19
Oct 23

Attitudes towards Gaming vs. It’s Potential Affect on Players

Gaming has been in the spotlight for some time as some people do not know how others may be affected by its influence. It is understandable to some extent because we as human beings want the best for those around us. So, when some people say gaming may have a negative impact on those who play, it is easy for others to say that is not true. This begs the question, do games really affect us as negatively as some of the media portray it does, and how much does media influence these views? Media is always influencing us, but experience with games can override opinions. Concerning games effects, not only does the genres of the game matter, but who is playing, our circumstances in daily life, and why we play these games.

As new forms of entertainment (or even technology) are created, people tend to pay attention to it more than other content. So, depending on previous attitudes toward similar content, their preconceived notion forms the idea that this content could be just as harmful. Along with that, people may spread their belief in person, through text, social media, or even the news. For example, BBC news made an article on gaming and how violence was connected, bringing up research that suggested that these games made players boys more violent (Kleinman, 2015). The problem is that they do not dive into how correlational studies do not give concrete answers, but just how related topics are to one another. If someone read this could be primed to think that any recent violence could be caused by games. Priming is when a scenario is brought up to you moments before, affecting how you see later scenario like the one you saw before (Gruman, 2017, pg.166). Some of the public can come to believe that games have a strong influence on children when the media portrays it often as such. But how much are people influenced by games?

According to research, games do have an influence on those who play, but more complex than the media portrays it. Gaming in a vacuum does not make someone inherently more violent, but many factors together along with violent games can make someone more violent. This is called an overdetermined behavior, when an action is done due to multiple causes (Gruman, 2017, pg.162). So, in one scenario, a person plays a game they like, it happens to be a violent game, they might buy a real-life weapon (gun, knife, bat) because they thought it would be cool. They might imitate the behavior now they have a similar object, which could desensitize them. Later in the day when they are driving, they are annoyed by traffic and someone honks at them, normally they would not do much else other than scoffing or honking back. But, in the presence of the weapon they could become more aggressive, threatening, or even committing a violent act. Their bad mood, their basic personality, desensitization of violence, coupled with the presence of a weapon, lead them to this overdetermined behavior they otherwise would never do. But does this mean all games produce violent behavior in the people who play them, no.

Games, at least to me (and some others), are just another form of entertainment that takes many forms for many different objectives. Entertainment is a way for people to relax, have fun, enjoy some competition, or even to hang out with others. There are puzzle games, cooperative games, farming games, and prosocial games that portray activities that even research states can make people perform more prosocial behavior (Gruman, 2017. pg.160). While there is much research on how violent television often is, there is a lack of such research in games. Oswald and his colleagues found through their content analysis, sorting descriptions from people’s perspective into themes for easier insight, that people gained overall positive experiences from games (Gruman, 2017. pg.161). Even games that were deemed violent help cultivate prosocial behavior, as most online games encourage cooperation.

In conclusion, the influence of gaming on individuals is not as straightforward, a one-size-fits-all issue as the media may portray. It underscores the need for a more nuanced and evidence-based understanding of the relationship between gaming and behavior, recognizing that factors beyond the games themselves play a role in shaping individuals’ experiences and actions. The type of game one plays, the personality one has, the message a game wants to give, and the circumstances we are in profoundly influence if we become more negative or positive from gaming. Media should always be taken with a grain of salt as it is easier to form controversial opinions on a topic than it is to understand the research and variety of experiences we can take from entertainment, like games.

 

References: 

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Kleinman, Z. (2015, August 17). Do video games make people violent?. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33960075

12
Oct 23

The Impact of Deindividuation and Accountability on Social Conduct

Hello and good morning, night, or evening. Hope you are having a wonderful day and are strapped in. 

If you read the tags and are wondering what you are about to get yourself into, the topic I want to bring up is how being anonymous affects how we behave in social settings. A hood or mask can be the difference between someone committing a crime and just keeping their thoughts to themselves. But how is it possible for something as simple as a mask, or a bigger crowd, to drastically change our behavior? This sense of empowerment can be due to deindividuation and the lack of accountability to our actions.  

