The official blog of John Quinn's media effects research study! Ever wondered why some people bash each others brains out in the garden after watching wrestling?........if so read on...oh and its best to read this page from the bottom upwards!!


Tuesday 20 November 2007

Another journal article

John Quinn

MPhill/PhD – Media effects

7th November 2007 D.O.S. John Robertson




Review of the Tamborini et.al. article ‘The Raw Nature of Televised Professional Wrestling: Is the Violence a Cause for Concern?, in the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media – June 2005

Summary

With regard to the title of this article, it is clear from the discussion of the results that the authors’ answers are yes; yes the violence in televised wrestling is indeed a cause for concern. Furthermore, the researchers concluded form the data collected, that the violence in wrestling is both greater in content, and different in context, from other forms of broadcast television violence, proposing that the violence in TV wrestling is unremitting, unpunished, presented as justified, yet lacking extreme harm. (Tamborini et al. 2005:216) Encouraging the conclusion that violence occurs with much grater frequency in TV wrestling, is the data from table 1. This data suggests that wrestling was the only form of US prime time broadcast television that had violence in 100% of its programming, and also indicated that TV wrestling had the highest rate of violent interactions per hour of all of the sample programming. (Tamborini et al. 2005:210)

Directly related to this frequency of violence, the table 1 data further suggested that 23% of all violent interactions in TV wrestling were extreme (containing more than 21 individual acts of violence), almost 3 times that of movies broadcast on TV, where 8% of all violent interactions were extreme. (Tamborini et al. 2005:211) One of the key findings that emerged form the study, however, was the data concerning motivation for this violence. The researchers found that 58% of the violence in TV wrestling was mandated (violent acts compelled by the rules of the ‘sport’) and accordingly questioned whether or not this form of mandatory violence, given the nature of the acts, was perceived as justified by the viewer, and that if this perception of justification reduced the consumers inhibitions against aggressive behaviour. (Tamborini et al. 2005:216)

Furthermore, the study’s finding that the remaining 42% of violence in TV wrestling was un-mandated, suggested that a large proportion of the violence in TV wrestling was not justified as the consequences of a ‘sporting’ contest, such as in boxing, and that 94% of all violence went unpunished. (Tamborini et al. 2005:216) The researchers proposed that this distances TV wrestling form sports violence, and that it should be included in the broader debate over TV violence due to the diversity of motivations for violence represented throughout the broadcasts. (Tamborini et al. 2005:217)

Turning to the inhibition of imitative behaviour related to wrestling, Table 2 of the study found that 0% of all violence represented in TV wrestling suggested consequences resulting in extreme harm, and further found that 16% of the representations of the consequences of violence resulted in an unrealistic representation of the level of harm expected. (Tamborini et al. 2005:213) From this data the researchers concluded that, whereas the realistic representation of harm resulting from TV violence may inhibit imitative behaviour, the often unrealistic, and non extreme portrayals of the consequences of violence in TV wrestling may reduce this inhibition. This train of thought was continued by the study, which found that 91% of the violence in TV wrestling was conducted by ‘natural means’ (Tamborini et al. 2005:206) (kicking, punching etc.), enabling easier imitation than other forms of TV violence that utilise different means. (Such as controlled weapons which can be hard to come by.)

This concern over the possibility of imitative behaviour came to the forefront in the study’s analysis of the data. Tamborini et al. (2005) suggested that the unique lack of realism related to the consequences of violence in TV wrestling, combined with varying degrees of fantasy-reality distinction ability throughout the whole demographic, and the frequency of representations of extreme violence, makes further examination of TV wrestling violence ‘obligatory’. (Tamborini et al. 2005:218) Due mainly to the potential for harmful outcomes related to the consumption of TV wrestling.

Discussion

The concerns expressed by Tamborini et al. (2005), relating to the perceptual difference between TV wrestling violence and other types of ‘sports violence’ seems to corroborate the findings of the earlier ITC report on qualitative research on the audience’ perception of TV wrestling. (ITC 2001) The ITC report found that the vast majority of TV wrestling viewers considered TV wrestling to be entertainment rather than sport, and that this perception was, in part, related to the unrealistic representations of the consequences of violence compared to other sports. From this data therefore, it is possible postulate that TV wrestling violence is perceived as different from other forms of sports violence, (ITC 2001 p:9) and as such one can draw a correlation to Tamborini et al. (2005) and the reduction of inhibition toward imitation as being related to the unrealistic portrayal of the consequences of the violence showcased on TV wrestling. This can be seen to be evidenced by the data from the ITC report that suggested the vast majority of young male viewers do imitate TV wrestling. (ITC 2001 p:71) However, to further illustrate this point, one could hypothesise that less boxing viewers would be inclined to imitate the actions of a boxing bout due to the graphic depictions of the actual bodily harm that are seen to be the result of the violence in boxing.

