who plays outside anyways?
Ah! I'm back, from a weekend of texting-underneath-the-Thanksgiving-table...
To some extent, the development of a body of video-game literature has been surprisingly slow. After all, by the mid-80s Nintendos were a fixture in households across the developed world, probably dominating more time than any influence in a child's life besides her parents or teachers. (OK--regular old TV was probably in the mix too.) At any rate, videogame research has matured with the Millenials, and this week's readings show a fecund ferment rich with opportunities for follow-up. The articles run the gamut from hard-core quant, media-effects research (Anderson&Dill) to qualitative, cultural-studies influenced research (Jenkins) with a number of articles that take tentative steps away from these ideological poles and towards the middleground that videogame players actually occupy (the Vorderer chapters and Williams' piece).
The Anderson&Dill article is the most traditional, violence media-effects study--and when paired with the other pieces this week it almost takes on the role of strawman. In its two studies, measurement of psychological factors and reaction times form the basis for an argument that exposure to violent videogames stimulates violent feelings or urges. Like cultivation and other TV-violence research, it seems likely that the pattern of adrenaline-induced tension is real. And, as with cultivation and other TV-research, any number of conceptual and methodological complaints can be made. For example, the convenience sample of undergrads is flawed, the researchers evince clear bias in their approach (see the kvetching about a participant classifying mortal kombat--a martial arts simulator of sorts--as a sports game on p.779), and, as Jenkins points out, all such research depends on acceptance of a slew of significant leaps of faith to connect the 'effect measure' to reality. In spite of these complaints, let's consider for a moment what the point of this sort of research is: if we accept that there is evidence of deleterious impacts from violent video games, then distribution (if not production) of such games should be limited. To do this, we depend on some kind of voluntary regulatory regime 'cause any other legal approach violates free speech. In addition, we hope that--if the consequences are serious enough--parents will step up and prevent their children from exposure for the good of themselves and others. At this point, I am willing to accept the sort of low-level negative impacts offered by Anderson&Dill; I'll concede this point. Even call it fact. But, in return, I have a favor to ask: until quantitative studies like this can show anything more serious and direct than an uptick in some esoteric laboratory aggression measure, let's ban their publication in refereed journals. Two reasons: 1. these studies are too easy to replicate without pushing towards new insight--wasting researchers time & resources 2. nothing new is proven, and no new actions are taken to regulate, shape games--so what's the point? So, having pursued this rant to a logical, and I dare-say relatively non-pejorative end, I challenge the quant sympathizers out there to justify further laboratory video-game violence media effects studies. [Even] If we accept the worst conclusions of Anderson & Dill's piece, is there any reason to ever do another quantitative media-effects videogame violence study?
The articles in Vorderer & Bryant's book offer a wide range of theoretical ponderings that could infuse future video game research. One such piece that starts to move towards a more complex assessment of gaming is Williams' exploration of Asheron's Call. This piece sets out to explore the relationship between massive-multiplayer online gaming and social capital and begins with an excellent lit review to set the scene for some unique, innovative research. Basically, Williams pursues a design that creates an experiment with an N of ~375 and includes a month of game-play in a natural setting. There are flaws with the method--no control--but it is ambitious and unique. Unfortunately, the game Asheron's Call is used--a bizarre choice apparently driven solely by Microsoft's willingness to donate copies of the [bomb] game. Williams ends up finding several negative effects of playing AC--but he cannot even evaluate whether or not there may have been positive social effects of MMOG because the game doesn't offer enough social opportunity. Unfortunately, this truly skews the outcome of the research--leaving a clear need for follow-up work that uses a more popular game. Jenkins, in his exploration of the relationship between Columbine shootings and media, suggests that a primary cause of the attack was an inability to escape negative social relationships in one's own immediate environment. His first point of future work at the end highlights a website designed specifically to facillitate community for ostracized kids--a project with a golden aim but an unwieldy approach. MMOG could offer precisely this kind of community--an incredibly beneficial effect of gaming--but Williams couldn't evaluate this potential...If solace for the ostracized was offered by MMOG, would this benefit outweigh the negatives shown in Williams' study?
1. [Even] If we accept the worst conclusions of Anderson & Dill's piece, is there any reason to ever do another quantitative media-effects videogame violence study?
2. If solace for the ostracized was offered by MMOG, would this benefit outweigh the negatives shown in Williams' study? What other potential benefits were left unexplored by Williams?
3. Are new media experiences too idiosyncratic for 'generalizable' research? If so, is Jenkins' approach of exploring specific social and cultural contexts ideal or is there some other paradigm that should be applied?