Reality Programming on Television:
Realness and Meaning
W. James Potter
Department of Communication
University of California at Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
[log in to unmask]
Work: (805) 893 - 7550
Home: (805) 568 - 0700
Jeremy Hagemeyer
Art Land
Misha Vaughan
Ron Warren
Kevin Howley
(Graduate students at Indiana University)
March 1995
Paper submitted to the Mass Communication and Society Division
of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Reality Programming -
Abstract
This study poses two questions about the portrayals of aggressive behavior
on non-fictional television programs. First, how realistic is the pattern
of portrayal? This replicated reality is assessed by comparing the
characteristics of televised portrayals to real world characteristics,
such
as patterns of criminal acts, as well as the demographics of the
perpetrators and victims. Second, what is the meaning of the aggression?
An answer to this question is constructed through an analysis of
contextual
variables of reward, consequences, intention, motivation, and style of
presentation. The data base for the analysis contains 2300 acts of
aggression found in a composite week of 68 hours of non-fiction television
programming.
The TV patterns of aggression were not found to be a good replicable
reality in terms of the patterns of seriousness of the aggression or on
demographic patterns of perpetrators and victims. Also, contextual
patterns (low rates of punishment, high rates of absence of negative
conseuqneces, high prevalence of megative motives and intentions) would
increase the likelihood that viewers would interpret an anitsocial
meaning
in favor of aggression
Reality Programming on Television:
Realness and Meaning
It is well established in the media literature that news is a construction
(Altheide, 1976; Fishman, 1980). Viewers assume that this construction is
a relatively accurate reflection of reality. But is this a safe
assumption? Does reality programming (news, public affairs programs, and
documentaries) in the aggregate present a realistic picture of the
world?
This is a large question, too large to answer by any one study, so in
this
paper we narrow the question by examining one facet of news--the
portrayal
of aggression.
We know from a long series of content analyses of entertainment
programs that violence is greatly over-represented on television (for
example, see Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980; Lichter &
Lichter, 1983; "NCTV says," 1983; Schramm, Lyle, & Parker, 1961; Smythe,
1954). Also, there is a fair amount of violence and aggression on the
news
(Cumberbatch, Lee, Hardy, & Jones, 1987) and documentaries (Williams,
Zabrack, & Joy, 1982). Also, high amounts of violence were found in a
recent analysis of network, local, and superstation news in New York
City
(Johnson, 1993, 1990). Recently, there has been a growing popularity
among
a new form of "reality programming" that deals with law enforcement--a
genre that includes shows such as Cops, Top Cops, America's Most
Wanted,
and the like. These shows were also found to have very high rates of
aggression (Oliver, 1994).
Issue of Reality
Does televised non-fictional programming present a realistic picture of
the world? At first, this might sound like a strange question,
because
isn't all news real? In one sense, news is always real, that is, it
presents accounts of what actually happened. But in another sense, it can
be unreal, that is, the accounts deviate from the events being
covered, and
sometimes this deviation can be significant. The deviations can be
assessed by comparing the patterns of real world aggression with the
patterns of that aggression on television programs that purport to
replicate that aggression so as to inform the viewership about what happens
in the real world. For example, Oliver (1994) found that "reality
programs" have been found to be less realistic than viewers might expect.
On these television programs, 87% of criminal suspects were associated
with
violent crimes, however only 13% of all crimes in the real world are
violent. This television world of non-fiction crime was also found to be
unrealistic in terms of very high arrest rates (78%) and that among
television police officers, blacks were under-represented in the TV world
(9.0%) compared to the real world (17.0%).
Therefore, an important issue is the degree of match between real world
aggression and the aggression presented on television. If the
television
world in its non-fictional narratives replicates the real world then
we
should expect to find four characteristics.
First, the smallest percentage of aggression should be at the most
serious end of the spectrum, that is, physical acts that result in
great
harm. For example in 1991, the United States Criminal Justice
statistics
indicate that of the 34.7-million crimes, only 18.5% were violent. Of
all
crimes, murder was less than 0.1%; rape, 0.5%; robbery 3.3% (and only
1.1%
were robberies with injuries); and assault, 14.7% (and only 4.7% were
assaults with injuries). Less major, but still serious aggression includ
es: personal larceny with contact 1.4%; burglary, 14.8%; household
larceny,
24.5%; larceny without contact; and theft, 36.1% (all figures from
Maguire, Pastore, & Flanagan, 1993, p. 244). Also, there is a per year
average of 1,062 bombings, which result in 171 personal injuries and 25
deaths (p. 415). Like other forms of high level aggression, bombings
are
very serious, but the are a very small percentage of overall
aggressive
acts.
Second, if the serious forms of aggression are realistic, the
perpetrators should be predominantly male, and ethnicity should be evenly
split between black and white. Among those arrested for violent
crimes,
88.4% were males and 48.9% were blacks, but for property crimes, 74.6%
were
male and 25.0% were blacks. As crimes become less serious, it is more
likely for women and whites to be the perpetrators. To illustrate,
among
those arrested for murder 89.7% are male and are 57.3% black; rape,
98.7%
male and 43.4% black; robbery, 91.4% male and 60.4% black; and
aggravated
assault, 86.3% male and 41.2% black; larceny and theft, 68.0% male and
23.8% black (Maguire, Pastore, & Flanagan, 1993, p. 432, 435). And with
less serious acts of aggression such as deceit and insults, we should
expect a broader distribution across all demographic groups.
Third, if the serious forms of aggression are realistic, the victims
should be mostly male and an even split between black and white. For
example with murders, 78% of victims are male; 47% are white; 50% are
black. When examined proportionally, the murder rate per 100,000 people
is
13.9 for males; 3.5 for females; 4.9 for whites; 34.0 for blacks. Also,
the murder rate is much higher for younger people: 12.4 for 100,000
people
up to age 17; 22.3 for people between the ages of 18 and 24 (Maguire,
Pas
tore, & Flanagan, 1993, p. 390-391).