Furthermore, the ITC report concluded that the majority of TV wrestling viewers can rationally identify TV wrestling as staged; with even the very young questioning the actuality of what they see. (ITC 2001 p:12) It is possible to suggest therefore, that potential imitation inhibiting factors such as fear of pain and adverse physical consequences are reduced by; the highly ostensive actions of the TV wrestlers (ITC 2001 p:57), the absence of representations of extreme harm, the regular unrealistic representations of the consequences of violence, (Tamborini et al. 2005 p:213) and serve to encourage viewers to recreate what they see. However the ITC report also concludes that the parents of many children involved in imitative behaviour related to wrestling believe the behaviour to be an inevitable part of childhood (ITC 2001 p:73-75), of course it is possible to suggest that this is also due to the parent sharing the same perception as the child, as is indeed frequently alluded to throughout the ITC report.

Nonetheless both papers agree that the portrayal of violence in TV wrestling is a necessary area for study, due to the potential for, and actual instances of, imitation (Tamorini et al. 2005 p:218, ITC 2001 p:86) and raise significant research questions relating to the possible cause of such behaviour.


Arising Research Questions

Does the highly ostensive performance of TV wrestlers encourage copycat behaviour in audiences, and if so why?

If TV wrestling’s performances were less ostensive, would there be less audience imitation, and if so why?

Does the justification of violence through mandating in TV wrestling encourage the audience to see violence as a just means of problem solving, and if so what facilitates this reasoning?

Can TV wrestling violence be considered ‘sporting violence’?

Does the audiences’ perception of wrestling as ‘staged’ encourage them to feel that imitation is not dangerous?

When imitating TV wrestling, are the participants recreating the ostensive performances of the wrestlers, with little or no intention of harming their colleagues, or do they intend to cause actual harm?

____________________

Independent Television Commission (ITC) (2001) WRESTLING: How do audiences perceive TV and video wrestling? [Online] Winchester: Independent Television Commission. Accessed: [28 October 2007] Available:http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/research/wrestling_how_do _viewers.doc

Tamborini, R. et al. (2005). The Raw Nature of Televised Professional Wrestling: Is the violence a cause for concern? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media [Online] Vol. 49 (2) p. 202. Available: InfoTrac [28 October 2007].

Monday 19 November 2007

Psychological Implications

John Quinn

MPhill/PhD – Media effects

12th November 2007 D.O.S. John Robertson

Review of Bernthal & Medway (2005), An Initial Exploration into the Psychological Implications of Adolescents’ Involvement with Professional Wrestling.

Summary

This study, in response to the growth in popularity of TV wrestling (which, by 2004 was in a period of decline) aimed to discuss the implications of consuming such violence on children. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:232) The study utilised 121 male participants aged 10 to 17, gathering data on their; level of involvement with wrestling, aggressive response to shame, school maladjustment, and level of self esteem/ sense of inadequacy, by means group surveys and questionnaires in the classroom environment. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:232-234)

The study provided results that suggested that children with a higher rate of involvement with wrestling (those children who not only consume TV wrestling programming, but also consume TV wrestling’s ancillary consumer products, imitate TV wrestlers’ actions and language, and whish to incorporate wrestling to their school syllabus (Bernthal & Medway 2005:241)) exhibit; a higher degree of aggressiveness, a moderately higher degree of school maladjustment, a higher degree of clinical maladjustment, and exhibit lower self esteem, than those children with a lesser rate of involvement. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:235) Nonetheless, the results from the analysis of data indicated that the levels of each of the dependant measures targeted by the study, fell comfortably inside the average limits, and did not indicate clinical maladjustment. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:235)

The development of wrestling’s content, namely its themes, when compared to that of amateur wrestling, were seen by the researchers as potentially detrimental to the well being of children. Furthermore, the discussion suggested that themes such as violence, racism, and winning by any means necessary, when represented through the medium of professional wrestling, are especially dangerous to children, as they have difficulty differentiating reality from fact. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:236) Interestingly, the discussion continues to propose that the data from the study suggests increased clinical maladjustment in children preoccupied with TV wrestling, yet refuses to conclude that wrestling involvement results in negative outcomes in children, instead suggesting only an association. This notwithstanding, the study then postulates that future studies may find that total immersion in the TV wrestling culture is particularly harmful for children, as compared to television consumption alone.

