Media Violence: Teaching Our Daughters About Misogyny
DePaul University, Major Seminar, June 1991, Instructor Grave Levit
The Problem
Whether in the form of television, popular music, movies, or video games, one would have a hard time finding a young person today who has not functioned as a media consumer. The problem, is that the product delivered to these young consumers contains enormous amounts of violence – a disproportionate amount of that violence is directed against young women.
Among the worst of the misogynist media are the “slasher” or “slice and dice” films in which young women are victimized by a crazed male. Any teen can tell you that Freddy Krueger and Jason may be back. Even the popular prime-time soap, “Twin Peaks”, is about the torture-murder of a homecoming queen.
The real life statistics about the occurrence of violence against women are chilling, especially if put together with what we know about how children learn – they learn by observing models and can, with repeated exposure become desensitized to gore. I have no doubts that the violence against women in the media is interrelated with some of these statistics.
In 1988, the National Coalition on Television Violence reported that of the ninety-five most popular videos games, 83% contained violent themes. 1
The United States is known to have the highest rates for murder, rape, and wife and child abuse in the world! 2
An FBI study, revealed that 81% of 36 serial sex killers said pornography ranked highest among their sexual interests. 3
“Five years ago, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta declared interpersonal violence a major public health problem, comparing it to cancer and heart disease in potential years of life lost and costs to society”. 4
Estimates in the U.S., reveal that a woman is battered every 15 seconds; a rape takes place every 6 minutes. The largest cause of injury to women in the U.S. is battering. Four to six million women are abused in their homes every year by husbands or lovers. Twenty per cent of single offender rapes are committed by males under 21; 62% of multiple offender rapes are perpetrated by males under 21. 5
“One out of 4 women will be sexually assaulted on a college campus. (Only 1 out of 10 will report it). Their attackers will be fellow students 80% of the time”. 6
Questions
What effect has the violent misogynist media had on the girls in my daughter’s high school graduating class? How has their desensitization differed from the boys? Are they more likely to identify with same sex models, as my daughter hypothesizes? If so, how does that affect them?
Hypothesis
I think that girls are deeply affected by this media; their desensitization is different than that of boys because they are portrayed as victims rather than aggressors. I imagine that, like their mothers, they suppress and deny the awareness – it’s too frightening to face. Women have developed denial as a coping mechanism in order to cope and function in their lives. (Similar to women who, in their thirties and forties, suddenly remembered being victims of incest).
The Literature in Review
Albert Bandura’s social learning theory postulates that we do not come into this world knowing how to be aggressive; we must be shown how to aggress upon others. 7 Tan (1981) further explains Bandura’s theory as our learning from direct experience, in addition to modeling or observation. He claims that Bandura’s theory works well when applied to media violence. The media can see to it that children learn all different types of violence.
Tan (1981) describes one of the earliest studies done by Bandura, et al, where they exposed nursery school children to researchers kicking and hitting a large inflated doll. They frustrated all the children by giving them neat toys and then taking them away. They found that children in the groups who viewed the aggressive modeling were observed in many more aggressive acts on the inflated doll afterward than a control group.
Tan (1981) reveals another study in which Hicks sought to learn whether or not children would remember aggression they had seen modeled on TV. He found that even 6 months later, despite not seeing the aggressive model again, the children were able to imitate the aggression only slightly less than immediately afterward.
Eron and Heusmann (1986) were involved in cross-national studies involving hundreds of first and third grade children. (I am relating only the U.S. studies). They used questionnaires, parental interviews, self evaluations, peer reports, IQ tests, psychological tests, TV character identifications, and levels of fantasy use, to assess each child’s level of aggression. The children selected the shows they watched the most and used self evaluations about the amount of time spent watching them.
They found that boys were more aggressive than girls and watched more aggressive shows. They found that children’s viewing habits were related to aggression and could even be predictive of future aggression. Infrequent viewing of severe violence was less likely to be associated with aggression than regular viewing of mild violence.
The child who watched violent shows the most, who saw the portrayals as realistic, who identified with the aggressive model, who fantasized about aggression and who, if a girl, identified with boy activities was most likely to act out aggressively. Parental perceptions about the reality of the violence did affect the child’s perceptions; the more real they see the violence the more likely they are to model it.
They think there is a critical age range (6-11 years old) when children are more likely to be influenced by television. Aggressive tendencies obtained during this period seem to defy extinction. So the aggression becomes habitual and eventually gets in the way of the child’s intellectual and social success. Bullies are not popular, don’t do well in school, become frustrated about their situations – leading to more aggression. A sad cycle ensues ensuring failure and isolation.
Meltzoff (1988) did a fascinating study to evaluate the imitative abilities (immediate and deferred) of 120 infants ages 14 months, and 24 months after viewing a model on TV; they made a take-apart toy out of materials in the lab that could easily be repeated by the infants. The results showed that the infants who watched the target behavior on TV were more likely to produce the act than a control group when given the toy immediately after viewing and 24 hours later.
According to Pollak (1988) The National Coalition on Television Violence charted the responses of 8-10 year old boys who played a video game called, “Captain Power”. In the games they shot interactive laser weapons at enemies displayed on the TV set. They found an 80% increase in fighting behavior on the school playground right after playing the game.
Donnerstein et al (1988) report a Gallup poll of American teens that showed: 84% of 13 to 15 years olds have seen an R-rated movie; one in five of them have seen an X-rated movie. This implies that boys this young ARE watching this type of movies.
The authors used 156 male college freshmen to study the effects of emotional desensitization to 3 different type of films: violent against women, sexually explicit/degrading and non-explicit/non-violent on their beliefs about rape and using women as sex objects. The men were tested for affective and cognitive perceptions after viewing one of the films. They then also judged a defendant and victim in a rape trial.
Donnerstein et al (1988) claim that prolonged exposure to violence and degradation of women may have two separate effects: First it may inhibit emotional reactions, not only to the violence in the film, but sensitivity toward the suffering of women in real life. Second, exposure to non-violent sexually degrading films, may lead to perceiving women more as sex objects who are promiscuous.
After repeated viewing the subjects related: diminished anxiety, less depression and enjoyed the films more as they viewed more. They were experiencing greater emotional comfort; material previously described as degrading and violent became “not so bad”. It blunted their awareness about the severity and frequency of violence; it may also decrease sensitivity to emotional cues, thus further decreasing the perception of the violence. The amount of sympathy for a rape victim and the judgement of severity of injury was less among those who viewed the violence and correlated with the subjects perceptions of violence.
The end result is altered affective and perceptual reactions which could also alter perceptions and judgments about real-life violence. They discovered that 2 films were enough to bring about desensitization.
Donnerstein et al (1988) also relate the results of a study done by Zillman and Bryant in which they exposed college males to long term exposure to non-violent, but degrading pornographic films. They found that the subjects became tolerant of more bizarre forms of pornography, were less empathetic in response to statements about sexual equality, and assigned less punishment to a rapist.
Bushman and Geen (1990) used 100 male and female freshmen college students to learn about individual differences in modeling aggressive TV violence. They tested the thoughts and emotional reactions of subjects while watching violence after completing various personality tests. They tested for irritability, assault and verbal hostility, and stimulus screening, (a tendency of the person to ward off stimulation in the tapes by using selective attention). They showed subjects either a violent or a non-violent tape and then asked them about thoughts they had while viewing.
They found that as the level of violence increased so did aggressive thoughts and ratings of the violence. Those whose personality showed a high amount of stimulus screening were found to have the least violent cognitions; they were able to block out the violence.
Basically their findings showed that media violence does bring out violent cognitions and affects emotional responses related to aggression. Men who were more physically assaultive experienced more violent thoughts during viewing. As far as emotions, the most violent tape increased self reports of hostility and elevated blood pressure. Individual personality did have an effect and also in moderating responses, those who were more susceptible emotionally also felt more hostile after viewing.
