Indirect aggression in the media: A content ... - Wiley Online Library

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR Volume 30, pages 254–271 (2004)

Indirect Aggression in the Media: A Content Analysis of British Television Programs Sarah M. Coynen and John Archer Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : The purpose of this study is to determine how much indirect aggression occurs in television programs popular among British adolescents. Previous research has mainly focused on violence in the media rather than examining this more manipulative and subtle type of aggression. A content analysis of 228 hours of television programming revealed that indirect aggression was portrayed in 92.04% of all episodes analyzed. It was portrayed more frequently than physical and verbal aggression. Females were more likely to be shown as indirect aggressors than were males, while males were more likely to be portrayed as physical aggressors. Attractive aggressors were more likely to use indirect than other types of aggression. Indirect aggression was often found to be justified, realistic, and rewarded. We conclude that programs that are not considered violent may still contain a large amount of other types of aggression. Aggr. Behav. 30:254–271, 2004. r 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Keywords: indirect aggression, relational aggression, social aggression, television, adolescents

‘‘We fight and fight. We fight and fight and fight. Fight, Fight, Fight, Fight, Fight, Fight! The Itchy and Scratchy Show!!!’’ (The Simpsons)

INTRODUCTION Violence in the Media Since television became widespread in the 1950s, there has been a vast amount of research concerning its effects on viewers. After television was introduced, the United States saw a massive increase in the violence level and crime rate. Researchers began to wonder if this increase in violence and crime was in any way related to the new invention. The first laboratory studies [Bandura et al., 1961], found that viewers would readily imitate aggressive behavior exhibited by a model. This effect was even found – although to n

Correspondence to: Sarah M. Coyne, Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2 HE, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] Received 11 November 2002; Amended version accepted 16 May 2003 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.20022

r 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Indirect Aggression on Television

255

a lesser extent – when children viewed an aggressive cartoon character [Bandura et al., 1963]. Furthermore, children were the most likely to imitate aggressive behavior when the models were rewarded for their behavior. Bandura interpreted these results in terms of social learning theory, in particular that viewers are most likely to imitate aggressive behavior when the model is both rewarded for the actions and is similar to the viewer in some way [Bandura, 1971]. Eron et al. [1972] introduced the view that watching violence on television could have longterm consequences. In a longitudinal study, it was found that early childhood aggression (at age 8) was related to adult antisocial behavior (at age 30). They found that boys’ preference for aggressive television shows at age 8 accurately predicted their aggression at ages 18 and 30. According to Huesmann [1988], humans have cognitive scripts for every situation, and these are stored in memory, guiding behavior when a new situation arises. When a person views violence on television, he may create a new aggressive script, which is then used in later situations. For an individual to employ this new aggressive script, he must first encode the aggression and then rehearse it in his mind. Thus, aggressive scripts formed early in life are susceptible to more rehearsal as time passes. Huesmann also stated that the script is more likely to be activated when an aggressive cue is introduced. Thus, a person’s current feelings and actions may be influenced now by the police drama or violent cartoon that person watched several weeks ago. More studies of this subject are currently being undertaken. Researchers have stated that the link between watching violence on television and later aggression parallels the effect that smoking has on lung cancer [Bushman and Anderson, 2001, Paik and Comstock, 1994]. This claim is based on comparisons of effect sizes. Although not everyone who smokes cigarettes develops lung cancer, and not everyone who views violence on television becomes aggressive, they are both important influences and similar in magnitude. However, critics have questioned whether the effect is actually as robust and comparable to cigarette smoking as is alleged [Ferguson, 2002]. Whatever the outcome of this debate, at the present time, when the average American child graduates from high school, he will have witnessed over 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence, not in the inner-city streets of Los Angeles or Chicago, but in his own home [Bushman, and Anderson, 2001]. Relational/Indirect/Social Aggression Almost all the studies conducted on violence and the media have concerned physical aggression, such as shootings or stabbings, with a few examining verbal aggression [e.g. Potter et al., 1995]. However, a different type of aggression exists, one that has been found to be as harmful and damaging as some types of physical aggression [e.g. Paquette and Underwood, 1999]. This has been given three different names: indirect [Lagerspetz et al., 1988], relational [Crick and Grotpeter, 1995], and social [Cairns, et al., 1989] aggression. This form of aggression causes harm through using others, by spreading rumors, by gossiping, excluding the victim from the group, or ignoring others. Although very similar in definition, the three terms are slightly different [Archer, 2001]. Indirect aggression involves ‘‘behind-theback’’ aggression, in which the aggressor may remain unidentified. Relational aggression can be either overt or covert, focussing on aggression within relationships and friendships. The less commonly used term, social aggression, involves both covert and overt forms within social groups. Several manipulative aggressive behaviors can be described by more than one

