what is the attitude in the thesis statement media violence

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How Violent Media Can Impact Your Mental Health

Cynthia Vinney, PhD is an expert in media psychology and a published scholar whose work has been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals.

Steven Gans, MD is board-certified in psychiatry and is an active supervisor, teacher, and mentor at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Carol Yepes / Getty Images

• Violent Media & Aggresssion
• Controversy
• Violent Media & Mental Health
• How to Help Your Child

When to Seek Therapy

One of the most studied—and most controversial—topics in media psychology is the impact of violent media on consumers, especially children. Violence in is movies, on television, in video games, and on the internet. It's also included in content aimed at kids, tweens, and teens, and therefore, it's no surprise that psychologists, parents, and media consumers, in general, are concerned about the impact it has on people.

As a result, ever since the advent of television decades ago, psychologists have investigated the possibility of a link between the consumption of violent media and increases in real-life aggression.

This article will explore the research on this topic including arguments for and against an association. In addition, this article will examine newer research that has found a relationship between exposure to violent content, especially via news media, and mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety .

Does Consuming Violent Content Lead to Increased Aggression?

Studies have consistently shown that media violence has an impact on real-life aggression . These studies use a diverse set of methods and participants, leading many experts on the impact of media violence to agree that aggression increases as a result of media violence consumption.

However, that doesn't mean exposure to media violence drives consumers to murder or other particularly violent acts. These studies explore different kinds of aggression, making the association the research has established between violent media and aggression more nuanced than it initially appears.

Evidence for a Link Between Violent Content and Aggression

Many experiments in labs have provided evidence that demonstrates that short-term exposure to violent media increases aggression in children, teenagers, and young adults. However, aggression doesn't always mean physical aggression. It can also mean verbal aggression , such as yelling insults, as well as thinking aggressive thoughts or having aggressive emotions.

There Varying Degrees of Aggression

Moreover, even physical aggression exists on a continuum from a light shove to something far more dangerous. As a result, people may become more aggressive immediately following exposure to media violence but that aggression manifests itself in a variety of different ways, a majority of which wouldn't be considered particularly dangerous.

Consuming Violent Media During Childhood May Result in Adult Aggression

More disturbing are the few longitudinal studies that have followed people over decades and have shown that frequent exposure to media violence in childhood results in adult aggression even if people no longer consume violent media as adults.

For example, one study found that frequent exposure to violent television at age 8 predicted aggressive behavior at ages 19 and 30 for male, but not female, participants. This effect held even after controlling for variables like social class, IQ , and initial aggressiveness.

Similarly, another study that surveyed 329 participants between the ages of 6 and 9 found that 15 years later the exposure of both males and females to television violence in childhood predicted increased aggression in adulthood. In particular, the 25% of study participants who viewed the most media violence in childhood were the most likely to be much more aggressive in adulthood.

These individuals exhibited a range of behaviors including:

• Shoving their spouses
• Beating people up
• Committing crimes

This was especially true if they identified with aggressive characters and felt that television violence was realistic when they were children.

These findings suggest that frequent early exposure to television violence can have a powerful impact on individuals over time and well into their adult lives.

Why Is This Topic So Controversial?

So if there's so much research evidence for a link between media violence and real-world aggression, why is the debate over this topic ongoing? Part of the issue is one of definition.

Studies often define violence and aggression in very different ways and they use different measures to test the association, making it hard to replicate the results. Moreover, many researchers edit together media for lab experiments , creating a situation where participants must watch and react to media that bears minimal resemblance to anything they'd actually consume via TV, movies, or the internet.

As a result, even when these experiments find media violence causes aggression, the extent to which it can be generalized to the population as a whole is limited.

Of course, it would be naïve to think that consuming media violence has no impact on people, but it appears it may not be the most powerful influence. The effect of media violence is likely to vary based on other factors including personality traits, developmental stage, social and environmental influences, and the context in which the violence is presented.

It's also important to recognize that not all aggression is negative or socially unacceptable. One study found that a relationship between exposure to television violence and an increase in positive aggression, or aggression that isn't intended to cause harm, in the form of participation in extreme or contact sports.

Does Consuming Violent Media Lead to Mental Health Issues?

While psychologists have been studying the association between the consumption of violent media and increased aggression for well over 50 years, more recently, some have turned their attention to the impact of media violence on mental health concerns.

Consumption of Violent Media May Lead to Anxiety

Studies have demonstrated that there's a correlation between exposure to media violence and increased anxiety and the belief that the world is a scary place. For instance, an experimental investigation found that late adolescents who were exposed to a violent movie clip were more anxious than those who watched a nonviolent clip.

These findings suggest that the regular consumption of violent media could lead to anxiety in the long-term .

Constant Exposure to Violent Media Via Technology May Lead to Poorer Mental Health

Today, the violence shown on the news media may especially impact people's mental health. New technology means that violent events, including terrorist attacks, school shootings , and natural disasters, can be filmed and reported on immediately, and media consumers all over the world will be exposed to these events almost instantly via social media or news alerts on their smartphones and other devices.

Moreover, this exposure is likely to be intense and repeated due to the need to fill a 24-hour news cycle. Studies have shown that this kind of exposure, especially to acts of terrorism, has the potential to lead to depression , anxiety, stress reactions, substance use, and even post-traumatic stress (PTSD).

Plus, those who take in more images of a disaster tend to be more likely to experience negative mental health consequences. For example, in a study conducted shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, people who viewed more television news reports about what happened in the seven days after the event had more symptoms of PTSD than those who had viewed less television news coverage.

How to Cope With the Impact of Media Violence

Violence will continue to be depicted in the media and, for most adults, there's nothing wrong with watching a violent horror or action movie or playing a violent video game, as long as it doesn't impair your mental health or daily functioning.

However, if you feel you're being negatively impacted by the violence depicted in the media, especially after a disaster that's getting constant coverage on the news, the first solution is to stop engaging with devices that could lead to further exposure.

This means turning off the TV, and for anyone who frequently looks at the news on their computers or mobile devices, adjusting any settings that could lead you to see more images of a violent event.

How You Can Help Your Child

For parents concerned about children's exposure to violent media, the solution isn't to attempt to prevent children from consuming violence altogether, although limiting their exposure is valuable.

Instead, parents should co-view violent media with their children and then talk about what they see. This helps children become discerning media consumers who can think critically about the content they read, watch, and play.

Similarly, when a disturbing event like a school shooting happens it's valuable to discuss it with children so they can express their emotions and parents can put the incident in the context of its overall likelihood.

If a parent notices their child seems depressed or anxious after frequent exposure to media violence or an adult notices their mental health is suffering due to regular consumption of violent media, it may be valuable to seek the help of a mental health professional .

Anderson CA, Berkowitz L, Donnerstein E et al. The Influence of Media Violence on Youth .  Psychological Science in the Public Interest . 2003;4(3):81-110. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2003.pspi_1433.x

Huesmann LR, Eron LD.  Television And The Aggressive Child: A Cross-National Comparison . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1986.

Huesmann LR, Moise-Titus J, Podolski C-L, Eron LD. Longitudinal relations between children's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977-1992 .  Dev Psychol . 2003;39(2):201-221. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.201

Giles D.  Psychology Of The Media . London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010.

Giles D.  Media Psychology . Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers; 2003.

Slotsve T, del Carmen A, Sarver M, Villareal-Watkins RJ. Television Violence and Aggression: A Retrospective Study.  Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice . 2008;5(1):22-49.

Madan A, Mrug S, Wright RA. The Effects of Media Violence on Anxiety in Late Adolescence .  J Youth Adolesc . 2013;43(1):116-126. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0017-3

Pfefferbaum B, Newman E, Nelson SD, Nitiéma P, Pfefferbaum RL, Rahman A. Disaster Media Coverage and Psychological Outcomes: Descriptive Findings in the Extant Research .  Curr Psychiatry Rep . 2014;16(9). doi:10.1007/s11920-014-0464-x

Ahern J, Galea S, Resnick H, Vlahov D. Television Images and Probable Posttraumatic Stress Disorder After September 11: The Role of Background Characteristics, Event Exposures, and Perievent Panic .  Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease . 2004;192(3):217-226. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000116465.99830.ca

The Conversation. Here's How Witnessing Violence Harms Children's Mental House .

By Cynthia Vinney, PhD Cynthia Vinney, PhD is an expert in media psychology and a published scholar whose work has been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals.

Advertisement

The Influence of Media Violence on Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: An Examination of Inmates’ Domestic Violence Convictions and Self-Reported Perpetration

• Original Article
• Published: 20 June 2021
• Volume 39 , pages 177–197, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Samantha M. Gavin 1 &
• Nathan E. Kruis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2076-314X 2  

11k Accesses

3 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Research suggests that the representation of violence against women in the media has resulted in an increased acceptance of attitudes favoring domestic violence. While prior work has investigated the relationship between violent media exposure and violent crime, there has been little effort to empirically examine the relationship between specific forms of violent media exposure and the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Using data collected from a sample of 148 inmates, the current study seeks to help fill these gaps in the literature by examining the relationship between exposure to various forms of pleasurable violent media and the perpetration of intimate partner violence (i.e., conviction and self-reported). At the bivariate level, results indicate a significant positive relationship between exposure to pleasurable television violence and self-reported intimate partner abuse. However, this relationship is reduced to insignificant levels in multivariable modeling. Endorsement of domestic violence beliefs and victimization experience were found to be the strongest predictors of intimate partner violence perpetration. Potential policy implications based on findings are discussed within.

Similar content being viewed by others

Self-negation

Male sexual victimization by women: incidence rates, mental health, and conformity to gender norms in a sample of british men.

Examining the short and long-term impacts of child sexual abuse: a review study

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In the United States, more than 12 million men and women become victims of domestic violence each year [ 76 ]. In fact, every minute, roughly 20 Americans are victimized at the hands of an intimate partner [ 3 ]. Although both men and women are abused by an intimate partner, women have a higher likelihood of such abuse, with those ages 18–34 years being at the highest risk of victimization. Moreover, it is estimated that approximately 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men experience violence at the hands of an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime [ 77 ].

According to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women [ 78 ], the representation of violence against women in the media has greatly increased over the years. Recent research suggests that women are commonly depicted as victims and sex objects in the media [ 12 , 69 ]. Portraying women in this way, media via pornography, pornographic movies, and music videos, has been found to increase attitudes which are supportive of violence, specifically sexual violence, against women. Notably, in relation to violence in general, research suggests that the media’s portrayal of women as sex objects and victims, tends to influence societal attitudes that are accepting of domestic violence, particularly violence against women [ 40 , 43 , 46 , 69 ].

Understanding the influence of media violence on an individual’s perceptions of domestic violence could help gain a better understanding of the factors that contribute to an individual’s domestic violence tendencies, as well as to gain a better understanding of how to lessen such tendencies. Not only can the influence of media violence on domestic violence perceptions be addressed, but specific media forms can be identified as to the level of influence that each form of media has on such perceptions as well. Understanding how exposure to media violence influences domestic violence perceptions, in comparison to the influence of media aggression on domestic violence perceptions, will allow for an overall perspective of how violent media in general influences domestic violence perpetration. Accordingly, the present study seeks to provide an empirical assessment of the relationship between violent media exposure and the perpetration of intimate partner abuse.

Literature Review

Although society believes that exposure to media violence Footnote 1 causes an individual to become violent, research has cast doubt on this belief, stating that violent media does not directly influence violent behavior at a highly correlated statistically significant level [ 2 , 4 , 21 , 22 , 65 , 85 ]. In relation to media aggression Footnote 2 and domestic violence perceptions however, research has demonstrated a relationship between the two variables [ 11 , 12 , 23 , 35 , 39 , 41 , 47 ], such that an increased level of exposure to media aggression, for example, video games and movies depicting aggression towards women, influences individuals to become more accepting of aggression toward women.

Domestic Violence

According to The United States Department of Justice [ 75 ], domestic violence is defined as “a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner” (para. 1). Emotional/psychological, verbal, physical, sexual, and financial abuse [ 42 , 84 ], as well as digital abuse, are the different types of abuse that can occur amongst intimate partners.

In the United States alone, domestic violence hotlines received approximately 20,000 calls per day [ 51 ], with at least five million incidents occurring each year [ 34 ]. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the likelihood for domestic violence incidents to occur increased, while a victim’s ability to call and report decreased [ 18 ], due to individuals being locked down at home, being laid-off, or working from home. In examining the 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men who experience domestic violence at the hands of an intimate partner, 1 in 3 and 1 in 4, respectively, have experienced physical abuse [ 3 ], with 1 in 7 women and 1 in 25 men obtaining injuries from the abuse [ 51 ]. In addition, 1 in 10 women have been raped by an intimate partner, while the data on the true extent of male rape victimization is relatively unknown [ 51 ]. Even though domestic violence crimes make up approximately 15% of all reported violent crimes [ 77 ], almost half go unreported [ 57 ], due to various reasons (i.e., concerns about privacy, desire to protect the offender, fear of reprisal [ 19 ], relationship to the perpetrator [ 20 ]).

There are several risk factors that increase an individual’s likelihood of perpetrating domestic violence. Individuals who witnessed domestic violence between their parents [ 1 , 17 , 44 , 49 , 61 , 73 ], or were abused as children themselves [ 32 , 44 , 68 , 71 , 79 , 81 ], are more likely to perpetrate domestic violence than individuals who did not witness or experience such abuse. Research has found men who witnessed abuse between their parents had higher risk ratios for committing intimate partner violence themselves [ 61 ] and were more likely to engage in such violence [ 49 ], than men who did not witness such violence as children. Research has also shown that male adolescents who witnessed mother-to-father violence were more likely to engage in dating violence themselves [ 73 ]. Similarly, scholars have found women who witnessed intimate partner violence between their parents were over 1.5 times more likely to engage in such violence themselves [ 49 ], and adolescent girls were more likely to engage in dating violence when they witnessed violence between their parents [ 73 ]. Child abuse victims were more likely to perpetrate intimate partner violence as they aged, with 23-year-olds demonstrating a significant relationship compared to 21-year-olds [ 44 ], and males who identified as child abuse victims were found to be four times more likely to engage in such violence than males who had no history of such abuse [ 49 ]. Overall, both males and females who experienced child-family violence Footnote 3 were more likely to engage in both reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence [ 49 ].

Research has also found that being diagnosed with conduct disorder as a child or antisocial personality disorder as an adult, also increases the likelihood of domestic violence perpetration [ 7 , 8 , 17 , 31 , 45 , 81 ], with antisocial personality disorder being a mediating factor between child abuse and later intimate partner violence perpetration [ 81 ]. Additionally, individuals who demonstrate antisocial characteristics during adolescence are at an elevated risk of engaging in domestic violence as adults [ 45 ]. Another key factor that influences domestic violence perpetration is having hostile attitudes and beliefs [ 5 , 37 , 48 , 49 , 70 ], with such attitudes being more of a predictive factor of intimate partner abuse than conduct problems [ 8 ]. Both men and women who approve of intimate partner violence are more likely to engage in or reciprocate such violence compared to those without such perceptions [ 49 ].

Media Violence and Crime

Media violence and behavior.

It has been long speculated that media violence is directly related to violent behavior and perpetration of violent crime, such as intimate partner abuse [ 6 , 14 33 , 50 ]. However, research has found very weak evidence demonstrating a correlation between exposure to media violence and crime, with Pearson’s r correlations of less than 0.4 being indicated in most studies in this area [ 2 , 21 , 22 , 64 , 65 , 85 ]. In fact, Savage [ 64 ] determined that exposure to violent activities through the media does not have a statistically significant relationship with crime perpetration. Likewise, Ferguson and colleagues’ [ 21 , 22 ] work supported these findings, indicating that “exposure to television [violence] and video game violence were not significant predictors of violent crime” [ 21 ] (p. 396).

More recently, Savage and Yancey [ 65 ] conducted a meta-analysis of thirty two studies that tested the relationship between media violence (i.e., television or film) and criminal aggression. Lester (1989), Krittschnitt, Heath, and Ward (1986), Lagerspetz and Viemerö (1986), Phillips (1983), Berkowitz and Macaulay (1971), and Steuer, Applefield, and Smith (1971) were among the evaluated studies. Collectively, Savage and Yancey [ 65 ] concluded that the results from their analysis suggested that a relationship between violent media exposure and criminal aggression had not been established in the existing scholarly literature. Although there was evidence of a slight, positive effect of media violence on criminal aggression found for males. However, the authors noted several limitations among each of the evaluated studies that questions the generalizability of findings. As such, there is need for more work to be done in this area before firm conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between violent media exposure and violent behaviors.

