Basically, violent video games causing violence is bs. It's parents that cause it, and videogames do the opposite.
Opinions on Teen Violence Related to Video Games
- Thread starter Shapsters
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If a kid hurts or kills someone, parents don't want to admit that they fucked up while raising the kid. They want to blame it on something else (ironically, it's almost always something that they could've kept the kid from seeing in the first place), and violent games seems to be a good choice since it "encourages violent behavior".
They also ignore the fact that it's a parent's responsibility to teach their kids to separate fiction from reality; in the rare case that a game really is the cause, it always seems like the kid was never taught that blowing someone's head off with a gun in a game is completely different from doing it in real life.
They also ignore the fact that it's a parent's responsibility to teach their kids to separate fiction from reality; in the rare case that a game really is the cause, it always seems like the kid was never taught that blowing someone's head off with a gun in a game is completely different from doing it in real life.
I grew up playing games, and granted I experience the occasional bloodlust for those goddamn pitiful stains on the existence of humanity (we all have at least on person we want dead), the worst I've ever done was bruise someone (me and my cousin were havin' some fun fighting each other and I was winning, so he ran and grabbed a bowling ball and broke my foot, he got off easy with a bruise, course I couldn't very well chase him). It's either these kids were born violent/mentally impaired enough to think they should do such things, or they are easily influenced in which case it's because the parents are too busy having sex to take their 3 year old son away from GTA and the game "blood, gore, mayhem, and why you should be doing it". So yeah, either it was destined to happen, or the parents were terrible people that need to executed before the can spawn more serial murders.
I used to have friends who engaged in backyard wrestling after watching Pro-Wrestling on TV. Many injuries occured.
That all ended when they got an N64 and were able to play as the Undertaker on their TV.
I've now proven that video games end violence, using methods exactly as scientific as those of the people who say video games cause violence. Please advise me as to where I can pick up my nobel prize.
That all ended when they got an N64 and were able to play as the Undertaker on their TV.
I've now proven that video games end violence, using methods exactly as scientific as those of the people who say video games cause violence. Please advise me as to where I can pick up my nobel prize.
My opinion is video games and other media do not cause violence but they can influence behavior if one does not discipline ones self. Say for instance you watch a lot of entertainment which contains profanity. You will probably find yourself using such language over time if you do not control your speech. (Not making a stand against profanity; just as an example.)
But just because you listen to heavy metal, watch a bunch of hardcore action movies, and play Mad World and Mortal Kombat for hours does not mean you are going to be more violent. If you let these influence affect your behavior? This can lead to violent behavior.
So this is not the fault of the game but the fault of the person not controlling ones self.
But just because you listen to heavy metal, watch a bunch of hardcore action movies, and play Mad World and Mortal Kombat for hours does not mean you are going to be more violent. If you let these influence affect your behavior? This can lead to violent behavior.
So this is not the fault of the game but the fault of the person not controlling ones self.
Teens are violent because others pick on them. They keep everything inside, they're pissed off/depressed/whatever, and you can't feel like that forever, and they explode, come to school with a gun, shoot the kids that were fucking with his/her head. Then on the news, they say its a tragedy. NO! It is not a tragedy. 9/11 was a tragedy, Pearl Harbor too. Actions have reactions, and sometimes those reactions aren't nice. I don't understand our society sometimes...
Violent video games only contribute to violent actions if said child/teenager/adult are already prone to violent/mental imbalances. Violent video games are quite frankly a safe outlet to exert pixellated violence upon pixellated, non-feeling characters in which case you have no desire or thoughts (most of the time) afterward to exert that violent impulse in real life, which is just common sense.
Parents whom condemn video games only do it because the game takes care of them/keeps their attention better than that from the parent, or they watch Fox News too much.
Parents whom condemn video games only do it because the game takes care of them/keeps their attention better than that from the parent, or they watch Fox News too much.
If you aren't mature and sane enough to play games/watch movies/read books/listen to music and not get influenced by FICTITIOUS violence, you really have no business doing those things in the first place.
Alright because I'm really too tired to write something out I have a This link [http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.agpc.talonline.ca/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=2&sid=3d33c0ab-6309-4728-8d33-971dbd4637e5%40sessionmgr11]that shows a pretty balanced look at videos games, violence and censorship.
if you don't even want to click the link, the full text [references included] will be in the below spoiler box.
if you don't even want to click the link, the full text [references included] will be in the below spoiler box.
In the absence of scholarly agreement regarding the effects of violent video games
on players, which is understandable given the complexity of the issues and the varied
perspectives and methods employed by researchers, perceptions among the public
and policymakers regarding whether the medium has harmful effects may still influence
policy?whether such perceptions are accurate or not. Much research has
explored perceptions of media effects on others, most notably work investigating
the third-person perception phenomenon (a.k.a. third-person effect). This frequently
occurring bias, wherein persons believe that media have greater effects on others than
on themselves (Davison, 1983), has been observed in numerous studies (see Paul,
Salwen, & Dupagne, 2000). Individuals? third-person perceptions have also sometimes
been found to influence their support for censorship and restriction of media
messages (e.g., Cohen & Weimann, 2008; Gunther, 1995; McLeod, Eveland, &
Nathanson, 1997; but cf. Rucinski & Salmon, 1990; Salwen & Driscoll, 1997), especially
in the case of perceived effects of media on antisocial behaviors such as
aggression (Hoffner et al., 1999). Given this evidence for a link between individuals?
perceptions of negative media effects on others and their support for censorship, the
importance of perceived media effects is clear.
If perceived negative effects of violent video games on users might have such
implications, one important factor may be how the games and users are being considered.
For example, does it matter if specific games and users are considered, as
opposed to games and users in general? Some prominent U.S. politicians, such as past
Attorney General John Ashcroft (Keynes, 2002), have criticized violent video games
in general. Others have condemned specific games like the 2007 release Manhunt 2, a
controversial offering that has drawn regulatory attempts in the United States and
abroad (Snider, 2007). How might such varied content abstraction, ranging from
specific violent games to violent games in general, affect judgments, opinion, and
policy regarding violent games? effects?
To address the paucity of existing research exploring how content abstraction
may influence people?s perceptions of media effects on others, this study examined
the effects of content abstraction on people?s estimates of violent video games?
potential for causing aggression in others, as well as on their support for censorship.