256

Coyne and Archer

category, while others are unique to a single category [Archer, 2001]. In this paper, we refer to these manipulative types of behavior collectively as ‘‘indirect aggression,’’ following Lagerspetz et al. [1988]. Several studies have found that indirect aggression is particularly effective and prevalent in girls’ social groups [e.g. Bjo¨rkqvist et al., 1992], although both boys and girls use it as a technique for hurting others. These studies provided the first confirmation that girls may not be as non-aggressive as was once assumed. Girls can be very aggressive, although the majority of their aggressive behavior is enacted in a more subtle and manipulative form where they can often remain unidentified [Lagerspetz, et al., 1988]. Indirect aggression has been confirmed to be very harmful to the victim and can sometimes leave emotional scars that last a lifetime [Simmons, 2002]. Craig [1998] found that victims of ‘‘relational aggression’’ were more depressed and had more anxiety than non-victims. Furthermore, Paquette and Underwood [1999] discovered that female victims of ‘‘social aggression’’ had more negative self-perceptions in a variety of aspects, including physical appearance, romantic appeal, behavioral conduct, and feelings of global self worth. Being a victim of indirect aggression can be highly distressing, especially for girls, and in many cases is felt to be more harmful than some forms of physical aggression. [Eslea, unpublished observations; Paquette and Underwood, 1999]. Although harmful to victims, being an indirect aggressor can also be problematic. Crick and Grotpeter [1995] found that ‘‘relational aggressors’’ were more depressed, lonely, and rejected by their peers, and were more disliked than were non-aggressive adolescents. It is apparent that being both a victim and instigator of indirect aggression can be very troubling. Purpose of the Current Study Currently, there is no research on how watching indirect aggression on television might affect viewers. Before such studies can be carried out, researchers need to discover how frequently this type of aggression occurs on television, and even more importantly, how it is portrayed. Only then can informed investigations of how it might affect people’s behavior be undertaken. The current study examines how frequently indirect aggression occurs in popular British television programs and how it is depicted, with regard to the sex of those involved, reward for aggression, its justification, and the attractiveness of aggressors. We predicted that girls would be more often portrayed as indirect than as physical aggressors, and that boys would be more often portrayed as physical than as indirect aggressors. This was based on studies of the use of indirect and physical aggression by girls and boys of the age-group used [e.g., Owens, 1996].

METHOD Participants Four hundred and twenty-nine adolescents from two High Schools in the North West of England, aged 11–14, were asked to name the five television programs they most frequently viewed. Sports, games shows, music, and news programs were excluded, as is usual in this type of research [Potter et al., 1995; Weiss and Wilson, 1996]. We anticipated that such


257

programs would contain very few, if any, acts of indirect aggression, as they would not have a coherent storyline that focuses on the relationships between characters, the primary setting for incidents of indirect aggression. A total of 29 programs were obtained from this analysis. Each program was taped for seven to nine hours over the course of a nine-week period during the spring television season, providing a total of 228 hours and 402 episodes of programming for analysis. Programs were of British (45%), American (48%), and Australian origin (7%). Procedure. The first author viewed all programs and filled out an aggression inventory for each episode [Appendix 1]. Each act of aggression was coded and assessed as to whether it was justified, realistic, rewarded, or punished, and what type of reward or punishment the aggressor received. The age and sex of each aggressor and victim were noted. The type of program, the age range to which it was directed, the length of the episode, and the country of origin, were all classified for each program. These categories were taken from a variety of content analyses [e.g., Cumberbatch et al., 1987; Gunter and Harrison, 1998; Potter et al., 1995; Weiss and Wilson, 1996]. Characters. A total of 1,309 characters were analyzed (62.5% males and 37.4% females). To be included in the analysis, a character had to add significantly to the program’s plot (i.e. passersby, extras, etc. were omitted). Thus, all main characters, aggressors, and victims, were examined: 36.7% were classified as attractive, 40.1% as average, and 22.8% as unattractive; the majority (85.5%) were white, 9.5% black, 1.9% Asian, 1.1% extra-terrestrial, and 2.1% cartoon characters. Most were young or middle aged, with 1.9% infants or young children, 6.5% in middle childhood, 14.8% adolescents, 33.8% young adults, 37.8% middle adults, and 3.6% older adults. Type of Aggression. Each aggressive act was classified as indirect, physical, or verbal (Table 1). Indirect aggression was further subdivided into Social Exclusion (such as gossiping, spreading rumors, ignoring others), Malicious Humor (such as prank phone calls, trying to get others into trouble, scaring), and Guilt-induction (such as trying to exert influence by making the person feel guilty, put undue pressure on). These categories were derived from a study of indirect aggression in adults [Forrest et al., 2002]. Indirect physical aggression was a further category, which included blackmail, kidnapping, poisoning, and destroying property behind someone’s back. Attractiveness Level. Characters were classified as being physically attractive, average, or unattractive, based on their appearance. Females were coded as physically attractive if they had a large number of characteristics found to be attractive in Western culture. These included having large eyes, an hourglass figure, small nose and chin, prominent cheekbones, large smile, lustrous hair, average body weight, good muscle tone and skin complexion [Cunningham, 1986; Singh, 1993]. Males were coded as attractive if they had a high number of attractive characteristics found in Western culture, including a tapering V-shaped physique, large eyes, prominent cheekbones, large chin, a big smile, good muscle tone and skin complexion [Cunningham et al., 1990; Singh, 1995]. Characters were coded as average if they had some attractive characteristics, but not all. Unattractive characters were coded as having very few attractive characteristics. Relationship of Aggressor and Victim. The relationship between the aggressor and victim was analyzed using the following categories: stranger, acquaintance, friend, family, intimate relationship, ex-relationship, ex-family, student/teacher, colleague, and prisoner/ guard. If character pairs held more than one relationship (e.g., intimate relationship and family), the most salient one was recorded (i.e. intimate relationship).

258

Coyne and Archer

Table I. Types of Aggressive Acts Percentage of Rate per Number total aggression Hour Relational/Indirect/Social

2129

50.6

9.34

706 34 10 18 59 140 214 72 2 156 29 35 6 52 13 1546

16.7 .8 .2 .4 1.4 3.3 5.1 1.7 – 3.7 .7 .7 .1 1.2 .3 36.6

3.1 .15 .03 .08 .26 .61 .94 .32 – .69 .13 .15 .03 .23 .06 6.78

Social Exclusion Gossiping Spreading Rumors Breaking Confidences Becoming friends with another Criticize clothes/personality behind back Ignoring Leaving the room to make someone feel bad Deliberately leaving others out of group/conversation Huddling Dirty Looks Rolling eyes Deliberately trying to break up someone else’s friendship/relationship Not invite someone to party Try to get other to dislike Tell someone to leave Total Malicious Humor Criticize clothes/personality to face Writing abusive notes/messages Prank phone calls Try to get others in trouble Intentionally embarrass around others Imitate behind back Gesture behind back Form a friendship/relationship just to get something Steal Thunder Not Share Scare Total

