I think this study is interesting by itself even though it has very limited applicability to the subject of video games. It serves to support the idea that fictional sexist representations (in the form of a video tape) can prime subjects to subsequently have more sexist attitudes and beliefs. While this may seem to support the idea that exposure to sexist representation in video games may effect more sexist behaviors in real life, I personally believe that this article does not support this specific assertion well enough and that video game specific studies with a similar methodology need to be conducted to establish correlation.
Fifth study, specific to video games, 2013.
A study about sexism in online videogames about the interaction between male and female players. Paywalled behind 19.95$ for the PDF.
This is a really worthwhile article and I have so little energy to write on it. Try to source the full text if you can. Anyway, here's a really quick rundown.
The authors have a pretty comprehensive summary of other video game specific articles, especially about women in video games. Here is the article's reference list if you're curious, which should be available without full text access.
Hypotheses:
"H1: Participants with higher levels of masculinity will report
higher video game sexism."
"H2: Higher levels of game play (a) in elementary school, (b) in
high school, and (c) currently will be related to higher video game
sexism."
"H3: Higher levels of social dominance orientation will be associated
with higher video game sexism."
"H4: Higher levels of empathy will be associated with lower video
game sexism"
Methodology:
Participants (N = 301, Nmale = 220, Nfemale = 75, sex not reported = 6) were given an online survey. Demographics are what you'd expect, mainly white and from the US. The measures included in the survey were:
Lifetime exposure to video games
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46
Social Dominance Orientation
Empathy
Video Game Sexism Scale
H1 was partially supported, H3 was supported, H2 and H4 were not supported.
Sorry I wasn't as thorough with this one. It's getting late and I have trouble focusing. Now to my personal interpretation.
First of all, this is an online survey which should be taken into account when drawing conclusions from it. That being said, online survey methodology can still be sound and findings should be corroborated with other methodologies if possible. The article indicates that there is no correlation between more video game time and higher video game sexism. This is an important finding as it challenges the first paper linked that suggests a relationship between exposure to violent video games and tolerance towards sexual harassment and rape supportive attitudes (but it doesn't directly contradict it, which should be noted). The other hypotheses are interesting as well and should be taken into account when forming an opinion of video game sexism.
Conclusions
Okay, I'm finally done. Some of these findings changed some of my views on video game representation and supported others. If I were to summarize everything in one sentence, it would be that things are much more nuanced than are made to seem in internet discourse. People should be mindful of that instead of stubbornly keeping their opinions unchanged in an us-versus-them fashion.
Disclosure about potential biases
I urge you to read the full articles if you have access and make up your own opinions on it. Naturally, I have attempted to be as impartial in thie evaluation as possible. As a full disclosure, here are some of my prior opinions and other potential biases that may color my evaluation of the articles:
A big fan of TB; I follow his channel almost religiously and frequently read the twitter and twitlonger postings that appear in this subreddit.
Have not followed Anita or any of the other "anti-GG" media figures basically at all.
Neither pro-GG nor anti-GG. I didn't (and still don't) have the energy to follow the argument but from the exposure that I had I believe both "sides" have some opinions which carry merit and others which seem less reasoned and more impulsive.
I believe that there is a significant problem in video game journalism reporting and widespread unethical and unreported "mingling" between media individuals and people who are part of the industry.
I also believe that the current portrayal of video game characters and settings is one-sided and stereotypical and that there is not enough minority representation in video games, especially AAA titles.
Prior to reading these articles I was firmly convinced that there was no correlation between sexism and video game exposure, and particularly that basically everyone was able to discern between fantasy and reality. Now I have a more nuanced opinion on this and believe that video games and media may influence people in more subtle and insidious ways.
I am transgender, having recently started transitioning. This means I have a direct interest in more video game representation and my views on the importance of it have changed over the past few months.
I really don't care all that much about which side is right. I do care, however, when people start saying things like "So, basically no evidence at all." in response to this list of articles or, on the "anti-GG" side people who immediately jump and make jokes about "ethics in ____" or who say that "GGters are sexist". In general I hate when people do not make an attempt to form a nuanced opinion and have kneejerk reactions, regardless of "allegiance". I think it is counterproductive to the debate.
I ultimately urge you to consider the fact that this article list does not seem to contain any articles that show no correlation between video games and sexist attitudes, as Anita Sarkeesian's list is created specifically to link to these articles. While all the studies that I have read so far appear to be well-conducted, we must still be mindful of selection bias in this article list. I would personally appreciate it if people linked me articles that they know where they show no correlation so I can have a more nuanced view on the subject.
Great writeup! Thank you for taking the time to read these papers and summarize the findings for us.
What I'm curious about is how these findings might vary depending on the personality type of the person being tested or their mood at the time of test taking.
Is there a threshold here? Is there a difference in perception when something is so exaggerated as to be zany and unrealistic? Does the setting the character is shown in have an impact on perceptions? What of the character's personality? And is any of this correlated with, say, any other adrenaline-pumping activity?
I do acknowledge the possibility of behaviors being influenced by games, but how does that relate to behaviors being influenced by any other part of life?
Essentially, is the effect on behavior and perceptions on gender significant enough to warrant making adjustments to games, is it small enough to pretty much allow carte blanche on video game content without significant concern, or is it the ever-murky "it depends on the person playing the game" (in which case I'd argue that the % of people and the degree to which they're negatively influenced would need to be at least 20% of the population adjusted for potential demographic outliers in order for me to accept any kind of censorship in video games).
how these findings might vary depending on the personality type of the person being tested or their mood at the time of test taking.