Attention is paid, throughout the discussion, to the moral value of the messages offered by the ancillary products of World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE), in relation to the psychological development of adolescents, suggesting that this increases the potential harm of TV wrestling as compared to cartoon violence. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:238) The researchers also suggested that their study concurred with earlier research, suggesting that wrestling involvement is associated with school problems and risk taking, and further proposed that schools should distance themselves form WWE, as educators are most likely are ignorant to the potential damage that may arise from immersion in WWE culture. The authors suggest the use of specific educational media to tackle the problem of wrestling’s relationship to wider violence in society. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:238-239)

Discussion

This article, intended to discuss the psychological implications of wrestling consumption on children, to the ends of alerting ignorant educators to the potential harm caused by such consumption; however it is possible to suggest that the article failed in its intentions by evaluating the evidence provided. To begin, the authors make reference to a high degree of ignorance regarding the content of wrestling amongst educators in the U.S.; yet do not provide any empirical evidence supporting this assumption, furthermore the sample consisted entirely of males to the exclusion of females, which is unrepresentative of the TV wrestling audience demographic exposed in the 2001 ITC study on audience perceptions of TV wrestling (ITC 2001:8-14).

Some indicators of inaccurate data occur early in the article, such as the categorisation of WWE Smackdown! as a U.S. cable T.V. show (Bernthal & Medway 2005:227), when in fact, it was at the time of the study, broadcast on the U.S. network TV channel UPN. A further suggestion is made that viewers of TV wrestling imitate both the actions and the vocabulary of the in ring performers, and while this may be somewhat evident when observing TV wrestling broadcasts, the statement is not linked to any empirical data. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:229) The study suggests that professional wrestling, in comparison to other sports, has little control or regulation of its integral violence, and as such treats wrestling as a form of sport. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:229) This seems to contradict the study’s earlier description of professional wrestling as entertainment (Bernthal & Medway 2005:225-226), and casts a shadow over the validity of the comparison, when one looks to the existing literature such as the earlier ITC study that suggests the vast majority of TV wrestling viewers do not perceive wrestling to be a sport (ITC 2001:12), or the findings of Tamborini et al. (2005) that propose the violence in TV wrestling can not be treated as an example of sports violence

Whereas the study intended to examine the potential negative psychological effects of adolescents involvement with wrestling culture (Bernthal & Medway 2005:230), it is possible to suggest that the study does the reverse and examines the potential of adolescents encumbered by negative psychological positions, to have a tendency toward involvement with the pro wrestling culture. This postulation is derived from the inability of the data to suggest that pro wrestling consumption is the cause of school mal-adjustment, aggressiveness, and perceived inadequacy, rather, suggesting only that there is an association between the most avid consumers and heightened negative psychological effects. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:231) Could one not in the same vein suggest therefore, that such consumers bring existing problems with them to the consumption of wrestling culture, a point which the study touches upon itself (Bernthal & Medway 2005:231), and that the narrative form of wrestling may be a symptom of their condition.

As discussed in the summary above, the article suggests that pro wrestling has changed vastly in terms of its thematic orientations over the last twenty years, in comparison to amateur wrestling (Bernthal & Medway 2005:236), and acknowledges, all-be-it inconsistently, wrestling’s status as entertainment as opposed to sport. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:225) Yet the discussion fails to mention the related thematic changes across the rest of TV entertainment, such as the similarities mentioned by Tamorini et al. (2005), preferring to contrast professional wrestling with a sport that it intentionally distanced itself form. This comparison may seem valid if it is intended to highlight to someone who may be ignorant of the change in direction of wrestling, the new narrative format of the spectacle, but seems inappropriate in so far as highlighting the genre as a particular threat. It is possible to make such a suggestion as the study itself purports that wrestling fans enjoy wrestling as it is ‘sheer entertainment’ (Bernthal & Medway 2005:226) and therefore do not see it as sport. As such, to truly evaluate the potential damage TV wrestling may cause should one not contrast the thematic content of TV wrestling with other entertainment TV content?

Another point the article makes, which is echoed in the Tamborini et al. article (Tamborini 2005:217), is that children have difficulty in differentiating fantasy from fact, yet again, unlike Tamborini et al., the article does not support this position with evidence. Therefore it is possible to look to the ITC report, which suggests that the majority of TV wrestling viewers (even young children) can interpret wrestling as fantasy, as contradictory evidence. (ITC 2001 P:12) The article further suggests that due to the rapid physical and social changes that occur during adolescence, the vulnerable proportion of the wrestling audience may be morally corrupted by unsuitable messages in WWE merchandising. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:238) Here Bernthal and Medway seem to take a somewhat subjective view of what constitutes acceptable product content, while it is possible that many parents may find some WWE slogans morally unacceptable, no evidence is presented as to whether they do or don’t.

