In one of your articles for today, Gentile et al. write (in the conclusion):
John Wright, the eminent media effects researcher, was
fond of saying, “The medium isn’t the message. The
message is the message”. For many types of outcome
variables (but not all), the amount of a specific type of
content in video game play has a bigger impact than
does overall amount of play. In the present case, the
results demonstrate that content matters. Violent game
content increases aggressive thoughts and behaviors,
whereas prosocial game content increases prosocial
thoughts and behaviors (Anderson et al.,
2007; Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004).
How can the General Aggression Model be used to defend this claim? Do you agree with this claim--remember part of the conclusion from this article suggests that content is more important that overall exposure (amount of time played).
Due: Nov. 18, 2015 @ 5 p.m.
The general aggression model takes a person and their situation, and runs it through their present internal state (which includes cognition, arousal, and affect) then goes to appraisal/decision and behavior, then an outcome which reinforces or refutes the behavior.
ReplyDeleteI think when Gerbner created his cultivation theory based on hours of TV time, there wasn't a lot of selectivity in television viewing - it was easy to generalize the content of a few channels and base one's theory on hours consumed.
Today, however, there is great selectivity in media content, and I think it does matter to take the general concepts of cultivation and move it further into things like the general aggression model, to discover more about the content people are selecting. Even in generic genres, one must take care to look at the content - a kid playing math vs zombies is not having the same media input as the kid playing left-4-dead, although they are both zombie genre.
Perhaps a tangent from the question, but something I was wondering about the reading where people were finishing stories. The paper never says if the subjects were told they were making up fiction, or deciding what someone would do in real life. I think that would make a difference in the outcome of the study. I don't deny the priming and cultivation of cognition/emotion/arousal for the GAM, but I think mentally healthy people are probably more willing to create violent stories that they know are fiction.
Amen to your observation regarding Gerbner's day and selectivity. We have so many channels that it is difficult to know the sources that are doing the cultivating.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jason too. I think there are so many influences in our lives both in media and outside of media. How do we know which influence is causing the negative effects?
DeleteThe General Aggression Model posits “exposure to violent media can cause short-term increases in aggression through its impact on a person’s present internal state” (Bushman & Anderson, 2002). The model asserts playing violent games has a priming effect and increases arousal. That said, the model defends Wright’s claim, “The message is the message” and not necessarily the medium.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe the content of the video game has a bigger impact than the amount of play. I’m not a big gamer, but I do own a video game system. I probably average fewer than 15 hours a year playing. I have noticed the short-term effect of violent content. I remember playing one of the games in the Call of Duty series. The producers gave a warning of one level that players could find disturbing, and they gave an option to skip this level before the start of the game. I chose to include the level, not really knowing what to expect. Midway into the game, I got to the level. The content consisted of me, the player, playing the role of a terrorist and walking slowly through an airport shooting innocent people. I found the level sickening while playing it. I literally felt sick to the stomach after completing the level, which I needed to do to advance in the game. While I didn’t feel any form of short-term aggression after playing the game, I know it affected me emotionally in a negative way. Normally, the player kills the bad guys…militants that are shooting at you and trying to kill you. Playing the other role and trying to kill civilians was a disturbing twist.
On the other hand, I could play hours of Madden Football and not feel the same way. For others, even Madden can elicit aggressive behavior. When I was in junior high school, my younger brother and I played hours of Madden football. I beat him virtually every time. Once, I remember him getting seriously angry and trying to hit me. Perhaps it was the loss that spawned the response, but video games do cause physiological changes that, in turn, can prime aggressive cognitions.
Othello, I know how you feel. I hardly ever played video games as a kid (comparatively) but when I did play violent video games I just felt kinda uck. But I think that behavior is more affected by time. So we are all affected by the play but I think the extent of the effect for most depends on exposure.
DeleteAccording to the reading, the General Aggression Model “[…] suggests that recent exposure to violent media can cause short-term increases in aggression through its impact on a person’s present internal state, represented by cognitive, affective, and arousal variables” (Bushman & Anderson, 2002). With this in mind, it is also significant to note that if this model stands, then on the opposite side of the spectrum, pro-social game content can cause positive attitudes in the player over the same short-term time period, in the same internal states.
