BCIFV home > Media Releases > June 26, 2000

For Immediate Release
Contact: Penny Bain, (604) 669-7055
June 26, 2000

Opinion Piece:

The price of entertainment violence
We can pay now or later; one way or the other, we will pay

by Penny Bain and Lynne Melcombe
BC Institute Against Family Violence

Does violent entertainment make people violent? There is evidence that it does. A 1987 study noted that the more violent the programs children watch at age one, the more aggressive they tend to be at age 19, and the more serious the crimes for which they are convicted at age 30.

Yet this can't be the only factor. As Courtney Heard, whose letter to the Vancouver Sun was published on June 15, noted,

"My friends and I watch about five movies a week . Most are action movies . However, my friends and I have not formed a gang, stolen any cars or killed anyone. Why not? Because our parents raised us in such a way that we know the difference between right and wrong."

At the BC Institute Against Family Violence, we agree that the critical factor lies in the way children are raised. However, this does not mean there is no reason to decrease entertainment violence. On the contrary, research suggests that reducing violence in our society depends on reducing family violence, and a vital element of that is reducing entertainment violence.

If this sounds contradictory, bare with us: Recent and well-publicized brain research shows violence in the home shapes young lives from the earliest months of life. Stress hormones too frequently released in the infant brain by even the sounds of violence can cause damage that increases the likelihood of aggression as the child grows.

Why would parents behave violently around infants? Experience shows that most people who live in violent relationships have been predisposed to do so by their early experiences.

This is not to say that all people who are physically abused become abusers. In fact, most don't. But as Stuart Hart, director of the Office for the Study of the Psychological Rights of the Child at Purdue University has pointed out, the violence that most powerfully directs development is not physical but psychological. Psychological maltreatment, he says, is a stronger predictor than physical or sexual abuse of violent outcomes in an individual's life.

At a conference sponsored by BCIFV in Vancouver last fall, Hart defined psychological maltreatment as "a repeated pattern or extreme incident(s) of conditions which convey the message that the child is worthless, flawed, unloved, endangered, or only valuable in meeting someone else's needs." It can include spurning, terrorizing, isolating, exploiting, and denying emotional responsiveness. It's also been noted that children who grow up in homes marked by spousal abuse can suffer the effects of psychological maltreatment without ever being hit.

If simply witnessing violence can have a detrimental effect on child development, are all children who watch violent entertainment as much at risk as children who witness spousal violence? No. A 1995 study by Wendy Josephson, available through Health Canada's National Clearinghouse on Family Violence, indicated that the children most likely to be affected negatively by entertainment violence are those who see it as a reflection of violence in their lives.

Should we forget about reducing entertainment violence because so few are affected by it? Josephson thinks not, because although the children most negatively affected by violent entertainment are in the minority, they are likely to comprise the majority of aggressors.

How then should we address the childhood roots of violence?

First and foremost, we must focus on efforts to reduce family violence. This is not a simple matter. It's a complex and time-consuming quest to teach parents and parents-to-be about the importance of non-violent child rearing.

Why "complex and time-consuming"? Because the individuals who most need this information are the ones whose life experiences have made them least likely to seek it.

Thus to reach those who might eventually be at greatest risk of hurting their children, we must get to them when they're young. We must protect them from the harm that can permanently alter the way they respond to the world, teach them how and why to avoid unplanned pregnancies, and help them acquire positive parenting skills before they become parents.

But even with a full commitment from governments and individuals, this would take generations. In the meantime, some children will continue to fall through the cracks. Knowing this, we must, as a society, do what we can to minimize the damage they suffer due to family violence.

The only way we can do this is by taking broad-brush measures that may mitigate the effects of family violence -- or at least not exacerbate it. One of the most effective ways we can take such measures is through entertainment, and particularly children's entertainment, both by minimizing violent content and ensuring that as much content as possible conveys strong, non-violent values.

Is reducing entertainment violence to protect a minority of children an intrusion on the rights of the majority? Some people think so but we disagree, for several reasons.

First, we question whether any majority has a right to participate in activities that may be harmful to others simply because they are the majority.

Second, while violent entertainment only directly affects a minority of people, we must add to their numbers those who are directly affected by the violence committed by that minority.

Third, most people are indirectly affected by violence. These are often people who complain about intrusions on their rights in the forms of rising taxes and decreased quality of life, yet remain blind to the fact that these "intrusions" arise from violence generally, and family violence specifically.

There is no question that entertainment violence contributes to violence in our society overall. There is also no question that we all pay a price for violence. The only questions are how, when, and how much. To our minds, settling for less violence in our entertainment now seems a lower price than continuing to accept the alternatives.

- 30 -

Penny Bain is executive director and Lynne Melcombe is communications consultant at the BC Institute Against Family Violence.