User:Ian Cho

Annotated Bibliography: Violence in Computer Games

Anderson, C.A. and Bushman, B. J. (2001) "Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature", Psychological Science, no.12, pp. 353-359, ISBN 1467-9280-0956-7976

Anderson and Bushman draw a solid and concise document on the effects of on-screen violence in video games. Published in a psychology journal, this piece revolves around the sociological and psychological effects of violence on gamers. Although this text does not dwell heavily on the actual technologies behind games, it deals with the effects caused by these technologies.

Anderson and Bushman provide an extremely conservative and forceful pronouncement on games. Right from the first paragraph of this piece, a firm viewpoint of the dangers of games is established

While most evidence and research is very compelling (i.e. statistics of game use and psychological tests run by Bushman), there are several study flaws. Their “General Aggression Model� (page 4) is an untested and fairly harsh piece of supposition, linking violent game playing with aggressive personalities. The possibilities of whether violent people play violent games or whether violent games are a ‘release’ for violent energies are never entertained.

However, in the debate on computer game violence, a purely scientific and research-orientated piece is highly effective in grounding an extreme end of the scope.

[N.B. Psychology Science's ISBN does not register under the New Media Wiki ISBN-search page. However, it can be found through QUT's library: See catalogue entry]

Bushman, B. and Huesmann, L. (2001) "Effects of televised violence on aggression", in D.G. Singer & J.L. Singer (ed.) Handbook of children and the media, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 223-254, ISBN 0761919546

This 2001 study by Bushman and Huesmann analyses the effects of violence within American television (and to a lesser extent, movies). How do children comprehend violence? How ‘real’ are mediated depictions of violence to children? These are some of the questions Bushman and Huesmann pose in this piece.

This look at the older media of film provides several key insights in contrast to new media. Film and game correlations/comparisons are fairly important as the Australian classification board uses a modified film classification model for games. How do film and computer game violence relate?

Durkin, K. (1995) Computer Games: Their Effects on young people: A review, Sydney: Office of Film and Literature Classification, retrieved July 10, 2004, from http://www.oflc.gov.au/resource.html?resource=303&filename=303.pdf

Durkin's OFLC sponsored review focuses on the effects of video games on youths. By ‘effects’, Durkin studies issues that radiate from computer game violence. Some examples of this are:

Parental control: how are older citizens (i.e. parents) grasping new technologies like game consoles? Children have a certain advantage in new media as video games are to an extent targeted at their demographic.

The desensitization of violence: Are children getting desensitized to gratuitous depictions of violence seen in games like Duke Nukem?

Addictions: Durkin defines clear ideas of what constitutes computer game addiction and who falls victim to it.

Interestingly, the main test subjects for Durkin’s research are not simply teenage boys. Male and female gamers have been studied in a very comprehensive statistical approach. (Many studies of this subject merely delve into the 13-18 male demographic.)

A key resource within this paper is its extensive survey data - Students and young people were questioned on various aspects of gaming (i.e. ‘How many hours do you play videos games per day?’). Additionally, individual subjects have commented on video games and their effects (which in this paper is largely video game violence) providing a unique perspective from young gamers themselves.

Durkin, K. and Aisbett, K. (1999) Computer Games and Australians Today, Sydney: Office of Film and Literature Classification, ISBN 0642704619.

Durkin and Aisbett’s OFLC review of the video game world focuses on the sociological issues of games within society. Some interesting perspectives provided in this piece revolve around a) the interplay between classification and gamers in society and b) community concerns. Durkin and Aisbett also set out to answer a rarely asked question: what do games mean to gamers?

There are some fascinating reviews of the OFLC’s classification system in this work. For example, Durkin and Aisbett reveal that the OFLC ratings committee only reviews outlines of games submitted by game companies. They do not actually play games due to time constraints. Additionally, companies submit their own proposed ratings. Does the game industry have an upper hand in a setup that involves a degree of self-regulation?

Other interesting points raised by Durkin and Aisbett include the ‘reality’ and routinization of game formulas: “gamers on a certain level don’t take reward points and spilled guts that seriously – it’s a game and there are specific formulas.� Like Durkin’s 1995 review, this piece also features a significant amount of survey data and statistics.

Freedman, J. (2001) Evaluating the Research on Violent Video Games, Toronto: University of Toronto, retrieved August 2, 2004, from http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/freedman.html

Freedman's piece evaluates current research into computer game violence. In this piece he critiques various viewpoints (such as those held by Anderson and Bushman). Although there are several specific academic studies into computer game violence, Freedman notes that much of the research available possesses serious methodological problems. An example is quantifying aggression:

Most of the behavioral measures are analogues of aggression rather than the real thing. Anderson and Dill (2000) used as their measure of aggression the intensity and duration of a loud noise that one subject gave to another. Pressing a button that delivers a short burst of loud noise is pretty remote from real aggression.

Compared to many commentators, Freedman presents a more moderate view of this issue. However, this piece helps establish the parameters of the violence debate. How serious is the issue? How well documented is this subject? Are academics overstating the avilable research? These are some of the questions that this piece poses.

Funk, J. (2001) Children and Violent Video Games: Are There High Risk Players?, Chicago: University of Chicago, retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/funk1.html

Jeanne Funk has approached the topic of video game and aggression from a slighlty different angle compared to other academics. Her piece focuses on an idea of "high risk players". Instead of a generalized principal that violent video games can create aggressive personalities (i.e. the “General Aggression Model� of Anderson and Bushman (2001)), Funk suggests that there are emotionally and psychologically vulnerable "high risk players":

Playing violent video games probably will not turn a docile, well-socialized child into a bully. Such play will not turn a strong-minded self-confident child into a victim. But for children who are already bullies or victims there are no corrective messages or experiences in violent video games.