Media aggression and violence against women

Although research has demonstrated a lack of or weak correlation between media violence and violent behavior, research has found a moderate positive correlation between exposure to media aggression and domestic violence perceptions. Such research has found significant relationships between exposure to media aggression and a variety of delinquent perceptions, ranging from views on rape [ 47 , 67 ] to domestic violence [ 11 , 12 , 39 ]. These views support and accept the rape of women and abusive tendencies towards an intimate partner.

For instance, Malamuth and Check [ 47 ] examined how exposure to movies that contained high levels of violence and sexual content, especially misogynistic content, influenced one’s perceptions. Individuals who watched such content were more likely to have rape-supportive attitudes than individuals who were not exposed to such movies. Simpson Beck and colleagues [ 67 ] found that rape supportive attitudes were more common among individuals who played video games that sexually objectified and degraded women. Such individuals were more likely to accept the belief that rape is an acceptable behavior and that it is the woman’s fault if she is raped, compared to individuals who did not play such video games.

Related, Cundiff [ 12 ] classified the songs on the Billboard’s Hot 100 chart between 2000 and 2010 into categories such as rape/sexual assault, demeaning language, physical violence, and sexual conquest, and found that throughout these songs, the objectification and control of women were common themes. In surveying individuals in relation to their exposure to such music, a positive correlation was found between an individual’s exposure to suggestive music, and their misogynous thinking [ 12 ]. Further, Fischer and Greitemeyer [ 23 ] found that individuals who listened to more aggressive music were more likely to have negative views of and act more aggressively towards women. Likewise, Kerig [ 39 ] and Coyne and colleagues [ 11 ] found that individuals who are exposed to higher levels of media aggression are more likely to perpetrate domestic violence offenses. This suggests that an increased exposure to media aggression influences an individual’s perceptions of domestic violence, and could, subsequently influence the perpetration of domestic violence.

Cultivation Theory

A theoretical explanation for a relationship between violent media exposure and the perpetration of violent crime can be found in Cultivation Theory. Cultivation Theory assumes that “when people are exposed to media content or other socialization agents, they gradually come to cultivate or adopt beliefs about the world that coincide with the images they have been viewing or messages they have been hearing” [ 28 ] (p. 22). Essentially, this cultivation manifests into individuals mistaking their “world reality” with the “media reality,” thus increasing the likelihood of violence [ 26 ] (p. 350). Individuals who are exposed to violent media, are more likely to perceive their reality as filled with the same level of violence, resulting in an increased likelihood of the individual acting violently themselves. By identifying one’s reality with the “media reality,” individuals create their own social constructs and begin to believe that the violence demonstrated in the media is acceptable in life as well.

This cultivation and social construction creation based off of media is demonstrated through Kahlor and Eastin’s [ 38 ] examination of the influence of television shows on rape myth acceptance. Individuals who watched soap operas demonstrated race myth acceptance and an “overestimation of false rape accusations”, while individuals who watched crime shows were less likely to demonstrate rape myth acceptance [ 38 ] (p. 215). This demonstrates how the type of television show an individual watches, can influence how and what individuals learn from such viewing.

In relation to domestic violence perception, individuals who are exposed to violence in intimate relationships, or sexual aggression, whether through the media or in real life, are more likely to support or accept such actions over time [ 12 , 28 ]. A longitudinal study conducted by Williams [ 82 ], examined cultivation effects on individuals who play video games. It was found that individuals who played video games at higher rates began to fear dangers which they experienced through the video games, demonstrating how individuals adopt beliefs based on their media exposure. Therefore, according to Cultivation Theory, individuals who are exposed to higher levels of violent media, are likely to learn from the media, and act based on this learning [ 12 , 28 , 82 ]. In relation to domestic violence, this work suggests that it is reasonable then to hypothesize that individuals who are exposed to higher levels of media violence are more likely to become supportive or accepting of domestic violence actions.

Limitations of Previous Work

While prior research has explored the relationship between exposure to media aggression and domestic violence perceptions [ 11 ], [ 12 , 23 , 39 , 47 , 67 ], to date, we are unaware of research that has focused specifically on exploring the relationship between one’s level of exposure to media violence and domestic violence perceptions. As a result, the relationship between violent media exposure and domestic violence has yet to be fully examined. Further, research focusing specifically on media aggression, media violence, and violence perpetration has predominately focused on specific types of media (i.e., video games, movies, songs), often with the media platform and materials provided to the study participants by researchers. To date little research has investigated multiple forms of self-exposure to violent media and criminal perpetration. Moreover, previous research has failed to examine the effects of pleasure gained from such exposure, as we speculate that individual’s will be less likely to engage in consumption of media they find unpleasurable. Subsequently, the effects of media exposure are largely dependent on one’s disposition toward the content – which, admittedly, over time can be shaped by the content itself. Thus, we suggest that prior tests focusing exclusively on simulated exposure without consideration of pleasure have been incomplete.

Moreover, while there are scales that measure domestic violence perceptions (e.g., The Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence Questionnaire – Revised (PADV-R) , The Definitions of Domestic Violence Scale , The Attitudes toward the Use of Interpersonal Violence – Revised Scale , and various others compiled by Flood [ 25 ]), they are very specific in nature, making it difficult to use such scales outside of the specified nature for which they were created. In fact, these scales fail to examine the actual perceptions an individual has towards domestic violence, and when they do, they tend to examine domestic violence perpetrated by men, and not women. Thus, the current study sought to help fill some of these gaps in the literature.

Current Focus

There were three overarching goals driving the current project:

First, we sought to create a psychometrically sound scale capable of measuring intrinsic endorsement of domestic violence beliefs.

Second, we were interested in assessing the relationship between intrinsic endorsement of domestic violence beliefs and domestic violence perpetration.

Third, we wanted to explore the relationship between various types of violent media exposure (i.e., video game, movie, television) and domestic violence perpetration.

Data and Method

The data used in this study came from a sample of incarcerated offenders in two jails in New York and a prison in West Virginia. A sample of 148 convicted offenders Footnote 4 were surveyed between April 2018 and September 2018. The sampling procedure was one of convenience, in a face-to-face manner. A student intern at the prison asked inmates with whom she came into contact if they would be willing to take the survey. Such surveys were administered individually. For one of the jails, all inmates participating in educational classes were asked by the researcher to take the survey. Such surveys were administered in a group setting. A sign-up sheet was also placed in each pod for inmates to sign-up for survey participation. Each individual on the list was brought to a room occupied by only the researcher, with surveys being administered individually. For the second jail, correctional officers made an announcement in one of the pods, asking those who were interested in participation to let them know. Such inmates were individually brought to a room occupied by the researcher with a plexiglass wall between them. The surveys were administered via paper hard copy, with a researcher present to answer any questions the participants had throughout the survey process. Due to working with a vulnerable population, confidentiality was key. Confidentiality was maintained by not allowing any correctional staff in the room when the surveys were taken, and informed consent documents were kept separate from the surveys. Respondents were informed that their decision to participate in the study was completely voluntary, and that information would not be shared with law enforcement or anyone within the jail.

Dependent Variables

Domestic violence perpetration.

Two measures were used to assess domestic violence perpetration. First, participants were asked if they had been convicted of a domestic violence offense. While this is a good indication of domestic violence perpetration, it is not the “best” measure, as many persons who commit domestic violence are never convicted of the crime. As such, we employed a second measure of domestic violence perpetration. Specifically, participants were also asked if they had ever abused an intimate partner. Response categories were a dichotomous “yes” (1) or “no” (0).

Independent Variables

Endorsement of domestic violence beliefs.

We were interested in assessing the relationship between the intrinsic endorsement of domestic violence beliefs and domestic violence perpetration. Unfortunately, at the time of the study, the research team was not aware of any psychometrically sound measure of intrinsic endorsement of domestic violence beliefs available in the scholarly literature. Thus, we sought to create one. Specifically, we used an eighteen-item self-report scale to capture respondents’ intrinsic support of domestic violence. Some items included, “A wife sometimes deserves to be hit by her husband,” “A husband who makes his wife jealous on purpose deserves to be hit,” and “A wife angry enough to hit her husband must really love him.” Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the eighteen items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Responses were summed to create a scale measure of intrinsic support of domestic violence beliefs with higher scores indicative of greater support of domestic violence. As indicated in Table 1 , these items loaded onto one latent factor in an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.974).

Violent media exposure

Prior research assessing the relationship between violent media exposure and crime has found mixed results [ 2 , 11 , 12 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 39 , 47 , 64 , 65 , 67 , 85 ]. However, most of this work has employed only one measure of media exposure and has ignored the pleasure that one may receive from violent media – that is, whether they get enjoyment from the content. In an attempt to fill these gaps in the literature we considered three types of violent media exposure: (1) video games, (2) movies, and (3) television. Consistent with recommendations made by Savage and Yancey [ 65 ] our measures include an estimate of both media exposure (e.g., time) and rating of violence. Specifically, participants were asked to report the number of hours that they spent playing videogames, watching movies, and watching television each week. Next, they were asked to indicate the percentage of violence (0–100%) in the games, movies, and television they played and watched. Additionally, participants were asked to report how pleasurable they found the video games, movies, and television that they played and watched (coded, 0 = “Not Pleasurable” through 10 = “Very Pleasurable”). Responses to each of the three questions in the different blocks of media were multiplied together to create a scale measure assessing pleasurable violent media exposure with higher numbers indicative of greater pleasurable violent media exposure.

Control Variables

Four measures were used as control variables in this study: (1) age, (2) sex, (3) race, and (4) domestic violence victimization, as research has not examined if such victimization is related to victims’ perpetration of intimate partner violence. Specifically, participants were asked if they had ever been abused by an intimate partner. Responses were also dichotomous with 1 = “yes” and 0 = “no.” Age was a continuous variable ranging from 18 years old to 95 years old. Sex and race were dichotomous variables (i.e., 1 = “male” or “white” and 0 = “female” or “other”). Specifically, participants were asked if they had ever been abused by an intimate partner. Responses were also dichotomous with 1 = “yes” and 0 = “no.”

Analytic Strategy

Data analysis proceeded in three key stages. First, all data were cleaned, coded, and univariate analyses were constructed to assess measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion. Missing data were assessed using Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test. The significant MCAR test ( p  < 0.05) indicated that data were not missing at random, and as such, it would be inappropriate to impute the missing data for multivariable analyses. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was also run to help support the creation of our intrinsic endorsement of domestic violence beliefs scale. A Principal Axis Factor Analysis (PAFA) was selected as the EFA technique because the constructs are latent. Second, bivariate analyses were run to support the construction of multivariable models. Third, multivariable models were constructed. Given the dichotomous coding of the two outcome measures assessing domestic violence perpetration, we used logistic regression as the primary multivariate analysis.

Descriptive Information

Table 2 displays the demographic information for the sample, as well as the descriptive statistics for key variables of interest. As indicated in Table 2 , overall, the sample had an average age of 35.81 years. Most participants were male (91%) and identified as white (77%). About 45 percent of the sample reported being a victim of domestic violence. Regarding violent media exposure, participants indicated greater exposure to pleasurable violence in movies ( M  = 36.40, sd  = 41.87) than to pleasurable violence in television ( M  = 29.73, sd  = 38.73) and video games ( M  = 22.58, sd  = 38.66). In the aggregate, participants did not show much intrinsic support for domestic violence ( M  = 34.02, sd  = 18.22). However, 16.2 percent of the sample had been convicted of a domestic violence offense and 34.5 percent had admitted to abusing an intimate partner.

Bivariate Correlations

Table 3 displays the results from zero-order correlations between variables of interest. As indicated in Table 3 , only one variable, endorsement of domestic violence beliefs ( r  = 0.202, p  < 0.05), was statistically significantly correlated with a domestic violence conviction at the bivariate level. Results suggest that as one’s intrinsic support for domestic violence increases, so too does the likelihood that they have been convicted of a domestic violence offense. Interestingly, this variable was not statistically significantly correlated with the “self-reported” measure of domestic violence perpetration ( r  = 0.101, p  > 0.05). However, four other variables were found to be statistically significantly correlated with a participant’s self-reported domestic violence perpetration. These variables included being a male ( r  =  − 0.177, p  < 0.05), being a victim of domestic violence ( r  = 0.637, p  < 0.01), television violence ( r  = 0.179, p  < 0.05), and having a domestic violence conviction ( r  = 0.182, p  < 0.05). Results indicate that males were less likely to report abusing an intimate partner than were females. Further, results show that those who had been a victim of domestic violence, those who had greater exposure to pleasurable television violence, and those who had been convicted of a domestic violence offense, were more likely to report abusing an intimate partner than those in reference groups. The weak correlation between our two dependent measures supports the use of the two separate multivariable models reported below.

Multivariable Models

Table 4 shows the results from logistic regression models estimating domestic violence convictions and self-reported domestic violence perpetration. The first model in Table 4 assessed the correlates of having a domestic violence conviction. Overall, the model fit the data well and explained about 14 percent of the variance in domestic violence in having a domestic violence conviction (Nagelkerke’s R 2  = 0.142). However, there was only one statistically significant predictor in that model, endorsement of domestic violence beliefs ( b  = 0.033, p  < 0.05). Results show that a one-unit increase in intrinsic support for domestic violence was associated with a 1.033 increase in the odds of being convicted of a domestic violence offense.

The second model in Table 4 depicts the results from the logistic regression model estimating self-reported domestic violence perpetration. Overall, the model fit the data well and explained nearly 55 percent of the variance in abusing an intimate partner (Nagelkerke’s R 2  = 0.548). Interestingly, endorsement of domestic violence beliefs was not a significant predictor in this model ( b  = 0.004, p  > 0.05). In fact, the only statistically significant predictor in that model was our measure of domestic violence victimization ( b  =  − 3.533, p  < 0.001). Results suggest that victims of domestic violence were 34.48 times less likely to report abusing an intimate partner than were non-victims, controlling for all other relevant factors. It is important to note that none of the measures of exposure to pleasurable media violence were related to either of our measures of domestic violence perpetration [ 74 , 83 ].

Much of the prior work assessing the relationship between exposure to violent media and crime perpetration has ignored the pleasure component of media exposure and failed to assess multiple forms of violent media simultaneously while controlling for the endorsement of criminogenic beliefs and other relevant factors (e.g., prior victimization). The current exploratory project sought to help fill these gaps in the literature. Specifically, the current project had three main goals: (1) to establish a psychometrically sound measure of intrinsic support for domestic violence, (2) to assess the relationship between intrinsic support for domestic violence and domestic violence perpetration, and (3) to analyze the relationship between pleasurable violent media exposure and two different measures of domestic violence perpetration (i.e., conviction and “self-report”) while controlling for appropriate covariates (e.g., prior victimization, endorsement of domestic violence, etc.). Our research, using data from a sample of convicted offenders ( N  = 148), yielded several key findings worth further consideration.

First, results from Exploratory Factor Analysis showed that we were able to effectively create a psychometrically sound measure of intrinsic support for domestic violence. We encourage other researchers to adopt this 18-item measure of intrinsic support for domestic violence to use in future projects as both a predictor and an outcome measure. Future research should also explore how these beliefs come to be. Perhaps more importantly, though, through our data analyses we were able to establish a relationship between intrinsic support for domestic violence and being convicted of a domestic violence offense. That is, our results show that offenders who hold beliefs that favor the emotional and physical abuse of an intimate partner are more likely to have been convicted of a domestic violence offense than those who do not hold such views. This finding suggests that in order to help prevent domestic violence, researchers and practitioners need to develop strategies to avert, disrupt, or reverse the internalization of such beliefs. We suggest that targeting adolescents who are at risk of experiencing child abuse or witnessing abuse between their parents, may help prevent such individuals from internalizing the acceptance of such beliefs and reduce the chances that they will grow up to perpetrate domestic violence, as prior research indicates that they are a high-risk group Footnote 5 [ 36 , 52 ]. For partners who have already engaged in violence toward one another, cognitive behavioral therapy programs, such as Behavioral Couples Therapy [ 53 , 54 , 62 ], are effective at changing domestic violence perceptions and reducing future violence [ 29 , 63 ].

Second, we did not find much support for a relationship between violent media exposure and domestic violence perpetration, questioning the effects of media cultivation. At the bivariate level, pleasurable violent television exposure was found to exhibit a small, positive effect on self-reported intimate partner abuse ( r  < 0.20) [ 9 ]. This finding suggests that, at the bivariate level, as one’s exposure to pleasurable violent television increases, so too does the likelihood that they self-report abusing an intimate partner. However, this relationship was reduced to insignificant levels in a multivariable modeling controlling for age, gender, race, endorsement of domestic violence beliefs, and prior victimization. In fact, no measure of pleasurable violent media exposure was significantly related to domestic violence perpetration in multivariable modeling. Thus, the current study supports prior research indicating no relationship between media violence and violent crime perpetration [ 21 , 22 , 64 , 65 ], and suggests that other variables (i.e., endorsement of domestic violence beliefs, and victimization), not violent media, are responsible for driving individuals to committing violent crimes.

