Verbal Aggression in Animated Cartoons

Abstract

Relying upon a content analysis of one specific type of medium to which young people are exposed beginning at an early age, on a regular basis, and for many years (i.e., animated cartoons), the present study examines what types of messages are provided about verbal aggression. This research examines the following issues: (1) How prevalent is verbal aggression in animated cartoons? (2) Has this prevalence changed over time? (3) What characteristics tend to be associated with being a perpetrator of verbal aggression? (4) What reasons are given for why cartoon characters engage in verbal aggression? (6) What “types” of characters are yelled at, threatened, insulted, and so forth?

Results indicate that verbal aggression is fairly prevalent in cartoons (it is the second most common type of antisocial behavior shown, ranking second only to violence) and that this prevalence has increased greatly over time. Cartoons tend to normalize verbal aggression, both by virtue of its frequency of occurrence and by the lack of patterning of characteristics associated with perpetrating this behavior. Although many (nearly half) of the reasons implied for being verbally aggressive are negative in nature, a substantial proportion of the time, this behavior is undertaken for positive reasons or for no reason at all. Characters of all types are equally likely to be verbally aggressive for negative reasons, although only certain types of characters (e.g., female, intelligent, “good guys,” physically attractive) are shown to engage in this behavior for positive reasons.

INTRODUCTION

For several decades now, there has been considerable public debate about the amount of antisocial content in the media. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the media are replete with antisocial content (1–3), and this has led to considerable public outcry over the years for action to be taken to reduce violent and aggressive content in the media. Many studies have demonstrated an association between media exposure and increased aggression and violence (3–6). There also appears to be a dose-response effect operating, such that people who have more exposure to the media are more affected by what they see, hear, and read than are their peers who are exposed to fewer media messages (6,7).

Interestingly, though, virtually all of the published literature and most of the public debate about antisocial media content has focused specifically on violence, the prevalence of violent content, and the potential harm resulting from exposure to violent media messages, with little attention having been devoted to other antisocial content that does not rise to a level of what might be deemed violence. By focusing almost exclusively on violence, media content researchers and public policymakers ignore a wide array of antisocial behaviors, such as property theft, yelling at others, vandalism, making threats to others’ physical safety, grabbing or pushing/shoving others in a manner that is not truly violent in nature, lying and deceitfulness, frightening or intimidating others, among other examples. When violence is examined at the exclusion of these other negative behaviors, an important component of the “bigger picture” regarding media content and its effects on viewers is overlooked. Conceptually, therefore, a distinction can be made–and we contend, ought to be made–amongst violence, acts of physical aggression, acts of verbal aggression, and “other” types of antisocial content. Making this distinction would enable researchers and policymakers to study the prevalence of these different facets of antisocial media content, and to examine differences in the types of messages provided by the various types of antisocial content. It is quite likely, for example, that violence, verbal aggression, and physical aggression are not equally prevalent in the media. It is also probable that different characteristics are associated with the commission of these various types of behaviors, that different “types” of persons or characters are shown to perpetrate these different behaviors, that different reasons are presented to explain characters’ involvement in these various actions, and that different consequences are shown to result from being a victim of violence versus verbal aggression versus physical aggression. By focusing only on violence, then, a sizable proportion of the total amount of antisocial content goes unexplored and, consequently, is not well-understood. Little is known about the messages provided to young viewers about a wide array of antisocial behaviors, particularly those that do not qualify as violence.

