for our purposes are Who starts a fight over nothing?

(which could be physical) and Who pushes or shoves other children? Unfortunately, these

items are embedded in a scale dominated by far less relevant items (see Table 2). Of most

concern is that the measure is unlikely to identify the most violent children, because there are

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 113no items that reflect severe, but infrequent, violence. It may also miss children who are highly

aggressive at home, with siblings, for example, but who are not aggressive at school. The

child who bullies his little sister may appear to be low in aggressiveness while a little girl who

is verbally aggressive may score high on this measure. In spite of this problem, as a group, the

set of longitudinal studies are the most methodologically rigorous and have some potential for

elucidating this phenomenon, therefore we include the three main sets of longitudinal studies

and a more recently reported study here.

4.4. The Eron/Lefkowitz/Huesmann et al. studies

The first set of studies was conducted by Eron and his colleagues starting with third-grade

subjects and was initially reported in 1963 (this study was discussed earlier among the

correlational findings (Eron, 1963)). Those subjects were followed up at age 13 (reported in

Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, & Huesmann, 1972), age 19 (Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, &

Huesmann, 1977) and finally, when they were 30 years old (Huesmann, 1986a).

Controlling for initial levels of aggression (an important milestone in the present line of

research), Lefkowitz et al. (1972) reported a partial correlation of .25 (significance not

reported) between age 8 preference for violent programs and age 13 peer-nominated

Table 2

Items from a peer-nominated aggression measure

1. Who does not obey the teacher?

2. Who often says, Give me that?

3. Who gives dirty looks or sticks out their tongue at other children?

4. Who makes up stories and lies to get other children into trouble?

5. Who does things that bother others?

6. Who starts a fight over nothing?

7. Who pushes or shoves other children?

8. Who is always getting into trouble?

9. Who says mean things?

10. Who takes other childrens things without asking?

From Huesmann and Eron (1986, p. 32).

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128114aggression. This approach, used in other studies as well, predicts change in aggression over

a period of time using information related to violent television exposure. The authors went on

to report a multivariate regression, but the procedure was run stepwise and thus is of little

use since television violence preference at age 8 was entered into the model first, not

effectively controlling for the other factors. Although the study does not contradict the

authors hypothesis, its support is weak since alternative hypotheses were not effectively

eliminated.

Lefkowitz et al. (1977) followed up the same subjects at age 19. The peer-nominated

aggression measure is used again and is even less satisfying because the subjects were no

longer in school together and may have been basing their responses on impressions from

years past. Furthermore, the peer-nominated aggression items seem less relevant to a young

adult sample than they were for a child sample (e.g., Who does not obey the teacher?

Who makes up stories and lies to get other children into trouble?). The authors found a

significant relationship between preference for violent television at age 8 and aggression at

age 19, controlling for a variety of factors one by one. Most important among these factors

was peer-rated aggression at age 8. This study was among the earliest to attempt to isolate the

effects of television violence on change in aggression and to establish the temporal order of

the effect. The authors also controlled for other measures from age 8 (one by one): fathers

occupation, fathers aggressiveness, childs IQ, mothers aggressiveness, parental punishment

of child, parents mobility orientation, hours of TV watched, and a series of factors measured

contemporaneously (age 19) including fathers occupation, subjects aspirations, and hours of

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 115watching television.

The estimated correlation between early preference for violent television and later ag-

gression is .31 and is almost certainly larger than it would be if all the control variables were

entered simultaneously. For present purposes, the finding is highly suggestive, but the

outcome is not as close to criminal conduct as one would like. Based on such a finding, it

would still be speculative to say that television violence would have a significant net effect on

criminal aggression. This is the most important finding reported to date but not terribly

satisfyingnevertheless, reviewers have interpreted it as convincing evidence that exposure

to television violence causes violent crime.

Huesmann (1986a) briefly reports a 22-year follow-up of this study1 in a theoretical article

that presents a model of media effects on behavior. Figures are presented briefly at the end of

the article and they appear to demonstrate correlations between early preferences for

television violence, frequency of TV viewing, and the number and seriousness of convictions

at age 30. This would qualify as a very important finding, but the details of measurement and

analysis are not described and no freestanding empirical article reporting this finding has been

published to date.2 Nevertheless, the finding has been emphasized dramatically by reviewers.