Third, our work highlights the importance of the role prior victimization plays in criminal perpetration. Interestingly, at the bivariate level, domestic violence victimization at the hands of an intimate partner was unrelated to a domestic violence conviction, but significantly and positively related to admitting to abusing an intimate partner. In fact, the relationship between being a victim of domestic violence and admitting to abusing an intimate partner was very strong ( r  = 0.637) [ 9 ]. This finding suggests that individuals who have been previously victimized at the hands of an intimate partner, are at an increased likelihood of abusing an intimate partner themselves. However, in multivariable modeling, this relationship switched directions, and prior victimization was found to be negatively related to self-reported domestic violence perpetration. In fact, with the addition of appropriate statistical controls in multivariable modeling, our findings suggest that those who had been abused by an intimate partner were more than 34 times less likely to report abusing an intimate partner. This is an interesting and difficult finding to interpret because it opposes prior work indicating that victimization experiences, especially among the young [ 32 , 44 , 71 , 81 ], and witnessing domestic violence [ 1 , 17 , 44 , 49 , 61 , 68 , 73 , 79 ], can be positively related to perpetration. Initially, we speculated that the reason for this observed relationship had to do with controlling for the endorsement of domestic violence beliefs. However, the significant negative relationship between victimization and domestic violence perpetration existed in auxiliary analyses that removed the variable assessing endorsement of domestic violence beliefs from statistical modeling. Thus, we offer two plausible explanation for the observed relationship. First, this finding may reflect some form of empathy that serves as a protective factor against domestic violence perpetration – controlling for other relevant factors, such as demographics, endorsements of domestic violence beliefs, and pleasurable violent media exposure. That is, victims of domestic violence understand the horrific pain caused by intimate partner abuse, and in an attempt to avoid instilling such pain onto their spouse, they refrain from acting out aggressively against them. Second, this finding may simply be the result of sampling error. There was no relationship found between domestic violence conviction and domestic violence victimization in statistical modeling. As such, the relationship found between domestic violence victimization and self-reported domestic violence perpetration could merely be due to the fact that the measure was self-reported. That is, it may be that victims of domestic violence are less willing to admit to domestic violence perpetration than non-victims, for whatever reason. Future research should explore these findings more in relation to these two hypotheses.

Limitations

There are several limitations to our study that warrant disclosure. First, results reported above come from a small convenience sample of offenders incarcerated in New York and West Virginia. Thus, the findings from this exploratory study are not generalizable beyond these parameters. Second, the data had temporal ordering constraints. The dependent and independent variables were collected at the same time. Accordingly, our use of the term “predictor” in multivariable modeling is more consistent with “correlation.” Due to temporal ordering issues, it is unknown if individuals prone to violence seek out violent media, or if violent media causes such individuals to become violent. Future research should employ probabilistic sampling techniques, collect data from more urban sites, and use longitudinal research designs. Third, our measures of violent media exposure were not ideal. Notably, while more robust than prior estimates of violent media exposure, our measures of violent media exposure looked at general media violence across three different types of media—television, movies, and video games. It would be better for future researchers to examine the impact of specific types of violence depicted in media, such as domestic violence, on specific types of violent crimes.

Future work should also take steps to better explore this relationship from a theoretical lens, such as Cultivation Theory, “mean world” hypothesis, and catharsis effects. Future work may also benefit from approaching this topic inductively, by asking respondents to list the media they consume and then exploring the relationship between this media consumption and various forms of crime. For instance, it may be prudent to explore the relationship between exposure to types of pornography and acceptance of domestic violence beliefs, and subsequently, perpetration rates. This could further provide evidence of a media cultivation or catharsis effect. Lastly, the survey questions used wording pertaining to “husband” and “wife,” thereby limiting the range of domestic violence. Future research should change the wording in the survey, to examine perceptions of domestic violence between intimate partners, and not just between spouses.

The relationship between exposure to violent media and crime perpetration is complex. Results from the current study suggest that exposure to various forms of pleasurable violent media is unrelated to domestic violence perpetration. When considering domestic violence perpetration, prior victimization experience and endorsement of domestic violence beliefs appear to be significant correlates worthy of future exploration and policy development.

Media violence is defined as various forms of media (i.e., television, music, video games, movies, Internet), that contain or portray acts of violence [ 10 ].

Media aggression, for the purpose of this study, is defined as various forms of media that contain or portray acts of aggression. Aggression is defined as: “[1)] a forceful action or procedure (such as an unprovoked attack), especially when intended to dominate or master; [2)] the practice of making attacks or encroachments; [and 3)] hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook, especially when caused by frustration” [ 13 ].

A combined measure of childhood physical abuse victimization and witnessing violence between parents [ 49 ].

Four respondents did not provide their biological sex.

Programs affective at reducing the likelihood of violence include, but are not limited to [ 50 ], Safe Dates [ 27 ], The Fourth R: Strategies for Healthy Teen Relationships [ 81 ], Expect Respect Support Groups [ 58 ], Nurse Family Partnership [ 15 , 55 , 56 ], Child Parent Centers [ 59 , 60 ], Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care [ 16 , 24 , 30 ], Shifting Boundaries [ 72 ], and Multisystemic Therapy [ 66 , 80 ].

Aldarondo, E., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). Risk marker analysis of the cessation and persistence of wife assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64 (5), 1010–1019.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz, D., Malamuth, N. M., & Wartella, E. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4 (3), 81–110.

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report . Atlanta, GA: National center for injury prevention and control, centers for disease control and prevention.

Browne, K. D. (2005). The influence of violent media on children and adolescents: A public health approach. The Lancet, 365 (9460), 702–710.

Brownridge, D. A., Chan, K. L., Hiebert-Murphy, D., Ristock, J., Tiwari, A., Leung, W. C., & Santos, S. C. (2008). The elevated risk for non-lethal post-separation violence in Canada: A comparison of separated, divorced, and married women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 (1), 117–135.

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56 (6–7), 477–489.

Capaldi, D. M., & Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34 (6), 1175–1188.

Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001). Aggression toward female partners by at-risk young men: The contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37 (1), 61–73.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Google Scholar  

Council on Communications and Media. (2009). Media violence. Pediatrics, 124 (5), 1495–1503. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2146

Coyne, S. M., Nelson, D. A., Graham-Kevan, N., Keister, E., & Grant, D. M. (2010). Mean on the screen: Psychopathy, relationship aggression, and aggression in the media. Personality & Individual Differences, 48 (3), 288–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.018

Cundiff, G. (2013). The influence of rap/hip-hop music: A mixed-method analysis on audience perceptions of misogynistic lyrics and the issue of domestic violence. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 4 (1), 71–93.

DeBord, K. (n.d.). Childhood aggression: Where does it come from? How can it be managed? . Raleigh, North Carolina: College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, School of Agriculture and Environmental and Allied Sciences, North Carolina A&T State University. Retrieved from http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/fcs_504.pdf .

Duck, J. M., & Mullin, B.-A. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25 (1), 77–93.

Eckenrode, J., Campa, M., Luckey, D. W., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K., Powers, J., & Olds, D. L. (2010). Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 164 (1), 9–15.

Eddy, J. M., Whaley, R. B., & Chamberlain, P. (2004). The prevention of violent behavior by chronic and serious male juvenile offenders: A 2-year-follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12 (1), 2–8.

Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H. N., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71 (4), 741–753.

Evans, M. L., Lindauer, M., & Farrell, M. E. (2020). A pandemic within a pandemic – intimate partner violence during Covid-19. The New England Journal of Medicine, 383 , 2302–2304. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2024046

Felson, R. B., Messner, S. F., Hoskin, A. W., & Deane, G. (2006). Reasons for reporting and not reporting domestic violence to the police. Criminology, 40 (3), 617–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00968.x

Felson, R. B., & Paré, P. P. (2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 (3), 597–610.

Ferguson, C. J., Cruz, A. M., Martinez, D., Rueda, S. M., Ferguson, D. E., & Negy, C. (2008). Personality, parental, and media influences on aggressive personality and violent crime in young adults. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17 (4), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770802471522

Ferguson, C. J., Rueda, S. M., Cruz, A. M., Ferguson, D. E., Fritz, S., & Smith, S. M. (2008). Violent video games and aggression: Causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35 (3), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807311719

Fischer, P., & Greitemeyer, T. (2006). Music and aggression: The impact of sexual aggressive song lyrics on aggression-related thoughts, emotions, and behavior toward the same and opposite sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32 (9), 1165–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206288670

Fischer, P. A., & Gilliam, K. S. (2012). Multidimensional treatment foster care: An alternative to residential treatment for high risk children and adolescents. Psychosocial Intervention, 21 (2), 195–203.

Flood, M. (2008). Measures for the assessment of dimensions of violence against women: A compendium . Retrieved from https://www.svri.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2016-01-12/measures.pdf .

Florea, M. (2013). Media violence and the cathartic effect. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92 , 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.683

Foshee, V. A., Reyes, L. M., Agnew-Brune, C. B., Simon, T. R., Vagi, K. J., Lee, R. D., & Suchindran, C. (2014). The effects of the evidence-based safe dates dating abuse prevention program on other youth violence outcomes. Prevention Science, 15 (6), 907–916.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Gondolf, E. W. (1997). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 9 , 605–631.

Hahn, R. A., Bilukha, O., Lowry, J., Crosby, A. E., Fullilove, M. T., Liberman, A., Moscicki, E., Snyder, S., Tuma, F., Corso, P., & Schofield, A. (2005). The effectiveness of therapeutic foster case for the prevention of violence: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28 (1), 72–90.

Hamel, J. (2005). Gender-inclusive treatment of intimate partner abuse: A comprehensive approach . Springer Publishing Company.

Herrenkohl, T. I., Mason, W. A., Kosterman, R., Lengua, L. J., Hawkins, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (2004). Pathways from physical childhood abuse to partner violence in young adulthood. Violence and Victims, 19 (2), 123–136.

Hoffner, C., & Buchana, M. (2002). Parents’ responses to television violence: The third-person perception, parental mediation, and support for censorship. Media Psychology, 4 (3), 231–252.

Huecker, M. R., King, K. C., Jordan, G. A., & Smock, W. (2021). Domestic violence. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls [Internet] Publishing.

Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolsky, C. L., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39 (2), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.201

Jennings, W. G., Okeem, C., Piquero, A. R., Sellers, C. S., Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2017). Dating and intimate partner violence among young persons ages 15–30: Evidence from a systematic review. Aggression and Violence Behavior, 33 , 107–125.

Johnson, H. (2001). Contrasting views of the role of alcohol in cases of wife assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16 (1), 54–72.

Kahlor, L. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2011). Television’s role in the culture of violence toward women: A study of television viewing and the cultivation of rape myth acceptance in the United States. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55 (2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2011.56608

Kerig, P. K. (2010). Adolescent dating violence in context: Introduction and overview. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19 , 465–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.495033

Kilbourne, J. (1999). Can’t buy my love: How advertising changes the way we think and feel . Simon and Schuster.

Kotrla, B. (2007). Sex and violence: Is exposure to media content harmful to children? Children & Libraries: The Journal of the Association for Library Service to Children, 5 (2), 50–52.

Kurst-Swanger, K., & Petcosky, J. L. (2003). Violence in the home: Multidisciplinary perspectives . Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Lanis, K., & Covell, K. (1995). Images of women in advertisements: Effects on attitudes related to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 32 (9/10), 639–649.

Linder, J. R., & Collins, W. A. (2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression and conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 19 (2), 252–262.

Lussier, P., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (2009). Is the antisocial child father of the abusive man? A 40-year perspective longitudinal study on the developmental antecedents of intimate partner violence. Criminology, 47 (3), 741–780.

MacKay, N. J., & Covell, K. (1997). The impact of women in advertisements on attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 36 (9/10), 573–583.

Malamuth, N. M., & Check, J. V. P. (1981). The effects of mass media exposure on acceptance of violence against women: A field experiment. Journal of Research in Personality, 15 (4), 436–446.

Markowitz, F. E. (2001). Attitudes and family violence: Linking intergenerational and cultural theories. Journal of Family Violence, 16 (2), 205–218.

McKinney, C. M., Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Nelson, S. (2009). Childhood family violence and perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence: Findings from a national population-based study of couples. Annals of Epidemiology, 19 (1), 25–32.

McQuail, D. (1979). The influence and effects of mass media. In J. Curran, M. Gurevitch, & J. Woolacott (Eds.), Mass communication and society. Sage Publications Inc.

National Coalition against Domestic Violence (NCADV). (2020). Domestic violence . Retrieved from https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/domestic_violence2.pdf .

Niolon, P. H., Kearns, M., Dills, J., Rambo, K., Irving, S., Armstead, T. L., & Gilbert, L. (2017). Preventing intimate partner violence across the lifespan: A technical package of programs, policies, and practices. Atlanta, GA: Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

O’Farrell, T. J., Fals-Stewart, W., Murphy, M., & Murphy, C. M. (2003). Partner violence before and after individually based alcoholism treatment for male alcoholic patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71 (1), 92–102.

O’Farrell, T. J., Murphy, C. M., Stephan, S. F., Fals-Stewart, W., & Murphy, M. (2004). Partner violence before and after couples-based alcoholism treatment for male alcoholic patients: The role of treatment involvement and abstinence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72 (2), 202–217.

Olds, D. L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., Sidora, K., Morris, P., Pettit, L. M., & Lucky, D. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect: Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278 (8), 637–643.

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., Pettit, L., Sidora, K., Morris, P., & Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of Nurse Home Visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280 (14), 1238–1244.

Reaves, B. A. (2017). Police response to domestic violence, 2006–2015 . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Reidy, D. E., Holland, K. M., Cortina, K., Ball, B., & Rosenbush, B. (2017). Expect respect support groups: A dating violence prevention program for high-risk youth. Preventive Medicine, 100 , 235–242.

Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S. R., Robertson, D. L., Mersky, J. P., Topitzes, J. W., & Niles, M. D. (2007). Effects of a school-based early childhood intervention on adult health and well-being: A 19-year-follow-up of low-income families. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161 (8), 730–739.

Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285 (18), 2339–2346.

Roberts, A. L., Gilman, S. E., Fitzmaurice, G., Decker, M. R., & Koenen, K. C. (2010). Witness of intimate partner violence in childhood and perpetration of intimate partner violence in adulthood. Epidemiology, 21 (6), 809–818.

Ruff, S., McComb, J. L., Coker, C. J., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2010). Behavioral couples therapy for the treatment of substance abuse: A substantive and methodological review of O’Farrell, Fals-Stewart, and colleagues’ program of research. Family Process, 49 (4), 439–456.

Saunders, D. G. (2008). Group interventions for men who batter: A summary of program descriptions and research. Violence and Victims, 23 (2), 156–172.

Savage, J. (2004). Does viewing violent media really cause criminal violence? A methodological review. Aggression and Violence Behavior, 10 (1), 99–128.

Savage, J., & Yancey, C. (2008). The effects of media violence exposure on criminal aggression: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behaviors, 35 (6), 772–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808316487

Sawyer, A. M., & Borduin, C. M. (2011). Effects of multisystemic therapy through midlife: A 21.9-year-follow-up to a randomized clinical trial with serious violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79 (5), 643–652.

Simpson Beck, V., Boys, S., Rose, C., & Beck, E. (2012). Violence against women in video games: A prequel or sequel to rape myth acceptance? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27 (15), 3016–3031. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512441078

Smith, S. G., Chen, J., Basile, K. C., Gilbert, L. K., Merrick, M. T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain, A. (2017). The national intimate partner violence and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 state report . Atlanta, GA: National center for injury prevention and control, centers for disease control and prevention.

Stankiewicz, J. M., & Rosselli, F. (2008). Women as sex objects and victims in print. Sex Roles, 58 , 579–589.

Sugarman, D. B., Aldarondo, E., & Boney-McCoy, S. (1996). Risk marker analysis of husband-to-wife violence: A continuum of aggression. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26 (4), 313–337.

Swinford, S. P., DeMaris, A., Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2000). Harsh physical discipline in childhood and violence in later romantic involvements: The mediating role of problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 (2), 508–519.

Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013). Shifting boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention Science, 14 (1), 64–76.

Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Tortolero, S. R., Wolfe, D. A., & Stuart, G. L. (2013). Importance of gender and attitudes about violence in the relationship between exposure to interparental violence and the perpetration of teen dating violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37 (5), 343–352.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline. (2013). Statistics . Retrieved from http://www.thehotline.org/is-this-abuse/statistics/ .

The United States Department of Justice. (2013). Domestic violence. Retrieved from http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/domviolence.htm .

