8

Selective Exposure to Violent Media

A Synthesis of the Research and Theoretical Overview

Marina Krcmar

The Appeal of Media Violence

Concern about the effects of violent media date back at least as far as the 1920s when the Payne Fund studies investigated the effect of film violence on children (Lowrey & DeFleur, 1995) (Chapter 10, this volume). However, implicit in this concern is the interest in media violence that must surely predate any effects. Obviously, we are not forced to consume media violence; yet, violent television, music videos, films, and videogames continue to be a booming business. So why do we consume it? This chapter considers the various theories and the empirical evidence that address this question. In addition, it attempts to integrate this literature into a comprehensive theoretical framework. After all, concern about the effects of media violence could all but disappear if only audiences would stop consuming it. With popular movies, television, videogames, and other media frequently and consistently depicting aggression and violence, that occurrence seems unlikely.

Selective Exposure

In general, studying interest in and attraction to media has fallen under the designation of selective exposure. As defined by Zillmann and Bryant (1985), “selective exposure designates behavior that is deliberately performed to attain and sustain perceptual control of particular stimulus” (p. 537). In short, research into selective exposure has assumed that we voluntarily choose the stimuli that we consume, including media. Furthermore, this approach recognizes that our choices are likely to be guided by affective, psychological, functional, and even incidental factors, and seeks to uncover what those factors are and the interrelations between them and our ultimate media choices. There have been many approaches to considering how and why we choose the media we do (e.g., Hartmann, 2009) and many ways of grouping the resulting theories and research. However, it seems appropriate to consider our choices as deriving from several broad motivations: We choose media (and other stimuli for that matter) (1) for affective and excitatory reasons such as fleeting moods (e.g., mood management, mood adjustment; Chapter 7, this volume); (2) for functional reasons such as fulfilling a need for information (e.g., uses and gratifications; Chapter 6, this volume); (3) due to internal personality and dispositional factors that drive our likes and interests; (4) for sociological reasons including cultural norms that may arise from our gender or our peer group or the desires of other members in our audience group; (5) or for incidental reasons: Perhaps I do not like the violence in a particular film, but I am watching it because it is showing in the waiting room while my car is being serviced.

If we begin to consider theories that explain the process of selective exposure that can be applied to interest in violent media and we consider the empirical work that has been done on the topic, the work tends to fall into at least one, if not more of these broad categories. However, prior to exploring our motives for violent media consumption, it is important to consider what we mean when we call something “violent media”. Thus, the following sections begin by discussing the meaning of violent media. Second, several theories are considered that emphasize the role of arousal and affect in media use, including mood management, mood adjustment and disposition theories and these are considered in terms of interest in violent media. Third, the focus is on the areas of theory and research that emphasize the importance of personality in determining violent media choice. These include some uses and gratifications approaches as well as simple variable analytic research that has examined personality variables and media choice. Fourth, the sociological factors and incidental factors are considered that may influence interest in and attraction to media violence.

What is Media Violence?

In order to ask why we consume media violence, it is important to consider, however briefly, what we mean by media violence. For example, a televised match of football in the United States or a contact sport videogame may be violence to one viewer and good, clean family entertainment to another. Marvin (2000) has argued that researchers have never fully agreed on what constitutes media violence and that, in fact, this disagreement is instructive. She states: “Morality intrudes at every point of framing what counts as an act of violence” (p. 156). In other words, our definitions of violence are guided in part by individual, and thus sometimes idiosyncratic, moral judgments. Nevertheless, it seems both important, and, in my opinion, possible, to make some broad claims about media violence: What it is, how it influences us and, why we consume it in the first place.

