Does sexist tropes in video games influence behavior? Violence =/= Sexism?

[VanQ]

I used to think that playing a game about being an Orc Warlock that slaughters people/bears/dragons didn't effect me in real life. But I recently learned that the more I believe that I don't slaughter people/bears/dragons in real life because I do so in the game, the more likely I am to actually slaughter people/bears/dragons in real life. Apparently I'm a badass Orc Warlock genocidal maniac and dragon killer and bear mauler and I don't even realize it.

In short, the more you believe that you aren't a murderer for murdering people in games, the more likely you are to be a murderer.

Way to miss the subtleties of the argument.

Games don't exist in a vacuum. They can play a role in reinforcing certain gender stereotypes that are already exist within society.

It's not like one game is going to magically transform you into a raging sexist, it's just that they can, unconsciously or otherwise, help to reinforce or reiterate harmful or problematic cultural norms, in my opinion.

This argument of "games don't exist in a vacuum" is bullshit. Because nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything exists in the greater context of this wide universe that we live in. Everything is going to have some kind of subtle influence on us, even if it's just a fart in the wind.

If something as simple as Princess Peach getting kidnapped 12 times is enough to reinforce sexist behavior then something as simple as slaughtering 303, 431 creatures over the course of the time I've spent playing my Orc Warlock (that's the actual statistic) should also have reinforced violent behavior in me shouldn't it?

Nothing exists in a vacuum so saying something doesn't exist in a vacuum is a moot point. It even garners a "no shit" response from me every time I hear it.

 

[Skatologist]

Attacking people pre-emptively for making the argument is kind of silly though. Like you said, it kills any meaningful discussion on sexism and feminism but then you brought it up, you know? You're almost goading people who legitimately think like that into posting.I mean, I find it as annoying as the next person when someone tries to derail a discussion by pulling the "what about the men" card but the way you brought it up does seem a little bit dismissive.

Anyone who legitimately wants to discuss and advocate talking about forms of male oppression or stereotypes are free to do so[footnote] Hopefully here if it is brief and calm [/footnote], but as far as I am concerned, the vast majority of people who ever bring it up care more about finding problems that they won't/don't want fixed than solutions that will offer meaningful change. Those were the people I was belittling. And you're right, twas silly on my part.

Like, I hate it when people who are anti-feminism attack phantom feminists who say they hate all men in threads where there aren't examples of any. This seems a little reminiscent of that.

Same here, perhaps I'm being too heavily pushed by negativity. Apologies if it seems reminiscent, I just can't imagine someone not seriously bringing it up within the next page or two.

I know you were just joking around, I'm not trying to pick on you or tell you how to post, I just don't think opening the thread with that kind of tone is going to foster any decent discussion.

Okay I'll make it apparent: Anyone who feels that there are legitimate problems against men in media who wants to discuss both how it negatively effects society or perceptions of men and how it can be treated gets my thumbs up to do so. That may foster decent discussion here, don't you think?

yeah but it wasn't crazy or angry or anything...just kinda incohearant

Like how you write?[footnote] Teasing [/footnote]

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think the whole concept is backwards. Sexist tropes exist in games because sexist tropes exist in real life. Assassin's Creed: Unity not having female PCs is not going to make you sexist. But if you are already steeped in a sexist patriarchal world view where women aren't as good as men, or at least where "men are more equal that women", then you're either not going to care that Unity's title is deeply ironic or you're going to freak out because people talking about it may be pointing out the sexism in your actual, real world life.

Certainly, but where does this sexist patriarchal world view come from?

Surely it's derived from your culture, and games are part of that. Maybe a small part, but still a part.

 

[Twilights_Bard]

As far as a reaction to the trope, I think it might depend a bit on the person and their upbringing too. There are a LOT of individual elements to look at here and it's hard to separate them all. Usually media is reflected by our culture, it's storytelling, and the actions around.

Now, tropes are mainly tools for storytelling, and as far as games go, we're still not at a point where we can get deep characters in gaming. Like movies, the more action-y games have to rely on tropes and cliches for building up reactions, while RPGs can generally afford more character development. Yeah, there are tropes that can be looked at as more sexist, but it's also dependent on how the writer USES the trope.

