Does portrayal of Drug Use in Film & TV Provoke Higher Use?
by Katerina Kamysheva
Drug use is undoubtedly on the rise, I want to see whether more films portraying drug use over the years, has a correlation with the increasing numbers of drug abuse. Some politicians and filmmakers regard audiences as passive viewers, they understand that what we watch could have an impact on our ways of thinking, which is why they view film as a powerful medium. I wanted to see whether the saying, ‘you are what you eat’ can be translated to ‘you are what you watch’. There are many factual points defending both sides of the argument, so we can’t accurately measure to what extent this is true. Supporting both sides of the argument, I want to use psychology based information (like Bandura’s social learning experiments and Bruce Alexander’s Rat Park investigation) to give a balanced argument for both sides. I also think that it is important to look at the reasons and pathways towards addiction, and discuss whether in fact what we watch does influence our decisions.
The start of Drug Film and Stoner Film Genres
There were 7,545 hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of drug-related mental health and behavioural disorders in 2018. This is 12% higher than in 2006 (NHS, 2018). More films and TV shows each year touching upon the topic of drug use, led me to consider whether this could be a cause for the increasing number of illegal drug users globally.
Looking at drug films throughout the years alongside real life drug use statistics within the same timeframe, we can see if there is a trend. Incidentally, US population usage of marijuana increased from 28% in 1980 to 40% in 2000, as did the number of films marijuana appeared in, from 10 films in 1980 to 105 films in 2000. During the 1980-2000s when marijuana use was increasing, ‘Stoner film’ was being popularised. ‘Stoner film’ is a subgenre of comedy where the plot of the movie revolves around the use of marijuana and shows cannabis culture. Some notable Stoner films include: Dazed and Confused (Richard Linklater, 1994) and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) . A Columbia study showed that children watching an R-rated movie are six times more likely to try marijuana, this backs the fact that many people’s actions and decisions are influenced by what they watch (Columbia University, 2003) . For me it showed that these ‘stoner films’, caused more people to view the drug in a harmless light like in the movies and therefore more likely to try it.
Based on this, I believe that perhaps this could be one of the reasons for why more US citizens believe that cannabis should be legalised, as shown below with data, from 1969 to 2019. While legalisation of drugs is very different from drug use, in my opinion they both have a strong link, so in this example the more people use marijuana the more people will agree to legalising it. This data shows some correlation with increased cases of drug use with increased numbers of drug films. However more evidence is needed to make a strong judgement like this, with this in mind it is difficult to measure whether drug films do influence higher drug use.
PEW Research Center, 2019
Effects of influential TV shows like Breaking Bad
The entertainment industry is there to entertain, yet evidence shows that audiences are influenced from mainstream films and TV, like Breaking Bad(2008-2013) . The show follows Walter White a chemistry teacher, who starts to produce methamphetamine to support his family financially. After its premiere, there were multiple cases of science teachers who were inspired by the show and attempted to manufacture their own methamphetamine, one of which was John W Gose, a former chemistry teacher in Texas, who pleaded guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine in 2017. Despite this, these cases are very rare and possibly overdramatized by tabloids to increase their sales by mentioning popular shows like Breaking Bad.
After Abdullah Saeed interviewed Vince Gilligan (creator of Breaking Bad) for Vice magazine, Gilligan said, “I spend all my time thinking about this one character and not the politics at large.” (Gilligan, 2012) showing that for the entertainment industry the narrative is more important rather than accuracy and teaching, as it is purply made for entertainment purposes. Additionally, the interviewer covers this after reviewing the interview, “it seems that Gilligan...focused more on the plot. Which is understandable for the entertainment industry as that's its main goal, entertaining, however due to the seriousness of the topic in the series, it should be dealt with more care.” . So can we really blame the entertainment industry for other people's actions?