Some researchers have defined violence in terms of any act of aggression, including comedic acts and those that result from non-human sources, such as acts of nature (Gerbner, Gross, Jackson-Beeck, Jeffries-Fox, & Signorielli, 1978). The Cultural Indicators project, conducted by George Gerbner and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania defined violence broadly as: “the overt expression of physical force, with or without weapon, against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt or killed, or actually hurting or killing” (Gerbner et al., 1978, p. 179). The National Television Violence Study, on the other hand, defined it somewhat more narrowly: “Intentional acts of force attempting to physically harm an animate being” (Smith, Moyer, & Donnerstein, 2006). Not surprisingly, the researcher's definition of violence affects the amount of violence detected in a content analysis and is likely to influence effect sizes in effects studies and in research on selective exposure to media violence. Despite variations in researchers' definitions of violence, Riddle and colleagues point out that audiences differ in their judgments of violence to an even greater extent (Riddle, Eyal, Mahood, & Potter, 2005). Whereas researchers tend to count individual acts of violence, audiences rely on the explicitness and graphicness of violence in order to determine if and how violent something is. Thus, perhaps scholars of media violence should focus greater attention on the degree of explicitness and graphicness in media violence, and stimuli chosen for effects studies, in order to determine why we watch violence and what the outcomes of viewing are. On the other hand, even sanitized violence, or especially sanitized violence, has been found to have negative effects on viewers (e.g., Bushman & Huesmann, 2001) making it necessary for scholars to consider the degree of graphicness as a factor in defining violence but not a necessary factor in determining if something is violent. In any case, a reading of the extant literature suggests that not only are the best definitions of violence somewhat narrow and precise, but they focus on violence that is intentional, conducted by an animate being (e.g., human beings, cartoon monsters and animals, videogame characters) on an animate being and the definitions should consider explicitness and graphicness as variables in influencing selective exposure and effects.

From sports violence to unabashedly graphic portrayals, why do we watch? In her essay, Goldberg (1998) observes that most Westerners' first-hand experience with death and violence have receded dramatically since the eighteenth century at the same time that representations, both real (e.g., news) and fictional, have increased. She muses that perhaps we need to understand death and violence and that in consuming it in the safety of our living rooms, that experience is both instructive and safe. In other words, we watch mediated violence because we want to understand all aspects of life, including suffering and death and we no longer have real access to it (see also Oliver, 2003). Alternately, in considering the empirical literature on media violence, Sparks and Sparks (2000) offer three reasons for the appeal of violence: “because the violent images themselves evoke pleasure [...] or due to the enjoyment of things that co-occur with violence [...] or because of various gratifications that are indirectly related to the viewing of the images and are actually experienced after the images themselves are viewed (p. 74).” Thus, the reasons proposed by Sparks and Sparks (2000) parallel, to some extent, those that will be explored in the following sections. In sum, we consume media violence because we enjoy the affect or arousal of cognitions that we experience as the result of viewing, or we watch because we like the content that goes along with the violence, regardless of how we feel about the violence itself.

Excitation and Affect-Based Approaches

One possible reason for the selection of various media, both type (e.g., television vs. newspapers) and content (e.g., professional wrestling vs. drama) may be related to our emotions and our physiological arousal levels at the time of media selection. To say that I am “in the mood for an action/adventure film” is to imply that something about my emotional state is guiding me towards that. In fact, a sizeable body of research supports the link between our physiological arousal, our emotions, and our media choices at a given moment (see Knobloch-Westerwick, 2006 for a review). Furthermore, several theories have emphasized the importance of arousal and affect in guiding our media choices. Specifically, the theories of mood management and mood adjustment present arousal and affect as central in the selective exposure process; whereas, disposition theories rely more exclusively on affective responses and our attitudes towards characters.

Mood Management

Early theorizing about mood management actually fell under the title of Affect Dependency of Stimulus Arrangement (Zillmann & Bryant, 1985). In its earliest iteration, this theory posited that individuals strive to minimize negative mood states and maximize or maintain positive mood states by arranging their environment (including media) to achieve that goal. In this case, mood was conceptualized as having affective and arousal-based components. More recently, Zillmann (2000) summarized mood management by stating that selective exposure to media stimuli was based on choosing content that was “(a) excitationally opposite the prevailing states associated with noxiously experienced hypo-or hyperarousal, (b) has positive hedonic value above that of prevailing states, and (c) in hedonically negative states, has little or no semantic affinity with the prevailing states” (p. 104). In other words, individuals select media that produce arousal that is opposite to how one feels when one does not want to feel that way, leaving you better off than you were before. In addition, when you feel bad, you do not want to consume content that reminds you of whatever made you feel bad in the first place. These basic principles guide media choice.

