1 aritcle
.docCAUTION, ANIMATED VIOLENCE: Assessing the Efficacy of Violent Video Game Ratings
http://search.proquest.com/business/docview/860002723/13A81FA7A9B28D4AF1E/14?accountid=34571
ABSTRACT: Video games, along with other types of violent media, are heavily consumed by young people. Concern over the effects of violent video game content on child development has led to the establishment of a ratings system to help parents understand and manage video game consumption. However, it is unclear just how effective or diagnostic these ratings are for the intended audience. In this paper, we examine video game rating perceptions and suggest that "desensitizing" may influence young people's perceptions of ratings, while prior experiences may create perceptual biases that influence how rating information is perceived by adults. Further, we show that certain rating content descriptors may strengthen perceptual biases, suggesting a need to reevaluate the current video game rating system.
The controversy surrounding violent video games persists, as top ten lists for 2009 include titles such as Street Fighter, Resident Evil, and Kill Zone 2 (www.cnbc.com/ id/30948057/?slide=1/), and half the March 2009 Nielsenranked top ten games were labeled as having violent content (http://en-us.nielsen.com/content/nielsen/en_us/insights/ rankings/video_games.html). Microsoft's shooting game Gears of War was the best-selling console game in December 2006, selling 815,700 copies and finishing third in sales for the year (Associated Press 2007). Three years later, the game continues to perform well, with Gears of War II taking the top-selling video game spot in November 2008 at over 1.5 million copies sold (Reuters 2008). Clearly, the idea of simulating real-world violence is a huge commercial success, especially in the youth through young adult markets. However, the success comes with increasing scrutiny from consumer advocacy groups calling for greater government intervention and monitoring, stricter retailer oversight, and stronger parental controls.
Games such as Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil, which feature explicit violence with hand-to-hand combat and firstperson shooting as central components of game play, continue to fuel the controversy. A November 2007 decision by Target and other retail outlets to pull Manhunt 2 a week after its release exemplifies the conundrum faced by retailers. This particular game, initially rated mature (M), was shrouded in debate even before its release because of the extremely violent story line (a patient escapes from a mental hospital and either kills or must be killed, forcing the player to engage in sadistic acts of murder). Youth advocacy groups appealed to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) on behalf of parents and successfully secured an adult-only (AO) rating. However, the game manufacturer then blocked some game content and was able to reverse the decision just before launching to maintain the mature rating. In this case, even with the mature rating, retailers were skeptical, and many chose not to sell the game. Thus, both retailers and parents count on the ESRB to appropriately rate video games and clearly note where questionable content exists.
Extant research suggests that repeated exposure to this questionable violent content contained in video games can serve to engender violent, aggressive, and antisocial behaviors (Anderson and Bushman 2001; Anderson and Dill 2000; Ballard and Weist 1996; Van Schie and Wiegman 1997). Thus, the ESRB was created in 1994 to rate video games and to help parents manage their children's video game consumption. Currently, the organization rates most video games on an age scale beginning at EC (early childhood) and ending at AO (adults only), with additional content descriptors to further explain the age ratings (e.g., cartoon violence, fantasy violence, animated blood, or strong language). Ratings and content descriptors together serve as a guidepost for the level and intensity of profane language, sexual content, and violence. Hence, just as traditional advertising and packaging provide product information to help consumers make more informed choices, ratings systems provide similar cues and information. Theoretically and quite ideally, video game and other electronic content rating systems should help parents understand what kind of content is contained in the video game before they allow the purchase and play of the game.
It is important to note that it is not our purpose to debate or advocate for or against violent video game content, but rather to suggest that the current rating system and its related parental communication is perhaps ineffective in terms of informing parents. Fifteen years after the creation and nearly a decade since the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) praised the ESRB for its efforts in informing parents about questionable video game content (www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/ appendicesviorpt.pdf ), we find that parents are still relatively uninformed about and miscomprehending of both the rating system's age breakdowns and more recent content descriptors. These findings mirror previous work that called into question the validity of the age rating system (Cantor 1998; Haninger and Thompson 2004; Walsh and Gentile 2001; Wartella, O'Keefe, and Scantlin 2000). Thus, the primary purpose of this paper is to explore the efficacy of ESRB-assigned ratings and content descriptors as related to violent video games.
