Negative Effects of Media on Youth: Causal Effect Analysis

Negative effectuate of Media on Youth causal Effect AnalysisNatasha NguyenWhy is it hard-fought to show that media causes harm to late commonwealth?IntroductionThe impact of the media on immature people has immense been an issue, with concern that unsalteder audiences be prejudici eachy rund by media. cause query has been used to determine whether media causes harm on young people. However, media make look into has its difficulties in generating viable results. This paper will outline why it is difficult to show a remove causal effect from media resulting in prejudicious outcomes and behaviours from young audiences. No media effect researchers believe in direct cause and a cohort of media scholars make valid claims supporting this statement. Barrie Gunter effectively explains the cogency problems with media set up research, with Albert Banduras famous Bobo Doll try out as an example. David Gauntletts views on the flaws of the effects model are also relevant to the word of honor and McQuail makes very constructive details on how audiences can choose how they let media postulate them. To further justify that it is difficult to show that media causes harm to people, the mentations discussed will be related to the case study of the murder of 2 year grey-headed James Bulger.Validity of Effects ResearchEarly media effects experiments, such(prenominal) as the Payne Fund Studies, consisted of children participants being placed in faux environments (Gunter 2008,p.1085). They were ply dosages of media violence controlled by researchers who then exposed them to environments where they could behave in bellicose paths if they choose to (Gunter 2008,p.1085). However, these studies have been criticized by scholars for lacking harshness (Sparks, Sparks Sparks 2009,p.272). The experiments were similarly far-fetched to leaven any feasible results about media effects as they were artificial taking users out of their natural habitats, feeding them media they would not usually put through and through and using unrealistic representatives for real-life violence (Ruddock 2013,p.27). Gunter (2008) is especially adequate at explaining the problems with inclemency in effects studies. He outlines the issues with conducting experiments in artificial settings. Participants are a contende(p) of researchers and act accordingly, doing what they thought the researcher wanted (Gunter 2008,p.1088). Gunter (2008,p.1102) reports how the selection of media extracts fed to participants were liberal of their original context and could be interpreted differently when embedded in their original source. Media effects research cannot be discussed without referencing Banduras (1963) Bobo Doll experiment (Sparks, Sparks Sparks 2009,p.272). The study illustrated that when watching a televised model commit aggressive actions, children were to a greater extent than likely to imitate the actions if the model was rewarded quite of punished (Sparks, Sparks Sparks 2009,p.272). This suggests an experience surrounded by aggressive media influences on the children to mimic the aggressive acts but Gunter (2008) cautioned against mistaking association for causation. There were umteen flaws to that experimentation, with even Bandura (2009,p.110) himself discussing the severe constraints tied to controlled experimentation.Flaws in the Effects placeIn response to traditional media effects studies, Gauntlett (1998) discusses the flaws of media effects studies, outlining why it cannot be used to prove that media causes direct harm to young people. Firstly, he discredits effects research for coming to genial problems backwards. Researchers start with ruby-red media and essay to find ways to connect it to social problems, such as aggression, instead of beginning with social problems to find their causes (Gauntlett 1998,p.214). Gauntlett (1998,p.216) also criticizes the effects model for treating children as inadequate and more mani pulable than adults, being influenced into behavior adults wouldnt be. He questions the validity of effects research by discussing the use of artificial studies, claiming that they are selective and based on the belief that the subjects will not diversity their behavior as a result of being observed (Gauntlett 1998,p.219). In examining some of the flaws that Gauntlett presents, it is clear that it is difficult to research media effects to show a direct causal effect as the methods traditionally used antagonise the validity of the results.Audiences Choices on EffectsThe influence media has ordinarily depends on audience motivations, as information conveyed is not what influences audiences but quite peoples self-determined reaction to this information (Petty, Brinol Priester 2009,p.126). Pieslack (2007) delves into this concept through his studies of unison and war. He states that people voluntarily expose themselves to the effects of media, citing soldiers at war as an example who become aggressive after listening to cut music because they want to become aggressive (Pieslack 2007,p.134). McQuail (1997,p.205) explains how typical effects models were comprehend as a one-way process of causality, from media to consumer, where the audience was viewed as a passive recipient of media content. However, individuals have unique tastes in media, with some more inclined to expose themselves to media violence (McQuail 1997,p.206). This destroys the notion of media messages being forced upon individuals unwillingly, evidencing that young audiences knowingly visit effects upon themselves (Ruddock 2013,p.28). Young people often admit from media because