In the present paper, we differentiate amongst different types of antisocial content and focus our attention specifically on verbal aggression. Published research addressing this type of antisocial content has been sparse, making it relatively easy to summarize the main findings pertaining to this topic. In their research on gender roles in animated cartoons, Thompson and Zerbinos (8) found that male characters were more likely than female characters to be verbally aggressive and to be a victim of other characters’ verbal aggression. Taking a somewhat different tack on studying the subject, Woodard (9) examined what he called “problematic language” in children’s programs–that is, the use of “uncontradicted words or phrases as a form of disrespect (anything that fails to take into account the feelings of another or shows disdain for authority) or animosity where the intent is to be emotionally hurtful to specific characters in the program” (p. 20). Using this definition, Woodard (9) found that 45% of children’s shows contained at least some problematic language, with one quarter of these containing what he termed “a lot” of this type of verbal aggression. Linder and Gentile (3) reported that verbal aggression was more prevalent in television programming aimed at children than it was in programming targeting general audiences. Based on their research on the content of television programming in the midwest, Potter and Vaughan (10) found that verbal aggression increased in prevalence during the mid-1990s. More recently, Glascock (11) reported that 95% of the prime-time television programs he studied included at least one instance of verbal aggression, and that an average of 38 acts of verbal aggression appeared in a “typical” hour of television viewing. He further noted that males tend to be more verbally aggressive than females on television, and that insults tend to be the most commonly portrayed of all types of verbal aggression. Sutil and colleagues (12) conducted a comparative analysis of Spanish, American, and Japanese television programming, and concluded that verbal aggression was greater on American television than it was in programs shown in the other countries. Studying television programming in the United States and Canada, Williams, Zabrack, and Joy (13) noted that verbal aggression and physical aggression occurred with almost equal frequency, at a rate of 1 act per 6-8 minutes of viewing. These authors also noted that, oftentimes, verbal aggression was shown to be humorous and it resulted in few consequences to the perpetrator. Other than these few studies, little else has been published on the subject of verbal aggression in the media.

It is important, we believe, to examine media portrayals of verbal aggression (and other non-violent types of antisocial content) in a systematic way, not only because it is a topic that, heretofore, has been studied very little, but also because of the great likelihood that exposure to verbal aggression in the media will lead to negative effects in viewers. There is a substantial body of theoretical work in the sociological, psychological, and media studies fields to account for and to anticipate the presence of adverse effects subsequent to exposure to verbally-aggressive media content. For example, social learning theory (14,15) posits that people acquire their beliefs, attitudes, and propensity to engage in behaviors, directly based on first-hand experiences they have with others who exhibit particular behaviors and/or indirectly, based on what they observe others—including others appearing in the mass media—doing or saying. As Kunkel et al. (2) put it, “through the observation of mass media models the observer comes to learn which behaviors are ‘appropriate’—that is, which behaviors will later be rewarded, and which will be punished” (p. I-6). Accordingly, social learning theory would predict that people of all ages (and young people in particular) will learn a great deal about societal notions of aggression, social expectations for what is a “proper” situation that may be handled “appropriately” with verbal aggression, and the social consequences of being verbally aggressive just from being exposed to violence-related media content.

As another example, cultivation theory (16,17) states that media viewers’ perceptions of social reality will be shaped by extensive and cumulative exposure to media-provided messages. This theoretical model assumes that people develop beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about the real world based on what they see and hear on television, on video, in film, in magazines, etc. Subsequently, they use the beliefs, attitudes, and expectations they have developed to make decisions about how they will behave in real-world settings and situations. Again, Kunkel et al. (2) put it well when they stated, “The media, in particular television, communicate facts, norms, and values about our social world. For many people television is the main source of information about critical aspects of their social environment. … Whether television shapes or merely maintains beliefs about the world is not as important as its role in a dynamic process that leads to enduring and stable assumptions about the world” (pp. I-11 & I-13). In the context of the study of aggression-related media content (such as the present research, which focuses specifically on verbal aggression in one particular medium), then, cultivation theory would posit that media messages serve as agents of socialization regarding what to think about verbal aggression, situations in which it is (in)appropriate to yell at or threaten someone, verbally-aggressive persons, and victims of verbal aggression. This would be particularly true for young viewers who are exposed rather heavily to such media messages through the types of programming that they tend to view. Given the types of messages that many of the media provide about antisocial behaviors, cultivation theory would predict that the cumulative effect of exposure to these messages would provide young people with beliefs and attitudes that, ostensibly, reinforce social stereotypes that verbal aggression is omnipresent, that it is often acceptable to respond to situations aggressively, and so forth.

