Fehrenbach 1

Zach Fehrenbach
Mr. Caine
English 112
18 April 2014
Violence in Television Advertisements and the Adverse Effects on Children
Ever since television became popular in the United States in the 1950s, speculation has
existed about whether violent content has a significant effect on viewers. In fact, every aspect of
media has been scrutinized for their respective violent aspects, including print media, television,
radio, video games, and online media. Many studies have been carried out regarding the topic,
and varying results have emerged. A substantial number of laboratory and field experiments
over the past half-century have examined whether exposure to violent behavior on film or
television tends to increase aggressive behavior in the short term. The consistent finding from
such randomized experiments is that youths who watch violent scenes subsequently display more
aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, or aggressive emotions than those who do not
(Anderson 84). After analyzing many different studies, it seems to be a trend that the more recent
the studies are, the more correlation there is between exposure to television violence and the
resulting violent behavior and thoughts of viewers. This may be due to the expanding nature of
media in the United States, or it may have gradually changed because of improvements involving
the general understanding of the topic and improved research capabilities or methods regarding
violence in American media.
To narrow the topic, the focus of this essay will deal with violent advertisements on
television and their resulting effects on children in the United States. Overall, less studies have

Fehrenbach 2
been executed regarding violent content in advertising compared to studies examining violence
within television in general or specifically within television programs themselves. However,
recent studies do show that there are a significant amount of television ads targeted at children
which have violent content, and one study even demonstrates that on Saturday mornings,
commercials contain more violent content than do the programs (Brocato 95). The recent
evidence that violent television content and advertisements increase the probability of emerging
aggressive and violent behavior in children is undeniable. However, violence in advertising
directed toward children is a more prominent issue than most people are aware of, and
commercials that contain a violent aspect cause viewers to perceive succeeding and surrounding
television programs as more violent than they truly are.
Some significant features of advertising exist which contribute to the possibility of its
violent features having a negative effect on childrens cognitions and actions. These include the
correlation between television commercials and programs and the overall relationship amongst
the two, the short-term intentions and the immediately impactful nature of commercials, the
imposing significance of advertising in our society, and how advertising aimed toward children,
whether purposefully or not, takes advantage of their inevitable mental vulnerabilities.
There is an obvious association between television programs and commercials. The two
aspects of television combine to provide an overall viewing experience. 92% of Americans
surveyed said that television contributes to crime (Medoff 258). This pertains to television as a
whole and its violent effects on viewers. The combination of violent commercials and programs
can be difficult to analyze, but it can be argued that violent advertisements not only affect
younger viewers aggressive cognitions, but they also affect the way children comprehend
violence in the succeeding shows.

Fehrenbach 3
A study performed by Barrie Gunter, Adrian Furnham, and Eleni Pappa involved
participants of varying ages being exposed to different combinations of violent and nonviolent
television advertisements and violent and nonviolent clips of television programs. The goal of
the study was to find out how well participants remembered violent advertisements compared to
nonviolent advertisements, and it took into account their moods and levels of hostility before and
after watching. Results showed that, the violent version of the target advertisement was
remembered much better than the nonviolent version when placed in the violent film sequence
(Gunter 1680). This proves that violent commercials and programs indeed have an effect on one
another because participants were able to remember the violent advertisement better when it was
shown in a more overall violent context. Furthermore, the study found that, Participants
hostility scores were higher only after watching the violent film, and associated with an
impairment in the memory of the nonviolent advertisements, while enhancing the memory of the
violent advertisement (Gunter 1680). Commercials are significant and violence within them,
along with violence in programs themselves, combine to have a blatantly negative effect on
viewers.
One aspect of Gunter, Furnham, and Pappis analysis of their study is refutable. Their
notion is that when a person is watching a violent show or program and an advertisement comes
on, the viewer gets distracted from watching and processing the commercial to handling the
feelings of anger and aggression brought on by the adjacent programs violence (Gunter 1681).
However, I believe that violent advertising naturally provides viewers with more content to
become angrier about, especially for children, whose minds and ideals are still malleable and
who are constantly observing and learning new things. This differs from Gunter, Furnham, and
Pappis breakdown of the situation because my argument states that violent advertisements