26 28 5 36 56 24 1 5 2 9 13 205

.6 .7 .1 .9 1.3 .6 – .1 – .2 .3 4.87

.11 .12 .02 .16 .25 .11 – .02 – .04 .06 .89

75 61 16 8 5 165

1.8 1.4 .4 .2 .1 3.9

.33 .27 .07 .03 .02 .72

36 50 98 8 5 4 9

.9 1.2 2.3 .2 .1 .1 .2

.16 .22 .43 .03 .02 .01 .04

Guilt Induction Threaten to end friendship/relationship unless they do something Try to influence by making feel guilty Pretend to be hurt/angry to make them feel bad Put undue pressure on Threaten to take family/friends away Total Indirect/Physical Getting others to help be mean Blackmail Destroying property behind back Hurt others close Kidnap Fire/transfer without any real reason Sue


259

Table I. Continued Percentage of Rate per Number total aggression Hour Cast a spell on Poison Total Physical Aggression Hitting or punching Kicking Destroying someone’s property in front of them Biting Pulling hair Threatening to do physical harm Threatening with a weapon Push Grab Burn Stab Killing or attempting to kill someone Throw food/object at Strangle Chase Slap Rape Torture Whip Stun Verbal Aggression Yelling or arguing Insulting (not name calling) Teasing Name Calling Use sarcasm to insult Imitate to face

2 1 213

– – 5.1

– – .93

749

17.8

3.29

216 34 54 18 6 109 44 65 13 5 17 79 35 19 9 16 2 4 1 3

5.1 .8 1.3 .4 .1 2.6 1.0 1.5 .3 .1 .4 1.9 .8 .5 .2 .4 – .1 – .1

.95 .15 .24 .08 .03 .48 .19 .28 .06 .02 .07 .35 .15 .08 .04 .07 – .02 – .01

1331

31.6

5.84

476 348 78 355 54 20

11.3 8.2 1.8 8.4 1.3 .5

2.08 1.53 .34 1.55 .24 .09

Justification. An aggressive act was coded as justified if it was portrayed as socially sanctioned or as necessary to gain a greater good. Moral acts of aggression against a villain, or other evil character, which were portrayed as acceptable were also classified as justified [Berkowitz, 1963]. An example of a justifiable act of aggression occurs in ‘‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer,’’ when Buffy beheads an evil vampire with an axe. Her aggression is seen as justified, as she is using violence against an evil character to save the world. An example of an unjustifiable act of aggression is seen in ‘‘Smallville,’’ when Lione Luthor secretly buys out his son Lex’s company, to make his son feel dependent and a failure. His aggression is unjustified, as it was not acceptable or necessary to gain a greater good. Instead, the sole purpose seems to be to hurt Lex and ensure greater financial success for the aggressor. Realism. An aggressive act was considered to be realistic if the act was portrayed in a setting that occurs in daily life. For example, in the British soap opera ‘‘Eastenders,’’ it is considered realistic for Peggy to spread rumors about Sharon, as this program attempts to

260

Coyne and Archer

portray ‘‘real life.’’ Alternatively, Clark Kent using his mind to throw a safe onto an enemy’s car in ‘‘Smallville’’ is considered unrealistic, as this could never happen in real life. Reward. Each aggressive act was classified as either rewarded, punished, or neither. An act is rewarded if the aggressor gains something positive from his aggression. Reward was subdivided into the following: (1) tangible (e.g., money); (2) reduction of annoyance (e.g., a sibling stops making a noise); (3) peer approval (e.g., others laugh at a joke and include the aggressor); (4) increase in self-esteem (e.g., the aggressor feels better as a result of putting others down); (5) increase in control or power (e.g., the victim does what the aggressor wants); (6) victim suffering (e.g., the victim starts to cry): (7) adult approval (e.g., teacher or parent praises); and (8) apology (e.g., victim says they are sorry). These categories were based on those used by Perry et al. [1986]. Punishment. An act was classified as punished if the aggressor received something negative as a result of his aggression. Categories included: (1) tangible (e.g., getting punched in the face); (2) increase in annoyance (e.g., victim increases obnoxious noises); (3) peer disapproval (e.g., others disapprove and exclude the aggressor from group); (4) decrease in self-esteem (e.g., aggressor feels worse about self); (5) decrease in power or control (e.g., victim does the opposite of what is wanted), (6) decrease in victim suffering (e.g., victim laughs at the aggressor’s attempt); and (7) adult disapproval (e.g., gets in trouble with parent or teacher). These categories are also based on Perry et al. [1986]. If an aggressive act seemed to warrant more than one reward or punishment, the most salient consequence was recorded. The rewards and punishments could be immediate or delayed, although this classification was not coded in the study. Program type. Programs were classified as cartoon (e.g. ‘‘Rugrats’’), soap opera (e.g. ‘‘Eastenders’’), sitcom (e.g. ‘‘Friends’’), drama (e.g. ‘‘Bad Girls’’), or sitcom-cartoon (e.g. ‘‘The Simpsons’’). These categories were based on earlier content analyses [Cumberbatch et al., 1987; Gunter and Harrison, 1998]. Coding and Reliability. The first author viewed and analyzed all programs. Two trained independent coders analyzed a randomly chosen sample of 10% of all the television programs sampled. Inter-coder reliabilities were assessed using Krippendorff’s coefficient of agreement [Krippendorff, 1980]. This coefficient corrects for chance agreement and replaces either Cohen’s [1960] kappa or Scott’s [1955] pi in conditions with more than two coders. Reliabilities for each variable were: sex of character (1.00), race of character (.86), attractiveness level (.75), age of character (.85), type of aggression (.94), justification (.82), reward/punishment (.89), type of reward (.89), type of punishment (.84), program type (1.00), and country of origin (1.00). Bakeman and Gottman [1986] have specified .70 as an acceptable figure. All values exceed this minimum, with most reliabilities above .80.

