Monthly Archives: April 2012
The history of consumption of video games and computer games has largely been of one-sided demographics: the notion that men are more likely than women, boys more than girls, to play the games that had been the backbone of the gaming industry. This notion has also become entrenched in the stereotype of the gamer as young adult or adolescent males. With the rise of casual gaming through online games, social games, and mobile games, we have seen this gender gap shrink, and even reverse. However, such a change is if one considers gaming as a whole; when considering video, computer and even MMO gaming to online, social and mobile gaming, the gap still sees more male players than female players.
For years, various studies have been conducted to explore this gendered gap, resulting in various theories. In 2005, for my master’s thesis, I conducted a study to explore the reason behind this gendered gap by focusing on how women are represented in video games. The portrayal of women in games has received both empirical and critical scrutiny, finding that this portrayal is consistently in the vein of sexuality and submissiveness. One particular portrayal, hypersexualism, is embodied in the archetype of Lara Croft from Tomb Raider, whose advertised body size is 5’9″, 132 lbs and 34D-24-35.
Tags: action heroines, Catwoman, computer games, gaming experience, gender gap, hypersexualism, Lara Croft, MMO games, mobile games, online games, Pop culture, sexualism, social games, The Avengers, The Matrix, Tomb Raider, Trinity, Video games
When Buffy Season 9 Issue 6 came out, I applauded it. I even wrote a whole essay on why I think the story and Buffy’s decision worked. I defended Buffy’s decision to get an abortion as it reflected the struggle modern women have to balance family and career, and I defended Whedon’s decision to have this decision become the centerpiece for an entire issue of this comic book series based on the need for having such serious portrayals of this topic in our popular and public discourse.
Then Issue 7 was released in March. I did not read it until this past week, so I’m behind the game on this one. Technically, I did not read it until after Issue 8 had been released. So, yeah, definitely behind the game.
Because of how much I supported what happened in Issue 6, what happened in Issue 7, and was explained in Issue 8, came as quite a big shock. We’re talking major twist, the kind that feels like someone just twisted a book in two.
So, Spoiler Alert.
In the theory class of the first semester of my first year as a graduate student, I was in a group with two other MA hopefuls, and we wrote a paper on how we would study the topic of how the media influences adolescents’ and young adults’ sexual behaviors. Always the clever one, I termed this paper “The Birds and the Bees” as we focused on the media as one of the socialization institutions that inform how young people think about and feel about sex.
For the paper, we had to conduct a review of the research on the topic and consider the variety of theoretical perspectives used to understand the phenomena under consideration. So we dutifully dived into the library’s databases and found people discussing sex and the media from the lens of cultivation theory, social learning theory, priming theory, excitation transfer theory, and the uses and gratifications perspective. Based on what we saw as the strengths and weaknesses of these various approaches, and the studies that result from or informed them, we developed our own theoretical framework to guide a potential study.
We called it “cultivated learning theory”, and depicted it with this rather crude illustration of how the variables related to one another (I even trademarked it back in 2003).
The basic idea behind this theory is that it allows for the ability for one socializing agent to “out-influence” the other socializing agents, thus having a measurable impact on behavior.
What follows are excerpts from the class paper to explain why we ended up with cultivated learning theory. The full paper can be found here as a .pdf.
As we are interested in ascertaining whether or not exposure to sex, be it implicit or explicit, can impact a young person’s actual sexual behavior, we necessarily have to narrow down our focus from what has been done in the past. We will not rely on the tenets of uses and gratifications. Uses and gratifications could help us understand why some people seek out and use sexual media, but this is in essence the opposite direction of causality than the one we are interested in studying. Excitation transfer theory is better at explaining short term arousal effects. While in the direction we are interested in, the specificity of the situation it requires is too narrow for our interests. While priming could help us understand the cognitive process linking viewing to behavior, including it into out theoretical framework could be at the expense of considering more comprehensive alternatives. Thus, we will not specify cognitive processes right now. This leaves us to focus on cultivation theory and social learning theory.
