In effects theory, the media are powerful negative forces who control the masses. The media is seen as a hypodermic needle, injecting our helpless minds with messages. Media is seen as a drug. A child watches violence, and they replicate that violence.
Cultivation theory - When the effect is negative and is repeated again and again; then it cultivates. Gerbner thinks that if people are too invested in media, then he thinks that they have the "mean world syndrome", the belief that the world is a dangerous and negative place, but it really isn't as bad.
Moral Panics - links to effects theory; media is powerful and media is passive, audience is controlled by the media. when a society creates or generates a buzz around a fear of something around in the media e.g shooting games influence people in a negative light, turning them into murderers.
Example:
Violent shooter video games really DO rot your brain: Frequent players have less grey matter, study reveals
- Scientists in Montreal got 100 people to play shooter games for 90 hours total
- They were also given non-violent video games from the Super Mario series
- Brain scans revealed people who played shooter games had less gray matter, which is essential for spatial awareness and memory
- But after playing Super Mario games the amount of gray matter grew
I think the effects theory based on this article is making it out to look like gaming has a bad side to it, that it can affect your brain long-term; "The more depleted the hippocampus becomes, the more a person is at risk of developing brain illnesses ranging from depression to post-traumatic stress disorder" that it's perhaps trying to scare gamers, make them stay away from gaming, and wake them up from their virtual reality. Its message is to try and stop the gamers from playing their games. It's a support for refute effects - cultivation theory, because the effect is negative and is repeated again and again.
Is there an association between video games and aggression?
- In the study, children at age 8/9 years were asked what type of computer games they had at home, and the answers were based on broad game genres
- then identified a number of potential confounding factors - things which might have an impact on any potential association between game use and aggressive behaviour that we would need to take into account. These included factors like family history of mental health problems, maternal education and socioeconomic status, and whether the child at age 8 was a victim of bullying or had emotional problems.
- results: there was a weak association between the genre of game played at age 8/9, and conduct disorder band at age 15. However, they compared three different ‘genres’ of game – shoot-em-ups, puzzles, and ‘does not play games’, and found that, per categorical change in ‘genre’, there was a 19% increase in risk of being in a higher conduct disorder band.
- 26 out of a total sample of 1815 children met the case status for the disorder. So in other words, there is an association between playing shoot-em-up games at a young age, and later aggressive behaviour. It’s just a weak association.
- Problems with genres of games - 1st person shooter like COD is v different from war strategy game.
- Study: the author was not a neurologist
- conduct disorder - stealing, fighting
- 8-9 years over several years; 15 year olds
- the study does not look at social factors e.g existing mental health, conduct disorder..
- weak link between violent gaming and aggressive behaviour, but they say this might be competitiveness
This article refutes effects theory, but counteracts moral panics, because it's putting gaming in a negative light and how it can affect people. It can also be seen that the article is creating a "buzz" giving the people things to talk about and possibly fear.
No comments:
Post a Comment