Video Games Have Less of an Effect on Media Users Than Television, but Neither Effect is Significant Enough to Warrant Concern

The massive question of how the media affects the viewer has spawned not just decades of debate but has also inspired research into answering related, more specific questions. One of these is whether the increased interactivity of playing a video game causes it to have an increased effect on the consumer than the more passive activity of watching television. A study done at Purdue University by Cognitive Science professor John L. Sherry concluded that not only do video games actually have less of an effect on consumers than television, but the effect itself is small. This implies that the level of interactivity involved in a specific form of media does not necessarily correlate to an increase in the effect that media has on the consumer. But, why is this the case?

The reason for this likely has to do with cultivation theory, a media theory developed by George Gerbner and Larry Gross at the University of Pennsylvania, which states that watching television instills in the watcher a view of reality similar to the world displayed on the screen. This makes sense for television because a majority of the content involves human actors and realistic portrayals of real life events. Some TV shows even involve filmed events that happen in reality, many shows being about exhilarating / shocking moments caught on film. The difference with video games is that a majority of games are so fantastical that people understand how to disconnect between the game and reality. Essentially, a consumer is more likely to associate an episode of, say, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation with the workings of the real world than a consumer is likely to consider the Grand Theft Auto game series to be a realistic portrayal of everyday life. No matter how much interaction playing Grand Theft Auto may take, the universe within the game makes it quite obvious that it is an unrealistic parody of the real world. CSI, on the other hand, attempts to realistically replicate how real life investigations occur. Even further along the realism spectrum is Cops, a show which films the activities of real life police officers. While the show does show crime being punished, which seems like it should be a good thing, many watch the show simply for the thrill of seeing violent or potentially-violent situations.

That being said, this means the difference in effect between video games and television is primarily based off their differing capabilities of portraying realistic imagery. While at the moment the graphical quality between television and video games is quite literally the difference between reality and fantasy, the gap between the two has rapidly been closing. With technology rising at an exponential rate, and computing power following the same path, video game graphics are becoming increasingly realistic. With better and better graphics, the effects of cultivation theory could very well become apparent in video games. To top it all off, games are now experimenting with virtual reality technology to make a much more realistic, immersive experience. This may bring cultivation theory to a whole new level in video games, possibly making it even more apparent in games than in television. For now, the effect of modern virtual reality gaming on human development remains an untapped area for research. However, with all the talk around video game violence, it seems apparent that there will definitely be research into the medium once it becomes mass produced and consumed.

But, is this really something we should be worried about? The Purdue study seems to suggest not, as do other studies after it. Around a decade after the Purdue study, four researchers sought out to answer the same big question. Their study attempted to control other variables in order to purely focus on the effects of watching television and playing video games, keeping anything that may muddle up the results under control. The results showed that, assuming the consumption of television and/or video games was not excessive, the “magnitude of the effect is small enough to be negligible” (Nakamuro, 2). The assumption that consumption not be excessive does bring up the question of how to define “excessive”, and whether excessive usage should be controlled. But, since an excessive consumption of essentially anything can potentially be dangerous, this assumption is generally fair.

How does the media affect the viewer? This is one the most hotly debated psychological questions to arise since the development of mass media. There is no doubt that peoples’ interactions with their surrounding environments, including their media consumption, influences their behavior and development. However, this question does not seek a simple confirmation of effect, rather this question seeks the answer to more complicated questions. How do movies specifically affect viewers? Does the interactivity of playing a video game make it a stronger influence on viewers than the more passive action of watching television? For now, the effect seems to be small enough such that it can be ignored. However, as technology continues to develop and new mediums are developed, more and more questions will appear, and future questions may come with more complicated implications. But if anything is certain, it’s that this debate will be continuing on for a long time.