Taking these theoretical models’ tenets and the aforementioned research studies on media effects to heart, the present study entails an examination of content pertaining to verbal aggression in a medium that, we contend, is likely to provide young people with some of their earliest notions regarding aggression-related standards/expectations: animated cartoons. We have chosen animated cartoons as the focal point of this research for a few reasons. First, people are exposed to this type of medium beginning at an early age. Therefore, messages provided by this particular medium are likely to be influential in the initial stages of developing beliefs and attitudes about aggression. Second, for most young people, this exposure continues for many years, and typically entails repeated and frequent media content exposures during that entire viewing period. Thus, animated cartoons also help to crystallize young people’s beliefs and attitudes about verbal aggression, contexts in which verbal aggression is more/less acceptable, and verbally-aggressive persons, while helping to shape relevant behaviors through the repeated and consistent antisocial content-related messages they provide. Research has shown that early-life exposure to media messages does, indeed, affect the formation of attitudes and contributes to the crystallization of notions about a variety of aspects of young viewers’ social worlds (18,19).

In this study, we address several research questions. First, how prevalent is verbal aggression in animated cartoons? To help place verbal aggression into greater context, the prevalence of this type of antisocial content will be compared to that of violence. Second, has this prevalence changed over time? Third, what “types” of characteristics tend to be associated with being a character that exhibits verbal aggression? Fourth, what are the purported reasons that cartoon characters engage in acts of verbal aggression? Fifth, what “types” of characters tend to be victimized most by verbal aggression in this medium? We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and elaborating briefly upon some steps that might be taken in the future to provide viewers with what we consider to be more-positive content.

METHODS

Sampling Strategy

This study is based on an examination of the content of animated cartoons. For the present study, only animated cel cartoons are included in the sample (e.g., Bugs Bunny, Popeye, Mighty Mouse, Yogi Bear). This eliminates from the present study such types of animation as claymation (e.g., Gumby and Pokey, the California Raisins), pixillation (the type of animation usually seen at the end of The Benny Hill Show), and puppet animation (e.g., Davey and Goliath, George Pal’s Puppetoons).

The cartoons chosen for the study sample were selected randomly from among all cartoons produced between the years 1930 and the mid-1990s by all of the major animation studios. Before drawing the final sample of cartoons that would be viewed and coded for this work, the researchers had to develop a comprehensive and inclusive sample frame of cartoons produced by the aforementioned animation studios. Published filmographies (20,21) provided the authors with a great deal of this information, and in some instances, the animation studios themselves were contacted and asked to provide comprehensive episode-by-episode lists of animated cartoons they had produced. Once the “universe” of cartoons had been identified, actual copies of the specific cartoons selected for viewing and coding as part of the random sampling approach had to be located. This was done in a wide variety of ways: by contacting animation fans and collectors and having them make copies of some of their cartoons for us, visiting film archives and repositories and viewing cartoons in their libraries/holdings on site, obtaining copies of the needed cartoons directly from the animation studios, purchasing sample-selected items from retail outlets and private sellers who advertised them in trade publications, renting videocassettes from retail outlets like Blockbuster Video, and videotaping from programs broadcast on television.

The origination date for this research (1930) was chosen for four reasons: (1) many major animation studios had begun operations by that time, (2) the era of silent cartoons had virtually ended, (3) cartoons produced prior to 1930 are not very accessible today, and (4) many cartoons produced during the 1930s are still broadcast on television and/or available for viewing on home video. Due to the fiscal constraints of the funding program, only animated cartoons with a total running time of 20 minutes or less were included in the sample frame.

A stratified (by decade of production) random sampling procedure was used to ensure that cartoons from all decades were represented equally in the study sample. This stratification procedure was necessary because very different numbers of cartoons have been produced during different decades (e.g., many more were produced during the 1980s than during the 1930s), thereby leading to the risk that a general random sample (as differentiated from this study’s stratified random sample) might have led to an overrepresentation of certain decades during which greater- or lesser-than-average numbers of antisocial acts were portrayed.

