No. 102
Violence and Terror
in the Mass Media
REPORTS AND PAPERS ON MASS COMMUNICATION
Request for permission to reproduce the Reports in full or in part should be addressed to the Unesco Press.The
following reports and papers have so far been issued and are obtainable from National Distributors of Unesco
Publications or from the Sector for Culture and Communication,Unesco,7 place de Fontenoy,75700 Paris.
The following titles have been published in English and French. Those titles marked 's' have also been
published in Spanish,those marked 'r' in Russian, and those marked 'a' have also been published in Arabic.
Number
Number
21 Current Mass CommunicationResearch I-Bibliographyof
Books and Articles on Mass Communicationpublished since
1 January 1955.December 1956
25 Adult Education Groups and Audio-VisualTechniques,1958
42 Screen Education.Teaching a critical approach to cinema an?
television,1964
43 The effectsof television on children and adolescents,1.
44 Selected list of cataloguesfor shortfilmsand filmstrip
Edition 1965
46 Rural mimeo newspapers,1965
47 Books for the developingcountries:Asia.AfriLa. 1'
48 Radio broadcastingservesrurd development,1965
49 Radio and televisionin the serviceofeducatioriand
developmentin Asia. 1967
50 Televisionand the socialeducation of woni.en,'<
(
51 A n African experiment in radio forumsfor rurrl
Ghana, 196411965. 1968
52 Book developmentin Asia A reporton tht.pro
&OKI
an!.
distributionof books in the region,1967
53 Communication satellites:or cdiication.science and
culture. 1967.
54 8mrn film for adult audienccc 68
55 Televisionfor higher technic
iucationofthe emplc
first report on a pilot proje
oland,1969
56 Book developmentin Afri
)blems a: -1 pt'
57 Scriptwriting for shortfiln
3
,9
58 Removing taxeson knowlc
59 Mass Media in society.Tha
Ifrese?
60 Broadcastingfrom space,
61 Principlesofculturalco-opt. ~.,197C
62 Radio and television in literacy,1971
63 The Mass Media in a violentworld, 1971
64 The roleoffilm in development,1971
65 The practice ofmass communication:some lessonsfrom
research. 1972
66 A guide to satellitecommunication.1972
67 Televisionforhigher technicaleducation ofworkers.Final
reporton a pilot project in Poland,1973
68 Cinematographicinstitutions,1973
69 Mass Media in an African context. 1973
1
'
-
*70 Television traffic-aone-way street?,1974
71 Anatomy ofan internationalyear,Book Year,1972-1974
72 Promoting the reading habit. 1975
73 Trainiw t o r mass communication,1975
-4 .
" 1 ,.-.
lrninur 'cationsystems.Some policy issue and
.
I'
d.
1
'
17,J
hnology and accesscommunicationsmedia, 1975
Jwardsrealisticcommunication policies. 1976
-os-cultural
broadcasting.1976
inning for satellite broadcasting
he economicsor book publishing in developingcountries,1977
Zdia studiesin education,1977
vternal radio br3adcastingand international
iderstanding,1977
ional communication policy councils. 1979
s Media:The image.role and social conditionof
ien, 1979
i values and principles of cross-cultural
imunica'ion. 1979
lass Media Cc des of ethicsand councils,1980
7
mmunication in the community.1980
4 1 ral journalism in Africa. 1981
1 ..eSACIIEXTE RN project in Brazil:An analyticalcase
rdy. 1981
90 ( .nmunitycommunications- the role ofcommunity media in
(
-1opment.1 W 1
91 ' .eS.I.T.€e; rience.1981
92 'ransnational
.rnunicationand culturalindustries,1982.
*93 Foreign Ne is
le Media:InternationalReporting in
29 countries
*94 The right to communicate:A statusreport,1982
*95 Developmentofcommunication in the Arab States:Needs and
priorities,1983
*97 Mass communicationsand the advertising industry
98 The new internationaleconomicorder:links between economics
and communications
99 InternationalFlowofInformation:A Global Report and
Analysis
100 InternationalFlowofTelevisionProgrammes
101 Communication,Technology and Development
102 Violence and Terrorin the Mass Media
No. 102
Violence and Terror
in the Mass Media
By George Gerbner
with the bibliographic assistance
of Nancy Signorielli
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
ISBN 92-3-102603-8
French Edition 92-3-202603-1
Spanish Edition 92-3-302603-5
Published in 1988
by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
7, place de Fontenoy, 75700 Paris, France
Printed in the workshops of Unesco
0 Unesco 1988
Printed in France
Preface
The Approved Programme and Budget of Unesco for
1984-1985made provision for a ‘consolidated report of
research done throughout the world on the relationship
between the violence reported by or portrayed in the
media, and the individual and group violence which is a
feature of today’s societies’. In terms of practicality,
however, the main emphasis had to be placed on a
particular dimension of its brief, and the role of the press,
radio and television programmes was highlighted.
The report was commissioned,in 1984,from an institution with an international reputation for work in this field,
the Annenberg School of Communication, University of
Pennsylvania, and entrusted in particular to a leading
authority (and at the time Dean) of that institution,
Professor George Gerbner .
The resulting publication is based on replies to over
4,600requests addressed to the international academic
community for research reports, papers, publications,
and other information on the subject of violence and
terror in the mass media, supplemented by a search of
major libraries and data archives.
A considerable effort has been made to obtain material
from all countries in which work has been conducted,
although a majority of the studies came from the United
States, where this field of research has the longest
tradition.
Research reports,books, hearing records, papers, and
documents, both published and unpublished, were used
within the summary, and listed in the bibliography,when
they appeared to be systematic rather than purely speculative, and contained some description of analytical
framework or methodology. Policy statements and documents were cited when they appeared to be authentic
expressions of media, government, or other authorities.
S o m e studies were discussed more fully than others in
order to illustrate certain lines of research. Studies that
converged toward or diverged from these lines of research
were briefly cited. All citations refer to the bibliography.
The book therefore provides an up-to-dateaccount of
the research carried out in this area,and it is hoped that its
presentation and comprehensive bibliography will make
it a useful tool for researchers, and policy makers.
The author of this volume is responsible for the choice
and presentation of the facts and opinions expressed
therein, which are not necessarily those of Unesco.
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7
I. Policy: costs and benefits......................................................................................................
Codes, laws, and guidelines.................................................................................................
News coverage;national and comparative ....................................................................
9
9
11
I1. Content: The media violence scenario ............................................................................
Media violence ..........................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
Crime
. .
Civildisorders
.........................................................................................................................
..
Television .entertainment
...................................................................................................
.
Rock, music video ........................................................................................................................
Other national and cross-culturalstudies....................................................................
Coverage of terrorism ..........................................................................................................
Hostage crises............................................................................................................................
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
19
19
111.Consequences: People and policy .....................................................................................
Exposure and preference...................................................................................................
Perception................................................................................................................................
Aggression research ............................................................................................................
Link to direct action ..............................................................................................................
Public projects and culturalindicators........................................................................
Terrorism ................................................................................................................................
Concluding comments ......................................................................................................
21
21
22
23
24
25
26
26
.
.
Introduction
Violence and terror have long been major themes of
mythology, drama, literature, and popular culture. Concern about their influence on public life,on children and
young people and on crime, and their implications for
social control in general is more recent.Such concern was
stirred by the mass production and easy availability of
both the implements and images of violence and terror in
the mass media and has raised issues of conflict,fear, and
power that reach into the structure of societies on the
broadest,deepest, and, at times,even the highest levels.
Reliable observation and systematic analysis require
limited and objective definitions and much of the controversy about violence and terror revolves around questions of h o w to define and test theories about them.Most
research studies define such violence as the depiction of
overt physical action that hurts or kills or threatens to do
so. A terrorist act is frequently defined as violence used
by, among, or against states or other authorities in order
to inspire fear and to make a statement,usually political.
Violence and terror in the media present social relationships in conflict. They illuminate the use of force to
control, isolate, dominate, provoke, or annihilate. Violence which demonstrates w h o can get away with what
against w h o m m a y also cultivate a sense of strength or
vulnerability as it portrays the social ‘pecking order’.
In this report, w e review research on (i) policies that
guide depictions of violence and terror in the media,
(ii) the extent and nature of those depictions in media
content, and (iii) public exposure to such content and its
consequences for thinking, action, and policy.
7
1. Policy: costs and benefits
Accounts by Cater and Strickland (1975), Rubinstein
(1980), Rowland (1983) and others demonstrate that
definitions, theories,and research on violence and terror
have political as well as scientific implications. While a
violent or terrorist act can be defined in a relatively
objective way, the public designation of a person (or
fictional character) as violent or as a terrorist (rather than
a law enforcer or a freedom fighter) often has a political
slant that reveals as much about those w h o make the
statement as about the activity itself. The choice of these
labels by mass media institutions reflects, and may have
significant bearing on. the policies of these institutions.
M u c h research has been generated by fears that violence and terror in the media brutalize children and
undermine the social order. The evidence shows that
consistent exposure to stories and scenes of violence and
terror can mobilize aggressive tendencies, desensitize
some and isolate others, intimidate many and trigger
violent action in the few. But it is also clear that mediainspired mayhem does not pose a threat to modern
societies. Families are not reeling under the blows of ther
children. Lawlessness and crime relate more closely to
wars and social trends than to the index of violence in the
media. Terrorists have toppled no state and they encourage reprisals and repression rather than subversion.
It may well be that every media system strikes an
implicit balance between the costs and benefits of the
violence scenario. O n one hand there is the pressure of
public anxiety about the human risks of flooding a culture
with images of violence and terror. O n the other, is the
less visible but historically and empirically demonstrable
gain in power-personal and institutional-derived from
the right to shape the scenario and discharge it into the
mainstream of c o m m o n consciousness.
Codes, laws, and guidelines
Codes, laws, guidelines,and other media policies dealing
with violence and terror reflect the attempt to strike a
balance between the costs and benefits of such depictions.
They range from laws to appease public concerns and
pre-empt government regulation to laws prescribing
media goals and values.
From their very origins in the Motion Picture Production Code in the 1930s,American broadcasting codes
took note of violence. For example, the 1980Television
Code of the National Association of Broadcasters
(NAB),states that ‘Violence... may only be projected in
responsibly handled contexts, not used exploitatively.’
The 1986 National Broadcasting Company (NBC)code
declares that violence ‘...mustbe necessary to the development of theme, plot or characterization... M a y not
be used to stimulate the audience or to invite imitation...
M a y not be shown or offered as an acceptable solution to
human problems... and may not show ‘excessive gore,
pain, or physical suffering’.These and other vague provisions leave much to the discretion of those w h o administer
the codes. A study by Winpick (1968)found that about
10 per cent of all network censor comments referred to
violence, and that most were objections to gratuitous or
graphic detail.
In a staff report on ‘Determining the Acceptability of
Violent Program Content at ABC’,Wurtzel and Lometti
(1984)described the functions of the Broadcast Standards
and Practices Department. ‘Excessive’and ‘gratuitous’
violent incidents are identified by using baseline scores for
each series as a standard of measurement. These standardized scores are a guide to the level of acceptable violence
much like a formula for industrial ingredients used in
assembly line production. Changes are negotiated between department editors, producers and writers.
Baldwin and Lewis (1972) interviewed producers,
writers, and directors associated with 18 action series
featuring violence. Those w h o create these programmes
believe that violent conflict is essential in drama, and that
the audience expects violence. Censors w h o act as buffers
between producers,networks, and the public, tend to be
unaware of or unconcerned with research dealing with the
effects of televised violence.
The report of the ‘NationalCommission on the Causes
and Prevention of Violence’ (Baker, 1969) noted the
weakness of the network codes, particularly the lack of
effective sanctions and the absence of control over the
number of violent programmes. Legislative hearings in
the Congress and Senate of the United States Government (1964,etc.) heard repeated demands for the reduction of televised violence. No legislation was passed and
there was no permanent reduction in the number of
violen t programmes.
A study of broadcast regulationsfor the National Institute of Mental Health (Gerbner,1972)concluded that the
Federal Communications Commission and the NAB
Code Review Board have little effective power over
programme content and control. Power lies in the relationships between major national advertisers and the
management of the three national networks. The codes
are public relations instruments used to protect the interests of broadcasters and to prevent outside regulation.
The broadcast reform movement in the 1960sand early
1970s,and the Congressional hearings held to curb televi9
sion violence, led to the short-lived one-hour ‘family
viewing time’,during which the networks agreed voluntarily to reduce violence.The policy was suspended when
it was attacked in court as a possible violation of the
anti-trustlaws,and ‘familyhour’violence returned to an
even higher level than before. The reform movement
whose objectives included the reduction of violence was
defeated by a combination of counter-attacks,by the
media,governmentinaction,and the dismantling of public protection under the so-called deregulation policy of
the 1980s.(Rowland,1982;Cater and Strickland,1975).
From a constitutional point of view, American legal
experts disagree about legislation against violence in the
media. Deleon (1974) argued that legislation,especially
in regard to programming for children,if carefullydrawn
up and administered, could be consistent with First
Amendment freedoms. Albert (1978) also presents a
challenge to legislative inaction.H e cites court decisions
demonstrating that the Federal Communications Commission has a legitimate role to play in regulating programme content according to the existing regulations concerning licensing,the fairness doctrine,and public service.Krattenmakerand Powe (1978), on the other hand,
claim that from a legal or constitutional perspective,
available research does not warrant the implementation
of a regulatory programme to inhibit violent programming. Indeed,the Federal CommunicationsCommission
moved in the late 1980s to reduce or remove regulation.
Senator Paul Simon introduced legislation that would
skirt constitutionalobjectionsby exempting the networks
from anti-trust action for the purposes of establishing
industry-wide standards limiting violence in the media.
Opposition from the media makes the passage of such
legislation unlikely. The trade paper Broadcasting reported (23 June 1986) that the networks ‘saw any joint
. (as) an unnecessary intrusion into
standard-setting..
their own efforts’.
The courtshave been more active,if no more effective,
in grappling with the issue of media responsibility for
violence.Dee’s(1987) review ofcasesshowed that broadcasters, film producers and exhibitors, textbook and
magazine publishers, game marketers and even record
companies have been sued for negligence or incitement
leading to death or causing serious harm to young people.
In general,the courtshave been reluctant to resolve these
caseson general grounds and have demanded specificand
direct evidence of harm, which was rarely available.
Nevertheless,D e e concluded that ‘...judicialredress for
acts of violence compelled by media depictions provide
the most narrowly drawn, and therefore most likely,
means of forcing media to respond to concerns about
violent programming’.
Media policiesin other countriesare also dependent on
a combination of private and public responsibilities.Public control usually means a programme structure addressed to the needs of clearly defined publics such as children,
women, farmers,soldiers,religious and ethnic groups,
etc.Such an arrangement allows for specified amounts of
cultural and educational programming and reduces the
proportion of action-oriented (and often imported)
entertainment.
Dahlgren (1972) describes the legislation under which
Swedish broadcasting operates.These regulations forbid
needless brutality in programmes and attempt to ‘foster
an atmosphere where intolerance and prejudice would
have no part’.Dahlgren’sanalysis of a week’s programming indicates relatively few violent incidents and these
appear to meet the guidelines.
10
Dah1 (1985) described the Norwegian movement which
led to limiting the amount of violence in the media. In
1982, more than 500 articles concerning video violence
were published in daily newspapers,67 per cent of these
were highly criticial.Children and young people were the
focus of 45 per cent of the articles. Legislation was
enacted in 1983 requiring censorship of violence in film
and video.
The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Standards of
1984 established guidelines for children’s programming
between 4 and 5 p.m. each day. One provision is that
programmes broadcast during this time do not present
violent or otherwise frightening or disturbing material.
Reacting to public criticism,the British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC)strengthened its guidelines in 1986.
The move resulted from a BBC study which,attributing
much of the problem to American imports,concluded
that ‘fictionalviolence on television does present an exaggerated picture for viewers in Britain’.Another study
compared BBC programmes with the more commercially
oriented Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA)
programming, and with violence in programmes imported from the United States. (Cumberbatch, 1987).
The study found that violence in American imports was
about three times as high as in programmes produced in
the United Kingdom. A s a consequence of these studies
and of Parliamentary criticism, as well as of an unprecedented mass murder case,both the BBC and the IBA
further tightened their guidelines and monitoring of
violence.The Canadian Radio and Television Corporation (CRTC)was reported to have initiated similarreview
and monitoring projects.
Alarm about extremely violent video cassettes, the
‘videonasties’,led to a National Viewers’Survey in the
United Kingdom (Nelson,1985). It was found that nearly
50 per cent of homes with children under 10 had VCRs,
probably the highest concentration in any country.A list
of violent horror filmsfound obscene under the Obscene
Publications Act of 1959 and the subjectofprosecution by
the Director of Public Prosecutions was compiled.
Although the reliability of the information was attacked
in the press,various cross-checksestablished that nearly
half of all children in the sample had seen one or more,
and one-fifthfour or more of the videos on the list.Nine
out of ten parents in the samplebelieved that ‘societyhas
a duty to help them protect their children from seeing
uncensored video films’.The adoption of the Video
Recording Act of 1984 in the United Kingdom, and
similarmeasures in other European countries,attempted
to check the spread of explicitly sadistic videos. Such
legislation overrides traditional systems of industry selfcensorship applicable to privately produced and individually purchased media materials.
The media in the Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe face other issues. As organs of
party,government and civic organizations,they assume
tasks and responsibilities different from those of multiparty or commerciallysponsored media.Their ‘sponsorship’ by authorities ultimately responsible for law
enforcement,and their general political and ideological
direction,guide socialistmedia away from preoccupation
with ‘private’crime and violence and toward other
emphases.No explicit guidelines on violence and terror
reporting were found. However, comparative research
and general policy statement provide some information
about the contextin which socialistmedia report violence
and terror.
Gerbner’s (1961) study of the coverage of a United
Nations General Assembly showed that compared with
the win-lose conflict orientation and score-keeping of
Western reporting, socialist media selected substantive
issues such as colonialism, racism, and disarmament for
major emphasis. Acts of political or international violence receive closely guarded attention and reflect substantive political orientation. Paddock’s (1984) comparative analysis claims that the socialist concept of reporting
makes Soviet media less vulnerable to terrorist
exploitation.
Most fictional violence in socialist media occurs in an
historical context as social violence. Wars, revolutions,
and liberation movements provide the most frequent
context of violence and terror. A report on Polish media
policy by Paczkowski (1985) observed that a sharp distinction is made between criminal violence and violence
motivated by political considerations and historical forces. Polish media rarely report or portray criminal violence that has no political implications.
General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev’s Political Report to the 27th Party Congress on 25 February 1986,
urged Soviet media ‘todraw practical conclusions from
the innumerable critical remarks from the public’.H e also
warned against ‘impoverishmentunder the onslaught of
unbridled commercialism and the cult of force, the propaganda of racism, of lowly instincts, the ways of the
criminal world ...’ H e called for ‘dissemination of the
ideas of peace, disarmament, and international security;
greater flow of general objective information...;’ the ‘extirpation of genocide,apartheid,advocacy of fascism and
every other form of racial, national or religious exclusiveness’, and ‘extension- while respecting the laws of
each country-of international co-operationin the implementation of the political, social, and personal rights of
peoples’-principles also embodied in party and media
codes and programmes.
A n example of the direct application of this policy can
be seen in the N e w Media Act approved by the Hungarian
National Assembly on 20 March 1986. Affirming the right
of citizens, including media, to obtain information from
state organs and report about their activities, the law
specifically states: ‘Information may not offend against
human rights, it may not serve to justify crimes against
humanity, warmongering, hatred of other nations,
chauvinism, national, racial, religious or sexual discrimination’.
Such guidelines tend to link greater media autonomy
with more explicit political and ideological responsibilities. There are as yet no systematic studies of their
implementation.
News coverage; national and comparative
Violence and crime are the staple diet of commercial news
reporting. Even though, as w e shall see later, their frequency in reporting bears no relationship to that of actual
incidence,their legitimacy is so well established that their
social and political functions are rarely noted,and policies
guiding their publication are seldom debated. That,
however, is not so for coverage of terrorism.
Concern with terrorism has provoked much discussion
about news coverage,especially live broadcasts of terrorist incidents. Such varied activities as those of the Red
Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof Gang) in the Federal
Republic of Germany, the Red Army in Japan, the Red
Brigades in Italy, Israeli and Palestinian terror strikes,
bombings by separatist groups in Spain, Canada, and
India, resistance to state-supported terror squads in
Argentina,the Tupamaros of Uruguay, the Irish Republican Army, state and anti-stateterrorism in South Africa,
have resulted in bans and limitationson news reporting in
many countries. These have ranged from the temporary
suspension of liberties in Canada to the Prevention of
Terrorism Act in the United Kingdom and the strict
censorship of the press in South Africa.
Terrorist and anti-terroristreporting appear to present
a somewhat different cost-benefit ratio from that of violent crime news, although ultimately the balance tips the
same way for both. A n act of terrorism clearly labelled as
such is identified as criminal and its suppression is therefore justified,if not legitimate. Nevertheless, the violent
means thus used to attract public attention pose a challenge to the control of the media that is not easily ignored.
Most of the controversy over press coverage of terrorism
revolves around w h o should control the news and on the
basis of what objectives. The Prevention of Terrorism
Act, for example, was enacted in the United Kingdom in
the wake of an IRA bombing in 1974 which killed
21 people and injured over 160. The Act suspends civil
liberties for anyone suspected of supporting the IRA or
withholding information about it. Under its provisions,
the police seized a copy of a 15-minuteuntransmitted film
shot by a BBC crew at an incident at Carrickmore.After a
long debate in Parliament and in the press, the government decided not to prosecute the BBC, but rules on
reporting were tightened.
In a statement issued on 10 March 1982,the American
Broadcasting Company (ABC)urged news personnel to
‘remainprofessionally detached’from events they cover,
get advance clearance from the management for interviews with ‘veryimportant persons’,and avoid live broadcast of terrorist incidents ‘exceptin the most compelling
circumstances, and then only with the approval of the
President of ABC News or a designated Vice President’.
The policy statement warns reporters not to jeopardize
the lives of hostages,nor to interfere with efforts to free
them, nor to allow ‘terroriststo use or manipulate us for
their o w n ends’.
Even when these (often conflicting) rules are scrupulously observed, the statement notes, coverage may
aggravate an already serious situation and contribute to
its escalation. Nevertheless,it continues, ‘we cannot regard suppression of such reporting as being justified.To
suppress news of terrorism would raise serious questions
of credibility on other issues. (“What else are they keeping from us?”) To suppress the news would surrender
objective reporting to whatever rumours were being circulated. A n d to suppress the news for whatever reason,
good or bad, violates the fundamental principle that
governs a free press in a free society.’
Other American networks hold similar if less clearly
articulated positions. ‘Taste and judgement’,non-participation in the event, and resistance to any a priori
restraint or delay originating from government are stressed by the National Broadcasting Company (NBC).The
Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) standards of
7 April 1977, state: ‘Becausethe facts and circumstances
of each case vary, there can be no specific self-executing
rules for the handling of terroridhostage stories, CBS
news will continue to apply the normal tests of news
judgement and if, as so often they are, these stories are
newsworthy, w e must continue to give them coverage
despite the dangers of “contagion”.’
The principle of independent and often ad hoc decision
making is even more firmly established in the print media,
11
which are traditionally less dependent on government
than are licensed broadcasters. In September 1976, a
group of Croatian nationalists hijacked a passenger jet
bound for Chicago and demanded front page publication
of their statement. The Washington Post, whose editor
once said ‘ W epride ourselves that the President of the
United States can’t tell us what to put on Page One’
published the hijackers’lengthy manifesto on Page One.
The followingyear Hanafi Muslims seized three buildkilled a radio journalist and
ings in Washington,D.C.,
took more than 100 hostages. Media blunders and interference with the police led to much discussion about
press guidelines. The National News Council, a media
watch group since disbanded,urged the press to avoid the
dangers of live coverage and of telephoning terrorists or
hostages during the event.Most editors neverthelesscontinued to oppose written guidelines.
Widely publicized airline hijackings in the mid-1980s
and other eventsduring which hostages were taken generated further controversy about media coverage.Former
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called for a voluntary
blackout of all coverage of terrorist activity.Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher urged restraint ‘tostarve the terroristand the hijacker of the oxygen ofpublicity on which
they depend’.The Reuters news agency instructed reportersnot to write storiesabout terroristthreats nor to name
Reuters or any other agency as having received statements of responsibility for terrorist actions.
A series of consultations between media representatives and the United States Justice and State Departments,the American Bar Association,and committeesof
Congress,led to a flurry of conferences and reports but
failed to produce agreement on guidelines. A survey on
terrorism and the press in the American Newspaper
Publishers Association (ANPA)trade paper Presstime
(August 1986) commented that ‘somenews executives on
the terrorism speaking circuit joke about the “cottage
industry”that has grown up around the topic’,and concluded that no uniform standard could be formulated or
enforced.
A collection of essays on Terrorism; The Media and the
Law (Miller,1982) analysed the relationship between law
enforcement and journalism,and presented reports and
recommendations by the National News Council, the
United States Department of State,CBS television,two
newspapers and the UP1 news agency. Surveys carried
out among police chiefs and journalists show much disagreement. The courts refuse to hold the press immune
from the due process of law or to assure it ofthe unlimited
right to gather information in critical situations.Legislatures in many countrieshave reacted to public outcry by
enacting measures that also limitmedia autonomy.Police
chiefs tend to see live media coverage as a threat to law
enforcement and to the safety of hostages.
Picard (1986) pointed out in his study of the news
coverage of terrorist incidents that while all mainstream
media support the social order of which they are a part,
commercial media have a specialclientele in the business
community that subsidizes them through advertising.
Their independence from government control is thus a
commercial necessity,though the media will voluntarily
adhere to the government’s point of view when it is
compatible with that of the advertisers.
Schlesinger, Murdock, and Elliot (1982) provided a
comprehensive account of British practice in their study
Televising Terrorism; Political Violence in Popular
Culture.They concluded that the system which developed
through the troubles in Northern Ireland,the Falklands’
12
war, the controversiesover fictional violence,and other
incidentsis ‘constrainednot only by the differentkinds of
programme forms available but also by the complex
modes of control and pressure which the state and the
wider political establishment can bring to bear on broadcasting. This exercise of power is usually discreet, but
when it isjudged worth having a row,it may take a highly
public form.’
The BBC’smoves to limitviolence in fictionalprogrammes were followed by guidelines for news broadcasts in
1986.These called for ‘increasedawareness of the problem’of violence in documentary and current affairs programmes as well. They asked the news staff to ‘Bewareof
the use of action footage for its own sake.Young children
are likely to be watching. And there are regular repeats
which can have a cumulativeeffect.’Commenting on the
new rules,the InternationalPress Institute (IPI)Report
(12 December 1986) noted: ‘TheBBC‘s coverage of the
Christmas 1985 massacre by Arab gunmen at R o m e airport is contrasted,largely favourably,with French television,which lingered on close-upshots of dead peoples’
faces.’
Comparativestudies of media policies for dealing with
terrorismshed lighton the relationshipsbetween the state
and the media in different societies.
Schlesinger and Lumley (1985) analysed public discourse about political violence in the United Kingdom
and Italy. They contrast the sectional and relatively
specialized IRA conflict with the societalcrisis generated
by the Red Brigadesin Italy.Their case studieslead to the
conclusionthat the relationshipsbetween the stae and the
media are characterized by varying degrees of dependence and tension and a continuing struggle for control.
The situation in the United Kingdom has led to ‘theeffort
to exclude the rationalefor Irish republicanviolence from
public diffusion. This has taken the form of contesting
those few interviewswhich have been shown as well as a
broader effort at news management and largely indirect
censorship.’
The Italianpress isheavily subsidizedby the state and is
also linked to political parties. Italian Radio and Television (RAI)is also a ‘politicalclient’ answerable to a
parliamentary commission and with loyalties to various
political parties. While the Italian Union of Journalists
suspended reporters accused of aiding the terrorists by
publicizing their views, the British National Union of
Journalists came to the defence of those so accused.
A comparative study of American and Italian political
structures and television news policies by Hallin and
Mancini (1985) argued that the narrative conventions of
American journalism stem from its relative independence
from government and party control and its dependence
on the imperatives of broad marketing appeal. That
dependence makes reporting ideologically monolithic. It
inhibits the intellectual debate and political ideas so
characteristic of the Italian press. Instead,it encourages
focusing on visual events, contest, and conflict. Italian
journalists, on the other hand, are linked to political
parties. They focus on ideological distinctions and
address relatively differentiated and politically sophisticated groups.Italian television news presents a range of
alternative interpretations and treats viewers more as
participants than as spectatorsin political conflict.
Studies supported by the Italian Radio and Television
(RAI),(Silj,Ronci, Rath, all 1982) present research
comparing the experience ofthe United Kingdom and the
Federal Republic of Germany with that of Italy. The
Italian experience with terrorism presents one type of
media coverage and government response. The experience involved nearly 5,000kidnappings between 1973and
1978,Red Brigade bombings and assassinations,the long
and internationally involved trial of Mehmet Ali Agca,
Mafia hit squads, and Palestinian hijackers. It created a
severe and prolonged political crisis. Parties from
the whole political spectrum d e m a n d e d -and
obtained- stronger law enforcement and other legislation
to deal with the crisis. But the plurality of forces and
voices helped to preserve the legitimacy (and tenure) of
the government and to avert the scenario of severe repression with its ultimately destabilizing consequences.The
Italian policy of restrained coverage coupled with relatively little direct government interference is claimed to
have thwarted the aim of the Red Brigades,which was to
provoke measures so harsh as to force the state to ‘drop
the mask’ of legality and democracy. Analyses of media
content reported in the next section illustrate some of
these claims and document the contrasting case of terrorism in Turkey where media coverage was shaped and used
for different political purposes.
The coverage of terrorism in the media presents difficult policy research problems. Comparative reports reveal divergent definitions, unreliable statistics, and
blatantly political uses of such press coverage.