Cultivation theory postulates a mainstream media’s ability to cultivate certain perceptions and attitudes about societal norms. The theory can tell us about how cumulative exposure could cause the fostering of certain cognitions. Social learning theory postulates a person’s ability to learn a behavior from a rewarded positive model seeing the model perform this behavior after several attempts. This theory can tell us about how one can learn a behavior from the media. However, there are some behaviors that have taboos associated with them. Sexual behavior may be one such behavior. If all other socializing agents are saying “Don’t have sex before marriage”, then will watching two or three portrayals of men and women enjoying sex be enough to overcome the stigma associated with it? If this is the case, then social learning theory may not be enough to explain media’s impact on teenage sexual behavior.
Thus, we are constructing a theory that combines cultivation and social learning, which we dub cultivated learning theory. In cases where behaviors have taboos associated with them, such that these behaviors would be construed as inappropriate, individuals may require added encouragement to enact these behaviors. As socializing agents can influence an individual’s perception of social and cultural norms, repeated exposure to any one agent, which advocates a perception of reality in some way different from true reality, may cause a skewed perception of social and cultural reality. Cultivation theory predicts that mass media, in the form of television, can have this impact. Thus, repeated exposure to this alternate perception can foster the internalization of these skewed norms as the “truth of reality”, so that when an individual makes a behavioral decision, it will be based on these skewed norms and no longer restricted by the actual societal and cultural taboos. In this way, repeated exposure to an altered perception of social and cultural reality can lead to the enactment of behaviors that are sponsored by the socializing agent(s) that fostered those perceptions. In addition, there may be some personal characteristics of the individual that can influence this relationship between perceptions and behavior, either strengthening or weakening the influence of the socializing agents.
What this boils down to is that any of the five agents can exert enough influence to have an individual perform behaviors based on their perception of reality. The Catholic Church can have families severely discipline their children. A friend can apply pressure to try drugs. The media can show so much sex without repercussions that a teenager thinks it is the thing to do in a romantic relationship. But there could be enough influence from a different agent so as to mitigate this effect. Thus, the theory accounts for not only the influence of any one agent, or perhaps agents working in conjunction, but also how any agents may interact with each other. In addition, the personality of the individual is not discounted, but seen as a filter through which the cultivating influences flow. So, if a person is high on sensation-seeking, the influence of repeated exposure to the media may heighten the result in comparison to someone lower in sensation-seeking. This is where the lack of specifying cognitive processes comes into play, because any process could differ from individual to individual.
For the purpose of investigating the limitations and problems we discussed about past studies, cultivated learning theory would predict that cumulative exposure to televised portrayals of positive depictions of sex could in time cause adolescents and young adults to engage in these same behaviors, if there is no influence from another socializing agent that exerts as powerful a counter-force. Indeed, a study done by Jensen, de Gaston & Weed (1994) noted that teenagers perceive great pressure from the media and other socializing agents to engage in sex, but some also report receiving contradictory encouragement to abstain from their parents. Cultivated learning theory would predict that those receiving no counter-encouragement from their parents would be the teenagers most likely to engage in sex, and those who receive the most counter-encouragement, despite their media consumption, would be the least likely to engage in sexual activity.
Cultivated learning theory did not go beyond that particular class. I toyed with how to explain it better, but I never used it to frame any research, and my two group-mates got their MAs and went back into the professional world.
Maybe someday I will return to this theory. It needs refinement, particularly through empirical studies, in order for it to become something more than a thought experiment. Because while it does make theoretical sense, so, too, did flat-earth and geocentric convictions at one time or another.
In a previous post, I began a discussion on how American producers — professionals, semi-professionals and amateurs — are experimenting with using Internet-based distribution to promote and produce interactive television. In that post, I highlighted the case study of the live telecast for the SyFy series Ghost Hunters. In this post, I continue this discussion by highlighting the experiments from the American broadcast networks CBS and NBC, and how they, for a brief time, structured spaces in their websites to become places of social interactivity that remediate the activities viewers would do in their living rooms.