Deindividuation in short is the effect anonymity (or secrecy) gives people, allowing them to engage in behaviors they would otherwise choose to normally not do (Gruman et al., 2017, pg. 289). These influenced behaviors can be something as simple as someone being able to dance in front of a huge crowd, to doing crimes like robbery or even assault. Some of the ways we can act deindividuated can be with a mask, being in the dark, or amongst a crowd of people. For example, in 1969, Zimbardo did an experiment where he gave women hoods like the Ku-Klux-Klan’s (wild right!?) and compared to a group without hoods but dawning large name tags, they shocked the confederate, an actor, for twice as long (Zimbardo, 1969). So, case closed, all we must do is ban face coverings to avoid bad behaviors, right? The quick answer is no, longer answer is it is not as simple as just deindividuation but also the accountability someone is held to. 

Accountability is defined as the state of being responsible, or liable, for one’s own actions. So, if you danced on a table inside a food court or blasted music in a library with your face showing, it is easy to hold you accountable. We are more likely to avoid such behaviors, but what if someone waived your accountability for you? Taking all the responsibility from you and only holding themselves accountable, what you might get is some of the worst social conduct to be seen and documented. 

Marina Abramović, an artist and famous public performer decided to do their next big performance, “Rhythm 0.” Abramovic would stand still for 6 hours allowing the audience to do whatever they wanted to do to her without any accountability, giving them 72 items ranging from safe and extremely dangerous (Graf, 2022). Some of the harmless items were feathers, flowers, a bell, while on the other hand there were knives, razors, and a loaded gun. At first photos were taken, body parts were moved, or water dumped on her head. But as time went on and no one was punished for their actions, the crowd became more daring, cutting her clothes, tying rope around her, cutting her skin, undressing her fully, and even having her hold the gun to her head. Once the time ran out and she started moving, no one could look her in the eyes. Abramović stated that some of the audience even fled the scene once she left her “passive” state. While some of the audience helped and supported her through her performance, even having a fight break out, she still had both physical and mental scars.  

In conclusion, the impact of anonymity on human behavior, often referred to as deindividuation, is a complex and interesting phenomenon. It can be influenced by factors such as wearing masks, being in the presence of a large crowd, or engaging in activities under the cover of darkness. Deindividuation can empower individuals to exhibit behaviors they might not otherwise engage in when their identities are readily apparent. As discussed, accountability is an important thing to consider when it comes to lowering crime and antisocial behaviors. Understanding the interplay between these factors is crucial in our exploration of human behavior in social settings. 

References:

Graf, S. (2022, June 29). Rhythm 0: A scandalous performance by Marina Abramović. TheCollector. https://www.thecollector.com/rhythm-0-by-marina-abramovic/

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17, 237–307.

20
Feb 20

MACHISMO IS HARMING WOMEN

When we hear the term macho, many of us think of a macho man. The term Macho is defined as having or characterized by qualities considered manly, especially when manifested in an assertive, self-conscious, or dominating way; Having a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate. Every day in Mexico and all over Latin America, women have to put up with lascivious comments or other forms of street harassment. Catcalling is a universal issue and countries like my own still joke about how to distinguish compliments and harassment. (Ortiz, 2018) 

I was born in the U.S and spent all my childhood and part of my early adulthood living in Mexico. I know that the macho culture in Mexico is still very alive today. Women aren’t safe from all harassment they encounter on the streets for simply being a woman. I have been a victim of this many times, and I guess you could call it normal. I even had a man grab my behind and squeezed it like it was a fluffy pillow or something. Many women experience this daily.

The sad truth is that the culture of machismo in Mexico harms women. Everyday femicide is disappearing the women of Mexico. Less than a week ago, the lifeless body of Fatima, a seven-year-old, was found inside a plastic bag with signs of sexual assault. Just a couple days earlier, Ingrid Escamilla, 25, was stabbed to death by the man she lived with, who then skinned and disemboweled her mutilated body in an attempt to hide the evidence. Before Fatima and Ingrid, many other innocent women had been found raped and brutally murdered. Their only crime was being born female in a sexist country.