The notion that we'll watch negatively-valenced content (e.g., violence) when it is not similar to our current sorrow-inducing experience, has been added to and refined in the theory over the past 30 years (notably Oliver, 2003). Thus, according to more recent theorizing in mood management, it seems unlikely that audiences are always attracted to media offering positive hedonic valence, rather, negatively valenced media may offer appeal only if the story line does not mesh too closely with negative experiences encountered recently in one' own life. Thus, violent media, even with tragic story lines, may be attractive in some cases. Perhaps violent professional wrestling may be appealing to a recently-returned veteran whereas a violent war movie may not.

In addition, some evidence suggests that bad moods, either exacerbated by or independent of media choices, may be functional. In these cases, we are not motivated to terminate negative mood states, as suggested by mood management theory. Instead, we may in fact want to extend them. There are times, for example, when I may want to stew after being offended by someone, rather than being distracted from my bad mood. Thus, media violence may be functional in instances when I actually want to extend hostile or angry feelings. In keeping with this logic, Knobloch (2003) has refined mood management theory to include a state referred to as mood adjustment.

Mood Adjustment

There are undeniably times when negative mood states such as anger, sadness, or even stress may be either functional or at least appropriate. Intuitively, we seem to recognize when these negative mood states are called for and we make an effort to maintain the appropriate mood. Knobloch (2003) refers to this process as mood adjustment and argues that we sometimes use media to maintain and adjust moods in anticipation of the situational requirements regarding mood. In one study, participants were angered by a confederate then led to believe that an opportunity to retaliate would or would not be imminent. For men led to believe they would have an opportunity to retaliate, they selected more hostile and bad news websites than those who did not think they would have the opportunity to retaliate. Thus, they opted to maintain their negative moods as a way of preparing for retaliation and thereby used media as a means of maintaining a hostile mood. Similarly, O'Neal and Taylor (1989) found that males were likely to choose violent, not soothing movies after being provoked by a confederate, but only when they believed they would see the confederate again. Therefore, one appeal of media violence may be that we consume it in order to maintain anger and hostility because we want to, for either real or perceived functional reasons. In other words, we may care to sustain anger because it seems functional to us if later, we can lash out at or harm the person who angered us in the first place!

In sum both mood management and mood adjustment suggest that we select media based on mood and arousal. How might these theories offer a framework for our understanding of the appeal of violent media? The arousal-based aspects of mood management are likely to help explain the appeal of at least some violent media because movies, television, and videogames that contain violence are often stimulating by nature. Fights, physical struggles, car chases, and danger are likely to increase physiological arousal levels through increased heart rate, galvanic skin response, and pupil dilation. Thus, it is not surprising that in order to manage low arousal levels, participants may seek out violent media or at least cite it as a reason to consume violence (Slater, 2003).

In terms of affect, violent media may offer aggressive participants the experience of hostile emotions in which they take pleasure (Slater, Henry, Swain, & Anderson, 2003) and may offer some validation for feelings of alienation that they experience (Slater, 2003). In either case, violent media may help sustain and even enhance aggressive feelings for people who want or need to feel these things. Whether violent media validate existing negative emotions, enhance noxious ones, provide for functional anger in individuals who perceive their anger as functional or encourage hostility when that is the desired outcome, it is important to stress that positive moods are not always perceived as desirable and violent media may help reach the desired outcome. Thus, theoretically (i.e., mood management, mood adjustment), empirically, and practically, the appeal of violent media may stem from our belief, however unconscious, that media help us control our arousal levels and affective states.

Disposition-Based Theories

One leading explanation for media enjoyment and thus for the attraction of media violence focuses on how individuals evaluate media characters, form affiliations with them, and affectively respond to them. Although these theories can be applied to a vast range of content and in fact differ somewhat based on the type of content under consideration (Raney, 2006), here, we will focus on how our affective and affiliative responses to violent media and violent media characters occurs.