Throughout the article, reference is made to the theoretical position that a preoccupation with professional wrestling culture is harmful (Bernthal & Medway 2005:236), yet the article does clearly set out just what constitutes a preoccupation, other than the point system for measuring wrestling involvement mentioned in the methodology. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:226) While this point system can be seen to measure an individual’s involvement with professional wrestling, it does not appear to indicate the level to which the individual is preoccupied with professional wrestling, as it fails to draw comparisons between the level of involvement with wrestling as opposed to other forms of leisure, entertainment and sport.

By far the most concerning issue raised by the study, is its inconsistency over the existence of clinical maladjustment related to wrestling consumption. When reporting the results, Bernthal and Medway suggested that children more involved with professional wrestling exhibited more clinical maladjustment (Bernthal & Medway 2005:235), yet concluded later in the same paragraph that the behavioural levels exposed in the study in no way reached those of clinical maladjustment. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:235) Nonetheless, in their discussion of the results on the next page, Bernthal and Medway stated that the data showed that heightened wrestling involvement was associated with increased clinical maladjustment, making it clear one paragraph later however; that this association is not conclusive of cause. (Bernthal & Medway 2005:236)

In short the article appears to suggest a correlation between heightened wrestling viewing and some negative psychological traits, but in no clear way suggests a cause for these traits, yet still concludes that those with a duty of care towards adolescents should distance them from the products of the WWE.

____________________

Bethnal, M. & Medway, F. (2005) An Initial Exploration into the Psychological Implications of Adolescents’ Involvement with Professional Wrestling. School Psychology International [Online] Vol.29 p.224 Available: InfoTrac [28 October 2007]

Independent Television Commission (ITC) (2001) WRESTLING: How do audiences perceive TV and video wrestling? [Online] Winchester: Independent Television Commission. Accessed: [28 October 2007] Available:http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/research/wrestling_how_do_viewers.doc

Tamborini, R. et al. (2005). The Raw Nature of Televised Professional Wrestling: Is the violence a cause for concern? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media [Online] Vol. 49 (2) p. 202. Available: InfoTrac [28 October 2007]

Thursday 8 November 2007

The Regulators take

John Quinn

MPhill/PhD – Media effects

30th October 2007 D.O.S. John Robertson


A review of the 2001 report on the Cragg Ross Dawson qualitative research, commissioned by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), the Independent Television Commission (ITC) and the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC), concerning how viewers perceive TV and video wrestling



Introduction

The study, commissioned by the BBFC, ITC, and BSC, was intended to provide the three bodies, (who where at the time of publication, responsible for providing guidance to consumers and broadcasters as to the rules in respect of the showing of violence[1]) with an insight into how viewers perceive TV and video wrestling. The viewers’ perception of the product was deemed highly important to the regulatory bodies, as the nature of the broadcasts lay, in some ambiguity, between that of sport and entertainment, and as a result, the bodies were uncertain of how the violent content of the programming would be understood by the viewer. As such, a need had been identified to understand if wrestling viewers perceived the violent and anti-social exchanges shown by the programming as real, and if this perception of reality affected the appeal of the product.[2]

The data from the study was to be used to inform thinking on how the bodies could regulate this particular form of broadcasting and video distribution. The study intended to investigate:[3]

o Whether the viewer considered the violence real.

o What pleasure arose form watching wrestling.

o The demographic differences of understanding.

o The differences relating to product provider and broadcast platform

The methodology was entirely qualitative and utilised; group discussion, extended group discussion with observation, individual interviews, and paired interviews. The sample was divided into six age brackets to represent the wide diversity of audience, and biased towards the male and social groups BC1C2. The sample was controlled for levels of interest in viewing wrestling, and delivery platform.[4]

Review

The report concluded that on the basis of the study’s data, most of the wrestling consumption utilised broadcast television, and suggested that this was due to the open ended and episodic nature of TV wrestling’s narrative form, relegating video consumption to that of the ‘keep sake’.[5] The study found that dedicated fans routinely time shifted late night broadcasts of wrestling, circumventing the watershed, while casual viewers only consumed the pre-watershed broadcasts. The report seemed to suggest that as parents can often be casual viewers, they seen no need to police the time shifting of post-watershed productions.[6]