Fourth, most perpetrators of aggression should know their victims.
With murder, among those who police knew the relationship between the
perpetrator and the victim, 33.4% were family members, 42.2% were
acquaintances; and 24.4% were strangers (Maguire, Pastore, & Flanagan,
1993, p. 386-387). With less serious forms of aggression (such as lying
and insults), we should expect the parties to know each other well.
In sum, if non-fictional programs exhibit a function of informing the
viewership about aggression in the real world, then in the aggregrate,
those programs should present a pattern where 1) there is a wide
distribution of types of aggressive acts with the most serious acts being
the least prevalent; 2) the perpetrators of serious aggression should
be
predominantly male with an even split between black and white; 3) the
victims of serious aggression should be mostly male and evenly split
between black and white; and 4) about three-quarters of aggression should
be between people who know each other well. If instead, the
non-fictional
programs exhibit a function of stimulating an aroused state of fear in
the
audience, then those programs will present a pattern of 1)
over-representing the most serious forms of aggression, 2) show no
regard
for a demographic balance in the portrayals of perpetrators and
victims,
and 3) portray victims not knowing their aggressors.
Meaning of Aggression
Most reviewers of the media effects literature conclude that the viewing
of violent television increases subsequent viewer aggression. This is
the
finding of narrative reviews (Andison, 1977; Baker & Ball, 1969;
Comstock &
Strasburger, 1990; Comstock, Chaffee, Katzman, McCombs, & Roberts, 1978;
Friedrich-Cofer & Huston, 1986; Geen, 1994; Liebert & Schwartzberg,
1977;
Roberts & Maccoby, 1985) as well as meta-analyses (Carlson,
Marcus-Newhall,
& Miller, 1990; Comstock & Paik, 1991; Hearold, 1986; Wood, Wong, &
Chachere, 1991).
Most of these reviews (especially the more recent ones) acknowledge the
importance of the context of the portrayals as an important factor in
the
effect. It is the context of the portrayal that provides cues for the
viewer to interpret the meaning of the action. Some cues such as
punishment and harmful consequences serve to present aggression in a
negative context and would therefore lead the viewer to interpret the
aggression as an undesireable act. In this study, we look at five
contextual characteristics: reward, consequences, intention, motive, and
presentation style.
Reward: Social learning theory predicts that people can learn about
behaviors vicariously and that a behavior that is portrayed as rewarded
is
more likely to be learned (Bandura, 1977). This theoretical position
has
been reinforced by the findings of several major reviews of the
empirical
literature. For example, Comstock et al. (1978) and Comstock and
Strasburger (1990) concluded that the link between exposure to television
violence and subsequent aggressive or antisocial behavior is enhanced
if
the violence is rewarded, or at least not punished. When violence is
punished, the aggressiveness is likely to be inhibited.
A few content analyses have looked at the degree of reward presented for
violence and antisocial acts on television. Potter and Ware (1987)
report
that about 88% of antisocial acts were portrayed as being rewarded.
Williams, Zabrack, and Joy (1982) found that aggression was portrayed as a
successful way to solve conflicts.
Consequences: The consequences of aggression (i.e., emotional or physical
pain or injury) is another important contextual element that viewers use
to interpret the meaning of those portrayals. For example, Comstock
et al
(1978) and Comstock and Strasburger (1990) concluded that the
aggression
will have a stronger influence on viewers if the violence is shown
with
negative consequences, that is, pain and suffering. When violence is
regarded as having no consequences, the probability of aggression
increases. Liebert and Schwartzberg (1977) in their review of the media
effects literature report that with children, the delay of
consequences
(negative motives and undesirable outcomes) leads to a more positive
feeling about the aggression.
Gunter (1985) also concluded that one of the major factors that explains
how viewers interpret the degree of seriousness of violence is the
consequences. He found that in his series of 12 experiments, TV viewers
rated violence with observable harm as more serious than scenes that
showed
no consequences. However, scenes portraying a clear fatality were rated
as less serious than scenes showing non-fatal injuries. Gunter
concludes
that the rating of consequences is based on the amount of pain and
sufferin
g shown by the victim; if a victim quickly dies, the suffering is
rated as
less than if the victim is portrayed in agony.
A few content analyses have looked for the consequences of violence and
found that consequences are rarely portrayed. For example, Williams,
Zabrack, and Joy (1982) report that in over 81% of violent acts on
television, there was no depiction of an impairment to the victims. In
Finland the same finding holds where Mustonen and Pulkkinen (1993)
report
that consequences were usually mild: among physical aggression, 64%
was
mild and only 12% severe consequences; among psychologicalaggression,
37%
was mild and only 9% severe. Also, Cumberbatch, Lee, Hardy, and Jones
(1987) found that injuries were rarely shown as a result of violence on
British TV. However, a different pattern was found in Japan. Iwao, de
Sola Pool, Hagiwara (1981) report that Japanese programs emphasize the
suffering of victims, while this seldom occurs in Western TV.
Intention: Gunter (1985) noticed that the legal or moral context of
behavior is an important mediator of public perceptions of violence.
Defensive or altruistic aggression may be interpreted as milder than
offensive, intentional, or sadistic aggression. He argues that unusual
forms of aggression in which a strong motive (sadistic or sexual) is
apparent are perceived as more serious. Thus the intention of the
character can alter a viewer's meaning of a violent episode. Also,
Williams, Zabrack, and Joy (1982) examined the contextual factor of
intentionality, and found that in the 81 hours they examined, over 97% of
the aggressive acts were intentional.
Motive: Motive is closely linked to intention. For example, Mees' (1990)
social norms approach to defining aggression found three modes of
intention that underlie conceptions of motivation for aggressive acts: (1)
thoughtlessness (the aggressor should have taken possible dangers into
consideration but did not); (2) inconsiderate (the aggressor knows that
the
action will cause distress or harm but accepts this and places his/her own
interests above those of others); and (3) malicious (wickedness is
accepted and intended by the aggressor.