RESULTS Types of Aggression A total of 228 hours (402 episodes) of programming was analyzed, yielding 4,209 acts of aggression, at an average rate of 18.46 acts of aggression per hour: 96.76% of programs contained some form of aggression; 92.04% contained indirect aggression, 54.97% physical aggression, 86.32% verbal aggression, and 3.23% no aggression. Examining indirect aggression, 71.57% were forms of social exclusion, 10.92% were malicious humor, 7.41% were guilt-induction, and 10.09% were indirect-physical.


261

Table I shows the types of aggression that occurred, as well as their frequency and rates per hour. Aggressors A chi square analysis of sex of aggressor and type of aggression resulted in a significant difference overall, indicating that males showed more portrayed aggression than females (w2 = 171.40, df = 2, Po.0001, fc = .20). Table II shows the frequency of aggression portrayed by males and females. Since television was introduced, females have consistently been underrepresented [Potter et al., 1995], as was the case in the current study (62.5% of all characters analyzed were male; 37.5% were female). To take this into account, individual w2 likelihood ratios were conducted for each type of aggression [Howell, 2002]. These ratios compare the actual amount of aggression with the expected amount, considering the lower numbers of females portrayed on television. This analysis showed that females were much more likely than males to be portrayed as indirect aggressors (w2 = 204.26, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .31). Males were physical aggressors more often than would be expected on the basis of their character frequency (w2 = 51.14, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .26). Portrayals of verbal aggression approached what would be expected, although females were portrayed as aggressors slightly more often than males were (w2 = 26.07, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .14). When considering the sub-categories of indirect aggression (Table 2), an overall difference was found in how males and females are portrayed (w2 = 22.70, df = 3, Po.0001, fc = .10). Females’ use of indirect aggression stems mainly from their use of indirect exclusion (w2 = 200.60, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .36), and partially from their use of malicious humor (w2 = 13.19, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .24) and guilt-induction (w2 = 13.50, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .29). Males and females did not significantly differ in their use of indirect physical aggression, when considering the number of males and females portrayed on television. Victims When comparing the sex of victims and the type of aggression, a significant overall difference was found between males and females (w2 = 106.40, df = 2, Po.0001, f = .16), with males being portrayed more often as victims of physical aggression when compared to the actual number of males portrayed on television (w2 = 1.70, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .43). Opponents Table III shows the sex of the aggressor and the sex of the victim for each type of aggression. Male-to-male aggression appears to be the most frequent type for almost every

Table II. Sex Differences in Types of Aggression Type of Aggression (%) Aggressors Sex Male Female

Type of Indirect Aggression (%)

Indirect

Physical

Verbal

Soc. Excl

Mal. Humor

Guilt Ind.

Indirect Phy.

1001 (47%) 1123 (53%)

560 (75%) 189 (25%)

741 (56%) 590 (44%)

691 (45%) 855 (55%)

111 (50.5%) 109 (49.5%)

77 (48%) 83 (52%)

133 (62%) 83 (38%)

262

Coyne and Archer

Table III. Sex and Aggressor Compared to Sex of Victim Type of Aggression (%) Sex of Aggressor/ Victim Male—Male Male—Female Female—Female Female—Male

Indirect 658 341 457 668

(31%) (16%) (22%) (31%)

Physical 486 (65%) 74 (10%) 57 (8%) 132 (17%)

Verbal 507 228 256 340

(38%) (17%) (19%) (26%)

type of aggression. However, this is probably a result of the overrepresentation of males on television. Thus, individual w2 likelihood ratios were calculated to compare same- and oppositesex opponents, considering the different frequencies of males and females on television. An overall difference was found between male-to-male and female-to-female aggression (w2 = 180.62, df = 2, Po.0001, fc = .27). When broken down into types of aggression, male-to-male was much more likely to occur than female-to-female aggression, for physical (w2 = 205, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .61) and verbal aggression (w2 = 25.08, df = 1, Po.001, f = .18). Female-to-female aggression was more likely to occur in indirect aggression than male-to-male aggression, although this effect was relatively small (w2 = 5.67, df = 12, Po.05, f = .07). Opposite-sex opponents involved male-to-female aggression and female-to-male aggression. Again, an overall difference was found between the two groups (w2 = 537.78, df = 2, Po.0001, fc = .55). Female-to-male aggression occurred more frequently than male-tofemale aggression in indirect (w2 = 340.10, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .58), physical (w2 = 59.54, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .54), and verbal aggression (w2 = 142.54, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .50).

Attractiveness Level For aggressors, there was an overall difference in levels of attractiveness, meaning that aggressors of different attractiveness levels were not equally distributed across the different types of aggression (w2 = 74.90, df = 4, Po.0001, fc = .09). However, certain types of aggression were portrayed more frequently than were others. Three separate w2 likelihood ratios were calculated, taking into account the overall levels of aggression found on television. Attractive aggressors were more likely to be involved in indirect aggression, rather than other types (w2 = 24.60, df = 2, Po.001, fc = .08). Average aggressors were more likely to be involved in verbal than in other types of aggression, although the effect was fairly small (w2 = 7.40, df = 2, Po.05, fc = .05). Unattractive aggressors were more likely to use physical aggression, compared to what would be expected, based on the overall frequencies of each type of aggression (w2 = 46.00, df = 2, Po.0001, fc = .18). We should note that aggressors were most likely to be rated as attractive (rather than neutral or unattractive) for each type of aggression, although this is probably a result of the high number of attractive characters on television. For victims, there was also a difference in overall levels of attractiveness across the types of aggression (w2 = 60.20, df = 4, Po.001, fc = .08). Attractive victims were more likely to be involved in indirect than in other types of aggression (w2 = 35.80, df = 2, Po.0001, fc = .10]. Average victims, on the other hand, were more likely to be victims of physical aggression than other types (w2 = 20.00, df = 2, Po.001, fc = .07). Unattractive victims were


