Notes on:
Burgess, M., Dill, K., Stermer, S., Burgess, S.,
Brown, B. (2011) 'Playing With Prejudice: The
Prevalence and Consequences of Racial Stereotypes
in Video Games'. Media Psychology,
14: 289-311. Doi:
10.1080/15213269.2011.596467.
Dave Harris
[A content analysis of best-selling video game
magazines and of video game covers, then
clips. Both show racial stereotypes, with
minority males more likely to be seen as athletes
or as aggressive, and less likely to be seen in
military combat or using technology.
Dangerous minority males also appeared.
Overall, minority males disproportionately used
extreme guns, or were thugs and athletes. In
an experiment, players were exposed to both
violent and nonviolent games with both black and
white characters: participants were faster at
recognizing violent stimuli {classic psychology
test} with games with black characters and vice
versa 'indicating the images of popular video game
characters evoke racial stereotypes'{very
controversial} (290)].
Video games are highly popular and sell very
well. The biggest group playing them are
children between eight and 17 years old, with 90%
being regular players. There is lots of
literature on effects. And some 'recent
brain research' showing different qualities of
empathic responding following different game
exposure. Analysis of the characters has
tended to focus on the portrayal of women,
although there are some early investigations of
race. The latter showed infrequent
appearance and stereotyped depictions when
present. Some work showed that minorities
such as Latino women and native American men were
never present, while black and Latino men rarely
appeared as main characters. The same
studies found stereotyped characterization, with
Latino characters are only found in sports, Asian
characters largely in wrestling or fighting, black
characters as immune to violence and
suffering. It was common even before 9/11 to
see the targets of violence as Middle
Eastern. Other studies focused on aggression
and noticed racial and gender dimension - although
the majority of aggressive characters were white,
the next largest groups were Asian or Pacific
islander: they are also the most likely to be
engaging in extreme violence.
The social effect of media images has also been
studied for a long time. One study by Dill
and Brown exposed participants to stereotypical
sexed types from video games, then asked
participants to react to a real life account of
sexual harassment: those exposed to video games
images most were more tolerant of sexual
harassment. In a study on racial stereotypes
by Dill and Burgess, video game images fitting
aggressive criminal or dangerous stereotypes, and
other black men including black leaders, were
featured alongside white images, then, in 'a
purportedly unrelated study' (291), participants
were asked to evaluate the website of a political
candidate depicted as either black or white.
Results showed interactive effects on
capability ratings of the candidate according to
whether they were black or white, with those
exposed to negative black video games rating a
black candidate as less favourable, while those
exposed to more positive images rated the black
candidate as more favourable. This is sufficient
'to appreciate the damage inherent in repeated
negative and stereotyped portrayals of minorities
and women', but more specific research is needed
on particular games such as Grand Theft Auto, in
one version of which participants were invited to
kill Haitians or Cubans.
Stereotypes have cognitive and affective
components. The frequent portrayals of
groups in the media show that these become 'the
relevant schema for processing members of that
particular group' (292): 'the schema of the
violent Black man teaches that it is appropriate
to experience apprehension when approached by a
Black male'. Further exposure will produce
additional thoughts and evaluations, 'ultimately
predicting discriminatory behaviour'.
Stereotypes can also provoke unconscious impulsive
reactions, which is important in hostility and
aggression. The key factors seem to be links
to a negative experience, together with
'situational features associated with aggression'.
African-American males are commonly stereotyped as
aggressive, hostile and criminal [citing a study
by Berkowitz]. Those associated with
aggression are also most likely to be the victims
of aggression. There need not be a conscious
cognitive appraisal, rather aggression through 'an
automatic impulsive route'. People need not
be conscious of their exposure to negative images
and words. Mass media images also associate
African-American men with negative stereotypes,
and this 'conditions viewers'. The images in
video games are not real but can still produce
negative reactions to real black men [noted by an
early 1987 study, which looks rather abstract,
showing that stereotypes have elements in the
imagination only - 'the failure of reality
monitoring' (293).] Video images can confirm
stereotypes.
It is to be expected that video games will portray
violence and aggression, and the issue is whether
this is differentiated by race. There is a
special interest in 'socially sanctioned'
violence. The first study involved
imagery from video game magazines, analyzed
according to variables such as 'race... hyper
masculinity... aggression... war/military
aggression...fighting... athletics.... and use of
technology'. The six top selling magazines
were chosen, and the largest male and female
images selected, producing a sample of 482, which
were coded by one white male and one white female
research assistants.