Additionally, these effects were examined in concert with the effects of person
abstraction to ascertain whether the effects of these two types of abstraction might
interact.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Person Abstraction, Social Distance, and Perceived Media Effects
Research on perceptions of negative media effects, particularly research on the thirdperson
perception phenomenon (Davison, 1983), has tended to indicate that these
perceptions vary with social distance. Social distance can generally be described as
the degree of closeness or similarity perceived between oneself and the person one
considers when making judgments of potential media effects (Cohen, Mutz, Price,
& Gunther, 1988; Hoffner et al., 2001; McLeod et al., 1997). In many cases, this
2 J. D. Ivory and S. Kalyanaraman
perceived social distance is a function of greater ambiguity, or an increase in the
scope of the social ??border?? encompassing both the person estimating effects on
others and those persons for whom effects are estimated (Cohen et al., 1988). For
example, Cohen et al. (1988) found that participants? perceptions of a defamatory
newspaper article?s negative effects increased with social distance when they considered
effects on other students at the same school (lowest social distance), other
Californians (moderate social distance), or public opinion in general (high social
distance). Hoffner and colleagues (2001) found that participants perceived greater
negative effects of television violence when asked to estimate negative effects for those
in the United States at large than for those in their community. Duck and Mullin
(1995) identified two factors that increased perceptions of negative media effects
on other persons: closeness and vagueness in terms of the person considered. Vagueness
was a function of whether a specific person was considered or not?in other
words, the level of abstraction or specificity applied to the person considered. Given
these previous findings, we predict that abstraction of persons considered will similarly
influence perceptions of violent video games? negative effects:
H1: Participants will perceive violent video games? effects on aggression to be
highest for persons in the United States in general, lower for others on their
campus, and lowest for individually identified, concrete persons.
Of course, abstraction is not the only dimension of social distance that impacts
perceived negative media effects (Lambe & McLeod, 2005; Tsfati & Cohen, 2004).
Other factors can influence perceptions of negative effects on others, such as whether
the estimator perceives the considered persons as belonging to the same categorical
group in terms of some identity dimension (e.g., whether there is a shared cultural,
subcultural, or demographic identity) (Reid & Hogg, 2005). Given that person
abstraction, however, is one key factor that influences perceptions of negative media
effects (Duck & Mullin, 1995), another type of abstraction?namely abstraction in
content considered?may similarly influence perceptions of media effects.
Content Abstraction and Perceived Media Effects
While much research has explored the closely related issues of person abstraction and
social distance, the role of content abstraction in perceived media effects has received
less attention. This is unfortunate. Considering the amount of evidence suggesting
that abstraction in terms of persons considered influences perceived media effects,
it is important to investigate whether content abstraction has a similar influence
on perceived media effects.
In considering perceptions of abstract and specific violent content, the availability
heuristic provides some conceptual guidance. When people make judgments, such as
those concerning frequency or likelihood of certain events, they tend to base estimates
on what examples easily come to mind (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Estimations
may be influenced by availability of confirming instances, availability of
Communication Reports 3
arguments, and availability of causal scenarios, or scripts (Anderson & Lindsay,
1998). In the case of violent video games, for example, thinking about a specific
violent video game instead of games in general might increase the availability of
specific game elements that could cause aggression, reasons why the game could
facilitate aggression, and situations in which aggression stemming from game play
might occur. Based on this increased availability from the more specific consideration,
a person considering a specific violent game might, consequently, estimate
greater negative effects of video games than if he or she had only thought about
violent video games in general.
On the other hand, considering a specific violent video game may have the reverse
effect and actually reduce perceptions of negative effects if it is difficult to generate
arguments for negative effects of the specific game. While recognizing that available
information influences judgments, Tversky and Kahneman (1973) noted that the ease
with which arguments can be generated is also an important factor in decision making.
For example, research has shown that participants asked to list several reasons
supporting or refuting a claim may be less persuaded by the task than those who
are asked to generate only a few arguments because they conclude that supporting
arguments are insufficiently abundant or unconvincing (e.g., Rothman & Schwarz,
1998; Schwarz et al., 1991; Wa¨nke, Bless, & Biller, 1996). Even when participants
are not asked to generate specific arguments supporting a claim, imagined difficulty
in generating supporting arguments is enough to render the claim less convincing
(Wa¨nke, Bohner, & Jurkowitsch, 1997). If people considering a specific game find
it difficult to generate reasons that the specific game considered might influence
aggression, this difficulty may therefore lead to reduced perceptions of negative
effects compared to those not considering a specific game.
Therefore, considering a specific game may plausibly have two different effects on
perceptions of negative effects: It may increase such perceptions by making arguments
for effects more accessible, or it may decrease such perceptions if arguments
for negative effects are difficult to generate. Given these two discrepant possibilities,
competing hypotheses are therefore proposed regarding the effects of content
abstraction on perceptions of violent video games? negative effects:
H2a: Participants? perceptions of violent video games? effects on aggression will be
greater when considering a specific game compared to violent video games
in general.
H2b: Participants? perceptions of violent video games? effects on aggression will
be greater when considering violent video games in general compared to
a specific game.
Effects on Support for Censorship
Some studies have found that individuals? perceptions of media effects on others
influence their support for censorship (e.g., Cohen & Weimann, 2008; Gunther,
1995; McLeod et al., 1997), while others have not (e.g., Rucinski & Salmon, 1990;
Salwen & Driscoll, 1997). Given this inconsistency in linking perceptions of effects
4 J. D. Ivory and S. Kalyanaraman
to censorship support, we address the possible effects of person and content
abstraction on censorship support with the following research question:
RQ1: What effects, if any, do person and content abstraction have on participants?
support for censorship of violent video games?
Method
Participants
Participants included 122 undergraduate students from two Eastern U.S. universities,
who were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions in a 2 (content
abstraction: specific game or games in general)3 (person abstraction: specific person,
others on campus, or others in U.S.) between-subjects factorial experiment.
Exactly half of the participants (n¼61) were male and half (n¼61) were female.
The age of participants ranged from 18 to 28 (M¼20.08; SD¼1.56).
Materials and Measures
Each factor was manipulated via variations in instructions and item wording in six
versions of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire containing all study measures.
Person abstraction manipulation
In a format adapted from Hsee and Weber (1997), abstraction of person considered
was manipulated by varying the wording of the study?s first dependent measure (see
Dependent Measures section below) so that it asked participants to consider video
games? potential effects on aggression for either ??other students in the United States,??
??other students on this campus,?? or ??the person currently sitting nearest me.?? For
the ??specific person?? condition, the questionnaire item was also preceded by these
instructions to prompt selection of a specific person: ??Before you go on, please look
around and see who sits closest to you. Do not talk to or disturb that person, but look
at him or her for a second and remember how he or she looks.??