263

Table IV. Relationship Between Aggressor and Victim for the Three Types of Aggression Type of Aggression (%) Relationships Stranger Acquaintances Friends Family Intimate Relationship Ex-Relationship Ex-Family Student/Teacher Colleagues Prisoner/Guard

Indirect

Physical

Verbal

139 (7.5%) 560 (26%) 410 (19%) 381 (18%) 293 (14%) 105 (5%) 25 (1%) 45 (2%) 134 (6%) 33 (1.5%)

272 (36%) 293 (39%) 48 (6.5%) 66 (9%) 25 (3.5%) 9 (1%) 0 (0%) 7 (1%) 20 (3%) 9 (1%)

127 (9.5%) 310 (23%) 235 (18%) 308 (23%) 158 (12%) 52 (4%) 12 (1%) 25 (2%) 70 (5%) 34 (2.5%)

portrayed in each type of aggression at frequencies that would be expected from the overall levels of aggression found on television. Relationship of aggressor and victim A significant overall difference was found between the type of aggression and the relationship between the victim and aggressor (w2 = 664.80, df = 18, Po.0001, fc = .28). Table IV shows that there are more friends (w2 = 70.70, df = 2, Po.001, fc = .22), intimate relationships, (w2 = 70.00, df = 2, Po.001, fc = .21), and ex-relationships (w2 = 25.26, df = 2, Po.001, fc = .28) portrayed for indirect aggression than would be expected based on the different frequencies of these relationships found on television. For physical aggression, there is a higher frequency of stranger (w2 = 306, df = 2, Po.0001, fc = .53) and acquaintance (w2 = 43.20, df = 2, Po.001, f = .14) relationships than would be expected. Verbal aggression was more frequent between friends, (w2 = 70.70, df = 2, Po.001, f = .22), family (w2 = 62.24, df = 2, Po.001, fc = .20), and in intimate relationships (w2 = 70.00, df = 2, Po.001, f = .21). Overall, aggression occurred most frequently between acquaintances: however, this is most likely to be a result of the high number of acquaintances portrayed on television. Justification There was a significant overall difference between the groups for the justification of different types of aggression (w2 = 140, df = 2, Po.0001, fc = .16). Indirect aggression was coded as more justified (w2 = 51.50, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .15), whereas physical and verbal were more likely to be coded as unjustified (w2 = 23.10, df = 1, Po.0001; f = .17; w2 = 30.00, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .15). The four types of indirect aggression were portrayed differently (w2 = 147.60, df = 3, Po.0001, fc = .26]. Social exclusion was more likely to be justified (w2 = 146.40, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .31]. Malicious humor and indirect physical were both more likely to be unjustified than justified (w2 = 73.55, df = 1, Po.01, f = .18; w2 = 45.7, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .46). Guilt-induction occurred at expected levels.1 1

Percentages were based on the total rewards received by aggressors for each type of aggression.

264

Coyne and Archer

Female aggression was portrayed as more justified than would be expected based on chance, while male aggression was more often portrayed as unjustified (w2 = 46.20, df = 1, Po. 0001, f = .11). Justification also differed according to attractiveness level (w2 = 83.90, df = 2, Po.0001, f = .14). Attractive aggressors were more likely to be justified (w2 = 24.00, df = 1, Po.001, f = .11) while unattractive ones were more likely to be unjustified w2 = 60.60, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .30). Average aggressors were portrayed as justified as often as they are shown to be unjustified. Reward/Punishment There was a significant overall difference in the reward and punishment for different types of aggression (w2 = 196.70, df = 4, Po.0001, fc = .15). Indirect and physical aggression were both rewarded more often than they were punished (w2 = 34.30, df = 2, Po.0001, fc = .09; w2 = 37.20, df = 2, Po.0001, fc = .16). Verbal aggressors were less likely to receive any consequences than be rewarded or punished for their actions (w2 = 131, df = 2, Po.0001, fc = .22). Females were slightly more likely to be rewarded for their aggression than males (w2 = 10.50, df = 2, Po.005, fc = .05), although this effect was relatively small. Aggressors differed in the type of reward gained when using different types of aggression (w2 = 637.50, df = 16, Po.0001, fc = .30). For indirect aggression, gaining peer approval (42%), and watching the victim suffer (24.2%) were the most frequent type of reward. For physical aggression, reduction of annoyance (40.2%), victim suffering (26.4%), and tangible rewards (19.1%) were the most frequent. For verbal aggression, victim suffering (31.6%) and reduction of annoyance (22.3%) were the most frequent.2 Aggressors also differed in the type of punishment they received when using different types of aggression (w2 = 97.93, df = 14, Po.0001, fc = .30). For indirect aggression, the most frequent type of punishment was peer disapproval (35.2%), followed by an increase in annoyance (11.1%). A tangible punishment was also high (24.8%), although this was much less common when compared to other types of aggression. Tangible punishment was by far the most common type for physical (63.0%) and for verbal aggression (45.7%). However, peer disapproval (12.9%) and decreases in self-esteem (18.5%) were also quite common for verbal aggression. Type of program Some television programs contained higher frequencies of one type of aggression than did others (w2 = 483.40, df = 12, Po.0001, fc = .20). Nearly half of the indirect aggression on television occurred in soap operas (43.3%). A third of all physical aggression occurred in cartoons (33%) and 30% occurred in dramas. Verbal aggression was most likely to occur in soap operas (39%) and sitcoms (22%). Realism A significant overall difference was found in how realistically the different types of aggression were portrayed (w2 = 291.80, df = 3, Po.0001, fc = .26). In particular, indirect (w2 = 575, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .52) and verbal aggression (w2 = 372.50, df = 1, Po.0001, f = .53) were portrayed as more realistic than was physical aggression (w2 = 9.98, df = 1, Po.005, f = .16). This could be a result of the high level of physical aggression shown in 2

Percentages based on the total punishments received by aggressors for each type of aggression.


