Negative Effects of Media on Youth: Causal Effect Analysis

Negative Effects of Media on Youth Causal Effect abstractNatasha NguyenWhy is it difficult to show that media causes harm to young people?IntroductionThe impact of the media on young people has long been an issue, with concern that younger audiences atomic number 18 disallowly persuaded by media. Effects question has been use to determine whether media causes harm on young people. However, media effects research has its difficulties in generating viable results. This paper allow for outline why it is difficult to show a direct causal effect from media resulting in negative outcomes and behaviours from young audiences. No media effects researchers believe in direct effects and a cohort of media scholars make valid claims supporting this statement. Barrie Gunter effectively explains the validity problems with media effects research, with Albert Banduras famous Bobo annulus experiment as an example. David Gauntletts views on the flaws of the effects model are also relevant to th e discussion and McQuail makes very constructive points on how audiences clear choose how they let media push them. To further justify that it is difficult to show that media causes harm to people, the ideas discussed will be related to the case study of the murder of 2 year old mob Bulger.Validity of Effects ResearchEarly media effects experiments, such as the Payne Fund Studies, consisted of children participants world placed in artificial environments (Gunter 2008,p.1085). They were fed dosages of media hysteria controlled by researchers who then exposed them to environments where they could be sire in aggressive ways if they choose to (Gunter 2008,p.1085). However, these studies have been criticized by scholars for lacking validity (Sparks, Sparks Sparks 2009,p.272). The experiments were too far-fetched to produce any possible results about media effects as they were artificial taking users out of their natural habitats, feeding them media they would no. usually consume and using unrealistic representatives for real-life violence (Ruddock 2013,p.27). Gunter (2008) is in particular adequate at explaining the problems with validity in effects studies. He outlines the issues with conducting experiments in artificial settings. Participants are aware of researchers and act accordingly, doing what they thought the researcher wanted (Gunter 2008,p.1088). Gunter (2008,p.1102) reports how the cream of media extracts fed to participants were devoid of their original context and could be interpreted differently when embedded in their original source. Media effects research cannot be discussed without referencing Banduras (1963) Bobo Doll experiment (Sparks, Sparks Sparks 2009,p.272). The study illustrated that when watching a televised model commit aggressive actions, children were more likely to imitate the actions if the model was rewarded instead of punished (Sparks, Sparks Sparks 2009,p.272). This suggests an association betwixt aggressive media infl uences on the children to mimic the aggressive acts but Gunter (2008) cautioned against mistaking association for causation. thither were many flaws to that experimentation, with even Bandura (2009,p.110) himself discussing the severe constraints tied to controlled experimentation.Flaws in the Effects postureIn response to traditional media effects studies, Gauntlett (1998) discusses the flaws of media effects studies, outlining why it cannot be used to prove that media causes direct harm to young people. Firstly, he discredits effects research for coming to social problems backwards. Researchers start with violent media and attempt to align ways to connect it to social problems, such as aggression, instead of beginning with social problems to find their causes (Gauntlett 1998,p.214). Gauntlett (1998,p.216) also criticizes the effects model for treating children as inadequate and more manipulable than adults, being influenced into behavior adults wouldnt be. He questions the valid ity of effects research by discussing the use of artificial studies, claiming that they are selective and based on the belief that the subjects will not change their behavior as a result of being observed (Gauntlett 1998,p.219). In examining some of the flaws that Gauntlett presents, it is clear that it is difficult to research media effects to show a direct causal effect as the methods traditionally used undermine the validity of the results.Audiences Choices on EffectsThe influence media has commonly depends on audience motivations, as information conveyed is not what influences audiences but quite a peoples self-determined reaction to this information (Petty, Brinol Priester 2009,p.126). Pieslack (2007) delves into this concept through his studies of music and war. He states that people voluntarily expose themselves to the effects of media, citing soldiers at war as an example who become aggressive after listening to rap music because they want to become aggressive (Pieslack 20 07,p.134). McQuail (1997,p.205) explains how typical effects models were perceived as a one-way process of causality, from media to consumer, where the audience was viewed as a passive recipient of media content. However, individuals have unique tastes in media, with some more inclined to expose themselves to media violence (McQuail 1997,p.206). This destroys the notion of media messages being forced upon individuals unwillingly, evidencing that young audiences knowingly visit effects upon themselves (Ruddock 2013,p.28). Young people often learn from media because they choose to (Bandura 2009,p.97). This