Content abstraction manipulation
Participants in the ??specific game?? condition were asked to think of and write down
??the most violent game with which you are familiar?? on the questionnaire before
they completed questions pertaining to the study?s dependent measures. Questionnaires
for participants in the ??games in general?? condition did not include this item.
Perceived effects on others measure
Participants? perceptions of effects on others were measured by a 9-point Likert-type
questionnaire item with wording varied six different ways to match experiment
conditions as described above. For example, in the ??specific game, others in U.S.??
condition, participants were asked to rate their agreement (1¼??Strongly Disagree,??
Communication Reports 5
9¼??Strongly Agree??) with the statement, ??The video game I listed above could cause
most other students in the United States to be more aggressive and=or violent,?? and
in the ??games in general, specific person?? condition, respondents rated agreement
with the statement, ??In general, violent video games could cause the person sitting
nearest me to be more aggressive and=or violent.??
Support for censorship measures
Participants? support for censorship of games was measured by a 9-point Likert-type
questionnaire item asking for participants to rate their agreement (1¼??Strongly
Disagree,?? 9¼??Strongly Agree??) with the statement, ??Limiting access to or censoring
some violent video games is appropriate.??
Other measures
Questionnaires for the ??specific person?? condition also asked the participants to list
whether or not they knew the person considered to ensure that they had no prior
knowledge of the person. To check whether participants in the ??specific game?? condition
actually considered a violent game, the amount of perceived violence in the
considered game was measured by a 9-point Likert-type item asking ??How violent
is this game, compared to other entertainment media (movies, books, etc.) you know
well??? (1¼??Much Less Violent than Most,?? 5¼??About as Violent as Most,??
9¼??Much More Violent than Most??).
Because exposure to media content has been shown to impact perceptions of
effects (Hoffner et al., 2001), familiarity with video games was a control variable measured
by a 9-point Likert-type item asking participants, ??Compared to most people,
how familiar would you say you are with video games??? (1¼??Not at all Familiar,??
5¼??About as Familiar as Most,?? 9¼??Very Familiar??). Items asking participants? age
and gender were also included.
Procedure
The experiment was administered to groups of students in campus classrooms.
Participants attended sessions in groups of 10 or more participants per session. After
completing an informed consent form, participants were told to seat themselves so
that the nearest person to them was not someone they knew. Participants were then
given one of the six questionnaire versions in randomly assigned order. After
participants completed the questionnaire, they were debriefed, thanked for their
participation, and dismissed.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Participants? mean reported familiarity with video games was 3.51 (SD¼2.01) on the
9-point scale. Among participants in the ??specific game?? condition, their mean
6 J. D. Ivory and S. Kalyanaraman
estimate of violence for the game listed was 6.13 on a 1-to-9 scale (SD¼1.70),
significantly higher than the midpoint of the scale (5¼??About as Violent as Most??
other entertainment media), one-sample t(52)¼5.12, p<.001, Cohen?s d¼.67.
Among participants in the ??specific other?? conditions (n¼41), 51.22% (n¼21) considered
effects on a male fellow participant and 48.78% (n¼20) considered effects on
a female fellow participant. All participants in this condition noted that they did not
know the considered person.
Effects of Person and Content Abstraction on Perceived Effects on Others
H1 predicted that as abstraction of the considered person was reduced, perceived
negative effects would also decrease. A between-subjects ANOVA with person
abstraction and content abstraction as independent factors and perceived effects as
the dependent measure indicated a significant main effect for person abstraction,
F(2, 116)¼8.54, p<.001, g2
p ¼ :128, with perceived effects lowest in the ??specific
other?? condition (M¼2.93, SD¼1.72), higher in the ??others on campus?? condition
(M¼3.43, SD¼1.85) and highest in the ??others in U.S.?? condition (M¼4.50,
SD¼1.81). A trend analysis using polynomial contrast tests showed this linear
decrease in perceptions of negative effects as person abstraction decreased to be
significant, p<.001. These results support H1.
H2a and H2b were competing hypotheses regarding whether content abstraction
would increase or decrease perceived negative effects. The ANOVA showed a
significant main effect for content abstraction, F(1, 116)¼8.32, p¼.005,
g2
p ¼ :067, with perceived effects lower in the ??specific game?? condition
(M¼3.16, SD¼1.75) than in the ??games in general?? condition (M¼4.07,
SE¼1.94). This result supports H2b, while disconfirming H2a. The interaction
effect between content and person abstraction was not significant, F(2, 116)¼.561,
p>.05, g2
p ¼ :010, indicating that the effects of content abstraction are stable
across levels of person abstraction.
Effects of Person and Content Abstraction on Support for Censorship
RQ1 asked whether person and content abstraction would influence participants?
support for censorship. A between-subjects ANOVA with person abstraction and
content abstraction as independent factors and support for censorship as the dependent
measure indicated no significant main effect for person abstraction, F(2,
116)¼1.15, p>.05, g2
p ¼ :019, but showed a significant main effect for content
abstraction, F(1, 116)¼6.31, p¼.013, g2
p ¼ :052, with support for censorship lower
in the ??specific game?? condition (M¼5.02, SD¼2.73) than in the ??games in general??
condition (M¼6.15, SD¼2.13). The interaction effect between content and
person abstraction was not significant, F(2, 116)¼.131, p>.05, g2
p ¼ :002,
indicating that the effects of content abstraction are stable across levels of person
abstraction.
Communication Reports 7
Effects after Controlling for Game Familiarity
When the two ANOVA tests were repeated as ANCOVA tests with the familiarity
variable added as a covariate, the covariate was significant as a predictor of both perceived
negative effects, F(1, 115)¼15.30, p<.001, g2
p ¼ :12 (negative beta), and
support for censorship, F(1, 115)¼12.24, p¼.001, g2
p ¼ :096 (negative beta), such
that participants who were more familiar with video games tended to report
lower perceptions of negative effects and less support for censorship. However,
addition of this covariate in the ANCOVA did not alter the significance of the independent
factors? relationships to either dependent variable relative to the ANOVA
results.
Discussion
It is valuable to understand what factors influence the public?s perceptions about the
effects of violent video games, as well as subsequent policy support. This study does
not examine actual video game effects, but shows that how people consider these
effects can influence their perceptions and opinions. Although person abstraction
and related concepts have been previously recognized as factors influencing perceptions
of negative media effects, this study contributes to the literature by calling
attention to the similarly important role of content abstraction in perceptions of
negative media effects and subsequent support for censorship.