ReplyDeleteWhile I myself am not a fan of video games, I agree with the above claim to a certain extent. I personally believe that an individual is affected more by the content than the amount of time spent in the medium. If the content is good then it will rub off on the player’s subconscious for the better. If the content is unhealthy, then those seeds will subsequently be planted and reaped of the same consequences.
Having established where I agree with the above statement, I now wish to address my concern with another portion of the claim. While I believe that content has more effect than time, that is not to say that spending vast amounts of time playing video games is in any form a healthy activity, even if the content is wholesome. Too much of any one thing is not good. And too much time spent in this medium definitely has its effects too. Just like too much time in any platform of social media is not considered wise, so it stands with video games as well.
I agree with you that too much time playing any type of video game is bad. Some kids these days don't know how to leave their rooms and play "real" sports. The only way they know how to talk to a friend or people is through their video game headset. I find that troubling and sad.
DeleteI think the General Aggression Model does a satisfactory job in identifying and connecting violent media with certain physiological/emotional/mental arousal. The violence experienced vicariously in, say a video game, can prime people internally to think and/or react more aggressively than they normally would. This type of model sounds like every other cultivation-related media effects theory/model and is probably equally effective in explaining certain media effects (with similar limitations as well).
ReplyDeleteI do agree mostly with the position that the message is the message. It was clearly proven in the violent vs. pro-social video game experiment. I personally have never really played video games, but I would extend the same principle to other forms of media. For example, Facebook can be used to bully, but it can also be used to support and encourage others. Clearly someone being bullied and someone being praised are going to feel experience different effects even though the medium was the same. The same goes for movies. Someone watching Fast and Furious is going to experience different emotions and be primed for different reactions than someone who just watched Inside Out.
But, like Meghan pointed out in her post, I also disagree that just because a message of a medium is good, it doesn’t mean excessive time spent using that medium is. Too much time consumed in media, even good media, distracts from living a real, full life. In addition, a lot of people have been pointing out recently that just because you follow a charitable organization on Twitter or like their page on Facebook, it doesn’t mean that you have actually done anything meaningful or helpful in any way.
I also see where the “Message is the Medium” claim came from and how, in some circumstances, it can be true. Certain media can create their own environments or perceptions of the world (i.e. music at a party or the way movies speed up time). A medium in and of itself can have influence on us, however I don’t think that it is always true.
I liked that you mentioned the different ways the media can be used like FB. You can definitely find good and bad ways to utilize media. It's about how we use it.
DeleteMaybe I am just completely wrong, but I slightly disagree. Being some one who personally has played violent video games (not a ton), maybe that contributes to my slightly different stance on the subject. I remember having similar discussion about violent media in general.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I will mention that I am a pretty large fan of the Bourne movies and I also play “Call of Duty” with my Dad. However, I have never been an aggressive person. I also don’t have aggressive urges or think about being aggressive. To be honest, I do not feel as if I am just an exception to the rule. Maybe the reason I do not feel I am affected is because my time spent on video games is limited and other influences are present in my life. In this case, I could see how large amounts of time with violent video games may prove negative in comparison to someone that spends similar time to me with violent media.
Again, I think there are many more variables to take into account. First, at what age were they exposed to the violent media/games? What was their childhood like? What was their family like? What other influences were present? What is their mental state?
When it comes to the General Aggression Model, I think this can in some ways defend the claim, but I also feel like it supports my issues with some of the limitations. At least in the model it addresses the influence of cognition and arousal, which goes a little further rather than just time and message. I honestly feel that content and time can be interchangeably important, but I also feel that other influencers need to be taken into account in order to pull any type of claim.
I agree. I think it does. If you look at the short term GAM, you see the Routes (Present internal state) that talk about the affect, cognition and arousal of the personal playing. If someone is playing a Lego Batman video game for five hours that has some violence like kicking and hitting bad guys, then that is very different from someone playing Grand Theft Auto for five hours. I would argue that someone's aggressive affect, cognition and arousal would be worse for someone who plays Grand Theft Auto for 2 hours than the person who plays Lego Batman all week long. There are all sorts of things that you have to take into account when it comes to content. Are they playing games with first person shooters? With antisocial agendas? With rape? These are all going to be way worse than a game with a prosocial agenda (even if aggressive). In some games, you are rewarded more points for how many people you kill or how many bad things you do. CONTENT MATTERS! Now, the long term GAM seems to side more with the "time" more than "content" approach, but that would make sense. It would still make sense that content and amount of time would interact for an outcome.