Tiesman, H. M., Gurka, K. K., Konda, S., Coben, J. H., & Amandus, H. E. (2012). Workplace homicides among U.S. women: The role of intimate partner violence. Annals of Epidemiology, 22 (4), 277–284.

Truman, J. L., & Morgan, R. E. (2014). Nonfatal domestic violence, 2003–2012. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. (1996). Elimination of stereotyping in the mass media: Report of the Secretary General . Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/cn6/1996/ecn61996–4.htm

Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (4), 633–649.

Wagner, D. V., Borduin, C. M., Sawyer, A. M., & Dopp, A. R. (2014). Long-term prevention of criminality in siblings of serious and violent juvenile offenders: A 25-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of Multisystemic Therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82 (3), 492–499.

White, H. R., & Widom, C. D. (2003). Intimate partner violence among abused and neglected children in young adulthood: The mediating effects of early aggression, antisocial personality, hostility and alcohol problems. Aggressive Behavior, 29 , 332–345.

Williams, D. (2006). Virtual cultivation: Online worlds, offline perceptions. Journal of Communication, 56 (1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00004.x

Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., Stitt, L., & Donner, A. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163 (8), 692–699.

Women’s Center & Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh. (2009). Domestic violence . Retrieved from http://www.ecspittsburgh.org/page/aspx?pid=354

Wood, W., Wong, F. Y., & Chachere, J. G. (1991). Effects of media violence on viewers’ aggression in unconstrained social interaction. Psychological Bulletin, 109 (3), 371–383.

Download references

This project received no funding for any element of the project, including study design, data collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology and Criminology, St. Bonaventure University, 3261 West State Street, Plassmann Room A1, St. Bonaventure, NY, 14778, USA

Samantha M. Gavin

Department of Criminal Justice, Penn State Altoona, 3000 Ivyside Park, Cypress Building, Room 101E, Altoona, PA, 16601, USA

Nathan E. Kruis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan E. Kruis .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All research was conducted within the framework of the first author’s Institutional Review Board.

Human and animal participants

The study was approved by the institutional review board at the West Virginia Wesleyan College. The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to participate

All participants were given and signed written informed consent documents prior to submitting data used in this study. The agreed to have their data collected and findings from it published.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gavin, S.M., Kruis, N.E. The Influence of Media Violence on Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: An Examination of Inmates’ Domestic Violence Convictions and Self-Reported Perpetration. Gend. Issues 39 , 177–197 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-021-09284-5

Download citation

Accepted : 10 June 2021

Published : 20 June 2021

Issue Date : June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-021-09284-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Intimate partner violence
• Media violence
• Domestic violence
• Partner abuse
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Forgot Password?
• Create Account
• User ID:   -->
• Password:   -->

Our website has detected that you are using an outdated internet browser. Using an outdated browser can limit your ability to use all of the features on our website, including the ability to make purchases and register for meetings. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Directories

• Community Benefit
• Disaster Resources
• Diversity & Disparities
• Environment
• Global Health
• Human Trafficking
• Immigration
• Ministry Formation
• Ministry Identity Assessment
• Palliative Care
• Pastoral Care
• Sponsorship
• We Are Called
• Calendar of Events
• Assembly 2024
• Safety Protocols
• Prayers During the Coronavirus Pandemic
• Meditations
• For Patients & Families
• Observances
• For Those Who Work in Catholic Health Care
• For Meetings
• Social Justice
• Calendar of Prayers
• Prayer Cards
• Health Progress Prayer Services
• World Day of the Sick Blessing
• The Angel Gabriel En Route to Mary
• The Annunciation and St. Ann
• The Visitation and Zechariah
• The Magi Set Up Camp
• The Nativity and The Midwives
• 2020 Advent Reflections
• Lent Reflections Archive
• Video & Audio Reflections
• Inspired by the Saints
• The Synod on Synodality
• Bibliography of Prayers
• Hear Us, Heal Us
• 2018 Month of Prayer
• 2017 Month of Prayer
• Links to Other Prayer Resources
• Week of Thanks
• Current Issue
• Prayer Service Archives
• DEI Discussion Guide
• Advertising Rates & Specifications
• Subscription Rates
• Author's Guide
• Submit an Article
• HCEUSA Subject Index
• Periodical Review
• Submit story ideas to the editor

Media Violence Effects on Children, Adolescents and Young Adults

BY: CRAIG A. ANDERSON, MA, PhD

I killed my first Klingon in 1979. It took place in the computer center at Stanford University, where I was playing a new video game based on the Star Trek television series. I was an "early adopter" of the new technology of video games, and continued to be so for many years, first as a fan of this entertainment medium, and later as a researcher interested in the question of what environmental factors influence aggressive and violent behavior.

Of course, like most young men and women of that era, I had grown up witnessing thousands of killings and other acts of aggression in a wide array of television shows and films. Today's youth are even more inundated with media violence than past generations, mostly from entertainment sources but also from news and educational media. And even though the public remains largely unaware of the conclusiveness of more than six decades of research on the effects of exposure to screen media violence, the scientists most directly involved in this research know quite a bit about these effects.

The briefest summary of hundreds of scientific studies can be boiled down to two main points. First, exposure to media violence is a causal risk factor for physical aggression, both immediately after the exposure and months, even years, later. Second, in the absence of other known risk factors for violence, high exposure to media violence will not turn a normal well-adjusted child or adolescent into a mass killer.

SOME DEFINITIONS One reason for much of the confusion and debate among even highly educated citizens, health care professionals and even a few scientists is that when media violence researchers use certain terms and concepts, they have somewhat different meanings than when the general public uses the same words.

By "aggression," researchers mean "behavior that is intended to harm another person who does not wish to be harmed." Thus, hitting, kicking, pinching, stabbing and shooting are types of physical aggression.

Playing soccer or basketball or even football with energy and confidence are not usually considered acts of aggression, even though that is what most coaches mean when they exhort their charges to "play aggressively." Somehow, the phrase "play assertively" doesn't have the same ring to it.

By "violent behavior," most modern aggression and violence scholars mean "aggressive behavior (as defined above) that has a reasonable chance of causing harm serious enough to require medical attention." Note that the behavior does not have to actually cause the harm to be classified as violent; shooting at a person but missing still qualifies as a violent behavior.

By "media violence" we mean scenes and story lines in which at least one character behaves aggressively towards at least one other character, using the above definition of "aggression," not the definition of "violence." Thus, television shows, movies, and video games in which characters fight (Power Rangers, for example), or say mean things about each other (often called relational aggression), or kill bad guys, all are instances of media violence, even if there is no blood, no gore, no screaming in pain. By this definition, most modern video games rated by the video game industry as appropriate for children — up to 90 percent, by some estimates — are violent video games.

AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE Short-term and long-term effects of violent media use on aggressive behavior have been demonstrated by numerous studies across age, culture, gender, even personality types. Overall, the research literature suggests that media violence effects are not large, but they accumulate over time to produce significant changes in behavior that can significantly influence both individuals and society.

For example, one of the longest duration studies of the same individuals found that children exposed to lots of violent television shows at age 8 later became more violent adults at age 30, even after statistically controlling for how aggressive they were at age 8.

Similar long-term effects (up to three years, so far) on aggressive and violent behavior have been found for frequent exposure to violent video games. One six-month longitudinal study found that frequent violent video game play at the beginning of a school year was associated with a 25 percent increase in the likelihood of being in a physical fight during that year, even after controlling for whether or not the child had been in a fight the previous year.

Short-term experimental studies, in which children are randomly assigned to either a violent or nonviolent media exposure condition for a brief period, conclusively demonstrate that the media violence effects are causal. In one such study, for example, children who played a child-oriented violent video game (i.e., no blood, gore, screaming …) later attempted to deliver 47 percent more high-intensity punishments to another child than did children who had been randomly assigned to play a nonviolent video game. Even cartoonish media violence increases aggression.

In recent years, there have been several intervention studies designed to test whether reducing exposure to screen violence over several months or longer can reduce inappropriate aggressive behavior. These randomized control experiments have found that, yes, children and adolescents randomly assigned to the media intervention conditions show a decrease in aggression relative to those in the control conditions.

HOW MEDIA VIOLENCE INCREASES AGGRESSION How does exposure to media violence lead to increased aggressive behavior? Media violence scholars have identified several basic psychological processes involved. They differ somewhat for short-term versus long-term effects, but they all involve various types of learning.

Short-term effects are those that occur immediately after exposure. The main ways that media violence exposure increases aggression in the short term are:

• Direct imitation of the observed behavior
• Observational learning of attitudes, beliefs and expected benefits of aggression
• Increased excitation
• Priming of aggression-related ways of thinking and feeling

In essence, for at least a brief period after viewing or playing violent media, the exposed person thinks in more aggressive ways, feels more aggressive, perceives that others are hostile towards him or her and sees aggressive solutions as being more acceptable and beneficial.

The short-term effects typically dissipate quickly. However, with repeated exposure to violent media, the child or adolescent "learns" these short-term lessons in a more permanent way, just as practicing multiplication tables or playing chess improves performance on those skills. That is, the person comes to hold more positive beliefs about aggressive solutions to conflict, develops what is sometimes called a "hostile attribution bias" (a tendency to view ambiguous negative events in a hostile way) and becomes more confident that an aggressive action on their part will work.

There also is growing evidence that repeated exposure to blood, gore and other aspects of extremely violent media can lead to emotional desensitization to the pain and suffering of others. In turn, such desensitization can lead to increased aggression by removing one of the built-in brakes that normally inhibits aggression and violence. Furthermore, this desensitization effect reduces the likelihood of pro-social, empathetic, helping behavior when viewing a victim of violence.

Interestingly, these same basic learning and priming effects account for the fact that exposure to nonviolent, pro-social media can lead to increased pro-social behavior.

SCREEN TIME EFFECTS For a number of years, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended very strict limits on children's exposure to any types of screen media, including TVs and computers, primarily because of concern about attention deficits. For example, they recommend that children under the age of 2 years have no exposure to electronic screens, even nonviolent media. Recent research with children, adolescents and young adults suggests that both nonviolent and violent media contribute to real-world attention problems, such as attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Furthermore, these attention problems are strongly linked to aggressive behavior, especially impulsive types of aggression.

Another emerging problem with video game usage goes by various addiction-related labels, such as video game addiction, internet addiction and internet/gaming disorder. Research across multiple countries and various measures of problematic game use suggests that about 8 percent of "gamers" have serious problems with their gaming habit. That is, their gaming activities interfere with significant aspects of their lives, such as interpersonal relationships, school or work activities. This newer research literature suggests that for some individuals, video game problems look much like gambling addiction.

MAGNITUDE OF HARM News media often report exaggerated claims about "the" cause of the most recent violent tragedy, whether it is a school shooting or another mass killing. Sometimes the cause that is hyped by these stories is violent video games; other times it is mental illness, or gun control, or lack of gun control.

Behavioral scientists (and reasonably thoughtful people in general) know that human behavior is complex, and it is affected by many variables. Violence researchers in particular know that such extreme events as homicide cannot be boiled down to a single cause. Instead, behavioral scientists (including violence scholars) rely on what is known as risk and resilience models, or risk and protective factors.

All consequential behavior is influenced by dozens (maybe hundreds) of risk and protective factors. In the violence domain, there are dozens of known risk and protective factors. Growing up in a violent household or seeing lots of violence in one's neighborhood are two such risk factors. Growing up in a nonviolent household and having warm, caring parents who are highly involved with child rearing are protective factors. From this perspective, exposure to media violence is one known risk factor for later inappropriate aggression and violence. It is not the most important risk factor; joining a violent gang is a good candidate for that title. But it also isn't the least important risk factor.

Indeed, some studies suggest that media violence exposure carries about the same risk potential as having abusive parents or antisocial parents. One major difference from other known risk factors for later aggression and violence is that parents and caregivers can relatively easily and inexpensively reduce a child's exposure to media violence.

WHY BELIEVE THIS ARTICLE? It is easy to find very vocal critics of the mainstream summary that I have presented in this article. A simple web search will generate links to any number of them. Many of the critics are supported by the media industries in one way or another, many are heavy users of violent media and so feel threatened by violence research (much like cigarette smokers once felt threatened by cancer research), some are threatened by anything they see as impinging on free-speech rights, and many are simply ignorant about the science. But, a few appear to have relevant scientific credentials. So, a reasonable question for a parent or health care professional to ask is why believe that exposure to media violence creates harmful effects, rather than maintain the much more comfortable position that there are no harmful effects.

The simple answer is this: Every major professional scientific body that has conducted reviews of the scientific literature has come to the same conclusion. This group includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the U.S. Surgeon General and the International Society for Research on Aggression, among others. I have posted these and other, similar reports online. 1

In 1972, former U.S. Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld, MD, testified before the U.S. Senate on his assessment of the research on TV violence and behavior: "It is clear to me that the causal relationship between televised violence and antisocial behavior is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action," he said. "There comes a time when the data are sufficient to justify action. That time has come." 2

In response to one or two vocal critics of the mainstream research community and perhaps to pressure from other groups, the American Psychological Association created a new media violence assessment panel in 2013 to assess the association's 2005 statement and update it. They took a very unusual step to avoid any appearance of bias by excluding all major mainstream media violence scholars from the panel. Instead, the panel was composed of reputable psychological science scholars with expertise in developmental, social and related psychology domains, along with leading meta-analysis statistical experts. Their report, released in 2015, confirmed what the mainstream media violence research community has been saying for years: There are real and harmful effects of violent media.

Violent media are neither the harmless fun that the media industries and their apologists would like you to believe, nor are they the cause of the downfall of society that some alarmists proclaim. Nonetheless, electronic media in the 21st century dominate many children's and adolescents' waking hours, taking more time than any other activity, even time in school and interactions with parents. Thus, electronic media have become important socializing agents, agents that have a measurable impact.

Many of the effects of nonviolent electronic media are positive, but the vast majority of violent media effects are negative. Parents and other caregivers can mitigate the harmful effects of violent media in several ways, such as by increasing positive or "protective" factors in the child's environment, and by reducing exposure to violent media. This is not an easy task, but it can be done with little or no expense. The benefits of doing so are healthier, happier, more successful children, adolescents and young adults.

CRAIG A. ANDERSON is Distinguished Professor, Department of Psychology, and director of the Center for the Study of Violence, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

• http://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/StatementsonMediaViolence.html .
• Jesse Feldman, statement in hearings before Subcommittee on Communications of Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Serial #92-52 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972) 25-27.

Copyright © 2016 by the Catholic Health Association of the United States

For reprint permission, contact Betty Crosby or call (314) 253-3490.

Back to Top

Also in this Issue

• Is Violence 'Senseless'? Not According to Science: Let's Make Sense of It and Treat It Like a Disease
• Violence: A Community Health Approach
• Why a Trash-Strewn Lot Became a Soccer Field
• Leaving Gangs Behind to Live Parables of Kinship
• Women Religious Unite to Eradicate Trafficking

1625 Eye Street NW Suite 550 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 296-3993

ST. LOUIS OFFICE

4455 Woodson Road St. Louis, MO 63134 (314) 427-2500

• Social Media
• Focus Areas
• Publications
• Career Center

We Will Empower Bold Change to Elevate Human Flourishing SM

© The Catholic Health Association of the United States. All Rights Reserved.

• General Information
• Media Issues
• Digital Issues
• Educational Games
• Media Literacy Week
• e-Tutorials
• Our Approach
• Research Reports
• Young Canadians in a Wireless World
• For Parents
• Find Lessons & Resources
• Digital Media Literacy Outcomes by Province & Territory
• Digital Media Literacy Framework
• Media Literacy 101
• Digital Literacy 101
• Class Tutorials - Licensed
• My Licensed Resources
• Become a donor
• Become a volunteer
• Become a Corporate Partner
• Teen Fact-Checking Network

What do We Know About Media Violence?

It is difficult to set down in a definitive way what effect media violence has on consumers and young people. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main issue is that terms like “violence” and “aggression” are not easily defined or categorized. To a child, almost any kind of conflict, such as the heated arguments of some talk-radio shows or primetime news pundits, can sound as aggressive as two cartoon characters dropping anvils on one another.

The reality is that we have not yet successfully defined violence and aggression, whether when analyzing the content we consume, or investigating the potentially resultant aggressive behaviour. Because individual studies define these notions differently, the goal posts are constantly moving for anyone who is trying to get a big picture look at the situation. The difficulty of quantifying aggression and violence in a strict way makes it nearly impossible to accurately answer the question “Does media violence cause people to commit violence?”

Many studies, many conclusions

In 1994, Andrea Martinez at the University of Ottawa conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on media violence for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). She concluded that the lack of consensus about media effects reflects three “grey areas” or constraints contained in the research itself. These grey areas still apply today.