Data Collection

This study relied upon a content analysis approach to examine the types of messages that cartoons provide about verbal aggression (as well as other types of antisocial content). Data collection for this research entailed viewing the cartoons contained on the project’s sample list and recording detailed information on predesigned, pretested, pilot tested, fixed-format coding sheets. Prior to beginning their viewing and coding work for this study, research assistants underwent an intensive training that familiarized them with the data that the study strived to collect, the rationale underlying the coding of each piece of information, and the decision-making procedures that should be used when recording information from each cartoon. To make sure that all people involved in the viewing/coding (i.e., data collection) process implemented the decision-making procedures in a similar manner, intercoder reliability coefficients were calculated periodically throughout the project. Reliability estimates consistently were above .80 for all major measures, and were at least .90 for all of the variables used in the analyses reported in this article, indicating a very high level of intercoder reliability for this research.

To understand the information that this study contains, it is best to conceptualize the database as consisting of two datasets. Dataset #1 focuses on the major characters in each cartoon (regardless of whether they are human characters, animals, personified inanimate objects [e.g., cars with the ability to growl or dance, telephone poles given human-like abilities to see or hear or sing], monsters, ghosts, etc.), providing detailed information that is of value when trying to interpret the types of messages that cartoons provide about who it is that is shown to be a perpetrator of verbal aggression. This dataset contains information about each major character’s gender, age, race, ethnicity, marital status, level of intelligence, attractiveness, body weight, physique, occupational status, level of goodness or badness, and other demographic-type and descriptive information. In addition, Dataset #1 contains data about the number of acts of violence, aggression, and prosocial behaviors (and limited information about the types of these behaviors involved) that the characters have committed. This dataset’s information is useful for examining such things as whether males/females or smart/dumb characters or attractive/unattractive characters are more likely to be verbally aggressive, whether characters of different “types” were more prosocial or more antisocial, and so forth. The sample size for this dataset is 4,201.

Dataset #2 contains information about all acts of violence, acts of aggression, and prosocial behaviors committed by major characters. This dataset provides information about the specific type of act involved (e.g., violence versus aggression versus prosocial act; specific type of violence committed or the specific type of aggressive or prosocial act performed); the purported reason(s) for engaging in the act; and characteristics of the victim of aggression. The information in this dataset can be linked to the information supplied by Dataset #1, so that detailed information (as described above) about the perpetrator is also available. The sample size for this dataset is 13,283, including 1,462 specific acts of verbal aggression.

Operational Definitions of Some Key Concepts

Perhaps the most important operational definitions to provide for this study are those used for violence and verbal aggression. In our research, we defined violence as “any behavior that is intended to harm any character or any character’s property, or as any behavior that would reasonably be expected to cause harm to any character or any character’s property.” Distinctions were made in this research amongst violence, physical aggression (defined here as “any antisocial act that unintentionally leads to the physical injury of another character or another character’s property”; “physical aggression” also included such behaviors as grabbing another character, pushing/shoving another character, and similar actions provided that they did not rise to the threshold established for labeling these behaviors as violence), and verbal aggression, and a considerable amount of time was devoted during training to make sure that coders understood the ways to differentiate these concepts from one another. Our definition of violence was adapted as a “best practices” hybrid based on the operational definitions used by several well-respected researchers who have studied violence in the media (9,22–25).

Regarding verbal aggression, coders were instructed to record all instances in which major characters interacted with one another or, with words, treated another character in a negative, antisocial manner. Yelling at another character with raised voice is one example of the type of behaviors included in our definition of verbal aggression. Threatening another character’s safety or vowing revenge would be two other examples of verbal aggression. Purposely intimidating or taunting another character constitute other examples, as do ridiculing or insulting other characters’ appearance, personality, or performance. Provided that the antisocial content was verbal rather than physical in nature, and provided that it did not meet the definition given above for violence, the act qualified as verbal aggression.