According to Bower (1989), New York University Psychiatrist, Dorothy Otnow Lewis, is involved in an ongoing study of violent juvenile delinquents and has done previous research on death row inmates. In a seven year follow up of 95 young men, who were initially contacted while in a correctional school, at age 15, 77 of them were considered VERY violent (murder and rape) and 18 less violent. She has found that the men who committed the worst violent offenses had other problems: hallucinations and paranoia, epilepsy, recurrent psychotic symptomatology, abnormal EEG (brain wave tests) results, neurological problems, lower reading ability and intellectual ability, and were brought up in abusive, violent homes.
Landau (1990) reports that Leonard Eron, of the University of Illinois, was able to show that there is a direct correlation with the amount of violence children view to the amount they act out. He did a long term study of children in New York that started when they were 8 years old and followed them through to 30 years old. They were able to use the amounts of violence viewed at 8 to predict aggressiveness at 19. When the criminal offenses were tallied at age 30, they matched with the amount of TV violence back at age 8.
Crowell et al (1987) relate a study in Canada, by Granzberg and Steinbring, who brought television to a group of Cree Indian children who had never seen TV. They found that the children who had begun watching a lot of TV showed large increases aggressive behaviors.
Crowell (1987) described a study done by Belson in England involving 1650 boys ages 13-16. He assessed them as far as socio-cultural history, violent behavior and attitudes, and the amount of exposure to TV violence. Boys with saturated exposure to TV violence were 47% more likely to commit violent acts than the group who were light viewers.
Crowell (1987) related several studies about children’s moral judgments. They presented young children with various social actions and then asked them questions to find out about their moral judgments, i.e. Would hitting be ok if there were no rules against it? Would it be all right for schools to have rules letting children hit each other? The results showed that their judgments did not depend upon any rules. Children said that institutions that allowed people to hurt other people were wrong. Social rules and the dictates of authority do not mandate a child’s moral judgments.
Davidson et al, also according to Crowell (1987), studied moral reasoning in older children; six to ten year olds were told stories that they could identify with and were familiar to them (theft of a toy from a school). Interestingly, they found that the type of story most children found familiar was about a bully aggressing on other kids. “The issue of physical harm was more familiar to children than issues such as theft, scapegoating, embezzlement, and dereliction of duty”. Avoiding harm to others and caring for other people were the most important justifications to children. The older children evaluated rules on the basis of harm to others and on the basis of rights and mutual obligations.
These studies serve as insight into the complex sophisticated moral abilities of children. They serve to illustrate that children are uniquely perceptive in picking up the double and the conflicting messages they get often get from adults. They CAN read between the lines and make moral decisions that go beyond the confusion they learn from adults. For instance when adults don’t practice what they preach.
Crowell (1987), used David Pearl’s summary to describe the results of numerous studies about TV’s ability to influence aggressive behavior. Aggressive modeling is most likely to be copied when:
It pays off, the problem was solved with aggression.
No social sanctions were attributed to the aggressor.
The violence was, in the plot, justified.
The violence is shown as being socially acceptable.
It appears real to the child.
The motivation to hurt is shown as deliberate.
The portrayal gives the child cues that fit into his reality.
The child can identifies with the model.
Pearl also illustrates messages that will inhibit aggressive imitation among adults and teenagers:
The aggressor is punished, crime does not pay.
Displaying the destructive, painful consequences that violence leads to.
Remind the audience that this violence is against moral and ethical values.
Josephson (1987) did a study to test responses of 396 second and third grade boys to televised violence, considering characteristic aggressiveness ratings done by teachers, timing of frustration, and the effect of cues in moderating response. Some boys were frustrated before viewing the violence and some afterward. She assessed aggressiveness comparing viewing violence only and violence along with a cue. The boys were observed playing ice hockey after viewing the violence.
She found that violence viewing did increase aggressiveness, but only in the boys with high characteristic aggression scores; they were even more aggressive if also subjected to a cue (called the “cueing” effect, which serves as a reminder of the violence). In the violence-plus-cues condition, the less aggressive boys seemed to be more aggressive as a result of having the highly aggressive boys in the group. In the less aggressive group, frustration before viewing resulted in less aggression than if frustrated after viewing.