Overall I agree with Saeed as he said that the portrayal of drug use in TV is purely used for amusement for audiences, however I believe that creators of these films and shows like Vince Gilligan need to be aware of the seriousness of the topic and convey accurate depictions of the drug use. In this way the audiences watching these shows and films will educate themselves on the dangers of drug use and not just the highs. While series like Breaking Bad present narratives of their characters benefitting in some ways from the drug scene, perhaps more cases of people influenced by the show (as the teachers were) will appear.
Heroin Use in Film
Increasing number of films depicting heroin had a correlation with the increased users of the drug. In 1990 there were 37 films in which heroin appeared; this increased to 87 in 2000, as did the usage of heroin by the US population, from 0.1% in 1990 to 1.4% in 2000. Heroin use has been steadily on the rise since 2007. It cannot be proven that heroin related films increased the number of heroin users, as many influential films depicting heroin were showing the drug in a bad light. Even so, there is a debate that familiarity is what influences drug use, regardless of the message in the film being good or bad towards drugs. This is called the mere-exposure effect, also known as the familiarity principle. It is a psychological phenomenon where people sometimes develop a preference towards things simply because they have seen them many times and become familiar with them. This could support the idea that increased numbers of films portraying drugs caused the rates of drug use to increase, as audiences become regularly exposed to these films, they will become more influenced to try drugs.
One example of a film that depicts the harsh life of a heroin addict is Christiane F (Uli Edel, 1981) . which was based on the autobiography of a 14 year old girl growing up in 1970s West Berlin. After the film's release it became popular for raising awareness of heroin abuse; Christiane Felscherinow (upon which the film based on) became a celebrity across Europe, however the film stirred up a lot of controversy. A following was created by teenage girls in West Berlin, they would emulate Christiane’s style of dressing and spend time at Bahnhof Zoo station, which also became a popular tourist destination (this station was significant in the film and Christaine’s real life) This new subculture of teenagers became a concern for family and friends. They feared that even with the graphic scenes of suffering, impressionable teenagers could view Christiane as some sort of a rebellious role model. Though the film did not intend to glamourize a teenage addict, it inadvertently did as girls were imitating Christiane. Based on this, I believe that even with movies depicting detailed terrors of drug abuse, audiences will find a way to glamourise it.Which inturn could have started the 90s trend of Heroin chic, which can be seen to resurge today. For example, Gucci’s Spring/Summer collection of 2016 was inspired by the film Christiane F.
Frame from Christine F, Neue Constantin Film, 1981 & Picture of Gucci Spring/Summer collection.
Perhaps the psychological phenomenon of the familiarity principle, would have some sort of impact on the actions of viewers after watching a number of films depicting drug use, even if the film provides all the dangers of the drug. For me it seems that Christiane F is a great example of this, it included graphic scenes of withdrawal, yet a subculture was still created. Audiences are not shocked anymore by the countless times movies have portrayed the ugliness of drug abuse, and so drug use doesn't have much serious meaning to them anymore. In spite of this, addiction is a serious mental disorder which cannot be provoked through simply watching something.
Rat Park Investigation
Psychologist Bruce Alexander is well known for his research on the psychology behind addiction. Rat park was a series of investigations Alexander held in the 1970s to further research the pathways of addiction. Around this time rats were experimented on for addiction research, they were put in boxes called ‘skinner boxes’. Inside the rats would sometimes be starved for 24 hours, and receive small amounts of food only when the rat pushes a lever. Through observing the rat rewarding itself with food, psychologists would analyse and conduct experiments to see how the rat reacts in different variables. One early experiment on addiction incorporated the skinner box, from this it was concluded that drugs were highly addictive to rats and therefore humans too. This is because their results showed that the rats would regularly press on the lever and consume large amounts of different drugs when inside the skinner box. This study further helped support the War of Drugs during the time, proving that drugs most certainly cannot exist in a society.