Fehrenbach 4
actually make viewers more apt to noticing and acknowledging violent features of television
programs. Moreover, the short-term effectiveness of advertisements hits the viewer quickly,
while content within programs has to be developed throughout the duration of the show.
This brings to mind the next reason supporting my argument: the short-term nature of
television commercials. As Norman J. Medoff and Barbara K. Kaye state in their textbook about
electronic media, most television commercials are 30 seconds in length, but they can also run for
15, 45, or 60 seconds (Medoff 140). Television advertisements have always had to fulfill their
goals in a very short amount of time. Although this may seem to contradict the argument that
violent advertisements can have a significantly negative effect on children, the fact that
television commercials have to be so short makes it so that they also have to be extremely
impactful and stimulating.
The various writers of the article, The Influence of Media Violence in Youth, state that,
Media violence produces short-term increases [of aggression and violence] by priming existing
aggressive scripts and cognitions, increasing physiological arousal, and triggering an automatic
tendency to imitate observed behaviors (Anderson 81). In spite of this statement pertaining to
violent media in general, it can easily be applied to advertising. These specific triggers of shortterm media violence are also general goals that advertisers have in order to make viewers
recognize and desire whatever product or service they are advertising.
To relate these actions specifically to violence in advertising regarding children, E.
Deanne Brocato, Douglas A. Gentile, Russell N. Laczniak, Julia A. Maier, and Mindy Ji-Song
confirmed that, repeated exposures to violence [in advertising] are thought to be especially
problematic in that the violent cognitions generated serve as learning trials in which aggressive
knowledge structures are rehearsed, reinforced, and updated (Brocato). This thought that

Fehrenbach 5
repetitive contact with violent commercials is problematic for children because, once again,
television advertisers try to make viewers remember their specific commercial. According to
Medoff and Kaye, television advertising commands viewers attention and makes them
remember slogans, jingles, mottos, and, most importantly to my argument, the nature and overall
sensation of a commercial (Medoff 142). This effective comparison of the overall nature and
goal of television advertising (Medoffs statement) and the resulting effect due to remembrance
(Brocatos statement) goes to further solidify the effectiveness of short-term, quick-hitting
advertising in relation to featured violent content.
The relative length of commercials on childrens television programs has decreased
throughout the last four decades. Data collected in the early 1970s showed that about 20-25% of
the airtime on childrens Sunday morning cartoon channels was dedicated to advertisements
(Calvert 213). In 1975, the National Association of Broadcasters was persuaded to regulate this
allocation, and the association lowered the permitted commercial time to 15% during childrens
programs (Calvert 213). Nonetheless, the amount of commercials stayed the same; the airtime of
each commercial was changed from 60 seconds to 30 seconds (Calvert 213). Once again, in the
mid-1980s, a study was done which demonstrated that the amount of television advertisements
on childrens channels had increased because the individual length of each commercial changed
from 30 seconds to 15 seconds (Calvert 213). These drastic changes in the amount and length of
commercials aired may seem to disagree with the proposed argument, but shortened commercials
can have just as much of an effect on viewers, especially children. If anything, the transformation
of commercials on childrens television simply makes advertisements less similar to television
programs, which in turn makes viewers more likely to watch them closely and be mentally
affected by them due to their immediate impact. In the article, Television Commercial

Fehrenbach 6
Violence, the writers observe that, it appears that even a brief exposure to a violent episode
(such as one located within a 15 or 30-second television commercial) can lead children to
formulate aggressive cognitions, since the violence could easily reinforce aggression-related
memory structures (Brocato 98). The significance of Calvert and Brocatos reports are that
although commercials that contain violent content are shorter than television programs that also
contain violent content, this makes the violent advertisements unique and more impactful. This
then causes children viewers to develop aggressive cognitions and alters their overall thought
process while watching television so that the programs themselves seem to be more violent than
they truly are.
In the United States, the average child will have spent 33,000 hours watching television
by the time they graduate high school, which accounts for about 2.5 times as many hours they
will have spent in school (Medoff 264). The prevalence of mass media, and specifically
television, is daunting in our society. This includes the importance of violent advertising on
television for children. The writers of the article, The Influence of Media Violence on Youth,
sum it up well: Surveys reveal an extensive presence of violence in modern media.
Furthermore, many children and youth spend an inordinate amount of time consulting violent
media (Anderson 81). Modern media and television are saturated with advertisements, and
those that include violent content cannot be avoided by children due to the amount of television
they watch.
Sandra L. Calvert approaches the topic from a standpoint that does not necessarily
address the violent aspect of advertising for children. However, her argument can still be viewed
as relative to the situation because it has become an accepted thought that violence is prominent
in advertising for children, and that children are negatively affected by it. children live and

Fehrenbach 7
grow up in a highly sophisticated marketing environment that influences their preferences and
behaviors (Calvert 205). The influential nature of advertising on children is very significant
here. Calverts argument further refutes Gunter, Furnham, and Pappas belief that violent
television programs exert more influence over a viewer than violent advertisements do. Gunter,
Furnham, and Pappa fail to acknowledge the true significance of advertising and the impact it
can have on children.
In their article titled, Violence and Advertising, Nora J. Rifon, Marla B. Royne, and Les
Carlson address the importance of advertising and its violent aspect perfectly. The recent
intermingling of advertising and entertainment content points to the pivotal role of advertising
for defining cultural norms and influencing behaviors of violence, abuse to others and self, and
neglect (Rifon 9). This is a powerful summation of the point that violence in advertising has a
great effect on viewers. The writers of the article more than adequately relate the significance of
advertising in society by stating that advertising defines cultural norms. It takes a lot for
something to define cultural norms, and the idea that advertising, and more specifically violent
television advertising, does so just continues to support the main argument of this essay and
counters Gunter, Furnham, and Pappas opinion. Combining Rifon, Royne, and Carlsons above
statement with this following statistic from Calvert also helps: children view approximately
40,000 advertisements every year (Calvert 206).
One last aspect of violent television advertising and its effects on children concerns the
vulnerability of children. Children are not mentally or socially aware enough to handle violent
advertising. Violent advertising will inevitably have a negative effect on someone who is still
learning their own ideals and morals of life, like a child. Adding this basic postulation to the

