Cartoon Violence - does it impact human behavior?

[Casper's 2nd best friend]

If only they could persuade Islamic state that all gods creatures should be loved.
[Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]

[PlaxMacaws]

Every time I see a cartoon that presents unprovoked violence against any being, it makes me consider just how much influence such materials may have (or may have had) upon the minds of children viewers. Subconsciously (and unfortunately) some young minds tend to reason as follows: "I see certain characters in cartoons assault one another and engage in acts of bullying upon various innocent characters... and it's always really funny to watch! So I think it should be okay to be funny like that in real life." Personally, I consider such material potentially dangerous for this very reason. Most folks trivialize it, however.

[Lady]

I know my kids felt that way Tony. I had to not allow them to watch Tom & Jerry because of the violence they would act upon each other. I learned very quickly to monitor what they saw on t.v. or movies. Even some Bugs Bunny was a bit much and I'm sure other's that I don't recall off hand.

[Mare]

The Roadrunner and Wiley Coyote is what this reminds me of and I have to say, it didn't trash my mind or my siblings. It's a cartoon for gosh sakes!.. Parenting, to me, makes more of an impression than cartoons

[PlaxMacaws]

The Roadrunner and Wiley Coyote is what this reminds me of and I have to say, it didn't trash my mind or my siblings. It's a cartoon for gosh sakes!.. Parenting, to me, makes more of an impression than cartoonsThe problem, Mare, is this: Just as is true with birds, humans are individuals who can possess unique inclinations. And that means stimuli which may not inspire certain behaviors in one child may well inspire those behaviors in another. I've seen direct evidence of children acting out cartoon violence before. Genetic propensity can certainly be a factor in the decisions some children make. And the same is true with adults. Moreover, the parenting skills of all parents are not equal. It thus seems illogical to me to hold the blanket view: "Since it didn't affect me or my family, it's not going to affect anyone else."

[Casper's 2nd best friend]

Oh, this wasn't the video I meant to post which is about the Syrian war. But an interesting discussion is happening so hey-ho. Can a moderator please give this thread a more appropriate title (it has nothing to do with the BBC) and I will start a new one with the Syrian pigeons.
Perhaps a more appropriate title would be "Cartoon violence"

[Mare]

Tony, you know you're going to miss me next week...like a toothache! :)

[PlaxMacaws]

Tony, you know you're going to miss me next week...like a toothache! :)That's not true at all, Mare. I always miss you when you're gone for a while. You know, you and I are really quite similar in that we are both prone to say what's on our minds - and we often do so whether our views are popular or not! I think the big difference between us -if there is one- is that each of us has undergone different life experiences. And of course that can be said for nearly everyone. After all, it's one's shoes and their personal history that forge their foundational values.

[PlaxMacaws]

Oh, this wasn't the video I meant to post which is about the Syrian war.I'm just gonna take a stab here... did that error perhaps occur because of YouTube's stupid default sequential loading/playing feature that automatically force feeds us videos with similar names once the one we chose to view has finished playing? I absolutely hate that feature! If someone viewing a video doesn't immediately click 'Cancel', their original URL becomes quickly replaced and they find themselves watching some other (often unrelated) video that begins loading and then plays without consent. I feel that whomever decided to implement this mechanism at YouTube should be mercilessly flogged! :mad: ;)

[Casper's 2nd best friend]

One of the wonders of the modern age which along with predictive texting and ebay suggesting other products similar but of no relevance to what you have just bought should all be outlawed.:)

[The Pinkertons]

I'll take a leap off the cliff here . I like to watch South Park !:anyone:

[LunaLovebird]

The relationship between violence in cartoons and child aggression is controversial. Some studies show evidence that there is a link, while others claim it to be more tenuous and that you have to consider / control for the way in which a child processes the information. This is dependant by a number of things, but most prominently IMO is a how perception and situational analysis is coloured by their life experience.

I personally don't buy that it does cause increased aggression. I did a brief literature search and most of the papers I saw that suggested it might came from the 70's, whereas more recent ones tend to disagree and address the nuances and other possible contributing factors. Even in the earlier studies, many disagreed with one another.

