Since early this century debate has raged among American academics, parents, media producers, network officials, the FCC, the PTA and mentalhealth organizations about the effects of viewing violent images. Most discussion and research on violent imagery has limited itself to studying television (although video games, movies and music are increasingly targeted). Television differs from other media in its pervasiveness—in the average American home it is on 6 hours daily In addition, the audience includes many children (who are presumed to be more vulnerable to its effects than adults). The mimetic quality of the television is also thought to present realistic portrayals that can serve as powerful socializing agents.

The Kefauver congressional hearings of the 1950s investigating juvenile delinquency implicated violent TV images as a potential cause. TV violence was not to banned, but networks were pressured to be more accountable in their program development.

Networks intended that the family viewing hours from 19:00–21:00 would air less violent programming. The prolonged focus on media violence legitimized it as a public-policy matter with increased budget funding and calls for further research.

During the 1960s, the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Crime and the Surgeon General published reports addressing possible connections between violence in media and real life. Since then, researchers have formulated a number of competing arguments as to the existence and nature of violent media effects. Among them are claims that violent media: desensitize the viewer; stimulate or arouse the viewer; disinhibit the viewer so that violent inclinations are more readily expressed; or provoke a catharsis that alleviates aggressive impulses. For instance, studies investigating the stimulation and arousal theory have sought to determine if exposure to aggressive stimuli will increase the level of physiological and emotional arousal which, in turn, will increase the probability of aggressive behavior. Proponents of the imitation theory suggest that people may learn aggressive behavior by observing aggression in media portrayals. Proponents of cultivation theory suggest that fear and paranoia lead to violence and, more generally, that TV cumulatively and progressively shapes the perception of the audience by instilling a particular view of the world—not by directly influencing behavior.

Numerous studies, however, have produced inconsistent research findings, leaving it unclear as to what effects, if any there are from viewing violent media images. The competing findings reflect different definitions of violence and other methodological choices, as well as the concerns of investigators. Researchers have conducted lab experiments that manipulate the subjects’ exposure to violence. Some field experiments have tried to measure more real-life settings. Researchers have also relied on surveys to measure real-life exposure to violent media images. Each of these methodological approaches contains certain weaknesses and strengths and can provide, at best, only a partial answer. Yet the debate continues among politicians and educators amid lurid newspaper coverage and occasional abashed concessions from television and movies before summer blockbusters roll around again.