ReplyDeleteSide note: Many people have an issue with the GAM because they say,"I play violent video games and I'm not going to go kill someone." It is important to note that the inputs at the top of the model are "person" and "situation". Some people are predisposed to violent behavior. Not everyone who plays a violent video game is going to go kill someone. However, Brad Bushman also did a meta analysis on violent video games and violent behavior and he and Craig Anderson argue that violent video games are a RISK FACTOR. They are one part (but a big one) of aggressive behavior.
Although there is clearly a positive association between playing violent video games and increased aggressive behaviors outside of video games, this like isn’t causal. Realistically, not all people who engage in violent video game play will become aggressive people in real life, although, there are some characteristics and personality traits that mediate or moderate this effect, such as trait hostility, and anger, (Bartholow, Sestir, & Davis, 2005), and narcissism (Kim, Namkoong, Ku, & Kim, 2008). Playing violent video games may lead to decreased physiological arousal to violent media (Carnagey, Anderson, & Bushman, 2007), the priming of aggressive cognitions, and even decreased empathy and prosocial behavior (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
ReplyDeleteThe General Aggression Model (GAM; Bushman & Anderson, 2001) helpfully explains the relationship between violent video game play, aggressive cognitions, affect, and physiological arousal, which when coupled together may lead to aggressive behavior. This theory explains that exposure to media influences subsequent behavior, which helps to describe how playing prosocial video games may affect prosocial behavior and how violent video game play may influence aggressive behavior. The short-term GAM explains how personological variables such as age, grade level, socioeconomic status, and history of media exposure; as well as situational factors such as how interested a person stays in a game, frustration toward the game, incentives, and rewards; may influence one’s internal state. Present internal state includes cognition or the accessibility of prosocial or aggressive thoughts in one’s mind, affect or the influence of positive or negative mood and emotionality, and physiological arousal which in excess may inhibit one from thinking clearly. After prosocial or violent video game use, cognitions, affects, and physiological arousal aid in or detract from the ability to appraise a situation and make a decision, likely influencing individuals to behave prosocially in situations immediately following prosocial game play or aggressively in situations immediately following violent video game play.
I believe that content viewed is more important for prosocial and aggressive outcomes than is time spent playing video games. An individual playing a lot of prosocial or neutral games and no violent games is not going to become more violent or aggressive from their play because they aren’t likely having aggressive or violent cognitions, negative emotionality, or desensitization to their physiological arousal. In this case, content is more important to these behavioral outcomes than is time spent playing. However, we can’t completely forget the influence of time spent playing video games, as a person playing 5 hours of violent video games each day is probably becoming more primed to aggressive cognitions than a person only playing 1 hour of violent video games each day.
I believe that it is both content and exposure that lead to increased aggression. So I somewhat don’t completely agree with Gentile et al. although there are times when content can be that effective. In COM 600 we just completed our Research Journal assignment and I analyzed Media Psychology. A continuous theme of study was emotional involvement and its relation to media exposure. Two articles specifically stick out to me that may also apply to cultivation theory or the mean world theory. Baumgartner and Wirth (2012) found that groups of readers exposed to positive or negative news material used to priming to recall positive and negative news in subsequent readings. The second article by Friedman et al. (2012) found that by using mood manipulation to create sad mood music listeners, participants refrained from listening to happy music because they felt it would be inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteMy point in sharing these two articles is to underline that media exposure has an effect on our cognitive and emotional senses. Additionally we all know the strength of emotions. This arousal can affect our priming or decision making and behavior according to the general learning model (Gentile et al., 2009, p. 754). Consequently, according to the model, repetition produces more drastic and long-term changes because the individual repeats such behavior (Bushman & Anderson, 2002, p. 1679). What I like about Gentile et al. is that they claim that the general learning model can be applied to any stimulus (p. 753). Prosocial content will yield prosocial behavior; anti-social content will yield anti-social behavior. I tend to believe that it is a combination of both exposure and content. As both authors mention repetition can have long term effects. Let’s look at another example of reading scriptures. People that read scriptures once every month for 5 minutes may not feel the influence of the Spirit effectively. But reading for half an hour every day and making some note of what you read will change their attitudes. The same thing can be applied to video games I think.