Firstly, media violence is notoriously hard to define and measure. Some experts who track violence in television programming, such as the late George Gerbner, defined violence as the act (or threat) of injuring or killing someone, independent of the method used or the surrounding context. As such, Gerbner included cartoon violence in his data-set. But others, such as University of Laval professors Guy Paquette and Jacques de Guise, specifically excluded cartoon violence from their research because of its comical and unrealistic presentation. How they would view some of the increasingly realistic violence in many of today’s cartoons aimed at teens – such as the gruesome injuries suffered by many of the characters on  Rick and Morty  and  Family Guy  – is an open question.

Second, researchers disagree over the type of relationship the data supports. Some argue that exposure to media violence causes aggression. Some say that the two are associated, but that there is no causal connection (that both, for instance, may be caused by some third factor), while others say the data supports the conclusion that there is no relationship between the two at all.

Third, even those who agree that there is a connection between media violence and aggression disagree about how the one affects the other.

More than a decade later, the debate of whether media violence causes violence continues. In 2016, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a policy statement in the online issue of their journal entitled “Virtual Violence,” which found that “exposure to media violence is becoming an inescapable component of children’s lives.” The report’s overall conclusion, after looking at 400 reports about violent media, was that “there [is] a significant association between exposure to media violence and aggressive behaviour.” At the same time, the AAP report stressed that “no single risk factor consistently leads a person to act aggressively or violently. Rather, it is the accumulation of risk factors that tends to lead to aggressive or violent behavior.” As well, the report pointed out that “all violence is aggression, but not all aggression is violence.” While violent media may lead viewers or players to be more aggressive, it may only rarely make enough of a difference to provoke them to commit acts of violence they otherwise wouldn’t have. [1]  

Despite the apparent consensus shown in the AAP report, many studies have found no significant impacts of violent media on concerns such as bullying or antisocial behaviours; [2] aggressive behaviour; [3] reduced academic performance, depressive symptoms, attention deficit symptoms; [4] empathy [5] or violence. [6]

With that in mind, based on a number of recent studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals, there are some things we  can  say:

What’s the good news?

• Violent video games are not directly linked to incidents like high school shootings. [7]
• Video games are not directly linked to youth crime, aggression and dating violence. [8]
• Violent video games have not led to an increase in violent crime; in fact, violent crime has decreased in the years since game playing became a common activity for youth. [9]
• Even though consumers tend to gravitate towards violent media, we are generally more satisfied by or take more joy from non-violent media. [10]
• Playing action video games results in increased basic visual sensory processing, selective visual attention and some higher cognitive skills. [11]
• At low to medium levels, time spent playing video games – violent or otherwise – reduces violent behaviour among teens “by keeping them occupied and reducing opportunities and motivation to acquire guns” (however, this effect fades at high levels of playing time). [12]
• Violent media, especially video games, have been used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems. [13]

What’s the bad news?

• Youth and adults who plan mass shootings do look to media coverage of past shootings for models and, in some cases, are motivated by the notoriety brought by news coverage. [14]
• Violent video games may desensitize players to other violent images and emotional stimuli. [15]
• Violent media often portray violent acts and situations but rarely represent the consequences of violence. [16]
• Violent video games may lead to increased aggression in some young children and youth by making aggression seem like a reasonable response to everyday conflicts. [17]
• Exposure to violent media is affiliated with executive control impairments, which predicts high levels of impulsive aggression. [18]
• For youth who are already involved in violent subcultures, such as gangs, media such as music and social networks may promote aggression as a social norm and can even incite violent acts. [19] , [20]

Physical aggression

To date, most research on violent media has focused on its relationship with physical aggression – either aggressive attitudes or actually aggressive behaviour. Though this is the area that has attracted the most attention, it is also where researchers have most often found no relationship between media violence and behaviour.

There is also reason to think that violence in media has different effects on different people and may interact with other risk factors. A 2017 study from Dartmouth College, assessing 24 studies and looking at 17,000 participants, concluded that playing violent video games is associated with greater levels of physical aggression over time. The research showed some disparity between ethnicities with the highest percentage of observation being among white participants, then Asian participants and hardly any at all among Hispanic participants. [21] Another meta-analysis found a relationship between violent video games and physical aggression with youth aged 14-16. [22]

It may also be that because some young people are more interested in violent media than others, a spiral effect occurs in which those who are consume a progressively higher amount of violent media relative to their peers, leading to greater and greater impacts. [23] Media violence can also have an influence on social norms around violence among teens, but its effect depends on how common they believe real-world aggression to be. Exposure to media violence made teens more likely to think their peers approved of it if they already thought there were high levels of aggression in their peer group, while those who thought there were lower levels were actually less likely to think their peers approved of violence after seeing it in the media. [24]

It’s important to note that even those researchers who have found a relationship between media violence and physical aggression consider it only one of a number of variables that put children at risk of aggressive behaviour. For example, a Norwegian study that included 20 at-risk teenaged boys found that the lack of parental rules regulating what the boys watched was a more significant predictor of aggressive behaviour than the amount of media violence they consumed. The study also indicated that exposure to real world violence, together with exposure to media violence, created an “overload” of violent events. Boys who experienced this overload were more likely to use violent media images to create and consolidate their identities as members of an anti-social and marginalized group. [25] Similarly, the Ontario government report Roots of Youth Violence identified a number of other risk factors that may interact with media violence in increasing the risk of aggressive behaviour, including “poverty, racism, community design, issues in the education system, family issues health, lack of economic opportunity for youth, issues in the justice system and lack of youth voice.” [26] Other research has identified as risk factors “parents’ low media literacy, limited social skills, male gender [and] availability of audiovisual media in the bedroom.” [27]

Relational aggression

Numerous studies have also found a relationship between media portrayals of relational aggression – including non-physical relationship violence [28] and “social” forms of bullying such as name-calling, ostracism and spreading rumours – and engaging in these behaviours or seeing them as acceptable, [29] leading some researchers to conclude that “social aggression on television poses more of a risk for imitation and learning than do portrayals of physical aggression” [30] and has a more powerful influence on behaviour than physical violence. [31] Relational aggression may also be more common in youth-focused media than physical aggression: researchers have found that nine in ten of the 50 most popular programs among 2 to 11-year-olds contain it. [32] Similarly, a worrying amount of pornography features sexual violence. One study found that one in eight videos shown to first-time visitors of popular porn sites featured content such as sexual assault, voyeurism, coercion and physical violence [33] – which may promote a ‘sexual script’ that normalizes aggressive and abusive sexual activity. [34]   

As with physical aggression, the relationship between media and behaviour is complex. Some studies have found that girls are more heavily influenced than boys [35] , [36] while research on relational aggression in reality TV found that viewers who believe it to accurately reflect reality are more heavily influenced. [37]

Attitudes towards violence

Violence in media can also influence our views and attitudes. Some studies have found that exposure to media violence can make teens feel less concern for people who are in distress [38] or are victims of crime, [39] though some other researchers have found media violence does not reduce empathy. [40] Here, too, the details matter: research has found that representations of female victims of crime that depersonalize them make viewers less empathetic towards them and more prone to blaming the victims for what happened to them. [41]

In some cases, of course, attitudes can influence behaviour. One study found that playing violent video games made men more confident of their own fighting ability, less likely to see other men as tough and less able to recognize anger on others’ faces. [42] Similarly, research has found that whether or not violent media leads to aggression may depend on how much it fosters moral disengagement in players and viewers. [43]

Media may also have an impact on our views of violence as a desirable or acceptable solution to problems, even if it does not lead directly to aggression. One study found that boys who played violent video games were significantly more likely to have pro-violence attitudes than those who played non-violent games. [44] This is particularly true when it comes to the use of violence by military or police. Viewing violence on television is associated with higher support for using force to resolve social or political issues. [45] More specifically, viewers of crime shows are more likely to believe that police only use force when necessary and that ‘bending the rules’ will produce positive results rather than false confessions [46] and to support the use of the death penalty. [47]

A related phenomenon, “Mean World Syndrome,” coined by researcher George Gerbner, suggests that heavy TV viewers tend to perceive the world in ways that are consistent with the images on TV. Gerbner’s research found that those who watch greater amounts of television are more likely to:

• overestimate their risk of being victimized by crime;
• believe their neighbourhoods are unsafe;
• believe “fear of crime is a very serious personal problem” [48] and
• assume the crime rate is increasing, even when it is not. [49]

Research has consistently confirmed that media representations of crime influence how people perceive it, which can also lead to an exaggerated fear of crime or to worrying more about crimes that are less frequent but more newsworthy. [50] Media can also influence how we perceive specific types of violence. News coverage of domestic violence, for instance, can promote misconceptions about how common it is and encourage excuses for the perpetrator’s behaviour, [51] while coverage of gun violence can lead people to overestimate the number of mass shootings relative to other gun deaths. [52] However, as with other media forms, there are important differences between different kinds of news coverage. Local news has the biggest impact on perceptions of crime, [53] while in ‘news deserts’ (areas not served or underserved by local news) social networks, such as Nextdoor or Facebook groups, sometimes spread inaccurate information both about crime rates and specific incidents, sometimes even falsely accusing community members of committing crimes. [54]

Some scholars argue that, in the past few decades, violence in media, especially on television, has not only become more frequent and extreme but also more actively hostile to compassion. Perhaps the best example of this is The Walking Dead , which – along with being a breakout hit for its network, one of the last remaining “water-cooler” shows (i.e. those that most viewers can expect their friends and co-workers to have watched, or at least be aware of) and a pioneer in portraying gruesome violence on U.S. basic cable – also represents a change from the traditional portrayal of violence in American TV as being committed by ‘good guys’ in the name of maintaining the social order to “a repeated pattern of brutal killings of characters who are moral inspirations.” [55] Violence against characters that have been dehumanized, such as the zombies in The Walking Dead , may encourage moral disengagement . [56] Though some degree of moral disengagement is necessary to enjoy a violent media text, [57] especially one like a video game in which players are performing the violent acts, [58] under normal circumstances our moral sense is never entirely disengaged and seeing or performing violent acts that seem extreme or unjustified can provoke a strong moral reaction. [59] While othering and dehumanization are the intentional goals of much hate propaganda , portraying enemies as fundamentally inhuman – whether as literal zombies, in fiction, or as metaphorically ‘othered’ monsters in crime coverage – can also unintentionally promote greater moral disengagement, encouraging us to see their killing as morally neutral or even desirable and making us less likely to question the use of force against them. [60] For example, the group most influenced by crime dramas and news coverage of crime is white people with Black neighbours. [61]

Theories of violent media impact

One theory of how violent media may influence behaviour is priming , which holds that media, particularly interactive media such as video games, serve as teaching tools, demonstrating to us which behaviours are punished and which are rewarded. Its impact, then, does not come from a single exposure to a violent media text but from repetition. [62] According to priming theory, exposure to violent media will increase aggressive attitudes and behaviour, [63] while prosocial media will prompt empathy and more prosocial behaviour. [64] Some longitudinal studies have found support for this idea: a Canadian study of high school students found that high levels of playing violent video games was associated with a steeper increase in aggression over time compared to those who played less often. [65]  

Priming effects have been found most powerfully in connection with images of weapons. Experiments have found that seeing images of guns primed aggressive thoughts, regardless of whether the gun was being used by a criminal, a soldier or a police officer. [66] Similarly, seeing gun violence in media made children more likely to play with and practice firing a (disabled) handgun, though seeing violence committed with a sword did not. [67] Other studies have found that just images of guns – even in the context of a sign prohibiting guns – can make people who see them more aggressive. [68]

However, other research has shown that context can be key to the impacts of violent media, with very different effects depending on who is committing it. For example, one study found that while watching heroic characters commit violent acts increased aggression, violent villains did not have the same impact. [69] Unfortunately, recent research has found that heroes in films popular with youth commit more violent acts than the villains. [70]

In video games, by contrast, committing violent acts while playing as a heroic character is not associated with being more aggressive, while playing as a violent villain or antihero is associated with aggression. [71] Therefore both the specific content (whether the violence is committed by a hero or villain) and the form (whether you are watching the violence or virtually committing it) influence the impact violent media may have. Similarly, some studies have found that while single-player video games may be related to aggression, violence in multiplayer games is not [72] – suggesting that the effect depends on players perceiving it as a story rather than simply a game.

Both of these theories may be partly true. Even in experiments that found priming effects, context was found to be important: images of athletes firing guns during Olympic shooting competitions, for instance, did not prime aggressive thoughts in the way that images of police, soldiers or criminals did. [73] Conversely, some studies have found that the key to whether or not seeing media violence leads to aggression is not simply whether the character is heroic or villainous, but whether or not the viewer identifies with them, suggesting that both priming and cultivation are at work. [74] Here, too, the relationship seems to be different for interactive media such as video games, where research found that identifying with a character did not influence media impact. [75]

Portrayals of relational aggression, similarly, had different impacts depending both on the content – in particular, whether or not the character engaging in the behaviour and whether or not the viewer thought the behaviour was funny [76] – and on elements of the particular medium or genre, such as whether or not the behaviour was followed by “canned laughter” from the laugh track. [77]

What should be apparent when we look at these all of these studies and data conclusions is that media violence is a highly complex and nuanced issue. There are clearly concerns with regards to violent media content such as age-appropriateness, saturation, desensitization and instilling fear or unease in viewers. At the same time, many of the media products through which we are exposed to violent imagery provide benefits as well. Games and movies may expose young people to some violent content, but studies increasingly show that they also offer positive benefits. There is no way to completely shut out violent content, to guarantee that children will never play video games that are rated for an older audience or to make certain that everyone’s feelings on what is inappropriate content will coincide with industry self-regulation practices. What concerned adults and parents can do is promote critical engagement with the media that young people and children consume, monitor children’s media use and discuss and establish rules at home to let young people understand what is or is not appropriate. More on how to talk about media violence with children can be found in the subsection Critically Engaging with Media Violence . If you are interested in legislation and industry tools that can help you to understand laws or give you a better idea of what to look out for, see our  Government and Industry Responses to Media Violence .

[1] AAP committee on communications and media (2016). Virtual Violence. Pediatrics. 138(1).

[2] Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2019). Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents' aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report. Royal Society open science , 6 (2), 171474.

[3] Dowsett, A., & Jackson, M. (2019). The effect of violence and competition within video games on aggression. Computers in Human Behavior , 99 , 22-27.

[4] Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video game influences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and academic performance. Perspectives on psychological science , 10 (5), 646-666.

[5] Gao, X., Pan, W., Li, C., Weng, L., Yao, M., & Chen, A. (2017). Long-time exposure to violent video games does not show desensitization on empathy for pain: an fMRI study. Frontiers in psychology , 8 , 650.

[6] DeCamp, W., & Ferguson, C. J. (2017). The impact of degree of exposure to violent video games, family background, and other factors on youth violence. Journal of youth and adolescence , 46 (2), 388-400.

[7] (2008) “The School Shooting/Violent Videogame Link: Causal Relationship or Moral Panic?”  Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling  Volume 5, Issue 1-2.

[8] Ferguson, C, et al. (2012) “A longitudinal test of video game violence influences on dating and aggression: A 3-year longitudinal study of adolescents.” Journal of Psychiatric Research . 46(2), 141-146,

[9] Cunningham, S. Engelstätter, B & Ward, M (2011) “Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959

[10] Weaver, A & Kobach, M. (2012) “The Relationship Between Selective Exposure and the Enjoyment of Television Violence.” Aggressive Behaviour  Vol. 8

[11] CS, G & Bavelier, D (2012). Learning, attentional control, and action video games. Curr Biol. 22(6).

[12] Turel, O. (2020). Videogames and guns in adolescents: Tests of a bipartite theory. Computers in human behavior , 109 , 106355.

[13] Carras, M. C., Kalbarczyk, A., Wells, K., Banks, J., Kowert, R., Gillespie, C., & Latkin, C. (2018). Connection, meaning, and distraction: A qualitative study of video game play and mental health recovery in veterans treated for mental and/or behavioral health problems. Social Science & Medicine , 216 , 124-132

[14] Silva, J. R., & Greene-Colozzi, E. A. (2019). Fame-seeking mass shooters in America: Severity, characteristics, and media coverage. Aggression and violent behavior , 48 , 24-35.

[15] (2012) “Does excessive play of violent first-person-shooter-video-games dampen brain activity in response to emotional stimuli?”  Biological Psychology . Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21982747

[16] Webb,T, Jenkins, L, Browne, N, Afifi, A & Kraus, J. (2007) “Violent Entertainment Pitched to Adolescents: An Analysis of PG-13 Films”. Pediatrics. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/6/e1219.full

[17] Anderson, C et al. (2008) “Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Japan and the United States”. Pediatrics . Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/5.toc

[18] Swing EL, Anderson CA (2014). The role of attention problems and impulsiveness in media violence effects on aggression. Aggress Behav. ;40(3):197–203pmid:24452487

[19] Lauger, T. R., & Densley, J. A. (2018). Broadcasting badness: Violence, identity, and performance in the online gang rap scene. Justice Quarterly , 35 (5), 816-841.