Mustonen and Pulkkinen (1993) measured motivation by dividing aggression
into defensive and offensive groups. Within offensive aggression
there
were five values: instrumental, masochistic, reactive-expressive,
sadistic,
and altruistic. They report finding that spontaneous acts (57%) were
higher than planned aggression (27%) and that first strike acts (76%)
were
much higher than retaliatory ones (12%). Aggressors achieved their
desired
ends fully or almost fully in about 25% of the acts. Also, Potter and
Ware (1987) analyzed the antisocial acts in 88 hours of primetime
television for motivation, which they defined as the locus of control for
the act--either internal or external. They found that 39% of the
1,664
antisocial acts were internally motivated.
Presentation Style: Both Hart (1986) and Gunter (1985) make the point
that the salience or arousing nature of the violence makes a
difference.
Thus the style of presentation can make a difference in terms of
providing
cues to the viewer about how the story should be interpreted. This
would
seem to be an especially important element in the presentation of
non-fictional programming where we should expect a low key recitation of
the facts if the information was the primary focus of the story. The
tone
of this style would serve to inform viewers about the events of the
day,
and the appeal would therefore be to the mind. The contrasting
approach
woould be to sensationalize the story so that it appeals to the
emotions of
the viewer. With sensationalized stories the intention is to arouse the
emotions and upset the viewer.
Given the effects studies reviewed above, a certain pattern of context
would seem to increase the likelihood that viewers will interpret
aggression as permissible and good. Such a pattern would show aggression
as being rewarded (or not punished), as being free from harmful
consequences, as intentional with a clear motive, and with an arousing
style such as presenting an appeal to the emotions.
Method
Sample
One composite week of television programming was compiled for
analysis. Included in this week were all programs broadcast by local
affiliates on the four commercial networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC)
broadcast in the XXX market from 6 p.m. to midnight. The 28 nights (4
networks by 7 nights) of programming were recorded from March 28, 1994
until June 19, 1994. No recording was done during the May sweeps
period.
When a night was selected for the sample, the entire set of six hours
was
videotaped.
The total sample was composed of 168 hours. The coding was performed
on all the programming in the sample with the exception of non-program
material (ads, PSAs, and promos separated from the programs they were
promoting).
Coders
Six graduate students were the coders. Their training consisted of being
part of the development of all of the codes and procedures. Also, one
formal and several informal pilot tests were conducted and the results
were
discussed among the team members.
Coding
Coding began in April. Each coder analyzed from 12 to 40 hours of
videotaped programming. For each tape, they recorded program
identifier
information for each aggressive act. This identifying information
included
network (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC), time of day the program started, length
of program, coder and type of program.
Each time a coder saw an act that fit the definition of aggression,
he/she wrote a short descriptor for that act on a separate line on the
coding data sheet. Along with the act of aggression, contextual
information was also coded. The contextual factors analyzed in this study
are as follows: profile of perpetrator (gender, race, and age),
profile of
victim, relationship of the actors, intention of the perpetrator,
motive of
perpetrator, motive, consequences, and presentation style.
After the coding for a block of shows was completed, the coder
entered his/her data into the mainframe computer and ran some initial
frequencies programs to clean the data file by checking for the range of
codes on each variable. Each of these individual data files was then
combined into a master file which contained over 6,000 acts of
aggression.
Measures
Type of Act: We began with a list of 42 acts of aggression, which
were then used by coders (see Table 1 for the complete list). In our
initial analysis, we found that many of the act types accounted for very
few occurrences, so the 42 types of aggressive acts were grouped into
eight
categories as follows:
1. Serious Assault is a group that includes all direct physical aggression
resulting in death or great physical harm of self or other. Serious
assaults include: unsuccessful suicide attempts, killing, maiming,
beatings, and severe attacks.
2. Minor Assault refers to any direct physical aggression resulting in
minor harm or no harm of self or other. It includes the acts of
slapping,
punching, kicking, failed assaults, detention resulting in loss of
freedom,
and deprivation of basic needs: food, clothing, shelter.
3. Harm to Property refers to any direct physical aggression aimed at
another or one's own possessions. Harm to Property includes: bombing,
arson, vandalism, such as to a person's dwelling, or place of business,
robbery, burglary, and larceny. Likewise, harm to property includes
any
indirect physical aggression, such as tampering with property in order
to
cause harm to individuals (e.g. "fixing" another's car in order to
cause an
accident), and theft from a store or an entity other than an individual.
4. Intimidation refers to any symbolic aggression placing another under
duress and intended to pressure, constrain, or persuade in a noxious
manner. It includes: extortion, coercion, threats, abridgment of
privacy,
and harassment.
5. Deception refers to any symbolic aggression utilizing fabrication,
untruths, and trickery intended to mislead and/or cheat another. It
includes: fraud, cheating, lying, and assuming a false identity.
6. Hostile Remarks refers to any symbolic aggression meant to diminish
another's or one's own self-concept. It includes: rejection; such as
insults, criticism, or cursing another, resentment, suspicion, and
malicious remarks; such as hate speech, put downs, and yelling, and
screaming in another's presence, and self-deprecation.
7. Societal Harm refers to any physical and/or symbolic aggression
detrimental to society at large. It includes: mayhem or other random acts
of physical aggression (looting, rioting, trashing, wilding),
vandalism
directed against public property, resentment, such as hate speech
directed
at societal groups, suspicion (i.e. the projection of hostility onto
other
groups), negativism, such as oppositional behavior directed at
authority
and/or social institutions, and antisocial behaviors such as abuses of
power, or "fixing" a parking ticket.
8. Accidents refers to any physical aggression, such as a mishap or
natural catastrophe or calamity resulting in death, great harm, minor
harm,
or no harm. It includes: fire, earthquake, auto, air, or other transit
related mishaps, and any other natural or man-made disasters.