In this study, we collected detailed data only for major characters. We felt that it was important to distinguish between major and minor characters because the former have a much greater and much more consequential impact upon cartoons’ storylines and messages, whereas the latter do not. Therefore, we adopted operational definition criteria that would enable the two character types (i.e., major and minor) to be differentiated easily and in a meaningful way. Coders were instructed to follow these rules in order to determine whether a character was “major” or “minor”: First, all characters were supposed to be classified by default as minor, unless the conditions stipulated in one or more of the subsequent rules were met. Second, if a character appeared in an average of at least two camera cuts for each complete minute or additional partial minute of the cartoon’s running time, that was sufficient to label it a “major” character. For example, if a cartoon had a total running time of 8 minutes and 10 seconds, a character would have to appear at least 18 times (i.e., in 18 or more camera cuts, [that is, two per minute or partial minute of running time, multiplied by nine minutes/partial minutes increments]) throughout the duration of the cartoon in order to be considered “major” using this criterion. Third, a character could be considered “major” if it spoke an average two sentences or phrases counting as sentences per minute or partial minute of the cartoon’s total running time. Fourth, a character could be considered “major” if it had an average of three or more camera cuts in which it appeared and sentences or phrases counting as sentences per minute of the cartoon’s running time. This criterion was implemented to take into account that many consequential characters in the cartoons do not appear a lot and do not say a lot, but their cumulative visual and verbal presence in the cartoon merits “major” character status even though the two previous rules would have prevented such a designation from being made. Finally, a character could be considered “major” if it appeared on screen for at least 20% of the cartoon’s total running time, regardless of the number of camera cuts and sentences or phrases counting as sentences spoken. Generally speaking, although these rules may seem to be somewhat convoluted, determining whether a character was a major or minor one was an easy, straightforward, and relatively-obvious process.

Analysis

Some of the findings reported in this paper are based on descriptive statistics, particularly where prevalence estimates are used, as was the case for addressing Research Question 1. Descriptive statistics are also used, at least in part, for answering Question 4, pertaining to the frequency of depicting certain types of reasons for being verbally aggressive. Changes over time in the prevalence of verbal aggression (Question 2) are examined using logistic regression, since the dependent variable was dichotomous and the predictor variable was a continuous measure. Tests of curvilinearity were performed to determine whether observed changes were linear in nature or whether they demonstrated periods of significant upswing followed by periods of significant downswing (or vice-versa). The analyses examining the characteristics associated with which “types” of characters were more/less likely than others to exhibit verbal aggression (Question 3) or were more/less likely to be victims of verbal aggression (Question 5) entailed the computation of odds ratios (ORs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI95) presented for each estimate. Odds ratios were selected for these analyses because they facilitated direct comparisons of the messages provided about characters of different types, whereas other statistical tests do not lend themselves so easily to such comparisons and interpretation. Due to the large sample size used in this research, results are reported as statistically significant whenever p<.01 and as marginally significant whenever p<.05.

RESULTS

Prevalence of Verbal Aggression

Of all antisocial content in the cartoons studied, 14.1% took the form of verbal aggression. This makes it the second-most common type of antisocial content contained in cartoons, ranking only behind violence (which accounted for 59.7% of all antisocial content). As Figure 1 shows, this percentage increased steadily and quite sharply over the years (p<.0001), from about 7% of all antisocial content during the 1930s and 1940s, to about 11% during the 1950s and 1960s, to about 15% during the 1970s and 1980s, and to more than 33% during the 1990s. During the same period, the prevalence of violence declined steadily and sharply (p<.0001), from approximately 75% during the 1930s and 1940s, to about 66% during the 1950s and 1960s, to about 50% during the 1970s and 1980s, to 33% during the 1990s.

Figure 1.

Moreover, approximately 1 major character in 6 (17.6%) engaged in at least one act of verbal aggression. This percentage dropped from the 1930s and 1940s (16%) until the 1970s (12%) (p<.002) and then increased thereafter (to 20% during the 1980s and 1990s) (p<.0003). As Figure 2 demonstrates, quite a different pattern was observed for violence. From the early 1930s until the later 1940s, cartoon characters became significantly more likely to perpetrate violence (p<.0001), with a very sharp decline in this prevalence thereafter (p<.0001).

Figure 2.

