10

Thoughtless Vigilantes

Media Violence and Brain Activation Patterns in Young Viewers

John P. Murray

Viewing Video Violence

A 16-year-old male who was an “accomplished” player of the violent videogame, Grand Theft Auto (GTA), carjacked an automobile from an elderly man, leaving him beaten and bloodied on the ground and drove recklessly down the highway. He was captured by police in a small town in Alabama and was taken to the police station for questioning and detainment. When one of the officers entered the interview room, the young man grabbed the officer's gun and shot him. He then exited the interview room and shot another officer investigating the sound of gunfire. He next shot the police radio dispatcher in the adjoining office. Each killing was a “clean shot to the head” of the victims. He then exited the police station, stole a police patrol car, and drove quickly down the highway. He was later captured by a team of heavily-armed police from the surrounding towns. When questioned, more carefully this time, by police officers, he informed them that he had learned to shoot “head shots” – very difficult but very effective target shooting – by playing GTA. He also learned to effect his escape from the interview room by surprising the police officer and using his own gun to kill him from . . . you guessed it, playing GTA. (Tuscaloosa News, September 18, 2007).

Now, if this was just an isolated incident, one might be tempted to dismiss this as a tragic but unusual happening. Alas, this is not a unique event and variations on this theme have occurred in many parts of the United States and elsewhere in the world; wherever Grand Theft Auto or Strike Force or legions of other similar “shooter” games are to be found in the hands of young males. The adolescent years are the years before full brain development – such as that of the frontal lobes involving judgment and reasoning – have emerged in the youngster. In recent years, psychologists and neuroscientists have joined with communication studies professionals to examine several facets of brain and behavior in the context of exposure to video violence (Anderson et al., 2006).

We know a great deal about the behavioral and attitudinal changes associated with viewing violence. Indeed, there is a long history of research on this topic, dating from the 1950s through to the present. Much of this research was focused on the impact of violence on television (see, Murray, 1973; Pecora, Murray, & Wartella, 2007) and, more recently, studies of videogame violence (Vorderer & Bryant, 2006). The addition of studies of brain activation patterns while viewing video violence (see, Murray et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2009) provide insights into the ways in which viewers “process” violence and enhance our understanding of the nature of video violence effects. So, what do we know about the behavioral and neurological effects of viewing violence? Is there a basis for speculating that viewing video violence or participating in the entertainment violence of videogames can produce neurological patterns, stored images and behavioral-repertoire guides that might increase the likelihood of violent acting-out among youngsters? Might these actions become somewhat automatic by having this aggressive repertoire “triggered” by threats in the social context; leading to “thoughtless vigilantes” who quickly respond to provocations with violence by leaning on the limbic system and other brain structures while bypassing the prefrontal cortex and rational decision-making that weighs the consequences of actions?

This chapter is designed to provide a review of the long history of research on behavioral effects of violence viewing and integrate the emerging evidence from neurological studies. We begin with the early research and concerns that set the stage for investigations of media violence.

Research and Social Concerns upon the Introduction of Television

The early studies of television's influence began almost simultaneously in England, and the United States and Canada, in the mid-1950s. They were designed to take advantage of the regulated introduction of the new medium. Later studies – in the 1970s – would revisit these issues and this research strategy when television was being introduced into isolated communities in Australia (Murray & Kippax, 1978) and Canada (MacBeth, 1996; Williams, 1986).

In England, a group of researchers at the London School of Economics and Political Science, under the direction of Hilde Himmelweit, a reader in social psychology, began the first study of children's television viewing patterns while TV was still relatively new (only three million TV sets were installed in the 15 million households in England). This study was proposed by the Audience Research Department of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) but was conducted by independent researchers. The research, begun in 1955, was published in a 1958 report, Television and the Child: An Empirical Study of the Effect of Television on the Young (Himmelweit, Oppenheim, & Vince, 1958). The US and Canadian study was conducted by Wilbur Schramm and his colleagues in communications at Stanford University. This project began in 1957 was published in a 1961 report, Television in the Lives of Our Children (Schramm, Lyle, & Parker, 1961).

The British and US/Canadian surveys provided a very important benchmark for understanding the broad and general effects of television on children. For example, Himmelweit et al. noted: “We have found a number of instances where viewers and controls differed in their outlook; differences which did not exist before television came on the scene. There was a small but consistent influence of television on the way children thought generally about jobs, job values, success, and social surroundings” (pp. 17–18). With regard to aggression, these correlational studies did not support an association. Himmelweit and her colleagues noted: “We did not find that the viewers were any more aggressive or maladjusted than the controls; television is unlikely to cause aggressive behaviour, although it could precipitate it in those few children who are emotionally disturbed. On the other hand, there was little support for the view that programmes of violence are beneficial; we found that they aroused aggression as often as they discharged it” (p. 20). The conclusions of Schramm, Lyle and Parker were something of a mantra:

But their conclusions also included the observation that those Canadian and US children who had high exposure to television and low exposure to print were more aggressive than those with the reverse pattern. Thus, the early correlational studies or surveys identified some areas of concern about television violence and set the stage for more focused investigations.

