Support for Censorship of Television Violence

This study examined predictors of support for censorship of television violence, including third-person effects (the belief that others are more affected by televised violence than oneself) and exposure to specific news stories about the issue. A random sample of 253 residents in a small, Midwestern metropolitan area participated via telephone interviews. The third-person effect for aggression predicted greater support for censorship, but the third-person effect for mean-world perceptions did not. However, when perceived effects on self and others were examined separately, greater support for censorship was associated with respondents' beliefs that violent content increased others' aggressive tendencies but their own mean-world perceptions. More frequent exposure to news stories about imitation was associated with more willingness to censor violent content, but four other types of news stories were unrelated to censorship support. Interpretations and implications of these and other findings are discussed.

[1]  Kevin W. Saunders.  Violence As Obscenity: Limiting the Media’s First Amendment Protection , 1996 .

[2]  W. Davison.  The Third-Person Effect in Communication , 1983 .

[3]  J. Innes,et al.  The public's view of the impact of the mass media: A test of the ‘third person’ effect , 1988 .

[4]  James T. Hamilton,et al.  Television Violence and Public Policy , 1998 .

[5]  Paul J. Lavrakas,et al.  Telephone survey methods : sampling, selection, and supervision , 1988 .

[6]  Reginald S. Sheehan,et al.  The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions , 1993, American Political Science Review.

[7]  Dominic L. Lasorsa,et al.  Real and Perceived Effects of ‘Amerika’ , 1989 .

[8]  J. Bryant,et al.  Responding to the screen : reception and reaction processes , 1991 .

[9]  Albert C. Gunther,et al.  Overrating the X‐Rating: The Third‐Person Perception and Support for Censorship of Pornography , 1995 .

[10]  Ewa A. Golebiowska.  Individual value priorities, education, and political tolerance , 1995 .

[11]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Support for Censorship of Violent and Misogynic Rap Lyrics , 1997 .

[12]  Benjamin I. Page,et al.  Effects of Public Opinion on Policy , 1983, American Political Science Review.

[13]  Haejung Paik,et al.  The Effects of Television Violence on Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis1 , 1994 .

[14]  Albert C. Gunther,et al.  What We Think Others Think , 1991 .

[15]  Eric Schickler,et al.  MULTIPLE-MEASURE ASSESSMENT OF PARTY IDENTIFICATION , 1993 .

[16]  T. Marshall.  PUBLIC OPINION, REPRESENTATION, AND THE MODERN SUPREME COURT , 1988 .

[17]  Jeremy Cohen,et al.  Third-Person Effects and the Differential Impact in Negative Political Advertising , 1991 .

[18]  Paul D. Driscoll,et al.  Consequences of third‐person perception in support of press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial , 1997 .

[19]  M. Salwen.  Perceptions of Media Influence and Support for Censorship , 1998 .

[20]  Dhavan V. Shah,et al.  FOR THE GOOD OF OTHERS: CENSORSHIP AND THE THIRD-PERSON EFFECT , 1996 .

[21]  S. Iyengar.  Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. , 1991 .

[22]  S. Chaffee,et al.  Regulating Pornography: A Public Dilemma , 1990 .

[23]  E. C. Shirkey,et al.  Correlates of support for censorship of sexual, sexually violent, and violent media , 1994 .

[24]  J. McLeod,et al.  A model of public support for First Amendment rights , 1998 .

[25]  Charles T. Salmon,et al.  THE ‘OTHER’ AS THE VULNERABLE VOTER: A STUDY OF THE THIRD-PERSON EFFECT IN THE 1988 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN , 1990 .

[26]  David H Tewksbury,et al.  Third-person effects on publication of a holocaust-denial advertisement , 1998 .

[27]  L. Eron,et al.  Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on violence & youth. , 1994 .

[28]  Esther Thorson,et al.  Perceived Persuasive Effects of Product Commercials and Public Service Announcements , 1992 .