In summary, there are several problems with overstating the correlations discovered by the

Eron/Lefkowitz/Huesmann group in this line of researchfirst, the initial measure of

exposure to violent television is limited to preferences for violent showsnot exposure to

violent television. The most important finding is that early preferences for violent television

are associated with peer-rated aggression at age 19, controlling for initial levels of aggression.

Unfortunately, the measure of aggression includes mainly obnoxious, irritating behaviors and

few unlawful ones so generalization to criminal violence is tenuous. The most anticipated

finding was one where early-wave aggression was related to seriousness of conviction record

at age 30, controlling for earlier peer-nominated aggression. The casual reporting of the

finding invites skepticism. Even if accepted as stated, there are some alternative explanations

that prevent a great deal of confidence in that finding. In particular, it is quite likely that using

peer-nominated aggression in third grade as a control is not appropriate when predicting later

1 Although studies by Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, and Walder (1984) and Huesmann, Lagerspetz, and Eron

(1984) have both been cited as the 22-year follow-up of this study, said to report a relationship between

preferences for violent TV at age 8 and seriousness of criminal convictions at age 30, neither study presents any

such comparison (various published misattributions exist, suggesting that reviewers are citing material they did not

read).

2 It has been reported in the popular press (Rhodes, 2000) that the correlation between age-8 TV violence

viewing and adult violent crime was due to three subjects who were the only subjects to have committed violent

crimes; all three had scored high on age-8 TV violence viewing.

criminality instead of later peer-nominated aggression. It is likely that such a measure

misses children with serious antisocial tendencies who would not have been identified by

the early measure. Still, this finding is of keen interest if replicated with a larger sample and

valid measures of violent behavior would provide part of the basis for a convincing argument

that TV violence is an important cause of violent crime.

4.5. The Milavsky et al. study

Though reviews of the literature repeatedly allude to the authors as researchers for a major

television network presumably to discredit their work, Milavsky et al. also report a rigorous

test of the impact of television violence on aggressive behavior (Milavsky, Kessler, Stipp, &

Rubens, 1982a, refers to their portion of the NIMH report; Milavsky, Stipp, Kessler, &

Rubens, 1982b, refers to their book).

Elementary school boys and girls and teenaged boys were used to test the hypothesis that

television violence viewing measured earlier in the study would predict aggression and

delinquency measured later in the study, controlling for prior aggression and other factors.

The authors present multivariate models controlling for SES and other variables including

stability of aggression (Wave 1 aggression) that do not indicate a significant relationship

between early, violent TV viewing and later aggression for boys. They report a small but

significant effect for girls. The authors explored the data in great detail for curvilinearity, for

effects among subgroups (such as those based on income, occupation, city, family size,

fatherhood involvement, strictness, etc.) and found no evidence, above what we might expect

by chance in such a large number of analyses, for a relationship. The outcome measure was a

modified version of the peer-nominated aggression measure Huesmann and his colleagues

had previously usedMilavsky et al. used factor analysis to create the final index, which

included four items (Who tries to hurt others by saying mean things to them? Who makes up

stories or lies to get someone else into trouble? Who tries to hurt others by pushing or

shoving? Who hits or punches other people to hurt them?); this index is somewhat more

satisfactory than those used by the Eron/Lefkowitz/Huesmann group (Lefkowitz et al., 1977)

because violent behaviors such as pushing, shoving, and punching are weighted more heavily.

One important difference between the Milavsky et al. study and the other longitudinal

studies is that the authors chose to control for early-wave violent TV exposure as well. By

partialling out variability in initial TV habits, the authors are essentially testing whether the

exposure specific to the study period affects the outcome variables. This is a much more

conservative test of the hypothesis than is reported in other studies and would make it more

difficult to detect an effectin particular if the appropriate age group is not used.

In a more relevant set of analyses (because the outcome is criminal in nature), Milavsky et

al. (1982b) examined onset of delinquency for the teenage sample who were asked during

each wave of data collection if they had committed any of a series of delinquent acts (badly

beaten someone up, gotten arrested, been in a gang fight, stolen a car, knifed someone).

