Dissertation

Playing unfairly: The discourse on violent videogames and society

The realm of videogames is a foreign one to society. Though people have been playing them since the 1970s the general public mostly ignored its existence till later when the development of technology improved the graphics of the games. Because of the realism of these games a growing concern of its effects on people playing them, particularly those of a violent nature have been raised and it was not after the Columbine shootings did the media begin to blame violent videogames for instilling bad influences upon the gamers who play them. In order to reflect on these accusations I will address the arguments and offer my research into two parts. The first part of my paper will debate on current discourses on media effects, its imputations and the counter arguments offered by different social scientists. The second part will introduce my research into current newspaper articles on videogames and its connection to violence while trying to offer the model of moral panics as an explanation for the videogame controversy.

“To seek for evidence of the ‘effects of media violence’ is to persist in asking simplistic questions about complicated social issues” (Buckingham 1997:67)

The debates around violent media causing heightened aggression and crime can be traced back as early as the 1940s where Dr. Fredric Wertham (1954) accused comic books of being a form of bad popular literature and the cause of juvenile delinquency. His book; Seduction of the Innocent (1954) blamed youth crime on the reading of comics; an accusation based on guilt by association which had a massive impact on American society. Although those charges have been challenged today new forms popular media are still the subject of media scrutiny and are repeatedly used to explain criminal activity especially in youths.

Current accusations on videogame violence are based on television violence studies that have been around since the 1970s (Unsworth & Ward, 2001; 184). There are allegedly two kinds of negative effects in children and adolescents watching violent television shows, one is long term; the other is short. Past research indicates that short-term effects include disinhibition (Berkowitz & Rawlings, 1963; 405-412) while long-term effects include accepting attitudes towards violence (Rule & Ferguson, 1986; 29-50).

Unsworth and Ward (2001; 184) categorize three distinct classes of effects on children to the repeated exposure of television violence. They are: the likelihood of using aggressive means to solve conflicts (Bandura, 1973 in Unsworth and Ward 2001), becoming anxious about the violence prevalent in society (Geen, 1976; 193-234) and becoming desensitized to violence (Rule & Ferguson, 1986; 29-50) which Anderson et al. (2004, 199) argues “there has been no research examining whether decreased arousal actually stimulates aggressive behavior, so the role of desensitization in determining short-term effects of exposure to game violence in the investigation is unknown.”

The main argument postulated by many is that since television violence causes the aforementioned effects, videogames will intensify the impact of aggressive behavior due to its interactivity (Gunter 1998). Games like the Grand Theft Auto series are blamed for influencing criminal activities and if a crime is committed the media is quick to find a connection between the criminal and videogames. But if videogames are seen then as something beyond television viewing it means that it warrants different approaches to the medium.

There are currently only three approaches to studying videogame effects; experimental, correlation and longitudinal (Porter & Starcevic, 2007; 423). Experimental research is done in labs and looks at hostility following a game session. It employs violent and non-violent games to get results and uses self-report on a hostility scale. There are many problems in using this form of research though. Firstly, the quantifying of violence, aggression and other variables as it is hard to define many terms when conducting such a research (Rutter & Bryce, 2006; 215). For example what constitutes game violence and how do you measure aggression, aggressive personality and aggressive behavior. And what should be deemed ‘violent’ and ‘non-violent’? (Goldstein, 2001). In addition, experimental studies only use small sample sizes which are not indicative of the general gaming populace (Goldstein, 2001) instead focusing on a small niche of gamers.

In fact, gamers are not a heterogeneous group. Factors such as frequency of play, commitment, gender, age and genre preference create different sub-groups of gamers (Rutter & Bryce, 2006; 216). A Halo enthusiast is different from a Final Fantasy one and even though you can find people playing the same game, their varying levels of completion (some just play through the storyline, others play to get full completion which includes finding secrets while a number play a couple of hours before stopping) and frequency (daily, weekly, once) are hard to categorize and quantify due to the countless combination of groups. This also means that if a participant engages in a videogame that he is not familiar with or does not like, his attitude and response can be misconstrued as “aggressive”.

Another problem with this research is that experiments are conducted in lab environments. Videogame playing is an everyday activity that is extrapolated into the everyday (Rutter & Bryce, 2006; 216). One can engage in this activity in many forms (on the couch, bus, toilet) and that it is of greater value to examine how individuals play and experience violent videogames in the context to their everyday lives. In summation, experimental research has its many flaws and is therefore inadequate to utilize in media effects of videogames.