Let's look at Zelda real fast, minus the 8-bit games on a count of the lack of space to balance story to gameplay. Zelda has been kidnapped, but most of her incarnations have also been rather intelligent women who look far more into the events going on then the player generally can. Ocarina of Time has Zelda acting behind the scenes to undermine Ganon, Tetra has more experience in the ways of the world, Twilight Princess' incarnation seemed to me to be the one holding Hyrule together, and Skyward Sword's Zelda was basically using you as a distraction. As a writer, she's something that needs to be looked at, as the embodiment of Wisdom, you could make an argument that she has more potential for being game breaking in terms of, she knows too much, she can expose too much. The other issue is, she's Zelda, you can't have a game franchise these days and ignore a popular female character. So what do you do?

To say that nothing exists in a vacuum is something you have to remember, gaming doesn't either. There are tons of influence in music, TV, movies, and novels that you can't just pull gaming and it's tropes from the whole and look at them. You have to also consider upbringing, general attitude, and how people act to one another. You also have to look at where the writer, the creator and such are coming from. There's literally so many things to consider that I don't think we can have a definitive answer here. There aren't any vacuums for us to actually study this in, there are too many factors that can be calculated into forming how effective the media is at influencing us.

I just don't think there's an answer that anyone is going to be happy with.

 

[WhiteNachos]

bleegghhh I hope we didn't kick a hornets nest...

One of us, if not both of us, are going to get modded, PMed, or called out on this, or some combination of the 3. All I can say is "Come at me bro", because as far as I am concerned the "What about the menz?!" argument kills any meaningful discussion on sexism in order for people to silence it .

So does the phrase 'what about the menz', and so does pretending that talking about men is somehow derailing when the topic is general sexism.

 

[WhiteNachos]

It's tempting to say "I play video games and they haven't made me sexist!" For one, if you're not sexist why are you dismissing off hand the masses of women explaining that female portrayal in video games often makes them feel uncomfortable and excluded.

That's a non sequitor. Them feeling uncomfortable/excluded is not evidence that they're making other people more sexist

And as a general rule, if you want to say that games cause sexism/violence/whatever you have to prove it. Saying "they probably effect you in some way, it's unlikely you'll be completely unaffected" doesn't cut it. You still have to prove those specific effects.

Until that happens this is all mere speculation.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

A question like that can not be answered by debating in an online discussion board. There has to be done actual research on the topic. Even if everyone in this thread agreed on how media influences beavior, that would tell us absolutely nothing about whether we were right.

The argument that, if we see "X" in media and therefore do "X" is just an unproven claim. I could as easily argue that if media shows "X" we are more likely to do "not X". Repeating an unproven point does not make it suddenly more likely to be true.

My standpoint on the topic is that art is free and as long as there is no good evidence that a form of media does serious harm to society, there is no right for anyone to meddle with freedom of speech and artistic expression.

The rational person in me saw the above post (which I agree with completely) and immediately recognized that it was true and any and all discussion on this subject would not yield a "true" result, however...

To the OP: Take it away, Yahtzee.

Ahem, serious response now.

I see two major problems with that Time article in particular.

First, a sample size of 185 is far too little for anything accurate to come of it.

Second,

This study has some limitations, however. Researchers' associating guilt with terrorist actions (and lack of guilt with the "heroes"), for example, might have shaded the lens with which they viewed their actions during the game.

Might have shaded the lens? Might? By making the players play as what are implicitly referred to as a "terrorist" or "UN" soldier, you've already poisoned the proverbial well due to the labels and all of the subtext that goes along with them. Presupposing guilt based on those terms is just the cherry on top.

Simply having them be the same character, a blank cipher, without the weighty baggage associated with the terminology, would have made for a much more objective analysis.

OR, alternatively, flip the guilt/non-guilt and the characters with every group of people being subjected to the experiment. If there's a correlation between people's reactions and the role they're put into, then explore it further, but it still wouldn't provide what the researchers were initially looking for...it'd just showcase how context and expectation skew results.