265

cartoons (which are most often portrayed as unrealistic), and the high level of indirect and verbal aggression contained in soap operas. Most and least aggressive programs The frequency of aggressive acts per hour was calculated for each program analyzed in the sample. Table V shows the most and least aggressive programs for indirect, physical, verbal, and total aggression. It is interesting to note that several programs contain very high levels of one type of aggression, and very low levels of another (for example ‘‘Tom and Jerry’’ and ‘‘Emmerdale’’).

DISCUSSION There is a high frequency of indirect aggression portrayed on British television today: Ninety-two percent of the episodes analyzed contained some form of this type of aggression, and it was portrayed more frequently than any other type of aggression. It was shown to be the most justified, and prompted some sort of peer approval or pleasure from watching the victim suffer, while aggressors of physical aggression were most often portrayed as reducing some annoyance, gaining a tangible reward, or seeing the victim suffer. These television portrayals of indirect aggression show distinct similarities to its occurrence in real life. According to Crick et al. [1999] ‘‘relational aggression’’ is the most common angry, hurtful behavior enacted in young girls’ peer groups. Simmons [2002] has found that others in the social group often consider indirect aggression to be justified. It is also very Table V. Most and Least Aggressive Programs for Each Type of Aggression Most Aggressive

Frequency per hour

Least Aggressive

Frequency per hour

Indirect Aggression 1. Saved By the Bell 2. Emmerdale 3. Coronation St.

16.60 16.40 15.86

1. Star Trek 2. Tweenies 3. Casualty

1.28 4.40 4.60

23.80 10.20 7.73

1. Tweenies 2. Emmerdale 3. Sex and the City

0.00 0.22 0.50

12.26 11.57 9.40

1. Tom and Jerry 2. Tweenies 3. Star Trek

0.42 1.50 2.00

Physical Aggression 1. Tom and Jerry 2. Buffy the Vampire Slayer 3. South Park Verbal Aggression 1. South Park 2. Coronation St. 3. Emmerdale

Total Aggression (indirect, physical and verbal combined) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Tom and Jerry South Park Coronation St. Emmerdale Saved by the Bell

29.70 29.30 28.00 27.11 26.60

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Tweenies Star Trek Sex and the City Friends Neighbours

7.00 7.28 9.00 9.29 11.30

266

Coyne and Archer

often rewarded, especially with increases in peer approval and social status. Simmons also stated that aggressors often find joy in watching their victims suffer as a result of being ignored or excluded. Even by these standards, the frequency of indirect aggression being portrayed in the media is extremely high. A recent study in the United Kingdom found that the average adolescent hears about or witnesses approximately 33 acts of indirect aggression during a typical week in everyday life. They also watch an average of 33.6 hours of television each week [Coyne and Archer, 2002]. The current study found that indirect aggression was portrayed an average of 9.34 times per hour. This would result in the average adolescent witnessing a total of approximately 319.20 separate acts of this type of aggression per week when watching his favorite television programs, nearly 10 times more frequently than he would report witnessing these actions in real life. It should be noted, however, that participants in Coyne and Archer’s study only reported indirect aggression that occurred at school or among friends. Thus, the number may be slightly higher when aggression in family relationships is included. One of the major findings of this study is that television portrays females as being slightly more indirectly aggressive than males. A recent content analysis examined direct and indirect aggression in a small sample [9 hours] of American television programs [Feshbach and Hanf, 2002]. Consistent with this study, they found that females were more often portrayed as indirect aggressors than were males. This parallels the ‘‘real world,’’ as most major research on children and adolescents has found more indirect aggression among girls than boys [Bjo¨rkqvist, et al. 1992, Crick and Grotpeter, 1995], although this finding has not been replicated in every case or age group [Hart et al., 1998, Henington et al., 1998]. This finding stems mainly from females’ high use of gossiping and social exclusion. A study by Paquette and Underwood [1999] found that participants reported being victims of gossiping and social exclusion more than other types of ‘‘social’’ aggression. Owens et al. [2000] found similar results from their interviews with adolescent girl social groups. Although females were more likely to be portrayed as the aggressors for indirect aggression, males were more likely to be shown as their victims. The majority of studies of aggression in children and adolescents do not distinguish the sex of the victim. It is usually assumed that they are the same sex as the aggressor, probably because sex-segregation occurs throughout childhood and adolescence [e.g. Archer 1992; Maccoby, 1998; Pellegrini and Archer, in press]. Linder et al. [2002] distinguished between the sex of victims when they researched ‘‘romantic relational aggression,’’ which is ‘‘relational aggression’’ against romantic partners. They found that men reported higher levels of relational victimization in adulthood. However, Richardson and Green [1999] found that males and females were equally likely to be victims of indirect aggression. Furthermore, there was no difference between the sex of victims of indirect aggression found in childhood [Craig, 1998]. When comparing portrayals of the sex of the aggressor and victim on television, it was found that female-to-female and female-to-male indirect aggression were both particularly high. Physical aggression, on the other hand, was most often portrayed by males directed to males, and females directed to males. Richardson and Green [1999] also found that for indirect aggression, female-to-female aggression was high. However, they did not find that female-to-male indirect aggression was any higher than male-to-male indirect aggression. They also found that for physical aggression, male-to-male was the most frequently reported, which is consistent with the way in which television portrays this type of aggression. They