It is interesting to note that little research has emerged regarding parental perceptions and cognitive processing related to the rating system, though several large-scale studies were conducted in the late 1990s (Cesarone 1998) and early 2000s (FTC 2000; Walsh et al. 2003) with a focus on awareness and intended usage. These studies show that parents realize that video games are rated, and increasing numbers report an interest in using the ratings (FTC 2000). The research focus now needs to shift from awareness and intended usage to understanding actual usage, parental processing of the ratings information, and the system's ability to adequately inform parents, especially in light of current perspectives on parental control and intervention. The Supreme Court affirms that parents not only have the right and authority to control the activities of their children but also the responsibility to do so for activities that pose potential risk of harm to the child (Davidson 1996). Yet this assumes that parents are aware of the risks and are able to understand and enforce standards. In that one of the key roles of the ESRB is to help parents manage their children's video game consumption via ratings, it is important that parents do not miscomprehend the ratings. Thus, the need for research on parental processing and understanding of the rating system is further warranted.
Through two studies, we help address the dearth of research on ratings efficacy, specifically focusing on the gap in parentchild ratings perceptions and factors that might lead to differences in perceptions. Our findings suggest that youth may be desensitized to violence, and such desensitization may remain unchecked due to lack of parental use or miscomprehension of ratings information. Thus, we argue that changes are needed in the rating system and that communication about ratings needs to take into account parental perceptions of violence and age appropriateness.
In our first study, we investigate both parental and teen perceptions of video game violence and ratings associated with games. By addressing both sets of consumers, we are able to understand the potential dual nature of the game choice decision as well as better understand varying perceptions of violence contained in the video games. We show that parents and youth perceive video game violence differently (and therefore assign game-related ratings differently), and that this difference may be driven by desensitization in the latter group as compared to the former group. In our second study, we continue to explore parental perception, arguing that the content descriptors used in the current rating system do not foster a sense of parental understanding of the actual violence contained in video games, and in some cases may lead to miscomprehension on the part of the parent. Our findings suggest this may be due to parental reliance on outdated exemplars (e.g., Wile E. Coyote as cartoon violence) that bias perceptions of game content. Thus, we provide evidence that current video game content descriptors and associated age ratings are not effective in meeting the objectives of informing the parental consumer about potentially harmful or inappropriate content.
SENSITIVITY TO VIOLENCE
Researchers have discussed two different outcomes of repeated exposure to violent media/video games-one associated with aggressive behavioral manifestations and the other associated with desensitization to violence. In line with the latter, we argue here that individuals who are repeatedly exposed to violent media will become desensitized to it, though they may not overtly engage in violent behaviors.
Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman define desensitization to violence as "a reduction in emotion-related physiological reactivity to real violence" (2007, p. 490). Cline, Croft, and Courrier (1973) define desensitization in a similar way, equating it to "psychological blunting," "turning off," "tuning out," and "habituation." This second definition corresponds to concerns about the effects of heavy violent video game use in that habituation reflects the process by which stimuli, in this case, the video game violence, is perceived as less intense. Their research showed that test participants who were less exposed to violence were more aroused and took greater time to recover from the emotional state (as measured by galvanic skin response [GSR] and blood volume pulse) than those with higher levels of exposure. Thomas et al. (1977) also suggest that desensitization occurs when an initial arousal to violent stimuli is reduced and thus changes an individual's present internal state. Likewise, systematic desensitization has been shown to reduce avoidance behavior, and when there is no direct adverse consequence of fear-provoking behavior, there is an opportunity for fear extinction (Bandura, Blanchard, and Ritter 1969). The concerns associated with desensitization are that individuals may not notice aggressive events, may perceive resulting injuries as less severe, may feel less sympathy for victims, and may have less negative attitudes toward violence (Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman 2007).
Correspondingly, how or what people perceive as violent has been shown to be a function of the rates and types of exposure to violent stimuli (Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman 2007). Thus, differences across cultures, age cohorts, and generations are likely to exist. According to a report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (2001), today's younger audiences are more desensitized to violence not solely because of video games but because of their total media diet. They consume news, video games, music videos, and television programming that all contain more violent content today than 30 years ago, suggesting a higher threshold and tolerance level for violent stimuli.
More recent research points specifically to violent video games as key agents for the desensitization process (Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman 2007; Staude-Muller, Bliesener, and Luthman 2008), such that violence and aggression are increasingly seen as being normal (Huesmann, Moise, and Podolski 1997). Thus, we expect that young people who consume more violent video games than their parents will be more desensitized to the violent content, thereby rating games lower (more leniently) than parents who have minimal or no exposure to these games. We examine the perceptions of video game ratings (warnings) in a parent-child decision context in Study 1 (desensitization effects) and provide exploratory evidence that ratings may not be utilized as intended by the ratings board and the FTC.