Because of an unfortunate anomaly with the incidence rates, the authors chose to see if they

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128116could predict onset of delinquency using TV violence exposure rather than using another

measure of delinquency. Although a global significance test of a large number of comparisons

suggested that exposure to television violence was not related to onset of delinquency, a

visual inspection of the pattern of findings reported certainly appears to provide some

evidence for a positive effect of exposure to violent television on onset of delinquency. The

probabilities of onset of delinquency increased from .09 for teenagers in the 5th percentile of

TV violence exposure to .18 for those in the 95th percentile. There were other similar patterns

also reported, but Milavsky et al. choose to rely on significance tests and conclude that their

data do not support an effect.

A problem with the design in this particular comparison, though, may have resulted in an

exaggeration of the effectMilavsky et al. did not control for trait aggressiveness or some

other indicator of initial variability in the propensity for delinquency in this comparison. They

argue that a control was not necessary because the boys chosen for the onset analysis had

not committed a delinquent act as of the first wave and therefore did not vary. It could

easily be argued, however, the subjects did vary in their propensity to become delinquent or in

trait aggressiveness and the authors should have at least used the peer-nominated aggression

measure from the early wave as a control for personality differences (though this is not

completely satisfactory as argued earlier, it was the best measure they had for the purpose).

Based on the other findings where such a control nullified some significant simple

correlations, one would expect it to reduce the visually evident (but not statistically

significant) effect here too.

4.6. The Huesmann, Eron, et al. cross-national studies

Because of some dissatisfaction with the earlier series of studies, Huesmann and col-

leagues organized a replication of the Eron/Lefkowitz/Huesmann study, designed especially

to test whether or not exposure to violent television had independent effects on later

aggression. A well-designed, very ambitious project, Huesmann and Eron ran the study in

the United States while it was being replicated simultaneously in four other countries:

Australia (Sheehan, 1986), Finland (Lagerspetz & Viemero, 1986), Israel (Bachrach, 1986),

and Poland (Fraczek, 1986). The studies are all reported in one volume.

Like Milavsky et al. (1982a, 1982b), Huesmann and Eron, 1986 used a multiple-wave

design. In each country two cohorts of childrenone in first grade and one in third grade

were followed up for 3 years. The findings of most interest for Americans are those reported

by Huesmann and Eron (1986) based on the sample of children in the United States. They

found the expected positive simple correlations between television violence viewing and

aggression for boys and girls in almost all comparisons. More importantly, though,

controlling for initial aggression, TV violence viewing in the first and second waves had a

significant positive correlation with third-wave aggression for girls but not boys. This is the

effect of primary importance and it did not hold for boys. One could take this as strong

evidence, given the high quality of the study, that exposure to TV violence is not an important

predictor of aggression for boys, who are of most interest because they are disproportionately

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 117involved in violence.

The authors followed up by creating a second version of the independent variablea

multiplicative composite of TV violence viewing and a measure of identification with

aggressive characters (which had demonstrated a very high correlation with aggression).

They found that the composite was significantly, positively related to Wave 3 aggression,

controlling for Wave 1 aggression for boys. It is unclear why this is a surprise, because

Huesmann has elsewhere convincingly reported that aggression is a stable trait and

identification with aggressive characters is correlated with it. It is also unclear why the

composite measure is seen as a valid substitute for the purer TV violence exposure variable.

The modified independent variable is a mixture of exposure to violent television and a

personality-related measure and, thus, we cannot know the extent to which aggression in the

later wave is due to TV or personality (in fact, we must suspect it is due to personality since

the correlation for identification was high and the partial correlation for TV violence was

null). The follow-up finding has been widely cited as evidence for the effect of violent

television on aggressive behavior, in spite of the fact that the original analysis suggested that

violent television did not cause aggression in the preadolescent boys in the sample.

Furthermore, in data from the four other countries where the study was conducted, in no

case was the model of most interest based on the studys original design (Wave 3 peer-

nominated aggression =Wave 1 aggression +Wave 1 and 2 TV violence viewing + covariates)

reported as statistically significant. In fact, most of the authors did not report this model at all.

Huesmann and Erons (1986) finding of a significant association between TV violence

exposure and later aggression for girls was unique among all the findings reported. Yet the

international findings have also been taken to support the hypothesis that viewing violence

causes aggression because of findings reported using modified variables. In Finland,

Lagerspetz and Viemero (1986) used the product of television violence viewing and

identification with aggressive characters as their independent variable and found a significant

relationship between this composite variable and Wave 3 aggression. Fraczek (1986),

reporting the Polish study, uses violence of preferred shows in Waves 1 and 2 as the

independent variable and finds that this is not significantly related to third-wave aggression

(though the authors and subsequent reviewers characterize the finding as marginally

significant, P < .10).

