kid-watching-tv (1)

Ratings Reform: A Science-Backed Approach to Protecting Children from Media Violence

What is the effect of media violence on children's mental health? Do today’s current TV and movie ratings help protect children from what research says is a problem, or does it just protect parents' sensibilities?

Have you ever shown something on TV to a child and later found yourself regretting it? And in your own upbringing, were you ever exposed to something in the media that left you unsettled—wishing you had never seen it? Mostly, we ignore and even joke about these kinds of moments. But maybe we shouldn’t. Because these moments leave more of a mark than we realize.   

One area of increasing attention among researchers is the relationship between mental health and tragic outbursts of violence. Researchers at Case Western Reserve University have been studying the interaction between violence and mental health, and the results of their research are different than what many people may have expected. 

Since the early days of television, there have been disputes about how TV viewing affects children’s behavior. While some debate remains today, there has been a sturdy consensus for nearly twenty years that violent media causes children to act in more violent ways. Today, there is a growing body of research that explains how exposure to violence affects children differently than it affects adults, and it does so in ways that may help to inform the policy debates about violence in society. 

There have long been standards and ratings that categorize violence in TV and movie content. These rating systems have largely been oriented toward ranking content that would be offensive to parents. What if, instead, we implemented a rating approach “based on what is harmful to children rather than what is offensive to parents”? The premise behind this proposal was that the assumptions underlying the industry’s rating systems were not consistent with the scientific research on how media portrayals of violence affect young viewers.

Violent media causes children to act in more violent ways.

These researchers proposed an alternative approach to ratings based on six criteria for judging violent content. These criteria included factors such as whether the violence is rewarded or sanctioned; whether the child’s likely role model is violent; whether the violence is portrayed as justified or not; whether the violence was realistically portrayed; as well as the total amount of violence. They maintain that these criteria reflect aspects of exposure to violence that science has found to be harmful to children.

They offered these criteria as a foundation for their proposed shift from a rating system focused on parental offense to one focused on childhood harm. We believe children will benefit if the rating system is designed to their needs. 

The Case Western Reserve University team has more recently researched how witnessing violence harms children. While the public debate often focuses on the causal factors of violent behavior, they focus on how exposure to violence affects the mental health of children. Their research went beyond visual media to include a broad spectrum of exposure, including witnessing violence at home, at school, in the community, in news reports, as well as being a victim of violence.

 One sobering finding was the sheer magnitude of violence that children are exposed to in their everyday lives. As they write, We have witnessed a steady increase in levels of children’s exposure to violence and its damaging effect on their mental health.” Whether the violence is fictional or real, portrayed realistically or animated, viewed as a witness, or experienced as a victim, exposure to violence affects the mental health of children. For example, their research found that 12% of children in third through eighth grade who personally witnessed someone “being hit, slapped, or punched” experienced levels of anxiety that could require treatment. Their conclusion: “Children who report high levels of exposure to violence (either as witness or victim) report the highest levels of depression, anger, and anxiety.”

Some have argued that viewing violence in a positive context can avoid many of the harms among children. For example, parents tolerate the frequent violence associated with superheroes, arguing that these characters are pursuing noble ends and working aggressively (and often violently) to defeat the bad guys and defend the underdogs. However, in a Brigham Young University study, family life professor Sarah M. Coyne observed, “So many preschoolers are into superheroes, and so many parents think that the superhero culture will help their kids defend others and be nicer to their peers, but our study shows the exact opposite. Kids pick up on the aggressive themes and not the defending ones.” The study suggests the need to rethink some of the entertainment that kids thrive on, which may not be as harmless as we had assumed.

We believe children will benefit if the rating system is designed to their needs.

With society’s relaxed view toward portraying both fictional and real violence, combined with ever-increasing technological advancements in virtual reality, the trend toward increased exposure to violence is almost a given. Add to this the fact that developing minds have a difficult time distinguishing between fiction and reality, and the stage is set for unanticipated consequences of a trend toward more graphic violence in public media. The system of rating violence in public media should be updated to incorporate these new insights into how children are harmed by exposure to violence.

It is easy to dismiss those concerned with violence in the media as reactive or prudish. There is clearly not a one-to-one correlation between those who watch media violence and those who perpetrate violence in real life. But while the effects may be subtler and more varied, they are well established in the research and no less real. Anyone serious about reducing violence and protecting children would do well to start by reassessing how we rate children’s television.

About the author

Public Square Staff

Our core team, including our Editor, Managing Editor, Communications and Media Directors, Visual Display Director and Copy Editor.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Our Worship of the New

Modern minds tend to exult in new ideas—while scoffing at those of the past. Could that hubris help explain some of our crises today?