Our findings pertaining to the effects of person abstraction on perceived negative
media effects are consistent with previous findings indicating that abstraction (i.e.,
vagueness) is a component of the social distance construct that influences people?s
perceptions of negative media effects on others (e.g., Cohen et al., 1988; Hoffner
et al., 2001; McLeod et al., 1997). However, we did not find person abstraction to
have a significant impact on support for censorship. This may be due to genuinely
limited effects of person abstraction, or it may be due to flaws in our operationalization
of person abstraction. It is difficult to unpack person abstraction from other
social distance dimensions. In our manipulation of person abstraction, abstraction
may have been confounded with corresponding variation in perceived similarity,
social proximity, or other social distance elements. Participants may have also
evaluated different group sizes across person abstraction conditions; there are more
people in the ??others in U.S.?? condition than the ??others on campus?? condition,
which could have influenced estimates of how many people might be affected. This
lack of clarity regarding person abstraction?s unique role in our observed effects is a
limitation of the study, and further research should work to isolate person abstraction
from other social distance and group size elements to more clearly isolate the
role of abstraction in social distance. In addition, because this study balanced the
number of male and female participants, but did not control the gender of the persons
they considered generally (e.g., ??other male video game players in the United
States??), further study should explore whether gender of persons considered at all
levels of abstraction influences perceptions of effects. We concur with Harris,
Middleton, and Joiner (2000) and their call to ??unpack what it is about social
8 J. D. Ivory and S. Kalyanaraman
distance that makes the difference?? and ??clarify the conditions under which such targets
can and cannot be considered abstract?? (p. 250).
Much more novel and provocative are this study?s findings regarding the significant
role of content abstraction in perceptions of negative media effects. We found
that consideration of a specific violent video game, as opposed to violent video games
in general, leads to lower perceived media effects on others and diminished support
for censorship. These results suggest that content abstraction should receive more
attention as a factor influencing perceptions of media effects. Although theoretical
guidance related to the availability heuristic suggested that content abstraction might
decrease or increase perceptions of media effects (H2a & H2b), our findings indicate
that considering a specific violent video game can reduce perceptions of negative
media effects and support for censorship compared to considering violent video
games in general. One might present the possible alternative explanation that participants
were less likely to condemn a specific game because they were defensive about
that game, but given that familiarity as a control variable did not influence the effects
of the abstraction variables, this explanation seems unlikely. Another alternative
explanation for the content abstraction might be that considering only one specific
game leads to consideration of less overall video game play exposure (i.e., less total
play time) compared to considering games in general, but content abstraction?s
observed effects on support for censorship suggests that there is more going on in
the effects of content abstraction than just a manipulation of perceived game
exposure.
Also of interest, if not directly pertinent to the effects of abstraction, is the finding
that the video game familiarity covariate was negatively associated with both perceptions
of video games? negative effects and support for censorship. Even though the
familiarity covariate did not alter the effects of abstraction on either outcome variable,
the covariate?s effects suggest that, as with other media (Hoffner et al., 2001),
those who play video games are less likely to perceive them as having negative effects
and that this effect also extends to policy support. Further research should explore
what processes cause these tendencies among video game players and whether they
may lead to other outcomes, such as making players particularly susceptible to
problematic use or other negative effects.
This study suggests that even though considering a specific game might have
increased the availability of thoughts regarding how a specific violent game might
influence aggression and violence (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973), considering a
specific game may also have actually made it difficult for participants to generate a
satisfactory rationale for that game having such harmful effects (e.g., Rothman &
Schwarz, 1998; Schwarz et al., 1991; Wa¨nke et al., 1996; Wa¨nke et al., 1997). Using
a specific violent video game to estimate violent video games? negative effects on
others did not provide participants with a bounty of reasons why such games are
dangerous?rather, it appears to have made them less confident in concluding that
violent video games cause aggression and that they should be censored. Further
research should examine whether increasing content specificity may have the same
effects in other contexts. The reverse may be true if specific content easily facilitates
Communication Reports 9
a generation of arguments indicating negative effects and need for censorship. In any
case, it appears that content abstraction is important as an influence on perceptions
of media effects, and therefore merits further study.
A key limitation of this study is that, as is the case with all experiments, the effects
observed here might differ with a different participant group. For example, these
participants did not report a particularly high mean familiarity with video games.
We consider this appropriate because our study is primarily concerned with perceptions
of people in general, not just the perceptions of video game players, given
that policy is influenced by publics and individuals beyond the video game-playing
population. However, results might be different with another sample of participants,
such as a group with more or fewer video game players, a group more varied in age,
or a group with more varied educational backgrounds. Further research should
examine such participant groups to see if the effects we observed are consistent.
Additionally, our research looks at negative effects very generally, asking about
perceptions of aggression and violence together. Future research should isolate these
and other perceived negative effects to see if results differ from their general investigation
here.
Meanwhile, this study?s findings, particularly with regard to the effects of content
abstraction, introduce interesting questions that may inform the very public debate
over video game policy. Discussion and coverage of the issue is frequently accompanied
by violent video game imagery and photos. One might think that these materials
would increase opinions that video games have negative effects, but our findings suggest
that this may not be so. Consider one example: Speaking for a panel overturning
an Indianapolis ordinance restricting children?s access to violent games in a landmark
video game regulation case (American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick,
2001), Judge Richard Posner noted that the specific game footage provided by the city
was far from realistic enough to support claims of harm he called ??at best wildly
speculative?? (p. 8). Considering this study?s findings, the city?s legal representative
might have done better to leave the footage at the office.
References
American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001).
Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 113?122.
Anderson, C. A., & 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, 12, 353?359.
Anderson, C. A., & Lindsay, J. L. (1998). The development, perseverance, and change of naı¨ve
theories. Social Cognition, 16, 8?30.
Cohen, J., Mutz, D. C., Price, V., & Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An
experiment on third-person effect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161?173.
Cohen, J., & Weimann, G. (2008). Who?s afraid of reality shows? Exploring the effects of perceived
influence of reality shows and the concern over their social effects on willingness to censor.
Communication Research, 35, 382?397.
10 J. D. Ivory and S. Kalyanaraman
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47,
1?13.
Duck, J. M., & Mullin, B. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third
person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77?93.
Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A
meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 470?482.
Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2006). Violent video games: Effects on youth and public policy
implications. In N. E. Dowd, D. G. Singer, & R. F. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of children,
culture, and violence (pp. 225?246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gunther, A. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship
of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27?38.
Harris, P., Middleton, W., & Joiner, R. (2000). The typical student as an in group member: Eliminating
optimistic bias by reducing social distance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30,
235?253.
Hoffner, C., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Hubbs, L. A., Kamigaki, S. K., Kowalczyk, L., et al.
(1999). Support for censorship of television violence: The role of the third-person effect
and news exposure. Communication Research, 26, 643?655.
