In a recent survey, Garber and Holtz concluded that the average half-hour children’s television show contains 47 violent acts. When asked about the survey network television executive Jean Pater responded. "I sure as heck don’t think that Bugs Bunny’s pouring a glass of milk over a chipmunk’s head is violence. " Unfortunately, both Garber and Holtz and Pater beg the question. The real issue is whether children view such acts as Violence.
The violence programming aimed at children almost always appears in the context of fantasy. Cartoon violence generally includes animation, humor, and a remote setting. There is no evidence of direct imitation of television violence by children, though there is evidence that fantasy violence can energize previously learned aggressive response such as a physical attack on another child during play. It is by no means clear, however, that the violence in a portrayal is solely responsible for this energizing effect. Rather, the evidence suggests that any exciting material can trigger subsequent aggressive behavior and that it is the excitation rather than the portrayal of violence that instigates or energizes any subsequent violent behavior. "Cold" imitation of violence by children is extremely rare, and the very occasional evidence of direct, imitative associations between television violence and aggressive behavior has been limited to extremely novel and violent acts by teenagers or adults with already established patterns of deviant behavior. The institutional effect means, in the short term, that exposure to violent portrayals could be dangerous if shoaly after the exposure (within 15 to 20 minutes), the child happens to be in a situation that calls for interpersonal aggression as an appropriate response, for example, an argument between siblings or among peers. This same institutional effect, however, could be produced by other exciting but nonviolent television content or by any other excitational source, including, ironically, a parent’s turning off the set.
So there is no convincing causal evidence of any cumulative instigational effects such as more aggressive or violent dispositions in children. In fact, passivity is a more likely long term result of heavy viewing of television violence. The evidence does not warrant the p conclusions advanced by many critics who tend to use television violence as a scapegoat to draw public attention away from the real causes of violence—causes like abusive spouses and parents and a culture that celebrates violence generally.
The primary purpose of the passage is to ().
A. correct a popular misconception
B. solve a serious social problem
C. criticize some earlier research
D. propose some theories on crime