Correlation research uses retrospect filling of survey forms in order to identify patterns of video game use in relation to personality and behavior. The problem here lies in the fact that such studies have a limited recall bias, participants may not accurately give impressions on videogames played, instead relying on what they feel to be the correct response (Porter & Starcevic, 2007; 423).

The other problem of correlation research is that there is often a confusion between ‘correlation’ and ‘causation’ (Rutter & Bryce, 2006; 213). If a correlation is significant (i.e. the frequency of violent videogame playing and the frequency of aggression increase similarly), it can be claimed that there is a relationship between the two variables but not one variable giving cause to another (violent videogame playing does not cause the aggression). Using this line of thought it can be argued using a bi-direction model that violent people choose to play violent games (Porter & Starcevic, 2007; 424). If that’s the case then it is unlikely that individuals with no predisposition towards aggressive behavior would respond aggressively to violent game content (Rutter & Bryce, 2006; 213).

Longitudinal research uses prospective naturalistic studies to get results and the problem with this model is that it looks at all kinds of violent media (movies, television shows etc.) which makes it difficult to pinpoint the effect of violent videogames by itself.

To go back to the aforementioned accusations based on violent television studies we can debate that the short and long term effects of media violence can be easily counted with the fact that short-term effects only offer a snapshot of relationships between the gamer and the violent game. A longer time frame (much longer than the one stated) should be given to carefully analyze the influence of media. However should such a research be considered, many problems such as high dropout rates and difficulties maintaining participant involvement, not to mention the exorbitant expenses would make it near impossible to conduct (Rutter & Bryce, 2006; 214).

The summary of points made so far have suggest that the research and theory that has been conducted and postulated so far has its flaws and it does not address fully the videogame and its relation to issues of violence properly. An alternative method in determining the effects of such games can be ethnography which engages in the gamers taste (genre, frequency, commitment) and lifestyle (where, when, how much of the game is played).

After offering evidence in the flaws of current research one can only speculate as to why the general consensus would try to convince us that playing videogames are bad. The reason that I propose is moral panics.

To further elaborate on this model I will explain the stages in detail by linking it to my research. I have chosen a UK newspaper, The Daily Mail and searched the current year for articles that connect videogames to violence. I randomly chose 10 articles and by describing its contents I will highlight the stages of moral panics evident in these articles.

“Men go mad in herds while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one” (Mackay, 1956; pxx)

The model of moral panics consists of many elements (primarily people) that dynamically interact with one another with the purpose of inducing fear and therefore unwarranted awareness and attention on a particular issue to the public. Cohen (1972; 9) coined the term moral panics and defined it firstly as “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.”

The first stage of moral panics concerns the object of the panic and its relation to the people involved. In this situation, violent videogames and its relation to the gamers who play these games. The current postulation is that the people who commit violent crimes are influenced by violent videogames and by association; people who play such games are likely to be more violent.

The Columbine massacre in 1999 was the turning point in the role of videogames and its perceptions by society. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold mentioned the game Doom in the video they made before killing 12 fellow students and a teacher. Subsequent violent crimes by adolescents have since then been attributed to violent videogames such as Grand Theft Auto with families of the deceased, parent groups, solicitors and the media laying the blame on them (Porter & Starcevic, 2007; 423).

With the nature of the crimes by adolescents being presented in a stylized sensationalist fashion by the media, the moral panic is associated with the emergence of youth culture (i.e. videogame playing) whose behavior can be delinquent and attributed to violence or crime. Buzzwords such as ‘horror’, ‘fear’ and ‘ultra’ appear amongst the headlines with ‘video games’ in an attempt to induce the reader into a defensive and cautious mindset. Another way to sensationalize stories is to depict the criminal and link him to society via a generalization of a subset of people.

The people who commit crimes, together with the subset of people (gamers) are herded together and known as folk devils (Cohen, 1972; 10), they are the people whom society and the media deems we should not be by association and imitation of their practices; in this case gamers and the playing of violent videogames. The identity of the folk devil is created by the media and is subject to changes determined by them. This identity is a generalization of the group of people, not paying mind to the fact that no group is completely heterogeneous.