Potts, Huston and Wright (1986) did a study on the affect of TV form and violent content on 3 to 6 years old boys social behaviors and attention spans. The subjects were 64, white middle class boys from a university preschool and two private day care centers. They observed changes in styles of interaction and increases in some prosocial behaviors after viewing violence. They found that fast moving action, not violence, got the boy’s attention; the action content had no affect on behavior. Cues in the environment were found to have an effect on watching TV violence; prosocial cues can over-ride short term television violence.
Peterson and Pfost (1989) showed 144 undergraduate males various forms of erotic, violent, non-erotic-non-violent rock videos to assess the effect they might have on attitudes toward women. Viewing the non-erotic-violent rock videos led to a much higher score on the Adversarial Sexual Beliefs indicator. The findings led them to believe that aggressive rock videos can lead to an antagonistic, callused attitude about women; more so than erotic or erotic-violent material.
They relate their findings to Bandura’s ideas about emotional incompatibility; mild erotica stimulates pleasurable feelings that do not allow for aggression. Non-erotic-violent videos do not elicit the pleasure reactions, so they do not supply the inhibitory effect that would block the aggressive feelings. High levels of anger, frustration and anxiety are known to promote aggressive behavior.
For men who already view women as weaker and justifiable targets, combined with extensive viewing of violent rock videos, it is certainly possible that they might take their aggressive feelings out on women. (39.6% of the men in this study indicated some likelihood of committing rape, if they could be assured of avoiding punishment – further evidence that attitudes of violence against women remain widespread).
Atkin (1983) studied 96 fifth and sixth grade boys and girls from lower middle and working class backgrounds; he showed them tapes including fantasy and real violence. He theorizes that adolescent aggression increases along with perceived realism of the violence. He claims that Bandura’s theory of observational modeling applies in that the actuality as perceived by the viewer is very important.
Aggressive responses were much higher from the groups that viewed the violence on the news, significantly more than with recreational violence. They observed that the teens paid much more attention to the violence in the news than they did with fictional violence.
Frost and Stauffer (1987) administered personality tests to 150 persons, then exposed them to 20 minutes of dramatized violence while using skin conductance and blood pulse volume to test for autonomic arousal. 72 were non-paid volunteer, white, affluent, undergraduate college students; 78 were paid volunteer, racially mixed, inner city housing project residents; both groups were ages 17 to 24, and included males and females.
They discovered that both the college students and the housing project residents were aroused the most while viewing a female killing another female. The college males were aroused quite a bit less by rape scenes than the inner city dwellers.
The major finding was that the city dwellers became much more stimulated by 10 types of violence than the college students. Apparently when the violence viewed matches what one see in their neighborhood it enlarges the reality and thus the response.
When evaluating the approval of the films through post viewing questionnaires, the inner city persons were much more positive about the violence; greater physiological arousal correlated with greater approval.
The researchers did not find gender to be a factor, they did not observe any difference between genders in physiological arousal. They, however, did find great differences in the approval ratings. The college females expressed much more disapproval than did the inner city females and males or the college males.
Steinfeld (1979) tells of researchers at Penn State University observed 92 kindergarten children and recorded levels of verbal and physical attacks. Over the next 4 weeks, they divided them into 3 groups, and had them watch different half hour TV shows. Group 1 watched “Batman” and “Superman” (containing physical and verbal assaults); group 2 watched “Mr. Rodgers’ Neighborhood” which had puppets teaching kids how to cope with their feelings. Group 3, the control, watched neutral films.
Children with low aggression scores did not show a response one way or another. Children considered to be less well off, who watched “Mr. Rodger’s”, demonstrated amazing improvement in cooperation, going along with rules and relating to others. Half the total amount of children scored high on the aggression score and displayed much more aggression with the other children.
This shows that we can use POSITIVE models to teach children skills useful in developing successful POSITIVE social communication. In other words, we can use what has been learned about the powerful affects of modeling violence and use it to teach children about being humane human beings.