And what about those that claim that they are unaffected? Huesmann et al. (2003) mentioned that most researchers have found that violent behavior is usually a culmination of many different cognitive and environmental effects (p. 201). I don’t know if aggression is always the view of games of how to handle conflict as Bushman and Anderson (2002) point out in the model (p. 1680). However, the fact that we are effected is something that I firmly believe in, even if it is not completely in a violent fashion. I refer to a class discussion where Tambi expressed that he never felt video games made him violent, but more accessible solutions involved in video games transferred into some frustration with real-life everyday challenges that required other solving methods (T. Issac, October 22, 2015, interpersonal communication). Tambi can correct me if I’m wrong, but repeated play of violent video games may cultivate an unrealistic expectation on how to solve problems. And perhaps for others unlike Tambi, who possess a higher cognition of problem solving (he was a med student), aggression is an easily accessible priming method in social encounters, as the model suggest it may be (Bushman and Anderson, p. 1680).
So I therefore agree that the general learning model can be used if not the GAM in understanding aggression effects of violent video games. While I believe that some may not be affected (as much), I want to use the model to observe my brother’s behavior. Inputs: My brother is at home playing Halo. Routes: For two hours already he has been sitting getting triple kills and killtaculars and is progressing along the game very well. He just got a running riot. Decision process: He thinks this virtual victory is awesome. Now I feel like the social encounter may come before. Social encounter: My sister comes continues to tell him that she needs to do her homework and he is making too much noise. She gets a little agitated with him. Impulsive action: Instead of realizing that he has been playing for two hours he almost yells at her telling her to go away. She accuses him that video games are making him mean! So did the video games really affect my brother or did my sister lead him to frustration. Well he still chose to get mad, but would he have gotten as mad if he wasn’t playing video games. I don’t think he would have gotten as mad if he was reading his scriptures or just being chill. And I think the two hours didn’t help either. When I played half an hour every month, I don’t feel that video games caused me to get more aggressive; probably other things did.
ReplyDeleteLove and tolerance is natural to man, it is hate and violence that is often learned. Hence, we cannot discountenance the General Aggressive Model claims that violent video games dissensitize people to aggression. The justification is that it is not the amount of video game play in itself that predict the degree of increased aggressive behavior. The content and appeal of the violent video game increases sensation seeking behavior and subsequently instigates rebelliousness.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not have the luxury of playing any video game, I read that a particular game “Spiderman” has violent depictions but is assumed to lack the capacity to prime people to think or focus on its violent content because of its emphasis on “Moral.” Playing games that as a character who engages in risky behavior that is socially inappropriate might give some teens a chance to practice acting and accepting such behavior as normative. We must however, not shy away from the countless other aggression inducing activities like Football, Baseball, and Shooting Guns as sport.
These games or “sports” are equally violent but are not so traumatizing for kids because of adult or parental supervision. This holds that parental mediation can be one of the control variables to guide teen exposure to violent video content.
In the wake of the Paris bombing, a father and his little boy were being interviewed by a News crew and the little boy apparently devastated by the attacks news asked his Dad that they relocate. The Dad replied that Paris was home and that they don’t have to leave. In his innocence, he said but they will get killed should they stay and the Dad directed the boys attention to some candles and flowers around them and explained those were the expression of love over hate, and love will keep them safe in Paris. The Dad in my opinion provided a timely parental influence that will instill a parasocial behavior in that young mind and may possibly neutralize the likelihood of antisocial outcomes later in life.
My final take on the “Message is the medium” is that aside the blood and gore associated with violent media content, some violence can in fact open up dialogue about war, cruelty and Heroism. Some other findings also show that certain video games have been effective in Therapy. The content of such video games are said to be used for “Hand and Eye coordination”, training and simulation in those requiring physiotherapy and those with learning disabilities have also experienced remarkable problem solving abilities, pattern recognition and increased self-efficacy.