Although the media in the United States continued to
put increasing emphasis on international terrorism
throughout the 1970s,the authoritative chronology of
transnational terrorism by Mickolus (1980)showed that
the frequency of incidents peaked in 1972with 480 that
year, and subsequently declined to an avrage of 340 per
year. However, the United States Federal Bureau of
Investigation reported a decline in domestic terrorism
and an increase in internationalacts from about 500 a year
in the early 1980sto almost 800in 1984.A North Atlantic
Assembly study reported in The New York Times
(14November 1986) noted an average of about 500 terrorist attacks a year, worldwide, while United States
government figures quoted in the same news item claimed
488such incidents in the first half of 1986 alone.M a n y of
the reports and statements accompanying them focused
on the Middle East. There have been no such authoritative and equally well publicized statistics of state or
anti-state terrorism in Africa, Latin America, or Asia.
Most scholars of the subject suggested that, while
American casualties were relatively light, terrorism
played a more prominent role in American media than in
that of other countries (see Bakhash’s review, 1987). For
example, a United States Department of State report on
‘International Terrorism’ (cited by Zilian, 1986) noted
that of the more than 800 incidents in 1985, some
177 involved Americans or American facilities overseas.
A m o n g the 2,233casualties, 23 Americans were killed
and 139 injured. Terrorism nevertheless dominated an
economic summit meeting and provoked the United
States into forcing down an Egyptian commercial airliner
and bombing the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
While the physical casualties of highly publicized terrorist acts have been relatively few, the political and
military consequenceshave been far-reaching.The fate of
governments, relations among states, scientific exchanges, tourism,and trade have been affected. International tensions, domestic repression, and support for
counter-violence have been increased. Press coverage
and especially telecasts of terrorist acts have introduced a
new dimension into the policy-making process.
Studies of the coverage of terrorists and hostage-taking
on television,described in the next section,have reached
a number of conclusions about the probable effects of this
coverage on the conduct of foreign policy.
As the organizational structure of television news
coverage is inherently internationaland instantaneous,its
presence makes diplomatc communication more difficult.
Television tends to be influenced by access to visual
opportunities, including hostages and hostage-takers. It
provides episodic and ultimately a-historical accounts. It
usually follows or reinforces public policy positions, but
sometimes participates in policy-making by selecting participants and providing direct channels of communications between governments. It tends to emphasize personal and emotional and other dramatic aspects of
situations.It may also create or exacerbate policy problems by relying on often stereotyped public assumptions,
instead of emphasizing the historical and socio-cultural
aspects necessary for understanding.
The dramatic requirements and conventions of television occasionally compel the medium to let those it labels
‘terrorists’speak for themslevesto large audiences.Those
occasions,disputed and controversial as they are,seem to
do little more than to enhance the credibility of the bulk of
the coverage that tends to isolate the ‘terrorists’from the
historical and social context that might explain, if not
justify, their actions.
Extensive documentation of the role that media selections and definitions of terrorism play in national and
international politics may be found in the work of Said
(1980), Chomsky (1986), Herman (1982) and their
associates. Chomsky and Herman distinguish ‘official’
state violence which they call ‘wholesaleterror’and individual and small scale violence, or ‘retail terror’. They
contend that the way in which the media focus on ‘retail
violence’ tends to justify ‘wholesale violence’ against
opponents of the state at h o m e and abroad.
Codes, laws, and guidelines express and protect the
basic institutional power relationships that determine
media policy. The balance sheet of competing pressures
shows that different systems deal in different ways with
the risks,costs, and benefits of media violence and terror.
Definitions, selections, and even research approaches
reflect policy orientations,public sensitivities,institutional dependencies, political goals, and economic stakes.
What ultimately determines policies towards media violence however, is its role in the demonstration and uses of
power.
13
II. Content: the media violence scenario
Systematic analysis is required, if generalizations about
aggregate media content, to which large groups are exposed over long periods of time are to be valid. Such
analysis requires objective and reliable observation and
coding of representative samples of media content.The
reliabilityofthe observation dependson the agreement of
trained analyst-coders concerning the classification of
relatively simple and unambiguous messages relevant to
the purpose of the investigation.
The study of audience perceptions and beliefs in the
‘reality’or‘truth’ofmessages should not be confusedwith
the analysis of systems of messages. Audience perceptions and beliefs are both selective and subjective.They
focus on specificmessages rather than on the large aggregates to which many diverse groups are exposed over
time. The analysis of representative samples of media
content is needed to provide a baseline against which
perceptions, interpretations, and other effects can be
measured,and in order to make inferencesabout inputs
that cannot easily be measured.
Violence in the media
Studiesofcrime,violence,and group conflictin the media
have been conducted by the thousands and summarized
by the hundreds in conferences,symposia,and published
volumes since the 1930s.Most of that research was done
in the United States where media penetration and communications research (fueled by both commercial and
social concerns) made early and rapid progress. Barcus
(1959) found over 1,200analyses of communication content,all but 47 involvingAmerican media,and more than
half conducted since 1950.
Two comprehensive dissertations, one by Barcus
(1959) and the other by Goodrich (1964) summarized and
analysed earlier studies of media content by William
Albig, Rudolf Arnheim, Donald Auster, Bernard
Berelson, Edgar Dale, Sydney Head, Herta Herzog,
Dorothy Jones,Harold Lasswell,Leo Lowenthal,Ithial
de Sola Pool,Wilbur Schramm,Dallas W.Smythe,Ralph
K.White, and others. These analyses established some
enduring patterns of content in the American media.
These patterns show that males outnumber females by
at least two or three to one in all major media presentations. Male domination and the related conflict and
power-orientationof mainstream media news and fiction
provide the social context in which violent representations seem naural and realistic.Crime and violence make
up about 10 per cent of printed news,more of broadcast
news content. The frequency and types of violence reported and portrayed bear no relationship (or inverse
relationship) to violence recorded by authorities. Contrary to crime statistics (and in contrast to media in some
other countries), violence in American media consists
mostly of homicides and assaults by strangers.
Four out of every ten feature films made in the 1920s
and 1930s contained lethal violence. The death rate of
leading characterswas 10 per cent.Pulp literature,radio
serials,comics, and confession magazines showed high
levels of violence. Two-thirds to three-quartersof all
televisionplays in the 1950s showed violence at the rate of
between 6 and 10 incidents per hour in prime time-and
have remained at about the same level. Children’sprogrammes (mostly cartoons) were three to four times as
violent-and have remained so with minor fluctuations.
A s w e shall see later,this heavy burden of media violence
is unequally distributed.
Otto (1963) analysed a city news-stand in 1961. The
preceding ten years showed a significant increase in the
number of magazines specializing in sexual and violent
themes.Police-detectiveand men’s magazines contained
the largestnumber of violent incidents-including torture
and rape-followed by romance magazines, which frequently linked sex and violence,as did paperback book
covers.
Content analysisof comicsshowed about 30 per cent of
strips,and 18 per cent of male and 9 per cent of female
characters to be violent.(Spiegelman et al.,1953;Barcus,
1961;Hutchinson,1969). Graalfs (1986) observed physical violence in 14 per cent of comic book frames (20per
cent for crime and war comics and 6 per cent for humorous comics). Striking with a weapon was the type of
physical violence most frequentlypresented,appearingin
25 per cent of violent frames. Another 25 per cent of
frames depicted death or injury.
A multi-mediastudy by Greenberg (1969) found that
large circulation newspapers and magazines contained
about 10 per cent violence-relatedmaterial (crime and
accidents), with notable differences among them. About
half the paperback books on news-standsfeatured violence and/or sex on the cover. After 1954,there was a
significant increase in the percentage of televised actionadventureprogrammes in the late afternoon and evening.
Clark and Blankenberg (1972) made a rough analysisof
TI/ Guide and other synopses and found\violencein
one-thirdof a sample of films released between 1930 and
1969, but in half of all films produced for television.
Contrary to the claims of broadcasters,and to popular
assumption,violence in television entertainment was not
15
related to the success of the programmes as measured by
audience ratings.
Trends in front page violence in newspapers- about
18 per cent of items-and magazine violence-in about
27 per cent of stories-bore no relation to trends in crime
statistics. Twenty-sixper cent of items on network television news were devoted to violent incidents and were
also unrelated to crime statistics.
Crime
Davis (1957)sampled crime news in Colorado newspapers over a two-year period and was the first to find that
crime reporting and actual crime statistics were unrelated.In a review of studies from 1930to 1980,Garofalo
(1981)found that the same lack of relationship applied to
television news and entertainment programmes. H e
noted that crime news occupied from between 5 to 10 per
cent of news space.A review of studies by Jackson,Kelly,
and Mitchell (1977) reached similar conclusions. They
also found that Canadian (Ontario) newspapers devoted
about 20 per cent of front page space to crime and
violence.
A n analysis by Shelley and Askins (1981)revealed that
while violent crimes are only one-fifth of all crimes committed, the media coverage gives the impression of a
much higher proportion and public estimates are, therefore, also higher. A similar study by Dominick (1973)
observed that two-thirdsof all prime-timetelevision programmes contained some violence-with assault, armed
robbery, and nurder accounting for 60 per cent of this.
Violence by strangers was more frequent, whereas in
reality violence tends to be perpetrated by family m e m bers or acquaintances of the victims. Haney and
Manzolatti (1980) noted that television crime and violence emphasize greed and other personal characteristics
but rarely draw attention to underlying social conditions.
A review of studies of crime reporting and portrayals by
Dominick (1978)concluded that television presents violence from the point of view of law-enforcement,emphasizes personal aspects and largely ignores social ones,
does not present an adequate picture of the legal process,
and does not provide accurate information about crime,
criminals, and real-life violence. Sherizen’s (1978)
analysis of crime stories in Chicago newspapers yielded
similar results and concluded that the process of newsgathering made crime news ‘aconstructed reality’. Tyler
(1980)concluded that personal estimates of crime rates
were based entirely on media reports.
Civil disorders
Levy’s (1969) study of collective violence since 1819
found that labour and racial problems accounted for the
bulk of such reporting in every time period. Since the civil
war, class antagonisms, usually expressed in racial, sexual, and even religious terms, have dominated group
conflict in America. The civil rights movement of the
1960s provoked violent resistance and in the Mississippi
Summer Project of 1964, 30 people were beaten,
1,000were arrested,35 churches were burned, 30 homes
were bombed, and three project workers were killed
(King,1987). Court decisions and laws supporting family
planning evoked the largest number (and least publicized) of terrorist acts in the United States: the bombing
of abortion clinics. B y comparison, the anti-war and
youth protests of the 1960s and 1970s were relatively
peaceful.
16
The Report of the National Advisory Commission on
Civil Disorders (‘Kerner Commission’) (1968) was the
first to discuss the role of news in group violence. It
concluded that while initial news reports and television
coverage m a y have been exaggerated and inflammatory,
and accounts may have deviated from events,sensationalism or racial incitation were not the major problems of the
news coverage. The major problem was the historic
failure to present an adequate analysisof racial grievances
and tensions.The almost inevitable focus on black-white
confrontationsand law enforcement simply continued the
historical pattern. ‘Theills of the ghetto,the difficulties of
life there, the Negro’s burning sense of grievance, are
seldom conveyed. Slights and indignities are part of the
Negro’s daily life, and many of them come from what he
n o w calls the “white press”- a press that repeatedly, if
unconsciously, reflects the biases, the paternalism, the
indifference of white America.’
Johnson, Sears,and McConahy’s (1971)analysis of Los
Angeles newspapers from 1892 to 1968 confirmed the
conclusion that neglect and superficial or stereotyped and
polarized coverage rather than sheer sensationalism have
been the enduring characteristics of press coverage of
group relations.Their study found that little attention had
been given to blacks in the press. Coverage relative to
their increasing proportion of the Los Angeles population
decreased from 1892 until just prior to the 1965 Watts
riot.There was a considerable increase in coverage at the
time of the riot but it had dropped back to the earlier level
by early 1966.Analysis of opinions held by white residents and leaders revealed a lack of understanding of the
problems of the black community and a racism of indifference or fear. Warren’s (1972) study of a 1969 Detroit
racial incident resulting in death and injuries also showed
that the coverage resulted in a polarization of perceptions
between blacks and whites.
Pritchard (1984) reported a study showing that homicides committed by members of minority groups (usually
against other members of the same groups) were less
likely to be covered in the press than homicides by whites.
Although the relative ‘invisibility’of minority violence
may be considered a well-intentioned attempt to defuse
tensions, evidence suggests that in fact it may contribute
to them. Paletz and D u n n (1969)studied the coverage of
civil disturbances two years after the Los Angeles racial
riots.They presented the view that guidelines designed to
restrict coverage may have unexpected negative consequences. Using a 1967Winston-Salem riot as a case study,
they analysed coverage by one local newspaper and two
other papers including The New York Times,and interviewed reporters and participants in the riot.The analysis
revealed that the local paper attempted to meliorate
conflict and maintain consensus but, by so doing,failed to
contribute to a better understanding of the underlying
conditions in the black community.
Television entertainment
Countless studies,conferences,and published volumes in
several countries have reported and summarized research
on the extent and nature of violence on television since
the 1960s.The principal compilations, summaries, and
reviews of studies (many of which will be cited here)
include works by Larsen, Baker and Ball, Comstock,
Murray, Bogart, Cook, Rubinstein, Pearl et al., the
National Coalition on Television Violence, and many
volumes published by the United States Government, the
Canadian Royal ‘Commissionon Violence in the Televi-
sion Industry, the British Broadcasting Corporation,
Sveriges Radio, and Radiotelevisione Italiana.
Greenberg (1980)analysed television drama series for
three seasons and found violence (defined as ‘physical
aggression’) occurring more than 9 times per hour between 8 and 9 p m . ,more than 12times per hour between
9 and 11 p.m., and more than 21 times per hour on
Saturday morning children’s programmes.
The longest continuing study of television content and
its influence on the conceptions of viewers has been
undertaken by the Cultural Indicators research team at
the University of Pennsylvania. First commissioned by
the United States National Commission on the Causes
and Prevention of Violence (‘Eisenhower Commission’)
in 1967to study television violence (see Baker and Ball,
1969),this project continues to carry out annual monitoring of network television drama and periodic audience
surveys.It provided the research evidence on violence for
the Report of the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory
Committee on Television and Social Behavior (Comstock, et al., 1972), for several Congressional investigations, and for the Surgeon General’s ‘update’ report
(Pearl et al. 1982)which summarized 10 years of research
on television following the 1972 Report.
The Cultural Indicators project looked at violence on
television as a scenario of social relationships with many
potential lessons. These tend to demonstrate the relative
powers, strengths and vulnerabilities of different social
character types in conflict situations.As w e shall see in the
section on consequences, the demonstration of relative
powers and vulnerabilities can be effectively presented in
any context, including fantasy,humour, and ‘accidents’.
Therefore, the analysis defined violence as hurting and
killing, or threatening to do so, in any way and in any
context.
The results of the trend analysis reported by Gerbner,
et al., (1986)revealed that the basic structure of themes,
characterizations,action and fate in the world of dramatic
television is remarkably stable. Such stability is not surprising when one considers that aggregate measures of
television violence are the expressions of underlying
power relationships in a relatively stable society.
The index of violence reached its highest level since
1967 (when the study began) in the 1984-85television
season. Eight out of every ten prime time programmes
contained violence. The rate of violent incidents was
nearly eight per hour. The 19 year average was six per
hour.
Children’s programmes on American television have
always been saturated with violence. Children in 1984-85
were entertained with 27 violent incidents per hour (the
third highest on record). The 19-year average for children’s programmes was 21 violent acts per hour.
The report also brought up to date the cumulative
results of the analysis of violence as a demonstration of
power. For every 10 male characters on prime time network television w h o commit violence, there were 11 w h o
fell victim to it. But for every 10 female perpetrators of
violence, there were 16 female victims. As television
drama goes down the social pecking order, it raises the
price to be paid for getting involved in violence. Foreign
w o m e n and w o m e n from minority groups pay the highest
price. For every 10 perpetrators from these groups there
are 21 and 22 victims respectively.
Taylor and Dozier (1983)and Boemer (1984)studied
violence in television series from 1950to 1976and in radio
‘thrillerdrama’.Crime programmes generally were found
to sanction the use of deadly force to enforce the law and
protect the status quo. Black television characters in
violent television programmes are usually portrayed as
policemen or collaborators with law enforcement.
Rock, music, video
Addressing criticism of rock music, Goddard (1977)
traced its development through the 1950s and 1960s.H e
concluded that elements that express defiant and countercultural feelings can also be used to manipulate audiences
without regard for social consequences. Baxter -et al.,
(1985)found violence and crime appearing in more than
half of music videos but more as a suggestion than as a
completed act. Caplan (1985)observed violence in half of
a sample of 139 music videos aired in 1983.
In a comprehensive study of concept videos (those
produced primarily for tape rather than recorded concert
performances), Sherman and Dominick (1986) found
violence in 57 per cent.Non-whites were more likely than
white characters to use weapons and to have weapons
used against them. Unlike television drama which presents w o m e n as more likely to be victims than aggressors,
music videos showed m e n and w o m e n to have approximately equal ratios of victimization. O n the whole, provocative, defiant and manipulative though they may be,
music videos were not significantly more violent than
prime time entertainment and somewhat more equitable
in balancing the risks between the sexes.
Other national and cross-cultural studies
Most comparative studies of television violence noted
that programmes imported from the United States are
significantly more violent than programmes produced in
other countries. A n exception was violence in Japanese
programmes (Iwao et al., 1981,Bowers, 1981). Japanese
and American television contained similar amounts of
violence, and the trends in both were unrelated to trends
in crime statistics. However, violence in Japanese programmes was presented with much pain and suffering
designed to arouse distress and sympathy in the viewers.
The mix of American imports in national programming
is of course a result of specializationof production for the
international market, and national cultural import policy.
Suchy (1954) found that BBC television programming
broadcast between 12 August and 25 August 1953,had
about half as much violence as a sample of television
programmes broadcast in N e w York City in January 1953.
D r a m a programmes, especially children’s,were the most
violent in both samples. Guns were less popular on BBC
programmes than on American ones; clubs and sticks
were used more often than guns on BBC programmes.
A comparative study of American, British, Swedish
and Israeli television conducted for the Surgeon-General’s Report found that violence was more frequent in
American dramatic programmes as a whole than in the
other three societies. The differences appeared to be due
mostly to the programme mix. The violent content of
similar types of programmes was not far apart, but it was
the number of imported American action dramas and
cartoons-the most violent types of programmes-which
determined the violence of the mix. For example, actionadventure accounted for 37 per cent of American but
only 19 per cent of British programmes, making the latter
less violent on the whole (Halloran and Croll, 1972).
Another study compared BBC programmes with the
more commercially oriented Independent Broadcasting
Authority (IBA)programming, and with violence in
programmes imported from the United States.
17
(Cumberbatch, 1987). The study found that violence in
recently produced BBC shows declined to an average of
1.4acts per hour while IBA programmes averaged
2.1per hour.ImportedAmerican showswere found to be
about three times as violent as British made programmes.
Canadian studies also found that,on the whole, editorial and programme mix determined not only the
amount but in some cases the nature of violence in the
media.Linton and Jowett (1977) studied feature filmsand
concluded that of all incidents involving conflict,50 per
cent depicted violence, with an average of 13.5 violent
incidents per film.Non-Canadianfilms contained about
twice as many violent incidents as those produced in
Canada.These incidents occur most frequently in action
films, including crime drama. One-third of the violent
incidents occurred between members of different
national,ethnic or racial groups.
Comparative analysesof violence in newspapers,radio
and televisionin Canada and the United States were also
conducted by Gordon and Ibson (1977) and Gordon and
Singer (1977) for the Royal Commission on Violence in
the Communications Industry. Of the 8,000news items
analysed,45 per cent related to conflict and violence.Of
2,400news items broadcast on 15 Canadian and
American television stations,48 per cent were related to
conflict and violence. However, almost 60 per cent of
lead items in both media were related to violence and
conflict.
The American media were found to place greater
emphasis on homicide and other physical violence than
the Canadian,while the lattershowed more ofother types
ofconflictand property damage.Direct,physicalviolence
(including natural and man-made disasters) is about
10 per cent more common in television news than in the
newspapers.Television is more likely to personalize violence in terms of private gain or deviance.
Saturday morning televisionviolence,analysed for the
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC)in 1974 was mostly (96per cent of
Per cent of films portraying:
episodes and 88 per cent of programmes) in imported
programmes. A n analysis of the 109 television programmes most popular with three age groupsof Canadian
viewersby Williams (1977) revealed that 76 per cent were
produced in the United States and 22 per cent in Canada.
The rate of physical,verbal,or psychological aggression
in these programmes,which included some cartoons,was
about 9 incidentsper hour.The consequencesofviolence
were seldom portrayed.
Differencesbetween French and English languagetelevision in Canada were found by Caron and Couture
(1977) to relate again to the programme mix: Englishspeaking markets received more Americn crime drama.
Content analyses of seven French-languageserials popular in Quebec (tkleromans) indicated that the majority of
conflicts presented in the serials were non-violent and,
mostly verbal.Inthe 27 per cent of conflictscenesthat did
involve physical violence, the violence was usually
humorous and off-screen.
Studies of television content in Australia by McCann
and Sheehan (1984) found that about 50 per cent of the
programmes contained some form of violence,less than
the level in the United States and Japan,and comparable
with ratesin Canada and the United Kingdom.A study of
N e w Zealand television by Gilpin (1976) revealed an
average hourly rate of about 7 violent acts in afternoon
and evening programmes. Of the 99 programmes in the
study sample only five originated in N e w Zealand.
A comparative study of Western and Soviet television
entertainment programmes in Finland by Pietila (1976)
concluded that most Western violence is directed against
private persons and property, while violence in Soviet
programmes is more likely to involve society and the
state.
A cross-culturalstudy of films produced in the early
1960s in the United States, Western Europe, and the
socialist countries of Eastern Europe was conducted by
Gerbner (1969). The table that follows summarizes the
principal findings of that study.
United States
France
Italy
Yugoslavia
Poland
Czechoslovakia
War
H o m e front in war
W a r crime
18
1
4
19
5
4
-
13
8
43
9
27
36
16
14
9
12
9
No physical violence
Homicide
Criminal violence
7
23
13
5
28
12
2
28
18
10
9
7
14
14
9
39
9
4
Private and criminal violence is more prevalent in
Western films,while historical and politically motivated
violence is more likely to be found in the filmsof Eastern
Europe.
Dworkin (1984) examined coverageof the Third World
by Western wire services.H e found statements concerning the Third World to be more negative and to include
more references to conflict and violence than those about
other parts of the world. Cooper (1984) confirmed the
hypothesis of excessive coverage of violence in the Third
World by matching network news against a data bank of
other newsworthy events which had taken place.
18
Systematic studies of press attention to issues of peace
and war are rare.Becker (1982,1983)accused thepress of
complicityin the drive toward war,and deplored the lack
of peace-related news even in the press of developing
countries.Savareseand Perna (1981) studied Italianpress
coverage of armament issues and found a similar lack of
consistentpolicy other than that of attracting the readers’
attention. An international symposium on ‘The Media
and Disarmament’held in 1983 under the auspices of
Unesco in Nairobi,Kenya,urged media scholars to conduct studies on that subject.But at a 1986conference on
‘InternationalCommunication and Confidence-Building
in Europe’,Tapio Varis reported that existing research
still cannot answer questionsabout the role of the press in
the peace-keepingprocess.
Coverage of terrorism
Work by Burnet (1971), Yonah (1976) Schmid and Graf
(1982), Midgeley and Rice (1984) and others report conferences and summarize studies of press coverage of
terrorism.A 1986 bibliography issued by ‘TheTerrorism
and the News Media Research Project’under the auspices
of the American Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication lists about 500 papers. The
1986 bibliography of studies conducted by The Rand
Corporation lists some 90 publications on international
terrorism alone.
Although international terrorism by and against states
received most attention, Bassiouni (1981, 1982) and
otherspoint out that terrorist acts in a national contextfar
outnumber international ones. Disappearances,bombings,kidnappings,and state violence in many countries,
often unreported,claim thousandsof times more victims
than do well publicized acts of international terror.
Wurth-Hough (1983) documented the role of media
coverage of terrorism in selecting events and defining
issuesfor the public.Paletz,Fozzard,and Ayanian (1982)
analysed the New York Times’coverage of the IRA,the
Red Brigades,and the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion
Nacional (FALN)from 1 July 1977 to 30 June 1979 and
found no basis forthe charge that coveragelegitimizesthe
cause of terrorist organizations.O n the contrary,70 per
cent of the stories mentioned neither the cause nor the
objectives of the terrorists;almost 75 per cent mentioned
neither the organization nor its supporters;and the 7 per
cent that did mention names surrounded them with statements issued by authorities.
In a follow-upstudy of American network news,Milburn et al.(1987), also noted the frequentomission ofany
causalexplanation forterroristacts,and the attributionof
mental instability to terrorists and their leaders. (Similar
acts directed against countries other than the United
Stateswere more frequentlyexplained.)The implication,
the researchers noted,was that ‘youcan’tnegotiate with
crazy people’.
Knight and Dean (1982) provided a detailed account of
how the Canadian press coverage of the siege and recapturing of the Iranian embassy in London from Arab
nationalist ‘gunmen’served to assert the efficiency and
legitimacy of violence by the British Special Air Service.
In the process of transforming crime and punishment into
a selectivelychoreographed newsworthy event,the media
‘haveto some extent assumed the functionsof moral and
political-in short,ideological-reproduction performed
previously (and limitedly) by the visibility of the public
event itself‘.It is not accidental,the authors claimed,that
highly publicized and ‘morally coherent’ scenarios of
violence and terror have made public punishment unnecessary as demonstrations of state ideology and power.
In their detailed case study of the ‘Bulgarianconnection’ in the trial of Mehmet Ali Agca, Herman and
Brodhead (1986) accused the media of being ‘aservant of
power’.They traced a trail of false evidence and widespread disinformationcreating an ‘institutionalizedmyth’
of enduring ideologicalutility,despite the acquittal of the
alleged conspirators.
Italian experience with terrorism has been studied extensively. Morcellini (1982) found that terrorism on
Italiantelevisionnetworksin 1980-81accounted for about
2 per cent of thematic content. Silj (1978) studied the
interplay of the media and political forcesin the coverage
of Aldo Moro’s kidnapping and murder. Iozzia and
Priulla (1984) conducted a comparative study of the
Italian daily press and television coverage in 1980 and
1983,before and after the Mafia killings of two Sicilian
magistrates and of General Dalla Ghiesa, Prefect of
Palermo,in September 1982.Television reporting on the
Mafia tripled and press coverage was two-and-a-half
times as great after the events.There was also greater use
of photographsand film clips in 1983.Both Sicilian newspapers and television echoed official versions of events.
The Italian crisis brought about by terrorism and its
coveragein the press did not result in severerepression or
a change in government, as the terrorists claimed they
expected. Sciascia’s (1986) book-length study of the
‘MoroAffair’ came to the conclusion that, on the contrary,the kidnapping and murder strengthened the unity
of the government it was supposed to shatter.The Red
Brigades struck down the architect of the historic collaborationbetween the Communist and Christian D e m o cratic parties.As both,and particularly the Communists,
took a strong stand against terrorism,and as the Italian
press includes strong party organs, the act could not be
easily exploited for partisan advantage.
A contrasting outcome was the subject of study by
Ozyegin (1986). H e conducted an analysis of the Turkish
press in three political periods marked by changes in
government from 1976 to 1980.H e found that the terms
‘terrorist’and ‘anarchist’were used interchangeably and
were used by the mass circulation right and centre papers
to indicate left-wingpolitical activity.These papers also
tended to ignore less violent political protests, demonstrations, and movements. The left-wing daily paper
tended to identify right-wingperpetrators of violence as
terrorists,and covered a much larger number of political
strikes and demonstrationswithout using the label.
Over time, the ‘terrorist’label became so firmly
attached to leftist violence that left-wingpapers stopped
using it. Ultimately, media coverage appeared to discredit the centre-leftgovernment and pave the way for a
military government.The role of the media was found to
be ‘anunprecedented symbolic unification of the entire
nation under the military rule against the common
enemy:the anarchy,the terror’.The Turkishpolitical and
media context,unlike the Italian,lent itself to the use of
terrorism for political advantage,besides its usual function of enhancing state,rather than terrorist,power.
Hostage crises
Altheide (1982, 1985) studied American television network news coverageofthe taking ofAmerican hostagesin
Iran in 1980. H e found that the similarity among the
networks amounted to a ‘nationalnews service’with a
limited view of the events.Iranian studentsin the United
Statesreceived more attention than did internal events in
Iran.H e concluded that the broadcasts contributed little
to historical or political understanding.
Palmerton’s(1985) analysisfocused upon the effects of
the coverage upon government representativesand institutions.The study suggested that while actions taken by
the United States affectedthe fate ofthe hostages,control
over the events eluded the government. Larson (1986)
provided a more detailed examination.His study traced
American television news coverage of Iran from before
the revolutionto the aftermath ofthe hostage crisis.In the
littlenews broadcast about Iran during the last sixyearsof
the Shah’sregime he found that the emphasis was on oil
and arms. Visits of dignitarieswere covered. Occasional
demonstrations and violence, when noted at all, were
attributed to unnamed ‘anti-Shahgroups’ or ‘Marxist
19
guerrillas’. Signs of internal instability were generally
ignored,and coverage rarely strayed from the administration line.
A state visit to the White House in November 1977
marked the turning point. The televised event ‘produced
a politically devastating visual scene. Tear gas used to
quell demonstrations... floated across the South L a w n as
President Carter was greeting the Shah. A nationwide
television audience witnessed the president and the Shah,
not to mention assembled dignitaries and the press, dealing as best as they could with the effects of tear gas.’
While coverage remained scant,television began to pay
attention to the opposition and the activities of the
Iranian secret police, if only to continue its emphasis on
the Shah as a staunch friend and ally. W h e n anti-government violence escalated, the networks dispatched their
o w n correspondents to Teheran. That gave them better
access to news sources. It also made them more active in
shaping events and more accessible to those in a positin to
make news.
In late 1978,reports from Paris linked Khomeini with
events in Iran. Direct coverage from Iran declined until
the embassy takeover and the seizure of American hostages. For over a year after this, nearly a third of all
international network news was devoted to Iran.
More than a third (36 per cent) of the stories were
direct visual reports. Television news became a principal
channel of communications between the two governments. Network news personnel assumed de facto
responsibility (but not accountability) for statements
affecting hostaqes,negotiations,and delicate policy positions.