The idea of a folk devil never leaves society; it evolves throughout the decades and is a constant reminder by the media to the public that no one is truly safe from them. Cohen (1972; 11) describes the evolution starting from Mods to Rockers to Greasers to Student militants and so on cumulating in the modern day spot to put the gamer in as evident in the articles. The folk devil is then subjected to persecution by what is known as moral barricades.

Editors, politicians and other right thinking people are the moral barricades and creators of moral panics. Editors of the news have political alliances with right-winged politicians order to propagate ideology to the masses. Because they stand to profit from creating moral panics (editors from sales of newspapers and politicians with public approval) these group of people are collectively known as Moral Entrepreneurs (Becker, 1963). In the newspaper articles politicians from different parties (i.e. Conservative, Tory) are seen giving their support against violent videogames while calling for strict legislation against them.

The press then publishes these calls by politicians, and the public accepts them willingly because society has always looked to the news as a main source of information about the normative contours of society; it informs us about the right/wrong, boundaries and the current evils prevalent in our current era (Erickson, 2004; 7).

It is acknowledged that the mass media devote a great deal of space to deviance and (Cohen, 1972; 16) have always operated as agents of moral indignation without sufficient evidence as most are just opinions. The media actively construct meanings rather than simply reflecting and providing information and there are 3 processes involved (Critcher, 2003; 12) in the implementation of this stage by the media; firstly, the exaggeration and distortion of the seriousness of events by the use of buzz words, emotive sentencing and sensationalization.

Secondly, the prediction will reoccur again (usually as a result of the same trigger like playing violent video games) and finally the symbolization of the folk devil and how it encompasses the whole stereotype. In turn, the media leaves behind the diffuse feeling of anxiety about the situation (Cohen, 1972; 17) in order to generate concern from society.

The primary argument for editors and politicians alerting the public to moral panics is that they all believe “since marketing works in the world of goods, images of crime and violence probably promoted deviant behavior” (Murdock, 1997; 74). The perceived disorders of the present are often counter posed against an idealized image of the past which, due to selective recall ignores moral panics on media effects of the past (i.e. the comic book persecution), this ‘new media corrupting youth/women/minorities’ is not a new phenomenon (Rutter & Bryce, 2006; 207).

According to Petly (1997; 87), the middle class (Moral Entrepreneurs) have been quick to disapprove of popular entertainment that the working class indulges in the past. Their justification being that they are more likely to be affected by media messages than the middle class are. This is unfounded (Petley 1997; 100) yet the media still use it to propagate these ideas and directed against an outgroup (folk devils); their power to justify discrimination is enormous (Critcher, 2003; 171).

To support their claims the media employs the use of socially accredited “experts” pronounce their diagnosis and solutions in fields which they might not be able apply their expertise to. For example, policemen who are quoted by the press that say youth crime is caused by playing violent videogames. These are merely hunches and prejudices with no claims to an expertise won in the rough and tumble research (Murdock, 1997; 76). In the articles I have examined these “experts” are psychologists, media regulators (i.e. Ofcom) and the police.

The attraction of these ‘many studies’ is not simply that they offer the illusion of strength in numbers, but they fit perfectly with the common-sense assumption (since it stands to reason, therefore it is correct). The research done is just used as evidence to prove what they already “know”. This is referred to as Banal Science (Murdock, 1997; 78), which fails to ask awkward questions, pursue other possible lines of enquiry and place the effects into social contexts which can only be accomplished through ethnography.

Becker (1963) claims that when public concern about a particular moral panic is generated, a Moral Enterprise is formed. This is ‘the creation of a new fragment of the moral constitution of society.’ In this stage, society changes itself for the object of moral panic and ways of coping are evolved or resorted to. This is the period where the Moral Entrepreneurs shine; politicians enforce legislations in attempts to stop the crimes from occurring. For videogames, rating systems are carefully scrutinized and revised while threats of heavy fines are enforced to videogame shops who sell games to people below the legal age.

It is imperative to highlight that so far the exchanges on ideas of moral panic, legislation and prohibition circulate only around the media, politicians and “experts”. If enough of these decide there is an issue and that action is required, a moral panic becomes possible (Critcher, 2003; 138). Society is not involved in this exchange. This means that a ‘discourse of the people is a discourse about the people, not by them’ and that their viewpoint is frequently assumed (Astroff & Nyberg, 1992).