Proposed Research Methodology
Interviews
Before starting the actual research, I would do some pre-testing to learn about teen vocabulary; if I am able to use the teens “lingo” I will probably get better results. I will want to know how they describe these type of films – do they know what “slasher” or a “slice and dice” films are? Do they have others words to describe these films?
I also need to develop a sense of “where their heads are” in terms of this type of media. Will they shock me by demonstrating a clear understanding about their media victimization? I need to obtain this type of information if I am to accurately learn the affects that it has upon them. (After all, I am making some assumptions going only by my daughter, who was raised by a feminist and by observations made of adult females).
Out of the 225 students in the graduating class, I plan to use one class with 10 students to pretest my questions within a group, then I will interview 5 students individually to pre-test the best questions to ask individually. I will use random selection throughout to form groups of students.
I would use two types of semi-structured interviews, using what I learned from the pre-testing. I will then interview 25 girls in a group setting and 15 in individual interviews. I would use the same basic format to interview the girls in the classroom as I would in the individual interviews; I want to see if there are differences in what they say in a group compared to individual responses.
I am very biased on this subject so I will try to remain aware of it to avoid infecting the results. I will document the data obtained from the interviews as soon as possible after completing them. I do not choose to tape or take notes during the interviews to prevent distraction to the respondents and to allow myself to really listen and concentrate on not only what is being said with words, but on what they are communicating with gestures and body language that I might miss while writing things down.
I will initially tell the girls that I am doing research on a subject that they are experts at. They, as teens, see tons of movies, watch rock video, play video games and are at times true “couch potatoes” with either TV or movies on the VCR. I will assure them that ONLY they have the answers to my questions. I hope to enhance their self esteem about the opinions they hold about media; if I tell them they are experts, I may very well get “expert” data from them.
First I would ask some easy questions like, how old are you? I would gradually work up to the questions dealing with the research. I would end the interviews, again with easy questions. Here are some examples of questions that I imagine I could use:
-Do you watch “slasher or “slice and dice” films?
-Imagine explaining a “slasher” movie to someone who has never seen one. How would you explain it?
-Think of a “slasher” film you have seen. Explain how it made you feel?
-Tell me about the plots in these movies.
-Tell me what these movies make you think about.
-How close to real life are these films?
-Tell me about the victims in these films.
-What do boys say about “slasher” films?
-What affect do you think this type of media has on you?
-What kinds of things do you think I will learn from these interviews?
My goal is to learn about basic themes that are present in the adolescent girls perceptions of media misogyny. I want to learn first of all, whether or not they see themselves as being portrayed as victims, if they do, I want to know what they think and feel about it. If they do not see the victimization, then I want to learn how they do perceive it. Their perception of the films will be used to guide me in ascertaining the affects that the films have had upon them.
Questionnaires
I would also utilize questionnaires, I would pre-test them as I did for the interview questions using a group of 10 girls. I will pre-test with less structured questions and devise more structured questions from what I learn. I will administer questionnaires to 25 girls. I could compare results reflected in them to the similar questions asked in a group or in person to what they might answer in the anonymity of a questionnaire. I will use explorative questions in the hopes of gaining insight into their perceptions.
As with the interviews, I would begin with easy to answer questions, gradually get more in depth and end up with easy questions again. Most of my questions would be open-ended to allow them to use their own words. Some closed-end questions will probably be used but I will be much more interested in the open-ended questions because I seek to learn about complex sociological and personal affects of media violence.
With questionnaires you could even allow space for the girls to draw pictures about perceptions they have about violent films. If they are at a loss for words pictures could tell reveal feelings. Some possible questions might be:
-Describe a “slasher” or “slice & dice” film.
-Give an example of a “slasher” film that you have seen.
-Pick one “slasher” film you have seen and explain the plot and what the movie meant to you.
-Does violence in movies affect you in any way? Please describe.
-Do you enjoy “slasher” films?
-Who do you watch these type of movies with?