Characteristics Associated with Being Verbally Aggressive

On most of the dimensions examined, cartoon characters of different “types” were equally likely to engage in verbal aggression. For example, males and females were equally likely to be verbally aggressive (p<.48). As another example, youths, adults, and elderly characters did not differ in their likelihood of engaging in verbal aggression (p<.06). The same was true with respect to race (p<.30) and physical attractiveness (p<.25) as well. On one dimension–namely, intelligence–cartoons provided a mixed message about verbal aggression. Intelligent characters were nearly twice as likely as dumb or ordinary-intelligence characters to be verbally aggressive (OR = 1.89, CI95 = 1.34–2.66, p<.0002). At the same time, however, analyses also revealed that characters that were below-average in intelligence were somewhat more likely than ordinary-intelligence and smart characters to be verbally aggressive (OR = 1.48, CI95 = 1.04–2.13, p<.03). These seemingly-contradictory findings resulted because it was the characters of average intelligence that were significantly less likely than their smarter and dumber counterparts to engage in verbal aggression. On only one dimension, body weight, did characters differ in a single, consistent way with respect to verbal aggression: Overweight characters were more than twice as likely to engage in verbal aggression as their thin or normal weight counterparts (OR = 2.10, CI95 = 1.64–2.69, p<.0001).

Reasons for Engaging in Verbal Aggression

The most common type of reason for being verbally aggressive was anger, accounting for 27.0% of all instances of verbal aggression. The second most common explanation underlying characters’ verbal aggression was for no apparent/discernible reason, accounting for 12.4% of all instances of verbal aggression. The third most common reason for exhibiting verbal aggression was as an expression of concern for another character’s physical or emotional well-being, which was observed in 11.3% of all instances. The fourth most common reason for being verbally aggressive was to frighten or intimidate another character, which explained 9.7% of all acts of verbal aggression. All other types of explanations (e.g., self-preservation, doing one’s job, due to frustration, and more than 30 others) were observed with much lesser frequency.

When examining the purported reasons that were implied as to why cartoon characters engaged in verbal aggression, one finding surprised us: the large number of instances in which positive reasons were given for engaging in this antisocial behavior. Consequently, we decided to collapse the reasons for being verbally aggressive into three categories: negative reasons (e.g., anger, revenge, inherent meanspiritedness, frustration, dislike for another character, and so forth), positive reasons (e.g., out of concern for another character’s well-being, due to kindness, as an expression of admiration, out of friendship, and so forth), and neutral reasons (e.g., doing one’s job, following orders, to get attention, among others). When collapsed together like this, nearly half (48.0%) of all instances of verbal aggression could be attributed to negative reasons. Although fewer in number, a not-inconsequential proportion (26.5%) of the verbally aggressive acts were performed for positive reasons.

Further analysis of these positive-versus-negative-reasons data revealed one interesting pattern of findings: Characters of all types were equally likely to be verbally aggressive for negative reasons, but only certain types of characters were verbally aggressive for positive reasons. For example, females were somewhat more likely than males to be verbally aggressive for a positive reason (OR = 1.35, CI95 = 1.06–1.72, p<.02). Physically-attractive characters were more than twice as likely as their less-good-looking counterparts to engage in verbal aggression for a positive reason (OR = 2.12, CI95 = 1.37–3.26, p<.0004). Similarly, intelligent characters were nearly twice as likely to be verbally aggressive for a positive reason as were their less-intelligent counterparts (OR = 1.97, CI95 = 1.31–2.97, p<.001). Finally, “good guys” were nearly three times as likely as characters that were not considered to be “good guys” to be verbally aggressive for a positive reason (OR = 2.93, CI95 = 2.14–4.02, p<.0001).