Affect is at the heart of disposition theories, with enjoyment of media and attraction to it driven by our feelings about a character. For example, Raney and Bryant (2002) found that liked characters' actions were interpreted positively and disliked characters' actions were interpreted negatively for the sake of maintaining audience's positive attitudes towards the character. Thus, viewers may accept and enjoy the violent actions of a liked character, especially when enacted against a disliked character. This would explain why audiences often cheer for the hero when s/he commits even brutal violence against the villain. Disposition theories would argue that the positive affective response to the hero would define the latitude of acceptance of the violence against the antagonist and thus, help shape the moral judgment. Violence in the name of a greater good (in this case, to harm the detested antagonist) is celebrated. It would not be enough to have the hero succeed; the villain must be vanquished. Violence is a very immediate and clear means to that end.

Although this may seem similar to the notion of “justified violence” in other research (e.g., Krcmar & Cooke, 2001), disposition theories focus on the relationship that the viewer forms with the violent actor, the protagonist. Thus, even in the case of unjustified violence (the hero may cast a final blow to the already-downed antagonist), the violence is enjoyed. According to disposition theory, then, violence is enjoyed when the viewer likes or identifies with the violent actor, regardless of the nature of the violence itself.

Functional Approaches

Although much research on the appeal of violent media has focused on the role that affect and arousal play in determining media choices, at least some research has considered how we might use violent media functionally, for example, in an effort to master threat (Sparks & Sparks, 2000).

Mastering Threat, Expressing Empathy, and Experimentation

Perhaps we consume violence because we are strategic in our media choices. Zillmann and Weaver (1997) argue that watching violence (in the case of their research, horror films) may offer males in particular an opportunity to show mastery over that which is considered distressing and frightening. Similar to Goldberg's (1998) proposal, discussed earlier in the chapter, Zillmann and Weaver (1997) suggest that modern society offers little opportunity to master real violent threats: To be exposed to them, to understand them and to come to terms with our fear of them. Thus, media violence may be attractive because it offers a safe stand-in. Kuhrke, Klimmt and Vorderer (2006) refer to this as situational self-enhancement. They argue that playing violent videogames is functional in that it offers players an opportunity to gain a sense of power and control over their environment. In other words, violent game play offers an opportunity to compensate for perceived deficiencies in one's own life, whether those deficiencies arise from a lack of personal control (Kuhkre & Vorderer, 2006) or experiences of success (Klimtt, 2003). Jansz (2005) also underlines the possible role of affective mastery over threat through videogame play as a reason for its appeal; whereas Cantor and Nathanson (1997) suggest that children are attracted to violent media to deal with their fear responses to it. In fact, they have found that children who have been frightened by violent media in the past are more likely to seek it out again in the future, particularly when justice is shown being restored in the end, than those who have not been frightened in the past. Thus, it does appear that they are attempting to deal with their fear by not only watching violence repeatedly, but by demonstrating to themselves that in the end, it will all turn out fine.

These types of explanations are supported at least in part by research that consistently finds that males are more attracted to violent films, television and videogames than females are (Cantor, 1998; Sparks, 1991). In Western cultures, where male power and physical strength are valued, and where male success and achievement are often considered a measure of individual worth, it stands to reason that males would feel a need to overcome physically violent threats and to gain a sense of control over their environment to a greater extent than females.

Moral Disengagement

In addition, viewers may feel a certain moral disengagement because the violence is mediated and/or fictional. For example, videogames offer an ideal opportunity to morally disengage because of the very nature of the violence (Hartmann & Vorderer, 2010). Videogame violence is fictitious and unlike movies it does not (arguably) attempt to portray reality. With their interactive nature and potential to be the character, they offer yet another functional opportunity: To experience socially unsanctioned behavior without fear of social or legal retribution. In Grand Theft Auto, for example, players can not only drive dangerously, and enact violence on civilians and police officers, but they can pick up prostitutes and perform vandalism as well. In the case of videogames, one has the opportunity to not only watch behavior that one is unlikely to get away with in real life, but the player can actually perform it. This kind of behavior, including violence, is likely to be appealing to some individuals, thus functioning as a means of exploration with a safety net. Because players know that there are no real victims (at least not in the direct, immediate sense), they can morally disengage.