This eight part scheme is an elaboration of the ideas of Greenberg et al's
(1980) four component definition of antisocial behavior: (1) Physical
Aggression: Any overt behavior intended to frighten, injure, or damage
oneself, another individual, an animal or property; (2) Verbal
Aggression:
sending noxious symbolic messages; (3) Theft: the intentional and
deliberate taking of another person's or institution's property without
right or permission; and (4) Deceit: intentional misleading of someone
for
purposes that are detrimental to an individual, group, or institution.
Profile of Perpetrator and Victim: For both perpetrator and victim, the
coder identified the gender (female, male, unknown, or multiple); race
(white, black, Hispanic, Asian, other, or multiple); and age (young
child,
child, adolescent, young adult, mid- age, elderly, and multiple).
Also,
the Relationship of Actors was coded using the following values:
strangers,
acquaintances, close (friends or family), self, and multiple.
Intent: This was coded from the perpetrator's point of view and had four
values as follows: Maliciousness (consciously planned and executed);
Inconsiderate (aggressor knows that the action will cause harm or distress
but accepts this and places his/her own interests above those of
others);
Thoughtlessness (the aggressor should have taken possible dangers into
consideration but did not); and No chance for pre-thought.
Motive: Again, this was coded from the point of view of the
perpetrator and had seven values as follows: To hurt the other physically;
To hurt the other symbolically (to cause emotional pain or
embarrassment);
Desire for external gain (usually economic); To make one's self feel
better
(ego gratification, etc.); Perpetrator cannot control him/herself
(instinctual action); Prosocial motive; No motive shown.
Reward: This had five values: Aggression is approved AND rewarded
physically; Aggression is approved AND rewarded symbolically; Aggression is
neither approved nor punished (neutral); Aggression is punished
symbolically; and Aggression is punished physically.
Consequences: This had four values: No consequences shown (merely the
aggressive act); Minor consequences shown (victim gets over easily and
quickly); Major consequences shown (victim is portrayed in major hurt
for
short time); and Major consequences shown (victim is portrayed in
major
hurt for long time).
Presentation Style: This had two values: Rational/intellectual and
Emotional (sensationalized).
Intercoder Reliability
A seventh person served as an additional coder to run the reliability
check. Seventeen hours of randomly selected programming from the sample
was coded independently. This included 786 acts of aggression. The
codes
of this seventh coder were compared to the codes of each of the other
six
coders to determine a percentage of agreement on each variable for
each
coder. On any given variable, the percentages of agreement among
coders
varied to only a small degree (less than six percentage points). The
perc
entages of agreement were then entered into the Scott's pi formula to
determine the intercoder reliability. The variables and Scott's pi's are
as follows: Act Type .873; Perpetrator Gender .913; Perpetrator Race
.918;
Perpetrator Age, .909; Victim Gender .913; Victim Race .918; Victim
Age
.909; Relationship of Perpetrator and Victim .911; Intention .824;
Motive
.818; Reward .853; Consequences .901; and Presentational Style .866.
Type of Program
The full data base contained over 6,000 acts of aggression across both
entertainment and informational types of programs. This analysis is
limited to the information set of programs, which originally contained
nine
programming categories. This set of nine was condensed into specific
program types better suited for comparative analysis across genres. The
resulting five program types used for comparison are: 1) Local News -
as
produced by the ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX affiliates of the sample market
and
commonly appearing at 6 and 11 pm; 2) National News - as produced by
the
ABC, NBC and CBS network news operations and usually appearing at 6:30
pm;
3) News Magazine - network and syndicated programs concentrating on
current events reporting in a magazine format, examples include A Current
Affair, Inside Edition, 20/20, 48 Hours, 60 Minutes and Eye-to-Eye;
4)
Talk/Interview - a construct of network, syndicated and local programs
included in the categories coded as Celebrity News/Talk, News
Talk/Interview, Social Issues Talk, and Sports Talk and specifically
including such examples as Ricki Lake, Entertainment Tonight, Nightline
and
Sports View; 5) Non-Fiction Narrative - a construct of the Crime News and
Documentary categories, programs which place actual events (more of a
recent than current nature) into a narrative context such as Cops,
Rescue
911, Ancient Prophecies, and Unsolved Mysteries.
Results and Discussion
Out of the total 168 hours coded in the entire sample, 68 (40.5%)
were information type programs composed of several different formats
(see
Table 1). In this set of informational programs, there were 2300 acts
of
aggression for an average rate of 33.8 per hour. National news
exhibited
the highest rate with local news showing the lowest rate.
The Issue of Reality
First, real world figures indicate that there is a wide distribution of
types of aggressive acts with the most serious acts being the least
prevalent. In this analysis, we found a wide distribution of aggressive
acts (see Table 2). The most prevalent single acts were: assaults
resulting in death (4.58 acts per hour on average), harsh
criticism/insults/put downs (4.01), and suspicion (3.04). Of the 42
different types of aggression for which we coded, these three types
accounted for 34.7% of all the aggression on the information type programs.
Up until this point in the analysis, it appears that the pattern indicates
a similarity with the real world. However, when we look at the proportion
of aggression that is physical (52.4%) compared to symbolic (44.4%), it
begins to look unrealistic. While there are no reliable real world
figures
for such proportions, it is reasonable to conclude that on a daily basis
many more people are likely to engage in symbolic acts (such as
deceit,
rejection, threats, resentment, suspicion, malicious remarks, coercion,
and
harassment) than in physical acts (such as assaults, attacks on property,
theft, detention, and mayhem). Also, within the sub-category of
criminal
violence, it appears that there are much higher rates on informational
television than in the real world. In the real world, only 18.5% of all
crimes were violent, but in this study there were 832 acts of a
criminal
nature (those in the assualt, attack on property, and theft
categories), a
conservative estimate of violence (only those acts of assault
resulting in
harm) is 75.7%. In the real world, assualts account for only 14.7% of
all
crimes, and only 4.7% were assaults with injuries. Less major, but
still
serious aggression includes larceny, burglary and theft which in the
real
world account for 76.8% of all crime, but in the television world it
is
only 2.9%.
