“Vulnerable viewer tradition” is mostly concerned with the content being promoted in the video games, whether video game players are exposure to excessive aggressive, violent or sexual content, which might result in several negative outcomes. One of consequences could be the inclination to the decline in morality – desensitisation. A number of studies in regards of this particular negative effect were undertaken recently. Some of the results have shown that playing violent video games can increase aggressive behaviour. This is an assumption that gains massive supports from a large group of scientists who are inclined to the “vulnerable viewer perspective”, such as Dr Craig Anderson – a psychologist at the University of Missouri-Columbia. His finding focuses on examining two of the most popular video games that is currently available in US market – “Doom” and “Mortal Kombat”(Ko: 2000; 47). Recent study which focuses on the brain controlling aspect of video games player have also made its attempt to prove that repeated exposure to violent images is desensitising, which Kansas State’s Murray defines as having the effect of rendering a person “less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, and more willing to tolerate ever-increasing levels of violence in our society”(Keegan: 1999; 46). A “monkey seeing monkey do” phenomenon is another worry that has been raised in “vulnerable viewer perspective”. In general, this possible outcome is associated with the likelihood that video games players may imitate the action that has been displayed within the game content. Car racing game is a predominant example that attracted massive attention from the society because driving car is a daily activity, which involves high risk if driver’s good manner is absent. A psychologist at the University of Hawaii and an expert on driver psychology and road rage – Leon James insists that theoretically people who play video games are more likely to repeat violent action in driving (Oldenburg: 2000).
On the other hand, “active audience perspective” argues that people give media meaning, in other words, people decides how media effect them depending on how they understand the message being sent out to them from the media. Contrary to the “vulnerable viewers perspective”, supporters of “active audience perspective” agreed, “we choose media that reflect our values, tastes, interests and emotional need than behaviours and actions and beliefs”(Oldenburg: 2000).
Nevertheless, there are problematic areas in both of the tradition. Firstly, the evidence in “vulnerable viewer tradition” cannot be account as an accurate and ultimate result due to the fact that there is not yet direct proof of cause and effect about the assumption that violent video games lead to desensitisation. Despite recent studies that have provided certain amount of evidence revealing this cause and effect relationship, these studies were conducted under limitation. For instance, Dr Anderson’s study only embraced 225 college students aged between 18 to 25, which can be seem as a very confined group of players because game players aged between 5 to 18 remains a large proportion as well. In order to avoid the lack of narrowing and confining scientific research, the pre-regulation research project “Computer Games and Australian Today” is consisted of three parts: overview of the market and products; investigation in exploring the attractions of the games and player’s views about the content; study of contemporary Australian uses of and attitudes towards computer games (OFLC Executive Summary: 1999). This nationwide survey, which involves both industry professions and ordinary young and adult game players, is in an attempt to balance the overestimated negative effect that concerns the “vulnerable viewer tradition”. Secondly, “active audience tradition” allows large degree of freedom by leaving to the trust to the game players themselves, which to certain extent constructs a strong belief in players’ self conduct. This is not a very comprehensive understanding of the effect of media over people. Therefore, by establishing a “National Classification Code”, government has put a detailed classification: G (8+); M (15+); MA (15+) (OFLC Guidelines: 1999). It can be seen that the level of restriction to certain content varies over different age groups because the OFLC acknowledges the danger in trusting “self-conduct” of the game players. OFLC maximises the exercise of its power by constructing strict classification; extensive enforcement over states and strong penalty because the ground of the regulation is that “everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive”(OFLC Guidelines: 1999).
In sum, the question of how people perceives message from media explicitly distinguishes “vulnerable viewer tradition” and “active viewer tradition”. It is still difficult to determine which side is correct. However, it is not hard to draw an ultimate point by combining interests from both sides – that to certain extent, media is persuasive, but the degree how powerful media to each individual is unknown and indeterminable as it varies across age, class and gender barrier in unpredictable ways. Thus the OFLC is aiming regulation is aiming develop from this point and extend it by input more research and investigation to gain comprehensive information.
In conclusion, the analysis of video game regulation illustrates the fact that government itself is not a unified entity. But its attempt to balance the interests between competing groups, in this case, “active audience” and “vulnerable viewers” traditions, demonstrates its effect of unifying different government agencies. Although it cannot be assume that the government in fact achieved this goal on video game regulation, it is still obvious that the government is in its attempt to perfect video game policy in terms of protecting and benefit citizens.
Ask Questions + Handout (reference list)
Greeting
Durkin, Kevin and Aisbett, Kate (1999) Computer Games and Australian Today, Office of Film and Literature Classification, Sydney, pages 1-26.
Hope, Deb (1998) “Dead Time Stories: The harmful impact of violent video games,” The Australian, 12 August, page 9.
Keegan, Paul (1999) “Culture Quake: What happens to a generation immersed in the most violent, interactive entertainment ever created?” Mother Jones, Nov, Vol 24, No 6, page 42-52.
Ko, Marnie (2000) “Mortal Konsquences,” Alberta Report, 22 May, Vol 27, No 2, page 47-48.
Nightingale, Virginia (1997) “The vulnerable audience: effects traditions,” in G. Turner and S. Cunningham (eds) The Media in Australia, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, pages 364-393.
Office of Film and Literature Classification (1999) “Guidelines For the Classification of Computer Games (Amendment No.1), www.oflc.gov.au accessed on 3 September, 2000.
Office of Film and Literature Classification (1999) “Executive Summary,” www.oflc.gov.au accessed on 3 September 2000.
Oldenburg, Don (2000) “Rom Rage,” Sydney Morning Herald, “Drive” supplement, 26 May, pages 6-7.
Waite, Georgina (1995) “Sex and Violence in Multimedia,” Arts and Entertainment Law Review, June, pages 33-43.
Vulnerable Audience
Refers to those specific groups of people who are largely influenced/effected by the messages being sent out by media.
Eg: teenagers, senior citizens, women etc.
Active Audience
Refers to those groups of people who do not take media messages for granted, in which the way these audiences perceive messages is contrary to Vulnerable Audience.
OFLC
Stands for “Office of Film and literature Classification”
Structure
Key difference between “Vulnerable Audience” and “Active audience” tradition – how people receive message
Problems within each tradition
Illustration: Australian video game regulation by OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification)
Vulnerable Audience tradition:
- Playing violent video games can increase aggressive behaviour
- Dr Craig Anderson – examining two of the most popular video games that is currently available in US market – “Doom” and “Mortal Kombat”
- Repeated exposure to violent images is desensitising
- Kansas State’s Murray –having the effect of rendering a person “less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, and more willing to tolerate ever-increasing levels of violence in our society
- A “monkey seeing monkey do” phenomenon
- Car racing game is a predominant example
- Leon James – theoretically people who play video games are more likely to repeat violent action in driving
Active Audience Tradition
- We choose media that reflect our values, tastes, interests and emotional need than behaviours and actions and beliefs”