Gentile et al. cited (Gentile & Stone, 2005; Khoo & Gentile, 2007; Stone & Gentile, 2008) their prior work which, “suggested that there are at least five dimensions along which video games can have effects—amount, content, context, structure, and mechanics—each of which is likely to have specific effects.” In the article about pro-social behaviors, the time element played a crucial role in the behavior change.
ReplyDeleteWhen studying violence and aggression it is interesting to look at the differences in the short and long term effects. Just like I can get my heart beating quickly by going running, one violent game can change perceptions and behavior for a short period of time, but at some point there is a tipping point and repeated gaming is more likely to cause more permanent attitudes.
In my opinion, the General Aggression Model does have merit in that there are some short-term effects that generally come from engagement in violent content. Obviously there are the physiological increases (heart rate, adrenaline, etc) that could correlate with increased propensity to act out physically or verbally based on the heightened physical response. But more than anything, the research suggests that violent content when played for just 20 minutes can produce expectations that potential conflicts could be handled with aggression. In my opinion, this links to the mean world syndrome by Gerbner in that the message can impact our perceptions both over time as well as in the short-term.
Both studies that we looked at for this class conclude that the message or content itself can have just as much of an impact as the medium/channel. When individuals repeatedly engage with violent content, I think it has a great influence on their perceived norms. This can ultimately lead to desensitization and as shown in the General Aggression Model, an increase in propensity toward violent behavior, as well as a lower likelihood of intervening in violent situations.
The General Aggression Model suggests that violent games have a short-term and long-term effect on cognition, affect and arousal. During the short-term this has been proven; however, the long-term effect hypothesis has not been established.
ReplyDeleteThe General Aggression Model suggests that the build up of attitudes, beliefs and expectations that would result in violent and aggressive schemas. Someone might feel the urge to act violently because of the belief that violence is a norm, it is expected by society and it is sometimes even rewarded.
The type of video game being played does play a larger role than the amount of time played, because video games are very diverse. Some video games teach values and morals through story-telling in a way that I believe no other medium can. However, the trend that has been seen in the increase in the amount of violent display in video games could indicate that there is desensitization taking place, which also is suggested by the GAM. Old video games that were considered gruesome and violent would not even sell at this day and age. The general public has been desensitized and requires higher forms and levels of violence.
I have argued in the past that video games do not promote the level of violence being claimed by social scientists. However, I feel that the video games I play and the ones that I played as a kid cannot compare to the ones being developed now in terms of violence and aggression. The virtual characters I have killed have never felt real enough for me to experience or identify with the character i'm playing with. I hope if a game was so real in portraying the acts of murder and violence that the majority of people would actually find it repelling and that it would miserably fail in the market. Because if it didn't, I will have an even more pessimistic view on human nature and what it is capable of labeling as a form of "entertainment".
The general aggression model (GAM; Bushman & Anderson, 2002) is commonly applied to both prosocial and aggressive content, since the process by which media influences individuals is similar across content, but with differing effects. The GAM postulates person and situation (media use) variables influence three aspects of the self, affect, cognition, and arousal. The resulting interplay between these constructs then influences the appraisal and decision making process, which leads to either thoughtful or impulsive action. Such action leads to a social encounter, and the process begins again.
ReplyDeleteTaken in the context of violent media, viewing violent media would lead to increased aggressive cognition, affect, and arousal, leading to a negatively biased appraisal and decision making process. Once a decision is made, individuals who used violent media will more likely act aggressively, which will lead to additional social encounters and additional chances to aggress.
Taken in the context of prosocial media, it is likely that viewing prosocial media would lead to increased prosocial cognition, affect, and arousal, leading to inclinations toward positive appraisal and the decision making process. Once a decision is made, individuals who used prosocial media will more likely engage in prosocial behavior, which will lead to additional social encounters and additional chances to help others.
I agree that the GAM accurately explains the link between violent media use and prosocial media use with aggression and prosocial behavior, respectively. The model seems to explain fundamental processes involved in the process of media internalization.
