On February 7, leading media scholars from UCSB joined researchers from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Wisconsin Madison, at a press conference in Los Angeles to announce the findings of the National Television Violence Study (NTVS). The study is the most comprehensive and thorough scientific survey of television violence ever undertaken.
Responding to concerned viewers and parents, The National Cable Television Association awarded a $3.3 million grant to underwrite the NTVS. Five key UCSB faculty members - Drs. Edward Donnerstein, Dale Kunkel, Dan Linz, James Potter, and Barbara Wilson all brought particular areas of expertise to the study. The research team also included three graduate students, Eva Blumenthal, Tim Gray, and Stacy Smith, staff member Faye Nennig, and 70 undergraduate students. The researchers' ultimate goal is to help educate the public, specifically parents, and to find creative, non harmful ways to portray violence.
The group's report is the first in a series of three annual reports that will examine the content of entertainment television programming, assess ratings and advisories and review educational initiatives. No other study has had the opportunity to review as large a program sample in such a comprehensive and complex manner.
The American Medical Association emphasized the widespread interest in the study in a press release early this year claiming the initiative "has given birth to a critical new partnership between the television community and a multidisciplinary council of experts, including the AMA, law enforcement, criminologists, parents, sociologists and others who, for the first time, are working together to define the problem and implement solutions."
In the past, studies on television violence focused on the number of violent acts committed, rather than the context of the acts, in seeking to evaluate the effects on viewers. Instead, the NTVS study "provides unique, test reliable, and truly representative information about the way in which various contextual features of violence are depicted," according to the NTVS council.
The NTVS determines the extent and types of violence in American television programming. The focus if the research include: content analysis; children's responses to violence content labeling; analysis of effectiveness of antiviolence messages on television. UC Santa Barbara and the University of Texas at Austin were responsible for the first area, creating an extensive method of content analysis for violence on television.
Before analysis of content could begin, researchers had to agree on a definition of violence that would encompass the spectrum of violent content found on television. UCSB researchers found this to be the most difficult portion of the study. After lengthy debate, the researchers defined violence as "any overt depiction of the use of physical force (or the credible threat of such force) intended to physically harm an animate being or group of beings."
Researchers viewed 2,693 programs on 23 cable and broadcast channels and categorized the different types of violence in programming based on their context. Findings revealed that whether or not the violent act is rewarded or punished, if harm or pain is shown, the timing of actions and how they are addressed, and the attractiveness of the character all contribute to the perception of the act as violent.
As Dr. Donnerstein summarized, "the most important finding of the study was that it was able to differentiate between those types of violent acts that are potentially harmful for the viewer compared to those that are not. It was not just a simple count of violent acts. It puts the acts into context. For example in our study, a film like South Central which depicts many violent acts, fell into an anti-violent category due to the educational context in which the violence occurred. Previous content analysis would have just counted the number of violent acts within the film."
"The risks of viewing the most common depictions of televised violence include learning to behave violently, becoming more desensitized to the violence and becoming more fearful of being attacked," Dr. Wilson continued. "Year two is going to be pivotal because wešve set up benchmarks for the first year." Now that the pattern of violence has been established, researchers will be able to watch for any changes in television programming from the networks in the future. Dr. Wilson also predicts that it may not be until the third year that any changes are made in industry efforts because it may take the creative community some time to adjust. The significance of the study will be determined by the response of programmers, policy makers, and parents and how they utilize these findings, and by how this changes society's opinion of television in the future.
The context in which most violence is presented on television poses risks for viewers.
The negative consequences of violence are not often portrayed in violent programming (84% do not depict any long term consequences).
Perpetrators go unpunished in 73% of all violent scenes. By the end of the program, bad characters are punished 62% of the time - good characters only 15%.
Only 4% of violent programs emphasize an anti-violence theme.
For boys (and particularly older boys, age 10-14), "parental discretion" advisories and "PG-13" and "R" ratings made programs and movies listed in a channel guide more attractive.
For girls (and particularly younger girls, age 5-9), "viewer discretion" advisories made programs less attractive.
Children whose parents generally exerted guidance over their TV viewing were less likely to choose programs labeled as problematic, i.e. with advisories or "PG-13" and "R" ratings.
The message of anti-violence public service announcements was sometimes confused or undermined by celebrity endorsers who were perceived as promoting violence in their real life or their jobs, (i.e., sports, acting).