[20] Patton, D. U., McGregor, K., & Slutkin, G. (2018). Youth gun violence prevention in a digital age. Pediatrics , 141 (4).

[21] Prescott, A et al. (2018) Violent video games and aggression metanalysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (40) 9882-9888

[22] Burkhardt, J. & Lenhard, W. (2021) A Meta-Analysis on the Longitudinal, Age-Dependent

Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression. Media Psychology. DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2021.1980729

[23] Maria von Salisch, Jens Vogelgesang, Astrid Kristen & Caroline Oppl (2011):

Preference for Violent Electronic Games and Aggressive Behavior among Children: The Beginning of the Downward Spiral?, Media Psychology, 14:3, 233-258

[24] Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Lugtig, P., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). The role of perceived peer norms in the relationship between media violence exposure and adolescents' aggression. Media Psychology , 19 (1), 4-26.

[25] Karlsen, F & Syvertsen, T (2004).  Media Regulation and Parents . Statens Filmtilsyn. 

[26] Government of Ontario (2018). “Review of the roots of youth violence: executive summary”. Retrieved from http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/professionals/oyap/roots/what.aspx

[27] Genner, S., & Süss, D. (2017). Socialization as media effect. The international encyclopedia of media effects , 1-15.

[28] Connolly, J., Friedlander, L., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte, L. (2010). The ecology of adolescent dating aggression: Attitudes, relationships, media use, and socio-demographic risk factors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(5), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.495028

[29] Martins, N. (2020). Effects of Media Use on Social Aggression in Childhood and Adolescence. The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology , 1-5.

[30] Martins, N., & Wilson, B. J. (2012). Mean on the screen: Social aggression in programs popular with children. Journal of Communication , 62 (6), 991-1009.

[31] Martins, N., & Weaver, A. (2019). The role of media exposure on relational aggression: A meta-analysis. Aggression and violent behavior , 47 , 90-99.

[32] Martins, N., & Wilson, B. J. (2012). Mean on the screen: Social aggression in programs popular with children. Journal of Communication , 62 (6), 991-1009.

[33] Vera-Gray, F., McGlynn, C., Kureshi, I., & Butterworth, K. (2021). Sexual violence as a sexual script in mainstream online pornography. British journal of criminology.

[34] Wiederman, M. W. (2015), ‘Sexual Script Theory: Past, Present, and Future’, in J. DeLamater and R. F. Plante,

eds, Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities, 7–22. Springer.

[35] Coyne, S. M., Ehrenreich, S. E., Holmgren, H. G., & Underwood, M. K. (2019). “We're not gonna be friends anymore”: Associations between viewing relational aggression on television and relational aggression in text messaging during adolescence. Aggressive behavior , 45 (3), 319-326.

[36] Martins, N., & Wilson, B. J. (2012). Social aggression on television and its relationship to children's aggression in the classroom. Human Communication Research , 38 (1), 48-71.

[37] Ward, L. M., & Carlson, C. (2013). Modeling meanness: Associations between reality TV consumption, perceived realism, and adolescents' social aggression. Media Psychology , 16 (4), 371-389.

[38] Vossen, H. G., Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2017). The longitudinal relationship between media violence and empathy: Was it sympathy all along?. Media Psychology , 20 (2), 175-193.

[39] McLean,  L.  &  Griffiths,  M.D.  (2013). Violent  video  games  and attitudes  towards  victims  of  crime:  An  empirical  study  among  youth. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning,2(3), 1-16

[40] Ramos, R. A., Ferguson, C. J., Frailing, K., & Romero-Ramirez, M. (2013). Comfortably numb or just yet another movie? Media violence exposure does not reduce viewer empathy for victims of real violence among primarily Hispanic viewers. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030119

[41] Flood, M., & Pease, B. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, violence, & abuse , 10 (2), 125-142.

[42] Denson, T. F., Dixson, B. J., Tibubos, A. N., Zhang, E., Harmon-Jones, E., & Kasumovic, M. M. (2020). Violent video game play, gender, and trait aggression influence subjective fighting ability, perceptions of men's toughness, and anger facial recognition. Computers in Human Behavior , 104 , 106175.

[43] Richmond, J., & Wilson, J. C. (2008). Are graphic media violence, aggression and moral disengagement related?. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 15 (2), 350-357.

[44] Bajovic, M. (2012). Violent Video Game Playing, Moral Reasoning, and Attitudes Towards Violence in Adolescents: Is There a Connection?.

[45] Eyal, K., Metzger, M. J., Lingsweiler, R. W., Mahood, C., & Yao, M. Z. (2006). Aggressive political opinions and exposure to violent media. Mass Communication & Society, 9(4), 399-428.

[46] Donovan, Kathleen and Klahm, Charles IV (2015). "The Role of Entertainment Media in Perceptions of Police Use of Force." Criminal Justice and Behavior42.12, 1261-1281.

[47] Britto, S., & Noga-Styron, K. E. (2014). Media consumption and support for capital punishment. Criminal Justice Review , 39 (1), 81-100.

[48] Gerbner, G.  Violence and Terror in the Mass Media.  Reports and Paper on Mass Communication No. 102. France: UNESCO.

[49] (2009). “Researchers rest their case: TV consumption predicts opinions about criminal justice system.” Purdue University.

[50] Champagne-Buckley, L. (2019) Media Influence on Perceptions of Crime. Master’s Project, University of Houston-Clear Lake.

[51] Sweeney, K. (2016). Factors Contributing to the Social Acceptance of Domestic Violence: A Systematic Review.

[52] Jashinsky, J. M., Magnusson, B., Hanson, C., & Barnes, M. (2017). Media agenda setting regarding gun violence before and after a mass shooting. Frontiers in public health , 4 , 291.

[53] Baranauskas, A. J., & Drakulich, K. M. (2018). Media construction of crime revisited: Media types, consumer contexts, and frames of crime and justice. Criminology , 56 (4), 679-714.

[54] Zarozny, B. (2021) “In a Pennsylvania town, a Facebook group fills the local news void.” NBC. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/pennsylvania-town-facebook-group-fills-local-news-void-rcna577

[55] Ta, H. (2017). Blood, Guns, and Plenty of Explosions: The Evolution of American Television Violence . eScholarship, University of California.

[56] Hartmann, T., Krakowiak, K. M., & Tsay-Vogel, M. (2014). How violent video games communicate violence: A literature review and content analysis of moral disengagement factors. Communication Monographs , 81 (3), 310-332.

[57] Richmond, J., & Wilson, J. C. (2008). Are graphic media violence, aggression and moral disengagement related?. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 15 (2), 350-357.

[58] Hartmann, T. (2017). The ‘Moral Disengagement in Violent Videogames’ Model. Game Studies , 17 (2).

[59] Bareither, C. (2017). “That was so mean: D”–Playful virtual violence and the pleasure of transgressing intersecting emotional spaces. Emotion, space and society , 25 , 111-118.

[60] Linnemann, T., Wall, T., & Green, E. (2014). The walking dead and killing state: Zombification and the normalization of police violence. Theoretical Criminology , 18 (4), 506-527.

[61] Baranauskas, A. J., & Drakulich, K. M. (2018). Media construction of crime revisited: Media types, consumer contexts, and frames of crime and justice. Criminology , 56 (4), 679-714.

[62] Gentile, D. A., & Gentile, J. R. (2008). Violent video games as exemplary teachers: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 37 (2), 127-141.

[63] Huesmann, L. R. (2007). The impact of electronic media violence: Scientific theory and research.  Journal of Adolescent Health, 41 , S6−S13.

[64] Prot,S.,Anderson,C.A.,Barlett,C.P.,Coyne,S.M.,&Saleem,M.(2017).Content effects: Violence in the Media. In P.Roessler, C.A.Hoffner, & L.vanZoonen (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of Media Effects.Wiley-Blackwell.DOI:10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0121

[65] Willoughby, T., Adachi, P. J., & Good, M. (2012). A longitudinal study of the association between violent video game play and aggression among adolescents. Developmental psychology , 48 (4), 1044.

[66] Bushman, B. J. (2018). Guns automatically prime aggressive thoughts, regardless of whether a “good guy” or “bad guy” holds the gun. Social Psychological and Personality Science , 9 (6), 727-733.

[67] Chang, J. H., & Bushman, B. J. (2019). Effect of exposure to gun violence in video games on children’s dangerous behavior with real guns: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA network open , 2 (5), e194319-e194319.

[68] Benjamin AJ, Crosby M (2019) A Case of Unintended Cognitive Consequences: Guns Prohibited Images Prime

Aggressive Thoughts. J Ment Health Soc Behav 1: 103. https://doi.org/10.33790/jmhsb1100103

[69] Phillips, C. B. (2018). Mechanisms driving the effects of violent and non-violent media on aggression and mood (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham).

[70] Muller, J. N., Moroco, A., Loloi, J., Portolese, A., Wakefield, B. H., King, T. S., & Olympia, R. (2020). Violence depicted in superhero-based films stratified by protagonist/antagonist and gender. Cureus , 12 (2).

[71] Sauer, J. D., Drummond, A., & Nova, N. (2015). Violent video games: The effects of narrative context and reward structure on in-game and postgame aggression. Journal of experimental psychology: applied , 21 (3), 205.

[72] Shoshani, A., & Krauskopf, M. (2021). The Fortnite social paradox: The effects of violent-cooperative multi-player video games on children's basic psychological needs and prosocial behavior. Computers in Human Behavior , 116 , 106641.

[73] Bushman, B. J. (2018). Guns automatically prime aggressive thoughts, regardless of whether a “good guy” or “bad guy” holds the gun. Social Psychological and Personality Science , 9 (6), 727-733.

[74] Phillips, C. B. (2018). Mechanisms driving the effects of violent and non-violent media on aggression and mood (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham).

[75] Lin, J. H. (2013). Do video games exert stronger effects on aggression than film? The role of media interactivity and identification on the association of violent content and aggressive outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior , 29 (3), 535-543.

[76] Martins, N., Mares, M. L., Malacane, M., & Peebles, A. (2020). Liked characters get a moral pass: Young viewers’ evaluations of social and physical aggression in tween sitcoms. Communication Research , 47 (8), 1181-1205.

[77] Russo, C. E. (2014). The insidious sitcom: features of tween TV that increase tolerance of verbal insults (Doctoral dissertation).

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The Influence of Media Violence on Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: An Examination of Inmates’ Domestic Violence Convictions and Self-Reported Perpetration

Samantha m. gavin.

1 Department of Sociology and Criminology, St. Bonaventure University, 3261 West State Street, Plassmann Room A1, St. Bonaventure, NY 14778 USA

Nathan E. Kruis

2 Department of Criminal Justice, Penn State Altoona, 3000 Ivyside Park, Cypress Building, Room 101E, Altoona, PA 16601 USA

Research suggests that the representation of violence against women in the media has resulted in an increased acceptance of attitudes favoring domestic violence. While prior work has investigated the relationship between violent media exposure and violent crime, there has been little effort to empirically examine the relationship between specific forms of violent media exposure and the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Using data collected from a sample of 148 inmates, the current study seeks to help fill these gaps in the literature by examining the relationship between exposure to various forms of pleasurable violent media and the perpetration of intimate partner violence (i.e., conviction and self-reported). At the bivariate level, results indicate a significant positive relationship between exposure to pleasurable television violence and self-reported intimate partner abuse. However, this relationship is reduced to insignificant levels in multivariable modeling. Endorsement of domestic violence beliefs and victimization experience were found to be the strongest predictors of intimate partner violence perpetration. Potential policy implications based on findings are discussed within.

Introduction

In the United States, more than 12 million men and women become victims of domestic violence each year [ 76 ]. In fact, every minute, roughly 20 Americans are victimized at the hands of an intimate partner [ 3 ]. Although both men and women are abused by an intimate partner, women have a higher likelihood of such abuse, with those ages 18–34 years being at the highest risk of victimization. Moreover, it is estimated that approximately 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men experience violence at the hands of an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime [ 77 ].

According to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women [ 78 ], the representation of violence against women in the media has greatly increased over the years. Recent research suggests that women are commonly depicted as victims and sex objects in the media [ 12 , 69 ]. Portraying women in this way, media via pornography, pornographic movies, and music videos, has been found to increase attitudes which are supportive of violence, specifically sexual violence, against women. Notably, in relation to violence in general, research suggests that the media’s portrayal of women as sex objects and victims, tends to influence societal attitudes that are accepting of domestic violence, particularly violence against women [ 40 , 43 , 46 , 69 ].

Understanding the influence of media violence on an individual’s perceptions of domestic violence could help gain a better understanding of the factors that contribute to an individual’s domestic violence tendencies, as well as to gain a better understanding of how to lessen such tendencies. Not only can the influence of media violence on domestic violence perceptions be addressed, but specific media forms can be identified as to the level of influence that each form of media has on such perceptions as well. Understanding how exposure to media violence influences domestic violence perceptions, in comparison to the influence of media aggression on domestic violence perceptions, will allow for an overall perspective of how violent media in general influences domestic violence perpetration. Accordingly, the present study seeks to provide an empirical assessment of the relationship between violent media exposure and the perpetration of intimate partner abuse.

Literature Review

Although society believes that exposure to media violence 1 causes an individual to become violent, research has cast doubt on this belief, stating that violent media does not directly influence violent behavior at a highly correlated statistically significant level [ 2 , 4 , 21 , 22 , 65 , 85 ]. In relation to media aggression 2 and domestic violence perceptions however, research has demonstrated a relationship between the two variables [ 11 , 12 , 23 , 35 , 39 , 41 , 47 ], such that an increased level of exposure to media aggression, for example, video games and movies depicting aggression towards women, influences individuals to become more accepting of aggression toward women.

Domestic Violence

According to The United States Department of Justice [ 75 ], domestic violence is defined as “a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner” (para. 1). Emotional/psychological, verbal, physical, sexual, and financial abuse [ 42 , 84 ], as well as digital abuse, are the different types of abuse that can occur amongst intimate partners.

In the United States alone, domestic violence hotlines received approximately 20,000 calls per day [ 51 ], with at least five million incidents occurring each year [ 34 ]. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the likelihood for domestic violence incidents to occur increased, while a victim’s ability to call and report decreased [ 18 ], due to individuals being locked down at home, being laid-off, or working from home. In examining the 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men who experience domestic violence at the hands of an intimate partner, 1 in 3 and 1 in 4, respectively, have experienced physical abuse [ 3 ], with 1 in 7 women and 1 in 25 men obtaining injuries from the abuse [ 51 ]. In addition, 1 in 10 women have been raped by an intimate partner, while the data on the true extent of male rape victimization is relatively unknown [ 51 ]. Even though domestic violence crimes make up approximately 15% of all reported violent crimes [ 77 ], almost half go unreported [ 57 ], due to various reasons (i.e., concerns about privacy, desire to protect the offender, fear of reprisal [ 19 ], relationship to the perpetrator [ 20 ]).

There are several risk factors that increase an individual’s likelihood of perpetrating domestic violence. Individuals who witnessed domestic violence between their parents [ 1 , 17 , 44 , 49 , 61 , 73 ], or were abused as children themselves [ 32 , 44 , 68 , 71 , 79 , 81 ], are more likely to perpetrate domestic violence than individuals who did not witness or experience such abuse. Research has found men who witnessed abuse between their parents had higher risk ratios for committing intimate partner violence themselves [ 61 ] and were more likely to engage in such violence [ 49 ], than men who did not witness such violence as children. Research has also shown that male adolescents who witnessed mother-to-father violence were more likely to engage in dating violence themselves [ 73 ]. Similarly, scholars have found women who witnessed intimate partner violence between their parents were over 1.5 times more likely to engage in such violence themselves [ 49 ], and adolescent girls were more likely to engage in dating violence when they witnessed violence between their parents [ 73 ]. Child abuse victims were more likely to perpetrate intimate partner violence as they aged, with 23-year-olds demonstrating a significant relationship compared to 21-year-olds [ 44 ], and males who identified as child abuse victims were found to be four times more likely to engage in such violence than males who had no history of such abuse [ 49 ]. Overall, both males and females who experienced child-family violence 3 were more likely to engage in both reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence [ 49 ].