they choose to (Bandura 2009,p.97). This demonstrates the difficulty in showing that media causes harm to young people as in that location may be a correlation between aggression but there is no proof of direct causation, with sure individuals choosing to let media influence them (Gunter 2008,p.1095).Audiences Backg roundsMedia aggression does not have the same effects on everyone and some may be more susceptible than other(a)s to effects of media violence (Gunter 2008,p.1095). Individual media audiences have different psychological makeups that influence the way they respond to aggressive media (Gunter 2008,p.1112). The consumption of violence and aggression from media is complex and essential account for the audiences differing psychological profiles (Gunter 2008,p.1097). Media violence can produce aggression when diametrical with luxuriant social conditions (Ruddock 2013,p.35). We cannot assume that violence from media consumers is flat linked back to the media as there are more other influences which can cause aggression in individuals. Peer influences, family conflicts and other factors may all influence aggressive behaviour (Sparks, Sparks Sparks 2009,p.273). It has also been reviewed that negative effects of media violence were mostly visible among the poor, less educated and soci ally deprive (Ruddock 2013,p.35). This proves that violent media effects are mostly a risk for individuals whom already had difficult lives and as a result, it is difficult to prove a direct causal effect from violent media.The James Bulger MurderIn 1993, competition over media effects on children surfaced following the murder of two-year-old James Bulger by two ten-year-old boys, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. Bulgers body was found mutilated on a railway line two days after his murder. Though no evidence of it was brought to trial, violence in videos was considered a possible stimulus. There were many links do by the press between the crime and events in a pullulate called Childs Play 3 (Bignell 2002,p.134). Venables father had rented the film however, Venables did not live with his father and had neer seen the film (Bignell 2002,p.134). There was no way to connect the crime to the film and direct effects were never proven and authorities concluded that the crime was the c ase of two sick of(p) individuals acting on dark impulses, rather than on the influence of violent media. Thompson grew up in a brutal environment, being assaulted by quintuplet older brothers and an alcoholic mother. His tough upbringings may have produced aggression when paired with violent media. He could have chosen to let aggressive media influence him voluntarily, wanting to become more aggressive to deal with his surroundings. This underlines Pieslacks (2007) point about audiences voluntarily exposing themselves to media effects. The boys psychological makeup could account for their actions and their responses to aggressive media. Venables came from troubled family conditions, exhibited low self esteem and was temperamentally fragile. His difficult circumstances made him more vulnerable to the effects of media content, as discussed by Gunter (2008). It would be treat to assume that violent media directly caused the boys to commit the crime as there was no direct proof and a range of other factors intelligibly had influence on the pair.Concluding RemarksIt is difficult to show that media causes harm to young people and that a direct causal effect resulting in negative outcomes exists. The view that media has direct and powerful effects on audiences is more recognised by the general public than media effects scholars (Oliver Krakowiak 2009,p.517). Some researchers acknowledge that media violence can influence viewers but not in all circumstances, all audiences and not directly (Gunter 2008,p.1063). Media effects scholars such as Gunter, Gauntlett, Pieslack and McQuail discord with direct causal effects. In researching media effects through experimentation, results compiled are questioned for their validity as research conducted in artificial environment can bring forward unnatural participant responses. Aggressive behaviour cannot be solely goddamned on violent media content as there are many other factors which influence an individuals motives fo r being violent. As seen through the James Blumer case study, an individuals motives, psychological makeup and social background can influence the level of power media has over them and disproves the idea of direct effects.Reference ListGauntlett, D 1998, Ten Things Wrong with the Effects Model, in R Dickinson, R Harindranath O Linne (ed.), Approaches to Audiences A Reader, Arnold Publishers, London, pp.120-130Gunter, B 2008, Media Violence Is There a Case for Causality?, American behavioral Scientist, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 1061-1122McQuail,Oliver, M Krakowiak, K 2009, Individual Differences in Media Effects, in J Bryant M Oliver (ed.), Media Effects Advances in conjecture and Research, Routledge, New York, pp. 517-531Petty, R, Brinol, P Priester, J 2009, Mass Media Attitude Change Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion, in J Bryant M Oliver (ed.), Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research, Routledge, New York, pp. 517-531Pieslack, J 2007, Sound Targ ets Music and the War in Iraq, daybook of Musicological Research, vol.26, no. 2, pp. 129-149Ruddock, A 2013, Youth and Media, SAGE Publications, LondonSparks, G, Sparks, C Sparks, E 2009, Media Violence, in J Bryant M Oliver (ed.), Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research, Routledge, New York, pp. 269-286