STUDY 1: EXPLORING THE RATING SYSTEM
In this study, our goals were threefold: (1) to understand what parents and young people know about the rating system, (2) to examine perceptions of video game violence across various age cohorts as related to differences in perceptions of violence, and (3) to examine the extent to which ratings correspond to these violence perceptions. As Robert Bork (1996) wrote in Slouching Toward Gomorrah, society can tolerate only so much deviation from the mean until the mean itself becomes redefined. We believe that the mean for "acceptable violence exposure" is shifting.
Sample
A total of 160 people participated in the study without compensation. The sample was divided into four equal age groups: middle school, high school, college, and parent of a child at least 10 years old. The first group, middle school, comprised students in grades 6 through 8 with ages in the range of 10 through 14 and an average age of 12. The high school group comprised students in grades 9 through 12 with ages in the range of 14 through 18 and an average age of 15. The third group, college, comprised students ages 18 to 22 and an average age of 20. The last group, parents, comprised adults ages 36 and up, with an average age of 45. All respondents in the parent group had at least one boy at home between the ages of 10 and 18 and owned at least one video game console. Although both boys and girls engage in video game play, boys are more likely to play violent games and play for more hours than girls (Gentile 2009); thus, all of the nonparent subjects were male (54% of the parent group were male). All subjects were from upper-middle-class Northeastern suburban communities.
Procedure
Subjects were told they were participating in a video game rating study and asked to fill out a survey as well as watch four 10- to 15-second promotional clips for four different highly successful video games: Street Fighter, Super Mario World, Viva Piñata, and Gears of War. These games were chosen in that they represented top sellers and covered a range of violence from "not at all" to "violent." First, subjects were asked how involved parents were in video game selection in their household (with 1 = not at all involved and 7 = highly involved). Then they were asked to provide information regarding prior video game consumption, including hours played and types of games played. Next, subjects were asked how involved they thought parents should be in video game choice for various age groups (responses were scaled and anchored with 1 = "not at all" and 7 = "very"). In the next section, subjects were asked about their familiarity with the ESRB rating system and where they could get rating information. Then they were shown box art (with the rating stripped out) and asked to rate the perceived violence level of the video games-Street Fighter (violent), Super Mario World (not very violent), Viva Piñata (not violent), and Gears of War (very violent)-on a 1 = "not violent at all" to 7 = "very violent" scale and with the ESRB ratings. Last, each subject watched a promotional clip of the video games and then again assigned each of the four games one of the ESRB ratings. Game order was randomized to reduce carryover effects from previous clips.
Results
As expected, we found significant differences across the age groups for all of the variables evaluated.
Hours Played
Not surprisingly, hours of play varied significantly across the age groups, F (3, 159) = 45.52, p < .001, with middle school boys playing more hours of video games than adults or even older teens. See Table 1 for details on hours played.
Parent Role in Selection
As we might expect, differences existed across the groups regarding the role that respondents believe parents should play in video game selection, F (3, 159) = 45.52, p < .001. Middle school boys felt that parents should have a limited role in which games they select (M = 2.30), but that parents should play a larger role in the selection of games for elementary and younger children (M = 4.58). The high school and college groups felt that parents should assist with the selection of games for middle school students (M = 4.32) and younger children (M = 5.48), but not high school or above (M = 1.15). In contrast, parents felt that they should have a role in video game selection through high school, M^sub elementary^ = 5.98, M^sub middleschool^ = 5.85, M^sub highschool^ = 5.52; F (3, 40) = 2.45, p > .05. It is interesting to note that these results are in conflict with what actually happens in the sample group. At the middle school and high school levels, parents are only moderately involved in the selection of video games and not involved at the college level; this is confirmed by low means reported by parents. Thus, although parents express that they should be involved, the reality is most are, at best, moderately involved. See Table 1 for means.
Ratings System
Respondents were asked how much they knew about the rating system and the ESRB. Although actual knowledge was never tested or confirmed, we did find significant differences across age groups for self-reported knowledge, F (3,159) = 8.21, p < .001. Middle school students reported the highest level of knowledge of the ESRB (M = 6.17), whereas parents reported relatively little knowledge (M = 2.41) and high school and college students were in the middle (M = 3.42 and M = 3.61, respectively). Respondents were also asked where they might find rating information, and unaided responses showed that greater than 80% of middle school, high school, and college students knew the information was on the box cover and in advertisements. The remaining 20% of students noted the Internet as a source for rating information, with some noting specific sites such as gamebox.com. In contrast, 30% of parents did not know where to find the information, while of the remaining 70%, only 5% noted that the information was on the box cover or in advertisements. The others all noted "online" but did not specify any particular Web site.