Fehrenbach 8
apparent adoration that children hold toward television in general, and the emerging negative and
aggressive cognitions in children are not surprising.
According to Calvert, children go through different stages of understanding commercial
messages: preoperational thought (ages 2-7), concrete operational thought (ages ages 7-11), and
formal operational thought (ages 12 and above) (Calvert 214-215). When children reach each of
these three cognitive developmental stages, they innately gain the mental capacity to understand
advertisements more and more. Within the preoperational stage, children view commercials
simply for how the product looks and believe in imaginary features of the ad; within the concrete
operational stage, children begin to understand that the motive behind advertisements is a profit
for the producer; and by the formal operational stage, adolescents have the ability to think
abstractly and may even begin to become skeptical about advertisements (Calvert 214-215).
Even though each of these stages, which were thought of by Jean Piaget and are based in the
studies of psychology and sociology, make it seem like children would become less prone to
violent advertising as time goes on, I believe that children are susceptible to violent advertising
on television no matter their stage of cognitive development. Childrens minds are still
malleable, and although they may not understand the true motives of advertising when they are
younger, the impactful and quick-hitting essence of violent advertising still greatly shapes their
personal development and aggressive perceptions.
Brocato, Gentile, Laczniak, Maier, and Ji-Song brought to the light the idea that children
do not understand the actual definition of violence in their essay (Brocato 99). In a survey, the
writers asked a variety of children what they thought violence in media meant. Many of the
replies they received had to do solely with the role of blood and gore (Brocato 99). According to
the essay, violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of

Fehrenbach 9
physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group
or community that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in an injury, death,
psychological harm, mal-development or deprivation (Brocato 96). The difference between the
childrens perceived definition of violence and the actual, detailed version of the definition is
eye-opening. This is not to blame the children for not knowing what violence in media really is,
but it helps to explain how childrens vulnerability adds to their potential to be affected by
violent television advertising. there is a concern that since they [children] are unaware of the
violence [in advertising] they may not be able to psychologically resist its effects (Brocato 99).
The striking nature of television advertising also comes in play here. While television programs
usually need to take time to develop and completely make sense, advertisements can affect a
child immediately. This notion and Brocato, Gentile, Laczniak, Maier, and Ji-Songs proposal
correlate directly with the main evidence behind the claim that because children are mentally and
socially vulnerable, violent television advertising can affect them greatly, even more so than
violent content in a television program would.
All of these major parts of violent advertising on television come together to prove that
children are affected greatly by violent advertising on television. Furthermore, the influence of
violent advertising on children innately causes them to be more observant regarding violent
content on television, which means that violent television programs appear more violent than
they actually are to children. Television is believed to be the most persuasive advertising medium
(Medoff 140). The combination of audio and visual components captures viewers attention more
than other forms of media (Medoff 140). Violent television advertising has the potential to
adversely change the lives of young viewers. The components of this essay address a variety of

Fehrenbach 10
facets within the ongoing conversation of violent television advertising and its effects on
children.

Fehrenbach 11
Works Cited
Anderson, Craig A., Leonard Berkowitz, Edward Donnerstein, L. Rowell Huesmann, James D.
Johnson, Daniel Linz, Neil M. Malamuth, and Ellen Wartella. "The Influence of Media
Violence on Youth." Psychological Science in the Public Interest 4.3 (2003): 81-110.
Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
Brocato, E. Deanne, Douglas A. Gentile, Russell N. Laczniak, Julia A. Maier, and Mindy JiSong. "Television Commercial Violence." Journal of Advertising 39.4 (2010): 95-108.
Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
Calvert, Sandra L. "Children as Consumers: Advertising and Marketing." The Future of Children
18.1 (2008): 205-34. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
Gunter, Barrie, Adrian Furnham, and Eleni Pappa. "Effects of Television Violence on Memory
for Violent and Nonviolent Advertising." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35.8
(2005): 1680-697. Wiley Online Library. Wiley, 31 July 2006. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
Medoff, Norman J., and Barbara K. Kaye. Electronic Media: Then, Now, and Later. Burlington,
MA: Focal, 2011. Print.
Rifon, Nora J., Marla B. Royne, and Les Carlson. "Violence and Advertising." Journal of
Advertising 39.4 (2010): 9-10. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.