Mexico still practices sexism and machismo up to this day. Women are supposed to stay home and take care of the family. Women are taught how to cook and clean. Women are also told they are whores and prostitutes for dressing up nicely or when going out. Daughters are supposed to help mothers set the table and serve the boys. In all honesty, many of us grew up knowing by nature that men are known to be superior to women. This is when the culture of machismo or sexism occurs. Although, in the United States of America, while sexism and femicide exist, it is not as persistent as in other countries. Here we are more open and more tolerant towards the opposite sex, in my opinion.

I believe that it all starts at home by building the character of our children. Teaching our children, who are the future, the values and morals. We have to tell our children that boys and girls are capable of anything and that no other sex is weaker than the other.

To all the innocent women who lost their lives because they were out partying with their friends, because they had a dress or skirt, because they looked pretty, because they liked to drink, because they were out late, because they took a taxi to get home “safely” because they were walking home from school. Because at the end of the day, it was their fault they were raped, murdered, and mutilated. The men who committed these atrocities thought at the time, and probably still think, that it was the girl’s fault. These same men who grew up with a machista mentality, believe that women are just a piece of meat.

 

Ortiz, V. L. (2018, December 31). The Culture of Machismo in Mexico Harms Women. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from https://merionwest.com/2018/01/28/the-culture-of-machismo-in-mexico-harms-women/

Macho. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2020, from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/macho

Picheta, R., & Gallón, N. (2020, February 14). Newspaper publishes photos of brutally murdered woman, sparking outrage in Mexico. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/13/americas/ingrid-escamilla-mexico-murder-case-scli-intl/index.html


10
Feb 17

Bandura’s Observational Theory Influences Violent Behavior Through Observation & Imitation Factors

[Pictured above] is a “Bobo Doll” used in Albert Bandura’s experiment. Findings from the study revealed evidence that supported his Observational Learning Theory.

Violent acts have spread like wild fire throughout the course of history.  Why do negligent acts keep reoccurring?  No one knows the sole reason why one person performs deceitful behavior, while another person does not.  Researchers have proposed several theories which explore the relationship between the brain and violent behavior, as well as other aspects that may trigger violence.  For instance, is delinquency contagious through exposure (personal or media-coverage)?  Some individuals suggest that crime is the result of protecting oneself or people they care about.  However, others insinuate that coercive behavior is acted out by revenge-seeking behavior to punish others.  Another theory investigates whether certain types of brains are more susceptible to violence or aggression than others.  Rowell Heusmann is a psychology from the University of Michigan who proposed that, “If you’re exposed to violence, you’re more likely to catch it (Swanson, 2015).”  Accordingly, this statement relates to Albert Bandura’s Observational Theory, also known as Social Learning Theory – SLT (1970).  The lesson commentary defines SLT as, “watching someone else perform a behavior, then the observer performs a similar behavior in a similar situation (L.5 Commentary).”  The report focuses on the observational theory relative to a clinical/counseling aspect of psychological practices.  Is violence typically learned by observing and imitating actions we see around us?  Moreover, does exposure to violence spark individuals to execute savagery themselves?

A gloomy shade of darkness asphyxiates the victims who have stared fear in the face at some point in their lives.  Words cannot describe the victimizing terror that preys on the lives of innocent people.   Violent trepidation spreads like an infectious disease into the minds of certain disturbed beings.  Why are some people susceptible to violent manipulation, whereas others cease and refrain from any type of hostility?  The Washington Post published an article called, “Why Violence is So Contagious” which highlights key aspects for condoning violent behavior (Swanson, 2015).  Ana Swanson proposes that exposure to violence has been significantly increasing throughout the years.  Conclusively, frequent revelations of violent behavior may be imitated by certain individuals (Swanson, 2015).   Furthermore, the Social Learning Theory illustrates why people imitate the actions they see around them.