The 1985 Beirut hostage crisis was, as A d a m s (1985)
wrote, ‘insome ways a rerun of events in Iran’.After the
bombing of the Marine headquarters and the kidnapping
of several news correspondents, most American news
organizations had closed their bureaux. W h e n the hijacked T W A flight touched down at the airport, only local
‘stringers’were available to cover the event. In time,
hundreds of journalists arrived on the scene. Network
crews negotiated for interviews with Muslim leaders and
the hostages themselves.More than one-thirdof airtime
on ABC was devoted to the hostages, 15 per cent to
various Muslim leaders, and 12 per cent to American
government officials. Atwater’s (1987)study of the crisis
gave similar figures for the other networks and noted that
‘Limited attention was given to historical, cultural and
other factors which may have given rise to the T W A
hijacking’.
20
O’Donnell’s(1987)account described the media event
and the controversy that followed.She cited former CBS
News President Fred Friendly’scharge that the media are
‘part of the problem, we’re taken hostage just as the
President is taken hostage. The agenda is being set by
groups in the Middle East.’ Former Secretary of State,
Henry Kissinger, called for a ‘complete and voluntary
blackout of coverage of the terrorists by American
media’.
Of course no such blackout occurred. The controversy
flared up again after the hijacking of the Italian cruiseship
Achille Lauro and an interview with its alleged ‘mastermind’ and Secretary-Generalof the Palestine Liberation
Front, M o h a m m e d A b u Abbas. The dispute was about
w h o should control politically explosive publicity.
Studies of political violence suggest that private control
of the media despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of
overt policy direction, may be more credible and thus
more effective than direct control by authorities. Even
when terrorists force attention to their cause, their control is usually early and short-lived.Elliot’s(1987)analysis shows h o w reporters try to minimize views that are
critical of official policy. Lule’s (1987)study of the coverage of the Achille Lauro hijacking and murder described
h o w the press played out the study of a senseless and
vicious crime crying out for revenge. Picard’s (1987)
investigation of stages in the coverage of prolonged incidents found that initial direct reporting soon gives way to
government-related coverage, which remains dominant,
even when background information is provided, during
the later stages.
The interplay between media and terrorists is described
by Palmerton (1983)and further developed as a ‘rhetorical genre’by Dowling (1986).Focusing the discussion on
‘crusaderswho practice terrorism for political ends’,and
‘seekto change the world ...yetlack the power to do so’,
Dowling traces various tactics for gaining attention and
credibility from the media. The purpose is not so much to
gain converts as to obtain concessions,weaken authority
by defying it, or provoke the authorities into violent,
repressive, or other actions that may discredit them.
However, the ability of the media to define the situation
in the long run, and the symbiotic relationship between
the media and the authorities,make it possible for those
in power to turn the terrorist ‘rhetoric’ to their o w n
advantage.
111. Consequences: people and policy
’
Research on the consequencesof exposure to mass-mediated violence has a long and involved history. (See
e.g. Rowland, 1983; Rubinstein, 1980; Cater and
Strickland, 1975.)Most research has focused on limited
aspects of the complex scenarios of violence and terror.It
has been motivated (and dominated) by fears of individual imitation, incitation, brutalization, or subversion,
and by attempts on the part of the media to counter such
charges. Therefore, most research has concentrated on
observable and measurable psychological traits and
states-such as aggressiveness-that were presumed to
lead to violence and could be attributed to exposure to
violence in the media.
Research on aggression has been the most widely publicized ‘mediaviolence study’(Goldstein, 1986). Rowland
(1983), among others, suggested that perhaps it was
preferred because it was the easiest to counter and the
least damaging to basic institutionalinterests and policies.
Aggressiveness is an ambivalent concept with positive
as well as negative connotations. Its link to most real
violence and crime, which is organized and systemic
rather than individually motivated, is tenuous,to say the
least.Approaches which emphasize personal violations of
law and order focus on law enforcement and social control, which are close to media (and other) institutional
interests. This is not the approach of critical social science. Finally, focusing research on the media may help to
distract attention from more troublesome demographic
and social conditions related to violence and crime.
Seldom asked and rarely publicized have been the
broader questions of policy: W h y should media organizations, established institutions of society,undermine their
existence by promoting violence? Are incitation and
imitation really the principal consequences of exposure to
violence? Are there consequences that may benefit media
institutions and their sponsors? If so,what are they? Can
they help to explain the persistence of media policies
producing standardized levels of violent representations
despite public criticism and international embarrassment?
W e have seen in the policy section of this report that
massive media presentations of violence and terror may
indeed have significant policy benefits, as well as some
liabilities. Research on media content revealed that these
presentations demonstrate social power and, on balance,
tend to favour the powerful.The convergence of research
and theory on these considerations led to a line of investigation that concentrated on the societal and systematic
functions of violence in the media.
In this section of the report w e shall first summarize
research on exposure to violence in the media, and on
perceptions of violence. Next w e shall review major lines
of aggression research and studies showing a ‘directlink’
to actual violence. Finally w e shall discuss the large-scale
public projets on television violence and the conclusions
of broader institutional policy relevance that have
emerged from them.
The question is not what ‘causes’violence and crime,as
that goes beyond our focus on the media. The question is
what contributions do media policies and frequent exposure to media scenarios of violence and terror make to
people’s conceptions of reality, to some behaviour patterns, and to the pursuit of institutional interests.
Exposure and preference
Stories of violence and terror raise issues of conflict,
power, and human integrity. They are a part of mythology, literature, and other areas of our cultures. Mass
media simplified and standardized them, put them on the
cultural assembly line, and built them into a daily ritual in
nearly every home. Exposure to them begins in infancy
and continues throughout life. The saturation of modern
cultures with mass-produced images of violence and terror is constant and inescapable. Since this is so,research
on selective exposure, preferences, and perceptions may
have only marginal significance.
Studies of exposure to media violence reveal a limited
number of influences such as availability in different
media and genres, socio-economic status, gender, and
some selection patterns. Schramm’s (1949)study on the
reading of news showed two basic preference patterns:
stories yielding immediate reward (crime, corruption,
accidents, disasters, sports, recreation,social events, and
human interest) and those yielding delayed reward (public affairs, economic matters, social problems, science,
education,and health). Higher levels of education led to
increased interest in delayed reward stories.
Newspaper reading preferences among children and
adolescents before the advent of television were also
studied by Lyness (1952).The majority expressed interest
in reading about murders, robberies,and accidents.Boys
were about 10 per cent more likely than girls to report
these preferences.
Swanson (1955) surveyed adult readers of
130 newspapers and found that comics attracted more
than half of them. ( W e have noted in the previous section
that about 30 per cent of comics contain violence.) Vio21
lent news (wars and disasters) attracted 30 per cent
(40per cent of males), and crimes and accidents 20 per
cent.
Television viewing is a time-boundand relatively nonselective activity. Prime time,when most people watch
television,and children’sweekend programming time (at
least in the United States) have been found to have the
highest frequencies of violent representations.
Signorielli’s (1986) analysis shows that the programme
mix is such that the average viewer has ‘littleopportunity
to exercise any kind of choice in viewing’. Large audiences watch violent programmes scheduled in time
periods when large audiences watch television.
Studies on the audience for and popularity of violent
programmes confirm these conclusions.Comstock et al.
(1978) summed up their review of the research literature
by observing that violence is unrelated to the popularity
of a programme or to the expression of approval by
viewers. Roberts (1981) concluded that children’sviewing habits generally follow those of the parents. Chaney
(1970) found no relationship between children’s expression of a liking for and their actual viewing of violent
programmes. Robinson (1979) noted that even voicing
concern about violence did not alter the pattern of viewing violent programmes.
Diener and DeFour (1987) found no correlation between violent content and Nielsen popularity ratings.
Other content categories did not predict popularity
either, and the researchers concluded that it is the
scheduling of programmes that accounts for popularity.
The investigatorsalso conducted an experiment in which
a high-action low-violence edited version of a policeaction programme was shown to half the subjects;the
others viewed a high-action,high-violenceversion. No
significant preference was shown for either version.
A Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission study (1975) of the Toronto television
audience in ‘familyviewing time’revealed that reruns of
six to eight-year-oldsituation comedies competed successfully with action programmes. Sprafkin et al. (1977)
also found that there was no relationship between either
violent or ‘pro-social’programme characteristics and
ratings. A study by Randall, Cole, and Fedler (1970)
concluded that gender is the best predictor of preference
for violent programmes. Israel et al. (1972) analysed the
demographic characteristics of those who watch most
violence, and also found them to be males who watch
most television in general:they have lower incomes,less
education and less favourable ethnic status than those
who watch less.
Exposure to televisionviolence,then,is more a matter
of media policy and group membership than of individual
selection. There is no evidence to support the popular
conception and the argumentof the broadcasting industry
that violence per se attractsmany viewers.There may still
be some economic rationale if the production of formulabound violent series is less expensive than that of other
perhaps more complex types of programmes. Given the
relative lack of selectivityof televisionaudiences,and the
fact that audiencesize is determined mainly by the availability of viewers at each time period, cutting production
costs is one way to increase revenue which is tied to
audience ratings. However, the uncertain economic
benefits cannot fully explain the persistence of mass-producing television violence at standardized levels in the
face ofconstantpublic criticism.A fullerexplanationmay
be sought in the findings of research related to policy and
power.
22
Perception
Perception is the process by which sensory stimulation is
interpreted in light of previous experience and present
expectations.It is not directly accessibleto the researcher
but depends on respondents’reports of their interpretations. Research on how audiences perceive violence
usually assumes that conscious (or at least reported)
perceptions of violent content might reveal something
about the effects of that content.
Heynes (1978) found that children perceive comic cartoon violence as more violent and less acceptable than
‘authentic’cartoon violence. Howitt and Cumberbatch
(1974) concluded that adults see fictional and humorous
violence as less violent than violence in other types of
programmes. Robinson’s (1981) study suggested that
identification with a character might make the action
seem more violent.
Other personal characteristicswere related to perceptions of violence by Gunter and Furnham (1983, 1984).
They found that individual differences,dramatic settings,
and even nationality of production had some effect on
how violent a panel of viewers rated the programmes.
Snow’s(1974) survey of children’sinterpretations of violence concluded that viewing in a ‘playcontext’made the
violence appear less serious.
Rubins (1981) observed that viewers rate most programmes favourably and violence has little to do with
their rating. Greenberg and Gordon (1971) discovered
that the critics’ ranking of programmes by degree of
violence was about the same as that of viewers. More
important,they found that those who are given a definition of violence will be able to perceive more violence in
programmes.
A line of research about the effects of repeated exposure to violence and perceptionsof it has been pursued by
Thomas (1975, 1977) and her collaborators,Linz et al.
(1984), and others in the United States and Thomson
(1972) in Australia. Their experiments show that repeated exposure diminishes the strength and changesthe
nature of responses to subsequent images of violence.
A comprehensive study,focused specifically on children’s perceptions of television violence,found that the
more they watched the less they perceived the violence,
the more they enjoyed the programmes, and the more
they approved of violent behaviour seen on television
(van der Voort,1986,p. 199).
Research on perceptions of media violence has a
limited role to play in understanding the consequencesof
living with its images and messages. The aggregate systems and patterns of the media with their typology,
demography, power relations, and victimization ratios
can be revealed by systematic analysis but are not perceived by individual viewers and readers. Living with
these patternsaffectsjudgementsabout their ‘reality’and
acceptability.Perceptions of reality are also strongly influenced by the realisticquality of the presentations;their
authenticity cannot be easily ascertained.Believing them
to be real may mean several different things such as
‘normal’ or ‘exceptional’or ‘acceptable’,usually not
specified in surveys.Furthermore,in less selectively used
media such as television,perceptionsofviolenceand even
opinions expressed about it do not seem to affect the
actual (and limited) choice of programmes.
Whatever these perceptual interpretations and implicit
judgementsof specific presentationsof violence may be,
enduring patterns of thinking and action cannot be
attributed to isolated messages. Realistic, fantastic,
serious,humorous, and many other styles of presentations are part of the daily media diet.General and stable
consequencesresult from exposureto the inescapableand
repetitive patterns common to many different media.
W e now turn to the main lines of research,including
studiesbased on reportsofperceptionsofviolence,focusing on aggression,direct links to action,and the cultivation of other manifestationsof exposure to violencein the
media.The first of these is generalmedia research involving the relationship between violence in the media and
aggression. The second line bypasses the troublesome
relationship between psychological traits such as aggressivenessand most actual violence prevalent in the world.
It investigates the direct link between presentations of
violence in the media and real violence.The third line of
research emerged from the large-scalepublic investigations of the 1970s and 1980s. It broadens the scope from
aggressive or violent effects to a detailed analysis of the
media violence scenario and to the investigation of a
wider range of consequences for people and institutions.
Aggression research
Early research that touched on aggression includes the
Payne Fund studies of filmsin the 1930s (see for example
Dysinger and Ruckmick,1933), Werthem’s(1954) analysesof comics,Himmelweit,et al.’s(1958) investigation of
children and television in the United Kingdom, and
Schramm,Lyle,and Parker’s(1961) research on children
and television in American and Canadian communities.
All but Himmelweit found that violence in the media
makes some contributionto aggressiveness.Himmelweit
concluded that it may dull awarenessof the consequences
of violence-an early observation of possible
‘desensitization’.
Laboratoryexperimentshave provided relatively clearcut evidence of the relationship between exposure to
violence and aggressive behaviour. They have also been
criticized for the artificiality of the exposure and the
absence of a normal social context that often inhibits
aggressive and especially violent behaviour.
In a series of experiments,Bandura (1963,1968,1975,
1979, etc.) tested the impact of televised violence on
pre-schoolchildren. His results indicate that violence on
television or in films affects children by reducing their
inhibitions about violence, by increasing aggressive behaviour,and by teaching them how to be aggressive.The
experiments found that witnessing real-life agressive
models,a film of the same models,and aggressive cartoon
characters all provoked aggressive behaviour in children,
especially when frustration was experimentally induced.
In another series of experiments Berkowitz (1962,
1964,1963,1965,1973,1974,etc.)also demonstrated that
aggressive and violent tendencies can be stimulated by
exposure to filmed and televised aggressionin the psychological laboraory.The studies showed that justificationof
aggression diminishes the viewers’ inhibitions about
aggressive behaviour.
Savitsky (1971) noted that pre-existing aggressiveness
may confound the effectsofexposureto violent or aggressive films. Tannenbaum and Zillman (1975) discovered
that anger and aggressiveness may be aroused by elements of media content other than violence. D o o b and
Climie (1972) found that a 20-minutedelay in measurement led to a significant decrease in the intensity of the
emotion aroused and in the subsequent ‘aggressive’
response.
Field experimentsand surveys avoid the artificiality of
laboratory experiments,but introduce other limitations,
such as the difficulty of establishing causal relationships,
the lack of controls and the problem of comparing different samples.Here again,the convergence of findings
leading to similar conclusions guides the course of our
review.
A series of long-termcross-culturalstudieson televised
violence and aggressive behaviour in children was conducted by Lefkowitzet al.(1973,1977,1982)and by Eron
and Heusmann and their associates (1963, 1972, 1982,
1983,etc.). They found strongpositive relationships.Two
large-scalelongitudinal studies conducted in the United
States,Finland, and Austria confirmed the relation between televised violence and aggression. Parents’roles,
the child’s intellectual ability and social relationships
were important variables. Support was found for the
theory that there is a sensitiveperiod-probably up to age
10-during which television can be especially influential
on children’sbehaviour.
These results were confirmed by Viemero (1986) in
Finland and challenged by Wiegman,Kuttschreuter,and
Baarda ofthe Netherlands(1986) who firstparticipated in
and then pulled out of the Eron et al., cross-national
survey. W h e n the Netherlands’data were subjected to
multivariate analysiscontrollingfor a number ofvariables
such as social class and intelligence,only the girls in the
study, generally less aggressive than the boys, became
more aggressive as they watched more television. This
convergenceof responses among heavy viewers in otherwise divergent groups suggests the ‘mainstreaming’process found in the Cultural Indicators research discussed
below.
Extensive research on children and television was carried out over a long period of time by Dorothy and
Jerome Singer and their associates (1971, 1980, 1983,
1984,etc.). They conducted research on the relationship
between television viewing at home and viewing and
aggression during play situations in pre-schoolsettings.
They found that both aggressive and speeded-upaction
on television produces aggressive behaviour patterns in
children.
Another study by the Singers compared watching violence on televisionwith reading about it. They concluded
that the television image intrudes in a relatively uncontrolled way upon imaginationand values,while in reading
about an event the creation of the image is in the control
of the reader.
A large-scale Canadian study was conducted by
Williams and her collaborators (1986). Since they
observed communities before and after the introduction
of television, they were able to draw causal inferences
more difficult to make in correlational research.
They observed children’sbehaviour during play, and
obtained teacher and peer ratings of aggression before
and after the introduction of television.They found the
children both physically and verbally more aggressive two
years after the introduction of television than they were
before, and more so than children of other similar communities who had had television for some time. Neither
age, nor amount of viewing nor programme preference
seemed to make much difference.
The investigatorsalso had an opportunity to determine
whether increasesin aggression are specific to those who,
perhaps for other reasons,exhibit the greatest tendency
to be aggressive.This did not turn out to be the case.They
concluded that,at least in the long run,television’scontributionto aggressivenessis fairly uniform for all groups.
Different conclusions were reached in a study conducted
23
for the National Broadcasting Company by Milavsky et
al. (1982)w h o found that correlationswith aggressiveness
were both varied and low,and dismissed the results as not
significant.
Murray (1985)in Australia, Greenberg (1974) in the
United Kingdom, and Rosengren and his colleagues
(1984)in Sweden found significant relationships between
television viewing and aggression. Rosengren was able to
follow the same children over several years and found
support for the ‘addiction’or circular theory of the relationship. According to that theory, violence in the
media leads to aggressive behaviour which, in turn, results in the seeking out of more violent programmes,
especially among the more aggressive children.
A comprehensive summary by Tan (1986)of the ‘social
learning’line of r :search pioneered by Bandura came to
the conclusion that ‘Therelationship between exposure to
television violence and subsequent aggressive behaviour
is probably causal; however, this relationship cannot be
expected to be substantial or a major explanation of
aggression in the real world’ (p. 53).
The consequence of repeated viewings may not be
simply additive. A number of researchers, including
Donnerstein (1981,etc.), Drabman and Thomas (1974),
Malamuth (1981,1982,etc.), Linz and Penrod (1984),
Thomas et al. (1975,1977), and Zillman (1982) in the
United States, Thomson (1959,1972) in Australia, and
van der Voort (1986) in the Netherlands have demonstrated that sensitivity and responsiveness decrease with
repeated exposure to violence. Although Lavin and
Hanson (1984)failed to obtain physiological measures of
such ‘desensitization’,the evidence indicates that violence in the media cultivates at least conceptual and
possibly behavioural accommodation to violent activity.
In his review of media violence studies,van der Voort
(1986) concluded that while under some circumstances
(e.g. revulsion,empathy for the victim) viewing violence
m a y reduce aggression ‘the advocates of the stimulation
hypothesis are right in so far as they assume that viewing
violence m a y increase the likelihood of non-criminal
minor aggression’.
A study by Atkin (1983) explored whether factual
scenes stimulate more aggression than fictional ones.The
aggression score of children who watched both types of
television violence were higher than those of a similar
group not exposed to the specially prepared tapes. Violent scenes presented as news had a greaer impact on
aggressiveness.Similar results of the facilitating effects of
perceived realism were obtained by Mussen and
Rutherford (1961) and Rosenfeld et al. (1979) in the
United States,Edgar (1977)in Australia,Neinrich (1961)
in the Federal Republic of Germany, and others.
M a n y studies confirm that respondents can make distinctions between what they consider to be real and what
they consider to be fictional. There is evidence,however,
that this judgement m a y have little or no bearing on what
respondents actually and often unconsciously integrate
into their frameworks of assumptions. Studies by
Bandura et al. (1967), Ellis and Sekure (1972), Lovas
1961), Osborn and Endsley (1971)and others show that
Rstional, humorous, and fantastic as well as realistic
stories cultivate assumptions about values and relationships.Chaney (1970)found that boys most involved in the
aggressive aspects of programmes were also the most
likely to consider them ‘realistic’.Feshback and Singer
(1971) showed violent films to delinquent boys for six
weeks and found an increase in aggressive fantasies but
not in actual aggressiveness.The cultivation of such fanta24
sies may be related to the ‘meanworld’syndrome found in
later studies. Realistic, fantastic, humorous and other
styles are inextricably mixed in the daily media exposure.
The evidence suggests that elements c o m m o n to different
styles of representation may combine to cultivate conceptions associated with the media violence scenario.
Link to direct action
N o laboratory experiment can test the relationship between violence in the media and real-lifeviolence. Such a
relationship was explored by Belson (1978). His CBSfunded survey of long-term viewing and behaviour
profiles of 1,565teenage boys in London documented a
positive relationship between heavy exposure to televised
violence and aggressive or violent bahaviour. Of the
50 per cent w h o reported involvement in violence during
the preceding six months, 12 per cent were involved in ten
or more serious acts. Those w h o watched more violence
exhibited serious violent behaviour more often than did
those w h o watched less. Differences in historical setting,
amount of justification,and centrality to the plot did not
appear to moderate the relationship between violent
content and subsequent behaviour.
The introduction of television in a Cree community of
Northern Canada studied by Granzberg and Steinbring
(1980)appeared to increase aggressiveness.But no link to
actual homicides was found by Hennigan, et al. (1982)
w h o studied statistics on homicide and aggravated assault
during the years 1949-1952in 34 American cities in which
television had been introduced and 34 comparable cities
in which television licenses were restricted during that
period.
A more specific connection between certain acts of
violence on television and similar acts in real life was
found in a series of studies by Phillips and his associates
(1974,1979, 1980,1984,etc.). In one study national
suicide statistics in The N e w York Daily News, the
Chicago Tribune,and the London Daily Mirror for each
month from 1946 to 1968 were used to investigate the
impact of suicides reported on the front page on actual
suicide. The number of suicides increased proportionately with the amount of coverage devoted to a suicide story.
In another study, daily motor vehicle fatalities in
California, from 1966 to 1973,and front page suicide
stories from five major California newspapers were examined to test theoriesof suggestion and imitation.Three
days after a publicized suicide, automobile fatalities increased by 31 per cent. The more the suicide was publicized, the more the automobile fatalities increased.
Further studies documented similar relationships between highly publicized homicides, fictional suicides,
prizefights, and court-imposeddeath sentences. Violence
in the media was followed by short-termviolent consequences regardless of its factual or fictional nature. Teenage
suicides increased even more than adult suicides after
multiple exposure to highly publicized suicide stories.
The research of Phillips and his associates on violence
in the media which may lead to homicides, suicides,and
other forms of real violence has been both replicated and
criticized by other investigators (Messner, 1986;Kessler
and Stipp,1984;and Stack,1987). O n e failure to replicate
the teenage suicide findings (Phillips and Paight, 1987)
was attributed to the fact that there was a single rather
than multiple exposure. O n the other hand, a study in the
Federal Republic of Germany of the effects of a six-part
fictional television programme involving suicide (Hafner,
et al. 1987) confirmed the multiple-exposure findings.
These studies suggest that repeated news or fictional
exposure to highly publicized violence triggers,even if it
does not necessarily originate, violent and destructive
acts in the general population.
In another seriesof studiesBaron (1987) and his associates developed the theory of ‘culturalspillover’.They
found that those most involved with culturally approved
violence ranging from people with a preference for violent material in print and other media to the military are
more likely to commit real-lifeviolence than those not so
involved with legitimized violence. This study suggests
that legitimate and state-approvedviolencemay also have
consequences for lawlessness and violent crime.
Public projects and cultural indicators
The rapid spread of television in the United States after
the Second World War coinciding with a rising concern
about juvenile delinquency,crime, and general unrest,
led to a series of Congressional investigations. These
found little evidence linking criminal violence to television, but they attracted attention and helped to alert
public opinion to the issue of violence on television.
The assassinationsofPresidentJohn Kennedy,Senator
Robert Kennedy, and the Reverend Dr Martin Luther
King, Jr. shocked the nation.In 1968,PresidentJohnson
established the National Commission on the Causes and
Prevention of Violence and appointed Milton
Eisenhower to chair it.
The EisenhowerCommission’sMedia Task Force commissioned summaries of research and one original research project which was a study designed to provide a
reliable analysis of violence on television. It was the
beginning of the Cultural Indicators project eventually
relating the analysis of television content to that of a
variety of conceptions and behaviours among different
groups of viewers.
The EisenhowerTask Force Report by Baker and Ball
(1969) assembled the evidence available on the effects of
the media and published the resultsofthe contentanalysis
presenting violence not as a simple act but as a complex
social scenario of power and victimization with many
potential lessons. The Task Force report repeated previous conclusions that violence in the media contributed
to violent behaviour and called for remedial action by
government and the media.
Before the Eisenhower Commission had an opportunity to release its final report, a new and even more
formidable national project was launched. Senator John
Pastore,chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications,proposed and PresidentNixon quickly established a
Scientific Advisory Committee to the United States
Surgeon-Generalto investigate, once and for all, the
causal relationship between television and violence.The
Committee was given an adequate budget and undertook
to commission new research including an extension and
further broadening of the Cultural Indicatorsstudy.
The Committee’s Report to the Surgeon-General
(United States Government,1972) and the five technical
reports, are landmarks in media research. The work of
many of the researcherscited in the present summary was
supported by and included in the Surgeon-General’sproject.
The Report to the Surgeon-General had to be
approved by representativesof the televisionindustry as
well as social scientists serving on the Committee. The
conclusionswere so cautiously drafted that they could be
(and were) reinterpreted by the media as a retreat from
previous research findings.The Committee declared that
it found ‘apreliminary and tentativeindicationof a causal
relation between viewing violence on television and
aggressive behavior...’. The concept of the television
violence scenario as a demonstration of power was introduced for the first time in an official research report.The
Committee found that ‘The fundamental function and
socialrole of ritualized dramaticviolence is ...themaintenance of power. The collective lessons taught by drama
tend to cultivatea sense ofhierarchicalvalues and forces.’
Congressionalinvestigationsand other public moves to
reduce violence in the media reached a high point in the
1970s and then faltered.But research continued to follow
up, refine,and broaden the leads identified in the 1972
Report to the Surgeon-General.
Studies by Lovibond (1967), Siegal (1969) and others
had found that vio!ence in the media is related to feelings
of apprehension, insecurity and the necessity of war.
Doob and McDonald (1977,1979) reported that exposure
to violence in the media boosts public estimates of crime
and violence,although not equally in all groups.Carlson
(1983) found a significantrelationship between exposure
to crime shows, aproval of police brutality and bias
against civil liberties. Bryant, et al. (1981) and Zillman
and Wakshlag (1985) found that television viewing could
be related to feelingsof anxiety and fear of victimization,
although Wober (1978) did not find viewers in the United
Kingdom similarly affected.A large-scalesurvey by Research and Forecasts (1980) concluded that exposure to
violence both in the press and on television is related to
expressions of fear. Graber’s (1979) survey of studies
came to a similar conclusion.
In 1980,anotherSurgeon-General’sAdvisory Committee was formed to provide new scientific bases for further
policy initiatives.The Committee’stask was to review and
summarize ten years’progress since the 1972 Report and
to assess television’s influence on behaviour on a still
broader front.
The summary and the six technicalreports (Pearl et al.
1982) found over 2,500studies,90 per cent of which had
been completed in the ten years between the two reports.
The cumulative results confirmed ‘theconsensus among
most ofthe research community... that violenceon television does lead to aggresive behavior by children and
teenagers who watch the programmes.’
A critique of the ‘update’report by Freedman (1984)
noted that strictly relevant and independent studies
(rather than series by the same researchers) were fewer
than 100 and the evidence for a causal relationship between violence in the media and general aggression in real
life was neither very strong nor conclusive.However, it
missed the main thrust of the report which was to move
away from asking questionsabout aggression only,and to
inquire into other significantconsequences.The ‘update’
report concluded that ‘Televised violence and its contribution to viewers’ conceptions of social reality have
been the concern of much research.For example,beliefs
about the prevalence of violence in American life have
been correlated with amounts of television viewing...
Exposure to televised violence has also been found to lead
to mistrust,fearfulness of walking alone at night,a desire
to have protective weapons,and alienation.’
The CulturalIndicatorsresearch project,which was the
source of these conclusions,developed a conception of
television violence as a demonstration of power with
consequences for most regular viewers (Gerbner, et al.
1986a,b) . These consequences are not necessarily identical for all groups,but they have common implications
25
for institutional dynamics and public policy. For most
groupsof viewers,television’smean and dangerousworld
tends to cultivatea relative sense of fear,of victimization,
mistrust, insecurity, and dependence, and-despite its
supposedly ‘entertaining’ nature-of alienation and
gloom.
Other studies confirmed and extended these findings.
Gunter and Wober (1983) related television viewing in
the United Kingdom to viewers’ estimates of personal
risks. They found that heavy viewers report high estimates of risk from lightning,flooding,and terrorist bomb
attacks than comparable groups of light viewers.Piepe et
al.(1977) observed in the United Kingdom,as D o o b and
Macdonald did in Canada,that the area in which people
lived related strongly to their fear of crime,as did television viewing.
Jeahnig,et al. (1981) found that press coverage was a
better predictor of crime estimates in a community than
the actual number of crimes committed. Haney and
Manzolati (1980) looked at common themes in crime
drama and related them to viewers’conceptions,concluding that television tended to cultivate the presumption
that a suspect was guilty rather than innocent,the belief
that legal rights protect the guilty rather than the innocent,and the belief that police are not restricted by law
in their pursuit of suspects.Stroman and Seltzer (1985)
also found that heavy viewers believed that flaws in the
legal system make a major contribution to crime,while
regular news readers were more likely to cite social
conditions.
Elliot and Slater (1980) and Reeves (1978) suggested
that when viewers believe television content to be real,
they are more likely to be influenced by it. However,
Hawkins and Pingree (1980) and Greenberg (1982) found
perceived realismsunrelated or even negatively related to
cultivation.
Saxer,et al. (1980) and Bonfadelli (1980) reported the
results of a cultivation study of adolescents in Zurich.