Hoffner, C., Plotkin, R. S., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Kamigaki, S. K., Hubbs, L. A., et al.
(2001). The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of television violence. Journal
of Communication, 51, 283?299.
Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997). A fundamental prediction error: Self-others discrepancies in
risk preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 126, 45?53.
Keynes, A. (2002, August 20). Appeals court stops suit against violent video co. Education Daily,
1?2.
Lambe, J. L., & McLeod, D. M. (2005). Understanding third-person perception processes: Predicting
perceived impact on self and others for multiple expressive contexts. Journal of Communication,
55, 277?291.
McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and
misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24,
153?174.
Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the
perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 57?85.
Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect.
Human Communication Research, 31, 129?161.
Rothman, A. J., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Constructing perceptions of vulnerability: Personal relevance
and the use of experiential information in health judgments. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24, 1053?1064.
Rucinski, D., & Salmon, C. T. (1990). The other as the vulnerable voter: A study of the third-person
effect in the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 2, 345?368.
Salwen, M. B., & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of
press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47, 60?78.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of
retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61, 195?202.
Snider, M. (2007, October 2). ?Manhunt 2? bloodied . . . but unbowed as game earns M rating. USA
Today, D6.
Tsfati, Y., & Cohen, J. (2004). Object-subject distance and the third-person perception. Media
Psychology, 6, 335?361.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability.
Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207?232.
Communication Reports 11
Wa¨nke, M., Bless, H., & Biller, B. (1996). Subjective experience versus content of information in the
construction of attitude judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1105?1113.
Wa¨nke, M., Bohner, G., & Jurkowitsch, A. (1997). There are many reasons to drive a BMW: Does
imagined ease of argument generation influence attitudes? Journal of Consumer Research, 24,
170?177.
Weber, R., Ritterfeld, U., & Kostygina, A. (2006). Aggression and violence as effects of playing
violent video games? In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives,
responses, and consequences (pp. 347?361). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Williams, D., & Skoric, M. (2005). Internet fantasy violence: A test of aggression in an online game.
Communication Monographs, 22, 217?233.
on players, which is understandable given the complexity of the issues and the varied
perspectives and methods employed by researchers, perceptions among the public
and policymakers regarding whether the medium has harmful effects may still influence
policy?whether such perceptions are accurate or not. Much research has
explored perceptions of media effects on others, most notably work investigating
the third-person perception phenomenon (a.k.a. third-person effect). This frequently
occurring bias, wherein persons believe that media have greater effects on others than
on themselves (Davison, 1983), has been observed in numerous studies (see Paul,
Salwen, & Dupagne, 2000). Individuals? third-person perceptions have also sometimes
been found to influence their support for censorship and restriction of media
messages (e.g., Cohen & Weimann, 2008; Gunther, 1995; McLeod, Eveland, &
Nathanson, 1997; but cf. Rucinski & Salmon, 1990; Salwen & Driscoll, 1997), especially
in the case of perceived effects of media on antisocial behaviors such as
aggression (Hoffner et al., 1999). Given this evidence for a link between individuals?
perceptions of negative media effects on others and their support for censorship, the
importance of perceived media effects is clear.
If perceived negative effects of violent video games on users might have such
implications, one important factor may be how the games and users are being considered.
For example, does it matter if specific games and users are considered, as
opposed to games and users in general? Some prominent U.S. politicians, such as past
Attorney General John Ashcroft (Keynes, 2002), have criticized violent video games
in general. Others have condemned specific games like the 2007 release Manhunt 2, a
controversial offering that has drawn regulatory attempts in the United States and
abroad (Snider, 2007). How might such varied content abstraction, ranging from
specific violent games to violent games in general, affect judgments, opinion, and
policy regarding violent games? effects?
To address the paucity of existing research exploring how content abstraction
may influence people?s perceptions of media effects on others, this study examined
the effects of content abstraction on people?s estimates of violent video games?
potential for causing aggression in others, as well as on their support for censorship.
Additionally, these effects were examined in concert with the effects of person
abstraction to ascertain whether the effects of these two types of abstraction might
interact.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Person Abstraction, Social Distance, and Perceived Media Effects
Research on perceptions of negative media effects, particularly research on the thirdperson
perception phenomenon (Davison, 1983), has tended to indicate that these
perceptions vary with social distance. Social distance can generally be described as
the degree of closeness or similarity perceived between oneself and the person one
considers when making judgments of potential media effects (Cohen, Mutz, Price,
& Gunther, 1988; Hoffner et al., 2001; McLeod et al., 1997). In many cases, this
2 J. D. Ivory and S. Kalyanaraman
perceived social distance is a function of greater ambiguity, or an increase in the
scope of the social ??border?? encompassing both the person estimating effects on
others and those persons for whom effects are estimated (Cohen et al., 1988). For
example, Cohen et al. (1988) found that participants? perceptions of a defamatory
newspaper article?s negative effects increased with social distance when they considered
effects on other students at the same school (lowest social distance), other
Californians (moderate social distance), or public opinion in general (high social
distance). Hoffner and colleagues (2001) found that participants perceived greater
negative effects of television violence when asked to estimate negative effects for those
in the United States at large than for those in their community. Duck and Mullin
(1995) identified two factors that increased perceptions of negative media effects
on other persons: closeness and vagueness in terms of the person considered. Vagueness
was a function of whether a specific person was considered or not?in other
words, the level of abstraction or specificity applied to the person considered. Given
these previous findings, we predict that abstraction of persons considered will similarly
influence perceptions of violent video games? negative effects:
H1: Participants will perceive violent video games? effects on aggression to be
highest for persons in the United States in general, lower for others on their
campus, and lowest for individually identified, concrete persons.
Of course, abstraction is not the only dimension of social distance that impacts
perceived negative media effects (Lambe & McLeod, 2005; Tsfati & Cohen, 2004).
Other factors can influence perceptions of negative effects on others, such as whether
the estimator perceives the considered persons as belonging to the same categorical
group in terms of some identity dimension (e.g., whether there is a shared cultural,
subcultural, or demographic identity) (Reid & Hogg, 2005). Given that person
abstraction, however, is one key factor that influences perceptions of negative media
effects (Duck & Mullin, 1995), another type of abstraction?namely abstraction in
content considered?may similarly influence perceptions of media effects.
Content Abstraction and Perceived Media Effects
While much research has explored the closely related issues of person abstraction and
social distance, the role of content abstraction in perceived media effects has received
less attention. This is unfortunate. Considering the amount of evidence suggesting
that abstraction in terms of persons considered influences perceived media effects,
it is important to investigate whether content abstraction has a similar influence
on perceived media effects.