These two case studies are examples of experiments similar in both distribution structure and consumption practices. They are attempts by CBS and NBC to structure online spaces to become virtual “living rooms” for retransmitting content that has already been transmitted via conventional OTA and cable. The observations come from the fall of 2008, and of the services, at the time of writing, only those on NBC can still be accessed. These attempts are technically not original, as ABC Family, MTV, and an entertainment portal Lycos had attempted something similar years before. However, they are unique these were the first attempts to produce ongoing services directly tied to on-demand libraries the content providers could offer on their websites.
The CBS and NBC experiments have in common the idea of providing synchronous communication between viewers for the duration of the video stream. That is, while the video is playing, people are linked to each other via a chat function so that they may engage in dialogue with one another as if they were in the same room watching the show on a television set – hence the conceptualization of the virtual “living room”. Where the experiments differ is in what videos are available, how to find people to be “in the room” with you, and how to interact with each other in these rooms.
The CBS Social (Viewing) Rooms experiment began in October 2008, as part of the CBS Labs and CBS Interactive attempt to find innovative ways to display television online by promoting the ability to interact with people as if they sitting right next to you. When I started participating in this experiment, these spaces were called Social Viewing Rooms. Their name subsequently was shortened to simply Social Room, accessible via http://www.cbs.com/socialroom. CBS, with its partnership with Viacom, and extensive libraries from Paramount and Spelling Entertainment, offered a variety of series from all the dayparts as well as classics, such as: Survivor, NCIS, Young and Restless, The Late Late Show, Star Trek, Twilight Zone, MacGyver, Love Boat, Family Ties, and Melrose Place.
Scrolling through the selection of series offered, however, I found an imposed limitation. As seen in the figure above, I could not choose any episode I wanted from a particular series. Each series had a particular episode being played when I would visit the website, and if I wanted to participate by watching that series, then I had to accept watching that episode. Moreover, the episode could already be in progress by the time I entered the Social Room; if I wanted to see it from the beginning — say if I had never seen the episode, as was the case when I watched one from the series Numb3rs — I had to wait for the next screening to begin. Going into a Social Room while the show was in progress made little difference to me when the series was the original Star Trek; I knew from memory the episode that was airing.
On the list of what was available to watch, each entry offered how many other people were currently “in the room”, watching the series, at that time. I found this useful to locate rooms where there would be people. As mentioned above, and seen in the image below, there was a synchronous chat field, similar to chat rooms, underneath the video as it streamed. Each person would be represented in this field by a pictorial icon of their choosing. In these chat fields I could talk to the other viewers about what was going on in the show, make comments about the series in general, or talk about some non-related topic. All of this happened in real time, with my text and their text appearing as cartoon dialogue balloons above our icons, actually overlapping the video being played. There were also asynchronous communication possibilities, with a message board, and quizzes that were offered regarding the series being watched.
One feature set apart the Social Room from NBC’s experiment. As well as interacting with fellow viewers, I could superficially interact with the content of the video. Rolling over the video field, a menu appeared with a series of cartoon icons. These icons represented a series of actions I could perform at the video stream, even to particular spots on the screen that I choose. These actions included showing love, kissing, throwing a dart or tomato, and, most telling, putting on the screen an image to reflect the corporate sponsor of the Social Room. The first sponsor I encountered was Intel, who was even highlighted by CBS as being a partner in their experiment. A subsequent sponsor I encountered was Coca-Cola.
I will confess I could not spend as much time in NBC’s experiment, the Viewing Party. At the beginning of my data collection period, the CBS Social Rooms were viewable to people living outside of the United States, such as myself. NBC/Universal, on the other hand, prevented access to their video streams outside of the United States; thus, I was only able to participate in this experience at the end of my data collection period, when I had returned stateside. Since I had been made aware of the NBC experiment by looking into the Social Rooms, I felt it necessary to see how they compared.