Television viewing was significantly related to both conceptions of violence and expressions of fear. Viewer
gratification,perceptions of reality,and the socialcharacteristics of viewers typically mediated the relationships.
Related findings also came from a study by Bryant,et
al. (1981) which introduced specific controls for demographic and personality variables. Buerkel-Rothfussand
Myers (1981) and Perse (1986) found that viewing daytime serials correlated positively with higher estimatesof
crime. Perse also found that viewing daytime serials
contributed to modifying conceptions of social reality
especially when the viewers were highly motivated.
Critiques of the Cultural Indicatorsline of research by
Hirsch (1980), Hughes (1980), and others introduced
certain qualificationswhich were addressed in subsequent
publications (Gerbner,et al. 1986b). These included the
observations that programme selection,comprehension,
and certain experimental factors such as criminal victimization (Weaver and Wakshlag,1986)play a role in the
cultivation of viewer conceptions.
Cultural Indicatorsresearch has found (as noted in the
section on Content) that women and some minorities
depicted in prime time programmes are more vulnerable
to victimization (relative to their own ability to inflict
punishment) than other groups of characters. Further
analysis revealed that symbolic victimization and real
world fear are related (Morgan,1983). Viewers who see
that members of their own group have a higher ratio of
risks than those of other groups seem to develop stronger
feelings of apprehension and mistrust. Exposure to the
26
patterns of violencefound on televisionseemsto cultivate
a differential sense of vulnerability,placing heavier burdens of dependence on women and minorities.
Terrorism
Extensive coverage by the media of acts of terrorism
seems to serve functions similar to those provided by
media presentation of violence in general.Typically isolated from their historical and social context, denied
description of conditions or cause,and portrayed as unpredictable and irrational,if not insane (see e.g.Milburn
et al. 1987), those labelled terrorists symbolize a menace
that rational, humane, and democratic means cannot
reach or control.In a domestic context of racial violence,
Paletz and Dunn (1969) studied the effects of news coverage of urban riots and concluded that the attempt to
present a view acceptable to most readers failed to illuminate the conditionsin the black communities that led to
the riots.News of civil disturbance shares with coverage
of terrorist activity the tendency to cultivate a pervasive
sense of fear and danger,and of the consequent acceptability of harsh measures to combat it.
D e Boer (1979) summarized survey results in fivecountries and found that although terrorists claimed relatively
few victims, the media coverage cultivated a sense of
imminent danger that required unusual steps if it was to
be overcome. Terrorism was considered a ‘veryserious’
problem by nine out of ten Americans and nearly as many
British respondents. Six out of ten people in the Federal
Republic of Germany considered it ‘themost important
public event of the year’.
Six or seven out of ten respondents in the United
States,the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of
Germany favoured the introductionof the death penalty
for terrorists,Similar majorities approved using a ‘special
force’ that would hunt down and kill terrorists in any
country; placing them ‘under strict surveillance, even
though our country might then somewhat resemble a
police state’;using ‘extrastern and harsh action’unlike
that used against other criminals; and ‘limitations of
personal rights by such measures as surveillance and
house searches’in order to ‘combatterrorism’.
Eight out of ten Germans in the Federal Republic of
Germany approved a news embargo instituted after a
kidnapping,and six out of ten thought that conversations
between the accused and their lawyers should be monitored to prevent new acts of terrorism.
From one-fifth to over half of the respondents in the
Federal Republic of Germany said that ‘onehas to be
careful’with what one says to avoid being considered
sympathetic to terrorists. Sympathizers were considered
to be those who oppose the death penalty,who believe
their ‘lawyershave the right at all times to visit terrorists
in prison’,who think their ‘criticismsof our society to be
justified in some respects’,or who feel pity €or them.
Concluding comments
Few would question that people learn something from
mass media.Educational,commercial,political,religious
and many other efforts are based on that assumption.
Everyday observation and thousands of studies confirm
it.
But just what is learned from or can be attributed to
specific messages embedded in larger scenariosis not easy
to define and even more difficultto measure.The difficulty is greater when the ‘message’can come in many diverse
forms and configurations,can lend itselfto many different
interpretations, and is an integral part of a culture. The
problem is further compounded when the conception or
action presumably resulting from or associated with the
message can be socially acceptable or unacceptable,
heroic or criminal, or even all of these. The final complication is that the violence scenario has many more, and
more important, potential lessons to teach than the one
most researchers have tested for,namely aggressive and
violent behaviour.
It is the psychological focus on individua! aggression
and violence that has been the most frequently studied
and publicized.It has also been relatively easy to counter.
Critics of aggression research point to the difficulty of
relating experiments to real life situations, question the
validity of relating violence in the media mainly to aggression or even to real violence, note that blaming either
aggression or violence on the media distracts attention
from more significant social influences,and claim that the
emphasis on individual threats to law and order deflects
attention from the greater threat of official and legitimated violence.
Exposure to violence in the media may play a role in a
great variety of situations, though rarely as the sole
factor. It usually combines with other conditions in sustaining or triggering any response. For example,
McCarthy, et al. (1975) noted that television viewing
among poor children in N e w York City is related to
aggression and ‘behaviourdisorders’.But viewing itself is
heavier among low income families, as are ‘behaviour
disorders’.
Mayers (1971,1972,1973)
found that justified violence
legitimates aggressive responses. M u c h violence in the
media is, of course,justified by the situation or the cause.
Cultural support for legitimate violence can also ‘spill
over’ into criminal violence, as Baron, et al. (1987)demonstrated. But legitimated violence is an arm of law and
order; no society will dispense with its use.
Three further conceptual difficulties complicate and
limit the empirical demonstration of the effects of violence in the media. The first relates to the sharply divergent distributional characteristics of television and other
media. The second has to do with the problem of attributing specific actions to specific and distinct types of media
content. A n d the third is the problem of causation in
dealing with a complex and largely culture and situationbound activity.
It is useful to distinguish between selectively used and
relatively non-selectively used media. The selectively
used media-print, film (in cinemas), audio and video
recording, and some cable services-require either literacy or mobility or at least some selectivity. They tend to
be selected and used during and after school age. The
choices tend to reflect tastes and predispositions cultivated by the stories told and habits acquired in the h o m e
from parents, school, church and other socializing influences. These influences have traditionally distinguished different socio-economic,ethnic, religious, political,
and other groups.
In the past three to four decades,however, a relatively
non-selectively used medium, reaching all groups with a
limited set of messages,has tended to erode some of these
distinctions and absorb into its cultural mainstream many
otherwise traditionally diverse groups. That medium is
television. While reading violent material may be an
individual choice,violence on many television systems is
virtually inescapable.Viewers of violent programmes on
television tend therefore simply to be heavy viewers, with
the corresponding social and cultural characteristics.Social characteristics, rather than personal selectivity, are
the most important factors in determining exposure to
violence on television.
The effect of media messages on specific types of
behaviour is difficult to establish. Violence and terror are
a part of complex scenarios of great human and political
import. They may be seen as justified or criminal and
brutal. They may be (and usually are) accompanied by
acts of co-operation and friendship. Rushton (1979),
Friedrich and Huston-Stein (1973)and others found that
viewers learn positive ‘prosocial’lessons from films and
television programmes. M u c h of that can come from
‘violent’ programmes. Such programmes and other
materials present more than a simple abstracted violent
act. They demonstrate types of conflict and co-operation,
bravery and cowardice, victory and victimization, and
social relationships of domination and submission, risk
and vulnerability, weakness and strength. T o search only
for the link to violent behaviour,is to limit the research to
what may be one of the weaker links in the chain of
consequences.
Whatever the effects of violence in the media, they are,
as Tan’s (1986)summary concluded,far from accounting
for the vast bulk of aggression and violence in the world.
The evidence suggests that such violence as they inspire
may be but a small price to pay for the more pervasive
functions of demonstrating power and cultivating acceptance of one’s ‘place’in society’s power structure.
Finally,the question of cause and effect is often raised,
usually in relation to a single preconceived effect, such as
a violent act. The question is which comes first, exposure
to violence in the media or the preference for violent
programmes? Could it not be that individualspredisposed
to aggressive and violent actions select violent representations to support their inclinations?
The answer is twofold. First, with selectively used
media, a predisposition stemming from a variety of influences may indeed lead to the selection of violent material.
That in turn may strengthen the predisposition.
With television, the situation is somewhat different. A
child is born into a h o m e in which the set tends to be on
most of the day or evening. Violence is inescapable.
There is no ‘before’exposure. The predispositions that
may influence selection in other media are themselves
shaped in large part by television.The issue is not so much
selective exposure as the total amount of viewing and the
nature of the response to the basic overall content pattern
that most viewers see. The appropriate question, therefore, is not only whether media violence can cause any
specific type of behaviour such as real violence but what
contribution exposure to violence-laden media information and entertainment might make to different patterns
of thinking and action.
The lines of research that provide some answers to that
broader question emerged from the publicly supported
large-scaleprojects of the 1970sand 1980s.They suggest
that the violence-terrorscenario may have several consequences, which include the cultivation of aggressive tendencies, the accommodation to violence, the depersonalization and isolation of offenders,the sporadic triggering
of violent acts,and the levels of vulnerability and dependence felt by different groups living with the images of a
mean and dangerous world.
Whatever else it may have to offer this scenario provides its producers with the sense and reality of power and
its persistence may be understood among other things in
tems of its utility for those w h o define and control its uses.
27
Bibliography
ABEL,
J.D.;
BENINSON,
M.E.Perceptions of TVProgram
Violence by Children and Mothers. Journal of Broadcasting, Vol. 20,No. 3,1976,pp. 355-63.
ABRAMSON,
P.R.;HAYASHI
H.Pornography in Japan:
Cross-Cultural and Theoretical Considerations. In
Neil M.Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein (eds.),
Pornography and Sexual Aggression. Orlando, F.L.,
Academic Press, 1984,pp. 173-83.
ADAMS,
W.C.The Beirut Hostages: ABC and CBS Seize
an Opportunity. Public Opinion, August-September,
1985,pp. 45-8.
ADONI,
H.;
COHEN,
A.A.;MANES. Social Reality and
Television News. Perceptual Dimensions of Social
Conflicts in Selected Life Areas. Journal of Broadcasting, Vol. 28,No. 1, 1984,pp. 33-49.
ALBERT,
J.A.Constitutional Regulation of Televised
Violence. Virginia L a w Review, Vol. 64,No. 8,1978,
pp. 1299-345.
ALBERT,
R.S.The Role of Mass Media and the Effect of
Aggressive Film Content upon Children’s Aggressive
Responses and Identification Choices. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, Vol. 55, 1957,pp. 221-85.
ALEXANDER,
Y.International Terrorism: National, Regional, and Global Perspectives. N e w York, Praeger,
1976.
ALTHEIDE,
D.L.Iran vs. U.S.TV News: The Hostage
Story Out of Context. In William C. A d a m s (ed.),
Television Coverage of the Middle East. Norwood,
N.J.;Ablex, 1981,pp. 128-58.
.
Three-in-One News: Network Coverage of Iran.
Journalism Quarterly,Vol. 59,No. 3,1982,
pp. 482-6.
Impact of Format and Ideology on TV News Coverage of Iran. Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 62,No. 2,
1985,pp. 346-51.
ANDISON,
F.S.TV Violence and Viewer Aggression: A
Cumulation of Study Results 1956-1976.Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 41,No. 3,1977,pp. 314-31.
ATKIN,
C.K. Effects of Realistic TV Violence versus
Fictional Violence on Aggression.Journalism Quarterly, Vol.60,NO.4,1983,pp. 615-21.
.
, MURRAY,
J.P.;NAYMAN,O.B. The SurgeonGeneral’sResearch Program on Television and Social
Behavior: A Review of Empirical Findings.Journal of
Broadcasting, Vol. 16,No. 1, 1972,pp. 21-35.
.
AUSTRALIAN
BROADCASTING
TRIBUNAL.
Children’s
Television Standards: Report and Determination.
Sydney, Australia,Australian Broadcasting Tribunal,
1984.
AVALLONE,
F. Analisi Psicologico-Sociale del Comportamento Comunicativo del Rotocalco Televisivo SUI
Terrorismo. [Social-Psychological Analysis of C o m municative Function of Television Programs on Terrorism.] In RAZ Radiotelevisione Ztaliana, Vol. 1,
1982.
BAILEY,
G.A.;
LICHTY,
L.W.Rough Justice on a Saigon
Street: A Gatekeeper Study of NBC’sTet Execution
Film. Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 2, 1972,
pp. 221-9,238.
BAILYN,
L.Mass Media and Children: A Study of Exposure Habits and Cognitive Effects. Psychological
Monographs, Vol. 73,No. 1, 1959,pp. 1-48.
BAKER,R.K.;BALL,S.J. Mass Media and Violence,
Vol. 9(AReport of the Task Force on Mass Media and
Violence to the National Commission on the Causes
and Prevention of Violence). Washington, D.C.;
U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1969.
.
;MEDIA
TASKFORCESTAFF.The Views, Standards
and Practices of the Television Industry. In Robert K.
Baker and Sandra J. Ball. Mass Media and Violence,
Vol. 9.Washington, D.C.; U.S.Government Printing
Office, 1969,pp. 593-614.
BACKHASH,
S. The Riddle of Terrorism. The N e w York
Review, 24 September 1987,pp. 12-6.
BALDWIN,
T.F.;LEWIS,
C. Violence in Television: The
Industry Looks at Itself. In George A.Comstock and
Eli A. Rubinstein (eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol. l: Content and Control. Washington,
D.C.;
Government Printing Office, 1972,pp. 290-373.
BANDURA,
A.What TV Violence Can D o to Your Child.
In Otto N.Larsen, Violence and the Mass Media. N e w
York: Harper &R o w , 1968,pp. 123-39.
.
A Social Learning Theory of Aggression.Journal of
Communication, Vol. 28,No. 3, 1978,pp. 12-29.
.
Psychological Mechanisms of Aggression. In M.
von Cranach, K.Foppa, W.Lepenies, and D.Ploog
(eds), H u m a n Ethology: Claims and Limits of a N e w
Discipline. Cambridge, M . A .; Cambridge University
Press, 1979.
.Self-Efficacy Mechanism in H u m a n Agency. American Psychologist, Vol. 37,N o . 2,1982,pp. 122-47.
.Social Diffusion and Innovation.In Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Englewood Cliffs,N.J.;
Prentice-Hall,1985.
-;GREENBERG,
B.;KORZENNY,
F.; MCDERMOTT,
S.
Selective Exposure to Televised Violence. Journal of
Broadcasting, Vol. 23,No. 1, 1979,pp. 5-13.
ATWATER,A.Network Evening News Coverage of the
T W A Hostage Crisis.Terrorism and the News Media
Research Project, Paper N o . 6,Louisiana State University, 1987.
29
-; UNDERWOOD,
W.; FROMSON,M.E.Disinhibition
of Aggression through Diffusion of Responsibility and
Dehumanization of Victims.Journal of Research in
Personality, Vol.9,1975,pp. 253-69.
; Ross,D.;
Ross,S.A.Imitation of Film-Mediated
Aggressive Models.’Journal of A bnormal and Social
Psychology, Vol. 66,No. 1, 1963a,pp. 3-11.
.Vicarious Reinforcement and Imitative
Learning.Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology,
Vol.67,NO.6,1963b pp. 601-7.
BARCUS,
F.E.Communications Content: Analysis of the
Research, 1900-1959.Unpublished DoctoralDissertation, University of Illinois,1959.
.A Content Analysis of Trends in Sunday Comics
1900-1959. Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 38, 1961,
pp. 171-80.
-
---
-. Saturday Children’s Television: A
Report of TV
Programming and Advertising on Boston Commercial
Television.Boston,M.A.
; Action for Children’sTele-
vision, 1971.
.Newspaper Coverage of Violence in Boston Public
; ReSchools,August 1981-April1983.Boston,M.A.
port for the Safe Schools Commission, 1983.
BARON,
L.; STRAUS,
M.A.
SexualStratification,Pornography, and Rape in the United States. In Neil M.
Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein (eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression. Orlando,FL.;
Academic
Press, 1984,pp. 185-209.
;JAFFE, D.Legitimate Violence,Violent
Attitudes,and Rape: A Test of the Cultural Spillover
Theory.Annals of the N e w York Academy of Sciences,
in press, c.1987.
BASSIOUNI,
M.C.
Terrorism,Law Enforcement,and the
Mass Media. Perspectives,Problems,Proposals.Journal of Criminal L a w and Criminology,Vol. 72,No. 1,
1981.
. Media Coverage of Terrorism: The Law and the
Public. Journal of Communication, Vol. 33, No. 2,
1982,pp. 128-43.
BAXTER,
R.L.
;DERIEMER,
c.;LANDINI,A.;LESLIE,
L.;
SINGLETARY,M.W.A Content Analysis of Music
Videos.Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,
Vol. 29,NO.3, 1985,pp. 333-40.
BEAR,A.The Myth of Television Violence. Media Znformation Australia, Vol. 33, 1984,pp. 5-10.
BEATTIE,
E. Magazines and Violence. Report of the
---
-
Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications
Industry, Vol.4, Violence in Print and Music.
Toronto,Canada,The Royal Commission, 1977.
BECKER,
J. Communication and Peace: The Empirical
and Theoretical Relation between T w o Categories in
Social Sciences. Journal of Peace Research, Vol.19,
NO.3,1982,pp. 227-40.
. Methodological Problems of Dealing With Disarmament in the Press.CurrentResearch on Peace and
Violence, January 1983.
BELL,
J.B.Terrorist Scripts and Live-ActionSpectaculars. Columbia Journalism Review, No. 17, 1978,
pp. 47-50.
BELMANS,
J. Cinema et Violence.Paris:Renaissance du
Livre, 1972.
-
BELSON,
W.
A. Television Violence and the Adolescent
Boy. Westmead, England, Saxon House, 1978.
BERKOWITZ,
L.Violence in the Mass Media.In Leonard
Berkowitz,Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis. N e w York, McGraw Hill,1962,pp. 229-55.
.-
30
The Effectsof Observing Violence.ScientificAmerican, Vol. 210, No. 2,1964,pp. 35-41.
.-
Some Aspects of Observed Aggression.Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 3,
1965,pp. 359-69.
Some Determinantsof Impulsive Aggression:The
Role of Mediated Associations with Reinforcements
for Aggression.Psychological Review, Vol. 81,No. 2,
1974,pp. 165-76.
-;
ALIOTO,
J.T.
The Meaning of an Observed Event
as a Determinant of its Aggressive Consequences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.28,
NO.2,1973,pp. 206-17.
;GEEN,
R.G.
Film Violence and the Cue Properties
of Available Targets.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 3,NO.5, 1966,pp. 525-30.
-;
RAWLINGS,
E.Effects of Film Violence on Inhibitions Against Subsequent Aggression. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, No. 3,
1963,pp. 405-12.
; CORWIN,
R.; HEIRONIMOS,
M.Film Violence and
Subsequent Aggressive Tendencies. Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 27,No.2,1963,pp. 217-29.
-;
PARKE,
R.D.;
LEYENS,
J.-P.;
WEST,
S.G.Reactions of Juvenile Delinquents to “Justified” and “Less
Justified” Movie Violence. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency,Vol. 11,Vol. 1,1974,pp. 1624.
BJOERKQVIST,K.Violent Films,Anxiety and Aggression. Experimental Studies of the Effect of Violent
Films on the Level of Anxiety and Aggressiveness in
Children. Doctoral dissertation, Department of
Psychology,University of Turku,Finland,1985.
BOEMER,
M.L.A n Analysis of the Violence Content of
the Radio Thriller Dramas and Some Comparisons
with Television. Journal of Broadcasting, Vol.28,
NO.3,1984,pp. 341-53.
BOGART,L.Violence in the Mass Media. Television
Quarterly, Vol. 8,No.3,1969,pp. 36-47.
.Warning: The Surgeon-Generalhas Determined
that TV Violence is Moderately Dangerous to Your
Child’s Mental Health. Public Opinion Quarterly,
Vol. 36,NO.4,1972,pp. 491-521.
BOLLEN,
K.A.
; PHILLIPS,
D.P.Suicidal Motor Vehicle
Fatalities in Detroit:A Replication.American Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 87,No. 2,1981,pp. 405-12.
-;
PHILLIPS,
P.P.Imitative Suicides: A National
Study of the Effects of Television News Stories.
American Sociological Review, Vol. 87,1982,pp. 40412.
BONFADELLI,
H.Der Einfluss des Fernsehens auf die
Konstruktion der Sozialen Realitat: Befunde aus der
Schweiz zur Kultivierungshypothese. Rundfunk und
Fernsehen, Vol. 31, 1983,pp. 415-30.
BOWERS,
J.R.Violence on Television and Violent Crime
in Japan.Anthrotech: A Journal of Speculative Anthropology, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1981.
BRODY,S.R.Screen Violence and Film Censorship: A
Review of Research. London,H o m e Office Research
Unit, 1977.
BRYANT.
J.;ZILLMANN,
D.,
(eds.). Perspective on Media
Effects. Hillsdale,N.J.,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers,1986.
.Sports Violence and the Media. In Jeffrey H.
Goldstein (ed.), Sports Violence.N e w York,SpringerVerlag, 1983.
;CARVETH,
R.;
BROWN,D.Television Viewing and
Anxiety: An Experimental Examination.Journal of
Communication, Vol. 31,No.1, 1981,pp. 106-19.
.
-
-
--
BUERKEL-ROTHFUSS,
N.L.; MAYES,
S. Soap Opera
Viewing and the Cultivation Effect.Journal of C o m munication, Vol. 31,No. 3, 1981,pp. 108-15.
BURNET,
M.The Mass Media in a Violent World (1970
Symposium Proceedings). Paris,Unesco, 1971.
CAIRNS,
E.The Television News as a Source of Knowledge About the Violence for Children in Ireland,
North and South. Current Psychological Research and
Reviews, c.1985.
; HUNTER,
D.;HERRING,
L. Young Children’s
Awareness ofViolence in Northern Ireland:The Influence of Northern Irish Television in Scotland.British
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 19,
1980,pp. 3-6.
CATTON,
W.R.Militants and the Media. Indiana Law
Journal, Vol. 53, 1978,pp. 705-13.
CATTON,
W.R.Jr. Value Modification by Mass Media.In
Robert K.Baker and Sandra J. Ball,Mass Media and
Violence, Vol. 9. Washington, D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office,1969,pp. 28-279.
CAWELTI,
J.G.
Myths of Violence in American Popular
Communications Industry, Vol. 2, Violence and the
Media: A Bibliography. Toronto,Canada,The Royal
Culture.CriticalZnquiry,Vol. 1,No. 3,1975,pp. 52141.
CHAFFEE,
S.H.Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness (Overview). In George A.Comstock and Eli A.
Rubinstein (eds.), Television and Social Behavior,
Vol. 3, Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness.
Washington,D.C.,
Government Printing Office,1972,
pp. 1-31.
; TIMS,
A.R.Interpersonal Factors in Adolescent
Television Use. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 32,
NO.4,1976,pp. 98-115.
CHANEY,
D.C.Involvement,Realism, and the Perception of Aggression in Television Programmes.H u m a n
Relations, Vol.23, No. 5, 1970,pp. 373-81.
Commission,1977.
CHOMSKY,
N.Pirates and Emperors: International Ter-
-
CANADIAN
GOVERNMENT.
Report of the Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry,
7 Vols. Toronto, Canada, The Royal Commission,
1977.
-Report of the Royal Commission on Violence in the
.
-
CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION
AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CRTC)
, Social Communications
rorism in the Real World. N e w York, Claremont Re-
Division Research Branch. Violence on English-Language Television in a Canadian City During Periods of
High Child Viewing. Ottawa,Canada, CRTC,1974.
.Social CommunicationsDivision Research Branch.
Audience Preferences and Programming Strategies
from 4:OO to 8:00p.m.in the Toronto Area. Ottawa,
Canada,CRTC,1975.
.Social CommunicationsDivision Research Branch.
Three Measures of Public Attitudes Towards Television Violence. CRTC 1975 Symposium on Television
Violence, Queen’s University. Ottawa, Canada,
CRTC (in French and in English), 1976a.
Social CommunicationsDivision Research Branch.
Violent Motion Pictures;Crime Radio Programs,and
Crime Comic Books-3 Controversiesin the Scholarly
and Popular Press 1909-1953.CRTC 1975 Symposium
on Television Violence, Queen’s University. Ottawa,
Canada,CRTC,1976b.
CLARK,
C.Race,Identificationand Television Violence.
In George A.Comstock,Eli A.Rubinstein,and John
P. Murray (eds.), Television and Social Behavior,
Vol.5, Television’s Effects: Further Explorations.
Washington,D.C.,
U.S.
Government Printing Office,
.
-
CANINO,
G.;
RUBIO-STIPIC,
M.; BRAVO-CORRADA,
M.;
RODRIGUEZ,
J.M.
A Content Analysis of Puerto Rico’s
Radio and Television Prime Time Programming. San
Juan,Puerto Rico, Departamento de Salud,c.1984.
CAPLAN,
R.E.Violent Program Content in M-usicVideo.
Journalism Quarterly,Vol. 62,No. 1,1985,pp. 144-7.
CARLSON,
J.M.
Crime Show Viewing by Pre-Adults:The
Impact on Attitudes toward Civil Liberties. C o m munication Research, Vol. 10, No.4,1983, pp. 52952.
CARON,
A.H.;COUTURE,
M. Images of Different
Worlds:A n Analysis ofEnglish-and French-Language
Television.Report of the Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry,Vol.3,Violence
in Television, Films and News. Toronto,Canada,The
Royal Commission,1977,pp. 220-341(in French) and
pp. 343-463(in English).
CARVETH,
R.;ALEXANDER,
A. Soap Opera Viewing
Motivations and the Cultivation Process.Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 29, NO.3,
Summer 1985,pp. 259-73.
CASSATA,
M.B.;
SKILL,
T.D.;
BOADU,S.O.
In Sickness
and In Health. Journal of Communication, Vol. 29,
pp. 73-80.
CATER,
D.; STRICKLAND,S. TV Violence and the Child:
The Evolution and Fate of the Surgeon-General’sReport. N e w York,Russell Sage Foundation, 1975.
search and publications, 1986.
1972,pp. 120-84.
CLARK,
D.G.;
BLANKENBURG,
W.B.Trends in Violent
Content in Selected Mass Media. In George A.
Comstock and EliA.Rubinstein (eds.), Television and
Social Behavior, Vol. 1,Media Content and Control.
Printing Office, 1972,pp. 188-243.
CLINE,
V.B.;
CROFT,R.G.;
COURRIER,
S. Desensitization of Children to Television Violence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 3,
1973,pp. 260-365.
CLUTTERBUCK,
R. Guerrillas and Terrorists. London,
Farber and Farber,1977.
. The Media and Political Violence. London, The
MacMillan Press, 1981.
. The Media and Political Violence,2nd ed.,London,
Macmillan, 1983.
COHEN,
A.A.;ADONI,
H.;DRORI,
G. Adolescents’
Perceptionsof Social Conflicts in Television News and
Social Reality. H u m a n Communication Research,
Vol. 10,NO.2,1983,pp. 203-25.
-. Children’sFear Responses to Real-LifeViolence on Television:The Case of the 1973 Middle East
War. Communications: International Journal of C o m munication Research, Vol.6,1980,pp. 81-94.
COLLINS,
W.A.;
BERNDT,T.J.;
HESS,
V.L.Observational Learning of Motives and Consequences for Television Aggression: A Developmental Study. Child Development, Vol. 45,No.3, 1974,pp. 799-802.
COLUMBIA
BROADCASTINGSYSTEM. Network Prime
Time Violence Tabulations for the 1975-76 Season.
N e w York, CBS Office of Social Research,1976.
COMICS
MAGAZINE
ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA.
The
Role of the Code Administrator and Applying the
Comic Book Code. In Otto N.Larsen (ed.), Violence
and the Mass Media. N e w York,Harper &Row,1968,
pp. 244-52.
COMSTOCK.
G.A.
N e w Research on Media Content and
li
Control (Overview). In George A.Comstock and E
A.Rubinstein (eds.), Television and Social Behavior,
-
31
Vol. 1, Media Content and Control. Washington,
D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office,1972,pp. 127.
Types of Portrayal and Aggressive Behavior.Journal of Communication, Vol.27,No.3,1977,pp. 18998.
.
N e w Emphases in Research on the Effects of Television and Film Violence. In Edward L.Palmer and
Aimee Dorr (eds.), Children and the Faces of Television: Teaching, Violence, Selling. N e w York,
Academic Press, 1981,pp. 129-48.
.
Violence in Television Content: A n Overview. In
David Pearl, Lorraine Bouthilet, and Joyce Lazar
(eds.), Television and Behavior, Vol. 2,Technical ReNational Institute of Mental
views. Rockville, M.D.,
Health, 1982,pp. 108-25.
-;
RUBINSTEIN,
E.A.;
MURRAY,
J.P.(eds.). Television and Social Behavior (Technical Reports to the
Surgeon-General’s Advisory Committee), 5 Vols.
Washington,D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office,
1972.
.
-
-;
CHAFFEE,
S.;KATZMAN,
N.;MCCOMBS,
M.;
ROBERTS,
D.Television and H u m a n Behavior. N e w
York,Columbia University Press, 1978.
CONRADIE,
D.P.;
MALAN
J.C.
Aggression and Violence
on TV,1976-81.Pretoria,South Africa, Institute for
Communication Research,H u m a n Sciences Research
Council,1983.
CONY,E.R.
Conflict-CooperationContent ofFive American Dailies. Journalism Quarterly, Vol.30, No. 1,
1953,pp. 15-22.
COOK,
T.D.;
KENDZIERSKI,
D.A.;
THOMAS,
S.V.The
Implicit Assumptions of TV Research:An Analysis of
the 1982 NIMH Report on Television and Behavior.
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.47, No.2, 1983,
pp. 161-201.
COOPER,
A.M.Third World News on Network Television:A n Inclusion/ExclusionStudy ofViolence.Presented to the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication, International Division,
University of Florida,Gainesville,1984.
CORNELL,
G.W.
La Television:U n Modelo de Desigualdad y Dominacion.[Television,A Model of Inequality
and Domination.] L a Nacion (Argentina), October
1984.
COURT,
J.H.