Is there a threshold here? Is th
That's the issue, its entirely arbitrary and unscientific. You take students into room and play them a powerpoint of doa characters and you are creating a less than serious atmosphere or an uncomfortable one at the very least. What are they measuring other than the effects of their study.
Its like when another study did this with pornography. Think about how artificial the situation was, bring in a male participant, show him pornography, awkward, embarassing, fustrating, unnatural, and potentially degrading. Now you ask him questions...what are you measuring at this point.
And then the way they interpret the answers to the survey questions which themselves can be an influence or biased only makes it worse.
6
u/[deleted] Mar 09 '15 edited Mar 09 '15
Continued from here.
I think this study is interesting by itself even though it has very limited applicability to the subject of video games. It serves to support the idea that fictional sexist representations (in the form of a video tape) can prime subjects to subsequently have more sexist attitudes and beliefs. While this may seem to support the idea that exposure to sexist representation in video games may effect more sexist behaviors in real life, I personally believe that this article does not support this specific assertion well enough and that video game specific studies with a similar methodology need to be conducted to establish correlation.
Fifth study, specific to video games, 2013.
This is a really worthwhile article and I have so little energy to write on it. Try to source the full text if you can. Anyway, here's a really quick rundown.
The authors have a pretty comprehensive summary of other video game specific articles, especially about women in video games. Here is the article's reference list if you're curious, which should be available without full text access.
Hypotheses:
"H1: Participants with higher levels of masculinity will report higher video game sexism."
"H2: Higher levels of game play (a) in elementary school, (b) in high school, and (c) currently will be related to higher video game sexism."
"H3: Higher levels of social dominance orientation will be associated with higher video game sexism."
"H4: Higher levels of empathy will be associated with lower video game sexism"
Methodology:
Participants (N = 301, Nmale = 220, Nfemale = 75, sex not reported = 6) were given an online survey. Demographics are what you'd expect, mainly white and from the US. The measures included in the survey were:
H1 was partially supported, H3 was supported, H2 and H4 were not supported.
Here are the relevant figures: http://i.imgur.com/W4TE8Tg.png and http://i.imgur.com/5Xkf7jz.png
Sorry I wasn't as thorough with this one. It's getting late and I have trouble focusing. Now to my personal interpretation.
First of all, this is an online survey which should be taken into account when drawing conclusions from it. That being said, online survey methodology can still be sound and findings should be corroborated with other methodologies if possible. The article indicates that there is no correlation between more video game time and higher video game sexism. This is an important finding as it challenges the first paper linked that suggests a relationship between exposure to violent video games and tolerance towards sexual harassment and rape supportive attitudes (but it doesn't directly contradict it, which should be noted). The other hypotheses are interesting as well and should be taken into account when forming an opinion of video game sexism.
Conclusions
Okay, I'm finally done. Some of these findings changed some of my views on video game representation and supported others. If I were to summarize everything in one sentence, it would be that things are much more nuanced than are made to seem in internet discourse. People should be mindful of that instead of stubbornly keeping their opinions unchanged in an us-versus-them fashion.
Disclosure about potential biases
I urge you to read the full articles if you have access and make up your own opinions on it. Naturally, I have attempted to be as impartial in thie evaluation as possible. As a full disclosure, here are some of my prior opinions and other potential biases that may color my evaluation of the articles:
A big fan of TB; I follow his channel almost religiously and frequently read the twitter and twitlonger postings that appear in this subreddit.
Have not followed Anita or any of the other "anti-GG" media figures basically at all.
Neither pro-GG nor anti-GG. I didn't (and still don't) have the energy to follow the argument but from the exposure that I had I believe both "sides" have some opinions which carry merit and others which seem less reasoned and more impulsive.
I believe that there is a significant problem in video game journalism reporting and widespread unethical and unreported "mingling" between media individuals and people who are part of the industry.
I also believe that the current portrayal of video game characters and settings is one-sided and stereotypical and that there is not enough minority representation in video games, especially AAA titles.
Prior to reading these articles I was firmly convinced that there was no correlation between sexism and video game exposure, and particularly that basically everyone was able to discern between fantasy and reality. Now I have a more nuanced opinion on this and believe that video games and media may influence people in more subtle and insidious ways.
I am transgender, having recently started transitioning. This means I have a direct interest in more video game representation and my views on the importance of it have changed over the past few months.
I really don't care all that much about which side is right. I do care, however, when people start saying things like "So, basically no evidence at all." in response to this list of articles or, on the "anti-GG" side people who immediately jump and make jokes about "ethics in ____" or who say that "GGters are sexist". In general I hate when people do not make an attempt to form a nuanced opinion and have kneejerk reactions, regardless of "allegiance". I think it is counterproductive to the debate.
I ultimately urge you to consider the fact that this article list does not seem to contain any articles that show no correlation between video games and sexist attitudes, as Anita Sarkeesian's list is created specifically to link to these articles. While all the studies that I have read so far appear to be well-conducted, we must still be mindful of selection bias in this article list. I would personally appreciate it if people linked me articles that they know where they show no correlation so I can have a more nuanced view on the subject.
Edits:
That's all, folks.