In general though? See the video.

I think the whole concept is backwards. Sexist tropes exist in games because sexist tropes exist in real life. Assassin's Creed: Unity not having female PCs is not going to make you sexist. But if you are already steeped in a sexist patriarchal world view where women aren't as good as men, or at least where "men are more equal that women", then you're either not going to care that Unity's title is deeply ironic or you're going to freak out because people talking about it may be pointing out the sexism in your actual, real world life.

Certainly, but where does this sexist patriarchal world view come from?

Surely it's derived from your culture, and games are part of that. Maybe a small part, but still a part.

Or, maybe their parents just suck?

Individuals exhibiting certain tendencies or world views isn't indicative of a prevalent cultural norm(s) any more than, say, the color of one's skin is indicative of the content of one's character.

Now, take that last bit and insert an actually relevant comparison.

 

[theNater]

The argument that, if we see "X" in media and therefore do "X" is just an unproven claim.

Note that sexism isn't something one does, but something one believes. It differs from violence in that regard.

My standpoint on the topic is that art is free and as long as there is no good evidence that a form of media does serious harm to society, there is no right for anyone to meddle with freedom of speech and artistic expression.

Asking game developers to put less sexism in their games isn't meddling with free speech any more than asking them to use fewer quicktime events is.

 

[giles]

Well since we're on the subject of the OPs sources...

And I've seen people site this article as an affirmation that video games do influence something.
http://time.com/2940491/study-violent-video-games-morally-sensitive/

I can't take someone's rambling in a video seriously. Text versions are easier to discuss here. This is also the only link with a solid foundation. Only one of the videos provided sources, but mostly shitty ones to other youtube videos about Jack Thompson instead of the issue at hand. This is why I will dismiss all the other videos, however heartfelt their emotional appeal, as useless for the search of truth in this matter.

Now, for this one... This is the study it is based on
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/262418134_Repeated_Exposure_to_Narrative_Entertainment_and_the_Salience_of_Moral_Intuitions
If someone has an account on this site, please send me the file. I would like to read the entire thing.
The abstract states the purpose of this was to test some pet model of the guy who made it. The abstract states it like this

Consistent with predictions, results showed that repeated exposure to morally relevant media content is capable of influencing the salience of moral intuitions. The findings are consistent with the model's description of underlying mechanisms explicating the manner in which entertainment can influence moral judgments, and demonstrate the value of understanding the relationship between exposure to entertainment and moral judgment processes.

That sounds relevant, right? Shame I can't access the full paper, but sciencedaily is a little more detailed about the content ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140627163750.htm )

The study involved 185 subjects who were randomly assigned to either a guilt-inducing condition -- in which they played a shooter game as a terrorist or were asked to recall real-life acts that induced guilt -- or a control condition -- shooter game play as a UN soldier and the recollection of real-life acts that did not induce guilt.

After completing the video game or the memory recall, participants completed a three-item guilt scale and a 30-item moral foundations questionnaire designed to assess the importance to them of the five moral domains cited above.

Correlations were calculated among the variables in the study, with separate correlation matrices calculated for the video-game conditions and the memory-recall conditions. The study found significant positive correlations between video-game guilt and the moral foundations violated during game play.

So, according to this, both groups played a FPS game (!). One was specifically designed to guilt trip the player (!). Both scenarios were violent, it's just that one was constructed to induce guilt. To jump to conclusions about influences of percieved subliminal messages/undertones of sexism or violence is nonsense, this is not what this is about.

I would say we're kinda back to square one on this one unless someone can show me that games are intentionally constructed to guilt the player into being sexist.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

... BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?! ...

Ok, I bite and leave the judgement of the following article to you:

....
The occupants were burned alive.

All of the victims were boys. Reports indicated that the young girls the militants encountered were spared. According to the BBC, the militants told the girls to flee, get married, and shun the western education to which they were privy.