Correlationaland Cross-CulturalStudieson
Pornography and Aggression. In Neil M.Malamuth
and Edward Donnerstein (eds.), Porngraphy and SexAcademic Press,1984.
ual Aggression. Orlando,F.L.,
COVERT,
L.S.A Fantasy-ThemeAnalysis of the Rhetoric
of the Symbionese Liberation Army: Implicationsfor
Bargaining with Terrorists.Dissertation,University of
Denver, 1984.
DADER,
J.L.
Periodismo y Pseudocomunicacion Politica:
Contribucionesdel Periodismoa las DemocraciasSimbolicas.[Journalismand PoliticalPseudo-Communication: Contributions of Journalism to Symbolic D e m o cracies.]Pamplona,Spain,Ediciones Universidad de
Navarra, 1983.
DAHL,
A.G.Norwegian Statement on Violence in the
Media. Typescript,1985.
DAHLGREN,
P.Television in the Socialization Process:
Structures and Programming of the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation.In George A.Comstock and Eli
A.Rubinstein (eds.), Television and Social Behavior,
Vol. 1,Media Content and Control. D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1972,pp. 533-46.
DALE,
E. The Content of Motion Pictures. N e w York,
MacMillan,1935.
32
DAVIS,
D.B.Violence in American Literature.In Otto
N.Larsen (ed.), Violence and the Mass Media. N e w
York,Harper &Row,1968,pp. 70-82.
DAVIS,
F.J.Crime News in Colorado Newspapers.American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 57, No.4, 1952,
pp. 325-30.
DEBOER,
C.The Polls:Terrorism and Hijacking.Public
Opinion Quarterly, Vol.43,Fall 1979,pp. 410-18.
DEE,
J.L.Media Accountability for Real-LifeViolence:
A Case of Negligence or Free Speech? Journal of
Communication, Vol. 37,No.2,1987,pp. 106-38.
DEKONING.
T.L.;CONRADIE,
D.P.;NEL,E.M.The
Effect of Different Kinds of Television Programming
on the Youth. Pretoria, South Africa, Institute for
Communication Research,H u m a n Sciences Research
Council, 1980.
DELEON,
D.L.;
NAON.
R.L.The Regulation ofTelevised
Violence. Stanford Law Review,Vol.26,No. 6,1974,
pp. 1291-325.
DEMBO.
R.The Media and Violence in Society.International Journal of Communication Research, No.3,
1974,pp. 420-42.
DIENER,
E.;
DEFOUR.D.Does Television Violence Enhance Program Popularity?Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 36,No.3, 1978.pp. 333-41.
DOMINICK,
J.R.Crime and Law Enforcement in PrimeTime Television. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 37,
NO.2,1973,pp. 241-50.
.
Children’sViewing of Crime Shows and Attitudes
of L a w Enforcement.Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 51,
NO.1, 1974,pp. 5-12.
.
Crime and Law Enforcementin the Mass Media.In
Charles Winick (ed.), Deviance and Mass Media,
Beverly Hills,C.A.,
Sage, 1978,pp. 105-28.
.Videogames,Television Violence and Aggression
in Teenagers. Journal of Communication, Vol. 34,
NO.2,1984,pp. 136-47.
;GREENBERG.
B.S. Attitudes Toward Violence:
The Interaction of Television Exposure, Family Attitudes,and Social Class.In George A.Comstock and
Eli A. Rubinstein (eds.). Television and Social Behavior, Vol.3, Television and Adolescent Aggression.
Washington,D.C.,
U.S.
GovernmentPrinting Office,
1972,pp. 314-35.
DONNERSTEIN.
E. Aggressive Erotica and Violence
Against W o m e n . Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol.39,No.2,1980a,pp. 269-77.
.Pornography and Violence Against Women: Experimental Studies.Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences, Vol. 347, 1980b,pp. 277-88.
.Aggressive Pornography:Can it InfluenceAggression toward W o m e n ? In C.Albee, S. Gordon, and
H.Leitenberg (eds.),Promoting Sexual Responsibility
and Preventing Sexual Problems. Hanover, N.H.,
1983a.
.
Erotica and H u m a n Aggressior.. In Russell G.
Geen and Edward Donnerstein (eds.), Aggression:
Theoreticaland Empirical Reviews,Vol.2,N e w York,
Academic Press, 1983b.
.Pornography: Its Effect on Violence Against
W o m e n . In Neil M. Malamuth and Edward
Donnerstein (eds.), Pornography and Sexual AggresAcademic Press, 1984.pp. 53-81.
sion. Orlando FL.,
-- ; BERKOWITZ.
L.Victim Reactions in Aggressive
Erotic Films as a Factor in Violence Against Women.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 41,
NO.4,1981,pp. 710-24.
MALAMUTH,
N.Pornography:its Consequenceson
the Observer.In L.Schlesingerand E.Revitch (eds.),
Sexual Dynamics of Anti-SocialBehavior. Springfield,
IL.,C.C.
Thomas, 1983.
;DONNERSTEIN.
M.;
BARRETT.
G.Where Is The
Facilitation of Media Violence: The Effects of
Nonexposure and Placement of Anger Arousal.Journal of Research in Personality,Vol. 10,1976,pp. 38698.
DOOB,
A.N.;
CLIMIE.
R.J.Delay of Measurement and
Effects of Film Violence. Journal cf Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol.8,No.2,1972,pp. 136-42.
-;
MACDONALD.
G.E.
The News Media and Perceptions of Violence.Report of the Royal Commission on
Violence in the Communications Industry, Vol.5,
Learning from the Media. Toronto,1977,pp. 171-226.
-. Television Viewing and Fear of Victimization:Is the RelationshipCausal?Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol.37,No. 2,1979,pp. 17079.
DORR
LEIFER.
A.; ROBERTS.
D.F.
Children’sResponses
to Television Violence. In John P.Murray, Eli A.Rubinstein,and George A.Comstock (eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol.2, Television and Social
U.S.
GovernmentPrintLearning. Washington,D.C.,
ing Office, 1972,pp. 43-180.
-;
KOVARIC.
P. Some of the People Some of the
Time-But which People? Televised Violence and Its
Effects.In Edward L.Palmer and Aimee Dorr (eds.),
-;
Children and the Faces of Television: Teaching,
Violence, Selling. N e w York, Academic Press, 1981,
pp. 183-99.
DOWLING.
R.E.Terrorism and the Media: A Rhetorical
Genre. Journal of Communication, Vol. 36, No. 1,
1986,pp. 12-24.
DRABMAN.
R.S.;
THOMAS,
M.H.
Does Media Violence
Increase Children’sToleration of Real-Life Aggression? Developmental Psychology, Vol. 10, No.3,
1974,pp. 418-21.
-. Children’sImitation of Aggressive and ProSocial Behavior when Viewing Alone and in Pairs.
Journal of Communication, Vol.27, No.3, 1977,
pp. 199-205.
DUNLAND.
M.;
BERKOWITZ.
L.;
LEYENS.
J.-P.
Audience
Effects with Viewing Aggressive Movies.British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 21,1984,pp. 69-76.
DWORKIN.
M.Theme Usage as an Indicator of Agency
Bias. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, Intercultural and Development Communications Division,San Francisco.
DWORKIN.
M.S.‘TheDesperate Hours’and the Violent
Screen. Queens’s Quarterly, Vol.63, No.3, 1956.
pp. 415-23.
DYSINGER.
W.S.;RUCKMICK.
C.A.The Emotional Responses of Children to the Motion Picture Situation.
N e w York, MacMillan, 1933.
DZIKI.
S.;MACZUGA.
J.; PISAREK.
W.(eds.). World
Directory of Mass Communication Researchers.
Kracow. 1984.
EDELSTEIN.
A.S.;NELSON.
J.L.Violence in the Comic
Cartoon.Journalism Quarterly,Vol.46,No.2,1969,
pp. 355-8.
EDGAR,
P.M.Children and Screen Violence. St Lucia,
-;
Australia: University of Queensland Press, 1977.
EDGAR.
D.E.Television Violence and Socialization Theory. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.35,
NO.4. 1971,pp. 608-12.
EDMUNDS.
H.H.
; STRICK,
J. Economic Determinants of
Violence in Television and Motion Pictures and the
Implications of Newer Technologies. Report of the
Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications
Industry, Vol.7, The Media Industries. Toronto,
Canada, 1977,pp. 71-184.
EKMAN,
P.;LIEBERT.
R.M.;
FRIESEN,
W.V.;
HARRISON,
R.; ZLATCHIN,
C.; MALSTROM.
E.J.
; BARON,R.A.
Facial Expressions of Emotion While Watching Televised Violence as Predictors of Subsequent Aggression.In George A.Comstock,Eli A.Rubinstein,and
John P.Murray (eds.), Television and Social Behavior,
Vol.5 , Television’sExplorations. Washington,D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1972,pp. 22-58.
ELEEY.
M.F.;
GERBNER.
G.;
SIGNORIELLI.
N.;TEDESCo. A. Apples, Oranges, and the Kitchen Sink: A n
Analysis and Guide to the Comparison of ‘Violence
Ratings’. Journal of Broadcasting, Vol. 17, No.1,
1973,pp. 21-31.
ELLIOTT,
D.Family Ties: A Case Study of Coverage of
Families and Friends During the Hijacking of TWA
Flight 847.Terrorism and the News Media Research
Project, Paper No.7, Louisiana State University,
1987.
ELLIOT.
P.;MURDOCK,
G.;
SCHLESINGER.
P.Lo Stato e
il Terrorism0 alla Televisione Britannica.’ In RA1
Radiotelevisione Italiana, Terrorism0 e TV, Vol.2.
Rome: RAI,Verifica del Programmi Trasmessi,1982.
ELLIS.
G.T.;
SEKYRA,F.The Effect of Aggressive Cartoons on the Behavior of First-GradeChildren. Journal of Psychology, Vol.81,No. 1, 1972,pp. 37-43.
ELLISON.
J.; GOSSER,
F.T.Non-FictionMagazine Articles: A Content Analysis Study.Journalism Quarterly,
Vol.36,1959,pp. 27-34.
EENGLAND,
C.Violence in Literature for Children and
Young Adults. Report of the Royal Commission on
Violence in the Communications Industry,Vol.4.Violence in Print and Music. Toronto,Canada,The Royal
Commission, 1977,pp. 115-60.
ERON.L.D.Relationship of TV Viewing Habits and
Aggressive Behavior in Children.JournalofAbnormal
and Social Psychology, Vol.67,No.2,1963,pp. 1936.
.Parent-ChildInteraction,Television Violence,and
Aggression of Children. American Psychologist,
Vol. 37,NO.2. 1982,pp. 197-211.
-;
HUESMANN,
L.R.;
LEFKOWITZ.
M.M.;
WALDER.
L.0.Does Television Violence Cause Aggression?
American Psychologist,Vol.27,No.4,1972,
pp. 25363.
--; BRICE,
P.;FISCHER,
P.;MERMELSTEIN,
R.
Age Trends in the Development of Aggression, Sex
Typing,and Related Television Habits. Developmental Psychology, Vol. 19,No.1, 1983,pp. 71-7.
ESTEP.
R.;MACDONALD,
P.T.Crime in the Afternoon:
Murder and Robbery on Soap Operas. Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronics Media, Vol. 29,No.3,
1985,pp. 323-31.
D.K.B.
Sex, Violence and the
EYSEBCJN Hans J.; NIAS.
Media. N e w York, Harper &Row,1978.
FEILITZEN.
C.von; FILPSON.
L.;SCHYLLER,I. Open
Your Eyes to Children’sViewing: On Children, T V a n d
Radio N o w and in the Future. Stockholm, Swedish
Broadcasting Corporation (in Swedish and in English),
1977.
FENIGSTEIN,
A.Does Aggression Cause a Preference for
Viewing Media Violence? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol.37,No.12,1979, pp. 230717.
2
33
FERRACUTI,
F.;LAZZARI,
R.La Violenza nei Mezzi di
Comunicazione di Massa. (Violence in the Mass
Media.] RAZ Radiotelevisione Ztaliana. Torino, ERI,
1968.
FESHBACK,
S.The Stimulating Versus Cathartic Effects
of a Vacarious Aggressive Activity.Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.63, No.2, 1961,
pp. 381-5.
.
Reality and Fantasy in Filmed Violence.In John P.
Murray,Eli A.Rubinstein,and George A.Comstock
(eds.), Televisionand Social Behavior,Vol.2,Television and Social Learning. Washington, D.C.,
U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972,pp. 318-45.
-;
SINGER,R.D.Television and Aggression: A n Experimental Field Study. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass,
1971.
FOULKES,
D.;BELVEDERE,
E.;
BRUBAKER,T.Televised
Violence and Dream Content. In George A.
Comstock, Eli A.Rubinstein, and John P.Murray
(eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol.5, Television's Effects: Further Explorations. Washington,
D.C.
,U.S.
Government Printing Office,1972,pp. 59119.
FOUTS,G.T.Effects of Television on Children and
Youth: A Developmental Approach. Report of the
Royal Commissionon Violence in the Communications
Industry,Vol.6.Toronto,Canada,The Royal Commission, 1977,pp. 1-123.
FREEDMAN,J.L.Effect of Television Violence on
Aggressiveness. Psychological Bulletin, Vol.96,
NO.2,1984,pp. 227-46.
FRENCH,P.Violence in the Cinema. In Otto N.Larsen
(ed.), Violence and the Mass Media. N e w York, Harper &Row,1968,pp. 59-70.
FRIEDLANDER,
R.A. Terrorism: Documents of InternaOceana
tionaland Local Control.Dobbs Ferry,N.Y.,
Publications,1979.
.Terrorism and the Media:A ContemporaryAssessment. Gaithersburg,M.D.,
InternationalAssociation
of Chiefs of Police, 1981.
.
Iran:The Hostage Seizure,the Media,and International Law. In Abraham H.Miller (ed.), Terrorism:
The Media and the Law. N e w York, Transnational
Publishers,1982,pp. 51-66.
FRIEDMAN,
H.L.;
JOHNSON, R.L.Mass Media Use and
Aggression: A Pilot Study. In George A.Comstock
and Eli A.Rubinstein (eds.), Television and Social
Behavior, Vol. 3, Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness. Washington, D.C.
,U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972,pp. 336-60.
FRIEDRICH,
L.Kohn.;HUSTON-STEIN,
A.Aggressive and
Pro-socialTelevision Programs and the Natural Behavior of Pre-School Children. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development.Vol. 38,
No.4,1973.
FULFORD,
R.Speaking the Unspeakable: Violence in the
Literature of Our Time.Report of the Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry,
Vol.4,Violence in Printand Music.Toronto,Canada,
The Royal Commission, 1977,pp. 105-14.
GAROFALO,
J. Crime and the Mass Media: A Selective
Review of Research.JournalofResearch in Crimeand
Delinquency,July 1981,pp. 319-50.
GEEN,
R.G.The Meaning of Observed Violence: Real
Versus Fictional Violence and Consequent Effects on
Aggression and Emotional Arousal. Journal of Research in Personality,Vol. 9,1975,pp. 270-81.
34
Observing Violence in the Mass Media: Implications of Basic Research.In Russell G.Geen and Edgar
C.O'Neal (eds.). Perspectives on Aggression. N e w
York, Academic Press, 1976.
;STONNER.D. Context Effects in Observed
Violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol.25,NO.1, 1973,pp. 145-50.
-;
BERKOWITZ.
L.Some Conditions Facilitating the
Occurrence of Aggression After the Observation of
Violence.Journalof Personality,Vol. 35,No. 4,1967,
pp. 666-76.
GERBNER.
G.Press Perspectives in World Communications: A Pilot Study. Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 8,
NO.2,1961.pp. 313-22.
.Dimensions of Violence in Television Drama. In
Robert K. Baker and Sandra J. Ball (eds.), Mass
U.S.
Media and Violence,Vol.9.Washington,D.C.,
Government Printing Office, 1969a,pp. 311-40.
.The Film Hero: A Cross-CulturalStudy.Journalism Monographs,No. 13,1969b.
.CulturalIndicators:The Case of Violence in Television Drama. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science,Vol. 388, 1970.
.The Structure and Process of Television Program
Content Regulation in the United States.In George A.
Comstock and Eli A.Rubinstein (eds.). Televisionand
Social Behavior,Vol. 1, Media Content and Control.
Printing Office, 1972a. pp. 386-414.
.
Violence in Television Drama:Trends and Symbolic Functions. In George A. Comstock and Eli A.
Rubinstein (eds.) Television and Social Behavior,
Vol. 1, Media Content and Control,D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1972b, pp. 28-187.
.Scenario for Violence.Human Behavior,October,
pp. 91-6.Also in Robert Atwin, Barry Orton, and
William Verterman (eds.)American Mass Media: fndustry and Issues,N e w York, Random House, 1975,
pp. 102-7.
.The Real Threat of Television Violence. In Judy
Fireman (ed.). TV Book: The Ultimate Television
Book. N e w York, Workman Publishing Company,
1977,pp. 358-9.
.Death in Prime Time: Notes on the Symbolic
Functions of Dying in the Mass Media. The Annals of
the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science,
Vol.447,1980,pp. 64-70.
-.;
GROSS,
L.Living With Television:The Violence
Profile. Journal of Communication, Vol.26. No. 2,
1976a.pp. 173-99.
-~
. L.The Scary World of TV'sHeavy Viewer.
Psychology Today,Vol.9.No. 11, 1976b, pp. 41-5,
89.
__
. L.
The Violent Face of Television and its
Lessons.In Edward L.Palmer and Aimee Dorr (eds.),
Children and the Faces of Television: Teaching,
Violence,and Selling.N e w York, 1981.pp. 149-62.
.-
-. JACKSON-BEECK.
M.;JEFFRIES-FOX.
S.;
SIGNORIELLI.
N.Cultural Indicators:Violence Profile
No. 9 Journal of Communication, Vol.28, No.3,
1978,pp. 176-207.
-. ELEEY.
M.F.;JACKSON-BEECK.
M.;
JEFFRIES-FOX.
S.;SIGNORIELLI.
N. TV Violence
Profile No.8:The Highlights.Journalof Communication,Vol.27,No.2,1977,pp. 171-80.
-. MORGAN,
M.;
SIGNORIELLI,N.The 'Mainstreaming'of America:Violence Profile No. 11. Journal of Communication,Vol. 30, No. 3, 1980,pp. 1029.
---. Charting the Mainstream:Television’sContributions to Political Orientations.Journal of Communication, Vol. 32. No. 2, 1982,pp. 10027.
~
. Gratuitous Violence
- and Exploi~
tive Sex: What Are the Lessons? Phila, P.A.,
The
Annenberg School of Communications,1984.
----. Television’sMean World: Violence Profile, No.14-15.The Annenberg School of
Communications.University of Pennsylvania,1986a.
----. Living with Television: The
Dynamics of the Cultivation Process. In Jennings
Bryant and DolfZillman (eds.), Perspectives on Media
Effects. N e w Jersey,Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.,Inc.,
1986b,pp. 17-40.
---. Television Violence,Victimization, and Power. American Behavioral Scientist,
Vol. 23,NO.5. 1980,pp. 705-16.
- - ~
. JACKSON-BEECK.
M.The D e monstration of Power:Violence Profile No. 10.Journal of Communication, Vol. 29,No.3. 1979,pp. 17796.
GERSON,
W.M.
Violence as an American Value Theme.
In Otto N.Larsen (ed.), Violence and the Mass Media.
N e w York,Harper &Row,1968,pp. 151-62.
GINPIL,
S.Violent and Dangerous Acts on N e w Zealand
Television.N e w Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.11, No.2,1976,pp. 152-7.
GLUCKSMANN,
A.Rapport sur les Recherches Concernant les Effets sur la Jeunesse des Scenes de Violence
au Cinema et a la Television. Communications, t. 7,
pp. 74-119.Published in English as Violence on the
Screen:A Report on Research into the Effects on Young
People of Scenes of Violence in Films and Television,
London, British Film Institute,1971,1966.
GOBAN-KLAS.
T.Dyfuzja Informacji 0 Zamachu N a
Jana Pawla I1 13 Maja 1981.’Zeszyty Prasoznawcze,
R.XXIII,nr. 3 (93). 1982.
GODDARD,
P.Violence and Popular Music.Report of the
Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications
Industry, Vol.4, Violence in Print and Music.
Toronto, Canada, The Royal Commission, 1977.
pp. 223-39.
GOLDSTEIN.
J. (ed.). Reporting Science: The Case of
Lawrence Erlbaum,1986.
Aggression.Hillsdale,N.J.,
GOODRICH.
H.M a n and Society in Mass Media Fiction:
The Pattern of Life in the Mass Media as Revealed by
Content Analysis Studies.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,University of Illinois,1964.
.M a n and Society in Mass-MediaFiction:The Pattern of Life in the Mass Media as Revealed by Content
Analysis Studies. Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 25,
1965,p. 4851.
GORANSON,
R.E.Media Violence and Aggressive Behavior: A Review of Experimental Research. In
Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 5. N e w York, Academic
Press, pp. 1-31. See also J. Ball, Mass Media und
U.S.GovernViolence, Vol. 9.Washington, D.C..
ment Printing Office, 1969,1970a,pp. 395-413.
.
Observed Violence and Aggressive Behavior: The
Effects of Negative Outcomes to the Observed
Violence. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin,
1970b.
GORANSON,
R.E.
Television Violence Effects:Issuesand
Evidence. Report of the Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry,Vol.5. Learning from the Media. Toronto, 1977,pp. 1-29.
GORDON.
D.R.;
SINGER,
P.D.Content Analysis of the
News Media: Newspapers and Television. Report of
the Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry, Vol.3, Violence in Television, Films
and News. Toronto,Canada,The Royal Commission,
1977,pp. 581-675.
IBSON. T.L.Content Analysis of the News Media:
Radio.Report of the Royal Commission on Violence in
the Communications Industry,Vol. 3,Violence in Television, Films and News. Toronto,Canada,The Royal
Commission, 1977,pp. 677-703.
GORDON,
M.T.;
HEATH,
L.The News Business,Crime,
and Fear.Reactions to Crime,Vol. 16,1981.pp. 22751.
GRAALFS.
M.Violence in Comic Books. In Otto N.
Larsen (ed.), Violence and the Mass Media. N e w York,
Harper &Row,1968,pp. 91-6.
GRABER,
D.A.Evaluating Crime-Fighting Policies:
Media Images and Public Perspective.In Ralph Baker
and Fred A.Meyer,Jr. (eds.), Evaluating Alternative
Law-Enforcement Policies. Lexington, M.A.,
Heath
Lexin.
.
Crime News and the Public. N e w York, Praeger,
1980.
GRANZBERG,
G.;STEINBRING.
J. Television and rhe
Canadian Indian. Technical Report. Department of
Anthropology,UniversityofWinnipeg,Canada,1980.
GREENBERG.
B.S.The Content and Context of Violence
in the Mass Media.In Robert K.Baker and Sandra J.
Ball, Mass Media and Violence, Vol. 9.Washington,
D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1969,
pp. 423-52.
.Televised Violence: Further Explorations (Overview). In George A.Comstock.Eli A.Rubinstein and
John P.Murray (eds.), Television and Social Behavior,
Vol.5, Television’sExplorations. Washington,D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1972,pp. 1-21.
.British Children and Televised Violence. Public
Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 38,No.4,1974,pp. 531-47.
;-
-;
EDISON,
N.;KORZENNY.
F.;FERNANDEZ-COLc.;ATKIN.
C.K.Anti-Social and Pro-Social
LADO.
Behaviors on Televison. In Bradley S. Greenberg
(ed.),Life on Television: Content Analyse of U.S.W
Drama. Norwood, N.J.,
Ablex Publishing Corp.,
1980,pp. 99-128.
.GORDON.
T.F.Perceptions of Violence in Television Programs:Critics and the Public. In George A.
Comstock and Eli A.Rubinstein (eds.), Television and
Social Behavior, Vol. 1, Media Content and Control.
D.C..
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1971,
pp. 244-58.See also Journal of Broadcasting, Vol. 15,
1971,pp. 24-43.
--. Social Class and Racial Differences in Children’sPerceptions of Television Violence. In George
A.Cornstock,Eli A.Rubinstein,and John P.Murray
(eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol. 5, Television’s Effects: Further Explorations. Washington,
D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1972,
pp. 185-230.
GROEBEL.
J. Federal Republic of Germany: Aggression
and Aggression Research. In Arnold, P.Goldstein
and Marshall H.Segall (eds.), Aggression in Global
Perspective. N e w York, Pergamon Press, 1983.
.Cognitive Dimensions of Environmental Threat.
Paper presented to the International Council of
Psychologists,University of California at Los Angeles
(UCLA).1981a.
35
Vielseher und Angst.[Fearand the Heavy Viewer.]
.-
Fernsehen und Bildung, Vol. 15, 1981b, pp. 136-44.
Mass Communication and Personal Communication.International Psychologist, Vol.1, 1984.pp. 17-
.
-
8.
Determinants of Science Reporting in Europe. In
.-
J.H.
Goldstein (ed.), Reporting Science: The Case of
Aggression.Hillsdale,N.J.,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1985.
KREBS,
D.A Study of the Effects of Television on
Anxiety. In C.D.Spielberger and R.Diaz-Guerrero
(eds.), Cross-Cultural Anxiety, Vol.2. N e w York,
Hemisphere-McGraw-Hill,1983.
GUARDA,
G.La Televisione C o m e Violenza. [Television
as Violence.]Bologna,Italy,Edizione Dehoniane (in
Italian), 1970.
GUNTER.
B.Measuring Television Violence: A Review
and Suggestions for a N e w Analytical Perspective.
Current Psychological Review, Vol. 1. 1981.pp. 91112.
.
Dimensions of Television Violence. N e w York,
St Martin’s Press, 1984.
.Television and the Fear of Crime. London, John
Libbey and Company, 1987.
;FURNHAM.A.Personality and the Perception of
TV Violence. Journal of Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 4,No.3,1983.pp. 315-21.
-;
FURNHAM,A.Perceptions of Television Violence:
Effects of Programme Genre and Type of Violence on
Viewers’Judgementsof Violent Portrals.British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.23,1984a.pp. 155-64.
-;
WOBER,
M.TelevisionViewing and Public Perceptions of Hazards to Life. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, Vol.3, 1983a. pp. 325-35.
. Television Viewing and Public Trust. British
Journal ofSocial Psychology,Vol. 22,1983b,pp. 17476.
GUREVITCH.
M.The Structureand Content ofTelevision
Broadcasting in Four Countries: A n Overview. In
George A. Comstock and Eli A.Rubinstein (eds.),
Television and Social Behavior,Vol. 1,Media Content
Government Printing Office,1972,
and Control.D.C.,
pp. 374-85.
.-
--
HACKER,
F.J.Crusaders,Criminals, Crazies: Terror and
Terrorism in our Time. N e w York, Norton, 1976.
HAFNER,
H.; SCHMIDTKE.A.Increasein Suicide through
Imitation of Fictional Suicides on Television. Paper
presented at the World Psychological Association
Conference in Reykayvik,Iceland,September 1987.
HAGENAUER.
F.;HAMILTON.
J.W.
Straw Dogs:Aggression and Violence in Modern Films.American Imago,
Vol. 30,NO.3, 1973.pp. 221-49.
HAINES.
H. Violence on Television: A Report on the
Mental Health Foundation’s Media Watch Survey.
Auckland, Mental Health Foundation of N e w
Zealand,1983.
MANCINI.
P.Political Structure and RepALLIN,D.C.;
resentational Form in the U.S.and Italian Television
News.In Lars Furhoffand PerttiHemanus (eds.), N e w
Directions in Journalism. University of Stockholm
School of Journalism,1985,pp. 48-66.
ALLORAN,J.D.
Studying Violence and the Mass Media:
A Sociological Approach. In Charles Winick (ed.),
Deviance and Mass Media, Beverly Hills,C.A.,
Sage,
1978. DD.287-305.
-; Bk’dwN,R.L.;CHANEY,
D.Television and Delinquency. Leicester,Leicester University Press, 1970.
36
CROLL,
P.Television Programs in Great Britain:
Content and Control.In George A.Comstock and Eli
A.Rubinstein (eds.), Television and Social Behavior,
Vol. 1, Media Content and Control. Printing Office,
1972,pp. 415-92.
HALPERIN.
E.Terrorism in Latin America. Beverly Hills,
Sage Publications,1979.
HANEY,
C.;MANZOLATI,
J. Television Criminology:
Network Illusions of Criminal Justice Realities. In
Elliot Aronsosn (ed.), Readings About the Social Animal. San Francisco,W.H.
Freeman, 1980.
HAPKIEWICZ,
W.G.Children’s Reactions to Cartoon
Violence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
Spring,1979,pp. 30-4.
;RODEN,
A.H.The Effect of Aggressive Cartoons
on Children’sInterpersonalPlay.Child Development,
Vol. 42,1971,pp. 1583-5.
HARRIS.
F.Presentation of Crime in Newspapers: A Study
of Method in Newspaper Research. Hanover, N e w
Hampshire,Sociological Press, 1932.
HARTNAGEL,T.F.;
TEEVAN.J.J. J~.;MCINTYRE,
J. Television Violence and Violent Behavior.Social Forces,
Vol. 54,NO.2,1975,pp. 341-51.
HARVEY,
S.E.;
SPRAFKIN,
J.N.;
RUBINSTEIN.
E.Prime
Time Television: A Profile of Aggressive and Prosocial Behaviors Journal of Broadcasting, Vol.23,
NO.2,1979,pp. 179-89.
HASKINS. J.B.The Effects of Violence in the Printea
Media. In Robert K.Baker and Sandra J. Ball,Mass
Media and Violence,Vol.9.Washington,D.C.,
U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1969,pp. 493-502
.‘Cloudwith a Silver Lining’Approach to Violent
News. Journalism Quarterly, Vol.50, No.3, 1973,
pp. 549-52.
HAWKINS.
R.P.;
PINGREE.
S.Some Processesin the Cultivation Effect. Communication Research, Vol.7,
NO.2,1980,pp. 193-226.
-_
. Uniform
_ Content and Habitual Viewing:
Unnecessary Assumptions in Social Reality Effects.
H u m a n Communication Research, Vol.7, No. 4,
1981,pp. 291-301.
. Television’sInfluence on Social Reality. In
David Pearl, Lorraine Bouthilet, and Joyce Lazar
(eds.), Television and Behavior, Vol.2,Technical Reviews. Rockville,M.D.,
National Institute of Mental
Health, 1982,pp. 224-47.