The observational theory describes the way that people imitate certain behaviors (such as violence) is through a process known as, modeling.  An article by the British Journal of Psychology defines modeling as, “learning by watching, interpreting, and evaluating peers carrying out a task (Swanson, 2015).”  Additionally, effective modeling follows four stages described as: “observation/attention, emulation/retention, self-control/motor reproduction, and motivation/opportunity/self-regulation (Lesson 5 Commentary).”  The British Journal of Psychiatry (2015) revealed that initially, the learner actually observes the behavior and relevant elements in the learning environment while it is in action.  Second, an individual internalizes the skill by storing the learned series of steps in their memory, so they can remember or reference them later.  Next, the learner must have the motor-skills required to mimic the behavior.  Finally, they exhibit necessary talents and are provided with an opportunity to engage in the behavior (Swanson, 2015).  As a result, the learner converts their mental representation into a physical task.  Observing and imitating violent behavior is the most prevalent in the first, and potentially second steps of the modeling process.  For instance, hopefully it would not be in anyone’s mind set to follow all of these steps until the end while carrying out an act of violence.  Relatively, modeling is related to violent behavior because it drives learned mimicry of the observed behavior from the surrounding environment.

Why do people pick up violent behaviors?  Albert Bandura (1970) developed the observational theory, in which the brain adopts violent behavior mostly by instinctual processes.  Bandura conducted a study, called the “Bobo Doll Experiment,” in order to assess the validity of this causal relationship.  His study consisted of two groups of kids who observed an adult playing with the inflatable “Bobo Doll” under two different conditions.  The first group analyzed an adult engaging in aggressive play where they hit and kicked the doll several times.  However, the second group viewed the adult calmly and nicely play with the doll.  After observing the adults, the children played with the Bobo doll themselves.  The results displayed that the first group (observed aggressive play) were much more inclined to behave violently when they played with the toy.  Nonetheless, the second group mimicked playtime by engaging with the doll in a peaceful and friendly manner.  The article mentions, “the effect was stronger when the adult was of the same sex as the child, suggesting that kids were more likely to imitate people they identify with (Swanson, 2015).”  These findings concluded that people learn through imitating observed behavior.  Furthermore, the “Bobo Doll” experiment incited future research related to the social learning theory.  The article states, “Decades later, scientists began to discover just how much our brains are wired to imitate the actions we see around us – evidence suggesting that human behavior is less guided by rational behavior than people believed (Swanson, 2015).”  Conclusively, much of our behavior is caused by automatic instincts which mimic foreseen actions.

Additionally, findings from the Bobo Doll experiment intrigued a group of Italian researchers (1990), in which they utilized findings from the previous study to test their own theories about the observational theory’s relativity to neurological processing.  In their experiment, they investigated that parallel sets of “mirror neurons” were released in both of the following situations – while a monkey grasped an object and while observing another primate gripping the same object.  Firing of these analogous neurons is prevalent in both primates and humans.  This neural activity takes place in the premotor cortex, which is the brain region liable for “planning and executing actions (Swanson, 2015).”  Additionally, the premotor cortex is essential for learning things through imitation, including violent behaviors.  Neurons stimulate the premotor cortex If we are exposed to direct observation of someone acting violently.  When this brain region is activated, we feel like we are the ones actually doing the victimizing behavior.  Marco Iacoboni, a psychiatric professor, concluded that “these ‘mirror neurons’ (and activation of the premotor cortex) may be the biological mechanism by which violence spreads from one person to another (Swanson, 2015).”  The first thesis statement asks if violence is typically learned by observing and imitating actions we see around us?  Absolutely!  Albert Bandura’s observational theory (1970) explains that violent behavior is learned through exposure and imitation of an observed act of violence.  The study gave heart to the well-known expression:                             * Monkey SEE, Monkey DO!! *

Accordingly, the second half of my thesis statement asks if exposing people to violence prepares them to commit violent acts themselves.  For instance, is hostility increased when exposed to gruesome video games, television shows, or news?  In other words, does the prevalence of violence in the media expose us to heightened levels of aggressive behavior?  When individuals experience brutality through media programs or video games, they are more than likely not going to go out and commit violent acts themselves.  Although, after continuous exposure they may begin to adapt to these terroristic occurrences.  Alternatively, they may start to become numb to some of the gruesome imagery that they used to be completely appalled by.  For instance, the article compares these feelings to those fighting in war typically grow less disturbed by blood and violence (Swanson, 2015).  Overall, continual exposure to violence on personal real-life accounts, or through the media, is related to increased aggression. 

