Outline and evaluate two explanations of media influence on antisocial behaviour

Antisocial behaviour is any aspect of behaviour that disrupts social relationships. Edgar (1988) notes that in every country that has TV, it has generated social concern, making the public blame the media for any rise in aggressive behaviour in young people. Huesmann and Moise (1996) give five ways that exposure to media violence may lead to aggression.
One of these five ways is observational learning and imitation which is linked to the social learning theory that Bandura put forward. Huesmann suggests that children will observe the behaviour of certain role models they may identify with within the media, and then recreate this behaviour later on. Children tend to imitate behaviour that is successful in gaining the models objectives on TV, which means that vicarious reinforcement may also have to take place in order for the media to have an effect on aggression.
Research to support the social learning theory is the bobo doll study conducted by Bandura, Ross & Ross (1961). 72 male and female participants were placed randomly in two groups; the aggressive and non-aggressive condition. Children in each of the conditions were presented with either a same-sex or different-sex model behaving a certain way towards the dolls. The aggressive role models would use physical and verbal violence on the dolls whereas the non-aggressive models would behave respectfully. Findings show that the children that observed the aggressive condition acted more violently than those observing the non-aggressive condition. Boys also showed generally more aggression than girls, especially if the model they were observing was also male, suggesting that individuals must first identify with a same-sex model in order for the behaviour to be replicated.
However, this study may not fully explain the social learning theory explanation for the influence of media on anti-social behaviour. The bobo dolls are not real and therefore do not retaliate, which questions how valid the study is. Perhaps, if the violence was towards human beings, the children may not imitate. The study also only involves children, which makes it harder to generalise to the wider population; Smith et al (2004) said that children’s behaviour is more likely to be rough and tumble play rather than serious acts of violence suggesting that they may not interpret the models behaviour seriously. Demand characteristics were also present in the study as Noble (1975) found that a four-year-old said “Mummy, look! There’s the doll we have to hit!” before the study was even started, meaning that there are methodological issues with the study and that it lacks ecological validity because it was a laboratory experiment. Another criticism of Bandura’s study is that it can be seen as artificial because it looked at behaviours children do not regularly display. However, Johnston et al (1977) questioned teachers and peers of children who observed an adult behaving aggressively, and found that they generally behaved more violently, suggesting that observation and imitation has an effect on an individual’s behaviour.
Desensitisation is another way that exposure to media violence may lead to anti-social behaviour. Desensitisation is when recurring exposure to violence in the media reduces someone’s intensity of physiological reactions. The brain gets used to the violence and reacts less and less, reducing HR and BP and galvanic-skin responses (GSK). People that are desensitised are therefore less likely to intervene when they see violence and more likely to act violent and aggressive themselves.
Support for desensitisation comes from Carnagey et al (2007) who studied the effects of playing violent computer games on response to real-life violence. Participants were placed into two conditions – one condition was to play a violent game for 20 minutes and the other was to play a non-violent game for 20 minutes. Then, all the participants were shown videos of real-life violence and had their GSR measured. Findings showed that the participants that played the violent game had reduced HRs and BPs, suggesting that increased exposure to violence in the media does result in desensitisation.
However, Cumberbatch argues that this desensitisation is only towards violence in the media; i.e. people aren’t as shocked if they see violence in the media more often. It doesn’t, however, account for violence in real-life. Hagell & Newburn (1994) also found that young offenders watched roughly the same amount of violent TV as non-offenders which suggests that violence in the media does not always result in desensitisation, therefore other factors may be involved. Belson (1978) studied 1565 teenage boys and didn’t find any evidence that exposure to TV violence leads to desensitisation. However, this is a study conducted on teenage boys so therefore it is gender biased and does not account for adults or young children. However, Schamm et al (1961) found that individuals with access to a television showed more anxiety about using aggression than those who did not have access to television.
Although there is a lot of supporting research which shows the effects of media influences on antisocial behaviour, most of the studies and research conducted is done in Western cultures, meaning that the studies are culturally biased. The studies are also conducted on the younger individuals in the population which can therefore not explain how media influences antisocial behaviour in adults; therefore the research has sample bias. Also, none of the studies show the long-term effects of media on antisocial behaviour; they are all short-term. The research therefore is not conclusive; it only shows a positive correlation between media and antisocial behaviour, therefore it does not show cause and effect. The effects of media on antisocial behaviour are likely to be influenced by a variety of other factors.