demonstrates the difficulty in present that media causes harm to young people as there may be a correlation between aggression but there is no make of direct causation, with certain individuals choosing to let media influence them (Gunter 2008,p.1095).Audiences BackgroundsMedia aggression does not have the same effects on everyone and some may be more capable than other(a)s to e ffects of media violence (Gunter 2008,p.1095). Individual media audiences have different psychological pennings that influence the way they respond to aggressive media (Gunter 2008,p.1112). The consumption of violence and aggression from media is complex and mustiness account for the audiences differing psychological profiles (Gunter 2008,p.1097). Media violence can produce aggression when paired with troubled social conditions (Ruddock 2013,p.35). We cannot assume that violence from media consumers is directly tie in back to the media as there are many other influences which can cause aggression in individuals. Peer influences, family conflicts and other factors may all influence aggressive behaviour (Sparks, Sparks Sparks 2009,p.273). It has also been reviewed that negative effects of media violence were mostly visible among the poor, less educated and socially disenfranchised (Ruddock 2013,p.35). This proves that violent media effects are mostly a risk for individuals whom al ready had difficult lives and as a result, it is difficult to prove a direct causal effect from violent media.The throng Bulger MurderIn 1993, controversy over media effects on children surfaced following the murder of two-year-old James Bulger by two ten-year-old boys, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. Bulgers body was found mutilate on a railway line two days after his murder. Though no evidence of it was brought to trial, violence in videos was considered a possible stimulus. There were many links made by the press between the crime and events in a require called Childs Play 3 (Bignell 2002,p.134). Venables father had rented the film however, Venables did not live with his father and had never seen the film (Bignell 2002,p.134). There was no way to connect the crime to the film and direct effects were never turn out and authorities concluded that the crime was the case of two disturbed individuals acting on dark impulses, rather than on the influence of violent media. Thompson grew up in a brutal environment, being assaulted by five older brothers and an alcoholic mother. His tough upbringings may have produced aggression when paired with violent media. He could have chosen to let aggressive media influence him voluntarily, wanting to become more aggressive to deal with his surroundings. This underlines Pieslacks (2007) point about audiences voluntarily exposing themselves to media effects. The boys psychological makeup could account for their actions and their responses to aggressive media. Venables came from troubled family conditions, exhibited low self esteem and was temperamentally fragile. His difficult circumstances made him more vulnerable to the effects of media content, as discussed by Gunter (2008). It would be wrong to assume that violent media directly caused the boys to commit the crime as there was no direct proof and a range of other factors clearly had influence on the pair.Concluding RemarksIt is difficult to show that media causes harm to young people and that a direct causal effect resulting in negative outcomes exists. The view that media has direct and world-beaterful effects on audiences is more accepted by the general public than media effects scholars (Oliver Krakowiak 2009,p.517). Some researchers acknowledge that media violence can influence viewers but not in all circumstances, all audiences and not directly (Gunter 2008,p.1063). Media effects scholars such as Gunter, Gauntlett, Pieslack and McQuail disagree with direct causal effects. In researching media effects through experimentation, results compiled are questioned for their validity as research conducted in artificial environment can encourage unnatural participant responses. raptorial behaviour cannot be solely blamed on violent media content as there are many other factors which influence an individuals motives for being violent. As seen through the James Blumer case study, an individuals motives, psychological makeup and social background can influence the level of power media has over them and disproves the idea of direct effects.Reference ListGauntlett, D 1998, Ten Things Wrong with the Effects Model, in R Dickinson, R Harindranath O Linne (ed.), Approaches to Audiences A Reader, Arnold Publishers, London, pp.120-130Gunter, B 2008, Media Violence Is There a Case for Causality?, American Behavioural Scientist, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 1061-1122McQuail,Oliver, M Krakowiak, K 2009, Individual Differences in Media Effects, in J Bryant M Oliver (ed.), Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research, Routledge, New York, pp. 517-531Petty, R, Brinol, P Priester, J 2009, Mass Media Attitude Change Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of eyeshot, in J Bryant M Oliver (ed.), Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research, Routledge, New York, pp. 517-531Pieslack, J 2007, Sound Targets Music and the War in Iraq, Journal of Musicological Research, vol.26, no. 2, pp. 129-149Ruddock, A 2013, Youth and Media, SAGE Publicat ions, LondonSparks, G, Sparks, C Sparks, E 2009, Media Violence, in J Bryant M Oliver (ed.), Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research, Routledge, New York, pp. 269-286