Second, real world figures indicate that the perpetrators of serious
aggression should be predominantly male and split between black and
white.
The television perpetrators of each type of aggressive act are
predominantly male (see Table 3). Of all aggressive acts, males alone
are
the perpetrator 48.4% of the time and are partially responsible
(multiple
gender) 7.9%, while females are the perpetrator only 20.4%. These
percentages underestimate the participation of the two genders because
23.3% of the aggressive acts did not have an identifiable perpetrator.
For
example, news programs will report a crime where the perpetrator is
unkown. When we base the gender figures on only those acts where there is
a clear depiction of the perpetrator's gender, we see that males are
responsible for 62.3%, females for 27.5% and multiple for the remaining
10.2%.
Comparing the female and male lines on Table 3, it is clear that males are
much more likely to be the perpetrator of the more serious aggression,
including acts of Serious Assaults, Minor Assaults, and Harm to
Property.
Looking at only these three types of aggression for males and females,
males were the perpetrator over 85.7% of the time, which is very close
to
the the real world statistic that 88.4% of those arrested for violent
crimes are male. There is a sharp contrast, however, between television
and real world statistics when the perpetrator variable is race.
Using the
same construct of comparison as above (Serious Assaults, Minor Assaults,
and Harm to Property compared to real world satistics for violent
crime
arrests), blacks were the perpetrator in about 26% of the television
cases
-- in contrast to the real world statistic of 48.9% of those arrested
for
violent crimes being black. In each act type, whites were the
predominant
perpetrators, representing 67.6% of all cases where the perpetrator is
identifiable. Across all act types, 20.2% were perpetrated by blacks
(when
comparing only those cases identifying either a white or black
perpetrator), thus weakly confirming the expectation that as the
seriousness of the act decreases, the breadth ascribed to perpetrator race
increases.
As for age, most of the perpetrators who age was codable were in the 19 to
60 age level. Overall the 31 to 60 age level showed the highest
prevalence of aggressiion compared to the other age levels; however, the
highest rates were with the relatively less serious forms of
aggression.
The number of acts perpetrated by 19 to 30 year-olds also come close
(but
do not supersede 31 to 60 year-olds) in the act types of Minor Assault
(99
compared to 114) and Accidents (15 compared to 23).
Third, if the serious forms of aggression are realistic, the victims
should be mostly male and an even split between black and white. With
gender, the pattern indicates that males are more likely than females to
be
a victim. With race, whites are primarily the victims. In looking at the
age of victims one can see a similar tendency as with perpetrators. The
numbers tend to centralize around the middling range of 19 to 60.
Fourth, if aggression is portrayed as realistic, most perpetrators of
aggression should know their victims. In real life, over 70% of the
perpetrators of serious assaults are family members or acquaintances of
the
victim. However, our data show that in the television world, on only
17.2% of serious assaults did the victim know the perpetrator (close
friend/family, self, or acquaintance). This figure is higher (26.6%) with
minor assaults, but it is still far from the real world figure.
Contextual Cues for Interpreting Meaning
The most harmful contextual pattern for aggression would have high rates
of reward (or low rates of punishment), low rates of harmful
consequences,
high intentionality with a clear motive, and with an arousing style
such as
presenting an appeal to the emotions. This is close to the pattern that
was found in this analysis (see Table 4).
A high proportion of aggressive acts are neither rewarded or punished
(between 40.5% and 74.9% depending on type of aggression). Some acts
(such
as serious assault, deception and accidents) show a pattern of higher
rates of punishment than rewards. But this finding is secondary to the
main finding that the majority of aggressive acts are portrayed as
neutral.
According to social learning theory, a non-punished act is often
interpreted the same as one that is rewarded, that is, the viewer does not
learn that the act should not be performed.
In real life most of the serious acts of aggression go unpunished. For
example, in 1991 only 21.2% of all reported crimes were cleared by an
arrest; in the others no arrest was made. Arrest rates are higher with
violent crimes (44.7%) than with property crimes (17.8%), but still
most
crimes remain unsolved, much less punished (Maguire, Pastore, &
Flanagan,
1993, p. 452). These real world figures contrast with the public's
attitudes and perceptions about crime. For example, 59% of American rate
the police's record of solving crimes as excellent or very good
(Maguire,
Pastore, & Flanagan, 1993, p. 169). Given these results, it would
seem
that people are not aware of the low rate of clearing crimes. Where do
people get this misinformation? Is it possible that the context of
portrayals on television non-fiction lead people to believe that most
crimes are punished?
There was a high percentage of aggressive acts portrayed with no
consequences -- from 27.8% to 81.0%. The highest rates of major long term
consequences was with accidents and serious assault, which is a
positive
indication that viewers are getting cues that aggression has negative
ramifications. However, the number of aggressive acts shown without any
consequences is very high.
When we examine the patterns of intent and motive, we see that the
aggression is portrayed in a very conscious, premeditated and antisocial
manner. With intent, maliciousness is the dominant value on all act
types
except accident. The dominant motive for the more serious aggression
of
assaults and property harm is to hurt the other physically. It is
interesting to note that the dominant motive for property harm (which
includes burglary, robbery, and larceny) is to hurt the other physically;
external gain is far behind as a motive.
The presentational style is predominately intellectual, but there is also
a high prevalence of emotional style, especially with hostile remarks
and
minor assaults.
The above analysis by act type present some puzzling patterns. This is
perhaps because of the differing nature of the types of programs
analyzed.
For example, we should not expect the Evening News to present aggression
in the same way that Cops does. When we look at these same contextual
variables in terms of patterns across shows, we see some revealling
differences (see Table 5). With presentation style, the news shows (both
local and national) emphasize an intellectual approach by generally
letting
the facts speak for themselves and giving the viewers information. In
contrast, the news magazine, talk/interview, and non-fiction narrative
shows appear to rely much more strongly on emotional appeals where the
facts of the aggression are less important that the arousal of the
audience
with suspense, fear, and re-enactments. The news programs are also more
likely to show long term major consequences of the aggression and be
more
likely to attach punishment, especially symbolic punishment.