Characteristics Associated with Being a Victim of Verbal Aggression

The analyses pertaining to the characteristics associated with being a victim of verbal aggression revealed a few significant differences. For example, females were about 50% more likely to be victims of verbal aggression than were males (OR = 1.53, CI95 = 1.30–1.81, p<.0001). As another example, racial differences were found with regard to the likelihood of being a victim of verbal aggression (χ²[5df] = 24.49, p<.0002). In particular, Caucasians were found to be somewhat more likely than members of other races to be victims of verbal aggression (OR = 1.33, CI95 = 1.01–1.75, p<.05). With respect to age, as age went up, the likelihood of being a victim of verbal aggression went down (χ²[3df] = 158.69, p<.0001). Youths were more than twice as likely as their adult and elderly counterparts to be a victim of verbal aggression (OR = 2.11, CI95 = 1.86–2.39, p<.0001) whereas elderly characters were about half as likely as those that were children, adolescents, or adults to be victimized by verbal aggression (OR = 0.51, CI95 = 0.34–0.76, p<.0001). We also discovered that characters classified as “good guys” were less likely than others to be portrayed as victims of verbal aggression (OR = 0.66, CI95 = 0.58–0.75, p<.0001). On two dimensions–namely, body weight and intelligence–cartoons provided a mixed message with respect to being a victim of verbal aggression. Overweight characters were more likely to be victims of verbal aggression when compared to their thinner-than-average and ordinary weight counterparts (OR = 1.63, CI95 = 1.41–1.89, p<.0001). At the same time, underweight characters were also more likely to be victims of verbal aggression than their normal-weight and overweight counterparts (OR = 1.97, CI95 = 1.57–2.49, p<.0001). As with intelligence as a characteristic associated with perpetrating verbal aggression, here, the seemingly contradictory findings are the result of the ordinary-weight characters being less likely to be victimized by verbal aggression than their thinner-than-average or overweight counterparts. For the same type of reason, we found that intelligent characters were more likely than those that are dumb or of ordinary intelligence to be victims of verbal aggression (OR = 2.73, CI95 = 2.26–3.30, p<.0001) and that characters of below average intelligence were also more likely to be victims of verbal aggression when compared to their average-intelligence and smart counterparts (OR = 1.83, CI95 = 1.51–2.20, p<.0001)

DISCUSSION

Before discussing the implications of our main findings, we would like to acknowledge a few potential limitations of the present study. First, this research was based on animated cartoons with running times of 20 minutes or less, thereby excluding longer-form animated cartoons from consideration. We do not know whether or not short-form and long-form animated cartoons are similar to one another with respect to the types of messages they convey, and therefore cannot assess the extent to which the exclusion of the latter may affect this study’s findings. Conducting research such as ours with the longer cartoons would be a worthwhile endeavor for future researchers to undertake. Second, our sample ends during the middle-1990s. It would be helpful and, we believe, interesting to have this research extended to the present, so that the most up-to-date trends possible are studied and analyzed. Third, as with any content analysis research study, some scholars might prefer to see different operational definitions of the key concepts used. There is no “gold standard” in content analysis research with regard to defining major versus minor characters, violence, verbal aggression, and so forth. The definitions that we adopted were chosen on the basis of common sense, so that they would foster face validity, and on the basis of simplicity and clarity of implementation, so that they would maximize interrater reliability. Moreover, our approach to defining violence was based on a synthesis of the definitions used by several leading media content researchers (cited earlier), thereby lending additional credibility to the operational definition selected for the current research. We believe that our operational definitions are well-conceptualized and justified; but as with any content analysis study, there is no way to know the extent to which the use of different definitions might have led to different research findings.

Despite these potential limitations, we still believe that the present research has much to contribute to our understanding of cartoons’ messages about verbal aggression. First, verbal aggression is a common occurrence in cartoons and, indeed, is the second most commonly shown type of antisocial behavior (with violence ranking first). More than one-sixth of all major characters engaged in at least one act of verbal aggression and more than one-sixth of all cartoons contained at least some verbal aggression. Moreover, verbal aggression has become increasingly commonplace as time has gone on, making it more of a problem in recent years than ever before. This increase has taken place throughout a long period during which the prevalence of other types of antisocial content–particularly violence–has demonstrated a sharp, steady decline in prevalence. The message that this sends to viewers is that yelling at others, threatening others, insulting others, and so forth are “ordinary” behaviors and that they are commonplace. By including so much verbally-aggressive content, animated cartoons convey the message that this behavior is normatively acceptable.