The Israeli study is reported by Bachrach (1986), who uses the proper independent

variabletelevision violence viewing in Waves 1 and 2, but instead of using Wave 3

aggression as the dependent variable, he reports findings for the ratio of aggression to

avoidance of aggression for reasons unexplained. Controlling for cohort, initial aggression,

initial peer aggression avoidance, the multiple regression reveals a positive and statistically

significant relationship between early television violence viewing and this ratio. Finally,

Sheehan (1986) does compute the model anticipated by the studys design and reports that

television violence exposure did not have significant effects on aggression among the

Australian children. This is the only study that limits itself to reporting the expected multiple

regression model for both sexes using the pure peer-nominated aggression and TV violence

viewing variables. It is also the only study that reports completely null effects.

Huesmanns (1986b) own summary assessment of the evidence from these studies suggests

there is a consistent, convincing pattern that supports the TV violence viewingaggression

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128118relationship. A more critical evaluation would conclude that there is very little evidence from

this set of studies that exposure to television violence causes aggressive behavior. There was

no relationship between early-wave TV violence viewing (measured in its most appropriate

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 119form) and later wave peer-nominated aggression for any subject grouping except the

American girls.3

4.7. Johnson et al. (2002)

A very recently released study by Johnson, Cohen, Smailes, Kasen, and Brook (2002) was

published in Science and reported on the front page of the Washington Post. This study

collected self-report and maternal report data beginning in 1975 in a study of children in the

community. The independent variable was hours of television viewing per day, divided into

three groupings ( < 1 h, 13 h, > 3 h). This is a measure of overall television viewing, not

violence viewing per se, so the findings should be interpreted accordingly. The authors found

that net of controls, there was a higher prevalence of assaults, robberies, and aggressive acts

more generally among individuals who watched more than 1 hour of television in

adolescence (average age 14) 2 to 8 years later when they were young adults (measurements

were made when their average age was 16 and again at 22) than among individuals who

watched less than 1 hour of television. Though not statistically significant, it was clear that

prevalence rates were also higher among those watching more than 3 h than 13 h.

Furthermore, the prevalence of violent behaviors at average age 30 (ages ranged from

approximately 25 to 35) among those viewing more than 3 h per day as a young adult

(average age 22) were higher than among those who watched less than 3 h of television a day.

Some, not all, of the findings held when the authors controlled for previous and subsequent

television viewing.

The analysis is difficult to evaluate thoroughly because the article is short and does not

contain a great deal of detail. Furthermore, it was difficult to find the detail in other works

cited. First, the subject ages seem somewhat inappropriate for testing the theory that has

received the most attention in recent yearsthat a diet of television violence leads to

violent behavior in children. Many studies suggest that aggressive tendencies are estab-

lished rather early in life and the earliest measures in this study were taken when subjects

were an average age of 14 years old (ages ranged from about 9 to 19). Even Huesmann

would probably argue that this is too late to test his theory. The controls used in the first

analysis are listed as childhood neglect, growing up in an unsafe neighborhood, low family

income, low parental education, and psychiatric disorder. It is likely that these are dummy

coded and, thus, lose some of their power. For example, the measure of childhood neglect

is based on information from a central registry and retrospective self-reports and may not

be adequate for controlling for the subtleties of parental monitoring and supervision.

Another concern is that parental harshness or abuse is not controlled. The addition of a

control for neglect is a welcome one, but it is not clear that this measure has adequate

validity for the purpose.3 Huesmann et al. are preparing a report of the longitudinal follow-up of these children. The published report is

currently limited to abstracts from a symposium on The effects of childhood aggression and exposure to media

violence on adult behaviors, attitudes, and mood (Huesmann, Moise, Podolski, & Eron, 1999).

prior analysis seem inappropriate (it does not make sense to control for neglect amongsubjects aged 1727), and because violent behaviors were measured in young adulthood, this

measure should have been used as a control. There are additional problems with this

comparisonat this age, of course, watching a great deal of television could be associated

with unemployment, depression, intelligence, whether the subject has children or not,

whether the subject is a high school dropout or not, marital problems, and a variety of

factors that could be related to violence and are unmeasured and uncontrolled here.