First Experimental Studies

Moving beyond these 1950s surveys, there was another set of studies that emerged in the early 1960s – not surveys or correlational studies but experimental studies that were addressed to cause and effect relationships in the TV-violence/aggressive-behavior equation. These initial experiments were conducted by Albert Bandura, at Stanford University, who studied preschool age children, and Leonard Berkowitz, at the University of Wisconsin, who worked with college-age youth. In both instances, the studies were experimental in design, which meant that subjects were randomly assigned to various viewing experiences and therefore the results of this manipulated viewing could be used to address the issue of causal relationships between viewing and behavior. The early Bandura studies, such as Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961) or Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963), were set within a social learning paradigm and were designed to identify the processes governing the ways that children learn by observing and imitating the behavior of others. In this context, therefore, the studies used stimulus films (videotape was not generally available) back projected on a simulated television screen, and the behavior of the children was observed and recorded in a playroom setting, immediately following the viewing period. Despite the structured nature of these studies, Bandura's research was central to the debate about the influence of media violence. Moreover, the work of Berkowitz and his colleagues, such as Effects of Film Violence on Inhibitions Against Subsequent Aggression (Berkowitz & Rawlings, 1963) or Film Violence and the Cue Properties of Available Targets (Berkowitz & Geen, 1966), studied the simulated aggressive behavior of youth and young adults following the viewing of segments of violent films, such as a Kirk Douglas boxing film, The Champion. The demonstration of increased willingness to use aggression against others following viewing, further fueled the debate about the influence of media violence.

Concern about the influence of TV violence began as early as the start of this new medium. The first Congressional hearings were held in the early 1950s (United States Congress, 1952; 1955). At these early hearings, developmental psychologist Eleanor Maccoby (1954) and sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld (1955) presented testimony that relied upon some early studies of violence in films, such as the 1930s' report, Boys, Movies and City Streets (Cressey & Thrasher, 1933) to outline a necessary program of research on the issue of TV violence and its effects on children.

As the 1960s progressed, concern in the United States about violence in the streets and the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy stimulated continuing interest in media violence. In response, several major government commissions and scientific and professional review committees were established, from the late 1960s through the 1990s, to summarize the research evidence and public policy issues regarding the role of television violence in salving or savaging young viewers.

The Five Principal US Commissions

The five principal US commissions and review panels – National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (Baker & Ball, 1969); Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior (1972; Murray, 1973); National Institute of Mental Health (1982) Television and Behavior Project; Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1982) Child and Television Drama Review; and the American Psychological Association Task Force on Television and Society (Huston et al., 1992) – have been central to setting the agenda for research and public discussion.

In 1982, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) published a 10-year follow up of the 1972 Surgeon General's study. The two volume report (National Institute of Mental Health, 1982; Pearl, Bouthilet, & Lazar, 1982), collectively titled, Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties, provided a reminder of the breadth and depth of knowledge that had accumulated on the issue of TV violence. In this regard, the NIMH staff and consultants concluded:

In 1986, the American Psychological Association (APA) empanelled a Task Force on Television and Society to review the research and professional concerns about the impact of television on children and adults. The nine psychologists assigned to this committee undertook reviews of relevant research, conducted interviews with television industry and public policy professionals, and discussed concerns with representatives of government regulatory agencies and public interest organizations. The final report, entitled Big World, Small Screen: The Role of Television in American Society (Huston et al., 1992), included the following observation about television violence:

The extent of concern – both social and scientific – is demonstrated by the fact that over the past half-century, about 1,000 reports have been published on the issue of TV violence (Murray, 1980; Pecora, Murray, & Wartella, 2007). Of course, only a small percentage of these thousands of pages represent original studies or research reports, but there is an extensive body of research on the impact of TV violence. Nevertheless, the research history is best described in terms of the nature of the research approaches: Correlational and experimental, and their variants cross-lagged panel studies and field studies.

Correlational Research

The demonstration of a relationship between viewing and aggressive behavior is a logical precursor to studies of the causal role that TV violence may play in promoting aggressive behavior. In the typical correlational studies that followed the Himmelweit et al., and Schramm et al. studies, such as those conducted for the Surgeon General's research program (Dominick & Greenberg, 1972; McLeod, Atkin, & Chaffee, 1972a, 1972b; Robinson & Bachman, 1972), the researchers found consistent patterns of significant correlations between the number of hours of television viewed or the frequency of viewing violent programs and various measures of aggressive attitudes or behavior. Also, another study, Atkin, Greenberg, Korzenny and McDermott (1979) found that heavy TV-violence viewers were more likely to choose physical and verbal aggressive responses to solve hypothetical interpersonal conflict situations (i.e., 45% of the heavy violence viewers chose physical/verbal aggressive responses vs. 21% of the low violence viewers). Similarly, a further study in this genre (Walker & Morley, 1991) found that adolescents who reported enjoying TV violence were more likely to hold attitudes and values favorable to behaving aggressively in conflict situations.

In another approach, a large database, the Cultural Indicators Project, has been used to explore the relationship between television portrayals and the viewer's fearful conception of the world. In a series of studies begun in the 1960s, George Gerbner and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (Gerbner, 1970; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994) have tracked public perceptions of society in relation to the respondent's extent of television viewing. Of relevance to the violence issue, these researchers have identified differences in the risk-of-victimization perceptions, described as the “mean world syndrome” effect, of light versus heavy viewers. The heavy viewers (usually, five or more hours per day) are much more fearful of the world around them than are light viewers (about two or fewer hours per day). When questioned about their perceptions of risk, heavy viewers are much more likely to overestimate (i.e., greater than the FBI crime reports for their locale would suggest) the chance that they will be the victim of crime in the ensuing six months, have taken greater precautions by changing the security of their homes or restricting their travels at night, and are generally more fearful of the world. As Gerbner et al. (1994) note:

Special-Case Correlational Research

Studies such as the early surveys clearly demonstrate that violence viewing and aggressive behavior are related but they do not address the issue of cause-and-effect. And yet, there are some special-case correlational studies in which “intimations of causation” can be derived from the fact that these studies were conducted over several time periods. There have been three major “panel” studies: A study funded by CBS (Belson, 1978), one funded by NBC (Milavsky, Kessler, Stipp, & Rubens, 1992), and the third funded by the Surgeon General's Committee and NIMH (Huesmann & Eron, 1986; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder, & Huesmann, 1972).

The CBS study (Belson, 1978) was conducted in England with 1,565 youths who were a representative sample of 13- to 17-year-old males living in London. The boys were interviewed concerning the extent of their exposure to a selection of violent television programs (broadcast during the period 1959 through 1971 and rated by members of the BBC viewing panel for level of violence) as well as each boy's level of violent behavior as determined by his report of how often he had been involved in any of 53 categories of violence over the previous six months. The degree of seriousness of the acts reported by the boys ranged from only slightly violent aggravation, such as taunting, to more serious and very violent behavior such as: “I tried to force a girl to have sexual intercourse with me”; “I bashed a boy's head against a wall”; “I burned a boy on the chest with a cigarette while my mates held him down”; and “I threatened to kill my father.” Approximately 50% of the 1,565 boys were not involved in any violent acts during the six-month period. However, of those who were involved in violence, 188 (12%) were involved in 10 or more acts during the six-month period. When Belson compared the behavior of boys who had higher exposure to televised violence to those who had lower exposure (and had been matched on a wide variety of possible contributing factors), he found that the high-violence viewers were more involved in serious interpersonal violence.

The NBC study (Milavsky, Kessler, Stipp, & Rubens, 1982) was conducted over a three-year period from May 1970 to December 1973 in two cities, Fort Worth and Minneapolis. Interviews were conducted with samples of second- to sixth-grade boys and girls and a special sample of teenage boys. In the elementary school sample, the information on television viewing and measures of aggression were collected in six time periods over the three years. The aggression measure consisted of peer ratings of aggressive behavior based on the work of Eron and his colleagues (Eron, Walder, & Lefkowitz, 1971). In the teenage sample there were five waves of interviews over the three years and the aggression measures were self-report rather than peer-reported aggression. In summarizing the results of this study, the authors concluded: “On the basis of the analyses we carried out to test for such a causal connection there is no evidence that television exposure has a consistently significant effect on subsequent aggressive behavior in the [elementary school] sample of boys.” (Milavsky et al., 1982, p. 482). Similar null findings were reported for the elementary school girls and the teenage boys. However, re-analyses of these data by Kenny (1984) and Cook and his associates (Cook, Kendzierski, & Thomas, 1983) have concluded that there are small but clear causal effects in the NBC data and that these effects become stronger when analyzed over longer time periods through successive waves of interviews.

Finally, one of the longest panel studies, 22 years, is the work of Leonard Eron and his colleagues (Eron, 1963, 1982; Husemann & Eron, 1986; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz & Walder, 1984; Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder & Huesmann, 1972). In the initial studies, conducted for the Surgeon General's investigation of TV violence (Lefkowitz et al., 1972), the researchers were able to document the long-term effects of violence viewing by studying children over a 10-year period from age 8 to age 18. At these two time periods, the youngsters were interviewed about their program preferences and information was collected from peer ratings of aggressive behavior. The violence levels of their preferred TV programs and other media and measures of aggression across these two time periods suggested the possibility that early television violence viewing was one factor in producing later aggressive behavior. In particular, the findings for 211 boys followed in this longitudinal study demonstrated that TV violence at age 8 was significantly related to aggression at age 8 (r = .21) and the 8-year-old violent TV preferences were significantly related to aggression at age 18 (r = .31), but TV violence preferences at age 18 were not related to aggressive behavior at the earlier time period, age 8 (r = .01). When other possible variables, such as parenting practices and discipline style, were controlled, it was still clear that early media violence could be part of the cause of later aggressive behavior. Furthermore, in a follow-up study, when these young men were now age 30 (Huesmann et al., 1984), the authors found a significant correlation (r = .41) between TV violence levels at age 8 and serious interpersonal criminal behavior (e.g., assault, murder, child abuse, spouse abuse, rape) at age 30.

Behavioral to Neurological – Connections

Research conducted over the past 50 years leads to the conclusion that televised violence does affect viewers' attitudes, values, and behavior (Hearold, 1986; Murray, 1994; Paik & Comstock, 1994). In general, there seem to be three main classes of effects – aggression, desensitization, and fear:

• Aggression: Heightened levels of viewing televised violence can lead to increases in aggressive behavior and/or changes in attitudes and values favoring the use of aggression to solve conflicts;
• Desensitization: Extensive violence viewing may lead to decreased sensitivity to violence and a greater willingness to tolerate increasing levels of violence in society;
• Fear: Extensive exposure to television violence may produce the “mean world syndrome” in which viewers overestimate their risk of victimization.

Although the body of research on the effects of viewing television violence is extensive and fairly coherent in demonstrating systematic patterns of influence, we know surprisingly little about the processes involved in the production of these effects. Although we know that viewing televised violence can lead to increases in aggressive behavior or fearfulness and changed attitudes and values about the role of violence in society, it would be helpful to know more about how these changes occur in viewers.

To set the context for the continuing research – within the broad framework of a social learning paradigm – we know that changes in behavior and thoughts can result from observing models in the world around us, be they parents, peers, or other role models, such as those provided by mass media. The processes involved in “modeling” or imitation and vicarious learning of overt behavior were addressed in social learning theories in the 1960s (Bandura, 1962, 1969; Berkowitz, 1962, 1965) but we need to expand our understanding of the neurological processes that might govern the translation of the observed models into thoughts and actions.

As a start in this new direction, both Bandura (1994) and Berkowitz (1984) have provided some theoretical foundations for the translation of communication “events” into thoughts and actions. Bandura's “social-cognitive” approach and Berkowitz's outline of a “cognitive-neoassociation” analysis, posit a role for emotional arousal as an affective tag that may facilitate lasting influences. As Bandura (1994) notes: “People are easily aroused by the emotional expressions of others. Vicarious arousal operates mainly through an intervening self-arousal process. . . . That is, seeing others react emotionally to instigating conditions activates emotion-arousing thoughts and imagery in observers.” (p. 75). With regard to aggression, we know that viewing television violence can be emotionally arousing (e.g., Cline, Croft, & Courrier, 1973; Osborn & Endsley, 1971; Zillmann, 1971, 1982) but we lack direct measures of cortical arousal or activation patterns in relation to violence viewing.

The pursuit of neurological patterns of cortical arousal in violence viewing would likely start with the amygdala because it has a well-established role in the control of physiological responses to emotionally arousing or threatening stimuli (Damasio, 1994, 1999; Kosslyn & Koenig, 1995; LeDoux, 1996; LeDoux & Hirst, 1986; Ornstein, 1997; Panksepp, 1998; Steward, 2000). Indeed, a recent National Research Council (1993) report from the Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior, concludes:

Thus, one suggestion for further research on the impact of media violence is to assess some of the neurological correlates of viewing televised violence. In particular, the use of videotape of violent scenes can serve as the ideal stimulus for assessing activation patterns in response to violence. These neurobiological studies hold the key to understanding the ways in which children might respond to seeing violence in entertainment and this might also be the key to thinking about the desensitization to violence, or what some might describe as a “drugging” effect on the developing child. To assess this possibility, we embarked on an initial study of children's brain activations while the youngsters viewed violent and non-violent video program material. We reasoned that there may be similarities between the ways humans respond to the threats of physical violence in the real world and the neurobiological response to so-called “entertainment” violence.