A number of codes were given to the races,
including 'other, and humanoid' (294), with the
latter also appearing to be of a non white
race. 'Others' coded native American,
Egyptian, and undeterminable. Hyper
masculinity meant 'exaggerated male
characteristics such as unnaturally large muscles
or expressions of dominance'. Aggression was
defined as 'being engaged in behaviour intended to
harm another living being' [including verbal
behaviour?]. They assume that war or
military aggression were socially sanctioned, but
not fighting, since military aggression is legal -
the issue also depended on researchers judging
whether there was or was not an 'identifiable
military rationale'. Frequency data were
calculated for each race and submitted to a Chi
square test. Some counts were too low for
this procedure, so a collective category of
minorities was assembled to be compared to white
data, with some non ratio test of significance
[one tailed z test]. The number of counts
for females was also too low for anything other
than counting frequencies.
A 'significant disparity' emerged between the
frequencies of different races for males in the
magazines as opposed to the actual U.S.
population, with white males being over
represented: they were also over represented when
looking at the population of gamers
themselves. Humanoids were more frequent
than minority characters. Minority women
were collected together, as above, and white women
were overrepresented in gaining magazines compared
to the U.S. population and compared to U.S.
gamers: they were slightly more frequent than
humanoids.
Both whites and minorities were represented as
hyper masculine to the same extent, 21-29
percent. 69% of all images depicted
aggression. Minority males were slightly
more likely to be portrayed as aggressive.
The distribution was similar across the different
magazines. Of the aggressive males, whites
were more likely than minorities to be found in a
war setting [only 8% overall, compared to
zero]. Of the aggressive minorities, 51%
were found to be in a fighting situation as
opposed to 38% for whites. Whites were more
frequently to be found in the non aggression
category, 34% as opposed to 23%. Minority
males were more likely to be seen as athletes, 19%
to 8%. More white males than minority males
[14% to 6%] were seen using computers.
Minorities who were athletic, violent or both
comprised 94% of the cases as opposed to 74% for
whites, and all black Males 'were portrayed as
either athletic or violent or both'.
Overall, the content analysis shows that not all
minorities were portrayed stereotypically, but
there were differences between the races
'consistent with stereotypes', whether counting
simple frequencies, or comparing the groups.
Overall, 'humanoid characters were depicted more
often than minority humans'[so is this good or
bad?]. Not a single minority was portrayed
in a military setting, which is quite inconsistent
with statistics based on U.S. armed forces, where
16% were black, 11% Hispanic, and 6% other
minorities. 51% of aggressive minorities
were seen fighting, 'another relatively negative
portrayal' (297). Perhaps the most important
finding 'from the perspective of pedagogy' is that
non violent character portrayals also varied, 23%
of all males for minorities, only 6% of total male
images. By contrast nonviolent white
males'were as common as all minority males'.
Minority males were more than twice as likely as
whites to be portrayed as athletic, and almost the
reverse for computer and technology use.
However, it is necessary to 'be conservative when
speculating on reasons for these patterns'.
False information is persuasive, a study
shows. Stereotypes include imaginary and
actual elements. Gaming magazines do show
'consistent stereotypes'[one way to read the data,
but they are not 100% frequent]. As a
result, 'players may experience failures in
reality monitoring and may believe that they have
had actual stereotype - confirming
experiences'[note 'may'] and this 'could alter
gamers thoughts, feelings and behaviours'.
The second study
looked at game covers, which might be important
when influencing the decision of parents to choose
the game. There also easily available to
viewing, 'regardless of age appropriateness'
(298), and even ' this single exposure is
significant' [same study of reality
monitoring]. Even non gamers 'are aware of
social stereotypes prevalent in video
games'. The same categories were used as
above, and data was also gained on 'game ratings,
weapon type, and game genre'. The focus was
also on multiple characters and 'complex
environmental representations'.
149 games were chosen, based on an earlier sample,
including all the top 50 games for the different
platforms. Only five women of color [VII in
the original sample of 225] were represented,
showing that they [enjoy] 'marked absence'.