Finally, I think content is more salient an influence than overall exposure to media, when assessing the effects of media use. For instance, the effects of total media time may be BMI, the strength of social relationships, involvement in extracurricular activities; these hypothetical outcomes are rooted in the displacement hypotheses, which explains that media use will result in decreased constructs that are dependent on time. Rather, when individuals spend time viewing media, they will spend less time on other activities.
However, looking at media influence through the lens of content will more fully explain how media influences particular personological variables as well as behavior. For instance, viewing sexual media content will likely be associated with sexual behavior, political content with political engagement, prosocial media with prosocial behavior, or violent media with aggression. Therefore, individuals do not learn by amount of time, but by the things they are viewing.
This article http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm (“What is the meaning of the medium is the message” by Mark Federman) cleared up some of my existing confusion about McLuhan’s disgustingly popular adage “The medium is the message.” An important part of McLuhan’s intended meaning, according to the article, is that a “message” is a “change in scale or pace or pattern” that a new invention brings with it. Pardon my copy and paste, but I couldn’t paraphrase a better example: Federman argues that
ReplyDelete“the message of a newscast are not the news stories themselves, but a change in the public attitude towards crime, or the creation of a climate of fear. A McLuhan message always tells us to look beyond the obvious and seek the non-obvious changes or effects that are enabled, enhanced, accelerated or extended by the new thing.”
With this in mind, I am not sure that I can entirely agree with Gentile et al. that the “message is the message” though they produce some very convincing evidence in both of our readings today. Likewise, I cannot argue that the content will not have an impact on the user and the decision-making process. But I also think that the usage goes deeper than simply the violent video game -- but perhaps the uses and grats of that game. This seems to be reflected in the General Aggression model (with how an individual appraises their information and takes action). Some things that need considering is what is it that is most salient to the player from the game? What are they focused on whilst playing? What are they learning and taking into their brains? As Bushman and Anderson state,
“aggression is largely based on the activation and application of aggression-related knowledge structures stored in memory (e.g., scripts, schemas)”. Is ALL violence from the game taken into one’s brain, or are there perhaps other more salient “scripts” that particular users may pay attention to over others while playing a game?
Jane McGonigal is an online game designer. In a TED talk she gave a few years ago, she said that she wanted to make it “as easy to save the world in real life as it is to save the world in online games.” In essence, Ms. McGonigal wanted to convince normal people to GAME MORE. She said that currently (in 2010) people spent 3 billion hours a week playing online games...and that this is not nearly enough gameplay to solve the world’s most urgent problems (obesity, poverty, hunger, etc). According to McGonigal’s research, we should play 21 billion hours of games a week by the next decade to solve the world’s problems. McGonigal mentions that people do not feel as motivated to do something that matters OUTSIDE of game mode, because in game mode, we become OUR BEST SELVES. In real life we often feel overwhelmed or overcome.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, her game of reference was World of Warcraft. A game that I wouldn’t necessarily deam “prosocial” or filled with colorful characters who build houses together. She mentions things like “immediate trustworthiness” amongst the people gamers are playing with, not to mention hundreds of thousands of people who are willing to collaborate. WOW also provides positive feedback in a way that we do not receive in real life.
McGonigal’s main argument is that in playing games, our species will learn to be more collaborative and hardy. According to her research, (1) games help with urgent optimism -- the desire to act immediately, to tackle something, believing that we have a chance at success. (2) They can weave a tight social fabric. We like people who we play games with. (3) Games encourage blissful productivity -- average gamer plays 22 hrs. a week. We are happier working hard than just “hanging out”. Gamers are willing to work HARD if given the right work. (4) Gamers love epic convening -- they love to be attached to amazing things.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world?language=en#t-16125
I am mostly intrigued that McGonigal uses World of Warcraft as an example here. She mentions nothing about violence, instead talking about prosocial games she has created to help people prepare and learn about real-life social problems and to try to collaborate and fix them. Without saying it, she does slightly indicate that World of Warcraft in itself is not fit for saving the world, but similar principles can be handy.