Beyond wire reports and a handful of segments on globally-focused outlets like NPR, this atrocity went unremarked upon in the popular news media.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-did-kidnapping-girls-but-not-burning-boys-alive-wake-media-up-to-boko-haram/

 

[Tawanda]

No it doesn't , not sure if studies have been done on Video games but other mediums show no link between behavior and what we consume. Also if they did find the link I would think it would cause a massive legal quandary , Hypothetically speaking if I sexual harassed someone and I blame "media" for negatively influencing me ,is the person/company who made said negative media Liable for being an accomplice to crime? The problem with alot of this (IMO) is its based on Behaviorist psychology which views humans as no better than animals and thus just as susceptible to behavior modifications, Humans seem to have high order function where at some point they make a choice, exercise freewill when making decisions regardless of outside stimuli, its never completely out of their hands.

 

[1Life0Continues]

"If advertising and subsequently the media doesn't influence people, then why is marketing and media-based research a multi-billion dollar industry?"

Once again, this stupid argument arises in which there MUST be a cause/effect relationship between two variables, instead if the much more likely correlation (which anyone with half a brain knows is not causation, but an indicator of strength of the relationship).

Consider this broad example: Jack likes apples. Jack's entire family likes apples. They run an apple farm and apples are a part of their lives. Jimmy works for a company that thinks apples are too popular, and that oranges should be the dominant fruit. Jessica is exactly like Jack except replace "apples' with oranges.

Jimmy hires a marketing company to promote oranges. What will be Jack's reaction to this advert? And now, what will be Jessica's? Now, if apples were the default fruit choice in all media, how would the orange adverts be received by the general public?

And now, even with this simplistic idea, you can see that the 'media doesn't influence people' argument is the biggest wank of all. When the entire media is directed toward whiteness and maleness as default, anything that goes against it will be held up for ridicule or ignored. Indeed, often pushed back against by the dominant ideology. It does not apply to everyone, but patterns and their statistically significant correlations exist for a reason.

*sigh*

Social theory is not physics. Newton's third law does not apply to human nature. Please, for the love of whatever deity or belief you hold, stop doing this black and white crap.

 

[Vault101]

[snip/

oh I'm sorry we were talking about media...and not the fucked up actions of a particular sect of militia/terrorists

 

[Tsun Tzu]

The argument that, if we see "X" in media and therefore do "X" is just an unproven claim.

Note that sexism isn't something one does, but something one believes. It differs from violence in that regard.

My standpoint on the topic is that art is free and as long as there is no good evidence that a form of media does serious harm to society, there is no right for anyone to meddle with freedom of speech and artistic expression.

Asking game developers to put less sexism in their games isn't meddling with free speech any more than asking them to use fewer quicktime events is.

1. Behavior due to 'sexist' stimuli under certain circumstances, due to what one has seen/internalized, is literally someone "doing" something because of it.

To put it another way, seeing X "sexist" action taking place causes me to behave in Y way, which is an unproven claim.

2. So...they're both incredibly subjective and indicative only of a person's preferences/biases and, therefore, should rightfully be taken with a massive grain of salt by said developers?

 

[Tawanda]

No it doesn't , not sure if studies have been done on Video games but other mediums show no link between behavior and what we consume. Also if they did find the link I would think it would cause a massive legal quandary , Hypothetically speaking if I sexual harassed someone and I blame "media" for negatively influencing me ,is the person/company who made said negative media Liable for being an accomplice to crime? The problem with alot of this (IMO) is its based on Behaviorist psychology which views humans as no better than animals and thus just as susceptible to behavior modifications, Humans seem to have high order function where at some point they make a choice, exercise freewill when making decisions regardless of outside stimuli, its never completely out of their hands.

Behaviorist psychology is making a comeback this last decade and recent research is showing that cognition and what you would call the will has comparatively little to do with human decision making compared to subconscious choices. That doesn't mean we just act on everything we see, because we have a subconscious judging mechanism that immediately files information into categories of "useful" and "not useful".

Absolutely agree, it never comes to a point we its completely out of you hands, which is the problem I have with the whole games cause certain behaviors idea, There is always a point where a conscience choice is made.