Although the Johnson et al. (2002) findings suggest increased violence among persons

who watch more television, and add to the literature by suggesting this correlation lasts into

adulthood, they do not add significant evidence in favor of the thesis that viewing violent

television causes violent behavior.

In summary, although findings from the prospective longitudinal studies have been taken

as strong evidence that viewing violence causes violent aggression, a careful reading suggests

that evidence for an effect on criminal behavior is practically nonexistent and the evidence for

an effect on aggression is very weak at best. If peer-nominated aggression is proximate for

violent behavior, as is presumed by many, the evidence suggests, instead, that viewing violent

television does not affect it significantly.

5. Summary and conclusions

Table 3 displays a tightly summarized version of what has been discussed throughout this

paper. Although there are numerous positive effects evident in the table, they are concentrated

among studies of least methodological relevance for studying the effect of television violence

on criminally violent behavior (see Table 3). These include the correlational studies (which,

for the most part, do not establish temporal order and have inadequate controls for spurious

factors) and the prospective longitudinal studies that have, for the most part, relied on peer-

nominated aggression as the outcome and that have not reported consistent significant effects

based on the statistical model implied by the original design of those studies.

Although a tally of the findings summarized in Table 3 is not a perfect way to comparePrevious research has been very consistent in suggesting that aggressive children prefer

violent television so it is very important in any study of this type to control for early

tendencies for violent aggression if the outcome to be examined later is violence. The only

control used here is psychiatric disorder based on the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for

Children (DISC-I). Although the authors do not explain the measure in full, it appears that a

dummy code was used for presence or absence of psychiatric symptoms (including aggressive

symptoms). This very broad measure is really not adequate for controlling for early violent

behavior.

The second set of comparisons that were reported examining the effects of television

viewing in young adulthood (average age 22) are a little more ambiguous. The authors report

that control factors were used but do not specify which ones. The control factors used in the

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128120effects, it is a quick way to get a sense of the findings reported. If we limit ourselves to studies

of highest and medium relevance for testing this hypothesis, we find 23 markings.

Table 3

Summary of study findings by methodological relevance for testing hypothesis that exposure to television

violence causes criminally violent behavior

Relevance Study authors Most important methodological problems Overall

findinga

Aggregate-level studies

Highest Messner (1986) Medium Phillips (1983) Time lags not prespecified; significance tests

not reported

+

Hennigan et al., 1982 Few controls; measure of exposure is

introduction of television

o

Lowest Lester (1989) No controls oBerkowitz and Macaulay

(1971)

Inadequate controls; time lags not

prespecified; independent variable actual

violent events that were reported in news

o

Centerwall (1989) Inadequate reporting; three-country

comparison

(see extensive discussion in text)

+

Experiments and quasi-experiments

Highest Hapkiewicz and Roden (1971) oHapkiewicz and Stone (1974) + Realistic

CartoonoGirls

Josephson (1987) PSprafkin et al. (1987) oSprafkin et al. (1988)

Medium Feshbach and Singer (1971) Control group may have been angered and

may have suspected intent of research

Friedrich and Stein (1973) Control condition not equally exciting PLeyens et al. (1975) Control condition not equally exciting;

play fighting may have been included;

subjects not randomly assigned

P

Kruttschnitt et al. (1986) Matched design (potential for spuriousness) +

Huston-Stein et al. (1981) Baseline probably not representative of

typical behavior

o

Lowest Steuer et al. (1971) Very small sample (n = 10); no significance

tests reported

+

Joy et al. (1986) Television exposure, not violence exposure

measure used; three-community

comparison; see further critique in text

+

Correlational studies (some report multivariate)

Medium Hartnagel et al. (1975) Temporal order not established; no control o Boys(later analysis of McIntyre and

Teevan, 1972)

for trait aggressiveness + Girls

McLeod et al. (1972a) Temporal order not established; no control

for trait aggressiveness

+

(continued on next page)

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128 121

Relevance Study authors Most important methodological problems Overall

findinga

Correlational studies (some report multivariate)

Lowest Eron (1963) Temporal order not established; no controls;

peer-nominated aggression used

+

Bassett, Cowden, and Cohen

(1968)

Retrospective measure; no controls;

inadequate reporting

o

Robinson and Bachman

(1972)

Temporal order not established; no controls P

McCarthy et al. (1975) Temporal order not established; no controls;

preference for violence as measure

+

Belson (1978) Temporal order not established; trait

aggressiveness not adequately controlled;

+

Singer and Singer (1981) Action detective shows used; limited

controls; no control for trait aggressiveness

+

Thornton and Voigt (1984) Temporal order not established;

no control for trait aggressiveness;

preference for violence used

+

Prospective longitudinal

Medium Milavsky et al. (1982a, 1982b) Peer-nominated aggression used; o Boysonset of aggression used without control

for prior aggressiveness

+ Girls

Huesmann and Eron (1986) Peer-nominated aggression used o Boys+ Girls

Sheehan (1986) Peer-nominated aggression used oLowest Lefkowitz et al. (1972),

Eron et al. (1972)

Preference for violence used;

peer-nominated aggression measure used

+

Lefkowitz et al. (1977) Preference for violence used;

peer-nominated aggression measure used

+

Huesmann (1986a) Inadequate reporting; inadequate control

for early criminally violent behavior

+

Bachrach (1986) Peer-nominated aggression used; ratio of

aggression to avoidance of aggression used

+

Fraczek (1986) Peer-nominated aggression used;

violence of preferred shows used

o

Lagerspetz and Viemero

(1986)

Peer-nominated aggression used; weighted

measure TV violence viewing; identification

with aggressive characters used

+

Johnson et al. (2002) Hours of TV viewing used; inadequate

control for violence proneness

+

o Overall null effect.+ Overall positive effect of exposure to TV violence indicator on aggressive behavior measure.

Overall negative effect of exposure to TV violence measure on aggressive behavior measure.P Interaction effectexposure associated with increased aggression for subjects high in trait aggressiveness.

a Based on statistical test that best tests the research question of interest here. These are intended to summarize

findings for study and do not necessarily reflect the conclusions drawn by the researchers themselves.

Table 3 (continued )

J. Savage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2004) 99128122

Of these, seven summary findings report a positive effect but three of those are for girls only.

Four summary findings report a negative effect (more media violence, less violent behavior).

Nine findings are null and three reflect an interaction such that viewing violence had a

positive effect on those already high in trait aggression. On the balance, for boys, there

appears to be no more evidence for a positive effect than there is for a negative effect of

media violence on violent behavior. Although it could be the case that most of the studies

missed the effect due to methodological limitations, it is not appropriate nor is it common

practice to conclude that the effect must have been missed in those studies. What is common

practice is to evaluate the methodology of studies that report significant findings, see if there

are rival hypotheses, and temper our conclusions to the extent that there are. Of the high

and medium relevance studies reporting positive findings we find a time lag that was not

prespecified, a matched design with potential for spuriousness, and a lack of control for prior

aggressivenessall very significant problems that without further study mitigate against our

confidence in these findings. Of course this conclusion would be different if we accept the

interpretations of the prospective cross-national studies provided by their authors, which have

not been accepted at face value in this review.

Schramm, Lyle, and Parker (1961), in the very first lines of one of the first full-length

studies of television and North American children, wrote that No informed person can say

simply that television is bad or that it is good for children. For some children, under some

conditions, some television is harmful. For other children, under the same conditions, or for

the same children under other conditions, it may be beneficial. For most children, under most

conditions, most television is probably neither particularly harmful nor particularly benefi-

cial (p. 1). This early conclusion probably holds today.

Unfortunately for the serious scholar, most published reviews and discussions of this topic

frequently cite conclusions of authors without addressing the inadequacies of the research that

produced them. At present, it is safe to say that the research has established several

correlations. Children with aggressive tendencies tend to prefer violent programming more

than children without them. Some studies find a correlation between exposure to violent

programming and aggressive behavior. However, that correlation may be due to a variety of

spurious factors that have not been adequately eliminated. In the laboratory, subjects who

view violent material often behave more aggressively, on average, than those who did not

but mild aggression is typically measured as an outcome, and demand characteristics

probably exaggerate this effect beyond applicability to criminal behavior.

However, saying there is a lack of evidence supporting a hypothesis does not mean there is

convincing evidence that the null hypothesis is true and correct. As an early reviewer of this

paper pointed out, it is important to acknowledge the methodological challenge of measuring

the long-range impact of exposure to violent television. Criminality is rare and it would take

very large samples