Saskwach said:
I tried. I really did. But I couldn't understand a word of what that guy said
I still don't understand: is there a general trend towards good or bad, and what does this trend mean for the people involved? Cliff's Notes would be appreciated. (Thank you for being understanding.)
I'll try and break his words down point by point. (Sorry, this ran a bit longer than I intended).
The first study he cites says that media portrayal of social groups is both a mirror to American society and the forces at play, and an agent of those forces. If one group has significantly more air time (since the study he cites deals mainly with television) than is equal to their percentage of the population, it is likely because that group is "more ?vital? and enjoy more status and power in daily life" (from Page 5). We assume that in a perfect world where everyone was equal, people would be represented "fairly" (or according to the percentage of the population they comprise). Since media representation is a mirror of society, we can look at how media perceives groups and understand how these groups are perceived in daily life. At least, that's what Williams and his peer reviewers say the study cited indicated. And science is notoriously picky about what we consider facts.
His next point explains why we might assume that videogames exert some influence over the player. He cites a social theory called "Cultivation theory" (Page 6) Cultivation theory deals with long term effects on large groups consuming media, as opposed to the Jack Thompson-esque BS which is "
GTAIV makes people want to kill another person immediately after playing the game." Cultivation theory is more concerned with what role
GTAIV might have on society and culture later on. He cites another study that applies cultivation theory to videogames, which seems to (and now I'm a little confused, because I don't quite know some of this jargon) indicate that videogames cultivate society not through the dissemination of broad social and cultural values, but instead through specifically targeted symbols (he appears to be citing his own earlier research into video games. He also reinforces it by citing another guy who apparently observed this more targeted approach in media in 2002).
This next point is an important one: how these might influence people. The studies cited in this paragraph explain that when media presents "social objects" (an example of a social object would be a type of person) to a viewer, the viewer's mind records those social objects and any information pertaining to them (like what the context they appeared in the media was). If one object is presented more often than another, the object shown more often becomes much easier for a person to recall, as well as the information that relates to that object.
He then discusses a study which has observed the effect of media portrayal of a group in a form of media (specifically Latinos on television). The study demonstrated that media portrayal will influence a viewer's perceptions of the group (though the caveat is that media is thwarted by real-life interactions). Williams then suggests that if one medium can be shown to have a pattern of influence, it is not unlikely that other mediums will have similar effects. He then notes that videogames are becoming the primary influential entertainment media for many Americans. So groups more often portrayed by videogames will be much more familiar to gamers.
Next is the observation of the effects discussed in
The Bluest Eye by science itself (there's a plethora of studies here. Usually he's cited one or two per paragraph, now he's cited five in a single one). What the studies demonstrate is that people observe how their personal social group is represented by media, and then compare that representation to the representation of other people. They use this to figure out where they as individuals stand in American society. Other studies show that the presence of a group in a media strengthens that group's sense of power and status, whereas the absence of a group makes that group feel "unimportant and powerless" (Page 7). He also explains that these effects are heightened or lowered depending on how often these groups play games.
The last paragraphs in Background are about numbers, generally detailing statistics of various demographics. For instance, women make up 50.1% of the population, but gamers are 40% female, 60% male. He also cites a study that notes that African-Americans and Latinos play games at higher rates than other groups (suggesting that they're impacted more by the portrayal, or lack of portrayal of their social group). He ends by explaining that gamers, who have an average age of 35, skew younger than the average US population.