Research has also found that being diagnosed with conduct disorder as a child or antisocial personality disorder as an adult, also increases the likelihood of domestic violence perpetration [ 7 , 8 , 17 , 31 , 45 , 81 ], with antisocial personality disorder being a mediating factor between child abuse and later intimate partner violence perpetration [ 81 ]. Additionally, individuals who demonstrate antisocial characteristics during adolescence are at an elevated risk of engaging in domestic violence as adults [ 45 ]. Another key factor that influences domestic violence perpetration is having hostile attitudes and beliefs [ 5 , 37 , 48 , 49 , 70 ], with such attitudes being more of a predictive factor of intimate partner abuse than conduct problems [ 8 ]. Both men and women who approve of intimate partner violence are more likely to engage in or reciprocate such violence compared to those without such perceptions [ 49 ].

Media Violence and Crime

Media violence and behavior.

It has been long speculated that media violence is directly related to violent behavior and perpetration of violent crime, such as intimate partner abuse [ 6 , 14 , 33 , 50 ]. However, research has found very weak evidence demonstrating a correlation between exposure to media violence and crime, with Pearson’s r correlations of less than 0.4 being indicated in most studies in this area [ 2 , 21 , 22 , 64 , 65 , 85 ]. In fact, Savage [ 64 ] determined that exposure to violent activities through the media does not have a statistically significant relationship with crime perpetration. Likewise, Ferguson and colleagues’ [ 21 , 22 ] work supported these findings, indicating that “exposure to television [violence] and video game violence were not significant predictors of violent crime” [ 21 ] (p. 396).

More recently, Savage and Yancey [ 65 ] conducted a meta-analysis of thirty two studies that tested the relationship between media violence (i.e., television or film) and criminal aggression. Lester (1989), Krittschnitt, Heath, and Ward (1986), Lagerspetz and Viemerö (1986), Phillips (1983), Berkowitz and Macaulay (1971), and Steuer, Applefield, and Smith (1971) were among the evaluated studies. Collectively, Savage and Yancey [ 65 ] concluded that the results from their analysis suggested that a relationship between violent media exposure and criminal aggression had not been established in the existing scholarly literature. Although there was evidence of a slight, positive effect of media violence on criminal aggression found for males. However, the authors noted several limitations among each of the evaluated studies that questions the generalizability of findings. As such, there is need for more work to be done in this area before firm conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between violent media exposure and violent behaviors.

Media aggression and violence against women

Although research has demonstrated a lack of or weak correlation between media violence and violent behavior, research has found a moderate positive correlation between exposure to media aggression and domestic violence perceptions. Such research has found significant relationships between exposure to media aggression and a variety of delinquent perceptions, ranging from views on rape [ 47 , 67 ] to domestic violence [ 11 , 12 , 39 ]. These views support and accept the rape of women and abusive tendencies towards an intimate partner.

For instance, Malamuth and Check [ 47 ] examined how exposure to movies that contained high levels of violence and sexual content, especially misogynistic content, influenced one’s perceptions. Individuals who watched such content were more likely to have rape-supportive attitudes than individuals who were not exposed to such movies. Simpson Beck and colleagues [ 67 ] found that rape supportive attitudes were more common among individuals who played video games that sexually objectified and degraded women. Such individuals were more likely to accept the belief that rape is an acceptable behavior and that it is the woman’s fault if she is raped, compared to individuals who did not play such video games.

Related, Cundiff [ 12 ] classified the songs on the Billboard’s Hot 100 chart between 2000 and 2010 into categories such as rape/sexual assault, demeaning language, physical violence, and sexual conquest, and found that throughout these songs, the objectification and control of women were common themes. In surveying individuals in relation to their exposure to such music, a positive correlation was found between an individual’s exposure to suggestive music, and their misogynous thinking [ 12 ]. Further, Fischer and Greitemeyer [ 23 ] found that individuals who listened to more aggressive music were more likely to have negative views of and act more aggressively towards women. Likewise, Kerig [ 39 ] and Coyne and colleagues [ 11 ] found that individuals who are exposed to higher levels of media aggression are more likely to perpetrate domestic violence offenses. This suggests that an increased exposure to media aggression influences an individual’s perceptions of domestic violence, and could, subsequently influence the perpetration of domestic violence.

Cultivation Theory

A theoretical explanation for a relationship between violent media exposure and the perpetration of violent crime can be found in Cultivation Theory. Cultivation Theory assumes that “when people are exposed to media content or other socialization agents, they gradually come to cultivate or adopt beliefs about the world that coincide with the images they have been viewing or messages they have been hearing” [ 28 ] (p. 22). Essentially, this cultivation manifests into individuals mistaking their “world reality” with the “media reality,” thus increasing the likelihood of violence [ 26 ] (p. 350). Individuals who are exposed to violent media, are more likely to perceive their reality as filled with the same level of violence, resulting in an increased likelihood of the individual acting violently themselves. By identifying one’s reality with the “media reality,” individuals create their own social constructs and begin to believe that the violence demonstrated in the media is acceptable in life as well.

This cultivation and social construction creation based off of media is demonstrated through Kahlor and Eastin’s [ 38 ] examination of the influence of television shows on rape myth acceptance. Individuals who watched soap operas demonstrated race myth acceptance and an “overestimation of false rape accusations”, while individuals who watched crime shows were less likely to demonstrate rape myth acceptance [ 38 ] (p. 215). This demonstrates how the type of television show an individual watches, can influence how and what individuals learn from such viewing.

In relation to domestic violence perception, individuals who are exposed to violence in intimate relationships, or sexual aggression, whether through the media or in real life, are more likely to support or accept such actions over time [ 12 , 28 ]. A longitudinal study conducted by Williams [ 82 ], examined cultivation effects on individuals who play video games. It was found that individuals who played video games at higher rates began to fear dangers which they experienced through the video games, demonstrating how individuals adopt beliefs based on their media exposure. Therefore, according to Cultivation Theory, individuals who are exposed to higher levels of violent media, are likely to learn from the media, and act based on this learning [ 12 , 28 , 82 ]. In relation to domestic violence, this work suggests that it is reasonable then to hypothesize that individuals who are exposed to higher levels of media violence are more likely to become supportive or accepting of domestic violence actions.

Limitations of Previous Work

While prior research has explored the relationship between exposure to media aggression and domestic violence perceptions [ 11 ], [ 12 , 23 , 39 , 47 , 67 ], to date, we are unaware of research that has focused specifically on exploring the relationship between one’s level of exposure to media violence and domestic violence perceptions. As a result, the relationship between violent media exposure and domestic violence has yet to be fully examined. Further, research focusing specifically on media aggression, media violence, and violence perpetration has predominately focused on specific types of media (i.e., video games, movies, songs), often with the media platform and materials provided to the study participants by researchers. To date little research has investigated multiple forms of self-exposure to violent media and criminal perpetration. Moreover, previous research has failed to examine the effects of pleasure gained from such exposure, as we speculate that individual’s will be less likely to engage in consumption of media they find unpleasurable. Subsequently, the effects of media exposure are largely dependent on one’s disposition toward the content – which, admittedly, over time can be shaped by the content itself. Thus, we suggest that prior tests focusing exclusively on simulated exposure without consideration of pleasure have been incomplete.

Moreover, while there are scales that measure domestic violence perceptions (e.g., The Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence Questionnaire – Revised (PADV-R) , The Definitions of Domestic Violence Scale , The Attitudes toward the Use of Interpersonal Violence – Revised Scale , and various others compiled by Flood [ 25 ]), they are very specific in nature, making it difficult to use such scales outside of the specified nature for which they were created. In fact, these scales fail to examine the actual perceptions an individual has towards domestic violence, and when they do, they tend to examine domestic violence perpetrated by men, and not women. Thus, the current study sought to help fill some of these gaps in the literature.

Current Focus

There were three overarching goals driving the current project:

• First, we sought to create a psychometrically sound scale capable of measuring intrinsic endorsement of domestic violence beliefs.
• Second, we were interested in assessing the relationship between intrinsic endorsement of domestic violence beliefs and domestic violence perpetration.
• Third, we wanted to explore the relationship between various types of violent media exposure (i.e., video game, movie, television) and domestic violence perpetration.

Data and Method

The data used in this study came from a sample of incarcerated offenders in two jails in New York and a prison in West Virginia. A sample of 148 convicted offenders 4 were surveyed between April 2018 and September 2018. The sampling procedure was one of convenience, in a face-to-face manner. A student intern at the prison asked inmates with whom she came into contact if they would be willing to take the survey. Such surveys were administered individually. For one of the jails, all inmates participating in educational classes were asked by the researcher to take the survey. Such surveys were administered in a group setting. A sign-up sheet was also placed in each pod for inmates to sign-up for survey participation. Each individual on the list was brought to a room occupied by only the researcher, with surveys being administered individually. For the second jail, correctional officers made an announcement in one of the pods, asking those who were interested in participation to let them know. Such inmates were individually brought to a room occupied by the researcher with a plexiglass wall between them. The surveys were administered via paper hard copy, with a researcher present to answer any questions the participants had throughout the survey process. Due to working with a vulnerable population, confidentiality was key. Confidentiality was maintained by not allowing any correctional staff in the room when the surveys were taken, and informed consent documents were kept separate from the surveys. Respondents were informed that their decision to participate in the study was completely voluntary, and that information would not be shared with law enforcement or anyone within the jail.

Dependent Variables

Domestic violence perpetration.

Two measures were used to assess domestic violence perpetration. First, participants were asked if they had been convicted of a domestic violence offense. While this is a good indication of domestic violence perpetration, it is not the “best” measure, as many persons who commit domestic violence are never convicted of the crime. As such, we employed a second measure of domestic violence perpetration. Specifically, participants were also asked if they had ever abused an intimate partner. Response categories were a dichotomous “yes” (1) or “no” (0).

Independent Variables

Endorsement of domestic violence beliefs.

We were interested in assessing the relationship between the intrinsic endorsement of domestic violence beliefs and domestic violence perpetration. Unfortunately, at the time of the study, the research team was not aware of any psychometrically sound measure of intrinsic endorsement of domestic violence beliefs available in the scholarly literature. Thus, we sought to create one. Specifically, we used an eighteen-item self-report scale to capture respondents’ intrinsic support of domestic violence. Some items included, “A wife sometimes deserves to be hit by her husband,” “A husband who makes his wife jealous on purpose deserves to be hit,” and “A wife angry enough to hit her husband must really love him.” Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the eighteen items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Responses were summed to create a scale measure of intrinsic support of domestic violence beliefs with higher scores indicative of greater support of domestic violence. As indicated in Table ​ Table1, 1 , these items loaded onto one latent factor in an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.974).

Results from exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for endorsement of domestic violence beliefs

KSMO = .928 ( p  = .000). The scree plot indicated a clear break at the second factor, suggesting a one factor matrix. Extraction method: Principal axis. α = .974

Violent media exposure

Prior research assessing the relationship between violent media exposure and crime has found mixed results [ 2 , 11 , 12 , 21 – 23 , 39 , 47 , 64 , 65 , 67 , 85 ]. However, most of this work has employed only one measure of media exposure and has ignored the pleasure that one may receive from violent media – that is, whether they get enjoyment from the content. In an attempt to fill these gaps in the literature we considered three types of violent media exposure: (1) video games, (2) movies, and (3) television. Consistent with recommendations made by Savage and Yancey [ 65 ] our measures include an estimate of both media exposure (e.g., time) and rating of violence. Specifically, participants were asked to report the number of hours that they spent playing videogames, watching movies, and watching television each week. Next, they were asked to indicate the percentage of violence (0–100%) in the games, movies, and television they played and watched. Additionally, participants were asked to report how pleasurable they found the video games, movies, and television that they played and watched (coded, 0 = “Not Pleasurable” through 10 = “Very Pleasurable”). Responses to each of the three questions in the different blocks of media were multiplied together to create a scale measure assessing pleasurable violent media exposure with higher numbers indicative of greater pleasurable violent media exposure.

Control Variables

Four measures were used as control variables in this study: (1) age, (2) sex, (3) race, and (4) domestic violence victimization, as research has not examined if such victimization is related to victims’ perpetration of intimate partner violence. Specifically, participants were asked if they had ever been abused by an intimate partner. Responses were also dichotomous with 1 = “yes” and 0 = “no.” Age was a continuous variable ranging from 18 years old to 95 years old. Sex and race were dichotomous variables (i.e., 1 = “male” or “white” and 0 = “female” or “other”). Specifically, participants were asked if they had ever been abused by an intimate partner. Responses were also dichotomous with 1 = “yes” and 0 = “no.”

Analytic Strategy

Data analysis proceeded in three key stages. First, all data were cleaned, coded, and univariate analyses were constructed to assess measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion. Missing data were assessed using Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test. The significant MCAR test ( p  < 0.05) indicated that data were not missing at random, and as such, it would be inappropriate to impute the missing data for multivariable analyses. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was also run to help support the creation of our intrinsic endorsement of domestic violence beliefs scale. A Principal Axis Factor Analysis (PAFA) was selected as the EFA technique because the constructs are latent. Second, bivariate analyses were run to support the construction of multivariable models. Third, multivariable models were constructed. Given the dichotomous coding of the two outcome measures assessing domestic violence perpetration, we used logistic regression as the primary multivariate analysis.

Descriptive Information

Table ​ Table2 2 displays the demographic information for the sample, as well as the descriptive statistics for key variables of interest. As indicated in Table ​ Table2, 2 , overall, the sample had an average age of 35.81 years. Most participants were male (91%) and identified as white (77%). About 45 percent of the sample reported being a victim of domestic violence. Regarding violent media exposure, participants indicated greater exposure to pleasurable violence in movies ( M  = 36.40, sd  = 41.87) than to pleasurable violence in television ( M  = 29.73, sd  = 38.73) and video games ( M  = 22.58, sd  = 38.66). In the aggregate, participants did not show much intrinsic support for domestic violence ( M  = 34.02, sd  = 18.22). However, 16.2 percent of the sample had been convicted of a domestic violence offense and 34.5 percent had admitted to abusing an intimate partner.

Descriptive statistics ( N  = 148)

Bivariate Correlations

Table ​ Table3 3 displays the results from zero-order correlations between variables of interest. As indicated in Table ​ Table3, 3 , only one variable, endorsement of domestic violence beliefs ( r  = 0.202, p  < 0.05), was statistically significantly correlated with a domestic violence conviction at the bivariate level. Results suggest that as one’s intrinsic support for domestic violence increases, so too does the likelihood that they have been convicted of a domestic violence offense. Interestingly, this variable was not statistically significantly correlated with the “self-reported” measure of domestic violence perpetration ( r  = 0.101, p  > 0.05). However, four other variables were found to be statistically significantly correlated with a participant’s self-reported domestic violence perpetration. These variables included being a male ( r  =  − 0.177, p  < 0.05), being a victim of domestic violence ( r  = 0.637, p  < 0.01), television violence ( r  = 0.179, p  < 0.05), and having a domestic violence conviction ( r  = 0.182, p  < 0.05). Results indicate that males were less likely to report abusing an intimate partner than were females. Further, results show that those who had been a victim of domestic violence, those who had greater exposure to pleasurable television violence, and those who had been convicted of a domestic violence offense, were more likely to report abusing an intimate partner than those in reference groups. The weak correlation between our two dependent measures supports the use of the two separate multivariable models reported below.

Correlations

Pearson product-moment correlations are reported. Two-tailed significance is reported

* p  ≤ .05, ** p  ≤ .01

Multivariable Models

Table ​ Table4 4 shows the results from logistic regression models estimating domestic violence convictions and self-reported domestic violence perpetration. The first model in Table ​ Table4 4 assessed the correlates of having a domestic violence conviction. Overall, the model fit the data well and explained about 14 percent of the variance in domestic violence in having a domestic violence conviction (Nagelkerke’s R 2  = 0.142). However, there was only one statistically significant predictor in that model, endorsement of domestic violence beliefs ( b  = 0.033, p  < 0.05). Results show that a one-unit increase in intrinsic support for domestic violence was associated with a 1.033 increase in the odds of being convicted of a domestic violence offense.

Logistic regression analyses predicting domestic violence

Unstandardized coefficients are presented, OR  = odds ratio. DV  = “Domestic Violence”

* p  < .05, ** p  < .01, *** p  < .001

The second model in Table ​ Table4 4 depicts the results from the logistic regression model estimating self-reported domestic violence perpetration. Overall, the model fit the data well and explained nearly 55 percent of the variance in abusing an intimate partner (Nagelkerke’s R 2  = 0.548). Interestingly, endorsement of domestic violence beliefs was not a significant predictor in this model ( b  = 0.004, p  > 0.05). In fact, the only statistically significant predictor in that model was our measure of domestic violence victimization ( b  =  − 3.533, p  < 0.001). Results suggest that victims of domestic violence were 34.48 times less likely to report abusing an intimate partner than were non-victims, controlling for all other relevant factors. It is important to note that none of the measures of exposure to pleasurable media violence were related to either of our measures of domestic violence perpetration [ 74 , 83 ].