Rating the Games
For the groups' ratings on the four video games, we found fewer discrepancies for the two less-violent games. In fact, all groups rated the less-violent games relatively consistent with the ESRB rating of E (Everyone) both before and after viewing the promotional clip. Thus, the discrepancies in ratings seem to exist in the more violent or Teen (T) end of the spectrum. Middle school respondents tended to rate both Street Fighter and Gears of War as E10+ (Everyone 10 and older)-one and two levels, respectively, below the ESRB rating, with no significant differences between pre- and postexposure to the clip (χ^sup 2^ = .46, p > 1). High school students tended to rate Street Fighter as an E10+ game and Gears of War as a Teen game (both one rating below the ESRB). College students were split on Street Fighter, assigning mostly E10+ and Teen ratings preexposure. Postexposure, some college students changed their rating from E10+ to Teen, although not a significant number (χ^sup 2^ = 2.18, p > .05). For Gears of War, college students were less likely to alter their ratings after exposure and tended to rate the game as a Teen game, again one rating below the ESRB. As expected, parents showed significant differences in ratings pre- and postexposure for both Street Fighter and Gears of War (χ^sup 2^ = 8.74, p < .05, χ^sup 2^ = 14.37, p < .01, respectively). The pattern of results suggests that before previewing the clip, parents rated the game as did the ESRB, while postexposure they tended to rate the game more harshly than did the ESRB (see Table 2 for full details). This change in ratings suggests that the box art and title might signal a response different from the actual game. Given that few of the parental respondents had a history of playing video games, it is likely that the content was not what they were expecting.
Discussion
As expected, students of all ages were playing more video games than their parents and had a greater knowledge of the games and the rating system. It is interesting to note that although parents believe children's video game consumption should be monitored, most were not actually doing this. Our findings are suggestive of the desensitization hypothesis in that we found strong differences across the three student groups and parents, such that middle school students rated games most lenient and also interact with video games the most in our study as measured via number of hours of play per week. Thus, it appears that students who are experienced with video games are less likely to perceive the games as violent. Although this could be a function of a demand effect (middle school students simply want to play Teen-rated games), it is likely that violence desensitization is at least partially responsible for the results. This idea is supported by the data, which shows significant video game exposure of high school and college students who also rate the games lower, again suggesting they perceive the games as less violent than do the parents. It is reasonable to assume that both high school and college students are free to play and purchase Teen- and even Mature-rated games; thus, they have little to gain by rating the games more liberally than the ESRB. In addition, it is reasonable to believe that most of the students in the sample were knowledgeable about the games before exposure to the promotional clip since there were few changes in ratings after exposure to the clip for these groups.
In summary, we suggest that our exploratory evidence shows that parents demonstrate greater sensitivity to violence, manifested in more stringent ratings assignments, than their younger counterparts. Although we do not directly test desensitization via traditional mechanisms used in lab experiments, such as skin reaction, heart rate monitoring, and so forth, the choice measures here indicate that desensitization may be present in accordance with the habituation definitions suggested by Cline, Croft, and Courrier (1973) and Huesmann, Moise, and Podolski (1997). Future tests could seek to demonstrate a more direct link between frequency of interaction with games and desensitization.
Our evidence also suggests that the ESRB ratings on violent content are more lenient than our parental respondents' ratings once they "learned" the extent of violent content by watching the video clips. This suggests that some type of parental miscomprehension is taking place. Although box art and game titles might also trigger cognitions about game age appropriateness, we find that this may be very different from how parents would rank games if they were exposed to the actual content.
Last, there are myriad reasons as to why parents may not be monitoring their children's video game consumption, including time pressure, trust, a disbelief that exposure to violent video games is harmful, or simply limited knowledge about video games. If parents are not monitoring video game consumption because their knowledge about video games/ ratings/ESRB is so low that they rely solely on their children's preferences or because they do not necessarily understand the effects that violent video games can have or even because the rating systems prove too cumbersome to use (see Cantor 1998; Gentile and Walsh 2002), then parents need resources to help them easily overcome these obstacles. Given these insights, we turn to further examining why parents are not monitoring video game consumption and how age and content ratings can influence parental perceptions of game appropriateness. Specifically, we are interested in whether the ESRB age ratings and content modifiers are effective in helping parents comprehend the content or lead to further miscomprehension.