Differences
across program types are more difficult to see with the variables of
motive
and intent. It appears that news programs are more likely to attribute a
motive of hurting another physically, while the non-news shows are
more
likely to use the motives of hut someone symbolically or to make the
perpetrator feel better.
Conclusion
The findings of this analysis are very troubling. It appears that
non-fictional television presents an extremely high rate of aggression, and
that the most serious forms of that aggression (physical violence and
crime) are presented at rates far above the rates in the real world. As
a
set of programming, this is misleading the viewing public about how
much
violent crime there is, underestimates the percentage of black law
enforcement officers, under-estimates the young as perpetrators and victims
of serious criminal violence, and fosters a false belief that perpetrators
are unknown to their victims.
Furthermore, the contextual cues in the portrayals are such that they
serve to encourage the learning of aggression. That is, there is a low
rate of punishment (less than one-quarter), a fairly high rate of lack
of
consequences (about half), clear antisocial intentions (especially
maliciousness) and motives (to hurt the victim physically and for external
gain), and a fairly high rate of an appeal to the emotions (about
40%).
References
Altheide, D. (1976). Creating reality: How TV news distorts events.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Andison, F. S. (1977). TV violence and viewer aggression: A cumulation of
study results. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 314-331.
Baker, R. K., & Ball, S. J. (1969). Violence and the media. Washington, DC:
U. S. Government Printing Office.
Carlson, M., Marcus-Newhall, A., Miller, N. (1990). Effects of situational
aggression cues: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality and
Social
Psychology, 58, 622-633.
Comstock, G. A. (1985). Television and film violence. In S. Apter & A.
Goldstein (Eds.) Youth violence: Programs and prospects. New York:
Pergamon.
Comstock, G. A., Chaffee, S., Katzman, N., McCombs, M., & Roberts, D.
(1978). Television and social behavior. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Comstock, G., & Paik, H. (1991). Television and the American child. New
York: Academic Press.
Comstock, G., & Strasburger, V. C. (1990). Deceptive appearances:
Television violence and aggressive behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health
Care 11(1), 31-44.
Cumberbatch, G., Lee, M., Hardy, G., & Jones, I. (1987). The portrayal of
violence on British television. London: British Broadcasting
Corporation.
Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin, TX: University of Texas
Press.
Friedrich-Cofer, L., & Huston, A. C. (1986). Television violence and
aggression: The debate continues. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 364-371.
Geen, R. G. (1994). Television and aggression: Recent developments in
research and theory. In D. Zillmann, J. Bryant, & A. C. Huston (Eds.),
Media, children, and the family (pp. 151-162). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M. & Signorielli, N. (1980). The
"mainstreaming" of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of
Communication, 30(3), 10-29.
Greenberg, B. S., Edison, N., Korzenny, F., Fernandez-Collado, C., & Atkin,
C. K. (1980). In B. S. Greenberg (Ed.), Life on television: Content
analysis of U. S. TV drama (pp. 99-128). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gunter, B. (1983). Personality and perceptions of harmful and harmless TV
violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 665-670.
Gunter, B. (1985). Dimensions of television violence. Aldershot, England:
Gower Publishing Company Limited.
Gunter, B., & Wober, M. (1988). Television viewing and public trust.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 280-288.
Hart, A. (1986). Children and television: Audience and influence. Media in
Education and Development. 19(2), 80-85.
Hearold, S. (1986). A synthesis of 1043 effects of television on social
behavior. In G. Comstock (Ed.) Public communication and behavior (Vol.
1,
pp. 65-133). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Iwao, S., de Sola Pool, I., Hagiwara, S. (1981). Japanese and U. S. media:
Some cross-cultural insights into TV violence. Journal of
Communication
Disorders, 31(2), 28-36.
Johnson, R. N. (1993). The portrayal of violence, conflict, and suffering
on television news broadcasts. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 42-43.
Johnson, R. N. (1990). The reporting of violence and conflict on television
news. Aggressive Behavior, 16, 107-108.
Lichter, L. S., & Lichter, S. R. (1983). Prime Time Crime. Washington, D.
C.: The Media Institute.
Liebert, R. M., & Schwartzberg, N. S. (1977) Effects of mass media. Annual
Review of Psychology, 28, 141-173.
Maguire, K, Pastore, A. N., & Flanagan, T. J. (Eds.) (1993). Bureau of
Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics -- 1992.
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice.
Mustonen A., & Pulkkinen, L. (1993). Aggression in television programs in
Finland. Aggressive Behavior, 19, 175-183.
NCTV says violence on TV up 16%. (1983, March 22). Broadcasting Magazine,
p. 63.
Oliver, M. B. (1994). Portrayals of crime, race, and aggression in "reality
based" police shows: A content analysis. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 38, 179-192.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on
antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21,
516-546.
Potter, W. J., & Ware, W. (1987). An analysis of the contexts of
antisocial acts on prime-time television. Communication Research, 14,
664-686.
Roberts, D. F., & Maccoby, N. (1985). Effects of mass communication. In G.
Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.) Handbook of social psychology: Vol 2.
Special
fields and applications (3rd ed., pp. 539-598). New York: Random
House.
Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E. B. (1961). Television in the lives of
Our Children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Smythe, D. W. (1954). Reality as presented on television. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 18, 143-156.
Williams, T. M., Zabrack, M. L., & Joy, L. A. (1982). The portrayal of
aggression on North American television. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 12, 360-380.
Wood, W., Wong, F. Y., & Chachere, J. G. (1991). Effects of media violence
on viewers' aggression in unconstrained social interaction.
Psychological
Bulletin, 109, 371-383.