The data indicated that the WWF (now WWE) was the most popular brand of wrestling, and that due to the episodic/open ended narrative form, dedicated viewers (regardless of age) are highly motivated to consume post-watershed productions via time shifting. The report highlighted a propensity toward group consumption, resulting the generation of a robustly energetic atmosphere, with females viewing to facilitate socially inclusive conversation. (So they know what the boys were talking about)[7]

On the notion of perception of the wrestling product, the report concluded that the viewer considered wrestling to be entertainment rather than sport, and that as of 2000, wrestling was the one of the vogue forms of televised entertainment. This conclusion was derived form the viewers’ interpretation of the physical actions of the wrestlers, who seemed unconstrained by the rules and normal physical limitations associated with such actions. The report suggested that this observation lead many viewers to postulate, through comparing wrestling to other forms of sport, that some form of scripting is involved in the outcome of the matches.[8]

The data indicated that the appeal of wrestling and the associated pleasures vary according to demographic group, and identified the main attractions as; amusement related to ‘over the top antics’, appreciation of the athletic skill of the performers, excitement derived form the energetic narrative, tension derived from the narrative, sexual attraction, and the episodic structure.[9] The data indicated that males of 12 and under, along with dedicated adult male fans, were most attracted to the actual physical action of the wrestling moves, with the casual viewer preferring the storyline/atmosphere.[10] Sexual attraction was assumed to be a minor but contributory factor to the female participants viewing, while sexual titillation was identified as a growing source of appeal for all the male demographics.[11]

The report suggested that the physical action between the wrestlers (violence) is more central to the appeal of wrestling than most fans know themselves, and proposes that adults are less inclined to discuss the possibility that they are attracted to the violence.[12] From the observational data, a correlation was made between the severity of violence shown and the acuteness of the participant’s attention, were the greater the former the greater later.[13] However the study, suggested that the participants felt it was more respectable to appreciate the showmanship, and skills of the performer rather than the violence.

On the matter of whether or not the viewer perceived TV wrestling as ‘real’, the report concluded that the vast majority of consumers can rationally identify the action as ‘not real’, with the exceptions being some young children and some casual viewers, who nonetheless still question themselves as to the reality of the action. [14] The findings detail some of the perceptions that allude to the ‘staging’ of TV wrestling, namely; the occasional non-connecting punches, the implausibility of the wrestlers’ recuperative powers, the non-sporting nature of many of the bouts, and an underlying confidence that many of the occurrences in TV wrestling would not be sanctioned if it were a real sport.[15] The discussion further suggested that viewers may feel comfortable enjoying the violence due to them perceiving the action as ‘pretend’.[16]

However the report concluded that whilst viewing the texts, consumers often suspend their disbelief, momentarily treating the action as real, during TV wrestling’s most extreme moments, and stresses the perceived importance of novelty on maintaining this heightened enjoyment. [17] The study suggested that connected to this is the utilisation of the TV soap narrative form, making grudges more plausible and building up anticipation for bouts.[18]

The report could not determine how consumer’s reactions to wrestling are mediated by their level of appreciation, suggesting that this is due to the individual consumers not knowing to what extent the action is controlled themselves,[19] and furthermore, alluded to an uncertainty over how TV wrestling should be viewed in relation to other forms of mediated violence. This was attributed to the centrality of violence to the narrative in wrestling, whereas, in other forms, the violence is subservient to the plot. [20]

Nonetheless, the study highlighted a number of concerns over TV wrestling, while conceding that the majority of TV wrestling consumers perceived TV wrestling as harmless entertainment, a small minority of casual viewers were concerned about the effect more graphic depictions of physical harm may have on younger viewers[21] Furthermore the study found that the vast majority of the boys included in the sample engaged in imitation of TV wrestling – which included the re-enactment of weapons use resulting in physical harm.[22] However analysis of the data found that the majority of parents attributed this to the inevitability of children to copy what they see on television, with only a few concerned about the depictions of weapons use, with the general belief of the parents being that the children who imitate wrestling were involved in tame or innocuous play.[23] A minority of parents did however raise concerns, when prompted that the unrealistic portrayal of the consequences of violence would lead children to misunderstand the results of violent behaviour.[24]

In conclusion, the study suggested that from a regulatory standpoint, TV wrestling should be monitored on its continuing development of innovation of portrayals of violence, as this area is the one that intends on shocking the viewer into suspending their disbelief through increasingly extreme (looking) content.[25]

Discussion

From analysis of the commissioning bodies’ guidelines, what seems to have been their main concern was whether or not TV wrestling can be attributed to the normalising of violence as an easily imitated means of solving social problems, and to explore this, the study concentrated on how the audience perceives the product, and how that perception affects its appeal. What emerged form the data was that the majority of young male viewers imitated, in some form or another, the violent action shown by TV wrestling broadcasts. However interestingly, the data also suggested that the level of showmanship affects how the viewer will perceive the violence.[26] The greater the showmanship, the greater the perception of illusion, in essence, if there is a high degree of showmanship, consumers would perceive the violence of wrestling to be sufficiently ‘staged’ to allow them to enjoy its consumption. Therefore any wrestling that has suitably low levels of showmanship would appear to be ‘real’.