This takes me back to my original argument that is confused at best... I cannot fully agree with Gentile about the “message being the message” with video games. I agree that there is convincing evidence indicating prosocial vs. violent behaviors based on exposure to video games. But, as Federman says in his article - there may be other larger factors that we are overlooking here: perhaps both of these types of games encourage people to be less proactive in real-life because they are stuck in a “positive” gaming world. Perhaps these individuals will simply wait for a situation to confront them rather than being inclined to seek out knowledge for themselves. And lastly, in playing online/video games do we lose part of what makes us human - that raw, unmediated interaction and REAL consequences?
In the single episode general aggression model, aggression “is largely based on the activation and application of aggression-related knowledge structures stored in memory” which has nothing to do with the medium through which it is received and stored, let alone recalled. The content, or the message, is what remains. For me personally, I could not care less about video games. However, I used to play Assassin’s Creed sometimes because the history and scenery was so cool. But I’m not at all coordinated, so I never did well, so it wasn’t very fun. Also, confession, I can’t watch action movies because if there is ANY plot contained within the action at all, I can’t follow it and I miss important storylines and plot points. So, I rarely, if ever, watch violent media. It’s not because I care about the violence, but rather because I seem to lack any natural talent for decoding violent media. Now, with that said, my husband is SUPER into violent video games and he watches action/adventure movies when I’m not home. His natural temperament without any of that is pretty chill and happy. However, if he plays video games for a long time or watches a really violent movie, I’ve noticed that he will get extremely frustrated about the most stupid things ever that have super simple fixes. He shifts very quickly into a short-term anger mode. I think the two are very connected, and I think that the general aggression model supports this application of that claim.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that content is more important. The other night my husband was playing a game (I think it’s the new Call of Duty, but don’t quote me on that) and it was INSANE. They were dropping f-bombs left and right and it was super bloody and gross. Because I was sitting next to him, I think he felt uncomfortable with the amount of language and gore, so he quietly went into settings and turned off those two things. He usually plays with his best friend from high school every weekend, and if his friend had been sitting next to him instead of me, he never would have turned off the language and gore. It has nothing to do with how much he is playing the game (because according to the general aggression model, he would already be desensitized if that were the case) but rather the situation he was in that affected his decision-making process.
GAM suggests "repeated exposure to violence can make hostile knowledge structures chronically accessible, essentially creating an aggressive personality." Now, that's interesting when it's also being called out as an especially short-term effect.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think it's important to consider GAM starts with an individual. In my view, that includes understanding of why someone is playing. It reminds me of the study about why people love to watch Horror movies. Some people ("White knucklers") like the physiological response of fear- heightened adrenaline, ect. But for those who like horror for the mystery of "whodunit?" might be less negatively effected by a physiological response.
Have you ever been tricked into looking at one of those screens looking for a hidden item and after about 2 minutes a scary picture pops up and scares the begeezes out of you? I don't think anyone can argue that even short-term exposure wouldn't effect a person in dramatic and lasting ways. A visceral short-term reaction would be natural just as in any strong affect appeal. GAM reasonably separates an impulsive reaction from a thoughtful action. Affect theory on it's own would account for some of what is seen though these violent media studies.
For all that, I do believe GAM can support both of those claims.
However, when applying GAM to the idea of "the message is the message", it's important to put results into an even deeper context of the medium.
For example, the increased time playing video games makes the body physically weaker. You won't find as much aggressive behavior from a person who would rather sit and let their body deteriorate than one who finds more of a rush from social interactions.
Another point is the opportunity costs. By spending more time in front of a TV, one is spending *less* time doing other things. It's a critical factor considering cultivation. In that, if you can only draw on what information you have and the amount of competing information is limited, you naturally must succumb to the messages presented. You live in a fishbowl of your own making I suppose.
Of course I only believe that to a certain extent. Humans are not simply input-output machines but they have a soul and the light of Christ to help (even the unbaptized) to recognize good from evil, truth from lies. I think the processing system in every human allows one to make decisions even without prior knowledge and experience. It is a duty of an individual to seek out new information to make better judgements. A person's brain is also far more dynamic than we give credit for. For example, if all I ever knew about Mexico was what I saw on TV, it would not go to say that it my only source of reasoning. If I know a lot about other countries (even one as different as Scotland), my brain can reasonably sift out information about Mexico. So if I know that Scotland has a pretty strong culture but still has some differing people living in it, my brain might make the same assumption about the people living in Mexico- that they could not possibly be all the same.