Table 1
Rates of Aggression on Different Types of Information Programs
___________________________________________________________________
Number Number of Total Number Rate
Type of Program of Titles Broadcasts Hours of Acts Per Hour
Local News 9 49 25.5 719 28.2
National News 3 16 9 404 44.9
News Magazine 11 21 16 504 31.5
Talk/Interview 5 16 8 321 40.1
Non-Fiction Narrative 6 12 9.5 352 37.1
Totals 34 114 68 2300
___________________________________________________________________
__________
Table 2
Types of Aggressive Acts
____________________________________________________________
I. Direct-Physical Number Percentage Rate Per Hour
Assault
Failed suicide attempt 1 0.0 0.01
Resulting in death 318 13.8 4.58
Resulting in great 170 7.4 2.50
physical harm
Resulting in minor 141 6.1 2.07
physical harm
Resulting in no harm 99 4.3 1.46
Attack on property
Bombing 44 1.9 0.55
Arson 8 0.3 0.12
Vandalism 24 1.0 0.35
Accidents
Death to other or self 80 3.5 1.18
Great physical harm/ 119 5.2 1.75
damage
Minor physical harm/ 35 1.5 0.51
damage
No harm 4 0.2 0.06
Theft
Extortion 3 0.1 0.04
Robbery 8 0.3 0.12
Burglary 1 0.0 0.01
Larceny 15 0.7 0.22
Detention
Loss of freedom 96 4.2 1.41
Depriving other of 11 0.5 0.16
basic needs
Mayhem 32 1.4 0.47
II. Symbolic
Coercion 38 1.7 0.56
Threats 118 5.1 1.73
Rejection 95 4.1 1.40
Abridgement of privacy 14 0.6 0.21
Harassment 78 3.4 1.15
Deceit
Fraud 14 0.6 0.21
Cheating 12 0.5 0.18
Lying 28 1.2 0.41
False identity 10 0.4 0.15
Resentment 20 0.9 0.29
Suspicion 207 9.0 3.04
Malicious remarks
Hate speech 15 0.7 0.22
Harsh criticism/insults/ 273 11.9 4.01
put-downs
General yelling and 77 3.3 1.13
screaming
Self Deprecation
Self demeaning - 10 0.4 0.15
unintentional
Self demeaning - 14 0.6 0.21
intentional
III. Indirect-Physical
Endangering another w/out 2 0.1 0.03
their knowledge
Undirected negative
physical acts
Vandalism 1 0.0 0.01
IV. Harm to Society
Resentment 6 0.3 0.09
Suspicion 29 1.3 0.43
Negativism 11 0.5 0.16
Other "antisocial" behavior 19 0.8 0.28
____________________________________________________________
TOTAL 2300 100.0 33.82
Table 3
Demographics of Perpetrators and Victims Profiled by Type of Act (In Percent)
_____________________________________________________________________________
TYPE OF ACT
Sers Minr Prop Hstl Socl
PERPETRATOR(S) Aslt Aslt Harm Intm Dcpt Rmrk Harm Acdt
Gender
Female 8.0 9.2 8.8 12.4 20.3 36.7 19.4 2.9
Male 45.8 65.4 40.2 64.5 51.6 51.2 42.9 19.3
Multiple 6.7 8.4 4.9 7.6 14.1 6.5 10.2 1.3
Unknown 39.5 17.0 46.1 15.5 14.1 5.6 27.6 76.4
(Chi Square = 763.2, df = 28, p < .0001)
Race
White 24.3 45.5 34.3 53.8 57.8 70.2 48.0 10.9
Black 10.0 14.7 1.0 14.3 9.4 14.5 7.1 5.5
Hispanic 1.0 1.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.4
Asian 1.4 1.4 2.0 0.8 1.6 1.1 2.0 0.0
Other 2.9 4.9 1.0 2.8 0.0 0.8 4.1 2.1
Multiple 9.2 9.5 5.9 6.8 6.3 3.4 6.1 1.3
Unknown 51.1 22.5 55.9 20.3 25.0 8.9 31.6 79.8
(Chi Square = 689.6, df = 42, p < .0001)
Age
Birth to 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
6 to 12 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4
13 to 18 2.2 1.4 4.9 1.2 3.1 3.0 6.1 2.5
19 to 30 15.7 28.5 8.8 15.5 17.2 25.9 8.2 6.3
31 to 60 14.1 31.7 19.6 49.4 50.0 51.2 41.8 9.7
61 and over 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.2 3.1 4.8 3.1 0.4
Multiple 13.3 13.3 7.8 9.6 3.1 5.2 11.2 0.4
Unknown 54.0 23.6 57.8 23.1 23.4 9.0 29.6 80.3
(Chi Square = 766.5, df = 49, p < .0001)
VICTIM(S)
Gender
Female 17.4 14.4 6.9 33.1 26.6 27.3 3.1 9.7
Male 40.1 63.4 9.8 35.5 31.3 49.8 3.1 26.1
Multiple 21.3 7.8 21.6 13.9 9.4 13.1 40.8 34.5
Unknown 21.3 14.4 61.7 17.5 32.8 9.9 53.1 29.8
(Chi Square = 531.2, df = 28, p < .0001)
Race
White 28.2 53.6 14.7 51.8 48.4 60.3 8.2 23.9
Black 16.4 16.7 2.0 7.6 3.1 12.4 4.1 5.5
Hispanic 2.5 2.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
Asian 2.7 0.9 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.0
Other 4.3 2.9 2.0 3.2 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.3
Multiple 11.0 4.9 16.7 6.4 10.9 10.0 33.7 30.7
Unknown 35.0 18.7 63.7 28.7 37.5 15.2 52.0 38.7
(Chi Square = 525.9, df = 42, p < .0001)
Age
Birth to 5 3.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.1
6 to 12 3.7 2.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.5