Hostile attribution bias means to interpret other’s actions as threatening or aggressive.  This bias may be influenced by violent media, or by repulsive actions including rejection, teasing, yelling, or belittling (Swanson, 2015).  Being subjected to cruel media makes people react in a more aggressive manner, as well as an increased likelihood to imitate revenge-seeking behavior.

Furthermore, the next objective will focus on the most effective way to prevent violent behavior from spreading.  For instance, in order to dispel acts of aggression, it is critical to limit the amount of exposure to violence that someone experiences.   Enforcing restrictions on the amount of violent media that is allowed to be published will make people not as inclined to negatively react or imitate violent behavior, compared to if they continued to regularly observe negative accounts of terror.  Incidences of corruption should not be seen as a normally occurring phenomena.  If a violent occasion is not relevant to the endangerment of people’s lives to a major degree, then it should be evaluated with stricter guidelines.  Evaluations will consider whether it is necessary to expose the news story to a significantly large audience, as well as consider how the audience members will respond to the situation (become more aggressive, lash out in a violent manner, become terrified or sad, etc.)  Majority of the time, violent media would be better left unsaid in order to protect the well-being of its viewers.  It is critical that we stop prompting the spread of violent news stories, because many people learn and imitate various behaviors (whether minor or extreme) that they learned primarily from media sources.  Limiting exposure to violence is one of the most effective ways to stop spreading around volatile behavior like an infectious disease.  In conclusion, acts of negligence keep on reoccurring since the human brain is wired to learn things (such as violent behavior) through imitating actions that we see around us.

      In conclusion, violence is a dark and fearful topic to discuss.  The outbreak of terroristic outrage is quickly spreading through patterns of acquired aggression and hostility.  Heightened levels of exposure to violence trigger it to spread at an increasing rate throughout the world.  Evidently, the most effective way to diminish or slow down spread of violence and terrorism is to get rid of cruel and unnecessary news stories, as well as limit exposure to violence.

Conclusively, Albert Bandura’s observational theory (1970) constitutes that violent behavior is learned through imitating observed behaviors that we notice in our surrounding environment.  Bandura connected our brain activity to instinctual responses to the observed actions surrounding us.  A group of Italian researchers (1990) performed a study on how a monkey responded to grabbing an object himself, or analyzing what happened to the monkey when he watched another primate grasp the same object.  Results of the study implicated that the area of the brain responsible for ‘planning and executing actions’ (premotor cortex) is stimulated by a parallel set of ‘mirror neurons.’  These neurons are released when we observe someone acting out in a violent manner, and we imagine ourselves performing the violent action ourselves.  Dr. Marco Iacoboni (1990) formed one of the most valuable conclusions of this report, “these neurons may be the biological mechanism by which violence spreads from one person to another (Swanson, 2015).” Modeling threatening behavior typically results from high exposure rates to the media.  Likewise, mimicking such behavior causes amplified levels of aggression and rage, which may impair an individuals’ ability to plan and execute actions appropriately.  In conclusion, humans will follow the four steps of effective modeling proposed in Albert Bandura’s observational theory (1970) in order to learn various things through imitation (such as violent behaviors) and observation of a behavior in which they learn to mimic themselves.

 

 

 

References:

Swanson, A. S. A. (2015, December 15). Why violence is so contagious. Washington Post. Retrieved online from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/15/why-violence-is-so-contagious/?utm_term=.fb549a29f126

 

Pennsylvania State University (n.d.). Lesson 5 Commentary. Retrieved online at https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1834710/modules/items/2173666


27
Oct 14

It’s All Fun and Games

My nephew Jasen is 12 years old and is in 7th grade. He loves (some would say is obsessed with) video games. He lives with his grandparents and they monitor his “electronic time” very closely for precisely this reason. Recently, they caught him playing “Assassin’s Creed.” Since this video game had not been assassins-creed-deathblowpre approved by them, he was “grounded.” His response to the punishment was, “that’s not fair, it’s only a game.” Is that true? Do they have a reason to be worried? Who is right? Applied social psychology may help provide an answer.

