Edexcel: Learning - Studies



39674807620000Topic 4: Contemporary StudyBastian et al (2012): Cyber-dehumanization: Violent video game play diminishes our humanityPlease use the original paper to write the fill reference here:If you are unfamiliar with ‘Mortal Kombat’ or violent video games in general, this ‘you tube’ clip was made by a player and demonstrates him playing a new version of the game. There is some swearing so be prepared for that and do not watch if you prefer to avoid this type of material. It is very gruesome, believe me, seriously gross. next clip is from Call of Duty 2 which is used in the second study, a first-person shooter game, again be prepared for some gore: Finally this is a clip of top-spin tennis used as the non-violent competitive game: You may also wish to conduct a little research, (no more than 20 minutes!) into other popular games and also find out about games which are played interactively within online communities (e.g. second life, world of war craft).0571500Your task: Write an APFC abstract to describe the following study in no more than 300 words. You also need to make more extensive notes on the aim (2), procedure (6), findings (4) and conclusions (3) in order to answer longer exam questions. Make an A3 poster to display your work with relevant images.In this handout, I have tried to summarise Bastian et al (2012) and the text draws heavily on the original article. Please look up definitions of any of the words in bold that you do not understand completely already.AimsTo explore the extent to which playing violent video games such as ‘Mortal Kombat’ and ‘Call of Duty’ diminishes perceptions of human qualities in ourselves and co-players. Given that many people are increasingly spending large amounts of time playing these games interactively, with opponents either physically together in the same room or online, this study is important in determining how this can alter perceptions, potentially over the long term. The study aims to reveal whether perceptions of humanity of a co-player are affected by wehterh the player is playing competitively against the participant or collaboratively with them against a third party. The study aims to disentangle whether the dehumanisation is also effected when the third party is a computer generated/controlled avatar as opposd to a character controlled by another human. IntroductionThere is longstanding concern about the effects of playing violent video games and as graphics and animation become increasingly realistic, anxieties about outcomes for players and society intensify. The negative effects are well documented and appear more significant than those associated with other forms of violent media. Much of the research focuses on violent gaming leading to increased aggression but research also shows that players …are more likely to endorse violence in real-lifeare more likely to see others as more hostileare less likely to experience empathyare less likely to engage in pro-social behaviourhave reduced sensitivity to real-life violence, numbing them to the pain and suffering of others.Possible reasons that violence within video games is more powerful that other forms of violent media:Players…identify with and feel somewhat responsible for the violence they perpetuate within virtual environmentsbecome personally engaged with video game contentpersonally identify with video game avatarssee themselves as more aggressive after playing violent gamesuse moral disengagement strategies to facilitate enjoyment of virtual violenceThe authors of the paper believe that perpetrating violence within virtual environments has “personally relevant consequences, affecting how we see ourselves and respond to others”.Dehumanisation of victims, may lead to increased aggression towards them due to “the process of moral disengagement, which reduces empathy and restores psychological equanimity”, (Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006). In short, “dehumanization oils the wheels of aggression and violence against others”.The link between violent gaming and increased aggression in real life is clarified by research that shows how gaming can bring about a reduction in the perceived humanness of real-life antagonists, (Greitemeyer and McLatchie (2011) however it is unclear whether we also experience decreases perception of humanity in our co-gamers, who pose no real physical threat to us. This paper treads relatively new ground looking at whether playing violent video games has dehumanizing consequences for those involved in online interactions. Bastian et al (2012) also examines whether acts of cyber-aggression and violence have consequences for self-perception. It has previously been shown that players see themselves as more aggressive (e.g., Bluemke et al., 2010) and it is therefore possible that acting in an aggressive manner online may lead to a perception of the self as less human. Kelman (1976) has noted that perpetrators of violence are dehumanized by their own brutality (Kelman, 1976). Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) suggests that engaging in inhumane behaviour (e.g., acts of extreme violence and aggression) will affect our perceptions of our own humanity. For comparison, this paper explores how playing a non-violent video game effects perception of self and others. The study also looks at how co-operative violent play affects perception of humanity of self and the co-player - that is, when involved in a ‘two-player” game, where acts of violence on another third party are perpetrated together. In 2011 when the data was collected there was previous literature on this. The authors felt that Player 1 would be less likely to dehumanise player 2 if s/he was a co-perpetrator of violence against a third party than when s/he was the target of player 1’s violent acts (opponent). That is dehumanisation of the other player was more likely to occur in competitive situation where the two players were pitted against each other than when the two players were co-operating to attack another player.Red book task: Can you write full 3 mark directional experimental hypotheses for the study?Hypothesis 1: IV violent or non-violent video game, DV self-perception of humanityHypothesis 2: IV violent or non-violent video game, DV perception of opponent’s humanityHypothesis 3: IV co-player takes role of co-perpetrator or opponent in violent video-game play, DV self-perception of humanityHypothesis 4: IV co-player takes role of co-perpetrator or opponent in violent video-game play, DV perception of co-player’s humanityMethodDesignIV1 – Violent or non-violent video game playIV2 – Co-player is a competitor or collaboratorPps were randomly assigned to groups in an independent measures design.DV1 – Perception of humanness of selfDV2 - Perception of humanness of co-playerHow was humanness operationalised?Human Nature - features that are seen as fundamental to our humanity, perceiving a lack of Human Nature would mean a target was seen like an object or machine: cold, rigid, inert, and lacking emotion. The following items were rated on a 7 point scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so):“I felt like I was open minded, like I could think clearly about things” (the lower the score, the more dehumanised)“I felt that I was emotional, like I was responsive and warm” (the lower the score, the more dehumanised)“I felt superficial like I had no depth” (the higher the score, the more dehumanised)“I felt like I was mechanical and cold, like a robot” (the higher the score, the more dehumanised) Human Uniqueness– features that distinguish people from animals; perceiving a lack of Human Uniqueness is akin to likening the target to animals; immature, coarse, irrational, or backward. The following items were rated on a 7 point scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so):“I felt like I was refined and cultured” (the lower the score, the more dehumanised)“I felt like I was rational and logical, like I was intelligent” (the lower the score, the more dehumanised)“I felt like I lacked self-restraint, like an animal” (the higher the score, the more dehumanised)“I felt like I was unsophisticated” (the higher the score, the more dehumanised)Participants also rated their co-player on the same items, with item stems changed to “I felt like the other person…” Specifically they were asked to think about their “experience of playing the video game” and to answer each question in relation to how they saw themselves/the other person they played against as possessing each of the characteristics highlighted in the measure of dehumanization. A significant positive correlation was found, whereby the higher the score for human nature, the higher the score for human uniqueness when assessing both self and other and so the data were combined from each scale into one overall score relating to perception of humanity.Participants:106 undergraduates (74 women, 32 men) taking part for course credit. Aged 17 to 34 (M=19.28, SD=2.39). Participation was in groups of two with random assignment to conditions.Materials: Participants were seated in front of a video screen with an X-box video game console. Each had a wireless X-box controller and separate head phones. Although both participants were looking at the same screen, a portable dividing wall obscured their view of each other.Procedure: Pps were instructed not to interact throughout the course of the experiment. This was to ensure the interaction between participants was fully mediated by the video game environment. Pps played either two-player Mortal Kombat (n=52) or Top Spin Tennis (n=54) for 15min. After playing the video game Pps were given a questionnaire to complete. Before continuing onto the remainder of the questionnaire, Pps were asked to rate their enjoyment, excitement and frustration whilst playing the games, on a 7 point scales, where 1 was low and 7 was high. At the end, Pps were asked about the possible purpose of the study, none indicated that they suspected any links between video game violence and dehumanization.Findings:Preliminary analysis revealed that participants found both games equally frustrating (violent: M=3.27, SD=1.42; non-violent: M=3.04, SD=1.59), t(104)=0.79, p=.430. Mortal Kombat was marginally more enjoyable than Top Spin Tennis (violent: M=4.86, SD=1.57; non-violent: M=4.35, SD=1.39), t(104)=1.78, p=.077, and was significantly more exciting (violent: M=4.52, SD=1.51; non-violent: M=3.46, SD=1.25), t(104)=3.92, pb.001.Humanity of self ratings were significantly lower for those playing the violent game compared with the non-violent game: (violent: M=3.74, SD=1.02; non-violent: M=4.35, SD=0.86), t(1,104)=3.33, p=.001.Humanity of co-player ratings were significantly lower for the violent game compared with the non –violent game: (violent: M=4.43, SD=1.02; non-violent: M=4.93, SD=0.82), t(1,104)=2.81, p=.006 An ANCOVA statistical test was used to control for frustration, enjoyableness, excitement and participant gender which might have affected the DVs; the effects of both perceived humanity of self and of the co-player were still found to be dependent upon the violence of the game.ConclusionsPlaying a violent game, compared to playing a non-violent game, against another player leads to reduced perceptions of one's own humanity as well as the humanity of their opponent. Moreover, these effects cannot be accounted for by how enjoyable, exciting, or frustrating the game was and are not accounted for by any effects of gender.Follow-up StudyThree concerns from study 1:would they still find a reduction in perceived humanity following a violent game where the opposition was a computer generated/controlled avatar, i.e. there is no real life opponent controlling the character/avatar?was the reduced perception of humanity actually underpinned by negative emotion created by the game (feeling bad after playing the violent game) and through consequent reductions in self-esteem?Was the reduction in humanity down to the fact that Mortal Kombat uses non-human characters which may have meant that dehumanised perceptions were more likely as a consequence? This was not the case in the tennis game chosen for the non-violent control group and this presented a critical problem with study 1Bastian et al (2012) designed a second study to explore these questions further…AimTo determine whether players would still feel less human after committing acts of cyber-violence against a computer generated/controlled avatar. As there was no existing literature in the field, no specific hypotheses were made but the authors thought that dehumanisation of the co-player was likely to be less evident in this co-operative situation as the co-player was not the target of the violence. They also aimed to reveal whether reduced perceived humanity was caused by decreased self-esteem and negative mood.Design: IV1: playing either Call of Duty 2 (a violent, ‘first-person shooter’, warfare game with human characters) (n=20) or Top Spin Tennis (non-violent) (n=18)IV2: playing competitively against the co-player or playing co-operatively with the co-player against a computer-generated and controlled avatar.DV: self-esteem, negative emotion, self and other perceptions of humanity (measure as above)Participation was in groups of two with random assignment to conditions.ParticipantsParticipants were 38 undergraduates (28 female and 10 male, mean age=20.13) who took part for course credit or $10. Materials: The set up was the same as Study 1 but they played either Call of Duty 2 or TopSpin Tennis (playing doubles). The screen was split so players could see their own viewpoint and that of their co-player. This time Pps also had to complete the PANAS a measure of current positive and negative emotions and the SSES to measure self-esteem. This includes items relating to what they “feel is true of themselves at this moment” on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Items include:‘I feel confident about my abilities’‘I feel that others respect and admire me’‘I feel displeased with myself’Procedure: Pps played the games for 20 mins and then rated how frustrating, enjoyable and exciting the game was as before. They then rated themselves and the other person on the measures of humanness using the exact same standardised instructions as before and then they completed the PANAS and SSES. Again, Pps were asked about the purpose of the study but none guessed it was about dehumanisation Findings: Pps found both games enjoyable (violent: M=2.70, SD=1.94; non-violent: M=3.56, SD=1.58), t(36)=?1.48, p=.149, and equally exciting (violent: M=3.05, SD=1.64; non-violent: M=3.44, SD=1.50), t(36)=?0.77, p=.446. Call of Duty 2 was rated more frustrating than Top Spin Tennis (violent: M=5.00, SD=1.69; nonviolent: M=3.83, SD=1.76), t(36)=2.09, p=.044.There was no difference in self-esteem following either Call of Duty or TopSpin Tennis (violent: M=3.37, SD=0.54; non-violent: M=3.48, SD=0.43), t(36)= ?0.70, p=.489, or positivity of mood (violent: M=2.30, SD=0.74; nonviolent: M=2.50, SD=0.58), t(36)=?0.92, p=.363, or negativity of mood (violent: M=1.84, SD=0.75; non-violent: M=1.66, SD=0.71), t(36)=0.76, p=.451.Ratings of Self Humanity varied by condition (violent: M=3.82, SD=0.89; non-violent: M=4.48, SD=0.56), t(1,36)=2.69, p=.011) such that Pps rated themselves as less human after playing Call of Duty 2 than Top Spin Tennis. There was no effect of condition on ‘Other Humanity’ (violent: M=4.89, SD=0.74; non-violent: M=4.86, SD=0.71), t(1,36)=0.11, p=.910An