From the participants’ data in section D 1.2.1, it is clear that Backyard wrestling was used as an example of this lack of showmanship indicating ‘reality’, however the research team were ignorant to the existence of this type of video. Therefore, it is possible to suggest from this data that the consumer of TV wrestling can determine the difference between mainstream professional wrestling, which presents tightly controlled simulations of violence, and backyard wrestling which presents much less controlled simulations, by interpreting the level of showmanship. Mainstream wrestling utilises, larger athletes, costume, pyrotechnics, live audiences and live broadcasting, whereas, backyard wrestling utilises non of the above, and generally appears to have little showmanship as one participant notes: ‘It was fights in car parks with glass in their hands and things like that.’[27] As such it is possible to postulate that TV wrestling is differentiated from reality through its aesthetics, and that these aesthetics help the consumer to understand that the violence is illusory.

What became clear from the data is that most of the audience, even dedicated fans, were not sure as to the extent of the control of violence in TV wrestling. Many in the study believed that in-ring bloodshed was achieved by way of special effects capsule, when in reality bloodletting in TV wrestling happens accidentally (via a mistake on the part of one of the wrestlers), or is pre-planned and achieved by a competitor ‘bladeing’ themselves, that is to cut themselves along the frown lines with a small razor blade. It is possible to suggest therefore, that the misconception here encourages a less barbaric reading of TV wrestling than is actually the case, where the assumption of special effects makes more palatable the self mutilation inflicted by the wrestler. This aspect of wrestling perception appears to become cyclical, where in order to better the illusion of actual violence, TV wrestling promotes actual self harm, which is in turn, through the audiences’ perception of wrestling as ‘fake’, is seen as illusory.

The report raised the concern that such perceptions could result in the misconception in some that bleeding, along with the remarkable recuperative powers of the wrestlers, does not indicate serious injury, and that this would damage an individuals understanding of the consequences of violent action. However it is possible to suggest, from the study’s own conclusion that the majority of fans understand that wrestling is not ‘real’, that such representations are in fact key indicators of wrestling’s pretence, and serve to detach wrestling from reality.

Another point of interest, directly related to the above, was that fans appeared to become more focused on the product when the violence took a more extreme approach to the simulation of violence, but however the study did not attempt to understand why this might be the case, only noting that often innovation based on this type of action was a major contributory factor to the appeal of TV wrestling. In section D 2.2.7, the report details the results of collages made by the participants to reflect the nature of TV wrestling. Form the data collected form these collages it is possible to suggest that children constructed collages that reflected the agonic mode of group behaviour, choosing aggressive and assertive imagery, that suggests the struggle for dominance. Whereas the adults constructed collages more reflective of the hedonic mode of group behaviour with representation of slick and attractive images suggesting an appreciation of the Social Attention Holding Power of the wrestlers. [28]

Overall the study seemed to be successful in qualifying how audiences perceive TV wrestling, suggesting that the vast majority of consumers perceive TV wrestling as staged, un-damaging in terms of it normalising of violence, and that the imitation of wrestling is seen as an inevitable part of childhood, the study did however struggle to understand fully the appeal of TV wrestling. Nonetheless the study opened up through its analysis of data, some interesting areas for future research:

Research questions arising

o What is the appeal of TV wrestling?

o Why do viewers like wrestling more when it appears to become more extreme?

o Does exposure to the unrealistic representation of the effects of violence encourage the viewer to underestimate the consequences of violence?

o What drives young males to imitate the violent behaviour seen on TV?



[1] The Broadcasting Act (1996) required the ITC to provide guidance codes as relates to the rules of showing violence.