Does that make sense?
I think the General Aggression Model can be used to defend the claim in this prompt by what the player is going to play, what he or she inputs into the game console. Depending on the content of the game it will use those routes in the model. The content can affect the player if the majority of it is violent. If the player gets interrupted or something happens to cause an action to be taken, the player will react depending if it is thoughtful or impulsive.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if I was able to explain it clearly, and I could have gone the prosocial route, but in my personal experience, it has been violent video games that I can understand with this study. I agree with the claim because I have an older brother who plays video games constantly. And yes, he still lives at home. A lot of the games he plays are violent. I have also noticed his moods changes after he plays his games. He is more abrupt and seems to have no patience for kindness. I’ve noticed throughout the years that the older my brother gets the more violent games he plays. He has never really physically acted out, but his thought process and words become more aggressive. It has been sad to see the effects of him playing video games, especially the violent ones. It is hard for him to distance himself from the real world and the gaming world in the sense that we don’t know what he “went through” to complete that task or whatever he had to deal with.
The general aggression model can be used to support the argument suggested by Gentile at al. The general aggression model is built solely around the content (message) rather than medium. It suggests that exposure to stimuli (specifically stimuli that initially cause fear) in a positive emotional context leads to desensitization. The desensitization to violence leads to cognitive and affective outcomes such as decreased sympathy for violence victims and decreased negative attitudes towards violence.
ReplyDeleteThe final step is outcomes, which includes behavior outcomes such as a higher likelihood of initiating aggression. The entire model is based on message. The theory supports the work of Gentile et al. because it’s the amount of violent content, not the amount of playing video games that has an effect. The medium isn’t even considered.
I agree that the amount of violent material is more important to than the medium when looking at effects. A mildly violent video game may have less of an impact than exposure to extremely violent movies.
I do wonder, however, if there is a study out there that compares mediums. Since Gentile et al. argue that it’s the amount of violent material that causes the effect, it would be interesting to see a study the effects of people exposed to violent content in different mediums (movie vs. video game). The violent material would have to equivalent despite the different mediums for it to be measurable. I just wonder if there is a different effect from seeing someone killed on TV vs. acting out killing someone in a video game. How could the medium not have some sort of effect? It would be very hard to control the variables in this kind of study though so it might not be possible.
From my understanding of both readings, the general aggression model suggests that exposure to violent media can have short term effects on aggression by impacting our present internal state (cognitive, arousal, and emotional) and suggests that the content is more important than the exposure. I agree for the most part.
ReplyDeleteExposure to violent media of any kind is bound to affect the person consuming it, just as good media can promote positive behavior and have a positive effect on a consumer. So content is important however, I think exposure is also really important. Too much exposure to something…anything (especially media) is not healthy. If someone is playing nice and educational video games, it can have a positive effect on him/her, but if he/she is playing too much, then behavior can be negatively impacted, apart from aggression. Just as I think exposure to really violent and aggressive content for a short amount of time can lead to short-term negative effects, I also think that a lot/too much exposure to mildly violent/aggressive media can have negative effects that can be just as bad as the effects from the violence-heavy content. So content can have short term effects like aggressive behavior right after exposure, and too much exposure to violent/media can cause desensitization or mean world syndrome…how do you decide which is better/worse?
GAM suggests that video game players are 'primed' to act out in aggressive ways after playing an aggressive (antisocial) video game. This effect is strongest right after playing the game and wears off after a while. In this way it seems to support Mr. Wright's statement. I agree that content is probably the most important factor for immediate effect but that long time exposure is more important in creating a new aggressive social norm.
ReplyDeleteThis all leads to the heart of the issue. What question are you seeking to answer? If you are seeing if violent video games have an effect whether it is long- or short-term then the answer is yes. But if you are asking if violent video games create people with aggressiveness or violence as a personal characteristic, then that answer will depend not only on content but also exposure (many of these studies are reported to the public as proof that violent video game create menaces to society).