The results were not surprising to most, however Bruce Alexander believed that the method used had many limitations. The main one being the environment the rats were held in. Alexander stated that skinner boxes didn't have the correct conditions to make it a fair experiment. He hypothesised that the poor environment the rats were held in caused them to want to increase their drug intake. This point is significant, as I believe if scientists were to put rats in solitary confinement then it would practically be the equivalent of doing the same thing to a human, which drives people to insanity. As he explained, “if prisoners are in solitary confinement with the chance to take mind-numbing drugs, they probably would take them, therefore would isolated rats not need to numb their minds in solitary confinement for the same reason that people do?” (Alexander, 2010) This environment cannot reflect in people's real lives, in reality people are faced with many decisions and outcomes which may lead to their addiction.
Alexander set up his own experiment to test the conclusion made. His study required a wooden box with a large area, filled with platforms and climbing pieces for the rats. He finally added lots of rats and made sure to include both sexes to create a more realistic environment. This space was called ‘Rat Park’. As this was a study on drug addiction, inside the Rat Park there were two water bottles placed, one with water and the other laced with a drug. The results showed that the rats in solitary confinement consumed a significantly larger amount of drugs compared to the ones in Rat Park. It was clear comparing both of the studies, that the rats' consumption was a response to their environment. The Rat Park and Skinner box experiments show that addiction is a complex disorder and is not easy to conduct experiments on. Rat Park had some very interesting results which could lead to a better understanding of why people become addicted to drugs. Rat Park suggests that perhaps it is the environment that we are in which can initiate addiction, and therefore not from what we watch. To me it makes sense that people in a bad environment would start abusing drugs, in order to numb themselves.
The Bobo Doll Study
To test whether impressionable audiences' watching habits really affects their decisions, we can look at past experiments from Albert Bandura. Bandura was a psychologist who investigated the impact of behaviours in television to real life people’s social behaviours. During the 1960s Bandura tested observational learning which investigates whether our social behaviours are formed by watching and copying others, this is known as vicarious reinforcement. He formed a series of experiments known as the Bobo doll experiments. One experiment involved watching the behaviour of three separate groups of 16 boys and girls, (to create a fair experiment, & to eliminate gender as a factor in influencing behaviour). Individually they were put into a room with an adult acting as a role model for the child. The first group had an adult in the room, who was instructed to act aggressive towards this Bobo doll, punching and pushing it. The second group was shown a recording of an adult being aggressive towards the Bobo doll on television. Finally, the third group of children was shown a recording of an adult dressed in a cat costume being aggressive towards the Bobo doll. After the three groups of children were shown how the Bobo was treated (in person or on screen or in the cat costume) they were each left unattended in a room full of toys, including the Bobo doll. The results showed that all children from each group had an increase in aggressive behaviour. Bandura concluded that children will learn by observing and imitating social behaviour from presenting a model they identified with and whether it is shown in real life or on screen.
Many can take Bandura’s Bobo Doll study to argue that people’s behaviours are influenced by what they watch, however the study has a few criticisms including reliability and ethical claims. Firstly, the study has low ecological validity, meaning that Bandura’s findings cannot be generalised to real life situations, as it involves a child and an adult model. The child and the adult presented, are strangers, also the child cannot influence the adult model as there is no interaction between the two. In addition to this the violence shown to the child was a very artificial form of ‘violence’ and not real aggression a child may be exposed to, as the model was hitting a doll and not a real person. Overall Bandura’s findings have some limitations causing the question to still remain, is behaviour determined by vicarious reinforcement?
Overall Thoughts...
I’ve tried to give an overall balanced judgement, so it has become a challenge to side with one answer. The topic of drug use and its correlation with film is difficult to measure, therefore having looked at all the evidence, the answer remains inconclusive. My reason for this is that I believe that to some extent it is almost impossible to measure people’s actions towards using drugs from watching films and TV. There are so many possible reasons for why someone might experiment with drug use, it would be ignorant to say that what was presented on screen was the main cause of their actions. Maybe it's just because our modern-day society has made people more depressed, since it's the leading cause of disability worldwide, and so drugs are a form of escapism? Inspired by Lacan’s mirror stage theory, film theorists see cinema as functioning as a mirror for reflecting our society. Therefore with more drug use over the years aren’t more films inevitably going to depict them?
by Katerina Kamysheva, December 2022.
