1. Cultivation Effects of Video Games

2. Introduction Abstract: Examine cultivation effects from longer-term exposure to a violent game (Grand Theft Auto IV) Can exposure to a violent video game affect our views and judgments of crime and violence in the world around us?

3. Introduction  Background Growing base of studies dedicated to potential links between playing violent games and real-life aggression. Much less research available that applies cultivation theory (television) to video games.

4. Introduction Contributions  Add a longer-term perspective to current work relating to short-term effects  Provide a more holistic approach to research focused on aggression-related effects of video games  Studying cultivation effects on a different media platform may bring deeper understanding of its application and mechanisms.

5. Relevancy Advances in technology allow for increasingly realistic gaming experiences Pac-Man, 1980 The Last of Us, 2013

6. Moore's Law

7. Gameplay Themes Violence in Grand Theft Auto IV

8. Gameplay Themes Car Theft in Grand Theft Auto IV

9. First- and Second-Order Effects First-Order Effects  General beliefs about the everyday world “The crime rate in Little Rock is X% higher than in Russellville.” Second-Order Effects  Specific attitudes and judgments “I am worried that I will be mugged in Little Rock.”

10. Research Questions  RQ1: Does playing violent video games result in first-order cultivation? Do these games affect our perception of real- life crime?  RQ2: Does playing violent video games result in second-order cultivation? Do these games affect our judgment of real-life crime?

11. How do we test?  All participants will have minimal previous exposure to violent media Less than 2 hours per week watching violent TV or movies, playing violent games  593 respondents :: 311 fulfilled requirement  135 agreed to participate No significant differences in age, gender, or media habits

12. How do we test? Differences in variables  Control group did not play the video game It is assumed that in the three weeks of the experiment, participants do not become avid gamers.  Experimental group plays the game 8 – 12 hours per week. Controlled environment (campus computer lab)

13. How do we test? Questionnaire After three weeks, both groups fill out questionnaire measuring first- and second-order effects

14. How do we test? First-Order Questionnaire  First-Order section focuses on three broad categories of violence 1. Perception of violence 2. Causes of death 3. Likelihood of crime

15. How do we test? First-Order Questionnaire  Perception: What is the percentage of serious crime among total crime rate in the past year? No significant difference in perception of crime. Experimental GroupControl Group MSDM t 22.616.620.314.7.86

16. First-Order Questionnaire  Likelihood Chances of being a victim of crime in the following year? No significant differences in likelihood. Experimental GroupControl Group MSDM t 10.113.612.715.7

17. First-Order Questionnaire  Causes of death Two significant differences: Car accidents as a driver and drug overdose. Percentages of death from Experimental Group Control Group MSDM t Car accidents - driving24.720.218.214.42.12 Car accidents - pedestrian17.620.014.415.01.08 Heart attack28.721.523.815.41.51 Physical assault9.29.08.87.1.31 Drug overdose10.814.07.15.52.06

18. Second-Order Questionnaire  Consist of a 7-point judgment scale 1 = Strongly disagree 7 = Strongly agree  Focus on attitudes toward concepts relating to the game.

19. Second-Order Questionnaire 1. Law and Order  “Judges should punish criminals more severely.”  “A person who is arrested should be kept in jail until he can appear in court.”  “Criminals have too many rights.”  “If the police were to shoot sooner, there would be fewer innocent victims.”