[2] Independent Television Commission, (2001)Wrestling: How do audiences perceive TV and Video wrestling , p:2 (A1)

[3] Ibid, p:3 (A2)

[4] Ibid, Appendix 1-3

[5] Ibid p:8 (C1)

[6] Ibid p:8 (C3)

[7] Ibid p:9 (C5)

[8] Ibid p:9 (C8)

[9] Ibid p:10 (C9)

[10] Ibid p:10 (C10)

[11] Ibid p:11 (C11)

[12] Ibid p:11 (C13)

[13] Ibid p:11 (C13)

[14] Ibid p:12 (C14)

[15] Ibid p:12 (C15 &C16)

[16] Ibid p:13 (C17)

[17] Ibid p:13 (C18 & c20)

[18] Ibid p:13(C19 & C21

[19] Ibid p:13 (C22)

[20] Ibid p:13 (C23)

[21] Ibid p:70 (D5)

[22] Ibid p:71-72 (D5.1)

[23] Ibid p:73-75 (D5.1)

[24] Ibid p:86 (D5.5)

[25] Ibid p:13 (C23)

[26] Ibid p:18 (D1.2.1)

[27] Ibid p:19 (D1.2.1)

[28] Ibid p:37

Friday 19 October 2007

Evolution: Changed Environmental Factors


Updated plan



Description of Study 17/10/07
(After Pg Cert. meeting)

Outline of proposed areas of inquiry & research:

Backyard wrestling is seen as a negative behavioural phenomenon that is directly attributable to the consumption of televised wrestling, we can infer from this that should there have been no televised wrestling - then there would be no backyard wrestling.

1. The first task of the study is to outline the problem of backyard wrestling, then review the academic literature that proposes there are negative behavioural effects related to the consumption of televised wrestling.


Here there could be a possible content analysis in which the study will determine how much of the behaviour is direct imitation of televised wrestling.

The study would like to suggest that only a minority of televised wrestling consumers reproduce wrestling in their ‘backyards’.

2. The second task of the study is to produce data quantifying the percentage of televised wrestling consumers who engage in backyard wrestling.

The study would like to suggest that as only a minority of televised wrestling consumers engage in backyard wrestling, the text itself can not be the only, or main cause for the existence of the phenomenon. The study would like to suggest that backyard wrestling is caused by a specific functioning of the human brain-mind in relation to changed environmental conditions.

3. The third task of the study is to test a strand of evolutionary psychology (as yet that strand is undecided) against the phenomenon.

i, This testing would include backyard wrestlers form different geographical locations

ii, The testing may take the form of questionnaire, survey, or ethnography.

iii, The testing may utilise a control based upon wrestling consumers who do not engage in the phenomenon.

Tuesday 16 October 2007

Jung


It suddenly occurred to me, just today, that due to the fact that Jung died in 1961, there is more than likely video footage of him.

So I checked Youtube and sure enough there he was.

I've put some of those videos up here (just below the WWE videos)

Thursday 11 October 2007

This is what I'm doing.....for the moment anyway!


Down in Ayr today I had an inpromtue chat with my DOS and a fellow PhD student, during the course of the conversation I was asked just what exactly it was that I would be studying, and for the first time I was able to give a pretty clear answer right off the bat!!


So I thought I'd write it down here in case I forget! (it has changed a little form the earlier post on my proposal)


here goes......


Backyard wrestling is the phenomenon of recreating wrestling events such as those broadcast by WWE in your back garden, parking lot, or anywhere else for that matter. In backyard wrestling one substitutes the materials used to produce WWE broadcasts (such as the ring) with various household items (see the backyard wrestling videos to the right) usually to devastating physical harm. For many. backyard wrestling is an excellent example of the media affecting the behaviour of its audience, as the backyard wrestlers, inspired and enthused by the slick televised product of WWE directly emulate what they see. Monkey see - monkey do?


But why then doesn't every WWE viewer engage in backyard wrestling, why is it only a small (usually male) minority?


This study proposes that the WWE texts are in themselves not the main reasons that backyard wrestlers do what they do, the study would like to suggest that there are other factors that represent the true cause of the problem - such as the theories offered by Evolutionary Psychology (EP). As such the study intends to test EP theory on behaviour against the culture of backyard wrestling looking to suggest that a number of bio-psychosocial factors cause the individuals to act the way they do when exposed to WWE texts.

Some empirical considerations:

1. who are the backyard wrestlers - what are there socioeconomic backgrounds?
2. how much of what they do is direct imitation?
3. when do they engage in backyard wrestling?


Wednesday 10 October 2007

A more sensible post

Figure 1


Today's PgCert. class was again very useful, today we discussed Kolb's theory of Experimental learning, and moved on to an analysis of figure 1 to the left. This figure represents a possible structure for a research study, and for me it is very clear that any research has to be grounded in existing knowledge, however when I applied the model to my past research project it became clear that the model did not work exactly as planed for me.





As such I propose that the model worked a little differently in my dissertation (figure 2) and will work a little differently in my PhD. In my research project I passed through the first four stages 3 separate times (the section highlighted in red in figure 2) This occurred because once I had formulated a hypothesis and began to design a way to test it, it became clear from that design that another bank of existing knowledge would have to be drawn on and the understanding of this branch of existing knowledge would influence the research area, questions and hypothesis.

