FORTY FIVE per cent of parents of first year, second level children allow them to watch films with an 18 certificate, according to a survey carried out by Marie Murray, principal clinical psychologist at St Joseph's Adolescent and Family Services Centre, Fairview, Dublin.
Two thirds of these parents do not ask their children about the type of videos they watch, while 52 per cent do not have rules on the types of videos their children watch. Forty nine per cent of parents were not usually there when their first year children watch videos.
First year students are usually 12 or 13 years old but 99 per cent reported that they had seen videos with a 5 certificate, while 97 per cent had watched films with an 18 certificate. Even more worryingly, 97 per cent had seen 18 certificate horror videos and 71 per cent had seen sexually explicit 18 certificate videos.
The top three favourite videos were The Terminator and Judgement Day, Boyz N the Hood and Good Fellas.
"A television and video are now regarded as essential furniture in Irish homes. Research indicates that the average television viewing time of children increases during primary school years up to three to five hours per day. The advent of cable channels and the emergence of the local video store has had a major cultural impact, extending viewing beyond the local and insular to the international," Murray told a recent multi disciplinary conference on "Key Approaches to Adolescence", organised by St Joseph's adolescent and family services centre.
The question of the impact of television violence on crime has been a growing subject of debate, with disagreement about whether there is a causal link between observing violent television and video and the escalation in violent activity among teenagers.
"Clinically violent activities have been reported after the viewing of certain videos. The serial killer Ted Bundy cautioned before his death that you do not know what you let into your homes with video. In a survey of psychiatrists belonging to the Royal College of Psychiatrists more than 81 per cent considered violent video to be a factor in children and adolescents lives. In two additional studies the relationship between the content of material viewed and the personality of the viewer was assessed with the conclusion that those more attracted to aggression also tend to watch videos of a more aggressive nature." Murray's survey, which is part of her PhD on teletherapy, showed that almost half of the students surveyed see video as true to life. One girl whose favourite video is very violent thinks that sexually explicit videos show "the facts of life". "What ideas has this 13 year old child about sexuality," asks Murray.
Her survey of 1,057 students (first to sixth year) found that 94 per cent watch videos because they are "good entertainment". In addition, seventy three per cent said videos "passed the time" and 80 per cent used video "to take away the pain in their lives".
MALES use videos more often to take away pain. Of those who strongly agreed that watching videos helps to "take away pain" 74 per cent were male and 26 per cent were female. "This perhaps says something about boys using video more perhaps they have less permission than girls to speak about their pain," commented Murray in the study.
One boy, whose mother was dead and who uses video to "take away pain" listed his favourite video type as horror and his favourite videos as The Fly, Childs Play 3 and Basic Instinct. Videos which "take away pain" are, according to respondents, action (including violent); thriller (including horror) and comedy.
A sub group the "crime group strongly agreed that they would get their ideas on how to commit a crime from video. Of these, 67 per cent were male and 33 per cent were female.
Their video preference differs from the general population in that their third choice is not comedy like the "pain group" but sexually explicit films. They began watching video early and 95 per cent saw 18 certificate films before the age of 18. Those whose preferred choice were horror sexually explicit videos scored higher on anger scores than those who made other video choices, according to Murray. She posed the following questions: "Why do advertisers spend millions of pounds on a few seconds viewing time if it has no effect? Consider this - sad films make us sad, funny films make us laugh, why do we doubt the effect of violent films?" So, what can be done? "One of the clinical research findings is that it is the absence of an adult voice or interpreter that renders the material more confusing and harmful.
Discussing the videos that students are watching, focusing on the experience of the "victims" in the films "may convey a greater sense that real people are being killed, hurt or maimed in what is being depicted," she says.
Among other measures, she advocates media studies, which would include a study of how film began and how is made, to convey what is watched is not "real". Also, viewing "old" videos to examine the way in which cultural values are conveyed in film study of the gender messages in film and advertising and the use of film for propaganda. "It is sad that a culture so rich in seanchai in story telling tradition - a country which is so naturally beautiful and with such a wealth of creativity and imagination should allow the young to feed their needs and imagination on a diet of imported, sadistic, horror saturated and violent narratives. Protecting our youngsters from these films is not censorship it is child protection."