CATEGORIZATION AND PERCEPTUAL BIAS
Rooted in social cognition theory, the idea that previously learned information is stored in memory and called upon during a perceived relevant decision context (Wyer and Radvansky 1999; Wyer and Srull 1986) is widely accepted. Thus, past experiences can affect how individuals classify and interpret new information. The theory further suggests that categorical representations, prototypes, or exemplars form the basis for judgment of new or unfamiliar objects or stimuli and how that stimuli should be interpreted and classified (Fiske 1982; Snyder 1992; Van Auken and Adams 1998). However, the classification of new or unfamiliar stimuli is not always accurate, as perceptual biases can influence interpretation and lead to miscomprehension. For example, when past categorical learning is incomplete or sparse, the matching of new stimuli with existing categories might not be optimal while nonetheless influencing how the new stimuli are interpreted (Waldmann and Hagmayer 2006). Often, miscomprehension leads to confusion or even discounting of information; thus, comprehension is critical for ensuring that a piece of information is received and made diagnostic ( Jacoby and Hoyer 1987).
Because inferred meaning on the part of the receiver of a message (see Jacoby, Nelson, and Hoyer 1982) is likely to influence (mis)comprehension and is typically based on an individual's past experiences and expectations (Harris and Monaco 1978; see also Waldmann and Hagmayer 2006), we suggest that the interpretation of video game ratings information by parents might be biased. Consider that each parent filters rating information through their own past experiences in forming individual expectations for their child. Through years of exposure to age-based movie ratings and the movies themselves, parents are likely to have reference points for agebased standards and may therefore more concretely process age ratings of video games. Thus, the meaning of E (Everyone) and T (Teen) ratings on games (Haninger and Thompson 2004) is likely to be perceived as equivalent to G-rated movies and PG13-rated movies. In other words, a video game rating of Teen may automatically trigger thoughts of PG13 movies. These same past experiences can also bias perceptions in that parents might use outdated movies as their guidepost. For example, in the case of less-concrete terms such as "cartoon," perceptual bias may ensue if in fact animation is associated with past imagery and actions that do not reflect the images and actions in the current video game context. In fact, Walsh and Gentile (2001) found that only half the parents understood the age ratings on video games.
In essence, miscomprehension is likely to stem from reliance on outdated exemplars in the absence of current exposure to video games on the part of parents. Therefore, differences in perceptions of the words "violent," "fantasy," or "cartoon" are likely to exist. For example, a rating that indicates "cartoon violence" might be associated with a parent's exemplar of Wile E. Coyote getting blown up by TNT, when in fact cartoon violence in the video game can be much more realistic. In this case, the judgment of risk associated with cartoon violence would be biased downward because it is classified as having similar attributes as this earlier exemplar. This misapplied classification may then lead to over-/underutilization of rating information by the parent. As evidenced in our study and other research, most parents are not playing video games and thus would not have an intuitive or learned understanding of the content that might otherwise act as an interrupt to the misclassification of video content. Although one might argue that the phenomenon observed here is merely one of classifying stimuli differently, with parents classifying based on a system that is different than their children (and perhaps the ESRB), we suggest that actual miscomprehension ensues on the part of the parents. As Jacoby, Nelson, and Hoyer (1982) suggest, when a message/medium (in this case, the content qualifier) evokes a meaning different than the source intended, or when it evokes more than one thought, then miscommunication or ambiguous communication occurs (see also Harris and Monaco 1978). We believe this is what occurs with video game ratings.
In Study 2, we examine parental perceptions of violence content descriptors and age ratings, hypothesizing that parental perceptions are based on past experiences, and as such, are likely to vary across age cohorts, as shared experiences (e.g., key events, cultural references, and media exposure) are likely to change. As discussed above, social cognition theory and categorization in part help explain how perceptual biases are formed based on an individual's prior knowledge and experiences in that outdated exemplars may drive how parents process rating information in the absence of experience that might trigger category updating or recategorization.
STUDY 2: UNDERSTANDING AGE AND CONTENT RATINGS
In this study, we conducted an experiment with parents to better understand parental perceptions of video games, violence, and rating scales. Prior to the actual experiment, a series of focus groups were conducted as a pretest to identify where ratings might be creating misperceptions about video game content and to verify that parents often do not participate in the game choice process or regularly supervise game play.
Pretest
As in Study 1, participants were from an upper-middle-class community in the Northeastern United States. All participants were parents with boys ages 10 to 18 who own at least one video game console. There were few discrepancies across the groups, thus the following discussion is reflective of all groups. Half the respondents were male, and the average age was 45.
Three key findings arose that are then further explored in the main study:
1. Parents believe games can be harmful when played in excess or if they are very violent, even though they do not seem to preview the games played or understand the content. Parents were asked whether they believed that engagement in video games promoted antisocial or aggressive behavior. All the participants agreed that playing video games could lead to antisocial behavior; however, they did not believe that the effect would be significant for their children given the hours they played. Even after sharing some of the existing research on the detrimental effects of video game play, parents were still skeptical that their children would experience antisocial behavioral effects. Consistent with the findings of The Entertainment Software Association 2006 annual report, parents remained relatively positive about their children's video game entertainment (www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2006.pdf ).