The final stage is the panic disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible. This means that eventually the object of moral panic (violent videogames) becomes largely ignored, bored by the recycling of the same issues (Downs, 1972; 38-50). This has not happened yet but I theorize that it will when the current generation of governments and media gives way to the future one.

In summary, the model of moral panics have shown how the media and the government enforce their ideology unto society though hegemony (one sided exchange of ideas) and agenda setting (creation of moral panics and folk devils) to justify the discrimination and profiling of a subset of society.

In the first part of my paper I have shown the flaws in the media effects theory especially when considering new forms of media such as videogames. I argue that it doesn’t address fully the videogame and its relation to issues of violence properly and that an ethnographic approach should be taken in order to find out the true effects of videogame violence on people.
I’ve also used this argument to debunk claims made by “experts” found in the moral panics model and have postulated that the current discrimination of videogames fits the model of moral panics.

Indeed, there is a storm of controversy surrounding videogames today. What we must do is to sift past the preconceived notions and accusations of new media in the past in order to fully understand and appreciate this new media horizon.

References:
Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., & Valentine, J. C. (2004). Violent video games: Specific effects of violent content on aggressive thoughts and behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, volume 36, page 199-249.

Astroff, R.J & Nyberg, A.K (1992) Discursive hierarchies and the construction of crisis in the news: a case study, Discourse and Society, 3(1).

Bandura, A (1973) Aggression: A social learning analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Becker, H (1997) [1963] Outsiders, Free Press

Berkowitz, L & Rawlings, E (1963) ‘Effects of film violence on inhibitions against subsequent aggression’ in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology number 66

Buckingham, D (1997) ‘Electronic child abuse? Rethinking the media’s effects on children’, in M
Barker and J Petley (eds), Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate. London: Routledge

Cohen, S (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The creation of mods and rockers, New York: St Martin’s Press

Critcher, Chas (2003) Moral Panics and the media, Open University Press

Downs, A (1972) Up and down with ecology: the ‘issue-attention’ cycle, The Public Interest, 28

Erikson, Kai T. (2004) [1966]. Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance, Revised Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Geen, R.G (1976) Observing violence in the mass media: Implications of basic research in R.G
Green & E.C. O’Neal (Eds) Perspectives on aggression, San Diego: CA: Academic Press.

Goldstein, J.H (2001) ‘Does playing violent video games cause aggressive behavior?’ Playing by the Rules, Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago, http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/goldstein.html (viewed August 1st 2008)

Gunter, B (1998) The effects of video games on children, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Herman, L; Horwitz, J; Kent, S; Miller, S (2008) The history of video games; http://uk.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/hov/ (viewed July 25th 2008)

Mackay, C (1956) Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, London: George Harrap

Murdock, G (1997) Ill Effects: The media/violence debate; Martin Barker & Julian Petley (Eds) London and New York: Routledge

Murdock, G & McCron, R (1979) ‘The television and delinquency debate’, Screen Education, 30, Spring

Petley, J (1997) Ill Effects: The media/violence debate; Martin Barker & Julian Petley (Eds) London and New York: Routledge

Porter, G & Starcevic, V (2007) ‘Are violent video games harmful?’ in Australasian Psychiatry volume 15 number 5, Informa Healthcare.

Phillips, M (1994) ‘Mediocrity’s fight against violent truth’, Observer 17 April

Rutter J & Bryce J (2006) ‘Digital games and the violence debate’ in Understanding Digital Games, Sage Publications.

Rule, B.G & Ferguson, T.J (1986) ‘The effects of media on attitiudes, emotions and cognitions ‘ in Journal of Social Issues number 42.

Santayana, G (1905) The life of reason, Prometheus Books

Shultz, H (1949) Journal of Educational Society cited in ‘The Comic Book Villain, Dr. Fredric

Wertham, M.D.’ Jamie Coville (Ed) http://www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/inart10/cmbk4cca.html (viewed July 25th 2008)

Taylor, A (2003) Computer Games - Violence - Case Study: Mortal Kombat and Manhunt http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Computer_Games_-_Violence_-_Case_Study:_Mortal_Kombat_and_Manhunt (viewed July 25th 2008)

Unsworth, G & Ward, T (2001) ‘Video games and aggressive behavior’ in Australian Psychologist volume 36 number 3, Taylor and Francis

Wertham, F (1954) Seduction of the innocent. Rinehart