267

also found that male-to-female aggression was slightly more frequent than female-to-male for physical aggression, a finding opposite that portrayed on television. There is a commonly held assumption that males are more commonly the perpetrators of physical aggression in intimate relationships. However, recent meta-analyses have found that females are often more physically aggressive to males than males are to females, especially in the case of partner aggression [Archer, 2000, 2002]. Perhaps, television has portrayed the aggressors and victims of physical aggression more accurately than the commonly held view. Indirect aggressors were also found to be more attractive than perpetrators of other types of aggression. Attractiveness is often associated with popularity and social status, especially among the youth. Bjo¨rkqvist et al. [2001] found that female indirect aggressors were often popular and were less likely to be alone. Indirect aggressors also have high social intelligence, that is, they possess skills that allow them to manipulate relationships by making accurate inferences about the victim’s behavior and relationships. Aggressors using physical and verbal aggression do not show this social intelligence [Kaukiainen et al., 1999]. On television, characters involved in intimate relationships, ex-relationships, and friendships are particularly likely to use indirect aggression. This finding parallels most research findings, as indirect aggressors often seek to harm the relationships and social groups of the victim. Several studies have found that indirect aggression is particularly likely to occur in close friendships [Green et al., 1996; Simmons, 2002] and intimate relationships [Linder, et al., 2002]. If aggressors have no knowledge of such groups, it is very difficult for them to successfully manipulate the social fabric enough to truly hurt the victim. Indirect aggression in ex-relationships may also be successful, as the aggressor has intimate knowledge of the other person and may use this information to aggress. On the other hand, strangers and acquaintances are most likely to use physical aggression. The nature of physical aggression would suggest this finding. It is a quick and effective way of hurting someone about whom the aggressor knows little. When physical aggression is used in intimate relationships and friendships, there is a major risk that the victim will cut off the relationship. Verbal aggression was portrayed most often on television between family, friends, and in intimate relationships. In studies of real life, verbal aggression was particularly found to occur frequently in intimate relationships [e.g. Riggs and O’Leary, 1996]. It is not seen to be as harmful as other types of aggression: thus, in many cases it can occur in close relationships without jeopardizing the relationship [Coyne and Archer, 2002]. Thus, television portrays the relationships of aggressors and victims fairly accurately. On television, aggressive females are more likely than aggressive males to be portrayed as justified. Females are often portrayed as fighting against some higher power (e.g. fighting against oppression), and their aggression is seen as an acceptable route to achieve what they need. Aggressive females are also more often rewarded, and less likely to be punished than are aggressive males. Television may therefore be influencing girls to believe that it is acceptable to be aggressive when the cause seems justified. The high frequency of indirect aggression that is portrayed by females on television may give girls the idea that this type of aggression is not only normative, but also very often rewarded with all-important gains in social status. It is not clear whether this represents an accurate view of real-life or whether it provides a distorted picture of indirect aggression. Lastly, if physical, verbal, and indirect aggression are combined, many programs that may not have been considered to be violent turn out to be highly aggressive (see Table V). In the future, it will be important to acknowledge that although some programs may not be very violent, they may still contain large amounts of other forms of aggression.

268

Coyne and Archer

Limitations It should be noted that this study only examined British television programs that were most popular among adolescents. Less popular programs may portray aggression differently than popular programs. Similarly, programs popular among adults may contain even more aggression than the sampled programs. However, many programs sampled (e.g. soap operas) are popular among adults as well as adolescents, thus making the sample somewhat applicable to adults. Conclusion and Future Directions In conclusion, we found that indirect aggression is portrayed more often on British television than any other type of aggression. Furthermore, it is more often portrayed as used by females than males, even though there are nearly twice as many males featured in the programs sampled. This type of aggression is likely to be justified, and very often rewarded. The major question our research raises is, ‘‘What kind of influence (if any) does viewing indirect aggression have on viewers’ aggression?’’ Does it increase their subsequent aggression level, and make viewers desensitized and unsympathetic to its effects? There may be no effect at all from viewing this type of aggression, given that viewers are constantly exposed to it. Furthermore, we may ask whether the way this type of aggression is portrayed makes any difference to its effect on viewers. We have seen that justified and rewarded physical aggression has a greater effect on viewers [Bandura, 1971; Berkowitz and Rawlings, 1963]. Does viewing justified and rewarded indirect aggression have a similar effect? It would also be interesting to ask how indirect aggression on television compares with examples of prosocial behavior. Research on these topics needs to be conducted to assess the full extent that viewing indirect aggression may have on viewers.

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Bruce Money (University of South Carolina) and Mike Eslea (University of Central Lancashire) for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper. We would also like to acknowledge Paul Coyne (University of Central Lancashire) and Toni Liechty (Brigham Young University) for their help with the coding.

Appendix 1: Sample Coding Sheet (Condensed) for Each Episode Program name: ________________________ Length of program: ____________________ Type of program: (tick one) ________Cartoon ________Soap opera ________Sitcom ________Drama ________Other Country of origin: ________United Kingdom ________United States ________Australia

Channel: ___________________


269

For each character in the episode: Name: _____________ Sex: ____________ Age: _____________ Race: _____________ Attractiveness: ________Attractive ________Average ________Unattractive For each aggressive act in the episode: Type of aggression: _____________________ (See Table 1 for list) Aggressor name: _____________________ Victim name: _____________________ Relationship of aggressor and victim ________Stranger ________Acquaintances ________Friends ________Family ________Intimate relationship

________Ex-relationship ________Ex-family ________Student/teacher ________Colleagues ________Prisoner/guard

Was aggression portrayed realistically? ________Yes ________No Was it justified? ________Yes ________No Was it rewarded? ________Yes ________Neither ________No (punished) What type of reward (reverse for punishment) ________Tangible ________Reduction of annoyance ________Increase in self-esteem ________Increase in control or power ________Victim suffering ________Adult approval ________Apology

REFERENCES Archer J. 1992. Childhood gender roles: Social context and organisation. In: McGurk H, editor. Childhood social development: Contemporary perspectives. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. p 31–61. Archer J. 2000. Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 126:651–680. Archer J. 2001. A strategic approach to aggression. Soc Dev 10:267–271.