NBC’s Viewing Party structure is located as part of MyNBC and NBC Video Rewind, which they label as a way to combine community, personalization and video on demand. The service was launched in the spring of 2008, but it appears to have been kept more secretive than CBS’s Social Room. The service is accessed not as directly as CBS, through one central webpage, but through the shows that allow Viewing Parties to be formed; http://www.nbc.com/shows/ is the place to find the option “Start a Viewing Party”, as seen in the image above. There is no central list as is found on CBS Social Room. It appears more that you have to know that the service is available for the series you are interested in; perhaps this is a function of being part of the MyNBC community that fans and users will communicate about Viewing Parties. However, as there is no list saying what is available when you log on, and the focus is more on the series than a particular episode being available, there is a wider selection of episodes from the library that can be viewed at any time. Unlike CBS, the user has more control over what to watch and when – and indeed, even with whom.
As with CBS, I could go into any party already started by going to the lobby and finding a party in progress. However, NBC structured the service more towards those individuals interested in creating their own unique parties – to become a host in a virtual living room, so to speak. A person could initiate a Viewing Party by choosing the episode to watch, then sending out invitations by selecting friends who are also members of MyNBC or sending emails to individuals not part of the community. This structure is similar to the physical world phenomenon of gathering friends to watch a series, perhaps week after week, making it a ritual. Giving individuals this control is what leads NBC to call such spaces “viewing party”. With CBS, the space is simply a place to watch video, or a room. With NBC, the space is a place to be with your real friends, or a party.
As with CBS, there is a chat field to allow synchronous communication between all viewers. There are also polling and quizzing functions, but unlike CBS here the host could potentially create one to test his friends. Again, this can be understood in terms of structuring the experience as a “party” and empowering the user who created the party as a host. Unlike CBS, there was no superficial interaction with the video’s content.
These two experiments share in common their allowance for consumption practices that control what to watch and when and with whom, although CBS restricts these controls more than NBC does. However, such time-shifting capability is increasingly a common feature for television consumption in the United States. With DVRs and various websites that stream video, time-shifting appears to be the central interaction promoted and used with interactive and Internet television. Where innovation occurs in these experiments is that both structures promote the incorporation of a synchronous communication capability. This social interaction feature is provided, and rhetorically promoted in press releases and the labelling of the services, to reduce the feeling of watching alone, as Internet use is often described as a physically solitary experience.
As far as narrative interactivity, neither CBS nor NBC offered the ability for the user to control the content of the video in these spaces. However, CBS provided a means to express emotionality towards the content, perhaps attempting to replicate the perchance for such outbursts in other viewing contexts. For all but the last icon, these activities represent what could be considered as conventional audience reactions to content – conventional in the sense that they are examples of a parasocial interaction that is either positive (showering with love, blowing kisses) or negative (throwing darts or tomatoes). These restricted activities represent a conceptualization of how audiences in their own living rooms may emotionally act out towards the content. The last activity is akin to product placement, but it is product placement at the control of the user. Rather than be subject to either covert or overt advertising integrated into the content, here the user has the option to place the advertisement wherever the user desires. Including it with the other activities may be an attempt to treat ironically the idea of product placement, as you can throw an ad at the screen as easily as a kiss or a dart.
Meanwhile, the lack of such superficial interactivity in the NBC Viewing Parties can be understood in how these two experiments differ regarding with whom you watch the video. With CBS, unless you have negotiated a coordinated viewing external to the Social Room, you are most likely watching with strangers. In that instance, if you do not find your fellow viewers to be interesting enough to speak with, then you may be glad to have some other activities to perform while watching the video. With NBC, unless you wander into someone’s party, you are most likely with people you consider to be friends, partly because of being able to talk to them. In that instance, if the content does not hold your attention, you have your friends to talk to, and no other interaction may be necessary.