Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Eyes wide open: kids and media violence

Eyes wide open: kids and media violence IAN S. MILLER, ZACHARY D. MILLER, AND LAURA E. MILLER The present “kids-eye” view of media violence began with a dinner table discussion among the three authors: a psychologist/psychoanalyst father (IM); his eight-year-old daughter (LM); and his 11-year-old son (ZM). The initial topic concerned the reactions of a New York area grammar school class to the events of September 11, 2001. Because a large number of students had talked about the disturbing effects of television coverage, we wanted to understand better how children both understood and were affected by television and movie violence. But what exactly did we mean by “violence”? Very quickly, our research became engulfed in what William James called the “psychologist’s fallacy.” For us, this meant that a grown-up’s notions of violence varied from those of his children at the latency–preadolescent border. We agreed that the best way to proceed was by the inductive method. Beginning with media vignettes that caught our attention, we would understand a kid’s view of television violence through concrete examples. A lethal shark attack in a prime-time television airing of a classic James Bond film provided our starting point. ZM suggested that the criterion of realism controlled a child’s assessment http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies Wiley

Eyes wide open: kids and media violence

Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/eyes-wide-open-kids-and-media-violence-I4sB8KKFZE

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Whurr Publishers Ltd.
ISSN
1742-3341
eISSN
1556-9187
DOI
10.1002/aps.88
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

IAN S. MILLER, ZACHARY D. MILLER, AND LAURA E. MILLER The present “kids-eye” view of media violence began with a dinner table discussion among the three authors: a psychologist/psychoanalyst father (IM); his eight-year-old daughter (LM); and his 11-year-old son (ZM). The initial topic concerned the reactions of a New York area grammar school class to the events of September 11, 2001. Because a large number of students had talked about the disturbing effects of television coverage, we wanted to understand better how children both understood and were affected by television and movie violence. But what exactly did we mean by “violence”? Very quickly, our research became engulfed in what William James called the “psychologist’s fallacy.” For us, this meant that a grown-up’s notions of violence varied from those of his children at the latency–preadolescent border. We agreed that the best way to proceed was by the inductive method. Beginning with media vignettes that caught our attention, we would understand a kid’s view of television violence through concrete examples. A lethal shark attack in a prime-time television airing of a classic James Bond film provided our starting point. ZM suggested that the criterion of realism controlled a child’s assessment

Journal

International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies – Wiley

Published: Nov 1, 2004

There are no references for this article.