Particularly of interest is the broad scope of her work. Video games are set within a larger framework of external forces in this piece: bullies, emotional regulation, school environments and social problem-solving. This complex interplay of technologies, children and their environment provides a compelling argument.

Goldstein, J. (2001) Does Playing Violent Video Games Cause Aggressive Behaviour?, Utrecht: Utrecht University, retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/goldstein.html

Goldstein's paper operates in a similar vein to Freedman's ‘Evaluating the Research on Violent Video Games’, critiquing existing studies and research on this issue. However, while Freedman's piece revolves around the interplay between classification and game violence, Goldstein is concerned strictly with the effects of violence. In his study, Goldstein moves away from strictly scientific and psychological views to suggest a strong social aspect in games. Unlike many commentators, Goldstein recognizes a strong social effect in video games. Gaming is a social activity for teenagers, whether it’s in an arcade or online (something Durkin and Aisbett (1999) also cover to an extent.)

Additionally, Goldstein comments on what he believes to be missing in research of this issue. An example is a player’s free will – something Goldstein believes is often overlooked by academics:

The role of volition or choice is absent from discussions of entertainment media. What is the effect of voluntary (as opposed to enforced) exposure? Also missing from research is any acknowledgment that videogame players freely enter into play, and are always free to leave.

Goldstein has drawn together an impressive field of academic research and opinions in this piece (there are almost 50 items of reference), which would is extremely useful in familiarizing readers with the current academic research available on video games and violence.

Office of Film and Literature Classification (2003) Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games, retrieved July 29, 2004, from http://www.oflc.gov.au/resource.html?resource=62&filename=62.pdf

At its core, the Office of Film and Literature Classification aims to protect minors from offensive content (i.e. nudity, sexual content and violence) while at the same time allowing adults to view whatever material they might wish to access. Computer games are classified under almost all the same standards as films – except that computer games do not carry an R rating. All games warranting an R rating are prohibited from sale in Australia.

The outdated nature of parts of this text invites several criticisms. One criticism involves R-Rated Games: Because Australia has no “R� category, many game companies slip R games into an M or MA15 category. In many European countries, the video game Diablo was rated R, but in Australia (an unaltered version) received an MA15 rating. In this way, classification limits have forced manufacturers and game companies to bend their ideas of violence and acceptibility of it (regarding minors). Another example lies in parental control: Coupled with CD burning, 33% of children buy games themselves (Durkin, 1999).

Video games have evolved into experiences of interactivity and sophistication. However, while games have progressed, their 1995 film-model classification is unchanged. As the divide between games and films widens, a number of incompatibilities have arisen. How does current classification deal with computer game violence?

[N.B.: The updated 2003 listing on this document does not mark a 2003 policy change but rather the transcription of this document into a digital format.]

Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilizing Electronic Technologies (1993). Report on video and computer games and classification issues, Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, ISBN 0642197822

The Select Committee review is the early 90’s document that actively affected and shaped Australia’s 1995 electronic games classification scheme (which is sometimes bundled with film classification). This document outlines initial findings of the committee on video games and the need for classification.

At its core, this piece carries concerns for children, game access, industry growth, community standards and adult consumption. However, not all concerns are fully realized. For example, while there is concern over the advent of future technologies, there is scarce elaboration on this. Nonetheless, while this piece carries few provisions for future new media growth, a large number of issues raised in this report are still relevant today.

[N.B. The New Media Wiki does not recognize many ISBNs of government documents. However, this document can be found in the QUT library: See catalogue entry]

Walsh, D. (2001) Video Game Violence and Public Policy, Minneapolis: National Institute on Media and the Family, retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

Walsh’s Video Game Violence and Public Policy was commissioned by America’s National Institute on Media and the Family in 2001. It analyses firstly, the effects of violence on children and secondly, the interplay between games, children and policy (in the form of classification). This study focuses on several crucial game developments in America, such as the Columbine shootings (in which Doom-players murdered school students) and the subsequent (American) Federal Trade Commission Report.

In this piece, evidence is drawn together into a moderate but wary look at computer games. Walsh raises some very interesting points on the nature and effects of violence. He does more than simply quantify the actual violence, suggesting that:

1. Children are more likely to imitate the actions of a character with whom they identify.

2. Video games by their very nature require active participation

3. Repetition increases learning. Video games involve a great deal of repetition. If the games are violent, then the effect is a behavioral rehearsal for violent activity.

4. Rewards increase learning, and video games are based on a reward system.

His commentary on the reward system and routinized structures of games show an attention to not only the effects of violence, but also the actual gameplay and technology of computer games.

Wolf, M. (ed.) (2002) The Medium of the Video Game, Texas: University of Texas Press, ISBN 0292791488

The Medium of the Video Game is an exploration of computer game history. Mark Wolf and a series of academic contributors define the video game experience from several different angles. Games are analysed in a variety of contexts: firstly as technologically significant products, secondly as artistic forms and thirdly as cultural artifacts. This overview (published in 2002) provides an interesting collection of perspectives on new developments in the world of video games, notably the growth of multiplayer games and technologies.

--Ian Cho 10:53, 13 Aug 2004 (EST)