Personality Factors

Personality factors are broadly characterized as psychological dispositions towards media – those psychologically driven individual difference traits that influence attraction to violent media. For example, Weaver (1991) found that individuals who rated high on an index of psychoticism were attracted to graphically violent horror films. Another variable that has received much attention in the selective exposure literature is sensation seeking. Theoretically, sensation seeking is related to individuals' baseline physiological arousal levels and thus high sensation seekers have lower arousal levels and require more exciting and novel messages to attract their attention (Donohew, Finn, & Christ, 1988). Therefore, it is possible that at least some violence is attractive to high sensation seekers due to its graphic, novel and stimulating content. For example, Krcmar and Greene (2000) examined various personality traits and found that sensation seeking was related to adolescents' exposure to violent television. Other research into sensation seeking has also found that it predicts attraction to violent television and website content (Slater, 2003), and exposure to contact sports and real crime shows (Krcmar & Greene, 1999). These latter authors reasoned that high sensation seekers were “seeking out arousal that is produced by visually stimulating and unpredictable media content” (p. 40).

Krcmar and Keane (2004) explored additional personality correlates not only of exposure to violent media but enjoyment of it, as well. Interestingly, this research found that exposure and liking were not strongly correlated, suggesting that audiences may watch violence for reasons other than enjoyment. As discussed previously, if exposure is functional, audiences may consume media violence to fulfill some need without actually enjoying the viewing experience. Furthermore, there may be structural reasons for exposure to media violence. Perhaps my friends meet on the Internet to play a violent multi-player online game. I may enjoy playing with them, while not enjoying the violence per se. In any case, Krcmar and Keane (2004) examined the five major personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness) and found that whereas neuroticism was related to exposure to violent films and television, including reality shows such as COPS and violent drama, neuroticism was unrelated to liking these genres. Extraversion was also related to exposure to violent films and television as were some dimensions of the openness to experience variable. Lastly, agreeableness was negatively related to exposure to violent media. In another study exploring personality and media choice, Slater (2003) found a positive link between adolescents' scores on an alienation scale and their exposure to violent films.

Thus, it appears that personality factors do in fact drive needs. For example, sensation seeking may drive a need for stimulation that can be sought out through violent media. More neurotic individuals may seek out violent media as a means of gaining a sense of understanding and control over their fear of violence. Those who rate high on a scale measuring openness to experience may seek out violence as a mean of encountering novelty. And those who are dispositionally cheerful and agreeable may in fact avoid violent media because of its inherent incompatibility with their general personality and outlook. In each case, however, it is the personality factor that drives the need, which in turn drives the media choice. Interestingly, that choice may not actually fulfill that need, which may be why these viewers do not necessarily report enjoying what they have chosen.

Trait aggression has also been investigated in terms of attraction to media violence. For example, Atkin (1985) found a link between aggression and exposure to media violence. More recent research has continued to support this claim, even in terms of newer media. For example, both Slater et al. (2003) and Colwell and Payne (2000) found that those who are higher in trait aggressiveness are more likely to seek out and play violent videogames.

In order to synthesize the sometimes disparate literature on the link between aggression on one hand and exposure to media violence on the other, Slater and colleagues (2003) proposed a downward spiral model. Utilizing a cross-lagged panel design, they tested both the hypothesis that exposure to media violence caused aggression and that aggression encouraged interest in and exposure to media violence. Data gathered from the adolescents in the study support the notion of a feedback loop. Whereas trait aggression does encourage exposure to violent media, exposure to violent media appears to encourage aggressiveness. Hence, one variable reinforces the other in a downward spiral.

Despite the importance of these personality factors in determining interest in violent media, recall research by Krcmar and Keane (2004) found that although personality may influence exposure, exposure to violent media did not necessarily predict enjoyment. Thus, other factors, both sociological and merely incidental are likely to encourage exposure to media violence as well.

Social Factors Influencing Interest in Media Violence

Sociological or social factors can be defined as those that take into consideration the features of the environment, both the viewing environment and the individual environment, that influence media choice. In other words, I would define sociological factors as those variables that arise from cultural influences, family influences and those individual factors such as gender that are at least in part socially determined. For example, Robertson, Blain and Cowan (2005) found that adolescent choices of media were most strongly influenced by family and peer choices. Other social factors, such as gender, also play a role. Cantor and Nathanson (1997) found that boys were more interested in violent television than girls, a finding that has been consistently upheld in the research (e.g., Atkin, Greenberg, Korzenny, & McDermott, 1979; Lyle & Hoffmann, 1972). However, biological sex is often a stand-in variable. That is, biological sex is statistically related to many variables, not least of which is the interest in and enjoyment of media violence, but it is likely socially constructed gender more so than biological sex that has explanatory power.