-If you do NOT like these type of films, and you do view them, what promotes you to do so?
-Who are the usual victims of media violence?
I would use triangulation, in that, after finishing all the interviews and questionnaires, I would repeat studies on the same girls, 2 months later, to see if just being a part of the research may serve to make the girls more aware.
I might also do the same questionnaires and interviews with daughters of NOW (National Organization For Women) members to see if having a feminist mother makes a difference in how girls perceive media misogyny. I also entertain the idea of questioning daughters whose mothers are in a battered women’s shelter and compare results among them also.
Another type of study could use role playing; the girls could be assigned to summarize a “slasher” film (of their choice) by role playing what they perceived about the film. You could simply observe their role playing or you could video tape it, and watch it with them later, while they narrate. Who knows what you could learn from this type of observation.
In evaluating the results of the research I would do a content analysis looking for word use, similar feelings and basic themes or attitudes about media violence. What was loudly NOT said, and conflicts noted between verbalizations and body language, may also be enlightening.
Expected Outcomes
I expect to find that the girls are not aware of their victimization in the media; they may be aware of the violence, but I doubt they will see how much it is directed against themselves. I also think that peer pressure has a powerful affect on their movie viewing behavior; teens have a desperate need to “fit in”. Since media violence is popular – they must watch it. I think that daughters of feminists will be more cognizant of the “slasher” films than those with non-feminist mothers. I imagine that girls who view physical violence against their mothers in their homes may have an even more powerful need to suppress and deny.
Just being involved in this research may have an affect on the girls; just being encouraged to think about the subject may change their future perceptions; some may be able to perceive the victimization, but most will not – most will continue to deny its existence. I project that a few girls will change the way they perceive the misogyny after being involved in the research.
End Notes
1.Pollak, Richard. (1988). “Videotic Maniacs”. The Nation. December 19, pg. 673.
2.Landau, Elaine. (1990). Teenage Violence. New Jersey: Julian Messner, p. 39.
3.Russell, Diana E. H., & Caputi, Jane. (1990). “`Femicide’: Speaking the Unspeakable” MS. vol. 1 September/October, p. 36.
4.Dobie, Kathy. (1990). “Growing Up With Violence”. Vogue vol. 180. December, p. 313.
5.Majo, Kathi. (1990). “Hooked On Hate? Unfunny Comedians, MTV, Tabloid, Television, Fright Films and Other Media Invasions” MS. vol. 1, September/October, p. 45.
6.Hirsch, Kathleen. (1990). “Fraternities of Fear, Gang Rape, Male Bonding and the Silencing of Women” MS. September/October, p. 52.
7.Braun, Jay., Linder, Darwyn E. (1979). Chapter 28 “Conflict vs. Cooperation”. Psychology Today Textbook 4th ed. p 627.
Note to self, reading this over 6-13-98 – the word slasher, if broken apart is quite stunning: slas-her
Bibliography
Anker, Roy, M. (1989). “Yikes! Nightmares From Hollywood”. Christianity Today. June 16, vol. 33.
Atkin, Charles. (1983, Winter). “Effects of Realistic TV Violence VS Fictional Violence on Aggression”. Journalism Quarterly. vol. 60, pp. 615-621.
Bower, Bruce. (1989). “Adding Up Violent Vulnerabilities.” Science News. vol. 135.
Braun, Jay., Linder, Darwyn E. (1979). Chapter 28 “Conflict vs. Cooperation”. Psychology Today. Textbook 4th ed.
Bushman, Brad J., Geen, Russel G. (1990, January). “Role of Cognitive-Emotional Mediators And Individual Differences in the Effect of Media Violence on Aggression”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. vol. 58, pp. 156-163.
Colen, B.D. (1989, March). “BANG, BANG!” Health. vol. 21, pp. 90-91.
Cottin-Pogrebin, Letty. (1989, September). “Boys Will Be Boys?” MS. vol. 18, p. 24.
Crowell, David H, Evans, Ian M, O’Donnell, Clifford R. (Eds). (1987). Childhood Aggression and Violence: Sources of Influence, Prevention and Control. New York: Plenum Press.