This sub sample excluded games without male
humans', or ambiguous characters. An expert
panel's report was used to test that the sample
was representative. One male and one female
rated each image, and there were intercoder
reliability checks: out of 7130 judgments, there
were 112 disagreements.
The same codes were developed from the first
study, although aggression now included game genre
and weaponry. Ratings were also added.
Characters were also judged to be either primary
or ancillary, in the foreground or the
background. Games genre included fantasy,
war, cops and special OPS, provoked by regular
people, illicit persons, stereotypes and race
specific, again yielding socially sanctioned and
unsanctioned categories, with some ambiguous types
as in martial arts. Weapons were categorised
to include blades, sticks, hands, magic powers,
guns and extreme guns. Frequency data for
race were calculated, although Hispanics [too few]
and humanoids were omitted.
[Usual results]. More minorities in games
than in the U.S. population. Whites and
Asians exceeded the expected proportions.
White characters appeared in the foreground more
often, whites and Asians were more likely to be
primary characters, as solo primary, while
minority characters shared their primary status
more frequently. With the less violent
games, whites and minorities were more equally
represented, but with the most violent ones,
minorities nearly twice as likely as whites.
Hyper masculinity did not separate the races, but
aggression did, with 65% of minority characters
compared to 50% for white ones. Fantasy
settings were more common for white characters
than minorities, socially sanctioned violence
produced about the same percentages, but
minorities were nearly five times more frequently
represented in illicit violence than whites
were. Weapon characteristics did not differ
by race, although minorities were twice as likely
to use their hands as a weapon, especially in
martial arts. Minorities were nearly twice
as likely to be represented as athletes, blacks
appeared as athletes 32% of the time, all
minorities 'were significantly over represented as
athletic and/or violent' (302) [there could well
be significant cultural differences between
athleticism and violence, of course].
So the results were consistent with the first
study, showing the appearance of stereotypes
'often'. The overall message is that 'whites
are heroic fighters, fighting to save and often
romanticized world… or realistic war
heroes...saving nothing less than Western
Civilization itself', while black characters 'were
too often the menace to society with oversized
weapons and gang posturing'. Asian
characters are keen on martial arts and only
threaten each other, but nor do they save
anybody. Asian and black characters were
over represented in the less violent games, while
'black and other characters'(303) were
overrepresented in the violent ones. The
only Hispanic characters on the most violent games
appeared in things like GTA. Games are
'rarely offered leadership roles to minority
characters outside of the "model" (Asian)
minority'.
Overall the two content analyses showed that
images of minorities 'are consistent with a number
of stereotypes', less frequently represented,
rarely appearing as primary characters, more
likely to appear at both in the least violent and
the most violent games, more or likely to be
engaged in unsanctioned violence. However,
some characters were not 'always negatively
portrayed'. A pedagogic function is
suspected.
The third study looked at video games
themselves, to see if there was a 'stereotype -
consistent decision-making'(304). A
particular 'priming paradigm known as the weapons
identification task' was used in a test [the idea
seems to be to show student faces of different
colours, and then ask them to classify stimuli as
violent or not]. This was adjusted to fit video
games in the real world. Some game players
think that stereotyping and the effects on
decision-making is irrelevant, denying that they
are affected in any significant way. 'This
is common in media effects literature'. The
study set out to test this by asking participants
to watch video clips of games being played [not
playing themselves then, but apparently video
gamers watch games being played quite frequently,
so there is 'ecological validity': it also
minimises the effects of different skill levels
and progress when people actually play]. The
race of characters was deliberately manipulated,
as was the violence of the game and the use of
violent or nonviolent stimuli to classify.
The primary hypothesis was 'that race would
influence classification of violent stimuli':
watching games with black characters would lead to
'faster classification of violent stimuli and
slower classification of nonviolent
stimuli'. 39 psychology students were
chosen, 26 females and 13 males; 34 were whites,
one black, to Hispanic, one from India, one of
multiple races. The ethics followed the
usual APA guidelines. Digital videos of
violent and nonviolent games were created - there
were fighting games involving one on one and gang
violence [clips of commercial games].