2. Parents believe their children choose games wisely and there is a great sense of expressed trust between parents and their children. Parents were also asked to discuss video game selection, and in general they reflected that young people chose the games they were interested in without parental involvement. As in Study 1, in which parents reported that they were only minimally involved in game selection, parents in the focus groups noted that their children often used their own money to purchase the games, leaving parents out of this decision phase. Asked if they checked the types of games their children played or knew of the games, most could not name three games their children owned, and a few could not name any games. Generally, parents believed their children made good choices and were "not problem children." Some commented that they had no reason to not trust their children's decisions.
3. Unless the content descriptor states realistic or sexual violence, parents do not perceive the game as very violent or inappropriate for middle school age children. This perception was altered when parents were shown clips of games marked as animated violence. Most parents felt that as long as the game was not listed as realistic violence or sexual violence, it was appropriate for children as young as age 10. When asked about the animated violence, cartoon violence, fantasy violence, or animated blood descriptors, parents noted cartoons of their era or violence depicted in Star Wars movies, which they felt was appropriate for young people age 10 or older. As an example, Wile E. Coyote and Bugs Bunny were noted as being quite violent cartoons and still appropriate for young children. Clearly, the reference point for animated violence for parents seems to be cartoons of their childhood rather than current titles. After parents were shown clips of videos marked as animated violence, animated blood, and fantasy violence, they were surprised at the intensity of the violence and were quick to note that the clips did not match their expectations. Thus, as in Study 1, we find that parents' past experiences are fueling the miscomprehension.
Given the parental feedback in the focus groups, it is likely that various content descriptors and even age ratings will significantly influence violence perceptions of parents. In this study, we experimentally examine two content descriptors and two age ratings. Of particular interest is the content descriptor "animated violence" (see also Haninger and Thompson 2004, and Gentile 2008 for similar concern). As noted, the word animation seems to invoke animated images of traditional cartoon and Looney Tunes characters engaged in slapstickstyle mischief. Thus, we expect that parents will perceive a game rated with animated violence as less violent (in terms of intensity and frequency of violent episodes) than one rated with realistic violence.
Design
In a 2 (games) × 5 (ratings) completely randomized study, we experimentally examined the impact of age ratings and content descriptors on parental perceptions of violence across two different games.
Sample
Two hundred parents were recruited at a large sporting event in the Northeastern United States and participated without compensation. Only one parent per household participated. All households had children between the ages of 8 and 17 who regularly played video games and owned at least one game console or a computer. Sixty-eight percent of the participants were female, and the average age was 46.
Procedure
Participants were shown a picture of the cover of the box for either Gears of War or Street Fighter with no rating information, an age rating of Teen or E10+, or a content descriptor of Animated Violence1 or Realistic Violence. The same game titles were used in this study as in Study 1 to provide a replication of the findings, as well as to further understand the discrepancy in perceived ratings from the first study. After exposure to the box cover, participants were asked to rate the appropriateness of the game for two age brackets, the amount or frequency of violent content they thought would be in the game, and the perceived intensity of the violence. All variables were measured on a 1 to 7 scale, with 1 being not at all violent or inappropriate for the given age group and 7 being very violent.
Results
Because there were significant differences between the two games in the violence ratings, F (1, 198) = 26.58, p < .01, the game analyses are reported separately, whereas the results are collapsed across the two games when examining age appropriateness, F (1, 198) = 1.67, p > .01. There are no significant differences across gender, F (1, 198) = 3.02, p > .05.
Age Appropriateness
As expected, there were significant differences across the appropriateness ratings for teens, F(4,195) = 66.88, p < .001, and 9- to 12-year-olds, F (4, 195) = 100.25, p < .001. Most interesting, as is shown in Table 3, parents were most critical when there were no ratings on the boxes. As expected, the Animated Violence descriptor had the strongest impact in terms of signaling appropriateness for both 9- to 12-yearolds, F(1, 78) = 26.78, p < .001, and teens, F(1, 78) = 28.24, p < .001, when compared to the No Rating condition. In fact, the Animated Violence descriptor had a stronger appropriateness impact than the E10+ rating for 9- to 12-year-olds, F (1, 78) = 6.24, p < .05, and was equally effective in signaling appropriateness for teens, F (1, 78) = 12.16, p < .01. The Teen rating led to only a moderate increase in appropriateness for the 9- to 12-year-old groups, F (1, 78) = 7.73, p < .05, while significantly increasing appropriateness for teens, F (1, 78) = 8.95, p < .01. In contrast, the Realistic Violence descriptor was not significantly different than the control of No Rating for the 9- to 12-year-olds, F (1, 78) = 1.26, p > .1, and only moderately increased perceptions of appropriateness for teens, F (1, 78) = 6.35, p < .05. See Table 3 for all means.