Archer J. 2002. Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners. A meta-analytic review. Aggress Violent Behav 7: 313–351. Bakeman R, Gottman JM. 1986. Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bandura A. 1971. Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

270

Coyne and Archer

Bandura A, Ross D, Ross SA. 1961. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 63:575–582. Bandura A, Ross D, Ross SA. 1963. Imitation of filmmediated aggressive models. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 66 :3–11. Berkowitz L, Rawlings E. 1963. Effects of film violence on inhibitions against subsequent aggression. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 66:405–412. Bjo¨rkqvist K. 2001. Different names, same issue. Soc Dev 10:272–275. Bjo¨rkqvist K, O¨sterman K, Lagerspetz K, Landau SF, Caprara G, Fraczek A. 2001. Aggression, victimization, and sociometric status: Findings from Finland, Israel, Italy, and Poland. In: Rameriez JM, Richardson DS, editors. Cross-Cultural Approaches to Aggression and Reconciliation. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. p 111–119. Bjo¨rkqvist K, Lagerspetz K, Kaukiainen A. 1992. Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggress Behav 18:117–127. Bjo¨rkqvist K, O¨sterman K, Kaukiainen A. 1992. The development of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In: Bjo¨rkqvist K, Niemela¨ P, editors. Of mice and women. Aspects of female aggression. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. p 51–64. Bushman B, Anderson C. 2001. Media violence and the American public. Am Psychol 56:477–489. Cairns R, Cairns B, Neckerman H, Ferguson L, Gariepy J. 1989. Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood to early adolescence. Dev Psychol 25:320–330. Cohen J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Edu Psychol Meas 20:37–46. Coyne SM, Archer J. July, 2002. ‘‘We’re not friends anymore! Unlessy..’’: A study looking at the frequency and harmfulness of relational, indirect, and social aggression. Paper presented at the Annual British Psychological Society PsyPag conference. Cardiff, Wales. Craig W. 1998. The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Pers Indiv Diff 24:123–130. Crick N, Grotpeter J. 1995. Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Dev 66:710–722. Crick N, Werner N, Casas J, O’Brien K, Nelson D, Grotpeter J, Markon K. 1999. Childhood aggression and gender: A new look at an old problem. In: Bernstein D, editor. Gender and motivation. Nebraska symposium on motivation, vol 45. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. p 75–141. Cumberbatch G, Lee M, Hardy G. 1987. The portrayal of violence on British television. A content analysis. London: British Broadcasting Company.

Cunningham, MR. 1986. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:925–935. Cunningham MR, Barbee AP, Pike CL. 1990. What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. J Pers Soc Psychol 59:61–72. Eron LD, Huesmann LR, Lefkowitz MM, Walder O. 1972. Does television violence cause aggression? Am Psychol 27:253–262. Ferguson CJ. 2002. Media violence: miscast causality. Am Psychol 57:446–447. Feshbach ND, Hanf A. July, 2002. Gender and the depiction of direct and indirect aggression on television. Paper presented at the biannual International Society for Research on Aggression conference. Montreal, Canada. Forrest S, Eatough V, Shevlin M. 2002. Developing a measure of adult indirect aggression. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society annual conference. Blackpool, UK. Green L, Richardson D, Lago T. 1996. How do friendship, indirect, and direct aggression relate? Aggress Behav 22:81–86. Gunter B, Harrison J. 1998. Violence on television. An analysis of amount, nature, location, and origin of violence in British programmes. London, UK: Routledge. Hart C, Nelson D, Robinson C, Olsen S, McNeillyChoque M. 1998. Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Dev Psychol 34:687–697. Henington C, Hughes J, Cavell T, Thompson B. 1998. The role of relational aggression in identifying aggressive boys and girls. J School Psychol 36:57–477. Howell DC. 2002. Statistical methods for psychology. United States of America, Wadsworth Group. Huesmann LR. 1988. An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggress Behav 14:13–24. Kaukiainen A, Bjo¨rkqvist K, Lagerspetz K, O¨sterman K, Salmivalli C, Rothberg S, Ahlbom A. 1999. The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggress Behav 25:81–89. Krippendorff, K 1980. Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Lagerspetz K, Bjo¨rkqvist K, Peltonen T. 1988. Is indirect aggression typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11– to 12–year old children. Aggress Behav 14:403–414. Linder JR, Crick N, Collins WA. 2002. Relational aggression and victimization in young adults’

Indirect Aggression on Television romantic relationships: Associations with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Soc Dev 11:69–86. Maccoby E. 1998. The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/ Harvard University Press. Owens L. 1996. Sticks and stones and sugar and spice: Girls’ and boys’ aggression in schools. Australian J Guidance Counsel 6:5–55. Owens L, Shute R, Slee P. 2000. ‘‘Guess what I just heard!’’: Indirect aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggress Behav 26:7–83. Paquette JA, Underwood MK. 1999. Gender differences in young adolescents’ experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer Q 45:242–266. Paik H, Comstock G. 1994. The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Communic Res 21:516–546. Pellegrini A, Archer J (in press). Sex differences in competitive and aggressive behavior: A view from sexual selection theory. In: Ellis BJ, Bjorklund DF, editors. Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development. New York: Guildford. Perry GD, Perry LC, Rasmussen P. 1986. Cognitive social learning mediators of aggression. Child Dev 57:700–711.

271

Potter JW, Vaughan MW, Warren R, Howley K, Land A, Hagemeyer JC. 1995. How real is the portrayal of aggression in television entertainment programming? J Broadcasting Electr Media 39: 96–516. Richardson R, Green L. 1999. Social sanction and threat explanations of gender effects on direct and indirect aggression. Aggress Behav 25:25–434. Riggs DS, O’Leary KD. 1996. Aggression between heterosexual dating partners: An examination of a causal model of courtship aggression. J Interpers Violence 11:19–540. Scott WA. 1955. Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opin Q 19: 321–325. Simmons R. 2002. Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. New York: Harcourt Inc. Singh D. 1993. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. J Pers Soc Psychol 65:293–307. Singh D. 1995. Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of waist-tohip ratio and financial status. J Pers Soc Psychol 69:1089–1101. Weiss AJ, Wilson BJ. 1996. Emotional portrayals in family television series that are popular among children. J Broadcasting Electr Media 40:1–29.