Media Standards Australia (Inc.)

Mimi Wellisch is presently Director of Dorrigo Pre-school and has recently completed a Master in Early Childhood at Macquarie University majoring in young gifted and talented children (paper on thesis published in Australian Research in Early Childhood, 1999, Vol. 1). Has published 3 books and numerous articles as well as given papers at various conferences on issues ranging from environmental education to gifted and talented education for young children. Mimi is presently studying psychology at Charles Sturt University.

If anyone is still in doubt about whether TV violence really does have an impact on young children’s play and their social behaviour, they are either unaware of the current TV programs or do not work with young children. Early childhood workers have long been playing a balancing act between being open-minded about superhero play and the banning of violent games altogether. This workshop looked at the games children play, shared some hard facts on TV viewing including recent research, and offered some solutions.

The manner in which children form a model of their world and their role within it has changed dramatically since the middle of this century. Television has contributed strongly to this change and has increasingly become a major competitor to parental and family influences. The result of this change can easily be detected in children’s behaviour and play. There are a number of factors that influence children’s behaviour. Traditionally these could be grouped under two headings:

It has always been the interaction between the internal environmental factors (inborn disposition and family/economic factors) that has had the greatest impact on the formation of children’s perception, experiences and behaviour. However, since television has moved into our lounge rooms, and has brought with it the external environment, it has become a major factor in influencing young children. There is, therefore, no longer a clear distinction between the internal and external factors which help shape children’s lives.

Further, there is a blurring of the boundaries between fantasy and reality as depicted on television (ie, "Police Rescue" and News). Young children find it difficult to distinguish between factual and dramatic television programs (Levin & Carlsson-Paige, 1995). This has serious implications for play behaviour, as it is through play that children practice being adults. Although hero games were also practiced in the past, children were aware of the difference between such fantasy games and their games depicting real life. This may no longer be the case due to the strong influence of television in children’s lives.

Every once in a while, there is an article in a newspaper based on some ad-hoc research, which claims that TV-violence has no effect on children. It would be worthwhile to investigate who funds such research. The truth is that if the influence of television were ineffectual, TV advertising would not exist! On the contrary, genuine research shows that children remember what they see and ask for it. For instance, 90% of children watching an advertisement for a particular cereal want that cereal in favour of other cereals (Kaplan, 1991). We must therefore conclude that if they watch violence on TV, it will have a similar effect. And they watch a lot of TV. Research shows that

Moral stories are part of our cultural heritage, it exists in the Bible (ie, Able and Cain), and in various Dreamtime stories (ie, Rainbow Serpent). Traditional children’s stories also include violence, cruelty and the concept of ‘goodies versus the baddies’. Take this old favourite story:

…Snow White grew more beautiful each year. And one day when the queen said: "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, Who is the fairest one of all?" the magic mirror answered: "Oh, queen, you are fair, it’s true, but Snow White is far more fair than you". From that moment on the queen hated Snow White. She hated her more and more every day. At last she called her huntsman and said, "Take Snow White into the woods and kill her! And bring me her heart to prove you have done it!". The huntsman took Snow White deep into the woods. But when he pulled out his knife to kill her, Snow White began to cry. "Oh, dear huntsman, do not kill me! I will go far away and never come home again". The huntsman took pity on her and said, All right, poor child, run away". "The wild animals will eat her soon enough" he thought. "I do not have to kill her myself". Just then a wild boar jumped out of the bushes. The huntsman killed the wild boar and took its heart to the queen. Then the wicked woman was happy because she thought Snow White was dead.

I stopped reading these stories to my preschool children when I suddenly realised one day what I was actually reading to them. I had been socialised, like everyone else, to look upon these stories in a romantic light. Becoming aware of the violence was an eye-opener. But where fairy tales may have been gruesome to listen to, nothing beats the visually graphic depictions of how to act violently on television. The diet of violence is constant, and the recipe is there for everyone to see.

Take a favourite show, Xena – Warrior Princess, Channel 10 at 7.30pm is rated PG (Parent Guided). This is the special show that some children at Dorrigo Preschool are allowed to stay up late for. The PG rating is a mild classification for such a show. The code of practice specifying that programs classified as PG, must not show "realistic, bloody or horrific depictions of violence" (FACTS, Section, 2, 2.12.1). Yet even the SMH "Guide" had this to say (26/10/98): "This should come with a government health warning, so replete is it with sex and violence…good old Xena, rampaging around and chopping people up, but still somehow managing to give off kind vibes, while wiping the claret off her sword. What in the Gods’ names are we teaching our children with this stuff? That it’s OK to slaughter people as long as it’s in a good cause? Probably. And is that so bad? We did the same thing in the Gulf War and nobody complained" (p. 25). And again a few months later: (1/2/99, p. 21): "Here we go again, another series of Xena…it’s a land of constant…fighting, killing (‘After all the people we have killed, what’s another corpse?’ asks Xena").