Dobie, Kathy. (1990, December). “Growing Up With Violence.” Vogue. vol. 180, pp. 314-343.
Friedrich-Cofer, Lynette., Huston, Aletha C. (1986, November). “Television Violence and Aggression: The Debate Continues.” Psychological Bulletin. vol. 100, pp. 364-371.
Frost, Richard., Stauffer, John. (1987, Spring). “The Effects of Social Class, Gender, and Personality on Physiological Responses to Filmed Violence.” Journal of Communication. vol. 37, pp. 29-45.
Hirsch, Kathleen. (1990, September/October). “Fraternities of Fear, Gang Rape, Male Bonding and the Silencing of Women.” MS. vol. 1, pp. 52-56.
Huesmann, L, Rowell., Eron, Leonard D. (Eds). (1986). Television and The Aggressive Child: A Cross-National Comparison. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Josephson, Wendy L. (1987, November). “Television Violence and Children’s Aggression: Testing the Priming, Social Script, and Disinhibition Predictions”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. vol. 53, pp. 882-890.
Katz, Lilian, G. (1991, January). “How TV Violence Affects Kids”. Parents Magazine. vol. 66.
Kohn, Alfie. (1988, June). “Make Love, Not War: We Keep Hearing That We Are An Aggressive, War-like Species. Scientists Keep Telling Us That We Have A Choice”. Psychology Today. vol. 22.
Kutner, Lawrence. (1990, December 27). “Helping Children Handle Disturbing News Reports of Death and Violence”. The New York Times. vol. 140, pB4(N) pC8(L) col 4.
Landau, Elaine. (1990). Teenage Violence. New Jersey: Julian Messner.
Linz, Daniel, G., Donnerstein, Edward., Penrod, Steven. (1988, November). “Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Violent and Sexually Degrading Depictions of Women”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. vol. 55, pp. 758-768.
Majo, Kathi. (1990, September/October). “Hooked On Hate? Unfunny Comedians, MTV, Tabloid, Television, Fright Films and Other Media Invasions”. MS. vol. 1, pp. 42-44.
Meltzoff, Andrew, N. (1988, October). “Imitation of Televised Models by Infants”. Child Development. vol. 59, pp. 1221-1229.
Milavsky, Ronald, J., et al. (1982). Television and Aggression A Panel Study. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Pattison, Robert. (1988, August 13). “The Mean Machine”. The Nation. vol. 247.
Peterson, Dena L., Pfost, Karen S. (1989, February). “Influence of Rock Videos on Attitudes of Violence Against Women.” Psychological Reports. vol. 64, pp. 319-322.
Pollak, Richard. (1988, December 19). “Videotic Maniacs”. The Nation.
Potts, Richard., Aletha, Huston., Wright, John., (1986, February). “The Effects of Television Form and Violent Content on Boys’ Attention and Social Behavior”. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. vol. 41, pp. 1-17.
Russell, Diana E. H., Caputi, Jane. (1990, September/October). “`Femicide’: Speaking the Unspeakable.” MS. vol. 1, pp. 34-37.
Steinfeld, Jesse, M.D. (1979). “TV Violence IS Harmful”. Mass Media & Society. 3rd ed., Section 35. California: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Tan, Alexis, S. (1981). Mass Communication Theories and Research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Toufexis, Anastasia. (1989, June 12). “Our Violent Kids”. Time. pp. 52-58.
Wilson, Barbara, J., Linz, Daniel., & Randall, Barbara. (1990, Fall). “Applying Social Science Research to Film Ratings: A Shift From Offensiveness to Harmful Effects.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. vol. 34, number 4, pp. 443-468.
Zoglin, Richard. (1990, October 15). “Is TV Ruining Our Kids?” Time.
Zylke, Jody, W. (1988, October 7). “More Voices Join Medicine in Expressing Concern Over Amount, Content of What Children See on TV”. The Journal of The American Medical Association. vol. 260, Number 13, pp. 1831 & 1835.