African Women are the Future + Today’s Digest

Public Square Bulletin recommends: Why the Future of The World’s Largest Religion is Female And African Gina Zurlo – Religion Unplugged Religion Unplugged looks at the demographic reasons why the near-term future of religion resides in the women of sub-Saharan Africa, and the significant impacts they’ve made to the world of faith. No need to be wordy with God, simple prayers are great, too RJ Jacobs, SJ – The Jesuit Post Jesuit student, RJ Jacobs, reflects on the simple and meaningful prayers he heard while helping out for Ash Wednesday in the hospital where he volunteers. Updates in the bible of journalism style Terry Mattingly – Get Religion How we understand faith is downstream from how it is described, especially by the journalists we read. The leading light of religion journalism criticism, Terry Mattingly, looks at how the newest changes to the AP style guide may affect our discourse. Orthodox Geopolitics and American National Security Dan Harre – Providence The religious elements undergirding the Russia-Ukraine conflict are deep and complicated. Dan Harre does an excellent job of explaining them with clarity. The Nixon White House plotted to assassinate a Latter-day Saint journalist 50 years ago Mark Feldstein – Washington Post One of the most sobering incidents in recent political history, the Washington Post recounts how President Nixon saught to kill Jack Anderson, one of the leading investigative journalists at the time, and faithful Latter-day Saint.    

The Room Next Door Review

“The Room Next Door” is the latest example of arthouse social engineering.  The film is about a troubled woman, Martha, who in the midst of cancer treatments decides to commit suicide. If this bothers you, the film implies, it is because there is something wrong with you. This is all the more troubling, because the film, in many ways, is beautiful. It is directed by Pedro Almodóvar, one of the most acclaimed living film directors, in his first full-length film in English. And you can’t help but be taken by the beauty of it all. The film is suffused with the soft colors of the woods. Despite being an entire screenplay full of little except two friends talking, the camera work keeps the film alive and moving. And Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton who play Ingrid and Martha once again give impeccable, engaging performances, that you can’t help but admire.  But all the beauty in this film is in service of a story that is decidedly ugly—but not self-awarely so. Our two main characters are old friends who met as young writers. Ingrid has published a best seller recently, where she writes about how she can’t accept death. On her publicity tour, she learns that Martha is in the hospital with cancer. She goes to visit her and reignite their friendship. We learn through the conversations that these characters aren’t bad people, necessarily, they just struggle to see a world outside of their own desires and consciousness. They have repeatedly avoided building relationships or having families. Martha does have a daughter. But she chased her father away, then lied to her about who he was her whole life, and then proceeded to be an absent mother so she could chase the romanticism of being a war correspondent.  Now that she is sick and dying, she notices that she has no one in her life. The movie comments on this like an unusual quirk, rather than the inevitable result of a life of bad decisions. We learn early on that cancer treatment can be a roller coaster with euphoric peaks, and miserable nadirs. During one such rut, Martha purchases a suicide pill, and decides she will kill herself. She reaches out to Ingrid and asks her to come on vacation with her, so that she will have someone in the house when she does it.  Ingrid agrees. And although she early on expresses some discomfort, she quickly respects Martha’s wishes to largely pretend nothing is happening. They have a lovely vacation in upstate New York watching old movies and reading books. While they are there, Ingrid reconnects with Damien (John Turturo) an ex-boyfriend of both hers and Martha’s. He is horrified at the state of the world, and seems to only live for sex (or to constantly talk about sex.) Damien is not a sympathetic character, and perhaps the audience is supposed to read that his unpleasant and helpless politics are akin to Martha’s helpless approach to life. If so the audience hardly has time to ponder it under a heavy heaping of affirmations about the power to choose, and the dignity to die.  Eventually, Martha does exactly what she promised to do. There is a brief police investigation where the officer (Alessandro Nivola) expresses concern that Ingrid would have knowingly not gotten help for her friend. A lawyer comes and helpfully tells the audience we can ignore that concern because he is a religious fanatic. This is the kind of movie that alludes to James Joyce not just once but three times. It is so pleased with just how artsy it is. And for a film with a message like “life isn’t worth fighting for,” the best comfort is that it’s so artsy not a lot of people will watch it.  The only people I would recommend watching this film is for those studying how society has devalued human life, and how good tools can be misused to harm people. The film is rated PG-13. It includes several normalized same-sex relationships, and some joking about polyamorous relationships. But obviously the biggest warning is the way it normalizes and glamorizes suicide. If you watch it with older teenagers, I would focus on questions about the choice that Martha made, and how family and relationships could have helped her make better choices. I might ask about how Ingrid could have been a better or more caring friend. One out of five stars. “The Room Next Door” will be released in theaters nationwide January 17, 2025.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!