Is Popular Culture An Influence On Violent Behaviour?

Studies have been carried out into music and violent behaviour on a theoretical basis, using information gathered on the psychology of individuals and human nature’s method of processing and retaining information, however there has never been a completely independent study into the effects of music on individuals. One possible solution is extensive research on the effects of music in correlation to violence. This research would finally prove whether or not music does have an effect on human behaviour. The tests would be simple and effective: simply monitor the serotonin, adrenaline, and testosterone levels in the subject, then interview the subject to see if his/her behaviour has changed. This would finally give people some evidence with some substance. However, as with all things there is a slight downfall: these tests would require a paid staff willing to do the work and it would take time for the results to come into view.

In an article written by Bibi Baxter on Teenagers, Music and Violence, she relates intense interest in violence to pornography. Her claim is that each consequent image in the music has to be more revealing and degrading than the last in order to maintain the interest of the listener. The article contains a table showing the three stages relating to input and memory and the changed effects they would have on the regular process (see appendix d).

STAGE 1

MEMORABLE INPUT OF VIOLENCE REINFORCED STRONGLY BY CONSTANT REPETITION OF MUSIC & VIOLENT IMAGES TEAMED WITH A RANGE OF STRONG NEGATIVE EMOTIONS

Violent computer/video game - often played for hours, day after day OR Violent scenes in a film OR in music - often seen or heard more than once

TYPICAL EMOTIONS & REACTIONS triumph, disappointment, fierce determination, relief, annoyance, aggression, a sense of achievement from cruel actions, amazement at suffering which can be inflicted followed by gloating, identification with invincible characters

STAGE 2

CONSCIOUS REMINDERS OF VIOLENCE

Apart from visual reminders, eg: slogans, posters, toys, etc., song/music likely to be heard and recognised in:- discos, pubs, homes, shops, streets, etc. followed by memories of enjoyment and/or discussion of gory details. Memory is reinforced even further by singing, humming, dancing to melody.

STAGE 3

SUBLIMINAL REMINDERS OF VIOLENCE

Visits to people and places which have past associations with the song/game/music, eg: shops, mates, etc., or even just the sight of certain objects, eg: TV screen, joystick, etc.

Most people are reliant upon a highly-developed visual memory; therefore progressively violent images teamed with both repetitive, brainwashing music and a wide range of strong sensations should give rise to concern. Add to this, the subliminal reminders which surround us all and it is easy to see how susceptible people could unwittingly become a walking time-bomb, programmed to commit violence which cannot be anticipated, controlled, or avoided.

Although studies are few and far between, there are case studies which help to exemplify the effects some music can have on individuals.

Bill Muhlenburg [17]

Bill Muhlenburg is an Australian who spearheaded a campaign to block (in)famous American white-rapper Eminem from performing at the country’s Summer Festivals. In an article on the subject Muhlenburg attacked the rap-star and all other rappers, claiming that these people were ‘evil’ promoting violence, rape, murder and suicide.

He describes a case where he interviewed the mother of a suicide victim in Queensland in 2000. She said that her son, ‘started to change while in high school. He went from being a beautiful child to a drug using, violent and aggressive teenager.’ Muhlenburg stated in his article that the boy’s mother discovered Eminem tapes under the child’s bed. The blame was instantly shifted to the controversial, drug-using rap-star. Which poses the question as to how influential are musicians in contemporary culture?

Muhlenburg, goes on to argue about the sphere of influence an iconic figure such as Eminem can possess, blaming the artists fully for the reactions of people who listen to their music.

‘The point is, rock stars have tremendous influence on impressionable young people. Indeed, advertisers spend billions of dollars in the belief that images and music can influence a person’s behaviour and the choices he or she will make.’

Muhlenburg’s attack on the industry here is based on a completely valid argument over marketing and the way certain products are marketed at an underage market. In a recent Federal Trade Commission report (see appendix e) they discovered that 80% of R-rated (over 18) movies were targeted at children of the age of 17 and under.

Muhlenburg brings his readers to harsh reality and that is that music can affect people, subconsciously or otherwise. Music is the perfect form in which art can be spread, but it is also a medium with which, as has been seen, subversive messages can lurk which have the ability to manipulate people’s actions causing, in some cases violent behaviour – including self-harm. This is comprehensible evidence of popular culture influencing violent behaviour in contemporary democracy.

The Long-Term Effects of Popular culture

Most criticisms of popular cultures such as television and film regard the short-term effects of over exposure to violent imagery. However, studies have been conducted regarding the long-term effects of violence on television and in films and the effects they can have on individuals over a long period of time.

An initial longitudinal study was conducted by Lefkowitz in 1972. He and his colleagues were able to demonstrate long-term effects in a group of children followed up over a ten-year period. Confirming studies previously demonstrated in 1963 by Eron in the relationship between preference for violent media and the aggressive behaviour of children aged eight. The only question was whether this relationship would hold a grip at later ages in a child’s life.

To answer this question the investigators obtained peer-rated measures of aggressive behaviour and preferences for various kinds of television, radio and comic books when the children were eight years old. Ten years later, when the members of the group were eighteen years old, the investigators again obtained measures of aggressive behaviour and television programme preferences.

Their results indicated that in boys, preference for television violence at age eight was significantly related to aggression at age eight, but that preference for television violence at age eighteen was only sometimes related to aggression at age eighteen. This indicates a high level of influence on younger children who watch violence on film oppressing them into violent acts and behaviour but a lower influence in older children, but still a noticeable influence. This leads on to the question of predicting adolescent aggression from knowledge of their television

The important finding her is the significant relationship, for boys, between preference for violent media at age eight and aggressive behaviour at age eighteen. Equally important is the lack of relationship in the reverse direction; that is, preference for violent television programmes at age eighteen was not produced by their aggressive behaviour in early childhood. The most plausible interpretation of this pattern of correlations is that early preference for violent television programming and other media is one factor in the production of aggressive and antisocial behaviour when the young boy becomes a man. This evidence reflects a study showing the link between popular culture and violent behaviour a real one.

Consequently, a follow-up study was made in 1994, of Lefkowitz’s study. 22 years later, when the boys were thirty years old. The study found that there were significant correlations between violence viewing at age eight and serious interpersonal criminal behaviour at age 30.

By looking at the effects of television, film and music on individuals and the way in which people can be affected by its controlling powers it is possible to draw a picture of defiance and dissidence. Research by Bandura, Liebert, Baron, Merrell and Lefkowitz has shown the possibilities and the reality of a correlation between popular culture and violent behaviour. Indeed, popular case studies coupled with research have provided a substantial case for the answer, ‘yes’ – popular culture is an influence on violent behaviour. In fact, the judicial system in America seems to agree. In 1999 the parents of three students killed in a school shooting in Kentucky filed a successful $130 million lawsuit against two Internet sites, several computer game companies, and Time Warner and Polygram.

Despite successful research into the field of violent behaviour and popular culture and success in court and interesting theories, many people believe that popular culture cannot and does not influence violent behaviour in individuals in contemporary society.

Chapter 2 – Popular culture Does Not Influence

...