ANCOVAs showed that none of the following variable significantly affected perceived humanity; the result for perceived dehumanisation of self remained significant, (p=.037) and the effects of Other Humanity remained non-significant, (p=.929): self-esteem, positive and negative affect, gender, frustration, excitement or enjoyment of the gameConclusions: Playing a violent video game reduces perceptions of one's own humanity even when participants play the game as a first person shooter targeting computer-generated avatars and when playing in collaboration, rather than against, another co-player. Furthermore, this cannot be accounted for by reductions in global self-esteem or changes in mood. “This suggests that engaging in violent media does not necessary make us feel bad, or see ourselves more negatively, but it does affect how human we feel”.Red book task: Can you think why we may not experience dehumanisation of the co-player in study 2 using Call of Duty 2? Think about Tajfel and Turner (1979)What further hypotheses would you like to test? Is there anything else that you can think of that might affect the extent to which the player(self) and co-player are dehumanised? Can you think of any issues arising due to the choice of game, Call of Duty? Are there any other games you can think of that you would like to test?Overall conclusions:people view themselves as less human when engaged in gratuitous video game violence compared to equally competitive non-violent gamesthis is equally true of situations where the opponent is controlled by the computer as games where you are attacking another co-playerthis dehumanization extends to perceptions of opponents in violent compared to non-violent gamesthis dehumanisation of co-players does not occur in cooperative game play contextsit is only when another player is the target of this violence that they are also dehumanizedthese effects are not reducible to mood, negative self-evaluation, gender, or qualities of the games such as enjoyment, excitement or frustrationEvaluating Bastian et al (2012)Generalisability: Are there any issues relating to the sample for this study, e.g. sample size, sampling technique, characteristics of the Pps. How could these issues be improved? What ideas do you have for recruiting a better sample. How would this affect the results?Reliability: With regard to the questionnaires used to collect data for the DVs, can we be sure that this data is reliable. i.e. these questionnaire return consistent results? Could the study be replicated? How does this affect reliability?Applications to society: How do you think this research could be used by the following groups in society? Parents, schools, game designers, government. If violent video games lead to decreased humanity, could the reerse also be true that pro-social games could lead to an increased sense of humanity? How could social norms be modified in a gaming situation to enhance behaviour in the real world? What research can you find that looks at this (e.g. Gentile et al., 2009; Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010)? Can you think of any groups of people wo may benefit particularly from these sorts of games?Validity issues: What was done to ensure that variables that could not be controlled did not affect the conclusions drawn?Were there any problems in study 1that might have decreased the usefulness, meaningfulness or accuracy of the conclusions drawn? Think about internal and external valdidty of both the set up (manipulation if the IV) and the way in which the data was collected. What problems are there with the way in which perceive humanity data was measured? (Think demand characteristics, self-reports, quantitative data, ordinal data, social desirability)Can you think of any other factors relating to what happens to you in the game that might have affected the players’ cognitions/feelings (affect)? Think: Victim. How could you control for this?In this study, players could be seen not only to control the enactment of violent acts against others but also to observe violent acts being performed. This muddies the water with regard to what exactly is responsible for the dehumanising effects; how could the study be improved to control for this?Ethical Issues: Are there any issues here regarding deception, debriefing, consent, physical or psychological harm, invasion of privacy, competence of the researchers, respect for the Pps. To what extent could you argue the benefits of the study outweigh any possible costs to Pps? Are there any possible costs to society that could result from this study?Issues and Debates Consider each of the issues and debates below with regard to Bastian et al (2012) and add to your I and D booklet.EthicsIssues of social controlPsychology as a sciencePractical issues in the design and implementation of researchReductionism Culture and gender An understanding of how psychological understanding has developed over time; you should use other sources to see how this field has developed, e.g. since psychologists first became interested in how behaviour might be affected by the violence on TVThe use of psychological knowledge in society Issues related to