Violence Perceptions by Game
It is interesting to note that for Gears of War, the amount of perceived violence was unchanged by the age group rating and the content descriptors, F (4, 95) = 1.26, p > .01. However, the perceived intensity of violence was diminished for the content descriptor Animated Violence, F (4, 95) = 16.86, p < .01. For Street Fighter, the pattern was slightly different. The Animated Violence descriptor diminished both perceptions of the amount of violence and the intensity of violence, F (4, 95) = 8.36, p < .05; F (4, 95) = 21.30, p < .01. All other ratings appeared to leave perceptions of the amount of violence or the intensity of violence unchanged. See Table 4 for means related to violence perceptions.
Discussion
In this study, we were able to demonstrate that age ratings and content qualifiers act as signals for parents suggesting appropriateness of game content. In addition, we were able to demonstrate that the descriptor "animated violence" is perhaps one signal that leads to miscomprehension in that this descriptor may suggest to parents "cartoon-type" violence of an era gone by. It is interestingly to note that parents seemed to understand that the games have significant amounts of violence, yet many still seemed to find the games appropriate. The results further suggest that it is the perceived intensity of violence that drives appropriateness more than frequency of violence. For both games, the frequency of violence was relatively constant, yet when the descriptor Animated Violence was used, age appropriateness increased significantly, indicating that the game was more appropriate when it was rated/ qualified with "animated violence," irrespective of frequency of violent acts.
Also interesting is the effect of "no rating" on the games. Here, parents were the most vigilant in assigning appropriateness to the game, suggesting that without any cues, parents are more conservative in their assessment. This may be because the process of matching content to existing cognitive categories/ classifications is modified or is not possible. Alternatively, in the absence of a rating, parents may use the box art and title to determine age appropriateness. This is somewhat counter to the argument that the ratings help parents make better decisions. Of course, the underlying assumption in both cases is that parents actually look at and are somewhat involved in the video game decision.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Given that the evidence across these two studies shows (1) there are significant differences in ratings processing among parents and children, (2) parents do not always monitor or control video game choice, and (3) even if they do monitor choice via rating on box covers, they do not necessarily understand the various ratings and content descriptors, it is important to reevaluate the rating system and ensure that it meets the needs of parents as well as younger consumers.
In the studies reported herein, participants were forced to assign an appropriateness value to a game based on the rating or descriptor. In reality, most parents may not attend to the game as carefully as they did in this experiment, since they believe their children make good choices and will not be affected by violent games from a behavioral standpoint (as suggested by our pretest participants). It should also be noted that many parents today believe that they have so many demands on their time that they simply do not have the time to monitor everything their children are doing. Our findings and the related considerations emphasize the need to address two important and underlying issues: (1) convincing all parents that repeated exposure to violent video games can affect even their children (e.g., via consequences of desensitization as suggested by Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman 2007 and others, and emphasized in our Study 1), and (2) making the rating system clear, accurate, and easy to use (as emphasized in our Study 2).
We show that there is a vast discrepancy between what youth and adults/parents perceive as violent content and that parents' miscomprehension of ratings is in part explained by ambiguity in rating information, especially in the content descriptors. Moreover, our results suggest that parents may have different reference points (use outdated exemplars) for some content descriptors than what is intended by the ESRB, and they have difficulty assigning meaning to them. If parents do not process animated violence or fantasy violence accurately, they may remain unconcerned about games containing such violence where they should be concerned. This further supports the idea that the system needs to be revamped so it can more adequately meet parents' needs. Previously, the policy issue has centered around whether the expressed detrimental effects of exposure to violent video games are great enough to warrant government intervention. We alternatively/additionally would argue that parental confusion may be strong enough to warrant government or industry intervention.
Parents are the gatekeepers of what their children can or cannot have, and they need to take responsibility for the consumption habits of their children. It is their responsibility to be informed and monitor the hours and types of games played. This process becomes easier and more effective when industry associates partner with parents and provide clear information and guidelines. Thus, the burden does not fall completely on the parent. The campaign initiated in 1998 by the ESRB in conjunction with the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) to educate parents on video games and ratings in the form of handbooks that were distributed to PTA parents (www.esrb .org/about/news/downloads/ESRB_PTA_Brochure-web_version. pdf ) is a step in the right direction. However, such materials may not reach parents, may be ignored based on the volume of materials already distributed via schools, and do not reach non-PTA members. This last point is critical since parents who join the PTA are probably already some of the most involved and informed parents. The guidebooks clearly identified the age ratings, locations of ratings on game boxes, and the parental controls on the various consoles; however, the detail on rating system content descriptors was largely absent.