Students were asked to classify the photographs of
various weapons, for violent stimuli, or
photographs of everyday objects for
nonviolent. Race of character, violent or
nonviolent games, types of identification
stimulus, and sex of subject were the variables
[two options for each]. Students looked at
clips on a laptop, and responded by pressing keys
labelled as a violent or nonviolent. They
practiced. They saw a clip of a nonviolent
game with an unidentifiable character. Then
they were exposed to images of things to identify
[for only 250 miliseconds!], and they had to
identify them as violent or nonviolent by pressing
the relevant key. Then they saw two more
presentations. Then the actual session
began. Students were offered 12 30-second
video clips, randomly drawn from the four
conditions of violence or race. Then they
were asked to classify three objects as violent or
nonviolent. The same 12 clips were shown
again at random, and different images were
assigned. To examine 'mixed relationships
between implicit and explicit stereotyping' (305),
this test of implicit stereotyping was
supplemented by a test of explicit stereotypes -
the Modern Racism Scale, to be completed by each
respondent.
Reaction times for correct responses were used to
calculate an average reaction time for each game
combination. Outliers were excluded, and two
students had outlying scores [for example slow
reactions on every trial, or lots of incorrect
identifications]. The other scores were
tested by ANOVA. There was a significant
effects for the sex of subject, with males making
faster identifications, but no interaction with
any of the other variables. There were
significant correlations to support the main
hypotheses, especially with violent stimuli being
classified faster than non violent, irrespective
of the violence of the video, but affected more by
the race of the characters - black game characters
with a violent stimulus produced the quickest
identifications. 'Stereotype inconsistent'
pairings such as a white game character and a
violent stimulus, or black game characters
and non violence, produced slower responses.
Overall, this is 'the first empirical test of how
video game portrayals can influence race related
thinking'(306). In particular the
identification of weapons was faster after
watching a video game with black characters.
These were significant results, and serve to
refute 'the common assertion that exposure to
(racial) game imagery does not have an effect on
those exposed' (306-7). This confirms other
studies of the effects of priming, like those
suggesting that rating of sexual harassment can
also be affected after viewing images [reduced
after watching images or professional men and
women, apparently].
However, the level of violence of the game itself
was not significant and did not seem to interact
with the race of the character or the violence of
the stimulus to be categorized [which seems
contradictory]. However, it could be that
physiological reactions are not affected after
exposure to violent video games [and this might
affect reflexes?]. It could also show
'cognitive prioritizing' where violence is to be
expected, but black characters are more surprising
because they are less frequent. We cannot
rule out that the violence level of the game
affects players and their perceptions of race, but
this needs further study.
Students did not express explicitly racist
tendencies when tested, but their behaviour was
'certainly consistent with the negative stereotype
associating blacks with violence in the United
States'. This is the claimed advantage of
the reaction time variable, because it is
'relatively immune to intentional attempts by the
participants to respond in a socially desirable
manner...unlike the explicit attitudes as
measured'. There might be an unconscious
process at work, as in implicit stereotyping, and
students may not be aware of it. It is also
possible that students might have become
desensitized - the more frequently we are exposed
to demeaning images, 'the less seriously we may
feel compelled to take them'. Lots of work
on implicit attitude show that bias can exist and
influence behaviour, even if there is explicit
denial and a study is cited exposing college
students to exemplars, and measuring implicit and
explicit racial attitudes - disliked black and
admirable white exemplars did not show any
particular difference, when compared to a control
group given neutral exemplars. [Instead of
showing no effects, however], the results were
interpreted as showing that '"normal" is the media
portrayal of the disliked black and admirable
white' (308) - the team tested this by exposing
students to admired blacks and disliked whites,
and this did reduce automatic pro white attitudes.
Together then, dislike of all blacks in video
games can have a stereotyped impact.
Reducing prejudice requires looking at the
possibilities of doing 'something as simple as
increasing the frequency of admirable black
characters in games'.
In general, the studies addressed the stories
being told about minorities presented in various
ways, and some attempts to look at the
consequences. The stories feature
underrepresentation and stereotyping. We
have no pin down the issues for video games,
gaming magazines and gain covers. Future
work is required, especially to see if there is a
wider impact, for example on views of 'affirmative
action, immigration, the death penalty'
(308). Global diversity makes the issue more
urgent, especially as video games are very popular
with kids. 'Whereas schools are teaching
children to tolerate and even celebrate diversity,
this research demonstrates that some forms of
popular media ascending opposing signals with
troubling effects' (308-9).
back to key concepts page
|
|