In considering perceptions of abstract and specific violent content, the availability
heuristic provides some conceptual guidance. When people make judgments, such as
those concerning frequency or likelihood of certain events, they tend to base estimates
on what examples easily come to mind (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Estimations
may be influenced by availability of confirming instances, availability of
Communication Reports 3
arguments, and availability of causal scenarios, or scripts (Anderson & Lindsay,
1998). In the case of violent video games, for example, thinking about a specific
violent video game instead of games in general might increase the availability of
specific game elements that could cause aggression, reasons why the game could
facilitate aggression, and situations in which aggression stemming from game play
might occur. Based on this increased availability from the more specific consideration,
a person considering a specific violent game might, consequently, estimate
greater negative effects of video games than if he or she had only thought about
violent video games in general.
On the other hand, considering a specific violent video game may have the reverse
effect and actually reduce perceptions of negative effects if it is difficult to generate
arguments for negative effects of the specific game. While recognizing that available
information influences judgments, Tversky and Kahneman (1973) noted that the ease
with which arguments can be generated is also an important factor in decision making.
For example, research has shown that participants asked to list several reasons
supporting or refuting a claim may be less persuaded by the task than those who
are asked to generate only a few arguments because they conclude that supporting
arguments are insufficiently abundant or unconvincing (e.g., Rothman & Schwarz,
1998; Schwarz et al., 1991; Wa¨nke, Bless, & Biller, 1996). Even when participants
are not asked to generate specific arguments supporting a claim, imagined difficulty
in generating supporting arguments is enough to render the claim less convincing
(Wa¨nke, Bohner, & Jurkowitsch, 1997). If people considering a specific game find
it difficult to generate reasons that the specific game considered might influence
aggression, this difficulty may therefore lead to reduced perceptions of negative
effects compared to those not considering a specific game.
Therefore, considering a specific game may plausibly have two different effects on
perceptions of negative effects: It may increase such perceptions by making arguments
for effects more accessible, or it may decrease such perceptions if arguments
for negative effects are difficult to generate. Given these two discrepant possibilities,
competing hypotheses are therefore proposed regarding the effects of content
abstraction on perceptions of violent video games? negative effects:
H2a: Participants? perceptions of violent video games? effects on aggression will be
greater when considering a specific game compared to violent video games
in general.
H2b: Participants? perceptions of violent video games? effects on aggression will
be greater when considering violent video games in general compared to
a specific game.
Effects on Support for Censorship
Some studies have found that individuals? perceptions of media effects on others
influence their support for censorship (e.g., Cohen & Weimann, 2008; Gunther,
1995; McLeod et al., 1997), while others have not (e.g., Rucinski & Salmon, 1990;
Salwen & Driscoll, 1997). Given this inconsistency in linking perceptions of effects
4 J. D. Ivory and S. Kalyanaraman
to censorship support, we address the possible effects of person and content
abstraction on censorship support with the following research question:
RQ1: What effects, if any, do person and content abstraction have on participants?
support for censorship of violent video games?
Method
Participants
Participants included 122 undergraduate students from two Eastern U.S. universities,
who were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions in a 2 (content
abstraction: specific game or games in general)3 (person abstraction: specific person,
others on campus, or others in U.S.) between-subjects factorial experiment.
Exactly half of the participants (n¼61) were male and half (n¼61) were female.
The age of participants ranged from 18 to 28 (M¼20.08; SD¼1.56).
Materials and Measures
Each factor was manipulated via variations in instructions and item wording in six
versions of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire containing all study measures.
Person abstraction manipulation
In a format adapted from Hsee and Weber (1997), abstraction of person considered
was manipulated by varying the wording of the study?s first dependent measure (see
Dependent Measures section below) so that it asked participants to consider video
games? potential effects on aggression for either ??other students in the United States,??
??other students on this campus,?? or ??the person currently sitting nearest me.?? For
the ??specific person?? condition, the questionnaire item was also preceded by these
instructions to prompt selection of a specific person: ??Before you go on, please look
around and see who sits closest to you. Do not talk to or disturb that person, but look
at him or her for a second and remember how he or she looks.??
Content abstraction manipulation
Participants in the ??specific game?? condition were asked to think of and write down
??the most violent game with which you are familiar?? on the questionnaire before
they completed questions pertaining to the study?s dependent measures. Questionnaires
for participants in the ??games in general?? condition did not include this item.
Perceived effects on others measure
Participants? perceptions of effects on others were measured by a 9-point Likert-type
questionnaire item with wording varied six different ways to match experiment
conditions as described above. For example, in the ??specific game, others in U.S.??
condition, participants were asked to rate their agreement (1¼??Strongly Disagree,??
Communication Reports 5
9¼??Strongly Agree??) with the statement, ??The video game I listed above could cause
most other students in the United States to be more aggressive and=or violent,?? and
in the ??games in general, specific person?? condition, respondents rated agreement
with the statement, ??In general, violent video games could cause the person sitting
nearest me to be more aggressive and=or violent.??
Support for censorship measures
Participants? support for censorship of games was measured by a 9-point Likert-type
questionnaire item asking for participants to rate their agreement (1¼??Strongly
Disagree,?? 9¼??Strongly Agree??) with the statement, ??Limiting access to or censoring
some violent video games is appropriate.??
Other measures
Questionnaires for the ??specific person?? condition also asked the participants to list
whether or not they knew the person considered to ensure that they had no prior
knowledge of the person. To check whether participants in the ??specific game?? condition
actually considered a violent game, the amount of perceived violence in the
considered game was measured by a 9-point Likert-type item asking ??How violent
is this game, compared to other entertainment media (movies, books, etc.) you know
well??? (1¼??Much Less Violent than Most,?? 5¼??About as Violent as Most,??
9¼??Much More Violent than Most??).
Because exposure to media content has been shown to impact perceptions of
effects (Hoffner et al., 2001), familiarity with video games was a control variable measured
by a 9-point Likert-type item asking participants, ??Compared to most people,
how familiar would you say you are with video games??? (1¼??Not at all Familiar,??
5¼??About as Familiar as Most,?? 9¼??Very Familiar??). Items asking participants? age
and gender were also included.
Procedure
The experiment was administered to groups of students in campus classrooms.
