The evidence supporting the claim that violent movies decrease violence is just as vague as the evidence supporting the claim that the movies cause violence. The idea that violent movies (or Combat Zone Wrestling) reduces violence because the time spent in these activities replaces time spent at bars is a bit of a stretch, to say the very least.
The statement, “What do we value more: vague, unsubstantiated claims that Combat Zone Wrestling is bad for our culture because we feel icky about it, or empirical evidence that things like Combat Zone Wrestling actually have a real effect of reducing violent assaults?” is an unfair judgment. There is research on both side, not just “icky” feelings. The NY Times article cited in this post even talks about the research on the opposing side, yet this comparison ignores it.
Also, assuming this research can be transferred to all alcohol-free activities, like watching the Combat Zone Wrestling, does not work. For instance, what if there’s a difference between watching violence on a screen and in real life?
The study is also flawed. It fails to establish something that shifts the relationship from correlation to causation. The NY Times article cites the study saying “on days with a high audience for violent movies, violent crime is lower.” But this fails to consider other factors that contribute could contribute to this drop in crime. We can not draw definitive conclusions because the results are begging for more research.
Finally, by saying that violent movies reduces violence because it’s keeps people away from bars makes it seem like some sort of prevention or after school program. Yep – a violent movie or Combat Zone Wrestling are very positive environments… Having something better to do then commit crime one night is not a strong way to approach long-term crime prevention.
Brittany's post about Combat Zone Wrestling raises many interesting points, but is it clear that staged, public violence like CZW actually leads to more "real" violence?
The empirical evidence that any specific cultural celebration of violence - violent music, tv shows, movies, wrestling - actually causes real violence is vague at best.
In fact, there is good empirical evidence that events like Combat Zone Wrestling can actually reduce violence. The way this works out is that a whole lot of criminal violence - assaults and the like - are caused by the combination of two volatile elements. Crowds of young men and alcohol. Any place where you have young men drinking, the likelihood of there being some violence is pretty high, relatively speaking. Ever seen a bar or night club closing (not that I have…)? And so anything that can take young men, especially those who would be more likely to be violent after a few drinks, out of bars and into an environment where they will spend a good portion of the night not drinking, you are basically sure to see a reduction in violence. Two University of California economists did research looking at the effect of large showings of violent movies and had some encouraging results:
Instead of fueling up at bars and then roaming around looking for trouble, potential criminals pass the prime hours for mayhem eating popcorn and watching celluloid villains slay in their stead.
“You’re taking a lot of violent people off the streets and putting them inside movie theaters,” said the lead author of the study, Gordon Dahl, an economist at the University of California, San Diego. “In the short run, if you take away violent movies, you’re going to increase violent crime.”
Professor Dahl and the paper’s other author, Stefano DellaVigna, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, attach precise numbers to their argument: Over the last decade, they say, the showing of violent films in the United States has decreased assaults by an average of about 1,000 a weekend, or 52,000 a year.
Replace “violent movies” with “Combat Zone Wrestling” and I imagine the effect is identical if not even more pronounced. So how does this effect our moral or cultural evaluation of CZW? What do we value more: vague, unsubstantiated claims that Combat Zone Wrestling is bad for our culture because we feel icky about it, or empirical evidence that things like Combat Zone Wrestling actually have a real effect of reducing violent assaults? I don’t know the answer, but this research is definitely something to keep in mind next time anyone talks wrestling or any public display of violence as some kind of cancer on our culture.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
The statement, “What do we value more: vague, unsubstantiated claims that Combat Zone Wrestling is bad for our culture because we feel icky about it, or empirical evidence that things like Combat Zone Wrestling actually have a real effect of reducing violent assaults?” is an unfair judgment. There is research on both side, not just “icky” feelings. The NY Times article cited in this post even talks about the research on the opposing side, yet this comparison ignores it.
Also, assuming this research can be transferred to all alcohol-free activities, like watching the Combat Zone Wrestling, does not work. For instance, what if there’s a difference between watching violence on a screen and in real life?
The study is also flawed. It fails to establish something that shifts the relationship from correlation to causation. The NY Times article cites the study saying “on days with a high audience for violent movies, violent crime is lower.” But this fails to consider other factors that contribute could contribute to this drop in crime. We can not draw definitive conclusions because the results are begging for more research.
Finally, by saying that violent movies reduces violence because it’s keeps people away from bars makes it seem like some sort of prevention or after school program. Yep – a violent movie or Combat Zone Wrestling are very positive environments… Having something better to do then commit crime one night is not a strong way to approach long-term crime prevention.