This means that even those images that were nonviolent evoked an aggressive response under certain conditions.These findings have made many researchers question the true nature of violence in the media and how it can or cannot affect the child in various ways.According to some researchers, this was especially true when the violence was rewarded.
It does not come as any surprise that a child between the age of two and five watches approximately 28 hours of television ever week .
Another thing that comes to mind is that there has been a lot of allowance of violence in the media ever since broadcasting was deregulated in 1980.
Some studies have also suggested that it is not the nature of the programs but the number of hours that a child spends in front of the television that is the cause of the adverse effects.
This is so according to Belson (1978) , who believes that aggression could be derived from watching violent television as often as it could be derived from watching nonviolent images.
It was also found that people who were high on the aggression list and those who saw violence in the media, took a longer time in coming down from their aggressive state than did high-aggressors who saw neutral or nonviolent images.
On the other hand, those who were low on aggression and who saw nonviolent images became more aggressive than those who saw violence on television.
This research, even though inconclusive, also found that the effects of violence in media were slightly stronger on adults than they were on preschool children.
These findings are very different from those that have suggested that media can have more effects on children since they are more susceptible in their growing years.
The phenomenon of violence is also very complex and there are many factors that can or cannot induce violent behavior in a human being.
Many people have suggested that the individuals' personalities, their family backgrounds, their cultural, educational, and religious implications, all contribute to acts of violence.