13 to 18 4.1 7.2 0.0 6.4 10.9 1.4 0.0 8.0
19 to 30 14.5 36.9 6.9 22.3 12.5 24.8 1.0 9.2
31 to 60 14.5 24.2 4.9 27.1 28.1 40.8 0.0 7.6
61 and over 3.9 0.9 0.0 2.0 3.1 3.0 0.0 0.8
Multiple 19.8 9.2 20.6 12.0 9.4 14.8 42.9 31.1
Unknown 35.6 17.3 67.6 27.9 35.9 14.6 56.1 35.7
(Chi Square = 656.3, df = 49, p < .0001)
Relationship
Stangers 40.5 45.2 29.4 41.4 43.8 48.9 36.7 20.6
Acquaintances 5.7 17.0 1.0 19.5 17.2 21.1 1.0 6.7
Close 8.8 6.1 2.9 13.1 17.2 15.3 3.1 1.3
Self 2.7 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 5.5
Multiple 2.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.8 5.1 0.4
Unknown 40.3 26.8 66.7 25.9 20.3 9.1 54.1 65.5
(Chi Square = 522.8, df = 35, p < .0001)
n = 489 347 102 251 64 711 98 238
n = 2300
Table 4
Profiles of Contextual Variables by Type of Act (In Percent)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Type of Act
Sers Minr Prop Hstl Socl
Aslt Aslt Harm Intm Dcpt Rmrk Harm Acdt
Reward
Physical reward 11.6 17.8 23.8 4.4 11.5 0.7 1.2 0.5
Symbolic reward 3.8 17.5 3.6 17.1 19.7 23.3 25.0 1.0
Neutral 48.5 48.1 40.5 54.4 24.6 65.3 47.6 74.9
Symbolic punish 25.5 11.6 27.4 22.4 39.3 10.6 20.2 21.3
Physical punish 10.5 5.0 4.8 1.8 4.9 0.0 6.0 2.4
n = 447 320 84 228 61 678 84 207
(Chi square = 461.1 , df = 28, p < .0001, reward unknown cases = 191)
Consequences
None 39.1 48.1 55.3 60.9 55.4 68.0 81.0 27.8
Minor 0.7 32.9 15.3 19.8 12.5 25.8 7.1 5.1
Major-short term12.1 10.9 12.9 10.1 12.5 3.7 6.0 16.2
Major-long term 48.2 8.1 16.5 9.2 19.6 2.5 6.0 50.9
n = 448 322 85 207 56 678 84 234
(Chi square = 738.1 , df = 21, p < .0001, consequences unknown cases = 186)
Intent
Maliciousness 83.7 68.8 87.7 65.5 79.7 49.7 71.4 1.8
Inconsiderate 8.6 29.7 8.6 34.1 20.3 47.3 28.6 2.9
Thoughtlessness 5.8 1.6 2.5 0.5 0.0 2.7 0.0 32.4
Reaction 1.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 62.9
n = 417 317 81 220 59 678 84 170
(Chi square = 1681.7, df = 21, p < .0001, intent unknown cases = 274)
Motive
Hurt physically 72.7 40.9 38.0 8.7 1.7 0.3 20.0 0.6
Hurt symbolclly 0.2 4.8 2.5 20.4 0.0 46.2 16.5 0.0
External gain 9.3 8.3 22.8 15.5 62.1 15.2 18.8 5.3
To feel better 2.5 9.6 13.9 17.5 15.5 19.8 17.6 1.8
Instinctual 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.2 4.7
Prosocial motive 5.2 31.6 6.3 32.5 15.5 10.7 18.8 1.2
No motive shown 8.6 3.8 15.2 4.4 5.2 7.4 7.1 86.5
n = 407 313 79 206 58 666 85 170
(Chi square = 2189.6, df = 42, p < .0001, motive unknown cases = 316)
Presentational Style
Intellectual 65.8 41.8 59.8 52.6 68.8 35.2 60.2 64.7
Emotional 34.2 58.2 40.2 47.4 31.3 64.8 39.8 35.3
n = 489 347 102 251 64 711 98 238
(Chi square = 158.9 , df = 7, p < .0001, style unknown cases = 0)
Table 5
Profiles of Contextual Variables by Type of Information Program (In Percent)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Type of Information Program
Local National News Talk/ Non-Fiction
News News Mags Interview Narrative
Presentational Style
Intellectual 76.2 67.3 32.5 28.7 25.9
Emotional 23.8 32.7 67.5 71.3 74.1
n = 719 404 504 321 352
(Chi square = 447.8 , df = 4, p < .0001, style unknown cases = 0)
Consequences
None 49.8 58.9 60.2 43.4 53.8
Minor 8.6 5.7 16.7 48.4 18.6
Major-short term 11.2 7.1 10.5 3.6 11.5
Major-long term 30.5 28.3 12.5 4.6 16.0
n = 650 367 455 304 338
(Chi square = 357.7 , df = 12, p < .0001, consequences unknown cases = 186)
Reward
Physical reward 5.4 8.5 4.9 5.3 14.2
Symbolic reward 10.6 13.9 17.2 28.6 7.0
Neutral 55.1 56.3 55.5 54.3 59.9
Symbolic punish 21.3 19.3 18.7 11.2 16.3
Physical punish 7.6 2.0 3.7 0.7 2.6
n = 644 352 465 304 344
(Chi square = 144.8 , df = 16, p < .0001, reward unknown cases = 191)
Motive
Hurt physically 29.2 41.9 21.6 7.3 19.7
Hurt symbolclly 16.2 16.7 20.7 36.2 9.7
External gain 14.6 9.1 17.3 14.0 13.1
To feel better 6.2 5.3 14.8 32.6 9.1
Instinctual 2.6 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.6
Prosocial motive 8.9 15.8 15.7 3.7 32.5
No motive shown 22.3 10.6 8.9 6.3 15.3
n = 582 341 440 301 320
(Chi square = 473.9, df = 24, p < .0001, motive unknown cases = 316)
Intent
Maliciousness 61.2 68.7 46.0 60.3 71.6
Inconsiderate 18.9 25.9 48.9 34.1 15.0
Thoughtlessness 8.8 4.3 4.0 4.0 2.1
Reaction 11.1 1.1 1.1 1.7 11.3
n = 603 348 446 302 327
(Chi square = 244.6, df = 12, p < .0001, intent unknown cases = 274)
|