Williams and Clippenger (2002) offer evidence that suggests an interesting sociological explanation. In their research, males played violent videogames either against a computer or face to face, against a stranger. Participants were actually more aggressive and more competitive in the computer play condition than in the stranger situation, leading the researchers to argue that a need for competition drives interest in and in some cases outcomes of violent videogame play. Indeed, a social need to compete is one of the motivations suggested by those who play violent videogames (Sherry, Lucas, Greenberg, & Lachlan, 2006). Thus, one explanation for interest in, at least, interactive violent media is a coinciding interest in the competitive aspect of many violent games. The fact that males, on average, are more interested in competition, because they are socialized by perhaps family norms and participation in cultural activities such as competitive sports, is therefore spurious.

Do We Really Enjoy Media Violence? Incidental Motives for Exposure

Although evidence does seem to exist that humans are intrigued by, attracted to or just curious about violence, is it possible that producers overestimate this interest and thus create more of it than we want, making exposure somewhat unavoidable? After all, of the 10 most popular films in the USA in 2009, some were unarguably violent (e.g., Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen; Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince; Star Trek) others were not (e.g., Up, The Hangover, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs) (http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2009&p=.htm). Thus, it is possible that at least some of our exposure to violence could be incidental, co-occurring with some dramatic story line that we enjoy but not necessarily sought out because of the violence. After all, writers, directors and producers create films and programs based on what they hope audiences will watch, what they think audiences will watch and what they believe audiences will watch. Jordan and Woodard (1998) in their research in which they interviewed producers of children's programs, referred to this as conventional wisdom.

From those interview data, Jordan and Woodard (1998) determined which beliefs guided producers in the creation of programs. One belief that resulted in the production of violent children's programs was that “It is better to gear programs to a boy audience than a girl or mixed audience (p. 91).” Implicit in this assumption was that boys would certainly be attracted to violent programs and that girls would watch boy programs but not vice versa. Interestingly, the conventional wisdom that guided the production of children's programming was untested but strongly held by producers and broadcasters. Thus, children were presented with violent programs, despite that the humorous ones might be as, or more appealing to them.

In addition to the fact that violence may be incidental to the program, individual exposure to violence may be incidental, or at least situational. For example, I may not enjoy violence but I may enjoy watching television or movies with my friends or family. When a violent movie is chosen by the majority, I watch because of my pleasure in the viewing situation, not because of my enjoyment of the violence or of the movie itself. Similarly, one motive for videogame play is that gamers may like the social nature of play. If the game happens to be violent yet provides the gamer with an opportunity to spend time with peers, once again, incidental exposure occurs. In any case, it is a mistake to assume that all exposure to violence is both intentional and due to the violence. After all, Krcmar and Keane (2004) found that exposure to violence and enjoyment of violence were statistically only very weakly related statistically.

Understanding Interest in Media Violence: Some Tentative Conclusions

So why are audiences attracted to violent media? Why do they consume it? And what sense can we make of the disparate lines of research and the assortment of variables and theories that attempt to explain the phenomenon? In turning to only affect and arousal-based theories such as mood management and mood adjustment, we ignore the very real role that the external environment such as peer norms may play in our attraction to media violence. On the other hand, threat mastery and other functional explanations offer some explanation for violent media use but tend to be somewhat narrow in their explanation. Each approach alone suffers from focusing too intently on a set of variables or causes to the neglect of others. What is needed is a broad theory, even a meta-theory that can provide an umbrella to link the reviewed theoretical approaches and variables under investigation. In the next section, I will propose a model that will help to integrate the various theoretical and empirical approaches to the study of attraction to violence and encourage scholars to utilize this broad-based approach in future research.