My first attempt (the green line) wanted to know if there was an explanation in Jungian theory for the development of expressionist aesthetics in cinema, this stalled in the design stage as it became clear that expressionism was part of the wider movement of Modernism, and as such the study would have to go to this body of knowledge and follow the steps again incorporating the new knowledge( the blue line). Again however this failed at the design stage as it became clear that cinematic expressionism was the product of a particular cultural climate in Germany in the early 20th century - so it was back to existing knowledge to create the final hypothesis (the brown line) which successfully made it through the design phase and ran smoothly to the conclusion.

Figure 2.

And this is exactly how my PhD study has began, I've already done a few mini revolutions of the red section, and fully expect that in a year or so's time when I get to designing my project I'll probably have to revolve again.

5 - 0 Baby!!


Five n O!!!!!!!! - think the Monday night game between Dallas and Buffalo took a whole year off my life!!

This is not research related but It had to go up!!

woooooohooooooo!!!

Bring on the Pats!!!!


Tuesday 9 October 2007

Berger lays the smackdown on......... Smackdown!












.......And so to my comments on Arthur Asa Berger's take on the viewers of Smackdown! Recently, to inspire and re-familiarise myself with the general debate over 'media effects', I have been reading some undergraduate overviews of the media and its role in society. One of my favorite books on this topic has been Media & Society: a critical perspective. (Berger: 2003) The text provides lots of introductory tip bits for a whole range of media and behaviour related theory and arguments, from within the context of a 'chatty' and 'easy to read' discourse, and is the perfect read when you've burnt out a bit on journals.

However, in chapter 4 - Audiences:1 Categories, Berger discusses how we might categorise audiences through their membership of different political cultures, drawing on some unpublished work from Aaron Wildavsky. Berger cites Wildavsky's explanation for his four different political cultures that he believes comprise a democratic society, suggesting that pluralist democracy by definition demands more than one type of cultural group. Wildavsky proposed that the groups are separated by boundaries and prescriptions, those being obstacles to group membership, and behavioural norms that must be adhered to.

The four groups are as follows:

1. Fatalists - many prescriptions, boundaries weak.
2. Individualists - few prescriptions, boundaries weak.
3. Elitists - prescriptions numerous, boundaries strong.
4. Egalitarians - few prescriptions, boundaries strong.

Berger suggests fatalists are apolitical and feel victimised, individualists believe in limited government and free competition, elitists believe in the stratification of society, but feel obliged to 'take care' of those below them, and that egalitarians want to take care of everyone. Berger also suggests that each of these groups has a different pattern of mass media consumption, one that seeks to avoid cognitive dissonance and reinforce their particular values and beliefs.

So where does Smackdown! fit in? Berger suggests that the audience that consumes Smackdown! broadcasts are in the fatalist group - and berger goes further to suggest some other types of media that the fatalist smackdown audience might like to consume:

books: 1984
Film: Rambo
Music: Anarchy in the UK
Sport: Roller derby
Games: Russian Roulette

.....eh? OK, Rambo I understand - for its action sequences and even its ideology as the lone hero struggles against an unjust system, using violence to solve his problems - this is often mirrored in wrestling storylines. But Rambo is fighting a much more hopeless fight than is normal with the Smackdown! storylines, normally the hero in wrestling is motivated, upbeat and fighting for a something that will bring about real positive change for him and his followers. Wrestling is more like Rambo II and III, or maybe Commando, but I find it hard to equate Smackdown to 1984, maybe the Mr. McMahon character (the evil boss and chairman of the board of WWE) who watches over and dominates all the wrestlers is a little similar, but he is often ridiculed and reduced to nothing by the wrestlers in the course of a storyline to help the good guy win out in the end.

I think what we can take from Berger's categorisation of Smackdown! is that he feels the average Smackdown! viewer has been trampled into the ground by the state and capitalism, and is as a result generally disaffected with their lot. But as I think of my contemporaries who watch Smackdown! (of which there are many) I cant find any who really fit that category , or indeed consume the other texts mentioned by Berger. From my experience the people who watch smackdown! are generally happy, possibly apolitical (but that seems to be a trait throughout all pop culture), interested in other sports, spend large amounts of money on the product, and above all are looking to better themselves, just like the hero's on screen.

From my position, Smackdown! would seem to fit better with the individualists - but the most important point that seems to come out of this brief discussion is that a much more detailed study is required to truly categorise (if it is at all possible) the viewers of Smackdown!