HAYNES,
R.B.Children’s Perceptions of ‘Comic’and
‘Authentic’Cartoon Violence.Journal of Broadcasting, Vol.22,No.1, 1978,pp. 63-70.
HEAD,
S.W.Content Analysis of Television Drama Programs.Quarterly of Film,Radio and Television,Vol.9,
1954,pp. 175-94.
HEATH,
L.;GORDON,
M.T.;
LEBAILLY.
R.What Newspapers Tell Us (And Don’t Tell Us) About Rape.
Newspaper Research Journal, Vol.2, No.4, 1981,
pp. 48-55.
HEINRICH.
K. Filmerleben, Filmwirkung, Filmerziehung:der Einfluss des Films auf die Aggressivitaet
bei Jugendlichen.[FilmExperience,Film Effects,Film
Education:The Influence of Films on Aggressiveness
of Youth.]Berlin, H.Schroedel.1961.
HELLER.
M.S.:POLSKY,
S. Studies in Violence and Television. N e w York,American Broadcasting Company,
1976.
;-
L
_
-
HENNIGAN.
K.M.;
DELROSARIO.
M.L.;HEATH,
L.;
COOK,T.D.
; WHARTON.
J.D.
; CALDER,
R.J.Impact
of the Introduction of Television on Crime in the
United States:Empirical Findings and TheoreticalIm-
plications.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.42,NO.3, 1982,pp. 461-77.
HERMAN,
E.S.The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in
-;
Fact and Propaganda. Boston,South End Press,1982.
BRODHEAD.
F.The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian
Connection.N e w York,SheridanSquare Publications,
1986.
HICKS.
D.J.
Imitation and Retention of Film-Mediated
Aggressive Peer and Adult Models.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.2, No. 1, 1965,
.-
pp. 97-100.
Effects of CO-Observer’sSanctions and Adult Presence on Imitative Aggression. Child Development,
Vol. 39,NO.1, 1968,pp. 303-9.
HIMMELWEIT.
H.T.;
OPPENHEIM.
A.N.;
VINCE.
P.Television and the Child: A n Empirical Study of the Effect
of Television on the Young. London,Oxford Universi-
ty Press, 1958.
HIRSCH.
P.The ‘Scary World’ of the Non-Viewer and
Other Anomalies: A Reanalysis of Gerbner et al’s
Findings of Cultivation Analysis. Communication Research, Vol. 7,No.4,1980,pp. 403-56.
HIRSCH.
K.W.Children’sDiscrimination Between and
Reaction to Actuality and Make-Believe in Violent
Television Film Messages.Dissertation,University of
Oregon, 1969.
.Research Findings and Theoretical Trends: Mass
The California
Media Violence. Sacramento,C.A.,
Commission on Crime Control and Violence Prevention, 1982.
HOGE.
J.W.
The Media and Terrorism.In Abraham H.
Miller (ed.), Terrorism: The Media and the Law. N e w
York, Transnational Publishers,1982,pp. 89-105.
HOGG.
Peter W.Constitutional Jurisdiction over Violencein the Mass Media Industries.Report of the Royal
Commission on Violence in the Communications Industry, Vol.7, The Media Industries. Toronto,
Canada, The Royal Commission, 1977,pp. 229-325.
HOULT.
T.F.Comic Books and Juvenile Delinquency.
Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 33,No.4.1949.
pp. 279-84.
Howrn,D.; CUMBERBATCH.
G.Audience Perceptions
of Violent Television Content. Communication Research, Vol. 1, No.2. 1974,pp. 204-23.
--. Mass Media, Violence and Society. N e w
York,Wiley &Sons, 1975.
.The Mass Media and Social Problems. Oxford,
Pergamon Press, 1982.
.CUMBERBATCH.
G.Affective Feeling for a Film
Character and Evaluation of an Anti-SocialAct. British Joiirnal of Social and Clinical Psychology,Vol. 11,
1972,pp. 102-8.
HUESMANN,
L.R. Television Violence and Aggressive
Behavior. In David Pearl, Lorraine Bouthilet, and
Joyce Lazar (eds.), Television and Behavior, Vol. 2,
Technical Reviews. Rockville, M.D.,
National Institute of Mental Health, 1982,pp. 126-37.
.LAGERSPETZ.
K.M.J.;
ERON.
L.Intervening Variables in the Television Violence-AggressionRelation:
Evidence from Two Countries. Developmental
Psychology, Vol. 20,1984,pp. 746-75.
.ERON.L.D.;
LEFKOWITZ.
M.M.;
WALDER.
L.O.
Causal Analysis of Longitudinal Data: A n Application
to the Study of Television Violence and Aggression.
Technical Report. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1979.
---. Stability of Aggression Over Time
and Generations.DevelopmentalPsychology,Vol.20,
--; KLEIN,
R.;
BRICE,
P.;
FISCHER,
P.Mitigating
the Imitation of Aggressive Behaviors by Changing
Children’s Attitude About Media Violence.’ Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.44,1983,
pp. 899-910.
HUGHES,
N.;JEFFERSON, D.Census of Murder. In Martin S.Allwood (ed.), Studies in Mass Communication,
1950-51,pp. 26-7.
HUSTON-STEIN.
A.Televised Aggression and Pro-Social
Behavior. In Psychology: From Research to Practice.
N e w York, Plenum, 1978.
-;
FRIEDRICH.
L.K.;
VONDRACEK,
F. Television
Content and Young Children’s Behavior. In John P.
Murray,Eli A.Rubinstein,and George A.Comstock
(eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol. 2,Television and Social Learning, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1972,pp. 202-317.
-;
Fox,S.; GREER.
D.; WATKINS.
B.A.
; WHITAKER,
J. The Effects of TV Action and Violence on Children’sSocial Behavior.Journal of Genetic Psychology,
Vol. 138, 1981,pp. 183-91.
HUTCHINSON,
B.D.Comic Strip Violence 1911-66.Journalism Quarterly, Vol.46,No.2,1969,pp. 358-62.
INDEPENDENTBROADCASTING AUTHORITY.
Experience
of Television, and of the World at Large: Some
Scottish Evidence.IBA,Audience Research Department, 1979.
.
Use of Television in Relation to Events in the
Environment:More Evidence on Violence. IBA,Audience Research Department, 1980.
.‘Death Wish’-Can Violence Defeat Violence.
IBA,Audience Research Department, 1981.
IOZZIA, G.;
PRIULLA.
G.Dal Silenzio a1 Rumore: L’Informazione Quotidiana e D u e Delitti di Mafia. [From a
Whisper to a Road: Daily Media Coverage and Two
Mafia Incidents.] RA1 Radiotelevisione Italiana,
Verifica dei Programmi.
ISRAEL, H.;
SIMMONS.W.R.;
and ASSOCIATES;
ROBINSON,J.P.Demographic Characteristics of Viewers of
Television Violence and News Programs.In George
A.Comstock and Eli A.Rubinstein (eds.), Television
and Social Behavior,Vol.4,Television in Day-to-Day
U.S.Government Printing
Life, Washington, D.C.,
Office, 1972,pp. 87-128.
IWAO, S.;de SOLA POOL.I.International Understanding
via TV Programmes: The Case of “Shogun”. KEIO
Communicption Review, No. 4,1983,pp. 3-12.
;HAGIWARA.
S. Japanese and U.S.
Media: Some
Cross-CulturalInsights into TV Violence.Journal of
Communication, Vol. 31,No.2,1981,pp- 28-36.
JACKSON, R.J.; KELLY,
M.J.;
MITCHELL,
T.H.
Collective Conflict, Violence and the Media. Report of the
Royal Commission on Violence in the Communications
Industry, Vol. 5 , Learning from the Media. Toronto,
1977,pp. 227-314.
JAEHNIG. W.B.Journalists and Terrorism: Captives of
the Libertarian Tradition. Indiana Law Journal,
Vol. 53,NO.4,1978,pp. 717-44.
;Terrorism in Britain:The Limitsof Free Expression. In Abraham H.Miller (ed.), Terrorism: The
Media and the Law. N e w York, Transnational Publishers,1982,pp. 106-29.
;WEAVER,
D.H.;
FICO.F. Reporting Crime and
Fearing Crime in Three Communities. Journal of
Communication, Vol.31,No. 1, 1981,pp. 88-96.
JOHNSON. P.B.;
SEARS,D.O.;
MCCONAHY.
J.B.Black
Invisibility, the Press, and the Los Angeles Riot.
NO.6,1984,pp. 1120-34.
37
American Journal of Sociology, Vol.76,No.4,1971,
LAMBERTI.
A.Camorra: Analisi e Stereotipi- Televisione
pp. 698-721.
JOHNSON, R.L.;
FRIEDMAN.
H.L.;
GROS.
H.S.Four
Masculine Styles in Television Programming:A Study
of the Viewing Preferences of Adolescent Males. In
George A. Cornstock and Eli A.Rubinstein (eds.),
Television and Social Behavior,Vol. 3,Television and
U.S.
Adolescent Aggressiveness, Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office, 1972,pp. 361-71.
JONES, D.B.Quantitative Analysis of Motion Picture
Content. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1942.
pp. 411-28.
JOWEIT, G.;
REATH.
P.;SCHOUTEN,M.The Control of
Mass Entertainment Media in Canada, the United
States,and Great Britain: Historical Surveys.’Report
radio e giornali in Campania. [Organized Crime:
of the Royal Commission on Violence in the C o m munications Industry, Vol.4, Violence in Print and
Music. Toronto, Canada, the Royal Commission,
1977,pp. 1-104.
JOY.L.A.;
KIMBALL.
M.;ZABRACK.
M.L.Television
Exposure and Children’sAggressive Behavior.In Tannis MacBeth Williams (ed.), The Impact of Television:
A Natural Experiment Involving Three Towns. N e w
York,Academic Press, 1985.
KAPLAN,
R.M.;
SINGER,R.D.Television Violence and
Viewer Aggression: A Re-Examination of the
Evidence. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 32, No.4.
1976,pp. 35-70.
KARP.
E.E.Crime Comic Book Role Preferences.Dissertation,N e w York University,1954.
KATMAN,
N.I.Violence and Color Television: What
Children of Different Ages Learn. In George A.
Comstock, Eli A. Rubinstein, and John P. Murray
(eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol.5, Television’s Effects: Further Explorations. Washington,
D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1972.
pp. 253-308.
KESSLER.
R.;STIPP.H.The Impact of Fictional TeleviFatalities:A Replication.
sion Suicide Stories on U.S.
American Journal of Sociology, Vol.90, 1984,
pp. 151-167.
KING.
M.Freedom Song; A Personal Story of the 1960s
Civil Rights Movement. N e w York, William Morrow,
1987.
.
KLAPPER.
J.T.Effects of Crime and Violence in the
Media. In Joseph T.Klapper, Effects of Mass C o m munication. N e w York, Free Press, 1960.
The Impact of Viewing ‘Aggression’:Studies and
Problems of Extrapolation.In Otto N.Larsen (ed.),
Violence and the Mass Media. N e w York. Harper &
ROW,1968,pp. 131-9.
KNIGHT.
G.;
DEAN,
T.Myth and the Structure of News.
Journal of Communication, Vol.32 No.2, 1982.
pp. 144-61.
KNOPF.
T.A.
Media Myths on Violence.Columbia Journalism Review, Spring 1970,pp. 17-23.
KOELLE.
B.S.Primary Children’sStories as a Functionof
Exposure to Violence and Cruelty in the Folk Fairy
Tale. Dissertation,University of Pennsylvania.Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol.42. 1981,
pp. 1203b.
KRA~TENMAKER.
T.G.;
POWER,L.A. Jr. Televised
Violence: First Amendment Principles and Social Science Theory. Virginia L a w Review, Vol.64, 1978,
pp. 1123-297.
;-
KUPPERMAN.
R.H.Terrorism: Threat,Reality,Response.
Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. 1979.
38
Analysis and Stereotypes-Television, Radio and
Press in Campania.] Rome, Italy, RA1 Radiotelevisione Italiana.Verifica Programmi Trasmessi,1985.
LANG.G.E.;
LANG.K. Some Pertinent Questions on
Collective Violence and News Media.Journal of Social
No. 1, 1972,pp. 93-110.
Issues, Vol.,28,
LANGHAM,
J.; STEWARD.W.Television Viewing Habits
and Other Aggressive Characteristics of Normally
Aggressive and Non-Aggressive Children.Australian
Psychologist, Vol. 16,No. 1, 1981,pp. 123-33.
LAQUER.
W.Terrorism. Boston,Little Brown, 1977.
LARSEN,
O.N.(ed.). Violence and the Mass Media. N e w
York, Harper &Row,1968.
-;
Controversies About the Mass Communication of
Violence.Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, Vol. 364, 1966,pp. 37.
;GRAY,
L.N.;FORTIS,J.G.Achieving Goals
Through Violence on Television. In Otto N.Larsen
(ed.). Violence and the Mass Media. N e w York,Harper &Row,pp. 97-111. See also Sociological Inquiry,
1963,Vol. 33, 1963,pp. 180-96.
LARSON,
J.F.Television and U.S.Foreign Policy: The
Case of the Iran Hostage Crisis.Journal of Communication, Vol.36,No.4,1986,pp. 108-27.
LAVIN.
M.;
HANSON.
D.A.Desensitization and Television Violence: Does it Generalize to Non-Media
Situations? Thesis,Department of Psychology,Saint
Bonaventure University, Saint Bonaventure, N e w
York, 1984.
LEFKOWITZ.
M.M.
; ERON.
L.D.
; WALDER.
L.O.
; HUESMANN. L.R.Television Violence and Child Aggression:A Follow-UpStudy.In George A.Cornstock and
Eli A. Rubinstein (eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol.3. Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness. Washington,D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1972,pp. 35-135.
---. Growing U p to be Violent: A
Longitudinal Siudy of the Development of Aggression.
N e w York, Pergamon Press, 1977.
---. Preferences for Televised Contact
Sports as Related to Sex Differences in Aggression.
Developmental Psychology, Vol.9, No.3, 1973,
pp. 417-20.
;HUESMANN.
L.R.Concomitants of TelevisionViolence Viewing in Children. In Edward L.Palmer and
Aimee Dorr (eds.), Children and the Faces of Television: Teaching, Violence, Selling. N e w York.
LEVY.R.Terrorism and the Mass Media,Military Intelligence, October-December1985,pp. 34-8.
LEVY.
S.G.
A 150-yearStudy of Political Violence in the
United States.In Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert
Gur (eds.), The History of Violence in America. N e w
York, Praeger,1969,pp. 84-100.
LEYENS.
J.-P.;
PARKE.R.D.;
CAMINO.
L.;BERKOWITZE.L.Effects of Movie Violence on Aggression in a
Field Setting as a Function of Group Dominance and
Cohesion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 32,NO.2,1975,pp. 346-60.
LIEBERT.
R.M.Television and Social Learning: Some
RelationshipsBetween Viewing Violence and Behaving Aggressively (Overview). In John P.Murray. Eli
A.Rubinstein,and George A.Cornstock (eds.),Television and Social Behavior, Vol. 2. Television and
Social Leavning. Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972,pp. 1-42.
BARON,R.A.Short-Term Effects of Television
Aggression on Children’s Aggressive Behavior. In
John P.Murray, Eli A.Rubinstein, and George A.
Comstock (eds.), Television and Social Behavior,
Vol.2,Television and Social Learning. Washington,
D.C.,U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972,
pp. 181-201.
;NEALE,
J.M.;
DAVIDSON.
E.S.The Early Window:
Effects of Television on Children and Youth. N e w
York, Pergamon Press,1973.
;SPRAFKIN.
J.N.;
DAVIDSON.
E.S.The Early Window: Effects of Television on Children and Youth.(2nd
Edition). N e w York,Pergamon Press,1982.
LINNE.
0.Reactions of Children to Violence on TV.
Stockholm,Swedish BroadcastingCorporation,Audience and Program Research Department, 1971.
.
The Viewer’s Aggression as a Function of a
Variously Edited Film.Stockholm, Swedish Broadcasting Corporation,Audience and Programming Research Department, 1974.
LINTON.
J.M.;
JOWETT.
G.S.A Content Analysis of
Feature Films.Report of the Royal Commission on
Violence in the Communications Industry,Vol. 3.Violence in Television,Films and News. Toronto,Canada,
The Royal Commission,1977,pp. 574-80.
LINZ,
D.;
TURNER,
C.W.;
HESSE,
B.W.;
PENROLD,
S.
Bases of Liability for Injuries Produced by Media
Portrayals of Violent Pornography.In Neil M.Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein (eds.), Pornography
Academic
and Sexual Aggression. Orlando, F.L.,
Press, 1984,pp. 277-304.
-;
DONNERSTEIN,
E.;PENROLD.S. The Effects of
Multiple Exposures to Filmed Violence Against
Women.’Journal of Communication, Vol.34,No.3,
1984,pp. 130-47.
LOVAAS,
0.1
Effect
. of Exposure to Symbolic Aggression
on Aggressive Behavior.Child Development,Vol.32,
1961,pp. 37-44.
LOVIBOND,
S.H.The Effect of Media Stressing Crime
and Violence upon Children’sAttitudes. Social Problems, Vol. 15,No. 1, 1967,pp. 91-100.
LOYE,D.;
GORNEY,
R.;STEELE.G.A n Experimental
Field Study. Journal of Communications, Vol. 27.
No. 3,1977,pp. 206-16.
See also American Journal of
Psychiatry, 1977. pp. 170-4.
LULE.
J. The Myth of my Widow:A Dramatic Analysis of
News Portrayals of a Terrorist Victim.Terrorism and
the News Media Research Project, Paper No.8,
Louisiana State University, 1987.
LYNESS.
P.I.The Place of the Mass Media in the Lives of
Boys and Girls.Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 29,1952,
pp. 43-55.
MACCOBY.
E.E.;
LEVIN,
H.;
SELYA.B.M.The Effects of
Emotional Arousal on the Retention of Aggressive
and Non-Aggressive Movie Content. American
Psychologist, Vol. 10,1955. pp. 359.
;WILSON,
W.C.Identification and Observational
Learning from Films.Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, Vol.55, 1957,pp. 76-87.
MALAMUTH,
N.M.Aggression against Women: Cultural
and Individual Causes. In Neil M.Rllalamuth and
Edward Donnerstein (eds.), Pornography and Sexual
Aggression. Orlando, F.L.,
Academic Press, 1984,
pp. 19-52.
-;
DONNERSTEIN.
E.The Effects of Aggressive-Pornographic Mass Media Stimuli.In Leonard Berkowitz
(ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 15,N e w York, Academic Press, 1982,pp. 10336.
;-
- -. Pornography
and Sexual Aggression.
Orlando. F.L.,
Academic Press,1984.
-;
CECK.
J.V.P.
The Effects of Mass Media Exposure
on Acceptance of Violence Against W o m e n : A Field
Experiment. Journal of Research in Personality,
Vol. 15,NO.4,1981,pp. 436-46.
MANNING.
S.A.;TAYLOR,
D.A.The Effects of Viewing
Violence and Aggression: Stimulation and Catharsis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.31,
1975,pp. 180%
MARTIN.
L.J.The Media’sRole in InternationalTerrorism.Paper presented to the Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication,Corvallis,
Oregon, 1983.
MCCANN.
T.E.;
SHEEHAN.P.W.Violence Content in
Australian Television. Australian Journal of Psychology, c.1984.
MCCARTHY.
E.D.;
LANGNER.
T.S.;
GERSTEN,
J.C.;
EISENBERG.
J.G.;
ORZECK.
L.Violence and Behavior
Disorders.Journal of Communication, Vol.25,No.4,
1975,pp. 71-85.
MCINTYRE.
J.J.;TEEVEN,
J.J.; HARTNAGEL,
T.Television Violence and Deviant Behavior. In George A.
Comstock and Eli A.Rubinstein (eds.), Television and
Social Behavior, Vol. 3, Television and Adolescent
Aggressiveness.Washington,D.C.,
U.S.Government
Printing Office, 1972,pp. 383-435.
MCLEOD,J.M.;
ATKIN,
C.K.;CHAFFEE.
S.H.
Adolescents,Parents,and Television Use:Adolescent
Self-ReportMeasures from Maryland and Wisconsin
Samples. In George A. Comstock and Eli A.
Rubinstein (eds.), Television and Social Behavior,
Vol. 3, Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness.
Washington.D.C.,
U.S.
Government Printing Office,
1972,pp. 173-313.
MEESKE,
M.D.;
JAVAHERI, M.H.
Network Television
Coverage of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Journalism
Quarterly, Vol. 59,Winter 1982,pp. 641-45.
MENARD.
B .S.; THIBODE~U-GERVAIS.
Suicide et Mass
Madia. L’Union Medicale du Canada, 1974.
MESSNER.
S.Television Violence and Violent Crime: A n
Aggregate Analysis. Social Problems, Vol. 33, 1986,
pp. 218-35.
MEYER.
T.P.Effects of Viewing Justified and Unjustified
Real Film Violence on Aggressive Behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 23,1972,
pp. 21-9.
.
Some Effects of Real Newsfilm Violence on the
Behavior of Viewers. Journal of Broadcasting,
Vol. 15,NO.3,1971,pp. 275-85.
.
Children’sPerceptions of JustifiedKJnjustified and
Fictional/RealFilm Violence.Journal of Broadcasting,
Vol.17,NO.3, 1973,pp. 321-32.
MEYERSON.
L.J. The Effects of Filmed Aggression on the
Aggressive Responses at High and Low Aggressive
Subjects. Dissertation,University of Iowa. Disserfation Abstracts International, Vol.27,No.9B, 1967,
p. 3291.
MICKOLUS.
E.F.Transnational Terrorism:A Chronology
of Events, 1968-79. Westport, Conn., Greenwood
Press, 1980.
MIDGLEY,
S.;RICE,
V.(eds.). Terrorism and the Media in
the 1980s (Conference Proceedings). Washington,
D.C.,
The Media Institute and Institute for Studies in
International Terror, 1984.
MILAVSKY,
J.R.
; KESSLER,
R.; STIPP,H.; RUBENS,
W.S.
Television and Aggression: Results of a Panel Study.
In David Pearl,Lorraine Bouthilet, and Joyce Lazar
39
(eds.), Television and Behavior, Vol.2,Technical Reviews. Rockville,M.D.,
National Institute of Mental
Health, 1982, pp. 138-57. See also, N e w York,
Academic Press, 1982.
MILBURN.
M.A.;
BOWLEY.C.;
FAY-DUMAINE,
J.; KENNEDY.D.A.
A n Attributional Analysis of the Media
Coverage of Terrorism. Paper presented at the 10th
Annual Meeting of the InternationalSociety of Political Psychology,San Francisco,California,6July 1987.
MILGRAM.
S.; SHOTLAND,R.L. Television and Social
Behavior: Field Experiments. N e w York, Academic
Press, 1973.
MILLER,
A. Terrorism and Hostage Negotiations.
Boulder,Westview Press, 1980.
Terrorism,the Media,and the Law: A Discussion
of the Issues.In Abraham H.Miller (ed.), Terrorism:
The Media and the Law. N e w York, Transnational
Publishers,1982a,pp. 13-50.
.
(ed.). Terrorism: The Media and the Law. N e w
York,Transnational Publishers,1982b.
MILLER,
J.B.Television Viewing and Cultivation of Interpersonal Mistrust. Manuscript. Oberlin College,
Department of Communication Studies,1984.
MIRAMS,
G.Drop That Gun! Quarterly of Film,Radio
and Television, Vol.6,No.1, 1951,pp. 1-19.
MORCELLINI,
M.;
AVALLONE.
F.I1 ruolo dell’informazione in una situazione di emergenza-16 marzo 1078:
il rapimento di Aldo Moro. [The role of information in
an amergency situation-16 March 1978:The Kidnapping of Aldo Moro.]R o m e , Italy,RA1 Radiotelevisione It trasmessi, 1978.
.
L‘InformazionePeriodica in Televisione and L‘Attualita’Televisiva:Struttura Dell’OffertaInformativa
SUITerritorio.In RA1 Radiotelevisione Italiana,Terrorismo e n/,Vol. 1,Italia. Immagini del Terrorism0
ne1 Rotocalco Televisivo. Rome, Italy,RAI,Verifica
dei Programmi Trasmesi, 1982.
MORELAND,
R.L.;
BERBAUM,
M.L.Terrorism and the
Mass Media: A Researcher’s Bibliography. In
Abraham H.Miller (ed.), Terrorism: The Media and
the Law. N e w York, Transnational Publishers,1982,
pp. 191-215.
MORGAN,
M.Symbolic Victimization and Real World
Fear. H u m a n Communication Research, Vol. 9,
NO.2,1983,pp. 146-57.
Mono.J. Newspaper Influence on Suicide.Archives of
General Psychiatry, Vol.23.1970.
MUELLAR.
C.W.;
DONNERSTEIN.
E.;HALLAM,
J. Violent Films and Pro-Social Behavior. Personality and
Social Psyckology Bulletin, Vol.9, No.1, 1983,
pp. 83-9.
MURRAY,
J.P.Television and Violence: Implicationsof
the Surgeon-General’sResearch Program.American
Psychologist, Vol. 28,1973,pp. 472-8.
.Television and Youth: 25 Years of Research and
Boys Town Center for
Controversy.Boys Town,N.E.,
the Study of Youth Development, 1980.
.
Children and Television Violence.In The Future of
.-
Children’s Television: Results of the Markle FoundationlBoys T o w n Conference, N e w York, Markle
.
-
.-
40
Foundation, 1982.
Impact of Televised Violence on Children. Testimony on behalf of the American Psychological Association before the U.S.
Senate Subcommitteeon Juvenile Justice, 1984.
Children and Television-What D o W e Know? In
A.Burns,J. Goodnow,R.Chilsolm and J.P.Murray
(eds), Children and Families in Australia: Contempor-
ary Issues and Problems. Sydney,Australia,Allen &
Unwin, 1985.
KIPPAX,
S. From the Early Window to the Late
Night Show: International Trends in the Study of
Television’s lmpact on Children and Adults. In
Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology. Vol. 12, N e w York, Academic
Press, 1979,pp. 253-320.
-;
NAYMAN.
O.B.;ATKIN.
C.K.Television and the
Child: A Comprehensive Research Bibliography.
Journal of Broadcasting, Vol.16,No.1, 1972,pp. 320.
MUSSEN.
P.;RUTHERFORD,
E. Effects of Aggressive
Cartoons on Children’s Aggressive Play. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, No.2,
1961,pp. 461-4.
;-
NATIONALCOALITION ON TELEVISION
VIOLENCE.
N C W News. Champaign IL.,NCTV,1980 to date.
NELSON,
E.C.Pornography and Sexual Aggression. In
Maurice Yaffe and Edward C.Nelson (eds.), The
Influence of Pornography on Behavior. London,
Academic Press, 1982,pp. 171-248.
NELSON,
G.K.The Findings of the National Viewers’
ill (eds.),
Survey. In Geoffrey Barlow and Allison H
Video Violence and Children. N e w York, St Martin’s
Press, 1985,pp. 33-53.
NOBLE,
G.Effects of DifferentForms of Filmed Aggression on Constructive and Destructive Play.Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 26, No.1,
1973,pp. 54-9.
O’DONNELL,
W.M.
Prime Time Hostages:A Case Study
of Coverage During Captivity. Terrorism and the
News Media Project,Paper No.9,1987.
OSBORN,
D.K.;
ENDSLEY.
R.C.Emotional Reactions of
Young Children to TV Violence. Child Development,
Vol. 42,NO.1, 1971,pp. 321-31.
Ono.H.A.Sex and Violence on the American Newsstand.Journalism Quarterly,Vol.40,1963,pp. 19-26.
Also in Otto N.Larsen (ed.), Violence and the Mass
Media. N e w York, Harper Row,1968,pp. 82-90.
OZYEGIN.
N. Construction of the ‘Facts’of Political
Violence: A Content Analysis of Press Coverage.U n published Master’s Thesis,The Annenberg School of
Communications,University of Pennsylvania,1986.
PACZKOWSKI.
A. A Few Remarks on the Subject of
Violence in Polish Mass-Media.Manuscript, 1985.
PADDOCK. A.H. Psychological Operations, Special
Operations,and U.S.Strategy.In Frank R.Barnett,
B. Hugh Tovar,and Richard H.Schultz(ed.), Special
Operations in U.S.Strategy.N e w York,National 1984,
pp. 231-51.
PALETZ.D.L.;
FOZZARD,P.A.;
AYANIAN.
J.Z.
The
I.R.A.,
The Red Brigades and the F.A.L.N.,
in The
New York Times.Journal of Communication, Vol. 32,
NO.2,1982,pp. 162-71.
-;
DUNN.
R.Press Coverage of Civil Disorders: A
Case Study of Winston-Salem.Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 33. No.3. 1969,pp. 328-45.
PALMER.E.L.;
DORR.
A. Children and the Faces of
Television: Teaching, Violence, Selling. N e w York,
Academic Press,1981.
PALMERTON.
P.R.Terrorism and the Media: A Call for
Rhetorical Criticism. Paper presented to the Speech
Communication Association, Mass Communication
Division, 1983.
.Terrorism and InstitutionalTargets as Portrayed by
News Providers.Paper submitted to the Speech Communication Association, Mass Communication Division, 1985.
PARKE.R.D.;
BERKOWITZ.
L.;LEYENS.
J.-P.;
WEST.
S.G.;
SEBASTIAN,
R.J.Some Effects of Violent and
Non-ViolentMovies on the Behavior of Juvenile D e linquents. In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.). Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10,N e w York,
Academic Press, 1977,pp. 135-72.
PEARL.
D.;
BOUTHILET.
L.;
LAZAR.
J. (eds.). Television
and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and
Implications for the Eighties, Vol.2, Technical Reviews. Rockville,M.D.,
National Institute of Mental
Health, 1982.
PENROD.S.;LINZ,
D.Using Psychological Research on
Violent Pornography to Inform Legal Change.In Neil
M.Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein (eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression. Orlando, F.L.,
Academic Press, 1984.
PERSE.E.M.Soap Opera Viewing Patterns of College
Students and Cultivation.Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, Vol.30,No.2,1986,175-93.