Much of the prior work assessing the relationship between exposure to violent media and crime perpetration has ignored the pleasure component of media exposure and failed to assess multiple forms of violent media simultaneously while controlling for the endorsement of criminogenic beliefs and other relevant factors (e.g., prior victimization). The current exploratory project sought to help fill these gaps in the literature. Specifically, the current project had three main goals: (1) to establish a psychometrically sound measure of intrinsic support for domestic violence, (2) to assess the relationship between intrinsic support for domestic violence and domestic violence perpetration, and (3) to analyze the relationship between pleasurable violent media exposure and two different measures of domestic violence perpetration (i.e., conviction and “self-report”) while controlling for appropriate covariates (e.g., prior victimization, endorsement of domestic violence, etc.). Our research, using data from a sample of convicted offenders ( N  = 148), yielded several key findings worth further consideration.

First, results from Exploratory Factor Analysis showed that we were able to effectively create a psychometrically sound measure of intrinsic support for domestic violence. We encourage other researchers to adopt this 18-item measure of intrinsic support for domestic violence to use in future projects as both a predictor and an outcome measure. Future research should also explore how these beliefs come to be. Perhaps more importantly, though, through our data analyses we were able to establish a relationship between intrinsic support for domestic violence and being convicted of a domestic violence offense. That is, our results show that offenders who hold beliefs that favor the emotional and physical abuse of an intimate partner are more likely to have been convicted of a domestic violence offense than those who do not hold such views. This finding suggests that in order to help prevent domestic violence, researchers and practitioners need to develop strategies to avert, disrupt, or reverse the internalization of such beliefs. We suggest that targeting adolescents who are at risk of experiencing child abuse or witnessing abuse between their parents, may help prevent such individuals from internalizing the acceptance of such beliefs and reduce the chances that they will grow up to perpetrate domestic violence, as prior research indicates that they are a high-risk group 5 [ 36 , 52 ]. For partners who have already engaged in violence toward one another, cognitive behavioral therapy programs, such as Behavioral Couples Therapy [ 53 , 54 , 62 ], are effective at changing domestic violence perceptions and reducing future violence [ 29 , 63 ].

Second, we did not find much support for a relationship between violent media exposure and domestic violence perpetration, questioning the effects of media cultivation. At the bivariate level, pleasurable violent television exposure was found to exhibit a small, positive effect on self-reported intimate partner abuse ( r  < 0.20) [ 9 ]. This finding suggests that, at the bivariate level, as one’s exposure to pleasurable violent television increases, so too does the likelihood that they self-report abusing an intimate partner. However, this relationship was reduced to insignificant levels in a multivariable modeling controlling for age, gender, race, endorsement of domestic violence beliefs, and prior victimization. In fact, no measure of pleasurable violent media exposure was significantly related to domestic violence perpetration in multivariable modeling. Thus, the current study supports prior research indicating no relationship between media violence and violent crime perpetration [ 21 , 22 , 64 , 65 ], and suggests that other variables (i.e., endorsement of domestic violence beliefs, and victimization), not violent media, are responsible for driving individuals to committing violent crimes.

Third, our work highlights the importance of the role prior victimization plays in criminal perpetration. Interestingly, at the bivariate level, domestic violence victimization at the hands of an intimate partner was unrelated to a domestic violence conviction, but significantly and positively related to admitting to abusing an intimate partner. In fact, the relationship between being a victim of domestic violence and admitting to abusing an intimate partner was very strong ( r  = 0.637) [ 9 ]. This finding suggests that individuals who have been previously victimized at the hands of an intimate partner, are at an increased likelihood of abusing an intimate partner themselves. However, in multivariable modeling, this relationship switched directions, and prior victimization was found to be negatively related to self-reported domestic violence perpetration. In fact, with the addition of appropriate statistical controls in multivariable modeling, our findings suggest that those who had been abused by an intimate partner were more than 34 times less likely to report abusing an intimate partner. This is an interesting and difficult finding to interpret because it opposes prior work indicating that victimization experiences, especially among the young [ 32 , 44 , 71 , 81 ], and witnessing domestic violence [ 1 , 17 , 44 , 49 , 61 , 68 , 73 , 79 ], can be positively related to perpetration. Initially, we speculated that the reason for this observed relationship had to do with controlling for the endorsement of domestic violence beliefs. However, the significant negative relationship between victimization and domestic violence perpetration existed in auxiliary analyses that removed the variable assessing endorsement of domestic violence beliefs from statistical modeling. Thus, we offer two plausible explanation for the observed relationship. First, this finding may reflect some form of empathy that serves as a protective factor against domestic violence perpetration – controlling for other relevant factors, such as demographics, endorsements of domestic violence beliefs, and pleasurable violent media exposure. That is, victims of domestic violence understand the horrific pain caused by intimate partner abuse, and in an attempt to avoid instilling such pain onto their spouse, they refrain from acting out aggressively against them. Second, this finding may simply be the result of sampling error. There was no relationship found between domestic violence conviction and domestic violence victimization in statistical modeling. As such, the relationship found between domestic violence victimization and self-reported domestic violence perpetration could merely be due to the fact that the measure was self-reported. That is, it may be that victims of domestic violence are less willing to admit to domestic violence perpetration than non-victims, for whatever reason. Future research should explore these findings more in relation to these two hypotheses.

Limitations

There are several limitations to our study that warrant disclosure. First, results reported above come from a small convenience sample of offenders incarcerated in New York and West Virginia. Thus, the findings from this exploratory study are not generalizable beyond these parameters. Second, the data had temporal ordering constraints. The dependent and independent variables were collected at the same time. Accordingly, our use of the term “predictor” in multivariable modeling is more consistent with “correlation.” Due to temporal ordering issues, it is unknown if individuals prone to violence seek out violent media, or if violent media causes such individuals to become violent. Future research should employ probabilistic sampling techniques, collect data from more urban sites, and use longitudinal research designs. Third, our measures of violent media exposure were not ideal. Notably, while more robust than prior estimates of violent media exposure, our measures of violent media exposure looked at general media violence across three different types of media—television, movies, and video games. It would be better for future researchers to examine the impact of specific types of violence depicted in media, such as domestic violence, on specific types of violent crimes.

Future work should also take steps to better explore this relationship from a theoretical lens, such as Cultivation Theory, “mean world” hypothesis, and catharsis effects. Future work may also benefit from approaching this topic inductively, by asking respondents to list the media they consume and then exploring the relationship between this media consumption and various forms of crime. For instance, it may be prudent to explore the relationship between exposure to types of pornography and acceptance of domestic violence beliefs, and subsequently, perpetration rates. This could further provide evidence of a media cultivation or catharsis effect. Lastly, the survey questions used wording pertaining to “husband” and “wife,” thereby limiting the range of domestic violence. Future research should change the wording in the survey, to examine perceptions of domestic violence between intimate partners, and not just between spouses.

The relationship between exposure to violent media and crime perpetration is complex. Results from the current study suggest that exposure to various forms of pleasurable violent media is unrelated to domestic violence perpetration. When considering domestic violence perpetration, prior victimization experience and endorsement of domestic violence beliefs appear to be significant correlates worthy of future exploration and policy development.

This project received no funding for any element of the project, including study design, data collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation.

Declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

All research was conducted within the framework of the first author’s Institutional Review Board.

The study was approved by the institutional review board at the West Virginia Wesleyan College. The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

All participants were given and signed written informed consent documents prior to submitting data used in this study. The agreed to have their data collected and findings from it published.

1 Media violence is defined as various forms of media (i.e., television, music, video games, movies, Internet), that contain or portray acts of violence [ 10 ].

2 Media aggression, for the purpose of this study, is defined as various forms of media that contain or portray acts of aggression. Aggression is defined as: “[1)] a forceful action or procedure (such as an unprovoked attack), especially when intended to dominate or master; [2)] the practice of making attacks or encroachments; [and 3)] hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook, especially when caused by frustration” [ 13 ].

3 A combined measure of childhood physical abuse victimization and witnessing violence between parents [ 49 ].

4 Four respondents did not provide their biological sex.

5 Programs affective at reducing the likelihood of violence include, but are not limited to [ 50 ], Safe Dates [ 27 ], The Fourth R: Strategies for Healthy Teen Relationships [ 81 ], Expect Respect Support Groups [ 58 ], Nurse Family Partnership [ 15 , 55 , 56 ], Child Parent Centers [ 59 , 60 ], Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care [ 16 , 24 , 30 ], Shifting Boundaries [ 72 ], and Multisystemic Therapy [ 66 , 80 ].

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Samantha M. Gavin, Email: ude.ubs@nivags .

Nathan E. Kruis, Email: ude.usp@231ken .

• What the <i>Black Twitter</i> Docuseries Gets Wrong

What the  Black Twitter  Docuseries Gets Wrong

B lack Twitter will not save us for what’s to come. As the days towards the 2024 presidential election draw near and the rage-filled screams of college students fill the halls of the nation’s most prestigious institutions, the United States finds itself at a crossroads. Will the most powerful country in the world revert back to when Donald Trump won the White House, or will we vote for Joe Biden to maintain his stronghold? This is the question that every American must answer before and on November 5.

If the everyday American (specifically the everyday Black American) was undecided about which candidate to vote for, it only takes one watch of Black Twitter: A People’s History , a three part docuseries based on journalist Jason Parham’s 2021 WIRED article “ A People’s History of Black Twitter ,” to understand that we must vote for Biden.

The series attempts to archive, document, and chronicle the force that is known as Black Twitter, two words that have been used to characterize Black digital life on the social media platform. It’s a platform that the series will remind you was not created by Black people, but brought into prominence by the attitudes, mannerisms, and behaviors of Black users on Twitter. But despite incessant commentary about how Black people are not a monolith, the docuseries—in its attempt to associate the Black Twitter community with an era that supposedly no longer exists—ultimately treats Black Twitter as such.

Creation is at the core of the series’ story. The words of Amiri Baraka’s " Technology & Ethos " essay are repeated and paraphrased throughout the three-part series in a fashion similar to a mother reading her child’s favorite tall tale before tucking them into bed. The essay opens with the following: “Machines (as Norbert Weiner said) are an extension of their inventor-creators. That is not simple once you think. Machines, the entire technology of the West, is just that, the technology of the West.” Baraka continues: “Nothing has to look or function the way it does. The West man’s freedom, unscientifically got at the expense of the rest of the world’s people, has allowed him to xpand his mind–spread his sensibility wherever it cdgo, & so shaped the world, & its powerful artifact-engines.”

The next line is where Black Twitter, or more broadly the relationship between Black people and technology, come into play. “Political power is also the power to create—not only what you will—but to be freed to go where ever you can go—(mentally physically as well). Black creation—creation powered by the Black ethos brings very special results.”

In the case of both Twitter the platform and also Twitter the company—where Black people acquired leadership positions at one of the fastest growing tech companies in the world, used their presence online to enact change in the areas of racial justice and police reform, and increased diversity and representation from Hollywood to Silicon Valley and everywhere in between—what did those very special results bring? That answer is complicated, and one that the docuseries tries to grapple with but falls short.

As seen in the series, #OscarsSoWhite corrected a decades long practice of exclusion by the Academy and created opportunities for actors of color to receive membership into the voting body that decides the Oscars. In the nine years since the hashtag’s creation, gradual efforts were made towards greater representation on screen. Yet, the subsequent mass exodus of women of color in Hollywood leadership positions and the low number of films directed by women and people of color seems to contradict the docuseries’ overarching narrative of a hashtag's singular impact. Yes, the hashtag narrative as an idiom to bring forth change is powerful, but the counter response to them is just as telling.

The most blatant example of this is the #BlackLivesMatter portion of the docuseries. The docuseries chronicles the pivotal role Twitter played in the rise of citizen journalism, particularly during the murders of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner. It also looks at the creation of #SayHerName, a social media response to the erasure of Black women, such as Sandra Bland, and Black trans women, like Mya Hall, who lost their lives to police violence, but were often overlooked by the male-centered BLM movement.

This is where Baraka is felt the most: Black creators have harnessed the power of technology, in order to counteract the West’s political power, which puts them in danger of losing their lives. Minute after minute, frame after frame, the docuseries asks the viewer to bear witness to the ways in which Black Twitter, through the creation and utilization of hashtags, on-the-ground reporting, and 24/7 news coverage, has long been victimized by police violence.

But like Baraka said, the machine is an extension of its inventor-creator, and the creator, or in this case the executive producers of the docuseries, have a hand in its invention. It's a creation that feels foreign to those who birthed and have maintained Black Twitter as a living and breathing cultural archive of Black digital life. A life that has no singular partisan belief or political agenda. A life that, in many ways, bites the hand of the docuseries creators. It’s a hand that delicately weaves the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency with the birth and rise of Black Twitter. The two are in a covenant of holy matrimony.

Just ask Brad Jenkins, former associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, who frequently appears throughout the docuseries. Or Carri Twigg, the former Associate Director of Public Engagement of the White House, who serves as one of the series’ executive producers. There is no direct mention that the Black Lives Matter movement started under the Obama administration—or acknowledgment of the overwhelming collective action by Black students at the University of Missouri during that time, as well as the solidarity actions that occurred across college campuses in the U.S.

The series goes on to connect the rise of misinformation, the proliferation of Russian bots, and the 2016 election of Donald Trump as a reaction to the Obama presidency and Black Twitter. In fact, the series’ somber moments—where anti-Black sentiment is seen in reports of algorithms being altered to increase traffic towards users that display racist and misogynistic behaviors online, and clips of white women calling the police to inflict harm and violence on Black people for simply living — are linked to the Trump portion of the series. But that is ahistorical in and of itself because Black women have been calling attention to the ways in which they are subjected to anti-Black violence and harassment online since the 1990s . BBQ Becky is just Carolyn Bryant by another name.

Read More: Twitter Offers More Transparency on Racist Abuse by Its Users, but Few Solutions

If the Obama years of Black Twitter were fun, the docuseries posits, the Trump years of Black Twitter were hell. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the global uprisings over the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, the year 2020 within the docuseries is marked by culture shifts towards violence, including the misogynoir Megan Thee Stallion experienced online after she came forward about being physically assaulted by Tory Lanez. The year is also peppered with glimmers of a Black Twitter of yesteryear: a communal moment of gathering to live tweet “Verzuz” challenges or to watch The Last Dance as a family. Communal moments that are thought to be associated with the Obama administration.

And just like that, the docuseries pivots to showcase the Black voters in South Carolina, who are thanked for their votes for Biden in the 2020 election. Biden is even described as Obama’s right hand man. It is in this moment that the series wants the audience to remember the joy of the Obama years, the hope of the Obama years, and most importantly, the impact of Black voters in the Obama years.

I do not mean to spoil the climax of the 2020 section of the docuseries, but Biden won and Elon Musk replaced Trump as the villain of the series. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, now known as X, is met with despair, exodus, and rage. Efforts to humble and humiliate Musk are flashed across the screen as former Black employees at Twitter in one-on-one interviews discuss the destruction of their years of labor and hard work to diversify the platform. Black academics, celebrities, and personalities lament as they say a goodbye to the good days of Twitter. Mastodon, BlueSky, Spill, LinkedIn, and of course TikTok are depicted as places of solace for Black users who feel unwelcome on X. (X has since eliminated any protections for marginalized and disenfranchised users on the platforms.)

Four years after the election of Biden to the presidency and with the forthcoming election looming, the series bids Black Twitter adieu with the foresight that Black people will always continue to innovate, despite not being given the tools or resources to create. This is exemplified by a reference to soul food, and a call to action to create our own archives—the thesis of Black Twitter: A People’s History.

But what Black Twitter fails to realize—and simply can’t capture—is that we are not in 2008 anymore. Or 2012. Or 2020. The Obama coalition is dead. The Biden coalition is falling apart by the day and culturally resonant programming falls flat compared to the citizen-led reporting that is coming to life in front of our very eyes. Just look at the actions of the student journalists at WKCR , the Columbia University radio station that covered the raid of Hamilton Hall by the New York Police Department. Or the wave of anti-war protests by Black students at HBCUs. Guess where these students learned how to organize from? Black Twitter. They’re not just archiving their own stories—they’re creating them.

But that’s the flaw of content like this. It doesn’t have the capacity to capture the legacy of a movement because it’s a movement that isn't over. It is still unfurling—still morphing and coming to life in front of our very eyes. These are children who came of age on Black Twitter. They’re still using those tools to make us laugh, to inspire change, to create community.

If there is anyone who will save us (and in turn, if there’s anything worth saving), it's them. Not Black Twitter.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• The New Face of Doctor Who
• Putin’s Enemies Are Struggling to Unite
• Women Say They Were Pressured Into Long-Term Birth Control
• Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
• Boredom Makes Us Human
• John Mulaney Has What Late Night Needs
• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]