Social Cognitive Theory

Bandura's (1986) social cognitive theory remains one of the most influential theories in social psychology and has been widely adopted by scholars of media (Chapter 4, this volume). The intent of this section is by no means to offer a history or summary of the theory (which was well done elsewhere: Pajares, Prestin, Chen, & Nabi, 2009). Instead, I will assume a basic understanding of the learning theory and attempt to point out some links between it and the research on selective exposure to media violence (see also LaRose, 2009). In short, social cognitive theory, in its 40-year evolution, attempts to explain the learning and enactment of human functioning that proposes that this functioning is the result of reciprocal determinism, or the bidirectionally linked interplay of three categories of variables. These include personal factors (such as affect and cognition, because they are individual difference variables, specific to the individual), environmental factors (both situational and environmental as more broadly defined), and behavior. Because media choice, and the selection of violent media in particular is, obviously, a behavior enacted by humans, is seems clear that those factors that influence it might fall under social cognitive theory. After all, the theory deals with the factors that drive or influence human behavior, of which media choice is one example.

From a sociocognitive perspective, we might categorize the various theories and variables we have discussed as falling under personological factors, environmental factors and behavioral factors. Specifically, we have discussed affective and arousal-based theories, as well as the desire to master threat. These could be construed broadly as personological factors. Similarly, personality factors that influence attraction to violent media (e.g., sensation seeking, neuroticism) also fall under the category of personological factors, as does gender. Environmental influences on attraction to media choice include sociological factors such as peer interest in media violence, family norms of exposure to media violence, and incidental factors, such as what programs, videogames and films are available at a given time. Lastly, selective exposure to media violence is clearly a human behavior or function. As proposed by Bandura (1986), these three categories of variables are bidirectionally linked and thus, reciprocally influence one another. For example, the environment (who I am with, what media are available) has an effect on my affect and perhaps my arousal. Affect and arousal, in turn can influence my interactions with my environment in a given moment. Both of these factors: Personological and environmental, then, can influence selective exposure to violent media in that given moment, which in turn, obviously, influences my affect, arousal and perhaps my interactions with that environment still further. Hence, the three categories of factors are reciprocally linked (see Figure 8.1).

Thus, to the extent that social cognitive theory can be thought of as a meta-theory, or even meta-approach to the exploration of human behavior, it offers us at least a starting point, a framework, for understanding the interplay of factors that influence selective exposure to media violence. In sum, we consume what we do due to factors relating to us as individuals, both momentary, state factors such as affect and long-term, trait factors such as personality variables; we consume because of our environment, friends, parents, the situation, and these all result in consumption of violent media. To consider any of these alone, or even to consider one as primary, is to engage in a reductionism that is tempting, but ultimately, not explanatory to understand the complex appeal of media violence.

Figure 8.1 Bidirectionally linked factors predicting selective exposure to violent media: adapted from social cognitive theory (based on Bandura, 1986).

REFERENCES

Atkin, C. (1985). Informational utility and selective exposure. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 63–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Atkin, C., Greenberg, B., Korzenny, F., & McDermott, S. (1979). Selective exposure to televised violence. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 5–13.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cantor, J. (1998). “Mommy, I'm scared”: How TV and movies frighten children and what we can do to protect them. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company.

Cantor, J., & Harrison, K. (1996). Ratings and advisories for television programming. In National television violence study, 1, Center for Communication and Social Policy (Vol. 2, pp. 267–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cantor, J., & Nathanson, A. (1997). Predictors of children's interest in violent television programs. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41, 155–168.

Colwell, J., & Payne, J. (2000). Negative correlates of computer game play among adolescents. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 295–310.

Donohew, L., Finn, S., & Christ, W. (1988). “The nature of news” revisited: The roles of affect, schemes, and cognition. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher, & T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition and affect (pp. 125–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries-Fox, S., & Signorielli, N. (1978). Cultural indicators: Violence profile no. 9. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 176–207.

Goldberg, V. (1998). Death takes a holiday. Sort of. In Goldstein J. (Ed.), Why we watch: The attractions of violent entertainment (pp. 27–52). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Greene, K., & Krcmar, M. (2005). Predicting exposure to and liking of violent television: A uses and gratifications approach. Communication Studies, 56(1), 71–93.

Hartmann, T. (2009). Media choice: A theoretical and empirical overview. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hartmann, T., & Vorderer, P. (2010). Moral disengagement in violent video games. Journal of Communication, 60, 94–119.