socially-sensitive researchExtension TasksYou should consider reading the following article and adding further notes based on this to your evaluation and issues and debates. Evaluating Bastian et alNOT FINISHED just a start!!The authors do not tell us about the participants’ previous gaming experience and whether this affected the self /other perceptions of humanity post gaming. Given their use of the ANCOVA to factor out other variables that they thought might have loaded on the perceptions of humanity it seems odd that they did not control for this.Level of gaming experience may have impacted on experiences with in the games themselves, for example experienced gamers are more likely to achieve some degree of success in the game, i.e. they are less likely to be the victim of violent acts from others and more likely to be successful in committing violent acts. This would in turn affect their self-esteem during and directly after the game and this may impact on their answers in the humanity questionnaires regarding themselves and others. Non-gamers may have come away feeling more hostile than gamers due to the greater likelihood of being a victim, meaning than they were more likely to experience dehumanisation potentially. Given that the researchers randomly allocated the Pps to groups in the violent and non-violent conditions this will have preserved the internal validity to some extent. However, it would certainly be interesting to assess this crucial participant variable further.It would have been helpful if the score that the participants achieved within the game could have been entered into the ANCOVA to see whether experiences of relative success or failure within the game affected the dependent variables in any way. It would also be interesting to see whether the participants had any pre-existing stereotypes regarding participation in violent video games that affected the outcomes. For example, in the documentary “How violent are you?” the presenter Michael Portillo explicitly denounces violence and perceives himself as a pacifist. He says he has “never been in a fight in my life”. Despite this, when he fights a man during the ‘Tinku’ festival in Bolivia, where violence is encouraged and celebrated, he admits a feeling of gratification and pleasure when he is finally able to effect a lucky punch on his opponent. This suggests that even non-gaming Pps may experience some pleasure during the games which they subsequently find distasteful affecting their self and other perception in ways that may be less frequent in those who are more experienced in gaming. The researchers also do not consider the role of social identity as a potential participant variable affecting the DV. For example, some people doubtless perceive their membership of online gaming communities as an important aspect of their identity, not just that gaming is something that they do. This may also impact the DV as the experience of playing the games will trigger a set off emotions that are not present in non-gaming particpants.It would be interesting to see whether there have been many longitudinal studies of gaming tracking the impact on perception of self and others. It would be interesting to see how this might differ for people who have come to gaming later in life who already have a fairly well established sense of self compared with adolescents. If violent gaming is linked to dehumanisation of self then this suggests that those who feel dehumanised may have lower expectations of how they should be treated by others and it would be interesting to see whether there is a link between psychiatric variables relating to self-esteem and probability of developing depression in long term violent gamers compared with long term non-violent gamers. A longitudinal design would be necessary here as reciprocal determinism suggests that it is possible that those prone to depression may be more likely to prefer to play violent games than non-violent games and this would need to be controlled for.It is interesting to note that the authors say imply that “engaging in inhumane acts” leads to self-perception of dehumanisation? Surely this would only be the case in communities where violence is socially undesirable and counter-normative. It would therefore be interesting to see whether similar effects occurred or not in populations where violence is more normative such as the military or during the “Tinku” festival in Bolivia. However the tests to measure perceived humanity would need altering to make them valid for this South American tribe. It might also be interesting to test whether people with frontal lobe brain lesions, who have issues in inhibiting their violent urges experience any dehumanisation from violent video game play. Similarly, it would be interesting to see how populations with Asperger’s would fare, given their reduced ability to experience empathy.This research has many clear benefits to society, not least the potential for non-violent video games to effect a greater sense of humanity, which may underpin more pro-social behaviour and a more empathetic treatment of others in the real world. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download