We suggest that in light of the complexity of the issue and busy life schedules of parents, in addition to these PTAsupported instructional materials, multiple touch points for information access will be necessary going forward. For example, regulators might (1) incent retailers who sell games or consoles to post information about ratings at the point of purchase to reach at least those parents who are present at the time of purchase, and (2) incent manufacturers to include rating system information in game packaging and console packaging. Moreover, regulators might force manufacturers to run a public service campaign similar to the drinking and driving campaigns that alcohol manufacturers are required to support.
Other non-communication-based strategies might also be considered. For example, public policy efforts might include incenting retail establishments to take a stand against selling Mature or Adult Only games to minors and working with manufacturers to reduce the violent content on Teen-rated games. Moreover, and as suggested previously (Walsh and Gentile 2001), devising a common rating system across media (television, music, video games, movies) with uniquenesses only where needed could potentially reduce the confusion about ratings on the part of all constituents. Most important, and regardless of which strategies are employed to motivate parents to "get involved," a cleaning up and periodic review of rating labels (especially content descriptors) that takes into account the perceptual biases that are likely to influence interpretation is needed.
FUTURE RESEARCH
There are several areas that warrant future research. First, a better understanding of how previous exposure to violent content shapes processing of age and content descriptors is necessary. As noted, social cognition theory addresses the comprehension acquired in daily life about people and events for which an individual has prior knowledge and argues that previously learned information is called upon during a decision context (Wyer and Radvansky 1999; Wyer and Srull 1986). As applied to the topic of ratings, recognizing what constitutes a semantically congruent exemplar is important. Is exposure to cartoon violence as in Wile E. Coyote getting blown up by TNT related to animated video game violence, or is news footage of street fighting related to violence in the game Street Fighter? Similarly, an understanding of what acts trigger specific previous experiences needs further exploration. Is it the game title, the box art, the rating, or some combination of these factors? Further, identifying which previous experiences are diagnostic is important. Again, if both news images and cartoon images are triggered, individuals will need to reconcile which is more diagnostic for the given decision. Research on how we might prompt parents to revise perception about/recategorize new information by creating updated, more relevant, and accessible exemplars might be a productive next step. With this in mind, considering an initiative whereby policymakers and ratings boards "work with" the type of heuristic processing that is most likely to be used in this decision context instead of attempting to change the degree to which parents directly attend to information via more traditional inform-the-consumer campaigns might be reasonable.
Second, evaluating risk assessment as related to parents and video game play is important and may help to explain why parents are not more involved in the process of monitoring video game play. Slovic, Fischoff, and Lichtenstein (1982) demonstrate that consumers in general believe they are adept at evaluating risk, but in actuality, they undervalue less concrete risks while overvaluing concrete risks. Because of the difficulties linking video game play to actual behavior, parents are likely to undervalue risk and therefore ignore or at best cursorily consider rating information on video games. Future research might be focused on examining these issues and developing better solutions.
Third, in our studies, we focused on boys given the current state of play of traditionally violent video games. However, we do not wish to suggest that girls are immune to the effects of violence in video games or media, and the examination of the effects of violent media on females continues to need attention (Buchanan et al. 2002 is a notable exception). How violence is defined in the context of girls is likely to be much more subtle, such as psychological bullying and verbal abuse. It is likely that we need an expanded definition of violence to truly capture violent acts of females. In addition, we need to consider the examination of nontraditional violent "games," such as those associated with Internet games, social networking, and so forth.
Last, because video game ratings not only appear on game packaging but in the advertisements for games (at minimum on the game boxes pictured in the ads), the potential for youth to use ratings as a signal might actually trigger a boomerang effect. In other words, if youth process the ratings in game advertisements (e.g., in gamer magazines) in such a way that the violent content identified by a rating is perceived to be attractive, then they may develop strategies to manage the perceptions of parents in arguing to play or purchase the game prior to the parent ever seeing the game or game ads. More simply, children may develop strategies of their own to limit the amount of parental involvement in the purchase decision. Research in this area is important, as the question of degree to which video game rating information should be contained in advertisements is yet to be addressed.
Footnote
NOTE
1. Note that at the time of the study, "animated violence" was listed as a descriptor in the ESRB rating system. This has now been changed to "cartoon violence," which we believe would trigger an equal if not greater perceptual bias.
References
REFERENCES
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Public Education (2001), "Media Violence," Pediatrics, 108 (5), 1222-1226.