Development Of A Standardized Measure Of Moral Reasoning On Interpersonal Violence

When analyzing violence in a film, children become the focal point because of the negative impact it can have on them, compared to a child that has not been exposed to it. In a recent study, “Television and children’s moral reasoning: Development of a Standardized Measure of Moral Reasoning on Interpersonal Violence”, by Marijke Lemal and Jan Van den Bulck suggest that “Violent television exposure was also a significant predictor of preference for approval-oriented reasoning about prosocial dilemmas. Further, non-violent viewing was positively associated with a preference for perspective-based moral reasoning”. This study suggests that children exposed to violent films tend to have less advanced moral reasoning compared to children not exposed

CARA is comprised of a chairperson who is appointed by the Chairman of the MPAA, appropriate staff members – one of whom is designated by the Administrative Director by the chairperson, senior raters –selected by the chairperson from among the raters, who have demonstrated experience and judgement in the rating of motion pictures, and finally, the raters, who participate in the rating of individual motion pictures together with the chairperson and the senior raters. The main focus CARA enforces, is that “each member of the Rating Board must be a parent and may not have any other affiliation with the entertainment industry” (Classification and Rating Rules). The main duties of the raters are to view, and keep track of the amount of sexual content, language, drug use, violence, etc., a film can have on its viewers. However, a recent study, “Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Risk Behaviors in Film: How Well Do MPAA Ratings Distinguish Content?”, by Jennifer Tickle, looked at “the top 100 films ranked by box offices gross in the United States for each year from 1996 through 2004

For instance, “we tend to react strongly to the mere idea of violence as it is represented in either factual accounts or fiction; but we also react emotionally to the experience of emotions, those of ourselves and others” (Bacon). Henry Bacon then goes on to explain how viewers are able to justify violence in fiction because “the effectiveness of the narrative topos of self-sacrifice is in the noble idea of someone putting not only his beloved, but also his or her community and the values it embodies above personal survival”. This invokes the emotional response to those who have ever been put to the test, can better relate to the heroic character that embodies the values of his or her community. While the justification of violence invokes the emotional response to the heroic actions, revenge seems to have a satisfying emotional response. “When a former victim gets his revenge, the spectator can be assumed in the first instance to identify with him and go through similar emotions as he does, but this satisfaction may be more or less modified by a critical stance on such morally dubious delights, possibly even slight irritation at oneself for having succumbed to the allure of the morally simplistic narrative” (Bacon). This exposure to violence without any consequences of their justified