20. Second-Order Questionnaire 1. Law and Order (cont.)  “In order to catch criminals, the police should have more powerful weapons.”  “There are too many restrictions on what the police can do.” No significant difference in perceptions of law and order. Experimental GroupControl Group MSDM t 3.808.53.67.79.86

21. Second-Order Questionnaire 2. Fear of Crime  “I am afraid that a stranger will threaten me with a weapon.”  “I am afraid that a stranger will physically assault me.” No significant difference in perception of fear of crime. Experimental GroupControl Group MSDM t 3.691.453.811.59-.48

22. Second-Order Questionnaire 3. Car Theft  “Cars parked out in the open are likely to be stolen.”  “It is easy to steal a car.” Significant difference: Perception of stealing cars. Experimental GroupControl Group MSDM t 2.711.113.111.04-2.13

23. Second-Order Questionnaire 4. Drug Problem  “Drugs are readily available if you know where to look.”  “Drugs are one of the main problems of crime.” No significant difference in perception of drug problem. Experimental GroupControl Group MSDM t 4.824.76 1.16.31

24. Second-Order Questionnaire 5. Traffic Accidents  “I am worried that I will be knocked down by a car while walking along the road.”  “I am fearful of being in a road traffic accident.” No significant difference in perception of traffic accidents. Experimental GroupControl Group MSDM t 4.824.76 1.16.31

25. First-Order Questionnaire Results Experimental group thinks more people die from drug overdose and car accidents than control group. Percentages of death from Experimental Group Control Group MSDM t Car accidents - driving24.720.218.214.42.12 Car accidents - pedestrian17.620.014.415.01.08 Heart attack28.721.523.815.41.51 Physical assault9.29.08.87.1.31 Drug overdose10.814.07.15.52.06

26. Second-Order Questionnaire Results Control group thought car theft was more likely than experimental group Experimental GroupControl Group MSDM t 2.711.113.111.04-2.13

27. Research Review  Similar to previous studies of cultivation in video games, study finds some evidence of first-order cultivation effects.  These effects are reflective of the meta- narrative of the game: missions involving stealing cars and dealing drugs

28. Research Review  Study shows limited second-order cultivation effects  Only one attitudinal measure varied between groups Varied in a counter-intuitive way

29. Research Review  Interpretation of social cognition offers insight into reason for this counter-intuitive result.  According to Shrum study (2004), the level of engagement in the narrative may influence information processing during viewing experiences.  This means that the portrayal of events in the game are so vastly different from personal experiences that it inhibits second-order cultivation

30. Research Review  Crime rate in Singapore is among the lowest in the world. 8 homicides in 2008 All were solved Less than 2,000 drug arrests annually in 2012 22 robberies per 100,000 people Compare to U.S., 147 per 100,000 ● Sources: – Regional Security Office statistics, 2008 – www.nationmaster.com ‘Compare countries’ www.nationmaster.com

31. Research Review  Suggests that the ease of access to stealing cars in the game is perceived as illogical and unrealistic.  This reduces level of engagement, immersion in the game world.  Similar to an unsuccessful persuasion attempt backfiring: re-enforces our own beliefs rather than changing them.

32. Research Review Immersion

33. Limiting Factors  Time of play: Although 8 – 12 hours was 4-6 times greater than normal exposure levels for participants, could an even longer exposure produce a greater cultivation effect?  Laboratory environment: People feel they are being studied, not a natural environment. May have effect on immersion.

34. Limiting Factors  Age group: Only college-age participants. Could there be different effects on younger or older age groups?  Geographically specific demographics: Only Singapore residents participated. Could there be a different result in higher crime rate regions?

35. Discussion  Were you surprised by any of the results? Why?  Which findings did not surprise you? Why?

36. Discussion  Do you think cultivation would be more prevalent in a different region? Detroit? More or less? Why?

37. Discussion  What do you think? Does playing a violent video game affect your view of real-world crime?

38. Discussion  Is there a ceiling for realism in video games? Will we reach a point where video games can somehow match real-world experiences?  What effect might this have on cultivation?

39. Reference Chong, Y.M., Teng, K.Z., Siew, S.C., Skoric, M.M. (2012, November 9). Cultivation effects of video games: A longer-term experimental test of first- and second-order effects. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 31 952-971. Retrieved from http://libcatalog.atu.edu:2059/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4ddb 082d-9ed8-4f80-9f42- 0946aceaece2%40sessionmgr113&vid=3&hid=122