Beginnings of Brainmapping

We can begin our quest with some notions and expectations drawn from previous research suggesting that we might find the “threat recognition” system – involving the limbic system and right hemisphere of the brain – as an area that will be activated while viewing video violence. The development of hypotheses about violence viewing and brain activation, however, needs to start with research on physiological arousal (e.g., Osborn & Endsley, 1971; Zillmann, 1982; Zillmann & Bryant, 1994) and link this to cortical arousal (Davidson & Tomarken, 1989; Davidson, Ekman, Saron, Senulis, & Friesen, 1990; Ekman & Davidson, 1993, 1994; Ekman, Davidson, & Friesen, 1990).

In our pilot study (Murray et al., 2006), we found that both violent and nonviolent viewing activated regions implicated in aspects of visual and auditory processing. In contrast, however, viewing TV violence selectively recruited right precuneus, right posterior cingulate, right amygdala, bilateral hippocampus and parahippocampus, bilateral pulvinar, right inferior parietal and prefrontal, and right premotor cortex. Thus, TV violence viewing appears to activate brain areas involved in arousal/attention, detection of threat, episodic memory encoding and retrieval, and motor programming. These areas are important because they are likely indicators of the perception of threat and possible long-term memory storage of the threat-event (particularly, these patterns are similar to the memory storage of traumatic events by PTSD patients. These activation patterns demonstrate that video violence viewing selectively activates right hemisphere, and some bilateral areas, that collectively suggest significant emotional processing of video violence.

Our continuing research at Harvard Medical School, Children's Hospital Boston is designed to address these questions about violence viewing in a more robust study that employs a larger and more differentiated sample of children who have had differing experiences with violence (e.g., children who are identified as high or low in aggressive tendencies and children who have been victims of abuse). We will continue to use the methods and procedures that were demonstrated to be effective in the pilot study – we will conjoin measures of physiological arousal (e.g., GSR, heart rate) with neuroimaging techniques (e.g., functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging – fMRI) to track the emotional and neurological processes involved in viewing televised violence. We anticipate finding clear differences in the three groups of children, with the victims of violence – the abused youngsters – being most responsive to viewing media violence and the aggressive youngsters being the least responsive to the entertainment violence; this is the desensitization effect that results from extensive violence viewing and acting out the violence witnessed in the entertainment world of film, television, and videogame violence. In the past five or six years, there has been a great expansion in research interest in the connection of behavioral and neurological patterns related to video violence viewing. In particular, interest has focused on the role of the prefrontal cortex in mediating or moderating the violence viewing and aggression relationships. Several recent papers have provided new insights on this fascinating area of research.

Exploring the Prefrontal Cortex

The most ambitious program of research in this area is the work of a group at the University of Indiana Medical School (e.g., Kronenberger et al, 2005a; Mathews et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2009). In their early research, the team focused on the issue of frontal lobe activation in aggressive and non-aggressive adolescents while viewing video violence in an MRI.

In one of the early studies (Kronenberger et al., 2005b), the Indiana team examined the relationship between media violence exposure in television and videogames in aggressive versus non-aggressive adolescents. They interviewed 27 adolescents (13–17 years) diagnosed as having Disruptive Behavior Disorders (DBD) with Aggressive Features and 27 controls who were matched for age, gender, and IQ, concerning their exposure to violence on television and videogames. The results indicated that the DBD-aggressive youngsters had higher aggregate media violence exposure, higher exposure to videogame violence, and higher parent-reported exposure to television violence than their matched controls. Indeed, exposure to television violence tended to be accompanied by exposure to videogame violence. Moreover, the relation between media violence and DBD was not due to the spurious effects of gender or IQ.

This initial finding encouraged the team to pursue the possible links between brain activation patterns while watching video violence. In the next study (Mathews et al., 2005), the team used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to explore frontal lobe activation in aggressive and non-aggressive adolescents. In an initial visit, subjects were given diagnostic assessments and media violence interviews. Aggressive adolescents (28 with Disruptive Behavior Disorder with aggressive features) and non-aggressive control adolescents (43) were given a semi-structured interview concerning media violence exposure and a media violence exposure index (MEVI) was constructed for each adolescent. In the second visit, the adolescents were presented with an executive functioning task (the Counting Stroop, or CS task) while in the MRI scanner of the aggressive DBD students, 19 successfully completed the CS task at 70% or better accuracy. These 19 DBD adolescents were matched (on age, gender, and IQ) with 19 controls who had also completed the CS task successfully. Analysis of the fMRI scans showed differences in executive processing patterns in the DBD adolescents when compared to the controls. The main area of interest was the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), and the middle frontal gyrus (MFG). The results demonstrated sharp differences between the aggressive teens and the controls – the entire control group showed significant activation of the ACC, left MFG, and Left IFG, while the aggressive teens showed activation only in the MFG, bilaterally. The main conclusion in this analysis is the fact that frontal lobe activation is reduced in aggressive (DBD) teens and this is reinforced by the finding that even in the control subjects, those with high media violence exposure demonstrated similarlarly reduced prefrontal activation, rather like the aggressive teens. Thus, the authors conclude that high media violence exposure alters brain activation patterns in both aggressive and control subjects and is responsible for reduced prefrontal control and executive function processing.