I have observed the following disturbing changes in children’s play behaviour since I started teaching more than 20 years ago:

1. Recently little girls rarely name their dolls. A mother at preschool once taught me the value of names, that the act of naming is a sign of caring, loving and intimacy. Her child’s name was not Jim at all, even though we all called him Jim. "He has many names", she confided. I understood in that instance just how much she loved this child. But whereas children in the past had one or two or five dolls or soft toys that they knew and loved intimately, they now have a population explosion in their bedrooms. They can’t keep up with the abundance of "babies", and names are no longer given. When children play with dolls, they play out the empathy of a loving parent. The phenomenon of not giving names to dolls indicates to me a cooling, a distancing from practicing of caring behaviour.

2. Some children with low self-esteem come to preschool verbally threatening teachers with annihilation.

3. Children increasingly view death with indifference, and as unreal (for examples, see Wellisch, 1998).

4. There are new kinds of children’s games: Children at Dorrigo Preschool play many and various games, and most are the type that children have always played. For instance, outside they ride tricycles, play in the sandpit, climb and swing. They also play chasing games, sometimes boys chasing girls, often instigated and kept going by the girls. Inside, they play logging-timber games (a local adult activity), fishing, cooking, dressing up, dogs and cats, and families - mostly consisting of mum, kids and pets - hardly ever dads. This is despite the fact that Dorrigo still has a higher intact 2-parent family rate than appears to be the case in the cities. Then there are the violent games, some that indicate a change in play behaviour and which I have vetoed:

Gun games, including constructions of mass destruction devices made from lego etc.
Killing games (including Hercules and Xena)
Ninja Turtles (played by girls and boys)
Power Rangers (played by girls and boys)
Robbers (mixed, although mainly boys)
Baking dolls in the oven (boys)
Hacking up one another (played by girls and boys)
Hacking or chopping up dolls (played by girls and boys)
Taking turns at Jump-run-heels-into-doll on floor (boys)
Kidnapping baby (boys) (seen on Xena in 1997). This game is still played, having been handed down from preschool generation to preschool generation. I have since found out that it is also being played at primary school. The mother, who told me about the game continuing at school confessed to me that she was scared of leaving her 8 year old daughter alone with her friend’s baby.

There is a very strong social belief that ‘goodies and baddies’ games are character building in terms of morality, that children have to make these moral choices individually, and that they will do so naturally. But with our society’s strong pro-violence diet in the media, this belief has become a romantic fallacy. The truth about real "baddies" is that they only act out of mistakes, misconceptions and mis-communication. The truth is that they are sad, hurt and frightened, and sometimes sick people.

But it is difficult to change traditional ways of thinking and child rearing practices. Despite all the recent anti-bullying policies in schools, there is still a tendency to see the victim as somehow deserving, and the persecutor as the one who merely metes out what the victim asks for. Adults are fond of saying "I played cowboys and Indians, and I’m OK". The truth is that we have all played hero games, AND LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD TODAY! Although we do not have a war in our country, many of us have war in our homes: for instance, child abuse is at an all time high, a reality for every third child. The way most decisions are made in the world, including in our country, is through force of one kind or another. This is not a sign of a peace-loving, healthy society. So maybe those cowboy and Indian games were not so good, after all...

We have precious few hours with the children in comparison with the many hours they spend with a TV on a one-to-one basis. This is why TV brainwashing needs active counter brainwashing.

Levin’s (1994) Teaching Children in Violent Times does not advocate the banning of violent games. Much as I admire this book, I have come to a different conclusion. As a society we are very polite, and it takes quite a while before we realise that we are being abused, somehow. Why do we tolerate the unacceptable? And where should we draw the line? Why do educators assume that playing violent games is somehow more imaginative than non-violent games? Or that playing super-hero games is sacred? Why do we allow the myth of ‘goodies versus baddies’ to continue as a romantic signpost of our civilisation? What is our role if not facilitators, early interventionists, teachers and models? We are working against graphic television depictions of violent anti-social behaviour. If we are to have any counter-influence, we must consistently intervene in potentially violent games.

Personally, I have found violent games always end with someone getting hurt. Not pretend, but really hurt. Often the offending child is curiously observing the effect of his attack on the hurt child in a detached manner. By allowing these games and applying lame bandaid measures, such as telling the offending child that his actions were not OK and soothing the hurt child, aren’t we abdicating our responsibilities and reinforcing yet again the ‘goodies (hurt child) versus the baddies’ (offending child) notion?

One day I heard a 4-year old girl screaming and crying in the playground as if somebody was murdering her. I rushed to her aid from across the playground, only to see three boys backing off guiltily. I asked the crying child what the matter was. She cried in terror, "they are going to kill me, they said they would kill me". She did not seem to think it was a game, she thought it was real. That was the last day that playing killing games at Dorrigo Preschool was tolerated. At our preschool the word ‘kill’ is now a four-letter word, and games that children play are the games we think are OK.