It is proven that violent media increases aggressive behavior (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, pg 140). How likely is it that Assassin’s Creed will help my nephew learn to be violent? I will use Bandura’s social cognitive theory as a measuring stick. According to Bandura’s theory there are four processes that need to happen before this can occur: attention, representation, behavioral production, and motivation (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, pg 142). The more “Assassin’s Creed” helps to facilitate these processes, the more likely it is to teach my nephew Jasen to be violent. We will begin by taking a closer look at each process and then I will see how this video game impacts each before I render a final judgment.

So, the first process that must occur for vicarious learning is attention. Mostly, this has to do with how salient and attractive the behavior is (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, pg 142). The second process is the representational process. This involves mentally rehearsing the behavior. The third process is behavioral production. This is learning how to take the observed behavior and apply it to related but novel behaviors. The last process that must occur is a motivational process. How bad does a person want to imitate the behavior? This is influenced by whether the behavior is punished or rewarded. Rewarded behaviors are more likely to be imitated. It is also motivating if the behavior is seen as justified. Yet another factor that motivates one to imitate violence is whether it is realistic. The last thing I will mention is whether or not the perpetrator of the violence is liked.

Now that we have a better idea of how this theory works, how does Assassin’s Creed stack up? Lets look at the first process, attention. Being that Jasen is playing the game, in other words he needs to be an active participant; it is clearly very salient to him. It is not in the background while he is doing something else. Also, it is a very exciting and action packed game. Thus, it is easy to attract and keep his attention. So the game scores high on the first process needed to facilitate imitation.

The second process, if you recall, is a representational process. I know for a fact he remembers the game because I asked him about it after he got into trouble. He emphatically recounted the “mission” he had to complete. To go along with the story, he acted out several of the solutions he had figured out along the way. He would tiptoe around the living room and jump onto the couch while he stabbed the air to show me how he snuck up and killed a guard. He was clearly mentally rehearsing what he had seen. Overall the game scores high for the second process as well.

We then move on to the third process of behavioral production. This involves taking the observed behavior and applying it to novel situations. I actually did not think much of it at the time (this incident took place before he got in trouble) but there was something that could apply to this process. I was in another room when I heard Jasen yell boo and then I heard his grandpa give a fright. Jasen then walked out into the room I occupied and told me with a big grin how he had scared his grandpa half to death. He had hidden behind the door and waited for his grandfather to pass. As his grandpa did this, Jasen leapt from his hiding spot and screamed at his bewildered grandpa. This sneaking around and pouncing is eerily familiar to the tactics used in the game. Now I am not sure how long Jasen had been playinAssassins-Creed-Fightg the game. I am also not sure if this episode was a result of having watched the game. It would not surprise me in the least if both were true however. So overall the evidence for the third process is not as strong as I would have liked but it is possible.

The last process we will examine is motivational. In the game the player is rewarded for successful assassinations by receiving new weapons and points. The next question is whether or not the violence is justified. In the game, the main character Desmond Miles is trying to stop an organization called Abstergo (who also kidnapped Desmond) from taking over the world. So clearly, Desmond is supposed to be justified in his actions. The violence is also extremely realistic as you can see from the screen shots above and at the top of the page. I would also say that Jasen definitely liked and identified with Desmond the assassin. He “is” Desmond when he plays the game. Also Desmond is a shadowy, rugged individual that seems to be an ideal in our culture.

Putting this all together, Jasen’s grandparents are wise to not let him play such a game. There is strong evidence that he would try to imitate this behavior. There is strong evidence for almost every part in Bandura’s theory. I would be especially worried because of his burgeoning cognitive abilities. A few years ago, he was not able to think in abstract terms and now he is. I feel like these new abilities make him very impressionable. Playing a game like that, at the age he is, does not seem like a good idea. Applied social psychology and the chapter on media can help explain why.

References

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Skip to toolbar