Participants attended sessions in groups of 10 or more participants per session. After
completing an informed consent form, participants were told to seat themselves so
that the nearest person to them was not someone they knew. Participants were then
given one of the six questionnaire versions in randomly assigned order. After
participants completed the questionnaire, they were debriefed, thanked for their
participation, and dismissed.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Participants? mean reported familiarity with video games was 3.51 (SD¼2.01) on the
9-point scale. Among participants in the ??specific game?? condition, their mean
6 J. D. Ivory and S. Kalyanaraman
estimate of violence for the game listed was 6.13 on a 1-to-9 scale (SD¼1.70),
significantly higher than the midpoint of the scale (5¼??About as Violent as Most??
other entertainment media), one-sample t(52)¼5.12, p<.001, Cohen?s d¼.67.
Among participants in the ??specific other?? conditions (n¼41), 51.22% (n¼21) considered
effects on a male fellow participant and 48.78% (n¼20) considered effects on
a female fellow participant. All participants in this condition noted that they did not
know the considered person.
Effects of Person and Content Abstraction on Perceived Effects on Others
H1 predicted that as abstraction of the considered person was reduced, perceived
negative effects would also decrease. A between-subjects ANOVA with person
abstraction and content abstraction as independent factors and perceived effects as
the dependent measure indicated a significant main effect for person abstraction,
F(2, 116)¼8.54, p<.001, g2
p ¼ :128, with perceived effects lowest in the ??specific
other?? condition (M¼2.93, SD¼1.72), higher in the ??others on campus?? condition
(M¼3.43, SD¼1.85) and highest in the ??others in U.S.?? condition (M¼4.50,
SD¼1.81). A trend analysis using polynomial contrast tests showed this linear
decrease in perceptions of negative effects as person abstraction decreased to be
significant, p<.001. These results support H1.
H2a and H2b were competing hypotheses regarding whether content abstraction
would increase or decrease perceived negative effects. The ANOVA showed a
significant main effect for content abstraction, F(1, 116)¼8.32, p¼.005,
g2
p ¼ :067, with perceived effects lower in the ??specific game?? condition
(M¼3.16, SD¼1.75) than in the ??games in general?? condition (M¼4.07,
SE¼1.94). This result supports H2b, while disconfirming H2a. The interaction
effect between content and person abstraction was not significant, F(2, 116)¼.561,
p>.05, g2
p ¼ :010, indicating that the effects of content abstraction are stable
across levels of person abstraction.
Effects of Person and Content Abstraction on Support for Censorship
RQ1 asked whether person and content abstraction would influence participants?
support for censorship. A between-subjects ANOVA with person abstraction and
content abstraction as independent factors and support for censorship as the dependent
measure indicated no significant main effect for person abstraction, F(2,
116)¼1.15, p>.05, g2
p ¼ :019, but showed a significant main effect for content
abstraction, F(1, 116)¼6.31, p¼.013, g2
p ¼ :052, with support for censorship lower
in the ??specific game?? condition (M¼5.02, SD¼2.73) than in the ??games in general??
condition (M¼6.15, SD¼2.13). The interaction effect between content and
person abstraction was not significant, F(2, 116)¼.131, p>.05, g2
p ¼ :002,
indicating that the effects of content abstraction are stable across levels of person
abstraction.
Communication Reports 7
Effects after Controlling for Game Familiarity
When the two ANOVA tests were repeated as ANCOVA tests with the familiarity
variable added as a covariate, the covariate was significant as a predictor of both perceived
negative effects, F(1, 115)¼15.30, p<.001, g2
p ¼ :12 (negative beta), and
support for censorship, F(1, 115)¼12.24, p¼.001, g2
p ¼ :096 (negative beta), such
that participants who were more familiar with video games tended to report
lower perceptions of negative effects and less support for censorship. However,
addition of this covariate in the ANCOVA did not alter the significance of the independent
factors? relationships to either dependent variable relative to the ANOVA
results.
Discussion
It is valuable to understand what factors influence the public?s perceptions about the
effects of violent video games, as well as subsequent policy support. This study does
not examine actual video game effects, but shows that how people consider these
effects can influence their perceptions and opinions. Although person abstraction
and related concepts have been previously recognized as factors influencing perceptions
of negative media effects, this study contributes to the literature by calling
attention to the similarly important role of content abstraction in perceptions of
negative media effects and subsequent support for censorship.
Our findings pertaining to the effects of person abstraction on perceived negative
media effects are consistent with previous findings indicating that abstraction (i.e.,
vagueness) is a component of the social distance construct that influences people?s
perceptions of negative media effects on others (e.g., Cohen et al., 1988; Hoffner
et al., 2001; McLeod et al., 1997). However, we did not find person abstraction to
have a significant impact on support for censorship. This may be due to genuinely
limited effects of person abstraction, or it may be due to flaws in our operationalization
of person abstraction. It is difficult to unpack person abstraction from other
social distance dimensions. In our manipulation of person abstraction, abstraction
may have been confounded with corresponding variation in perceived similarity,
social proximity, or other social distance elements. Participants may have also
evaluated different group sizes across person abstraction conditions; there are more
people in the ??others in U.S.?? condition than the ??others on campus?? condition,
which could have influenced estimates of how many people might be affected. This
lack of clarity regarding person abstraction?s unique role in our observed effects is a
limitation of the study, and further research should work to isolate person abstraction
from other social distance and group size elements to more clearly isolate the
role of abstraction in social distance. In addition, because this study balanced the
number of male and female participants, but did not control the gender of the persons
they considered generally (e.g., ??other male video game players in the United
States??), further study should explore whether gender of persons considered at all
levels of abstraction influences perceptions of effects. We concur with Harris,
Middleton, and Joiner (2000) and their call to ??unpack what it is about social
8 J. D. Ivory and S. Kalyanaraman
distance that makes the difference?? and ??clarify the conditions under which such targets
can and cannot be considered abstract?? (p. 250).
Much more novel and provocative are this study?s findings regarding the significant
role of content abstraction in perceptions of negative media effects. We found
that consideration of a specific violent video game, as opposed to violent video games
in general, leads to lower perceived media effects on others and diminished support
for censorship. These results suggest that content abstraction should receive more
attention as a factor influencing perceptions of media effects. Although theoretical
guidance related to the availability heuristic suggested that content abstraction might
decrease or increase perceptions of media effects (H2a & H2b), our findings indicate
that considering a specific violent video game can reduce perceptions of negative
media effects and support for censorship compared to considering violent video
games in general. One might present the possible alternative explanation that participants
were less likely to condemn a specific game because they were defensive about
that game, but given that familiarity as a control variable did not influence the effects
of the abstraction variables, this explanation seems unlikely. Another alternative
explanation for the content abstraction might be that considering only one specific
game leads to consideration of less overall video game play exposure (i.e., less total
play time) compared to considering games in general, but content abstraction?s
observed effects on support for censorship suggests that there is more going on in
the effects of content abstraction than just a manipulation of perceived game
exposure.