But is it realistic, you may ask, to insist that preschool children stop playing out hero games and violent games? Is it democratic? Is it healthy, or will the banning of such games create an even more violent "shadow"? How will the children overcome their fears and try out their pretend strengths against demons? The answer lies in our roles as adults, in taking on the responsibility to teach children peaceful ways of interacting, to protect children, help them overcome their fears, and model excellent communication skills. And as for physical strength for self-protection, this is not a necessity in a peaceful, secure preschool setting. There are other ways of overcoming "demons". Nor is it necessary to hurt others in order to gain self-confidence.

Our philosophy is that preschool is a safe place where no one is "naughty", a fact that I tell both children and their parents. We have children who sometimes make mistakes or behave in ways that are not OK. But no one is bad or naughty. So we do not have goodies or badies at preschool, nor do we play such games. No one is a hero, and everyone is precious. We do not hurt children at preschool, and we do not advocate such behaviour and games. The way I explain this is, "We will not let anyone hurt you, and we will not let you hurt anyone". Preschool is a safe haven, a place where we can safely practice peaceful, creative play.

Peace Policy

Dorrigo Preschool is a safe haven for children, and the preschool community is against all forms of violence. The policy is actively enforced by assuming that no child is inherently "naughty" or bad. In line with this philosophy, no ‘goodies and baddies’ games are acceptable at preschool. As part of this policy we do not allow games which include the use of ‘killing’ people, or toys such as guns and knives (including pretend guns and knives). However, children make mistakes and sometimes behave in socially unacceptable ways. So we target the behaviour, not the child.

Children are therefore introduced to the notion that hurtful and antisocial behaviour is not acceptable, and if they have accidentally or deliberately hurt another child they are expected to apologise.
Children who are involved in a conflict are consulted, encouraged to express what they each see as the problem, and instructed in alternative methods of resolving their problems.
In solving of conflicts, children are encouraged to talk to one another, for instance ask for toys rather than to snatch or hit out.
If the communication is ineffectual, children are encouraged to seek adult aid.
A child who refuses to cooperate and continues to act out aggressively is removed from contact with other children for a couple of minutes and asked to reconsider his/her actions. The child may have to be asked repeatedly every few minutes as necessary.

I learned from our parent night on TV violence that many parents of young children apparently seem to think that if something is shown on TV, it must be deemed to be "good for kids". The facts, however, are very different. The Australian Broadcasting Authority regulates only that a C-band or P-band program can be shown at certain times. Parents are guided by the lack of ratings, which are actually G ratings. Historically, the omission of ratings had its roots in the mistaken and outdated belief that mornings were an undesirable time for children to watch TV (SMH 19/6/95,The Guide, p. 6s). The reality is that most children watch television in the mornings.* You need not spend much time in front of a morning program of cartoons such as Cheez TV on the Channel 10, Agro’s Cartoons on Channel 7, however, to notice that violence is part and parcel of these shows for children. The G classification states that "Depictions of physical and psychological violence and the use of threatening language, weapons or special effects must not be likely to cause alarm or distress to children, must be strictly limited to the context or story line of the program, and must not show violent behaviour to be acceptable or desirable" (Section 2, 2.10.1). Knowing the outcome of copy-cat behaviour, and the successful sales of violent toys such as Power Rangers, I have difficulty in working out how this section is assessed by the Commercial Television Industry.

Much research has been carried out since Bandura (1963) first carried out his research into the effects of television violence on young children’s play. There is now ample evidence that 10-15% of the child population tends to act out more aggressively than others (Weiten, 1998), that such children are drawn to violent activities, including violent television programs, and that "early aggression is predictive of subsequent problems with aggression in adolescence and adulthood" (Weiten, 1998). It is now time that we as early childhood educators draw the line in the sand with regard to televised violence during children’s viewing times and hold the Australian Broadcasting Association accountable by lobbying for a cessation of violent children’s television programs.

.* The Australian Broadcasting Authority Regulations can be obtained from Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, 44 Avenue Road, Mosman NSW, Tel: 02-99602622 or www.aba.gov.au

Bandura, D. R. & Ross, S. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67, 601-607.

FACTS. (1994). Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, Mosman: Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations.

Just go with it…(1998, October 31). Sydney Morning Herald, The Guide, p. 25.

Kaplan, P. S. (1991) (2^nd Edition). A Child’s Odyssey. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.

Levin, D. & Carlsson-Paige, N. (1995). The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: Teachers Voice Concern. Young Children, 50, 6, 67-72.

Weiten, W. (1998). Psychology: Themes & Variations (4^th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Wellisch, M. (1998). A new way to say goodbye: Effects of TV violence on play, behaviour, and interaction Every Child, 4, 3, 10-11.

Xena – Warrior Princess. (1999, February 1). Sydney Morning Herald, The Guide, p. 21.