This message about the normalcy of verbal aggression is, we believe, reinforced by the fact that characters of all types were equally likely to engage in verbal aggression. This finding surprised us greatly because, on most dimensions that we have examined in conjunction with our research on animated cartoons, strong patterns of differences are found. For example, in one report (26), we noted that cartoons provide very different messages about what it means to be male and what it means to be female. In another published report (27), we discussed the fact that cartoons tend to reinforce social stereotypes based on being overweight and the importance of being thin. In other recent works we have developed, we have reported on strongly-patterned findings pertaining to cartoons’ messages about prosocial behaviors, physical attractiveness, and gun violence. Given cartoons’ overwhelming tendency to supply viewers with repeated, patterned messages about various social groups and social behaviors, our general finding of “no difference” with respect to the commission of verbal aggression surprised us. When it comes to this particular type of antisocial behavior, it seems that pretty much everyone is equally likely to be verbally aggressive. In the world of animated cartoons, verbal aggression is an equal opportunity behavior.

That many of the reasons underlying cartoon characters’ verbal aggression are motivated by negative feelings or desires (e.g., anger, revenge, intimidation, inherent meanspiritedness, etc.) came as no surprise to us. After all, what more-predictable justification could there be for yelling at someone or threatening or intimidating him/her than as a manifestation of one’s anger, frustration, or basic meanness?! Two of the other findings pertaining to cartoon characters’ reasons for perpetrating verbal aggression did, however, strike us as being interesting and worth discussing further.

The first of these was the finding pertaining to no reason at all–that is, the commonness of engaging in verbal aggression without apparent reason. Essentially, these acts, which accounted for approximately 1 of every 8 instances of verbal aggression (making them the second most common “reason” for being verbally aggressive), entailed yelling for yelling’s sake, threatening others purely because one could, insulting others for no discernible reason, and so forth. We contend that this presents viewers with a particularly negative and particularly dangerous message about verbal aggression: that it is so acceptable and so normal (as mentioned before) that one may elect to engage in this behavior for no reason whatsoever, simply because one wishes to do so. It is a very antisocial world in which yelling, threatening, insulting, and the like occur for no apparent reason; and such oftentimes is the world in which animated cartoon characters live and present themselves to viewers.

The second point we would like to make with respect to the purported reasons underlying cartoon characters’ verbal aggression is that, a sizable proportion of the time (about one-quarter), characters demonstrated verbal aggression for positive reasons. In many of these instances, the verbal aggression was undertaken in an effort to prevent a character from harm, yet in the context of the cartoons’ storylines, the raised voices were not presented as “Hey, watch out!” types of remarks. Had that been the case, they would have been coded as prosocial behaviors, despite the elevated voice volumes, not as acts of verbal aggression. Likewise, in many other instances, verbal aggression was done as an expression of friendship or out of a sense of duty or obligation to another character, but not in a way that enabled it to be coded as being prosocial in nature. In the contexts of the storylines in question, even though they were motivated by positive things, coders deemed them to be antisocial (i.e., verbally aggressive) in nature rather than as prosocial acts (which were also coded as a part of our research study, whenever deemed appropriate).

It is quite intriguing to us that so many of the instances in which cartoon characters were verbally aggressive were performed for benevolent reasons. It seems to us that, in order to understand verbal aggression in the media more completely (and in the process, advance thinking and knowledge in the media studies field), it would be wise to conceptualize verbal aggression as being comprised by different types, rather than placing all acts of verbal aggression into a single category. If, for example, verbal aggression were to be classified on the basis of the implied justification for the act, we might be able to look for differences in the messages provided about “negative verbal aggression” or “hostile verbal aggression” versus “positive verbal aggression” or “benevolent verbal aggression,” or however else one might wish to name the constructs.

Our findings about the characteristics associated with verbal aggression undertaken for positive versus negative reasons underscore the importance of considering the development, implementation and scientific study of just such an approach. Although characters of all “types” were found to be equally likely to engage in verbal aggression for negative reasons, specific characteristics were found to be associated with being verbally aggressive for positive reasons. In the cartoons studied in conjunction with the present research, several positive traits such as intelligence, physical attractiveness, and being a “good guy” were found to be associated with being verbally aggressive for positive reasons. These findings merit further examination in future studies. We believe that future researchers examining verbal aggression in the media might wish to consider classifying verbal aggression into different types, since viewers are presented with quite different messages about the behavior depending upon who is doing it and why it is being performed. To some extent, Glascock (11) took this approach in his work examining the verbal aggression content of television programming, and we believe that it is a line of inquiry well worth exploring and expanding upon in future studies.