Also of interest, if not directly pertinent to the effects of abstraction, is the finding
that the video game familiarity covariate was negatively associated with both perceptions
of video games? negative effects and support for censorship. Even though the
familiarity covariate did not alter the effects of abstraction on either outcome variable,
the covariate?s effects suggest that, as with other media (Hoffner et al., 2001),
those who play video games are less likely to perceive them as having negative effects
and that this effect also extends to policy support. Further research should explore
what processes cause these tendencies among video game players and whether they
may lead to other outcomes, such as making players particularly susceptible to
problematic use or other negative effects.
This study suggests that even though considering a specific game might have
increased the availability of thoughts regarding how a specific violent game might
influence aggression and violence (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973), considering a
specific game may also have actually made it difficult for participants to generate a
satisfactory rationale for that game having such harmful effects (e.g., Rothman &
Schwarz, 1998; Schwarz et al., 1991; Wa¨nke et al., 1996; Wa¨nke et al., 1997). Using
a specific violent video game to estimate violent video games? negative effects on
others did not provide participants with a bounty of reasons why such games are
dangerous?rather, it appears to have made them less confident in concluding that
violent video games cause aggression and that they should be censored. Further
research should examine whether increasing content specificity may have the same
effects in other contexts. The reverse may be true if specific content easily facilitates
Communication Reports 9
a generation of arguments indicating negative effects and need for censorship. In any
case, it appears that content abstraction is important as an influence on perceptions
of media effects, and therefore merits further study.
A key limitation of this study is that, as is the case with all experiments, the effects
observed here might differ with a different participant group. For example, these
participants did not report a particularly high mean familiarity with video games.
We consider this appropriate because our study is primarily concerned with perceptions
of people in general, not just the perceptions of video game players, given
that policy is influenced by publics and individuals beyond the video game-playing
population. However, results might be different with another sample of participants,
such as a group with more or fewer video game players, a group more varied in age,
or a group with more varied educational backgrounds. Further research should
examine such participant groups to see if the effects we observed are consistent.
Additionally, our research looks at negative effects very generally, asking about
perceptions of aggression and violence together. Future research should isolate these
and other perceived negative effects to see if results differ from their general investigation
here.
Meanwhile, this study?s findings, particularly with regard to the effects of content
abstraction, introduce interesting questions that may inform the very public debate
over video game policy. Discussion and coverage of the issue is frequently accompanied
by violent video game imagery and photos. One might think that these materials
would increase opinions that video games have negative effects, but our findings suggest
that this may not be so. Consider one example: Speaking for a panel overturning
an Indianapolis ordinance restricting children?s access to violent games in a landmark
video game regulation case (American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick,
2001), Judge Richard Posner noted that the specific game footage provided by the city
was far from realistic enough to support claims of harm he called ??at best wildly
speculative?? (p. 8). Considering this study?s findings, the city?s legal representative
might have done better to leave the footage at the office.
References
American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001).
Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 113?122.
Anderson, C. A., & 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, 12, 353?359.
Anderson, C. A., & Lindsay, J. L. (1998). The development, perseverance, and change of naı¨ve
theories. Social Cognition, 16, 8?30.
Cohen, J., Mutz, D. C., Price, V., & Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An
experiment on third-person effect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161?173.
Cohen, J., & Weimann, G. (2008). Who?s afraid of reality shows? Exploring the effects of perceived
influence of reality shows and the concern over their social effects on willingness to censor.
Communication Research, 35, 382?397.
10 J. D. Ivory and S. Kalyanaraman
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47,
1?13.
Duck, J. M., & Mullin, B. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third
person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77?93.
Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A
meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 470?482.
Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2006). Violent video games: Effects on youth and public policy
implications. In N. E. Dowd, D. G. Singer, & R. F. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of children,
culture, and violence (pp. 225?246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gunther, A. (1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship
of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27?38.
Harris, P., Middleton, W., & Joiner, R. (2000). The typical student as an in group member: Eliminating
optimistic bias by reducing social distance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30,
235?253.
Hoffner, C., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Hubbs, L. A., Kamigaki, S. K., Kowalczyk, L., et al.
(1999). Support for censorship of television violence: The role of the third-person effect
and news exposure. Communication Research, 26, 643?655.
Hoffner, C., Plotkin, R. S., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J. D., Kamigaki, S. K., Hubbs, L. A., et al.
(2001). The third-person effect in perceptions of the influence of television violence. Journal
of Communication, 51, 283?299.
Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1997). A fundamental prediction error: Self-others discrepancies in
risk preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 126, 45?53.
Keynes, A. (2002, August 20). Appeals court stops suit against violent video co. Education Daily,
1?2.
Lambe, J. L., & McLeod, D. M. (2005). Understanding third-person perception processes: Predicting
perceived impact on self and others for multiple expressive contexts. Journal of Communication,
55, 277?291.
McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and
misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24,
153?174.
Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the
perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 57?85.
Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). A self-categorization explanation for the third-person effect.
Human Communication Research, 31, 129?161.
Rothman, A. J., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Constructing perceptions of vulnerability: Personal relevance
and the use of experiential information in health judgments. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24, 1053?1064.
Rucinski, D., & Salmon, C. T. (1990). The other as the vulnerable voter: A study of the third-person
effect in the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 2, 345?368.
Salwen, M. B., & Driscoll, P. D. (1997). Consequences of third-person perception in support of
press restrictions in the O. J. Simpson trial. Journal of Communication, 47, 60?78.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of
retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61, 195?202.
Snider, M. (2007, October 2). ?Manhunt 2? bloodied . . . but unbowed as game earns M rating. USA
Today, D6.
Tsfati, Y., & Cohen, J. (2004). Object-subject distance and the third-person perception. Media
Psychology, 6, 335?361.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability.
Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207?232.
Communication Reports 11
Wa¨nke, M., Bless, H., & Biller, B. (1996). Subjective experience versus content of information in the
construction of attitude judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1105?1113.
Wa¨nke, M., Bohner, G., & Jurkowitsch, A. (1997). There are many reasons to drive a BMW: Does
imagined ease of argument generation influence attitudes? Journal of Consumer Research, 24,
170?177.
Weber, R., Ritterfeld, U., & Kostygina, A. (2006). Aggression and violence as effects of playing
violent video games? In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives,
responses, and consequences (pp. 347?361). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Williams, D., & Skoric, M. (2005). Internet fantasy violence: A test of aggression in an online game.
Communication Monographs, 22, 217?233.
