Media effects are common occurrences, not confined to rare psychopaths

Evidence

This causal attribution makes internal pathology, rather than televised fare, a contributor to the harmful behavior. The problem with this explanation is that media effects are common occurrences, not rare ones. In the case of vicarious learning, virtually all viewers learn most, if not all, of the aggressive style of behavior being modeled (Bandura, 1965). In tests of performance effects of modeled aggression, it is not merely a few viewers who become more aggressive (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Similarly, habituation and desensitization to human cruelty through massive exposure to televised violence is a common emotion-blunting phenomenon, not a selectively rare one. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 922

Categorization

Category: Factual Claims

• QUESTION: Worth chasing the Anderson & Bushman 2001 and Bandura 1965 specifics — what does the actual effect size look like?

Related

• Media effects on aggression are common, not limited to the disturbed (similarity 0.94)
• Media violence shapes aggression potential far more than it triggers immediate acts (similarity 0.88)
• Viewing televised violence increases rather than reduces aggressive behavior. (similarity 0.84)
• Media violence teaches aggression, weakens restraint, desensitizes, and distorts perceived reality (similarity 0.84)
• Observed links between media violence and aggression have four rival causal explanations (similarity 0.83)
• No single cause explains aggression; multiple determinants always operate together (similarity 0.82)
• Viewing-aggression correlations can arise through bidirectional, spurious, and direct causal paths (similarity 0.81)
• Social science causality is established only through converging divergent methodologies (similarity 0.81)
• Harmful-effect deniers argue effects are both unknowable and benevolent (similarity 0.81)
• Media defenders dismiss negative effects as limited to rare psychopaths (similarity 0.81)
• Violence producers may become as desensitized as viewers to onscreen violence (similarity 0.81)
• Industry critics deploy contradictory arguments that media effects are both unknowable and beneficial (similarity 0.81)
• Media harm comes from glamorizing justified aggression, not from confusing viewers. (similarity 0.81)
• Televised violence harms nonviewers through emulation and victimization (similarity 0.81)
• Displacing blame onto viewers lets media deny televised violence causes harm (similarity 0.81)