Many scientific studies have shown that the mere presence of guns can increase aggression, an effect dubbed the “weapons effect.” The current research examines a potential source of the weapons effect: guns depicted in top-selling films.
Trained coders identified the presence of violence in each 5-minute film segment for one-half of the top 30 films since 1950 and the presence of guns in violent segments since 1985, the first full year the PG-13 rating (age 13+) was used. PG-13–rated films are among the top-selling films and are especially attractive to youth.
Results found that violence in films has more than doubled since 1950, and gun violence in PG-13–rated films has more than tripled since 1985. When the PG-13 rating was introduced, these films contained about as much gun violence as G (general audiences) and PG (parental guidance suggested for young children) films. Since 2009, PG-13–rated films have contained as much or more violence as R-rated films (age 17+) films.
Even if youth do not use guns, these findings suggest that they are exposed to increasing gun violence in top-selling films. By including guns in violent scenes, film producers may be strengthening the weapons effect and providing youth with scripts for using guns. These findings are concerning because many scientific studies have shown that violent films can increase aggression. Violent films are also now easily accessible to youth (eg, on the Internet and cable). This research suggests that the presence of weapons in films might amplify the effects of violent films on aggression.
Comments
Real-world outcomes dramatically refute media-violence studies
The Annenberg Public Policy Center study1 and commentary2 on gun violence in PG-13-rated films perpetuate negative depictions of modern young people as uniquely dangerous due to cultural influences, conclusions unwarranted by current trends and unfortunate in their power to distract from genuine factors in gun violence. While scholarly analysis of popular- culture content is worthy, dire, causal conclusions and sweeping remedies do not comport with the best evidence of media-effects research and real- world outcomes.
Annenberg commentators state that "the dramatic growth of gun violence in movies aimed at younger viewers" and "the increasing popularity of PG-13 films" mean that many more "youth are exposed to considerable gun violence in movie scripts" that "make gun use appear exciting and attractive."2
The reality-based reaction is: so what? Real-world trends show that in the same period gun violence in PG-13 movies reportedly tripled,1,2 real-world gun violence, homicide, and overall violent crime by young people plummeted, often to record low levels.
The rate of murder arrest of youths under age 18 fell by an astonishing 65% from the late 1980s to 2012, including an 80% decline since the early 1990s. In 2012, youths committed just 3.8% of the country's murders, the lowest ever recorded.3
Similarly, from the late 1980s to 2010, the rate of gun fatalities among Americans ages 10-19 fell by 37%, including a 55% decline since the early 1990s. In 2010, those under age 20 comprised 8.5% of all gun deaths.4 In tandem, the Violence Policy Center's 2011 analysis of General Social Survey trends found a distinct "lack of interest in guns by youth" compared to the "aging" gun-owning population.5
These real-world trends are the opposite--dramatically--of what media -content researchers predict. Yet, surprisingly, the Annenberg study and press statement make no reference to real-world trends. Instead, they present surveys of fictional media violence and studies of self-reported and laboratory-simulated violence as self-referencing proof of harm--even though these check-box exercises are sharply contradicted by the real- world violence outcomes they purport to predict.
When confronted with the fact that their predictions regarding gun and other violence are disconfirmed by real-world trends (unfortunately, such challenges occur rarely), some media-content researchers have responded that (a) other factors have completely overridden presumed media effects, and (b) even if most adolescents are not affected, media violence incites a few disturbed youth to real violence.
But if these responses are valid, then (a) media must be a trivial influence at best, and (b) focused interventions to prevent and treat individual mental disturbance are indicated rather than mass policies (such as rating all movies with guns as "R") that the vast majority of youths do not need and which would not affect the adults who commit well over 90% of gun killings.
In reality, violent media reaching ever-more and ever-younger youth have coincided with dramatically less violent youth. Scientific forums should require that media-content surveys and psychological studies claiming to predict real-world outcomes be validated by real-world outcome indexes.
REFERENCES
1. Bushman, BJ, Jamieson, PE, Weitz, I, Romer, D. Gun violence trends in movies. Pediatrics; originally published online November 11, 2013; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-1600.
2. Annenberg Public Policy Center. More gun violence seen in top- grossing PG-13 movies than in biggest R-rated films. November 11, 2013. Available at: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/more-gun-violence -in-top-pg-13-movies-than-in-biggest-r-rated-films/ . Accessed November 12, 2013.
3. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States 2012. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Tables 28, 38.
4. Injury Prevention & Control. Data & statistics (WISQARS). Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html. Accessed November 12, 2013.
5. Violence Policy Center. A shrinking minority: The continuing decline of gun ownership in America. Washington, DC. April 2011. Available at: http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2013.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared