Thursday, December 10, 2009
Horror and Slasher Films
Sara Johnson
Professor Marie Yerks
Composition 106
10 December 2009
Horror Films and Slasher Movies
In this paper, I will explore just how detrimental the short and long term effects of horror films can be. I will prove that the younger a person is exposed to the gruesome images in horror films, the more likely they are to suffer from nightmares, and anxiety, and exhibit violent behavior. The increasing gore in horror films are corrupting our youth by poisoning their minds. Horror films warp and distort their morality, judgment and even their sense of well being and safety.
Our generation is not easily impressed and they want better sound and better graphics. The competition is always on to make movies more realistic. The film industry has really gone to great lengths to please their audience’s growing demand for amazing movies. Horror films are a genre of film that has changed dramatically over the past 50 years. It is amazing how the horror films of our generation have set a new standard for future horror films. The gore has increased dramatically in the past few decades.
Horror movies in the 40’s and 50’s have never portrayed blood and if a victim was attacked the camera usually turned from the actual encounter and only shadows were seen. Horror movies in the 60’s evolved a little more and became more realistic. The horror films in those days had a little more gore and on displayed blood but again, the camera never showed really graphic scenes of someone being tortured or mutilated. Beginning in the 70’s and progressing through the 80’s and 90’s horror films developed more gore and blood. They also started showing guts “blood and guts” or the victim’s insides coming out of a person’s body. The plots also became more focused on violence as more and more of a horror films content was spent in violent imagery, both with violent scenes lasting longer and longer and occurring with more frequency. All this in response to the youth of that generation’s obsession with seeing more “blood and guts” on screen. Unfortunately, the next generation of the present, our generation, wanted more also. The infamous “Saw” movies took horror films in a new direction when they came to theatres in the 2000’s, bringing new meaning to gory horror films. Taking torture to a whole new level by making the victims choose between maiming themselves or dying a gruesome death. All with of course even greater graphic detail.
In the 40s and 50s, Dracula and Wolf man were men that targeted women, captured and killed them. In the 70s, The “Omen”, and “The Exorcist” were horror films where the demonic spirits possess young children and cause them to commit evil crimes like murder. 80’s horror movies introduced serial killers. “Nightmare on Elm Street” with “Freddy Kruger,” and “Friday the 13th”, with “Jason,” targeted males and females, but very interestingly teenagers. Removing adults who would complain about the level of violence from the audience, making young people identify even more with the violence, and at the same time making these movies the “must see” movies of the season for the young. The movie “Halloween” also has a man wearing a mask that targets and kills teens, male and female. 2000’s the birth of the saw movies where a man captures people (male and female) then he hooks them up to various torture devices and forces them to torture themselves by cutting off their own limbs etc…in order to escape the trap he has put them in.
These movies also continued a new trend from “The Omen” and “The Exorcist,” the plot theme that the “bad guy” really doesn’t die. Because they are sequels and the dangerous character is always resurrected somehow in the next movie. These movies begin to introduce ideas very subtly that can effect feelings of safety and well being, especially in younger and less sophisticated minds. Maybe Freddy is in your closet... danger is always lurking about… you’re never really safe… The introduction of subtle plot themes that can effect well being have continued with “Scream.” Your best friend may be planning to kill you… you can’t trust anyone… the enemy may be someone close to you that you trust… The trend has come up to the present in “Final Destination” where even fate itself may have it in for you. Even if you escape one violent death, another will continue to attack you until you finally succumb.
With the increasing gore in horror films now-a-days, our generation and the generation under us are slowly being desensitized to the value of human life. I will prove exactly how much psychological damage violent and gory horror movies have influenced teens and young children to imitate the horrific violence portrayed on screen.
Teens and young children are easily influenced. They are at the age where they are vey gullible and will believe almost anything, especially what they see on T.V. Teens and young children are also like sponges; they will imitate what they see and hear on T.V. I think children and young teens that are exposed to violent horror films are more likely to engage in violent activities. I also believe, seeing that kind of violence at a young age can have long term effects on them as adults.
By being exposed to violent horror films at a young age could possibly make them curious in a more sinister way. In extreme cases some young boys could try to act out what they saw in a gory film to see what it’s like to kill someone. It is apparent that horror movies affect a child’s psychological development. A child’s mind is prone to absorb what is displayed on screen. Studies and surveys have agreed that horror movies do indeed affect a child’s psychological development.
In “Horror Films: Tales to Master Terror or Shapers of Trauma?” American Journal of Psychotherapy (2007), authors, Bruce Ballon and Molyn Leszcz used many in-depth psychological examples to illustrate how a film can be incorporated into a person’s real life experiences. The article is very convincing in establishing the idea that many people are unable to keep the fantasy world of films separate from their real lives. In their article, they mentioned a troubled teenage male who killed a seven year old and drank his blood, after seeing it in a movie. The teen was suffering from post-traumatic stress and other mental, so he wasn’t able to differentiate fantasy from reality. The horror film only sparked the fuse that was already inside his brain in the first place.
It is no longer an opinion; it is a mere scientific fact that horror movies due indeed affect the adolescents’ mind. The images of blood, dismemberment, and torture will sit in a persons mind for years. After seeing a horror movie, odds are the graphic images will stay in your memory. The restraints are off in the movie industry. Scenes years ago, that would routinely haunt people, in comparison to today seem elementary. Things progressively evolve overtime and the movie industry is no exception.
Work Cited
Purdue OWL. "MLA Formatting and Style Guide." The Purdue OWL. Purdue U Writing Lab, 10 May 2008. Web. 15 Nov. 2008.
Bruce Ballon, Molyn Leszcz. “Horror Films: Tales to Master Terror or Shapers of Trauma?”. American Journal of Psychotherapy (2007). Print
Saw VI. 2009. Film
Dracula. 1931. Film
The Omen. 1970. Film
The Exorcist. 1973. Film
Nightmare on Elm Street. 1980s. Film
Scream. 1996. Film
Final Destination. 2000. Film
Halloween. 2008. Film
Professor Marie Yerks
Composition 106
10 December 2009
Horror Films and Slasher Movies
In this paper, I will explore just how detrimental the short and long term effects of horror films can be. I will prove that the younger a person is exposed to the gruesome images in horror films, the more likely they are to suffer from nightmares, and anxiety, and exhibit violent behavior. The increasing gore in horror films are corrupting our youth by poisoning their minds. Horror films warp and distort their morality, judgment and even their sense of well being and safety.
Our generation is not easily impressed and they want better sound and better graphics. The competition is always on to make movies more realistic. The film industry has really gone to great lengths to please their audience’s growing demand for amazing movies. Horror films are a genre of film that has changed dramatically over the past 50 years. It is amazing how the horror films of our generation have set a new standard for future horror films. The gore has increased dramatically in the past few decades.
Horror movies in the 40’s and 50’s have never portrayed blood and if a victim was attacked the camera usually turned from the actual encounter and only shadows were seen. Horror movies in the 60’s evolved a little more and became more realistic. The horror films in those days had a little more gore and on displayed blood but again, the camera never showed really graphic scenes of someone being tortured or mutilated. Beginning in the 70’s and progressing through the 80’s and 90’s horror films developed more gore and blood. They also started showing guts “blood and guts” or the victim’s insides coming out of a person’s body. The plots also became more focused on violence as more and more of a horror films content was spent in violent imagery, both with violent scenes lasting longer and longer and occurring with more frequency. All this in response to the youth of that generation’s obsession with seeing more “blood and guts” on screen. Unfortunately, the next generation of the present, our generation, wanted more also. The infamous “Saw” movies took horror films in a new direction when they came to theatres in the 2000’s, bringing new meaning to gory horror films. Taking torture to a whole new level by making the victims choose between maiming themselves or dying a gruesome death. All with of course even greater graphic detail.
In the 40s and 50s, Dracula and Wolf man were men that targeted women, captured and killed them. In the 70s, The “Omen”, and “The Exorcist” were horror films where the demonic spirits possess young children and cause them to commit evil crimes like murder. 80’s horror movies introduced serial killers. “Nightmare on Elm Street” with “Freddy Kruger,” and “Friday the 13th”, with “Jason,” targeted males and females, but very interestingly teenagers. Removing adults who would complain about the level of violence from the audience, making young people identify even more with the violence, and at the same time making these movies the “must see” movies of the season for the young. The movie “Halloween” also has a man wearing a mask that targets and kills teens, male and female. 2000’s the birth of the saw movies where a man captures people (male and female) then he hooks them up to various torture devices and forces them to torture themselves by cutting off their own limbs etc…in order to escape the trap he has put them in.
These movies also continued a new trend from “The Omen” and “The Exorcist,” the plot theme that the “bad guy” really doesn’t die. Because they are sequels and the dangerous character is always resurrected somehow in the next movie. These movies begin to introduce ideas very subtly that can effect feelings of safety and well being, especially in younger and less sophisticated minds. Maybe Freddy is in your closet... danger is always lurking about… you’re never really safe… The introduction of subtle plot themes that can effect well being have continued with “Scream.” Your best friend may be planning to kill you… you can’t trust anyone… the enemy may be someone close to you that you trust… The trend has come up to the present in “Final Destination” where even fate itself may have it in for you. Even if you escape one violent death, another will continue to attack you until you finally succumb.
With the increasing gore in horror films now-a-days, our generation and the generation under us are slowly being desensitized to the value of human life. I will prove exactly how much psychological damage violent and gory horror movies have influenced teens and young children to imitate the horrific violence portrayed on screen.
Teens and young children are easily influenced. They are at the age where they are vey gullible and will believe almost anything, especially what they see on T.V. Teens and young children are also like sponges; they will imitate what they see and hear on T.V. I think children and young teens that are exposed to violent horror films are more likely to engage in violent activities. I also believe, seeing that kind of violence at a young age can have long term effects on them as adults.
By being exposed to violent horror films at a young age could possibly make them curious in a more sinister way. In extreme cases some young boys could try to act out what they saw in a gory film to see what it’s like to kill someone. It is apparent that horror movies affect a child’s psychological development. A child’s mind is prone to absorb what is displayed on screen. Studies and surveys have agreed that horror movies do indeed affect a child’s psychological development.
In “Horror Films: Tales to Master Terror or Shapers of Trauma?” American Journal of Psychotherapy (2007), authors, Bruce Ballon and Molyn Leszcz used many in-depth psychological examples to illustrate how a film can be incorporated into a person’s real life experiences. The article is very convincing in establishing the idea that many people are unable to keep the fantasy world of films separate from their real lives. In their article, they mentioned a troubled teenage male who killed a seven year old and drank his blood, after seeing it in a movie. The teen was suffering from post-traumatic stress and other mental, so he wasn’t able to differentiate fantasy from reality. The horror film only sparked the fuse that was already inside his brain in the first place.
It is no longer an opinion; it is a mere scientific fact that horror movies due indeed affect the adolescents’ mind. The images of blood, dismemberment, and torture will sit in a persons mind for years. After seeing a horror movie, odds are the graphic images will stay in your memory. The restraints are off in the movie industry. Scenes years ago, that would routinely haunt people, in comparison to today seem elementary. Things progressively evolve overtime and the movie industry is no exception.
Work Cited
Purdue OWL. "MLA Formatting and Style Guide." The Purdue OWL. Purdue U Writing Lab, 10 May 2008. Web. 15 Nov. 2008.
Bruce Ballon, Molyn Leszcz. “Horror Films: Tales to Master Terror or Shapers of Trauma?”. American Journal of Psychotherapy (2007). Print
Saw VI. 2009. Film
Dracula. 1931. Film
The Omen. 1970. Film
The Exorcist. 1973. Film
Nightmare on Elm Street. 1980s. Film
Scream. 1996. Film
Final Destination. 2000. Film
Halloween. 2008. Film
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
My Interview with Dr. Loeb
I interviewed psychology Professor Roger Loeb in his office at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. During my interview with Dr. Loeb, I noticed many beautiful pieces of art and souvenirs that decorated his office. I could tell Dr. Loeb loves to travel; each piece of art in his office came from a different country. He had a lamp from India, a stuffed animal parrot from Mexico, a beautiful quilt from Peru hung on his wall, and hanging from his ceiling I saw the most beautiful, colorful butterfly kite from China. I also saw many pictures of him and his family members, showing how family oriented he is. I also saw a picture of him smiling with a group of children from a different country; I could tell that he likes children. Professor Loeb is a very nice man; he smiles all the time he has a gentle, yet assertive presence. He is very knowledgeable about the field of psychology, his gray hair symbolizes his wisdom but he has very few wrinkles, he has a young spirit and is very down to earth. He is a very passionate teacher and he knows how to relate to his students and I think that is a very good quality to have as a professor.
Dr. Loeb has been a psychology professor for almost forty years but he was not as enthusiastic about teaching at the start of his career. He just sort of “fell into it”, as he describes. Even though he applied to graduate programs in psychology, his PhD is not in psychology; he actually doesn’t have any degrees in psychology. His PhD is in human development with a major in child and family psychopathology.
Through his first years of college Dr. Loeb had trouble making up his mind and what field he wanted to pursue; he studied political science at Cornell University, then discovered that he was no longer interested in being a pre-law major. He took a vocational interest test and the test suggested he be a lawyer, accountant or a social science teacher. He did not want to be a lawyer or an accountant, and at that time he did not even know what social science meant, but he figured it had something to do with sociology, so he took a sociology classes and loved it. He then decided to be a sociology/anthropology major, however, by the end of his junior year he started to prefer psychology.
When Dr. Loeb applied to the graduate program at Cornell University, he expressed that he was not interested in teaching. He wanted to work with and research emotionally disturbed children and families, but they offered him a teaching assistantship anyway; he accepted the offer because it was good pay. He was so nervous about teaching his first class, because he didn’t really want to teach. He did not prepare for his classes and did not teach by any of the readings, he changed the classes into discussion sections. “…the students started asking me questions and amazingly enough I knew the answers. Others I would turn into discussion questions, others I would say ‘that’s so important; I’ll get back to you next week’.” He said with a smirk. “The cutting edge therapies, many of which are biochemical, I barely understand and find confusing as do I think many students and I don’t think that’s really necessary in a first-time undergraduate class.”
When he noticed how engaged the student were in his class, he became excited. “They wrote everything down that I said, and they laughed at my poor jokes, and they all paid attention, and I thought ‘this is great! I love this!’” The light bulb went on, and Dr. Loeb changed his entire career plan at that point, during his second year of graduate school. He never wavered since then, he’s been teaching full time for thirty-nine years and still loves his job.
When I asked Dr. Loeb what interests him the most about psychology, he answered, “Why people behave the way they do, what it is particularly in their backgrounds that make them do these things like: want to learn or not want to learn, to be shy versus outgoing, submissive or domineering. My particular interest is parent/ child interaction, and I think that comes from my own childhood experiences; issues of control, issues of self-esteem. And I’m interested in those same topics applied to special groups.”
Dr. Loeb has done research with regular children, as well as children kids with sensory impairments, visual or hearing impairments and gifted children. He is mostly interested in gender differences; it is a variable he likes to study. “…and reflecting my sociology background, I’m also very impressed with the power of social class differences. Even within what America calls ‘broadly middle class’, the difference between lower middle class and middle to upper middle class, there are substantial differences.” Over the years Dr. Loeb has also become very interested in evaluating the impact of education. “…since I’ve been doing it for so long, I’m curious as to what educators actually accomplish. And I’m not so interested in what they accomplish intellectually or academically, but what changes they bring about in their students’ values, attitudes and approaches to life.”
Not only has Dr. Loeb been a professor for thirty-nine years, he was also a part-time practicing psychologist for a number of years. He was a therapist in graduate school, and he worked in a variety of settings. The first place he worked was in a program for dealing with mentally retarded children, he also ran parent groups for the parents of those children. Dr. Loeb ran parent groups for parents of children suffering from schizophrenia as well. In Michigan, he worked in a private clinic as a therapist for individuals, families and groups. Dr. Loeb found that the more he practiced therapy, the more he realized that he made the right choice in being a teacher. Dr. Loeb has no interest in being a therapist anymore but he does teach therapeutic assessment techniques to his students.
When I asked why he didn’t like being a therapist, Dr. Loeb answered, “A friend of mine, who is an excellent therapist, says ‘To be a good therapist, you have to be nosey.’ I think I wasn’t nosey enough. I am nosey about my friends; but people I didn’t know, I found I just wasn’t that interested. I also found it frustrating working with kids when I didn’t have access to their parents. And with adults, I found it frustrating because what seemed to happen over the months of seeing them…they didn’t seem to make a lot of progress; the same old issues kept coming up. The only thing that seemed to change is they seemed to become more dependent on me as a therapist, which was exactly the opposite of what I was trying to accomplish; and that is to make them independent. It’s very tough, I think you need a special kind of personality that I don’t have for being a good therapist.” He told me after seeing his clients, he was much happier to see his students.
Dr. Loeb started teaching at the University of Michigan- Dearborn in 1978. He teaches many courses, three every semester. The course I was mainly fond of was his Abnormal Psychology through Film class, because my paper has to do with the effects of films. Dr. Loeb created this particular class two years ago. He has been teaching normal psychology since his first year at the university and he was getting tired of doing the same course over and over. He also felt that he was a little out of date and since psychology is a rapidly changing field, he decided to teach his psychology class with a twist. Loeb also teaches a class called Psychology and Theatre; he found it to be very challenging and reinvigorating. “…Relating to theatre through film and there’s so much abnormal psychology in movies I thought it would be interesting for the students, interesting for me; I think it brings special things to the classroom…It makes it much more real than reading about it in textbooks, another thing that it brings, is that it shows the impact of the mental illness on family and friends, which you also don’t get from reading in a book. The third thing I think that some of the films do is they show the societal reaction to the person or persons with mental illness; that is how they are treated in the hospital, outside of the hospital. And those are issues of interest to me, given my interdisciplinary background. I’m very interested in societal reactions, family impact issues. And that’s something special that I can bring to the class.” The kind of movies he shows are primarily dramas, mystery and suspense; sometimes “slasher” movies but Prof. Loeb does not show many horror films because he finds them to be inappropriate for the classroom and the students react very strongly.
Dr. Loeb has been a psychology professor for almost forty years but he was not as enthusiastic about teaching at the start of his career. He just sort of “fell into it”, as he describes. Even though he applied to graduate programs in psychology, his PhD is not in psychology; he actually doesn’t have any degrees in psychology. His PhD is in human development with a major in child and family psychopathology.
Through his first years of college Dr. Loeb had trouble making up his mind and what field he wanted to pursue; he studied political science at Cornell University, then discovered that he was no longer interested in being a pre-law major. He took a vocational interest test and the test suggested he be a lawyer, accountant or a social science teacher. He did not want to be a lawyer or an accountant, and at that time he did not even know what social science meant, but he figured it had something to do with sociology, so he took a sociology classes and loved it. He then decided to be a sociology/anthropology major, however, by the end of his junior year he started to prefer psychology.
When Dr. Loeb applied to the graduate program at Cornell University, he expressed that he was not interested in teaching. He wanted to work with and research emotionally disturbed children and families, but they offered him a teaching assistantship anyway; he accepted the offer because it was good pay. He was so nervous about teaching his first class, because he didn’t really want to teach. He did not prepare for his classes and did not teach by any of the readings, he changed the classes into discussion sections. “…the students started asking me questions and amazingly enough I knew the answers. Others I would turn into discussion questions, others I would say ‘that’s so important; I’ll get back to you next week’.” He said with a smirk. “The cutting edge therapies, many of which are biochemical, I barely understand and find confusing as do I think many students and I don’t think that’s really necessary in a first-time undergraduate class.”
When he noticed how engaged the student were in his class, he became excited. “They wrote everything down that I said, and they laughed at my poor jokes, and they all paid attention, and I thought ‘this is great! I love this!’” The light bulb went on, and Dr. Loeb changed his entire career plan at that point, during his second year of graduate school. He never wavered since then, he’s been teaching full time for thirty-nine years and still loves his job.
When I asked Dr. Loeb what interests him the most about psychology, he answered, “Why people behave the way they do, what it is particularly in their backgrounds that make them do these things like: want to learn or not want to learn, to be shy versus outgoing, submissive or domineering. My particular interest is parent/ child interaction, and I think that comes from my own childhood experiences; issues of control, issues of self-esteem. And I’m interested in those same topics applied to special groups.”
Dr. Loeb has done research with regular children, as well as children kids with sensory impairments, visual or hearing impairments and gifted children. He is mostly interested in gender differences; it is a variable he likes to study. “…and reflecting my sociology background, I’m also very impressed with the power of social class differences. Even within what America calls ‘broadly middle class’, the difference between lower middle class and middle to upper middle class, there are substantial differences.” Over the years Dr. Loeb has also become very interested in evaluating the impact of education. “…since I’ve been doing it for so long, I’m curious as to what educators actually accomplish. And I’m not so interested in what they accomplish intellectually or academically, but what changes they bring about in their students’ values, attitudes and approaches to life.”
Not only has Dr. Loeb been a professor for thirty-nine years, he was also a part-time practicing psychologist for a number of years. He was a therapist in graduate school, and he worked in a variety of settings. The first place he worked was in a program for dealing with mentally retarded children, he also ran parent groups for the parents of those children. Dr. Loeb ran parent groups for parents of children suffering from schizophrenia as well. In Michigan, he worked in a private clinic as a therapist for individuals, families and groups. Dr. Loeb found that the more he practiced therapy, the more he realized that he made the right choice in being a teacher. Dr. Loeb has no interest in being a therapist anymore but he does teach therapeutic assessment techniques to his students.
When I asked why he didn’t like being a therapist, Dr. Loeb answered, “A friend of mine, who is an excellent therapist, says ‘To be a good therapist, you have to be nosey.’ I think I wasn’t nosey enough. I am nosey about my friends; but people I didn’t know, I found I just wasn’t that interested. I also found it frustrating working with kids when I didn’t have access to their parents. And with adults, I found it frustrating because what seemed to happen over the months of seeing them…they didn’t seem to make a lot of progress; the same old issues kept coming up. The only thing that seemed to change is they seemed to become more dependent on me as a therapist, which was exactly the opposite of what I was trying to accomplish; and that is to make them independent. It’s very tough, I think you need a special kind of personality that I don’t have for being a good therapist.” He told me after seeing his clients, he was much happier to see his students.
Dr. Loeb started teaching at the University of Michigan- Dearborn in 1978. He teaches many courses, three every semester. The course I was mainly fond of was his Abnormal Psychology through Film class, because my paper has to do with the effects of films. Dr. Loeb created this particular class two years ago. He has been teaching normal psychology since his first year at the university and he was getting tired of doing the same course over and over. He also felt that he was a little out of date and since psychology is a rapidly changing field, he decided to teach his psychology class with a twist. Loeb also teaches a class called Psychology and Theatre; he found it to be very challenging and reinvigorating. “…Relating to theatre through film and there’s so much abnormal psychology in movies I thought it would be interesting for the students, interesting for me; I think it brings special things to the classroom…It makes it much more real than reading about it in textbooks, another thing that it brings, is that it shows the impact of the mental illness on family and friends, which you also don’t get from reading in a book. The third thing I think that some of the films do is they show the societal reaction to the person or persons with mental illness; that is how they are treated in the hospital, outside of the hospital. And those are issues of interest to me, given my interdisciplinary background. I’m very interested in societal reactions, family impact issues. And that’s something special that I can bring to the class.” The kind of movies he shows are primarily dramas, mystery and suspense; sometimes “slasher” movies but Prof. Loeb does not show many horror films because he finds them to be inappropriate for the classroom and the students react very strongly.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Answer to pg. 356
The name "Second Life" is referring to a virtual fantasy life that people can use as an escape from their real life. In your "Second Life" you are in charge. You can look however you want, you can have whatever job you want, you can really let your imagination soar in your second life. You don't have to worry about other people judging you, it's your own world where anyting goes.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Comments on Academic Article Paper
For the 1st draft, I only used two articles and I really focused on each author's theory. And I explained their theories in depth; my 1st draft was very long and I had a lot of run on sentences. What i did differently was I found another article and I explained the authors theories, but it a more condensed way. I tried to break up my run on sentences, and although I went over 750 words in my final draft, I think it was more concise and organized than my first draft. My final draft also correlated each article in a logical order and the paper as a whole flowed together better than the first draft.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Academic Article Paper (1st Draft)
Effects of Horror Movies on Children (1st Draft)
It is apparent that horror movies affect a child’s psychological development. A child’s mind is prone to absorb what is displayed on screen. Studies and surveys both have agreed that horror movies do indeed affect a child’s psychological development. Most studies concentrate on the short term effects horror films have on children, but very few focus on the long term effects it may have on young children. In the article “Tales from the Screen: Enduring Fright Reactions to Scary Media” from Media Psychology (1999), Dr. Kristen Harrison, begins her essay with the story of two young boys that were severely traumatized by a scary TV program that aired in Britain Oct. 1992. Dr. Harrison reported that one of the young boys was affected to the point that he had to be admitted to a hospital for 8 weeks. She also wrote that he “…suffered panic attacks, refused to go upstairs alone and slept with the bedroom light on. He had nightmares and daytime flashbacks and banged his head to remove thoughts of ghosts. He became increasingly clingy and was reluctant to go to school or to allow his mother to go out without him.”
This example of a documented, long term clinical case is rare. However, Dr. Harrison does mention what she calls anecdotal observations not clinically documented of which we are all aware. She mentions a friend who cannot shower without watching the door after seeing the movie “Psycho” 25 years before. She also mentions a colleague that still can’t swim in the ocean after seeing the movie “Jaws” twenty years earlier.
In studying the phenomena of lingering effects of scary media stimuli, Dr. Harrison quoted a study that found a number gender differences in the reactions between males and females. One of the differences in the study by Sparks (1989), “…found that half of the females and one-quarter of the males in his sample reported enduring fright effects after viewing scary media.” Dr. Harrison’s study showed no significant difference in gender other than a reluctance to participate in the study by males.
Dr. Harrison’s study was very detailed and was conducted at two Midwestern universities using student volunteers. One example of the amount of scientific detail involved is in the area of coding. Dr. Harrison reports, “Coding was done on the basis of both the open-ended description (Part I) and the structured questionnaire (Part II). Responses were coded for immediate symptoms, enduring effects, duration of effects, stimulus types, and coping strategies.”
Her conclusion is that 90% of her volunteers had lingering effects from scary media stimuli. Dr. Harrison validates her study by the fact that a number of her statistical findings using college students match closely with another study of parent interviews concerning their children’s exposure to scary media. Dr. Harrison states, “Comparing our convenience sample of reports to Cantor and Nathanson's (1996) random sample of parental reports further validates our data.”
The article was very interesting and compelling and indicates the need for more study and perhaps more content ratings to warn parents of possible lingering effects. At the very least, it points to a need for a much more serious attitude toward the exposure of young children to scary media and a change from the very casual attitude we seem to have today.
The second article is entitled; “The Psychological Effects of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents” by Joanne Cantor, Ph.D. Dr. Cantor begins her article by stating that the effects of media violence on children are misunderstood by the general public. In her article she states three major arguments for this. The first reason is that the effects cannot be simply induced and studied as with animal studies. The second reason is that in her words, “…most public discussions of the problem focus on criminal violence and ignore the other unhealthy outcomes that affect many more children.” The third reason is that the media, including movie and video game producers as well, in her opinion have been less than forthright about revealing the true content of their products, and any research about harmful effects.
After dealing with the public’s misconception about the harmful effects of media violence on children, she then begins to break down her analysis into four basic categories: Aggression, Desensitization, Interpersonal Hostility, and Fears/Anxiety.
Under the heading of aggression, she mentions one behavior in children that she calls “copying”, in which children imitate aggressive behaviors they’ve seen in media. She sites one case in Israel, where numerous injuries were reported by school principles immediately following the airing World Wrestling Federation (WWF) programming. Many of these cases involved children who were old enough to know that the content was fake and potentially dangerous but that did not stop them from imitating the behavior anyway.
In the category of desensitization, which is commonly mentioned as a negative effect of media violence on children, Dr. Cantor indicates two striking examples of desensitization. She states that children exposed to more media violence are less likely to call an adult when there is an altercation between peers and they are less likely to feel sympathy for victims of abuse.
In the area of hostile feelings, the article mentions a argument by those arguing against the creation of hostile feelings by violent media. The argument states that increased hostility in those that view more violent media simply indicates a predisposition to hostility in those individuals to begin with. However, the article sites two case studies to the contrary and Dr. Cantor states that hostile feelings can be produced to the extent that “…media violence can cause interference in the ability to interact in interpersonal relationships.”
On the subject of fears and anxiety Dr. Cantor indicates that it is a much ignored area of study. She states, “Although most of researchers' attention has focused on how media violence affects the interpersonal behaviors of children and adolescents, there is growing evidence that violence viewing also induces intense fears and anxieties in young viewers.” She mentions a study of third graders where as the number of television viewing hours increased so did the prevalence of symptoms of psychological trauma.
I agree with Dr. Cantor’s statement in which she says, “The research I’ve described above provides overwhelming evidence that growing up with unrestricted access to media violence is, in the least, very unhealthy for young people.” Dr. Cantor ends her article with suggestions about what can be done to reduce the effects of media violence on children.
It is apparent that horror movies affect a child’s psychological development. A child’s mind is prone to absorb what is displayed on screen. Studies and surveys both have agreed that horror movies do indeed affect a child’s psychological development. Most studies concentrate on the short term effects horror films have on children, but very few focus on the long term effects it may have on young children. In the article “Tales from the Screen: Enduring Fright Reactions to Scary Media” from Media Psychology (1999), Dr. Kristen Harrison, begins her essay with the story of two young boys that were severely traumatized by a scary TV program that aired in Britain Oct. 1992. Dr. Harrison reported that one of the young boys was affected to the point that he had to be admitted to a hospital for 8 weeks. She also wrote that he “…suffered panic attacks, refused to go upstairs alone and slept with the bedroom light on. He had nightmares and daytime flashbacks and banged his head to remove thoughts of ghosts. He became increasingly clingy and was reluctant to go to school or to allow his mother to go out without him.”
This example of a documented, long term clinical case is rare. However, Dr. Harrison does mention what she calls anecdotal observations not clinically documented of which we are all aware. She mentions a friend who cannot shower without watching the door after seeing the movie “Psycho” 25 years before. She also mentions a colleague that still can’t swim in the ocean after seeing the movie “Jaws” twenty years earlier.
In studying the phenomena of lingering effects of scary media stimuli, Dr. Harrison quoted a study that found a number gender differences in the reactions between males and females. One of the differences in the study by Sparks (1989), “…found that half of the females and one-quarter of the males in his sample reported enduring fright effects after viewing scary media.” Dr. Harrison’s study showed no significant difference in gender other than a reluctance to participate in the study by males.
Dr. Harrison’s study was very detailed and was conducted at two Midwestern universities using student volunteers. One example of the amount of scientific detail involved is in the area of coding. Dr. Harrison reports, “Coding was done on the basis of both the open-ended description (Part I) and the structured questionnaire (Part II). Responses were coded for immediate symptoms, enduring effects, duration of effects, stimulus types, and coping strategies.”
Her conclusion is that 90% of her volunteers had lingering effects from scary media stimuli. Dr. Harrison validates her study by the fact that a number of her statistical findings using college students match closely with another study of parent interviews concerning their children’s exposure to scary media. Dr. Harrison states, “Comparing our convenience sample of reports to Cantor and Nathanson's (1996) random sample of parental reports further validates our data.”
The article was very interesting and compelling and indicates the need for more study and perhaps more content ratings to warn parents of possible lingering effects. At the very least, it points to a need for a much more serious attitude toward the exposure of young children to scary media and a change from the very casual attitude we seem to have today.
The second article is entitled; “The Psychological Effects of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents” by Joanne Cantor, Ph.D. Dr. Cantor begins her article by stating that the effects of media violence on children are misunderstood by the general public. In her article she states three major arguments for this. The first reason is that the effects cannot be simply induced and studied as with animal studies. The second reason is that in her words, “…most public discussions of the problem focus on criminal violence and ignore the other unhealthy outcomes that affect many more children.” The third reason is that the media, including movie and video game producers as well, in her opinion have been less than forthright about revealing the true content of their products, and any research about harmful effects.
After dealing with the public’s misconception about the harmful effects of media violence on children, she then begins to break down her analysis into four basic categories: Aggression, Desensitization, Interpersonal Hostility, and Fears/Anxiety.
Under the heading of aggression, she mentions one behavior in children that she calls “copying”, in which children imitate aggressive behaviors they’ve seen in media. She sites one case in Israel, where numerous injuries were reported by school principles immediately following the airing World Wrestling Federation (WWF) programming. Many of these cases involved children who were old enough to know that the content was fake and potentially dangerous but that did not stop them from imitating the behavior anyway.
In the category of desensitization, which is commonly mentioned as a negative effect of media violence on children, Dr. Cantor indicates two striking examples of desensitization. She states that children exposed to more media violence are less likely to call an adult when there is an altercation between peers and they are less likely to feel sympathy for victims of abuse.
In the area of hostile feelings, the article mentions a argument by those arguing against the creation of hostile feelings by violent media. The argument states that increased hostility in those that view more violent media simply indicates a predisposition to hostility in those individuals to begin with. However, the article sites two case studies to the contrary and Dr. Cantor states that hostile feelings can be produced to the extent that “…media violence can cause interference in the ability to interact in interpersonal relationships.”
On the subject of fears and anxiety Dr. Cantor indicates that it is a much ignored area of study. She states, “Although most of researchers' attention has focused on how media violence affects the interpersonal behaviors of children and adolescents, there is growing evidence that violence viewing also induces intense fears and anxieties in young viewers.” She mentions a study of third graders where as the number of television viewing hours increased so did the prevalence of symptoms of psychological trauma.
I agree with Dr. Cantor’s statement in which she says, “The research I’ve described above provides overwhelming evidence that growing up with unrestricted access to media violence is, in the least, very unhealthy for young people.” Dr. Cantor ends her article with suggestions about what can be done to reduce the effects of media violence on children.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sara Johnson
9/21/09
There are many similarities and differences between the two speakers, Godin and Shirky, on Ted.com. I noticed a few comparisons jumped out at me regarding two speakers; both of their speeches were about how the internet brings people together. Technology was used during their presentations. Images, music, and animations were both used to draw the audience in. Most people are visual learners and both Godin and Shirky played into it. There were also a few physical similarities. Both were male, Caucasian, bald and wore glasses.
Similarities were displayed although Godin’s speech was different from Shirky’s speech because Godin’s speech was inspirational, light-hearted and funny. He used the art of comedy to draw the audience in. His speech regarded the internet in a different light, as a phenomenon and the power people have to create movements. He spoke about planned groups or tribes: clusters of people that have similar interests. Godin briefly spoke about specific groups and ideas; his overall speech was very general. He did not nail specifics, but covered the whole realm of the internet and how it brings people together. Shirky, was very specific. He drilled down to specific subjects in a serious and confident message.
Shirky’s speech was about the history of the internet. He spoke regarding how the internet was a luxury to have, but now it is a necessity. People of all ages, creeds, and nationalities use the internet to communicate and connect with old and new friends. Social media outlets are used as well for connecting a large amount of people with each other. Shirky continued to speak in depth about earthquakes in China and how the internet is a metamedia (media about media). He also talked about things that happen, that the government can’t control. He also used specific case studies in his presentation. Both speeches were very interesting and enlightening about how the internet has changed how we communicate in our society but how our world communicates with one another.
9/21/09
There are many similarities and differences between the two speakers, Godin and Shirky, on Ted.com. I noticed a few comparisons jumped out at me regarding two speakers; both of their speeches were about how the internet brings people together. Technology was used during their presentations. Images, music, and animations were both used to draw the audience in. Most people are visual learners and both Godin and Shirky played into it. There were also a few physical similarities. Both were male, Caucasian, bald and wore glasses.
Similarities were displayed although Godin’s speech was different from Shirky’s speech because Godin’s speech was inspirational, light-hearted and funny. He used the art of comedy to draw the audience in. His speech regarded the internet in a different light, as a phenomenon and the power people have to create movements. He spoke about planned groups or tribes: clusters of people that have similar interests. Godin briefly spoke about specific groups and ideas; his overall speech was very general. He did not nail specifics, but covered the whole realm of the internet and how it brings people together. Shirky, was very specific. He drilled down to specific subjects in a serious and confident message.
Shirky’s speech was about the history of the internet. He spoke regarding how the internet was a luxury to have, but now it is a necessity. People of all ages, creeds, and nationalities use the internet to communicate and connect with old and new friends. Social media outlets are used as well for connecting a large amount of people with each other. Shirky continued to speak in depth about earthquakes in China and how the internet is a metamedia (media about media). He also talked about things that happen, that the government can’t control. He also used specific case studies in his presentation. Both speeches were very interesting and enlightening about how the internet has changed how we communicate in our society but how our world communicates with one another.
Friday, September 11, 2009
- Composing changes shape in digital spaces, because it is faster to type papers as opposed to writing them out. Less paper is used, because if someone makes a mistake while writing a paper, they might throw the whole page away or they might use white out and make the paper look sloppy. But when someone makes a mistake typing a paper they can just hit “backspace” or “delete”. Another reason typing is better is that you have the choice of choosing any font you want to type in, and if you have horrible handwriting you can type nice neat papers with perfect spacing. Typing also helps the teacher read and grade your papers better.
- I think the internet will be better by making it faster, safer and having better content filtering. There should be more restrictions on information that is posted, the internet should also migrate world libraries into one official site. There should be software to block fault e-comers and websites posting illegal content should be fined and closed down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)