As a follow-on to these findings, the Indiana team (Wang et al., 2009), conducted a study that even a short-term exposure to a violent videogame changes both the frontal cortex and limbic system functioning in adolescents. In this case, the adolescents played a violent or nonviolent videogame within 10 minutes prior to an fMRI scan that involved measures of executive functioning (the Counting Stroop task). The adolescents (13–17 years) were screened for any history of neurologic or psychiatric disorders and 44 youngsters were selected on the basis of absence of pathology. The random assignment to two groups of 22 teens assigned to play either a violent videogame (Medal of Honor) or a nonviolent videogame (Need for Speed) demonstrated that the groups did not differ on age, IQ, or gender. All youngsters were interviewed about their media violence exposure (MEM) and were given 30-minutes training in learning and practicing to play whichever game was assigned. On the following visit, the youngsters played their assigned game for 30 minutes, immediately (within 10 minutes) to the fMRI scans. The subjects were given two tasks in the MRI, the traditional Counting Stroop task, a measure of executive functioning and attentional control, and the Emotional Stroop task involving emotion-laden violent and nonviolent words which are likely to activate the limbic system, particularly the amygdala. The results demonstrated that the youngsters who played the violent videogame (Medal of Honor) showed more activity in the amygdala (right) and less activation in the medial prefrontal cortex MFPC) while the teens who played the nonviolent game (Need for Speed) demonstrated activations of the prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulated cortex, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Indeed, there was a distinct uncoupling of activation with the amygdala in the nonviolent videogame group. Thus, the study demonstrates that even short-term involvement with violent videogame playing can significantly alter neural circuitry in the execution of cognitive and emotional tasks during fMRI scans.

Other researchers, Kelly and Grinband (2007) have shown that repeated exposure to media violence is associated with diminished response in the frontolimbic network. In particular, repeated exposure to violent media (but not exposure to other active but nonviolent media) results in reduced right lateral orbitofrontal cortex (ltOFC) and a decreased interaction with the amygdala. Thus, violent media can result in diminished responsiveness to a brain network that is associated with behavioral reactive aggression.

So, what have we learned about neurological and behavioral correlations in relation to media violence? Clearly, we are in the beginning stages of this line of inquiry, but we begin to see the patterns of potential influence. It is possible that repeated exposure to media violence may lead to changes in both the prefrontal cortex and limbic system interactions that may disrupt the processing of aggressive, emotion-laden information. The result may be an increase in aggressive behavior and/or the triggering of excessive aggression in response to provocations. The fact that aggressive and emotional arousing perceptions seem to be stored in the posterior cingulate gives rise to the possibility that these aggressive action patterns might become the instant-recall of a guide for social behavior. Hence, the possibility of the production of “thoughtless vigilantes.” Clearly, we need to be more “thoughtful” about our studies of media violence, aggression, and the neuro-cognitive processing of our daily experiences.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Portions of this essay have been published previously and are reprinted here with permission: Murray, J. (2010). Media violence: The effects are both real and strong. American Behavioral Scientist, (51)8, 1212–1230. Copyright © 2005 by SAGE Publications. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. R., Bryant, J., Murray, J. P., Rich, M., Rivkin, M. J., & Zillmann, D. (2006). Brain imaging – An introduction to a new approach to studying media processes and effects. Media Psychology, 8(1), 1–6.

Atkin, C. K., Greenberg, B. S., Korzenny, F., & McDermott, S. (1979). Selective exposure to televised violence. Journal of Broadcasting, 23(1), 5–13.

Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through imitation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Bandura, A. (1969). Social learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213–262). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Bandura, A. (1994). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 61–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. H. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575–582.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. H. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 3–11.

Belson, W. (1978). Television violence and the adolescent boy. Farnborough, UK: Saxon House, Teakfield.

Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Berkowitz, L. (1965). Some aspects of observed aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 359–365.

Berkowitz, L. (1984). Some effects of thoughts on anti- and prosocial influences of media events: A cognitive-neoassociation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 110–427.

Berkowitz, L., & Geen, R. G. (1966). Film violence and the cue properties of available targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 525–530.

Berkowitz, L., & Rawlings, E. (1963). Effects of film violence on inhibitions against subsequent aggression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 405–412.

Cline, V. B., Croft, R. G., & Courrier, S. (1973). Desensitization of children to television violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(3), 360–365.

Cressey, P. G., & Thrasher, F. M. (1933). Boys, movies, and city streets. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Putnam.

Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

Davidson, R. J., & Tomarken, A. J. (1989). Laterality and emotion: An electrophysiological approach. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (pp. 419–441). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.

Davidson, R. J., Ekman, P., Saron, C., Senulis, J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). Emotional expression and brain physiology I: Approach/withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 330–341.

Dominick, J. R., & Greenberg, B. S. (1972). Attitudes toward violence: The interaction of television exposure, family attitudes, and social class. In G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubenstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior. Vol. 3: Television and adolescent aggressiveness (pp. 314–355). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (1993). Voluntary smiling changes regional brain activity. Psychological Science, 4(5), 342–345.

Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (1994). The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). The Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain physiology II. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 342–353.

Eron, L. (1963). Relationship of TV viewing habits and aggressive behavior in children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 193–196.

Eron, L. (1982). Parent child interaction, television violence and aggression of children. American Psychologist, 27, 197–211.

Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. (1982). The child and television drama: The psychosocial impact of cumulative viewing. New York, NY: Mental Health Materials Center.

Hearold, S. (1986). A synthesis of 1043 effects of television on social behavior. In G. Comstock (Ed.), Public communication and behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 65–133). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Himmelweit, H. T., Oppenheim, A. N., & Vince, P. (1958). Television and the child: An empirical study of the effect of television on the young. London, UK/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Huesmann, L. R., & Eron, L. D. (Eds.). (1986). Television and the aggressive child: A cross-national comparison. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1120–1134.

Huston, A. C., Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H., Feshbach, N. D., Katz, P. A., Murray, J. P. et al. (1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Kelly, C. R., & Grinband, J. (2007). Repeated exposure to media violence is associated with diminished response in inhibitory frontolimbic network. PloS ONE, 2(12), e1268.

Kosslyn, S. M., & Koenig, O. (1995). Wet mind: The new cognitive neuroscience. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kronenberger, W. G., Mathews, V. P., Dunn, D. W., Wang, Y., Wood, E. A., Giauque, A. L. et al. (2005a). Media violence exposure and executive functioning in aggressive and control adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 725–737.

Kronenberger, W. G., Mathews, V. P., Dunn, D. W., Wang, Y., Wood, E. A., Larsen, J. J. et al. (2005b). Media violence exposure in aggressive and control adolescents: Differences in self- and parent-reported exposure to violence on television and in videogames. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 201–216.

LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

LeDoux, J. E., & Hirst, W. (Eds.) (1986). Mind and brain: Dialogues in cognitive neuroscience. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lefkowitz, M., Eron, L., Walder, L., & Huesmann, L. R. (1972). Television violence and child aggression: A follow up study. In G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior. Vol. 3: Television and adolescent aggressiveness (pp. 35–135). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

MacBeth, T. M. (1996). Tuning in to young viewers: Social science perspectives on television. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mathews, V. P., Kronenberger, W. G., Wang, Y., Lurito, J. T., Lowe, M. J., & Dunn, D. W. (2005). Media violence exposure and frontal lobe activation measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging in aggressive and non-aggressive adolescents. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 29(3), 287–292.

McLeod, J. M., Atkin, C. K., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972a). Adolescents, parents, and television use: Adolescent self-report measures from Maryland and Wisconsin samples. In G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior. Vol. 3: Television and adolescent aggressiveness (pp. 173–238). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

McLeod, J. M., Atkin, C. K., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972b). Adolescents, parents, and television use: Self-report and other measures from the Wisconsin sample. In G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior. Vol. 3: Television and adolescent aggressiveness (pp. 239–313). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Milavsky, J. R., Kessler, R. C., Stipp, H. H., & Rubens, W. S. (1982). Television and aggression: A panel study. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Murray, J. P. (1973). Television and violence: Implications of the Surgeon General's research program. American Psychologist, 28(6), 472–478.

Murray, J. P. (1980). Television and youth: 25 years of research and controversy. Boys Town, NE: The Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth and Development.

Murray, J. P. (1994). The impact of televised violence. Hofstra Law Review, 22(4), 809–825.

Murray, J. P., & Kippax, S. (1978). Children's social behavior in three towns with differing television experience. Journal of Communication, 28(1), 19–29.

Murray, J. P., Liotti, M., Ingmundson, P., Mayberg, H. S., Pu, Y., Zamarripa, F. et al. (2006). Children's brain response to TV violence: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) of video viewing in 8–13-year-old boys and girls. Media Psychology, 8(1), 25–37.

National Institute of Mental Health. (1982). Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties. Vol. 1: Summary report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

National Research Council. (1993). Understanding and preventing violence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ornstein, R. (1997). The right mind: Making sense of the hemispheres. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

Osborn, D. K., & Endsley, R. C. (1971). Emotional reactions of young children to TV violence. Child Development, 42(1), 321–331.

Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21(4), 516–546.

Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Pearl, D., Bouthilet, L., & Lazar, J. (Eds.). (1982). Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties. Vol. 2: Technical reviews. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Pecora, N., Murray, J. P., & Wartella, E. (2007). Children and television: Fifty Years of research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Robinson, J. P., & Bachman, J. G. (1972). Television viewing habits and aggression. In G. A. Comstock & E. A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior. Vol. 3: Television and adolescent aggressiveness (pp. 372–382). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E. B. (1961). Television in the lives of our children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Steward, O. (2000). Functional neuroscience. New York, NY: Springer.

Strenziok, M., Krueger, F., Pulaski, S. J., Openshaw, A. E., Zamboni, G., van der Meer, E. et al. (2010). Lower lateral orbitofrontal cortex density associated with more frequent exposure to television and movie violence in male adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 607–609.

Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior. (1972). Television and growing up: The impact of televised violence. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Tuscaloosa News. (2007, September 18). Appeals court to hear Moore case.

Walker, K. B., & Morley, D. D. (1991). Attitudes and parental factors as intervening variables in the television violence-aggression relation. Communication Research, 8(2), 41–47.

Wang, Y., Mathews, V. P., Kalnin, A. J., Mosier, K. M., Dunn, D. W., Saykin, A. J. et al. (2009). Short-term exposure to a violent video game induces changes in frontolimbic circuitry in adolescents. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 3, 38–50.

Williams, T. M. (Ed.) (1986). The impact of television: A natural experiment in three communities. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Zillmann, D. (1982). Television viewing and arousal. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties. Vol 2: Technical reviews (pp. 53–87). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1994). Entertainment as media effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 437–461). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

FURTHER READING

Anderson, D. R., Fite, K. V., Petrovich, N., & Hirsch, J. (2006). Cortical activation while watching video montage: An fMRI study. Media Psychology, 8(1), 7–24.

Eron, L. D., Gentry, J. H., & Schlegel, P. (Eds.). (1994). Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on violence and youth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Ormrod, R., Hamby, S., & Kracke, K. (2009). Children's exposure to violence: A comprehensive national survey. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

Gadow, K. D., & Sprafkin, J. (1993). Television violence and children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1(1), 54–63.

Grimes, T., Vernberg, E., & Cathers, T. (1997). Emotionally disturbed children's reactions to violent media segments. Journal of Health Communication, 2(3), 157–168.

Hasson, U., Nir, Y., Levy, I., Fuhrmann, G., & Malach, R. (2004). Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity during natural vision. Science, 303, 1634–1640.

Hummer, T. A., Wang, Y., Kronenberger, W. G., Mosier, K. M., Kalnin, A. J., Dunn, D. W. et al. (2010). Short-term violent video game play by adolescents alters prefrontal activity during cognitive inhibition. Media Psychology, 13, 136–154.

Langleben, D. D., Loughead, J. W., Ruparel, K., Hakun, J. G., Busch-Winokur, S., Holloway, M. B. et al. (2009). Reduced prefrontal and temporal processing and recall of high-sensation value: Ads. NeuroImage, 46(1), 219–225.

Lim, S., & Reeves, B. (2009). Being in the game: Effects of avatar choice and point of view on psychophysiological responses during play. Media Psychology, 12, 348–370.

Matsuda, G., & Hiraki, K. (2006). Sustained decrease in oxygenated haemoglobin during video games in the dorsal prefrontal cortex: A NIRS study of children. NeuroImage, 29(3), 706–711.

Murray, J. P. (1998). Studying television violence: A research agenda for the 21st Century. In J. K. Asamen & G. L. Berry (Eds.), Research paradigms, television, and social behavior (pp. 369–410). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Murray, J. P. (2000). Media effects. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 153–155). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Murray, J. P. (2001). TV violence and brainmapping in children. Psychiatric Times, 17(10), 70–71.

Shinichiro, N., Miki, N., Yamashita, Y., Takashima, S., & Matsuishi, T. (2006). Prefrontal cerebral blood volume patterns while playing video games: A near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain and Development, 28(5), 315–321.

Talairach, J., & Tournoux, P. (1988). Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers.

Toga, A. W., & Maziotta, J. C. (1996). Brain mapping: The methods. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Weber, R., Ritterfield, U., & Mathiak, K. (2006). Does playing violent video games induce aggression? Empirical evidence of a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Media Psychology, 8(1), 39–60.

Vuilleumier, P., & Pourtois, D. (2007). Distributed and interactive brain mechanisms during emotion face perception: Evidence from functional neuroimaging. Neuropsychologia, 45(1), 174–194.

Zillmann, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 419–434.