Economic and structural forces, not human nature, explain televised violence.

Evidence

Finally, the widely shared misbelief throughout the broadcast industry that violence keeps programs on the air fosters its gratuitous use. Violence allegedly garners high ratings. Even though this idea is unfounded, if broadcasters believe it and their success rests precariously on ratings erroneously attributed to violence, they have a strong incentive to include beatings and killing in their programs. In sum, the answer to the abundance of televised violence lies more in production costs, program time constraints, a limited talent pool, and a mistaken belief about people’s craving for violence than in viewers’ supposedly base human nature. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 954 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Other researchers have demonstrated that, contrary to Allport’s argument, violence does not require a history of animosity at either the group or individual level. Weingast (1997) has shown that social groups can become poised for armed conflict, even when they have a history of good relations and a preference for peace, if political institutions fail to safeguard each group’s interests and mutual trust is undermined. At the individual level, experimental research has shown that organizational factors alone transform ordinary people with no personal pathologies or prior hostility into demons who torture and punish their victims for minor infractions or for no reason at all (e.g., Milgram, 1974; Zimbardo, 2004). … Such organizational factors include instructions that permit or legitimize the use of violence, a chain of command that relieves perpetrators of responsibility for their acts, the assignment of anonymous identities to perpetrators, and granting pervasive powers to perpetrators without threat of retaliation or sanctions. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 655 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

If violence does not sell, what accounts for its prevalence in televised fare? People’s television preferences are constrained by what they are given to choose from. Research during the early phase of television showed a marked discrepancy between what people would have liked to see on television and what they were shown. The offerings that are broadcast are determined mainly by commercial considerations. Programs that capture large audiences are discontinued if the people they attract do not fit the age or income categories that advertisers wish to influence. Popular programs that deliver the wrong kinds of viewers from a commercial standpoint are retired due to unfavorable “demographics” despite their wide acceptance because they fetch low advertising rates (Brown, 1971). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 943 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Institutional incentives, not human nature, drive televised violence. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 954; Televised violence reflects industry misbeliefs and constraints, not viewer demand. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 954; Broadcast economics limit televised conflict to physical violence between persons — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 949 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Institutional incentives, not human nature, drive televised violence. #corroborates (0.97) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 954
• The form of violence reflects institutional structure, not underlying hostility. #corroborates (0.93) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 655
• Violence persists on television because advertising demographics, not audience demand, drive programming #corroborates (0.93) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 943
• Televised violence reflects industry misbeliefs and constraints, not viewer demand. #expands (0.92) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 954