PFUHL.E.H.Jr. Mass Media and Reported Delinquent
Behavior:A Negative Case.In Marvin E.Wolfgang,
Leonard Savitz and Norman Johnston (eds.), The
Sociology of Crime and Delinquency. N e w York,
Wiley, 1970,pp. 509-23.
PHILLIPS.
David P. The Influence of Suggestion on
Suicide: Substantive and Theoretical Implications of
the Warner Effect. American Sociological Review,
Vol.39,June 1974,pp. 340-54.
.Suicide, Motor Vehicle Fatalities. and the Mass
Media: Evidence Toward a Theory of Suggestion.
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84.No.5, 1979,
pp. 1150-73.
.Airplane Accidents,Murder, and the Mass Media:
Towards a Theory of Imitation and Suggestion.Social
Forces, Vol. 58,No.4,1980a. pp. 1001-23.
.
The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment:N e w
Evidence on an Old Controversy.American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 86,No.1. 1980b.pp. 139-47.
.
Strong and Weak Research Designs for Detecting
the Impact of Capital Punishment on Homicide.
Rutgers Law Review,Vol.33.No.3,1981,pp. 790-8.
.
The Impact of Fictional Television Stories on U.S.
Adult Fatalities: N e w Evidence on the Effect of the
Mass Media on Violence. American Journal of
Sociology,Vol. 87,No. 6,1982,pp. 1340-59.
.The Impact of Mass Media Violence on U.S.
Homicides. American Sociological Review, Vol.48,
NO.4.1983,pp. 560-8.
.The Found Experiment: A N e w Technique for
Assessing the Impactof Mass Media Violence in Real
World Aggressive Behavior. Public Communication
and Behavior, Vol. 1. 1985.
;CARSTENSEN.
L.L.Clustering of Teenage Suicides
After Television News Stories about Suicide. New
England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 315,11 September
1986,pp. 685-9.
;HENSLEY.
J.E.When Violence is Rewarded or
Punished:The Impactof Mass Media Storieson Homicide.Journal of Communication,Vol. 34,No.3,1984,
pp. 101-16.
-;
PAIGHT.
D.The ImpactofTelevised Movies About
Suicide:A Replicative Study.,NewEngland Journalof
Medicine, Vol.317,24 September 1987,pp. 808-11.
PICARD,
R.G.The Conundrum of News Coverage of
Terrorism. Terrorism and the News Media Research
Project, Paper No. 1. Louisiana State University,
1987.
Stages in the Coverage of Incidents of Political
Violence. Terrorism and the News Media Research
Project, Paper No. 10,Louisiana State University,
1987.
PIEPE.
A.J.;
CROUCH.
J.; EMERSON.
M.Violence and
Television. New Society, Vol. 41, September 1977,
pp. 536-8.
PIETILA.
V.Some Notes About Violence in Our Mass
Media-Especially in Fictitious TV Programmes. Research on Peace and Violence, Vol.4.1976.
PINGREE.
S.;HAWKINS.
R.U.S.Programson Australian
Television:The Cultivation Effect. Journal of C o m munication, Vol.31,No.1, 1981,pp. 97-105.
POTTER. W.J.
Perceived Reality and the Cultivation
Hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, Vol.30,No. 2,1986.pp. 159-74.
Pons.R.;HUSTON.
A.C.;
WRIGHT,
J.C.
The Effects of
Television Form and Violent Content on Children’s
Attention and Social Behavior.M.A.Thesis, 1982.
PRITCHARD,
D.Race,Homicide and the News:A Longitudinal Study.Paper presented to the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
1984.
PURNELL,
S.W.;
WAINSTEIN.
E.S.
The Problemsof U.S.
Businesses Operating Abroad in Terrorist Environments. Rand Report R-2842-DOC.
November 1981.
RABE.
R.L.The Journalist and the Hostage: How their
Rights can be Balanced.In Abraham H.Miller (ed.),
Terrorism: The Media and the Law. N e w York,Transnational Publishers,1982,pp. 69-75.
RABINOVITCH.
M.S.;MCLEAN.
M.S.Jr.; MARKHAM,
J.W.; TALBO’IT.
A.D.
Children’sViolence Perception
as a Function of Television Violence. In George A.
Comstock, Eli A. Rubinstein, and John P. Murray
(eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol. 5 , Television’sExploration.Washington,D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office. 1972,pp. 231-52.
.-
RAIRADIOTELEVISIONE
ITAIJANA. Metodi di Ricerca e
Risultati Sul Rapport0 Tra Violenza in Televisione e
Criminalita. [Research Methods and Results Concern,-
ing the Relationship Between Violence in Television
and Criminality.]Torino,Italy,ERI,1975.
Verifica dei Programmi Trasmessi. Terrorism0 e
T V : Italia, Gran Bretagna, Germania Occidentale.
[Terror and TV:Italy,Great Britain,West Germany.]
2 Vols. R o m e , Italy,RAI,1982.
RANDALL,
M.L.;
COLE.
R.R.;
FEDLER.F. Teenagers
and TV Violence:H o w they Rate and View it. Journalism Quarterly, Vol.47,No.2,1970,pp. 247-55.
RARICK.
D.L.
; TOWNSEND,
J.E.;
BOYD.D.A.Adolescent Perceptions of.Police:Actual and as Depicted in
Television Dramas. Journalism Quarterly, Vol.50,
NO.3, 1973,pp. 438-46.
RARICK.
G.;
HARTMAN.
B.The Effects of Competition
on O n e Daily Newspaper’sContent.Journalism Quarterly. Vol. 43,No.3, 1966.pp. 459-63.
RATH.C.;JACOBSEN. D.Produzione di immagini SUI
terrorism0 alla televisione tedesca occidentale. [Production of Images on Terrorism in the TV of West
Germany.]In RA1 RadiotelevisioneItaliana,Terrorism o e TV, Vol.2. Rome, Italy. RAI, Verifica dei
Programmi Trasmessi, 1982.
RESEARCH
and FORECASTS.
The Figgie Report on Crime:
Inc.,
America Afraid. Willoughby, Ohio: A-T-0,
1980.
ROBERTS,
C.Children’sand Parent’sTelevision Viewing
and Perceptions of Violence. Journalism Quarterly,
Vol.58,NO.4,1981,pp. 556-64,581.
41
ROBINSON,
D.C.
Young Adults'Assessment of Dramatic
Television Violence. Manuscript based on 1980 presentation to the International Communication Association,Acapulco, Mexico, 1981.
-;
MEDLER.
J.F.;GENOVA.
B.K.L.A Consumer
Model for TV Audiences: The Case of TV Violence.
Communication Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1979,
pp. 181-202.
ROBINSON.
J.P.;BACHMAN.J.G.Television Viewing
Habits and Aggression. In George A.Comstock and
Eli A. Rubinstein (eds.), Television and Social Behaviour, Vol.3, Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness.Washington, D.C..
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1972. pp. 372-83.
RONCI.
D.Terrorismo e Sistema Politico ne1 Rotocalco
Televisivo.In RA1 Radiotelevisione Italiana,Terrorism o e TV,Vol. 1, Italia. Immagini del Terrorismo tiel
Rotocalco Televisivo. Rome, RAI.Verifica dei Programmi Trasmessi. 1982.
ROSENE,
J.M.
The Effectsof Violent and Sexually Arousing Film Content: An Experimental Study. Dissertation, Ohio University,1971.
ROSENFELD,
E.;MALONEY,
S.; HUESMANN,
L.R.;
ERON.
L.D.;
FISHER,
P.;WASHINGTON.
A.The Effect
of Fantasy Behaviorsand Fantasy-RealityDiscriminations on the Observational Learning of Aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 5, No.2,1979,pp. 216-7.
ROSENGREN.
K.E.Media Panel. In School Research
Newsletter, Stockholm,Sweden, National Board of
Education,November 1984.
ROSENTHAL.
N.Crime et Violence dans les Programmes
de Television. Revue lnternationale de Filmologie,
t. 13, 1963,pp. 85-91.
ROSHIER,
R.J.Selection of Crime News by the Press.In
Stanley Cohen and Jock Young (eds.). The Manufacture of News, Beverly Hills,C.A.,
Sage Publications,
1973. pp. 28-39.
ROTHENBERG. M.B.Effect of Television Violence on
Children and Youth. American Medical Association
Journal, Vol.234,No.10,1975,pp. 1043-6.
ROWLAND.
W.D.
The Politics of TV Violence. Beverly
Hills,C.A.,
Sage Publications,1983.
RUBINS.W.Sex and Violence on TV.Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 21. No.6,1981,pp. 13-20.
RUBINSTEIN. E.A.Television Violence: A Historical
Perspective.In Edward C.Palmer and Aimee Dorr
(eds.), Children and the Faces of Television: Teaching,
Violence, Selling. N e w York,Academic Press, 1980.
pp. 113-28.
RUSHTON.
J.P.Effects of Pro-SocialTelevisionand Film
Material on the Behavior of Viewer, in Leonard
Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 12, N e w York, Academic Press,
1979.pp. 321-51.
SAID,E.W.Covering Islam: How the Media and the
Experts Determine H o w we see the World. N e w York,
Pantheon. 1981.
SAPOLSKY. B.S.Arousal, Affect, and the AggressionModerating Effect of Erotica. In Neil M.Malamuth
and Edward Donnerstein (eds.), Pornography and
Sexual Aggression. Orlando,F.L.,
Academic Press,
1984,pp. 85-113.
SAVARESE.R.; PERNA,
A.Strategic Arms and Guerrilla
Weapons: A Content Analysis of Articles from Italian
Newspapersof the 70s.Paperpresented to the International Peace Research Institute Association, Orillia,
Canada. 1981.
42
SAVITSKY. J.C.;
ROGERS.
R.W.;IZARD. C.E.
; LIEBERT.
R.M.
The Role of Frustration and Anger in the Imitation of Filmed Aggression Against a H u m a n Victim.
Psychological Reports,Vol.29,No.3,1971,pp. 80710.
SAXER. U,;
BONFADELLI.
H.; HATTENSCHWILER.
W.
Medienrealitat und Alltagswirklichkeit. In U.Saxer.
H.Bonfadelli, and W.Hattenschwiler (eds.). Die
Massenmedien im Leben der Kinder und Jugendlichen.
Zug (Federal Republic of Germany), 1980.
SCHAMIS.G.J.War and Terrorism in International
Affairs. N e w Brunswick, N.J.,
Transaction Books,
1980.
SCARRY,E.The Body in Pain: Unmaking and Making the
World. N e w York,Oxford University Press, 1985.
SCHLESINGER.
P.'Terrorism',the Media, and the Liberal-DemocraticState: A Critique of the Orthodoxy.
Social Research, Vol. 48.No. 1. 1981,pp. 74-99.
;MURDOCK.
G.; ELLIOT.
P.Televising Terrorism:
Political Violerice in Popular Culture. London, Comedia Publishing.1983.
-;
LUMLEY.
R.Two Debates on Political Violence in
the Mass Media: The Organization of Intellectual
Fields in Britain and Italy.In Teun A.van Dijk (ed.),
Discourse and Communication. Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany,Walter de Gruyter,1985,pp. 32449.
SCHMID.A.P.;
DE GRAAF,
J. Violence as Communica-
tion:Insurgent Terrorism and the Western News Media.
London, Sage Publications,1982.
SCHRAMM. W.The Nature of News.Journalism Quurterly, Vol. 26,1949,pp. 259-69.
;LYLE. J.;PARKER.
E.B.Television in the lives of our
Children. Stanford,C.A.,
Stanford University Press,
1961.
SCHUETZ,S.;SPRAFKIN. J.N.
Portrayalof Pro-Socialand
Aggressive Behaviors in Children's TV Commercials.
Journal of Broadcasting,Vol.23,NO.1, 1979,pp. 3341.
SCIASCIA.
L. The Moro Affair and the Mystery of
Majorana. Carcanet. 1986.
SEARLE.A. The Perception of Filmed Violence by
Aggressive Individualswith High or Low Self-concept
of Aggression. European Journal of Social Psychology. Vol.6,NO.2,1976,pp. 175-90.
SEASONWEIN. R.; SUSSMAN.
Leonard R.Can Extremists
Using Television Move an Audience? Journalism
Quarterly, Vol.49,No. 1, 1972,pp. 61-4.
SHAW.1.S.;NEWELL.
D.S.
Violence onTelevision:Programme Content and Viewer Perception.London,British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972.
SHEEHAN.P.W.Age Trends and the Correlatesof Children's Television Viewing. Australian Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 35,NO.3. 1983,pp. 417-31.
SHELEY. J.F.;
ASKINS.
C.D.Crime, Crime News and
Crime Views. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 45,
NO.4,1981,pp. 492-506.
SHERIZEN. S. Social Creation of Crime News: All the
News Fitted to Print. In Charles Winnick (ed.), Deviance and Mass Media, Beverly Hills, C.A.,
Sage
Publications. 1978,pp. 203-24.
SHERMAN,B.L.;
DOMINICK.
J.R.Guns,Sex and Rock
and Roll: A Content Analysis of Music Television.
Report delivered to the Speech Communication Association,Chicago, 1984.
-. Violence and Sex in Music Videos: TV and
Rock 'n Roll.Journal of Communication, Vol.36,
NO.1. 1986,pp. 79-93.
SHINAR.D.PARNESP.;
GASPI.
D.Structure and Content
of Television Broadcasting in Israel. In George A.
Comstock and Eli A.Rubinstein (eds.),Television and
Social Behavior, Vol. 1, Media Content arid Control.
Washington,D.C.,
U.S.
Government Printing Office,
1972,PD.493-532.
SIEGAL. A.A.The Influence of Violence in the M a s s
Media upon Children’sRole Expectations.Child Development, Vol.29,1958,pp. 35-56.
.Film-MediatedFantasy Aggression and Strength of
the Aggressive Drive. Child Development, Vol.27
1956,pp. 355-78.
.The Effects of Media Violence on SocialLearning.
In Robert K.Baker and Sandra J. Ball,Mass Media
and Violence, Vol.9,Washington, D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office,1969,pp. 261-83.
SIGNORIELLI,
N.The Measurement of Violence in Television Programming: Violence Indices.In Joseph R.
Dominick and James E.Fletcher (eds.),Broadcasting
Research Methods. Boston, Allyn & Bacon, 1985.
pp. 235-250.
.Selective Television Viewing: A Limited Possibility.Journal of Communication, Vol.36,No.3,1986,
pp. 64-76.
;GROSS,
L;MORGAN.
M.Violence in Television
Programs:Ten Years Later.In David Pearl,Lorraine
Bouthilet,and Joyce Lazar (eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol.2. Technical Reviews. Rockville,
M.D.,
Institute of Mental Health, 1982,pp. 158-73.
SILJ.A.Brigate Rosse-Stuto:Lo scontro spettacolo nella
regia della stampa quotidiana. [Red Brigades-State:
Confrontation Spectacle Directed by the Daily Press.J
Firenze.Italy,Vallecchi. 1978.
.Stampa, Radio e TV di Fronte A1 Process0 Moro,
Ai Casi L a Torre,Delcogliano,Cirillo e A d Altre Storie
Di Terrorismo. [Press. Radio and Television Before
the Moro Trial,the Cases of LaTorre, Delcogliano,
Cirillo.and Other Storiesof Terrorism.]R o m e ,Italy,
RA1 RadiotelevisioneItaliana,Verifica dei Programmi Trasmessi, 1982.
SINGER.B.D.Violence, Protest,and W a r in Television
News: The U.S.and Canada Compared.Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.34,No.4.1970-1971,pp. 611-6.
.Mass Media and Communication Processes in the
Detroit Riot of 1967. Public Opinion Quarterly,
Vol. 34,NO.2,1970,pp. 236-45.
SINGER.D.G.;
SINGER,J.L.Television Viewing and
Aggressive Behavior in Pre-SchoolChildren. A Field
Study.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
Vol.347. 1980,pp, 289-303.
~. TV Violence: What’s A
ll the Fuss About?
Television and Children, Spring 1984.pp. 30-41.
SINGER.Jerome L.The Influence of Violence Portrayed
in Television or Motion Pictures Upon Overt Aggressive Behavior.In Jerome L.Singer (ed.), The Control
of Aggression and Violence: Cognitive and Physiological Factors. N e w York,Academic Press,1971,pp. 19-
60.
SINGER.D.G.;
RAPACZYNSKI.
W.S.Family Patterns and Television Viewing as Predictors of Children’sBeliefs and Aggression.Journal of Communication, Vol.34. No.2,1984,pp. 73-89.
-. Television, Imagination, and Aggression: A
Study of Pre-Schoolers. Hillsdale, N.J.,
Erlbaum,
1981.
~. Psychologists Look at Television: Cognitive,
Developmental,Personality,and Social Policy Implications.American Psychologist,July 1983,pp. 826-34.
-;
SLABY.R.G.
; QUARFOTH. G.R.
; MCCONNACHIE,
G.A.
Television Violence and its Sponsors.Journal of C o m munication, Vol.26, No. 1, 1976.pp. 88-96.
SLADE.J.W.
Violence in the Hard-core Pornographic
Film:A Historical Survey.Journal of Communication,
Vol.34. No.3,1984,pp. 148-63.
SLATER.D;ELLIOTT.
W.R.Distinguishing Facts from
Fiction:Television’sInfluence on Adolescents’Knowledge of L a w Enforcement.Paper Presented at Eastern CommunicationAssociation Meeting,Ocean City,
M.D.,
1980.
SMITH,J.R.
Television Violence and Driving Behavior.
Educational Broadcasting Review, Vol.3, No. 4,
1969,pp. 23-8.
SNOW.R.P.
How Children InterpretTV Violence in Play
Context.Joiirtzrilism Quarterly, Vol.51. No. 1,1974,
pp. 13-21.
SOLEY.L.C.;
REID.
L.N.Baiting Viewers:Violence and
Sex in Television Program Advertisements.Journalzsni Quarrerly, Vol.62,No. 1, 1985,pp. 105-10,131.
SOMERS.A.R.Violence,Television and the Health of
American Youth. New England Journal of Medicine,
Vol.294,NO.15. 1976,pp. 811-7.
SPIEGELh4AN.M.;
TURWILLIGER.
c.;FEARING,
F. The
Content of Comics: Goals and Means to Goals of
Comic Strip Characters.Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol.37,1953,pp. 189-203.
SPRAFKIN.
J.N.;
RUBINSTEIN,
E.A.;
STONE.A.A Content Analysis of Four Television Diets. Stony Brook,
N.Y.,
Brookdale International Institute for Applied
Studies,State University of N e w York, 1977.
STACK.S.Celebritiesand Sucide:A Taxonomy and Analysis, 1948-1983.American Sociological Review,
Vol.52. June 1987,pp. 401-12.
STANLEY.P.R.A.;
RIERA.
B. Replications of Media
Violence.Report of the Royal Commission on Violence
in the Communications Industry, Vol.5, Learning
from the Media. Toronto,Canada,The Royal Commision, 1977,pp. 57-88.
STEPHENS.L.F.Press and Public Reaction to ‘Special
Bulletin’. Paper presented to the Association for
Education in Journalism,International Communication Division,1983.
STERLING.C.The Terror Network: The Secret W a r of
International Terrorism. N e w York, Holt, Rinehart,
Winston, 1980.
STEUER.F.B.;
APPLEFIELD.
J.M.;
SMITH,R.Televised
Aggression and the InterpersonalAggression of PreSchool Children. Journal of Experimental Child
PSycholOgy, Vol. 11, 1971,pp. 442-7.
STRAUBHAAR.J.D.
Television and Violence in Brazil:
The Impact of Imported American Programs,
Brazilian Industry and the Brazilian Government.
Paper presented at the North-East Conference on
Latin American Studies,Dartmouth,d.H.,
1980.
STROMAN,CA.;SELTZER. R.Media Use and Perceptions of Crime.Journalism Quarterly,Vol.62,No.2,
1985,pp. 340-5.
SUAREZ,A.T.
de.El Estereotipo del Delincuetire en Venezuela. [The Stereotype of the Delinquent in
Venezuela.J Facultad de Derecho,Instituto de Criminologia,Universidad del Zulia,Venezuela,c.1982.
SUCHY.J.T.
British Television and its Viewers.Journalism Quarterly, Vol.31,1954,pp. 466-72.
SWANSON.C.E.What They Read in 130 Daily Newspapers.Journalism Quarterly, Vol.32,1955,pp. 41121.
43
TAMBORINI. R.;ZILMANN.
D.;
BRYANT.J. Fear and
Victimization:Exposure to Television and Perceptions
of Crime and Fear. In Robert H.Bostrum (ed.).
Communication Yearbook No. 8.Beverly Hills,C.A.,
Sage Publications,1984,pp. 492-513.
TAN.
A.S.Social Learning of Aggression from Television. In Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillman (eds.),
Perspectives on Media Effects. Hillside, N.J.,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986,pp. 41-58.
TANNENBAUM,
P.H.Studies in Film-and TelevisionMediated Arousal and Aggression: A Progress Report. In George A.Comstock,Eli A.Rubinstein.and
John P.Murray (eds.), Television and Social Behavior,
Vol.5 , Television’sExplorations. Washington,D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office,1972,pp. 309-50.
;ZILLMANN,
D.Emotional Arousal in the Facilitation of Aggression Through Communication. In
Leonard Berkowitz (ed .), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology. Vol.8. N e w York, Academic
Press, 1975.pp. 149-190.
;GEAR.
E.P.
Mood Change as a Function of Stressof
Protagonist and Degree of Identification in a FilmViewing Situation.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. Vol.2.No. 4,1965,pp. 612-6.
TAYLOR. H.;
DOZIER. C.Television Violence,AfricanAmericans,and Social Control,1950-1976.Journal of
Black Studies, Vol. 14,No.2,1983,pp. 107-36.
TAYLOR,
J. Television Crime Drama: A Mythological
Interpretation.In Report of the Royal Commission on
Violence in the Communications Industry,Vol.3,Violence in Televisim. Films and News. Toronto,Canada,
The Royal Commission,1977,pp. 157-219.
TEEVAN.
J.; J. Jr.; HARTNAGEL.
T.F.The Effect of
Television Violence on the Perceptions of Crime by
Adolescents. Sociology and Social Research, Vol.60,
NO.3. 1976. pp. 337-48.
TERRORISM
AND THE MEDIA.
(Report of Conference
Proceedings) Terrorism,Vol.2.No.3, 1979. pp. 5960.
.(International Seminar held in Florence. Italy,
1978) Rome: International Press Institute with Affari
Eseri, 1980.
THOMAS,
M.H.;
HORTON.
R.W.;
LIMMINCO’IT.
E.C.:
DRABMAN.
R.S.Desensitization to Portrayalsof RealLife Aggression as a Function of Exposure to Television Violence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 35. NO.6,1977,pp. 450-8.
-; DRABMAN,
R.S.Toleration of Real-Life Aggression as a Function of Exposure to Televised Violence
and Age of Subject. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
Vol.21,NO.3,1975,pp. 227-32.
[OMSON,
R.J.Television Crime-Drama:Its Impact on
Children and Adolescents. Melbourne. Australia,
F.W.Cheshire,1959.
Television Crime Drama: A Report. Canberra.
Australia, Australian Broadcasting Control Board,
1972.
TRIPI,
G.Considerazioni sull’ Importanza dei Fattori
Ambientali nella Profilassi dell’Aggressivita.Films di
Violenza ne1 Determinism0 dell’Aggressivita. Archivi0 di Psicologia, Neiirologia e Psichiaria. Vol.29,
1968,pp. 557-61.
TUMBER. H.Television and the Riots. London, British
Film Institute Publishing,1982.
TYLER. T.R.Impact of Directly and Indirectly Experienced Events: The Origin of Crime-Related Judgements and Behaviors.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 39,NO.1, 1980. pp. 13-28.
.-
44
UNESCO.
The Effects of Television on Children and
Adolescents:A n Annotated Bibliography with an Introductory Overview of Research Results. Paris,
France. Unesco, 1964.
UNITED
NATIONS.
International Terrorism: A Selected
Bibliography. N e w York,United Nations,1973.
UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT.
Investigation of Radio
and Television Programs. House of Representatives,
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
Washington,D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office,
1952.
.Hearings.Senate Committee on the Judiciary,Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency.
Washington, D.C.,
1964.
.Commission Satement on Violence in Television
Entertainment Programs.National Commission on the
Causes and Prevention of Violence (EisenhowerCommission). See also Robert K.Baker and SandraJ.Ball,
Mass Media and Violence, Vol. 9,(a Staff Report to
the Commission). Washington,D.C.,
U.S.Government Printing Office, 1969.
.Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence (Report to the Surgeon-General),U.S.
Public Health Service.See also George A.Comstock.
Eli A.Rubinstein,and John P.Murray (eds.), Television and Social Behavior (TechnicalReport Scientific
Advisory Committee, 5 Vols.) Washington, D.C.,
U.S.
Government Printing Office,1972.
.Violence on Television.Report.House of RepreU.S. Government
sentatives. Washington, D.C.,
Printing Office, 1977.
Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific
Progress and Implications for the Eighties. Vol. 1,
Summary Report. See also David Pearl, Lorraine
Bouthilet,and Joyce Lazar (eds.), Vol.2, Technical
National Institute of MenReviews. Rockville,M.D.,
tal Health, 1982.
VALBUENA. X. de; COLOMINA DE RIVERA,
M. Los
.
-
Medios de Comunicacion de Masas en una Sociedad
Capitalista:El Caso Venezolano. [Mass Communication Media in a Capitalist Society: The Case of
Venezuela.] In The Faces of Violence (23RDInternational Seminar in Criminology). Semi Maracaibo,
Venezuela:Centro de InvestigacionesCriminologicas,
Universidad del Zulia. 1974,pp. 239-92.
VIEMERO.V.Relationships Between Filmed Violence and
Aggression. Doctoral dissertation, Department of
Psychology,A b o Akademi, Finland,1986.
VOORT.T.H.A.
van der. Kinderen en TV-geweld:
Waarrieming en beleving. [Childrenand TV Violence:
Perception and Experience.]Lisse,The Netherlands,
Swets &Zeitlinger,1982.
WAKSHLAG.
J.J.; BART.L.; DUDLEY,
J.; GROTH,
G.;
MCCUTCHEON.
J.; ROLLA.
C.Viewer Apprehension
About Victimization and Crime Drama Programs.
Communication Research. Vol. 10, No.2, 1983,
pp. 195-217.
;VIAL.
Virginia; TAMBORINI,
R. Selecting Crime
Drama and Apprehension About Crime. H u m a n
Communication Research, Vol. 10, NO.2, 1983.
pp. 227-42.
WALTERS.
R.; THOMAS.
E.Enhancement of Punitiveness
by Visual and Audio-visualDisplays.Canadian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 17,1963,pp. 244-55.
WARDLAW. G.Political Terrorism.London,Cambridge
University Press, 1982.
WARR.
M.The Accuracy of Public Beliefs About Crime.
Social Forces. Vol. 59,No.2,1980.pp. 456-70.
WARREN. D.I.
Mass Media and Racial Crisis:A Study of
the N e w Bethel Church Incidentin Detroit.Journal of
Social Issues, Vol.28,No. 1, 1972,pp. 111-31.
WATT.
J.H.
Jr.; KRULL.
R.A n Examination of Three
Models of Television Viewing and Aggression.H u m a n
Communication Research,Vol. 3.No.2,1977,pp. 99112.
WEAVER. J.; WAKSHLAG. J. Perceptions of Personal
Vulnerability to Crime, Criminal Victimization EXperience,and Television Viewing. Paper presented to
the Broadcast Education Association, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 1984.
-. Perceived Vulnerability to Crime, Criminal
Victimization Experience, and Television Viewing.
Broadcasting and the Conflict in Ireland:Viewers’
Opinions of Two Series, and their Context. Manuscript, 1981.
.W a r and Conflict: D o People Think that News
Coverage is Fair.or that it Takes Sides? IBA Research
Paper, October 1983.
.
See A s You Would B e Seen By: ‘Video Nasty’
Antagonists in a Personality Mirror.Psychology News
and in Mind, 1984a. pp. 7-8.
.Viewers or Vigilantes:Options on Violent Pornography. Inter-Media,Vol.12,No.2. 1984b,pp. 20-3.
;GUNTER.
Barrie.Television and Personal Threat:
Fact or Artifact? A British Survey.British Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol.21, 1982.pp. 239-47.
WURTH-HOUGH.
S. Network News Coverage of TerrorJournal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,
ism:The Early Years. Terrorism,Vol.6,No.3,1983,
Vol. 30.NO.2,1986.pp. 141-58.
pp. 403-521.
WEIGEL,
R.H.
; JESSOR. R. Television and Adolescent
WURTZEL.
A.Television Violence and Aggressive BeConventionality.Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.37.
havior.Et Cetera, June 1977,pp. 212-25.
NO.1, 1973,pp. 76-90.
;LOMETTI,
Guy. Determining the Acceptability of
WERTHAM,
F.C.Seduction of the Innocent. N e w York,
Violent Program Content at ABC.Journal of BroadRinehart,1954.
casting,Vol. 28,No.1, 1984,pp. 89-97.
WHALEY,
A.B.;KAMINSKI,
E.P.GORDEN,
W.I.;
YAFFE.
M.;
NELSON.
E.C.(eds.). The Influence of PorHEISEY.
D.R.Docudrama From Different Temoral
nography on Behavior. N e w York, Academic Press.
Perspectives:Reactions to NBC’s‘KentState’.Journal
1982.
of Broadcasting, Vol.27,No.3,1983,pp. 285-9.
ZILIAN.
F. Jr. The U.S.Raid on Libya-and NATO.
WIEGMAN,
0.
Aanstekelijkheid van gedrag. [Research
Orbis.Fall 1986.pp. 499-524.
Study of the Effectof Puppet Film Violence on Young
ZILLMANN,
D.Excitation Transfer on CommunicationChildren.] In Arnold P.Goldstein and Marshall H.
Mediated Aggressive Behavior. Journal of ExSegall (eds.), Perspective. N e w York,Pergamon Press,
perimental Social Psychology, Vol.7, No.4, 1971,
1975.
pp. 419-34.
;KUTTSCHREUTER,
M. BAARDA.B. Television
Television Viewing and Arousal. In David Pearl,
Viewing Related to Aggressive and Pro-Social BeLorraine Bouthilet,and Joyce Lazar (eds.), Television
haviour. The Hague,The Netherlands,Stichting voor
and Social Behavior, Vol.2, Technical Reports.
onderzoek van het onderwijs, 1986.
