Schwarzenegger Lowers Crime

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is one politician who can credibly claim that he is truly responsible for reducing crime, at least if you believe a new study by economists Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna. It isn’t his policies as governor, however, that he can take credit for, but rather his acting roles.

In their new paper entitled “Does Movie Violence Increase Violent Crime?” they actually find that assaults are lower when a blockbuster violent movie is released, and their results have attracted the attention of the media. Although it might be tempting to an economics world outsider to react with knee-jerk negativity to this research and discount it as being flawed or nonsense, Dahl and DellaVigna are both outstanding young economists who do excellent work. I have only read the paper quickly, and I did not find anything obviously wrong with it. In fact, it seems like they have done the analysis with great care. The one thing I find strange about the paper is that they put tremendous emphasis on violent movies, but really they find pretty similar magnitudes from people attending non-violent or mildly violent movies as well. More or less, it looks like going to movies is good, clean, wholesome fun that substitutes for other activities, such as heavy drinking, that tend to lead to violence.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 11

View All Comments »
  1. matthew heintz says:

    Eh, it’s not the movies that reduce the crime, its just the fact that are in a location they can’t commit crimes. After school programs, bowling, basketball, w/e would show the equivalent declines.

    I think it’s very misleading to say that watching violent films reduces crime…which carries with the idea that watching something violent somehow releases violent urges that would’ve be displaced else where…which I found no proof for at all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. AaronS says:

    Besides the obvious criticism that G-rated movies apparently do not have the opposite effect of increasing violent crime, there are some things that I doubt were factored in….

    1) Anytime people are “out of harm’s way”–whether at the mall, the theater, the stadium, or church–it is likely that violent crime will diminish, since the pool of victims is going to be smaller than normal.

    2) Since violent movies are typically released right along with light-hearted fare, how do we know that there is just not a general feeling of the warm and fuzzies that descends upon the thugs after watching “The Sweet Story of the Littlest Princess”?

    3) Oh, and here’s a big one: What happens to the bad guys in movies? Hmmm? I’ve seen semi-trucks fall of bridges on top of them. Seen them hammered through the chest with a pipe. Seen them fall into wood chippers, and the such like. Or, at the least, arrested and imprisoned. Maybe that gives our thugs a pause that carries over the weekend? I mean, even in monster movies like “Predator” the poor alien is blown to kingdom come!

    4) I would think that it has to do with “re-direction” in any case. Either having something to do beside rob the neighbors, or at least thinking and talking about something beside plotting for a victim.

    5) If this study is true, I’m betting crime goes up just before violent movies are released, since they have to get money to get into the theater!

    6) To be fair, it may not simply be that the thugs are otherwise involved by going to movies, but rather that there is some psychological “release” in seeing a violent film that serves to vent immediate hostilities (though it may surface later). I mean, when I leave a funny movie, I don’t walk outside and say, “Hey, I’ve had it up to here and now I’m going to be hilarious!” No, I’ve had my dose of funny, and so there is no need for me to attempt to fill the void.

    I know Freakonomics is often about finding the un-intuitive answer, but I don’t see this conclusion holding up. It’s not the “violent” movies. It’s the movies, period.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Matt says:

    One simple explanation would be that violent movies attract the type of audience that is more likely to be off committing crime, otherwise. (Primarily, young men.) So violent movies could draw potential criminals to theaters (and away from shenanigans) in far greater numbers than chick flicks, etc.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. James says:

    “Eh, it’s not the movies that reduce the crime, its just the fact that are in a location they can’t commit crimes. After school programs, bowling, basketball, w/e would show the equivalent declines.”

    “1) Anytime people are “out of harm’s way”-whether at the mall, the theater, the stadium, or church-it is likely that violent crime will diminish, since the pool of victims is going to be smaller than normal.”

    These arguments really do not hold weight with me based on my own personal experiences. I know that in high school and college, the places where my friends and I witnessed (and were sometimes involved in) violent crime were exactly these kinds of places: theaters, stadiums, malls, and clubs. These places are magnets for the people who are most likely to commit the kind of impulsive crimes that this study deals with: young people in desperate need of something to do.

    A related study that I think would be interesting: looking at peoples’ mental states immediately after a violent movie (say, the first hour or two). I have noticed that in the immediate aftermath of watching a violent movie, a lot of people in the theater seem to looking for a fight. Watching the prerelease of the 300 comes to mind.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Annoyed says:

    Great to see that after the first article was published on this research and heavily criticized by readers we need to read another post defending the paper. Sure, not everyone is a bright economist but people actually are entitled to having interesting opinions on economists’ research. Besides, the point readers had is simple enough: it is not about the data used, nor about what types of movies are used, it’s about the lack of policy relevance and analytical implications of this research. Anyone can see and comment on that, no need to be pedantic about it I would think.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Mark L says:

    This begs the question, and I’m sure this has been studied before, but, if violent movies deter the viewer from committing violent crimes, do pornographic movies deter the viewer from engaging in similar sexual behavior?

    I know it’s not a perfect analog, but it’s another type of intense movie experience that many would argue alters the viewer’s behavioral patterns. I wonder if other readers had any insights on this.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. reddoorhomeloans.com says:

    I heard a similar comparison drawn between rap music and violent crime. The person advocated the violence and debauchery of rap music as being an outlet for angry young men who would otherwise commit real crimes. The proponent claimed that the crime statistics upheld his theory. Color me skeptical when it comes to violence being good for society, whether in music or film.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. KL says:

    Then, perhaps, if one were to lower the cost of going to the movies (perhaps through a government program), would crime drop as well?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0