This review ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]) and this one ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]) were both good, as was this one ([Users must be registered and logged in to view attached photos or hyperlinks]).

The last one in particular made a good argument about the trivialisation of cartoon violence and that the added element of comedy masks the violence such that children and even adolescents don't recognise it as being violence, thereby minimising its influence. Some have countered this by saying that this trivialisation only serves to make it seem funny and might make children inclined towards it for the humour value, but there has been no evidence to support that notion. They also reviewed a number of more recent papers that found cartoon violence does increase aggressive thoughts, but not behaviour, which suggests that aggression is a lot more complex and multi faceted than the earlier papers might have assumed.

(Sorry about all the pay walls; I can access these through my institution and can help clarify the abstracts if needed)

[PlaxMacaws]

LunaLovebird: Thanks for your research and thoughtful assessment. And thanks as well for the cited positions and links you've provided.


The relationship between violence in cartoons and child aggression is controversial.Hence the reason this thread was moved to this subforum category :)


Some studies show evidence that there is a link, while others claim it to be more tenuous and that you have to consider / control for the way in which a child processes the information. This is dependant by a number of things, but most prominently IMO is a how perception and situational analysis is coloured by their life experience.I agree here. And that's why I said:


Just as is true with birds, humans are individuals who can possess unique inclinations. And that means stimuli which may not inspire certain behaviors in one child may well inspire those behaviors in another ... Genetic propensity can certainly be a factor in the decisions some children make. And the same is true with adults.

IMO, genetic predisposition for certain decisions in response to various situational stimuli, as well as for a proneness toward certain ensuing responsive behaviors (i.e., actions stemming from those decisions), cannot be ruled out. We know that personal experiences can color our perceptions of the world. We know that some individuals are not able to feel empathy for others as much as the rest of us might. Individuals prone toward low empathy, unfortunately, may well value humor above avoidance of harm to other beings. In my view, the combination of these elements most likely serves to incite gratuitous aggressive acts upon other beings (be they human or otherwise) among those affected. I think one line of cogent evidence that bolsters my view in this regard is available in cases where siblings who, although raised by the same parents, may have vastly different values and responses to similar situations. One child may evolve with the ability/inclination to empathize, whereas his brother or sister may demonstrate traits of sociopathy in varying degrees. I thus maintain that individual genetic configuration may be a significant determinant for how a person might react to cartoon violence during youth, as well as later in life. The stimuli we experience during our youth helps form our permanent values. When someone is predisposed toward sociopathy, they will interpret and evaluate scenarios involving aggression differently from those of us without that predisposition.


The last one in particular made a good argument about the trivialisation of cartoon violence and that the added element of comedy masks the violence such that children and even adolescents don't recognise it as being violence, thereby minimising its influence.I disagree with this view. I believe the opposite is true in that the comedic factor tends to trivialize the seriousness of imposing harm upon others.


Some have countered this by saying that this trivialisation only serves to make it seem funny and might make children inclined towards it for the humour valueAs just mentioned above, I agree with this view.


but there has been no evidence to support that notion.Perhaps studies that would be able to produce such evidence have not been funded appropriately.


They also reviewed a number of more recent papers that found cartoon violence does increase aggressive thoughts, but not behaviour, which suggests that aggression is a lot more complex and multi faceted than the earlier papers might have assumed.How does one reliably determine that aggressive thoughts present no significant risk for aggressive behaviors? I think the two are intimately connected.

Again, thanks for your assessment.

[Penny]

I think, like stated in many comments, the psychology of the child and how it is presented has much to do with it. My eldest sometimes got more violent when she watched that sort of thing when she was a tot, so I would occasionally have to restrict some things, and deflect to other shows, but my younger child didn't do the same at all, and it instead helped her conceptualize things and she would be more likely to say things like "That wouldn't work because" and launch into a science conversation. I think the most important thing in viewing things like this is to have a stable/ethical adult around to gage reactions and discuss things with the child about why that might be different in real life ect...

[PlaxMacaws]

That's reasonable, Penny. But it's a shame that every child doesn't have that :(