Rockville,M.D.,
National Instituteof Mental Health,
WILLIAMS,
T.M.
(ed.), The Impact of Television:A Natu1982,pp. 53-67.
ral Experiment in Three Communities. N e w York,
-;
BRYANT,
J. Effectsof Massive Exposure to PornogAcademic Press,Inc..1986.
raphy.In Neil M.Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein
-;
ZABRACK.
M.L.;
JOY. L.A.Content Analysis of
(eds.), Pornography and Sexual Aggression. Orlando,
Entertainment Television Programming.In Report of
FL.,Academic Press,1984.pp. 115-38.
the Royal Commission on Violence in the Commrtnica;HOYT.
J.L.;
DAY.
Kenneth D.Strength and Durations Industry, Vol.3, Violence in Television, Films
tion of the Effect of Aggressive, Violent, and Erotic
and News. Toronto,Canada,The Royal Commission,
Communicationson SubsequentAggressive Behavior.
1977,pp. 1-155.See also Journal of Applied PsychoCommunication Research, Vol. 1. No.3. 1974,
logy, 1982,Vol. 12,pp. 360-80.
pp. 286-306.
WILSON,
B. Mass Media and the Public Attitude to
-;
HEZEL.
R.T.;
MEDOFF.
N.J.The Effect of AffecCrime. Criminal Lew Review, June,1961.pp. 376-84.
tive States on Selected Exposure to Televised EnterWINICK,
C.Censor and Sensibility: A Content Analysis
tainment Fare.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
of the Television Censor’s Comments. Journal of
Vol. 10,NO.4,1980,pp. 323-39.
Broadcasting, Vol.5 , pp. 117-35.Also in Otto N.
-;
JOHNSON, R.C.;
HANRAHAN.
J. Pacifying Effect of
Larsen (ed.), Violenceand the Mass Media. N e w York.
Happy Ending of Communications Involving AggresHarper & Row,1968,1961.pp. 252-69.
sion. Psychological Reports. Vol.32. 1973,pp. 967WITHEY. S.B.;
ABELES.
R.P.Television arid Social Be70.
havior: Beyond Violence and Children.Hillsdale.N.J.,
;WAKSHLAG.
J. Fear of Victimization and the
Erlbaum, 1980.
Appeal of Crime Drama.In DolfZillmanand Jennings
WOBER.
J.M..
Televised Violence and Paranoid PercepBryant (eds.)Selective Exposure to Communication.
tion: The View from Great Britain. Public Opinion
Hillsdale,N.J.,
Erlbaum, 1985.
Quarterly, Vol.42.1978a.pp. 315-21.
ZUSNE.
L.Measuring Violence in Children’s Cartoons.
.W h o Views Violence in Britain? Journal of C o m Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol.27, No. 3, 1968,
munication, Vol.28,No.3, 1978b.pp. 172-5.
pp. 901-2.
.
-
,-
45
Unesco publications: national distributors
ALBANIA. 'Ndermarrja c perhapp se Iibnr'.TIRANA
ALGERIA Enrrcprise namnale d u livre (ENAL). 3. boulevard
Zirour Youccf,ALGER. Penodrrdr ody: Entre rise nationale de
mesragcrie erdc prcsre (ENAMEP).20.rue de Llberrt. ALGER
A N G O L A : Darrtbutdora L~vrosc Publicasocr. Caixa Porral 2848,
LUANDA
A R G E N T I N A . Libreria c1 Correo dc la Unerco, EDILYR. S.RL ,
Turumdn 1681. IO10 BUENOS AIR=.
AUSTRALIA Publrcutzonr: Edurarional Supplics Pr Lrd , P 0
Box 33. Brookvalr 2100,N S . W , Domlnle Pry..b.0 Box 33.
BROOKVALE 2100.N . S . W Sub-qentr:Unired Narions Associi[ion of Ausrralia. Vicrarian Division. 328 Flindcrs Strccr.
MELBOURNE
3000,Hunrer Publications. IBA Gipps Srreet, Callrngwwd. VlClORlA 3066
AUSTRIA: Gcrold & C O ,Graben 31. A-I011 WIEN
B A H R A I N . Unrrcd Schools Inrcmatronal. P.O. Box 726,BAHRAIN;
The Ardbian A eniies & Dirrriburing CO , AI Muranabi Srrecr.
P 0.BOX 116.~ A N A M A .
B A N G L A D E S H Karim Internarlonal.G P.O. Box No. 2141.6JII
Mani urr Para Tcjgaon Farmgare DHAKA
B A R B A g O S . Urhcrsiry df rhe Wes; lndres Bookshop. Cave Hill
Campus. P . 0 Box 64.BRIDGETOWN
BELGIUM:Jean De Lannoy. 202 Avcnue du Roi, 1060 BRUXELLES.
BENIN (Rep. Po ) Librairie nationale. B.P 294 Porro Novo,
Librairie N o m L a m e , BP 307,Coronou. Ers K o u d p G Joseph.
B P. 1130COTONOU.
BOLIVIA Lor Ami os del Libra casilla posral 4411 Mcrcado 1311,
LaPaz;Avcnidac%lasHcrain;s 3712.Casrlla41O:COCHAHAMBA
B O T S W A N A . Botswana Book Ccnrre. P.0 Box 91,GABORONE
BRAZIL: Fundagao Gerillio Vargar. Scrvqo del Publicagocr.cain
posral 9 012-ZC-05.Praia de Barafogo 188. RIO DEJANEIRO(RJ)
2000;lmagcm Latinoamencana.A V Paulisra 710,1 andar,C a m
osral 30411.S A 0 PAULO. CEP 0lOII
BSLGARlA. Hemus, Kanrora Lmratura, boulevard Rousky 6,
SOFIJA
BURKINA: Libriirie Arric. B.P 64, OUAGADOUGOU;
Librairic
Carhall uc ' cuocssc d'Afnquc', OUAGADOUGOU
B U R M A : %,ab, Corporarim no. (9), 110-112 Merrhanr Srreet,
RANGOON
C A M E R O O N : Burma Kor &CO , Bilingual Bookshop, Mvok-Ada,
B P. 727,YAOUNDE; Le SerrCraire Cniral de la Carnmisrron nauonilc dc la Rtpubliquc Unie du &mcroun pour I'Unesco,B P.
CIC.B.P 1101,YAOUNDB:
~ ~ O O Y A O U N D ELibrairicdcsEdirionr
;
Librairie Sr Paul. B P 763,YAOUNDE; Centre dc diffusion du
livre camerownais.B.P.338. Douala;Librairic Hcrm2s Memento,
Face CHU Mclcn. B.P. 2137,YAOUNDE.
C A N A D h : Renouf Publishing Company Lid./Editions Renouf
Lrte, 1294 Algomi Road. Orrawa. Onr. KIB 3 W 8 (shops. 61
Sparks Sr , OTTAWA. and 21 1 Yongc SI. TORONTOS a h of zce
7171 Trans Canada H w y , Src 301. ST.'LAURENT,QuebcL 6 4 T
E
GUINEA-BISSAU lnsriruro Nacianal do Livro c do Disco,Canselho
Nacivnal da Culrura,Avenida Domingor Ramos No. IO-A,B.P.
104,BISSAU.
HAITI. Librarrie 'A la Caravelle'. 26.rue Roux. B.P. 1 1 I , PORT-AU.
PRINCE
H O N D U R A S : LibrcriaNavarro.2aAvcnidaNa 201.Comayagiiela.
TEGUCIGALPA.
HONG KONG-Swindon Book Co..13-11 Lock Road, KOWLOON.
Federal Publrrarions ( H K )Lrd , 2d Freder Ccnrre. 68 Sung W o n g
Toi Road, Tokwawan, KOWLOON;Hong Kong Govcrnmenr Information S,ervicer.Publicarron (Sales) Officc,Information Scrvices Depr , No. 1. Barrery Path. Ccnrral, HONGKONG
H U N G A R Y . Kultura-Buchimporr-Abr, P.O.B. 149-H-1389.
BUDAPEST 62.
ICELAND- Snaebjcrn Jonsson & Co..The English Boakshop, Hafnarsrracri 9. REYKJAVIK
INDIA-Orient Longman Lrd , Kamani Mar , Ballard Esrate. bOMBAY 400038; 17 Chirraranp Avcnuc. t~lcutra13: 362 Anna
Salai, Mounr Road. Madras 2; Boil Maharma Gandhi Road.
TOOOOl
BANGALORE 16001;1-9-4iIlBishir Bagh, HYDERABAD
AP). 3-1-820
Hydcrguda.HYDERABAD
1OOOOl. Sub~depotr:Oxord Book & Statmery Co..17 Park Srrccr. CALCUTIA
700016:
Scrndii House. NEW DELHI 110001,Minisrry of Education and
Culture, Publicarron Unit. EV-AFO Hurmcnrr. Dr Rajendra
Prasad Road, NEW DELHI 110001;UBS Publishers Distributors
110002
Lrd.. 1 Ansari Road,P 0.Box 7011.NEW DELHI
INDONESIA'BhrataraPublishersand Booksellers,29,Jl.Orolskandardinara 1 1 1 . Jakarrd. lndira P T , JI, Dr.Sam Rarulangi 37.
JAKARTA PUSAT
IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF: Iranian National Commission for
Unesco,1188 Enghalab Avcnue. Rortam G M Burlding.P.O.Box
11361-4498.TEHRAN13118
IRELAND-TDC Publishers. 12.North Fredcrick Street,DUBLIN
1;
EducationalCompany ofIreland Lrd. P O Box 43 A ,Walkinsrown.
DUBLIN
12
ISRAEL-Sreinmatzky Lrd , Cirrus House. 22 Harikcvcr Srreer. P.O.
Box 628.TELAvlv.
ITALY.Licora(Libreria CommissionariaSanroni S.p.A.).viaLamarmora 41. casella postale 112, 10121 FIRENZE;via Barrolini 29,
20111 MILANOF A O Bookshop. via delle Termc di Caracalla,
00100ROMA; 1LO Booksho , Corso Unrra d'lralia. 121.TONNO.
J A M A I C A . Universrry of cfc West lndies Bookshop. Mona.
P O L A N D :O R P A N - l m or[ Palac Kulrury. 00-901W A R S Z A W A ;Ais
Polona-Ruch. Krafowikie Przedmiesric no. 7.00.068
WARSZAWA
P O R T U G A L : Dias &Andradc Lrda.. Livraria Parrugal. rua do Carrno 70.74. 1117 LISBOA.
REPUBLIC O F K O R E A - Korcan National Commission for Unerco.
P 0.Box Central 64.SEOUL.
R O M A N I A -ARTEXIM Export-lmporr.Piara Scientcii. no. 1. P.O.
Box 33.16,70005 BUCARUZT
SAINT V I N C E N T A N D T H E GRENADINES: Youn Workcrs'
Crcarive Organization,Blue Caribbean Building.2ndehwr.room
12,KINGSTON.
S A U D I ARABIA: Dar AI-Watan for Publishing and Information.
OlayaMain Street. lbrahim Bin Sulaym Building.P.O.Box 3310,
RIYADH.
SENEGAL. Uncsco. Burcau rigional pour 1' Afrique (BREDA), 1 I.
avenue du Roumc. B.P.331 1,DAKAR.
Librairie Clairzfriquc.B.P.
2001.DAKAR;
Librairie dcs 4 vents. 91 N C Blanchor. B.P. 1820.
DAKAR;
Les Nouvellcs Edirrans Africaincs. 10rue Amadou Hassan
Ndoye. B.P. 260.DAKAR
SEYCHELLES: N e w Service Lrd , Kingrgare House. P.O.Box 131,
MAHE; National Boakshop. P.O.
Box 48. MAHE.
SIERRA LEONE. Fourah Bay College, Njala Univcrsiry and Sierra
Leonc Diocesan Bookshops,FREETOWN
SINGAPORE. Chopmcn Publishers, 861. Mountbatrcn Road
#01-28/29.Karong Shopping Centre. SINGAPORE 1143; For
penodzcuff:Righreour Enrerprrses. P.O.Box 162,Kallang Basin
Porr Office. SINGAPORE 9133
SOMALIA: Modcrn Book Shop and Gmeral, P.O.Box 911,
MOGADISCIO.
SPAIN. Mundi-Prenrz Libras S A., aparrado 1223. Casrcll6 37.
MADRIDI; Ediciones Liber. A arrado 17,Magdaleni 8 ,ONDhRROA (Vizcaya);Donarrc. Rpn& de Ourciro. 20,aparrada decorreos 341, LA CORUNA; Libreria Al-Andalus. Roldana. 1 y 3.
SEVILLA 4. Libreria Czjrclls. Ronda Universidad 13 y 11,
BARCELONA 7;Libreria dc la Gencralirat de Cztalunya. Palan Moja, Rambla de 10s Esrudior 118.on 002 BARCELONA.
SRI L A N K A : Lakc House Bookshop. Sir Chittampalam Gardiner
Mawata, P.O.Box 244,COLOMBO2.
S U D A N . AI Bzshir Bookshop, P.O. Box 1118.KHARTOUM.
SURINAME: Suriname Narianal Commirrian for Unesco. P.O.Box
2943.PARAMARIBO.
KINGSTON 7
S W E D E N :A I B C.E.Fritres Kungl. Hovbokhandcl Regerinfs aran
J A P A N . Eastern Boak Servicc Inc., 37-3Hongo 3-chomc. Bunkya12.Box 16316.S-10327 STOCKHOLM I6.For'Tb;Counkr :!yen.
ku. TOKYO1 1 3
ska FN-Forbunder. Skolgrand 2. Box 110 IO. S-104 61
JORDAN.JordanBookCenrreCo.,Lrd.,P.O.Box 301.Al-Jdbeiha.
STOCKHOLM. For penbdico/l onf Wcnnergren-Williams A B
AMMAN
Nardenflychrsvagcn 70.S-104 21 ~TOCKHOLM;Ersclte Tidrkrifts:
Box 30171.NAIROBI: centralcn.Gamla Brogatan 26. Box 62,10120 STOCKHOLM.
K E N Y A , Ear[ African Publishing House. P 0.
Africa Book Services Lid , Quran Housc, Mfangano Srrcer. P.O.
SWITZERLAND: Europi Vcrlag. Ramisrrzssc 1. CH 8024 Zoricb;
Box 41241. NAIROBI.
Librairies Payot in Geneva. Lausannc. Basle,B c m e . Vcvcy,Mon1V6).
K U W A I T . The Kuwair Bookshop CO Lrd.. P.O. Box 2942.
rreux. Neufchid. Zurich;United Narions Bwkshop. Palais dcs
C A P E V E R D E - lnrtiruro Cabovcrdmo do Llvra. Carxa posral 118.
K I I W..
A.
IT
.
.
Nations. CH-1211GENEVE.
PRAIA
L E B A N O N . Librairie AnroincA Naufal crFr?rcs B.P.616 BEIRUT.
SYRIAN A R A B REPUBLIC: Librairie Sayegh. lmmcublc Diab, ruc
C H A D : Librairrc Abrsounaur. 24 w e Ch.-dc-Gaulle,B.P 388.
L E S O T H O -Mazenod Book Centrc. P.0 Mazenod. MASERU.'
du Parlcment. B.P.704. DAMASCUS.
N'DJAMENA.
LIBERIA-National Bookmrc. Mcchhn m d Carey Srrecrs. P 0.Box
T H A I L A N D Suksapan Panit. Mansion 9, Rajdamncm Avenue,
CHILE: Editorial Universiraria S.A , Departimcnro de Importz190. MONROVIA;
Colc & Yancy Bookshops,Lrd..P.O.Box 286,
BANGKOK; Nibondh & Ca. Lid .40-42Charoen K y n g Road,
cioncs. M. Luna Santmdcr 0447 casrlla 10220 SANTIAGOMONROVIA
Siyacg Phaya Sri. P.O. Box 402,BANGKOK; Sukrir Siam Com.
Edirorral 'Andrtr Bcllo'. AV. R Lyon 946. Casilld 4216,SAN:
LIBYAN A R A B )AMAHIRIYA. General Esrzblrrhrnent for
1711 Rami IV Road. BANGKOK: Racap. P.O. Box 1421.
TIAGO DE CHILE;Dipublic. Anronio Varas 671. 2 pira, c d l a
Publishing,Disrriburion and Adverrising, Sauf AI Mahmoudi Sr..
ANGKOK.
14364.Correo 21,SANTIAGO
P 0.Box 91~9,TRIPOLI.
TOGO:Librairic Evangtlique. B.P. 378,LOME: Librairie du Bon
C H I N A : China Narional Publrcarrons lrnport and Export CorporaL U X E M B O U R G : Librairie Paul Bruck, 22, Grandc.Rue. LUXEMPasreur. B.P. 1164. LOME; Librairic univcrsiraire, B.P. 3481,
[ion.P.0 Box 88. BEIJING.
BOURG Penodrcoir. Mcsrigcries Paul Kraur. B P. 1022 LULOME: Lcs Nouvclles Edirians Africaincs. 239, boulevard CirCOLOMBIA: lnsriruro Colambizno de Culrura (Colculrura).Carrcra
XEMBOURG.
culairc. B.P. 4862. LOME.
3A. no 18/24.BOGOTA.
M A D A G A S C A R . Commission narionale de la Rtpublique
IRIKIDAD A N D T O R A G 6 Trimdid and Tobago N m o n a . Cum.
C O M O R O S : Librairic Mariwar 4 NC Ahmcd-Djoumor B.P. 124.
Dtmocrarique dc Madagascar pour I'Unesco. Baire postalc 331,
miriim for L 8 n r m in Alexandra Srrcer,Si C1a.r.POHTOF S P A I ~
MORONI.
ANTANANARIVO
TL'NISIA. SurtCic iunisicnnc dc diffuriun. 1. avcnuc dc Carrhagr,
CONGO.Commission Narionale Congolairc pour I'Unesco, B P.
M A L A W I . Malawi Book Service, Hcad Office. P . 0 Box 30044,
TcYl>
493. Brazzaville: Librairic Miiron de la prcssc. B.P. 2110,BRAZChrrhiri, BLANTYRE 3
IlIHKFY Hasrr K.ranrvt A 5 , lsiiklil Caddcsi no 469. Porta
ZAVILLE. Librairic Populairc,B P. 177.BRAZZAVILLE.
MALAYSIA: Universrry of Malaya Co-operariveBookshop. KUALA
Kuturu 219 Be ogl;~IsTANBUL.
C O S T A RICA: Coopcrarivz drl Iibra, Univcrsidad de Cosra Ria.
LUMPUR 22-11
U G A N D A . U'and; Bodhhop! P.O.Box 7141,KAMPALA,
Ciudad Univcrriraria Rodrigo Facia. San Pedro Monrcr de Oca.
MALI: Librairie PO ulaire du Mali. B P 28. BAMAKO
USSR: Mczhjunarodnap Kniga. UI. Dimrtrova 39, MOSKVA.
SAN OSE
1 1 snm
MALDIVES. Novc$ Prinrcrr & Publishers, MALE.
C6TE A'IVOIRE- Librairic des Prcsscs de I'Uncrco.Commission naM A L T A . Sapicnrar. 26 Republic Srreer. VALLETIA
UNITED ARABEMIRATES. MakrabatalMakraba.P.O.Box 11408.
[ionale lvoirrcnne pour I'Uncrco. 01 B P V297 ABIDJAN 01. Le
MARTINIQUE. Hatier Marrinique. 32. rue Schoclchcr. B P. 188.
AI Ain. A B U DHABI.
Ccnrrc d'Edltion c1 de Diffusion Africaincs(CEDA). 04 B.P 541.
97202 FORT-DE-FRANCE.
UNITEDKINGDOM:HMSO,P.O.BOX 276.LONWN swa IDT;
ABIDJAN04 Plarcau.
MAURITANIA. G R A LI.CO.MA , I rue du Souk X. Avcnue KcnGovcrnmenr Bookshops:London Belfasr Birmingham Bristol
C U B A - Ediciones Cubanas, O'Reilly No.407.LA HABANA
~ . nauvclle dc diffusion (SONODI),
ncdy. N O U A K C H OSocitri
Edinburgh.Manchester;Third Wbrld Publicarions. 111 Srrarford
CYPRUS: 'MAM', ArrhbrshaD Makarior 3rd Avcnuc. P 0.Box
B P 11, NOUAKCHOTT
Road, BIRMINGHAM 011 IRD;Forrczenirficmirpr: MrCanz Lid.,
1722.NICOSIA
MAURITIUS: Nalanda CO Ltd., 30 Bourbon Srrccr, PORT-LOUIS
122 King's Cross Road. LONDON WC1X 9DS.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA. S N T L Spalcna 51. 113-02Pnha I. Arria. Vc
MEXICO. Libreria El Correo dc la Unesca. Acopin 66 (InU N I T E D REPUBLIC O F T A N Z A N I A . Dar cs Salaam BookshoD.
.
only:
Smcckach 30,P.O.Box 790. 111-27P R A H A ~ForSfovaba
surgenresIManacar). Colonia dcl Vallc. Aplrrado porral 61.164.
P 0 bx VO3U. D A h b5 SALAAM
Alfa Vetla Publishers Hurbanovo nam. 6 893 31 BRATISLAVA.
06600 MEXICO D.F. DILITSA (Dirtribuidora Lircraria S.A ),
I'NTTD SIATES O F AMERICA IJNIPUB. 46114 Assembly
D E M O C R A A C Y E M E N . 14rh Ocrobcr C&mnrron ,~ P 0 Box
Pornona 30.Apartado posral 24-448,MEXICO D.F.06700.
Dtivc L A ~ H A V M U 20'04-4391, L'ntred Nac.ons BookshoD.
4227,ADEN.
M O N A C O : Brirish Library. 30 boulcvird der Moulins, MONTE
NEW YORK.NY 10017.
D E N M A R K . Munksgaard hxporr and Subscriprim Service. 31 Ndrrc
CARLO.
U R U G U A Y : Bookr and rcrcnti$;. m,g. pdy: Librcria Tccnica
Sdgadc. DK 1370.KOBENHAVN K
M O R O C C O .Libraric 'Auxbelles imagcs'.282.avenue MohammcdUruguaya. Colonia no. 1143,Piso 7, ficina 702,Cvilla de Cor.
D O M I N I C A N REPUBLIC: Libreria Blasco, Avcnida Bolivar. No
V,Rabar, Librairic der icolcs. 12.avenue Hasnn-Il.CASABLAN- reos 1118,MONTEVIDEO;
A/ipubfrcutzonr:Edicioncr Trccho S.A..
402 csq. Hermanos Dclr ne SANTO DOMINGO
CA;SociCrCchtrifienncdc dirrriburron CI de pressc,SOCHEPRESS.
Mildonado 1090. MONTEVIDEO.
E C U A D O R : Dinacur CiaLrba.SkaPrarano. 296yPasajcSanLulr.
VENEZUELA: Libreria del E m . AV. Francisco dc Miranda. 12.
angle rues de Dinanr CI Sr Saens. B P 13683,CASABLANCA
01.
Oficrna 101.102,Carilla 112-0,QUITO Nuevalmagcn, 12 deOcM O Z A M B I Q U E : Insriruro National do Livro do Disco (INLD),
Edificio Falipin. apartado 60337. CARACAS 1060.A; DILAE
rubrc 919 y Rora, Edificio Mariano dc Jcrfir. QUITO
Avcnida 24 dc Julho,1921 rid 1 andar. MAPUTO.
C A.,Alfidil Edicioncs S.A.,Avenidar Los Man os. La Deliciz
EGYPT: Unesca Publications Ccnrrc. 1 Talaar Harb Streer. CAIRO. NEPAL. Sqha Prakashan. Palrhowk.KATHMANDU.
C d S A L C . apanadd
Apartado 10304.Sabana Grandc. CARACAS;
ETHIOPIA: Ethiopian Narional Agency for Unesco,P.O.Box 2996, N E T H E R L A N D S . Kccring Boekcn B V., Hogchilwcg 13, Posrbus
posral 62090. Edificio Arovincar. AV. Los Chorrar CNCC calk
ADDIS ABABA.
1118. 1000 B C AMSTERDAM Penodd,: Fuon-Europe.Posrbus
Acueducro, Altos de Scbucan. CARACAS 1060 A; Uncwo COO!
FINLAND. Akarceminen Kirjakauppa. Kcskurkaru 1 , SF-00101
197. 1000 A D AMSTERDAM
dinacion Regional para America Ltim y cI Caribc, quinra 'ISA
Helsinki IO: Suomilarncn Kirjakauppa OY.Koivuvaarankup 2,
N E T H E R L A N D S ANTILLES. Van Dorp-Eddinc N.V.. P 0.Box
72 av. de Alramira entrc 7a y 8a Tranrvcrszl, Apartado 68394
01640 VANTAA 64
200,Willemstad. CURACAO, N.A.
Altamira. CARACAS
1062-2
F R A N C E . Librairie dc I'Uncsco. 7 place de Fanrcnoy. 71700 PARIS, N E W Z E A L A N D : Govcrnmcnr Publishing.P.O.Box 14277.KilbirW G O S L A V I A : Nolit Tcrazijc 13IVl11,11000BEOGRAD; Cmc?rUniversiry bookshops.
nic. Wcllingron Retod bookrbopr. 21 Rurland Srrcer- Mad
jcva Zalozba. Zapriaqcva No. 2. 61001 Ljubljana; Mladosr. llicz
G A B O N : Librairic Sogalivrc (Libreville. Porr Gcnril and
orderr. 81 Bcarh Road, Privarc Bag C.P.O..AUCKLAND.'Ward
30111.ZAGREB.
Franccvillc); Librarric Harherre. B P 3923.LIBREVILLE
Strecr; Mad orders. P.O. Box 817. HAMILTON.
119 Hereford
W I R E : Librairic du CIDEP. B.P.2307,Kinrhvz: Commission naG E R M A N D E M O C R A T I C REPUBLIC: BurhexDorr. Pasrfach 140.
Strccr; Mud order,:Privarc Bag. CHRISTCHURCH.
Princcr Srrccr.
rionalc zairoirc pour I'Uncsco. Commissuiar d'Etar chirgi dc
Lcninsrrissc 16. 7010 LEIPZIG.
Mud Orderr, P 0 Box 1104. DUNEDIN.
I'Educarion narionale. B.P.32,KINSHASA.
G E R M A N Y , FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF. UNO-Vcrlag,
N I C A R A G U A : Libreria dc la Universidad Ccnrroamericam. AparZAMBIA: Narional Edurirional Disrriburion Co. of Zambia Lid..
Simrockrrrarsc 23,D-1300 BONN I: S Karger G m b H . Vcrlag
[ado 69.MANAGUA
P 0.Box 2664,LUSAKA.
Angerhofsrrassc 9.Postfach 2. D-8034GERMERINGIMUNCHEN'
NIGER: Librairic Mauclcrt. B.P. 868,NIAMEY.
Z I M B A B W E : Textbook Sales (PVT) Lrd.. 67 Union Avcnuc,
For rcrentrfic maps on/,: Gco Ccnrcr, Posrfach 800830, 7009
NIGERIA: The Unlvcrsrry Bookrho o f The Universiry Bookshop
HARARE
STUTTGART no. For 'TheCouner':Mr Herbert Baum. Dcutscher
of Ibadan. P.O. Box 286:The nivcrsiry
e . Booksho of Nsukka:
Uncwo Kuricr Vcrrricb, Besalrrrrassc 17. BONN 3.
The Unrverrir Bookshop of Lagos. Thhc Ahmadu Bceo University
G H A N A : Presb rcrian Bookshop Dcpor Lrd.,P.O.Box 195. Accra;
Bookshop of $aria.
GhinaBoak~"pplicrsLrd..P.O.Box 7869.ACCRA; ThcUniversiN 0 R W A Y : J o h a n Gmndr Tanum. Bokhandcl,P.O.Box 1177 SenBoakrhop ofGhana. ACCRA,Thc Univcrsiry Bookshop of Cape
rrurn.OSLO 1; Akadcmika AIS. Univcnitctsbakhandel,P.O.Bax
o m ; The Univcrsir Bwksho of Le on, P 0.Box I. LEGON.
84. Blindern. 0314. OSLO 3; AIS Narvcscns Lirreraturrjcnesrc.
GREECE.Elcfrhcrouddis.Nikkts%rcccr$. ATHENS: H.Ki-uffmann,
Box 612). Ertcrsrad N 0602,OSLO 6.
28 N C du Sradc. ATHENS; Greek National Commission for
PAKISTAN: Mirza Book Agency. 61 Shahrah Quaid i-Azam,P.O.
Uncrco,3 Akadimias Strccr. ATHENS.John Mihalopoulor and Son
Box 729.LAHORE 3. Uncsco Publicatlons Ccnrrc Rc ioml Ofticc
S A.. 71 Hermou Street, P.O. Box 73.THESALONIKI
for Book DcvcloDmenr in Asia and rhc Pacific.'P.8.Box 8950.
G U A D E L O U P E . Librarrre Carnar. 19. rue Barb&. 97100 POINTEKARACHI 29
UNESCO B O O K COUPONS
A-PITRE.
P A N A M A . Distriburdara Culruri Intcrnacional. Apartado 7571.
Uncsco Book Coupons can bc used to purchvc a11 books and pcG U A T E M A L A : Comisr6n Guaremalreca dc Coaperzciirn con la
Zana 1, PANAMA
riodicilsofin educarional. scientificor culrural characrcr.For full in.
Unerco. 3a Avenida 13-30,Zona 1. aparrada posral 244,
PERU: Librcria Srudium. Plaza Francia 1164.Aparrado 2139,LIMA;
formation plcasc writc to. Uncsco Coupon Ofticc. 7 plzcc dc
GUATEMALA.
Ltbreria La Familia.Pasajc Pcfialoia 112. Apartado 4199.LIMA. Fonrenoy. 71700 Paris (Francc).
GUINEA: Commission nzrronalc guintennc pour I'Uncxa. B.P
PHILIPPINES: Nariond Book Srorc Inc.. 701, R i d Avcnuc.
964. CONAKRY.
MANILA.
1
__
py.
~
~~~~~~
~~~~~
e
[B]CC 88/XVIII/102A
ISBN 92-3-102603-8