The tenth and final chapter of Understanding Video Games, entitled Video Games and Risks, sees the authors end their overview of video game studies by looking at a controversial subject: the potential harmful effects of playing video games. While the binary offered, that of the Active Media perspective versus the Active User perspective, is treated in a relatively even-handed manner, the authors do give their stance on the issue away, based on their wording. They use the phrase ‘alleged harmful effects of video games’ as opposed to ‘possible harmful effects’, taking a more accusatory tone with the notion of the harmful effects of video games.
Regarding the two perspectives examined by the authors, the division is an artificial one established by the authors in order to allow for discussion of contrasting methods and opinions. To that end, the authors first define the perspectives they have delineated. The Active Media perspective is categorized as media (more specifically, video games) actively having an influence on an essentially passive recipient (the player/players). This perspective is mainly influenced by social psychology and behaviorism, and, as the authors point out, offers problematic research due to a lack of interest and/or basic knowledge of video games and video game culture. This research typically consists of two groups, a test and a control group, in a laboratory and is designed to measure levels of aggression using various methods both before and after gameplay, looking for significant changes. The Active User perspective, conversely, emphasizes that players are actively interpreting and filtering during the experience of playing games. The main influences cited for this perspective are anthropology, cultural studies, and media theory/studies. The typical research approach of this perspective follows a group of subjects in a natural setting over a longer period, observing any changes in behavior and how the subjects discuss the games themselves, with a larger focus on context-sensitivity. The main difference between these two perspectives is that Active Media is concerned with what video games do to a player, while Active User is focused on what players do with a game.
Each perspective is then examined in more detail, starting with the Active Media perspective. Due to its roots in behaviorism, the methodologies employed in research for this perspective are more traditional psychological approaches, such as experimental studies and cross-section correlation, with experimental studies being the most common practice. The major assumption carried across these studies, however, is that a given medium has one particular, uniform, effect on all people exposed to it. The main theories associated with the Active Media perspective, as given by the authors, are as follows:
- Catharsis theory – the notion that experiencing depictions of violence in media reduces aggression by reducing internal tension. This theory is widely dismissed at this point.
- Cultivation theory – the hypothesis that media may lead to distorted perceptions of social reality through practices such as stereotyped depictions.
- Social learning theory – behavior is cultivated through imitation of attractive models with attached rewards.
- General arousal theory – a player’s arousal level and, by extension, the energy and intensity of his/her actions increase through the act of playing video games.
- Cognitive neo-association model of aggression – Violent media breed hostility and aggression due to reinforcement of related association nodes in the brain of the subject.
- General aggression model – violent media content increases aggressive behavior by teaching how to perform aggressive actions, influencing underlying aggressive and cognitive schematas, increasing arousal, and creating an emotional and aggressive mental state.
It is interesting to note that, in regard to the general aggression model, there is an acknowledgement of underlying aggressive and cognitive schematas pre-existent. The logical progression of this idea is that this influence media is supposed to have only occurs with subjects who are already disturbed in some way, a notion which goes against the all-people-one-effect theory of the Active Media perspective. The authors do not touch on this notion whatsoever.
Moving past the theories, the actual research conducted in the Active Media mold is then discussed. The authors point out that most of this research conducted in the ten years prior to the book’s publication has been meta-analysis: an examination of the findings of earlier studies, in order to build a stronger case for the risks of video games. A cross-section of experimental studies conducted between the years 2000 and 2002 is also offered, with an interesting set of conclusions. These studies did find the increased aggression typical of Active Media expectations, but discovered that benefits were also possible, although the authors never mention the exact nature of those benefits. A recent trend in Active Media towards more sophisticated statistical analysis is then brought up. This trend has revealed a flaw in much of the earlier research: increased violence was equated with violent video games without consideration of other factors, such as parental involvement and teacher interest (or lack thereof), perceived gender differences, and so on. Further, the inconclusiveness of meta-studies is illustrated via a cross-section of opinions by psychologists on the matter which take a wide range of stances on the subject.
The main criticisms of the Active Media perspective are then offered. These criticisms are as follows:
- Laboratory experiments do not simulate everyday video game use. Therefore, important variables in the actual effect of video games on the subject are excluded.
- Establishing correlations is not the same as establishing causation
- Definitions of aggression are not absolute, and vary greatly from study to study. As a result, measuring aggression is likewise variable.
- Video games are treated as a violent/non-violent binary, without taking into account the widely varying content and styles of the medium, as would be done with any other medium.
- Basic assumptions based on classism, conservatism towards children and youth, and the truths of positivism and behaviorism are widespread.
The authors have observed that these criticisms have increased over the ten years prior to the book’s publication.
The discussion is then shifted to the Active User perspective. This perspective consists primarily of humanities academics and has a preference for research methods such as interviews and field observations. This preference exists because the Active User perspective posits that players are competent and selective, rather than passive, recipients of media-based information. Simply put, the player is the one with agency, not the game. As a result, this perspective hesitates to correlate content with behavior changes, as context dictates how media is consumed. The authors offer the main theories associated with the Active User perspective:
- Reader response; Reception – readers create meaning through various ways of engaging with texts. Taken further, texts have no meaning other than what is assigned by interpretive communities.
- Play as meta-communication – the meaning of a given activity depends on the person or persons involved, as well as the level of involvement of each person.
- The Children’s Perspective – children construct a frame around their play and culture which is virtually impenetrable to adults, due to a vastly different frame of reference.
The problem with this last theory, shared with many of the theories and ideas expressed in regards to this issue, is the assumption that children are the primary audience for video games. This assumption reveals a bias on both sides towards viewing video games as toys rather than a respectable medium, whose main demographic age is actually 18-40 years old. In fact, the authors point out that most studies from this perspective focus on how children perceive video game play, along with the notion that adults have a limited understanding of video games. The Active User perspective, however, rarely attempts to address the perceived dangers of video games and the possible increase of aggression due to video games. The reason for this aversion is that it is impossible to generalize the range of video games and of player contexts. The main criticism against Active User research is that this perspective challenges the reliability and validity of Active Media research results yet does not apply the same rigorous demands on Active User research, which results in a ‘limited scope of results’ and weak documentation. Further, the data from Active User research may be stretched in order to make generalizations.
Moving beyond the Active Media versus Active User debate, the authors discuss three additional concerns about video games. Video game content is the first of these issues, as there are concerns over whether games offer a stereotyped, possibly discriminatory, view of the world. The authors offer no opinion one way or the other about this topic. Next, is the question of whether women, children, and social under-classes (due to systemic inequality) are more susceptible to potential harmful effects of video games. This particular discussion is the epitome of the classism and conservatism, mentioned earlier as a criticism of the Active Media perspective, along with sexism and elitism. One has to wonder why it is even mentioned as a serious issue. Finally, the issue of addiction is mentioned and found to be problematic as definitions of video game addiction vary, as do categorized effects of said addiction.
In the final remarks for the book, the authors call for more academics to start examining the realm of video game studies. Given the missteps, biases, and contradictions in the book, I strongly agree: more academics are needed in video game studies, so that a better overview text may be written.
No comments:
Post a Comment