Jansz, J. (2005). The emotional appeal of violent video games for adolescent males. Communication Theory, 15(3), 219–241.

Jordan, A. B., & Woodard, E. H. (1998). Growing pains: Children's television in the new regulatory environment. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, 83–95.

Knobloch, S. (2003). Mood adjustment via mass communication. Journal of Communication, 53, 233–250.

Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2006). Mood management: Theory, evidence, and advancements. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), The psychology of entertainment (pp. 239–254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Krcmar, M., & Cooke, M. C. (2001). Moral development and children's interpretations of justified and unjustified television violence. Journal of Communication, 51, 300–316.

Krcmar, M., & Greene, K. (1999). Predicting exposure to and uses of violent television. Journal of Communication, 49, 25–45.

Krcmar, M., & Kean, L. (2004). Uses and gratifications of media violence: Personality correlates of viewing and liking violent genres. Media Psychology, 7(2) 72–93.

LaRose, R. (2009). Social cognitive theories of media selection. In T. Hartmann (Ed.), Media choice: A theoretical and empirical overview (pp. 10–31). New York, NY: Routledge.

Marvin, C. (2000). On violence in media. Journal of Communication, 4, 142–149.

Oliver, M. B. (2003). Mood management and selective exposure. In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen, & J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann (pp. 85–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

O'Neal, E. C., & Taylor, S. L. (1989). Status of the provoker, opportunity to retaliate, and interest in video violence. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 171–180.

Pajares, F., Prestin, A., Chen, J., & Nabi, R. L. (2009). Social cognitive theory and media effects. In R. L. Nabi & M. Oliver (Eds.), Media processes and effects (pp. 283–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Raney, A. A. (2006). Why we watch and enjoy mediated sports. In A. A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 313–329). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Raney, A. A., & Bryant, J. (2002). Moral judgment and crime drama: An integrated theory of enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 52, 402–415.

Riddle, K., Eyal, K., Mahood, C., & Potter, W. J. (2005). Judging the degree of violence in media portrayals. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 50, 270–286.

Robertson, J. W., Blain, N., & Cowan, P. (2005). The influence of friends and family vs. The Simpsons: Scottish adolescents media choices. Learning, Media and Technology, 30, 1, 63–79.

Rubin, A. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 8, 141–165.

Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B., & Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use and game preference. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing computer games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 248–262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Slater, M. D. (2003). Alienation, aggression, and sensation-seeking as predictors of adolescent use of violent film, computer and website content. Journal of Communication, 53, 105–121.

Slater, M. D., Henry, K. L., Swain, R. C., & L. L. Anderson, C. (2003). Violent media content and aggressiveness in adolescents. Communication Research, 30, 713–736.

Weaver, J. B., III (1991). Exploring the links between personality and media preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1293–1299.

Williams, R. B., & Clippinger, C. A. (2002). Aggression, competition and computer games: Computer and human opponents. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 495–506.

Zillmann, D. (2000). Mood management in the context of selective exposure theory. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 23 (pp. 103–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (Eds.) (1985). Selective exposure to communication (pp. 533–567). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zillmann, D., & Weaver, J. B. (1997). Psychoticism in the effect of prolonged exposure to gratuitous media violence on the acceptance of violence as a preferred means of conflict resolution. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 613–627.

FURTHER READING

Anderson, D. R., Collins, P. A., Schmitt, K. L., & Jacobvitz, R. S. (1996). Stressful life events and television viewing. Communication Research, 23, 243–260.

Bushman, B. J., & Stack, A. D. (1996). Forbidden fruit versus tainted fruit: Effects of warning labels on attraction to television violence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 207–226.

Conway, J. C., & Rubin, A. M. (1991). Psychological predictors of television viewing motivation. Communication Research, 18, 443–463.

Klimmt, C. (2003). Dimensions and determinants of the enjoyment of playing digital games: A three-level model. In M. Copier & J. Raessens (Eds.), Level up: Digital games research conference (pp. 246–257). Utrecht, Netherlands: Faculty of Arts, Utrecht University.

Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management: Using entertainment media to full advantage. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition and affect (pp. 147–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1977). Affective responses to the emotions of a protagonist. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 155–165.