DOI: / Empathy and Violent Video Games

Transcription

1 DOI: / Empathy and Violent Video Games

2 Palgrave Studies in Cyberpsychology Series Editor: Jens Binder, Nottingham Trent University, UK Titles include John Waterworth and Giuseppe Riva Feeling Present in the Physical World and Computer-Mediated Environments Christian Happ and André Melzer Empathy and Violent Video Games Forthcoming Sandy Schumann How the Internet Shapes Collective Actions DOI: /

3 Empathy and Violent Video Games: Aggression and Prosocial Behavior Christian Happ University of Trier, Germany and André Melzer University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg DOI: /

4 Christian Happ and André Melzer 2014 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6 10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act First published 2014 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number , of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave and Macmillan are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: EPUB ISBN: PDF ISBN: Hardback A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. doi: /

5 Contents List of Figures Foreword: Why This Project? vi vii 1 Of Empathy and Media Content: Bringing Together Two Important Areas of Research Empathy: a multifaceted concept Media use and media effects 7 2 The E in Media is for Empathy Empathy and violent media content Empathy in video games: an overview An empirical look at the effects of empathy in video games 19 3 What Empathy Does to the Video Gamer The consequences of empathizing with the wrong game character Explaining the complex effects of empathy 38 4 Dear Researcher, Gamers, Parents, and Teachers What did we find? Concluding remarks 54 References 57 Index 78 DOI: / v

6 List of Figures 2.1 Number of stolen items (antisocial behavior) in the violent and the prosocial video game condition. Error bars indicate ±2 standard error of the mean Percentage of returned questionnaires (prosocial behavior) as a function of text and game type Aggressive behavioral intentions (min=1, max=4) as a function of video clip and game character. Error bars indicate ±2 standard error of the mean Percentage of donations (prosocial behavior) as a function of video clip and game character Prosocial behavior (picked up lost letter) for participants who had played the Joker or Superman (in per cent) Hostile perception bias for participants playing the Joker or Superman as a function of having read the empathy or the neutral text. Error bars indicate ±2 standard error of the mean The four propositions of the differential susceptibility to media effects model 48 vi DOI: /

7 Foreword: Why This Project? Video games are now strongly related to the everyday life of many people; they are pervasive, ubiquitous, and no longer entertainment just for kids. At the same time, a general decrease in altruism, empathy, and charity are recurrently discussed, as is the case with the increase in selfishness in our society. Interestingly, the high rates of violence in video games and its increasingly realistic portrayal have been suggested as significant factors that further contribute to these societal tendencies. The great body of studies on the negative effects of exposure to violent video games seems to substantiate these concerns. The present project scrutinizes the role of empathy in this context: Will it matter if the player takes the perspective of a video game character and understands the character s feelings and, if so, how does this affect the player s feelings, thoughts, and behavior? Although empathy is a well-researched concept in the psychology of interpersonal relations, its role in media consumption and media effects has been largely overlooked. Only recently, empathy has been suggested as a potential moderating factor in understanding the effects of violent video game exposure (for example, Bartholow, Sestir, & Davis, 2005). Most other publications cover the state of the art regarding media effects, but do not extend their perspective towards other, untested factors in video game research (for example, Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2007; Calvert & Wilson, 2010; Kirsh, 2012). While again, other books and journal articles focus on empathy research (Batson, 2009; Davis, 2004; Hoffman, DOI: / vii

8 viii Foreword: Why This Project? 2000; Nathanson, 2003), no research has yet systematically investigated the function and effects of empathy in the field of media effects research. It is the aim of the present project to close this gap in the literature and provide a concise and profound analysis of the role of empathy in violent video games. Based on in-depth analyses of the literature we present three empirical studies that explore the mechanisms behind the potentially moderating functions of empathy. We show that inducing empathy before playing a violent video game affects emotion and cognition, but also prosocial and aggressive behavior. However, our results also indicate that the effects of playing violent video games do not solely depend on the game content (that is, violent versus non-violent), but also on the character played (for example, hero vs. villain), as well as the players interpretations of the role of the character (for example, perpetrator vs. victim). Thus, the present project reveals new insights into empathy-based responses to violent media content. We argue that the distinctiveness of empathybased reactions in the media context (both as state and trait empathy) is an important factor in various research fields of media psychology (for example, media effects, cyberbullying and media competences). DOI: /

9 1 Of Empathy and Media Content: Bringing Together Two Important Areas of Research Abstract: Happ and Melzer introduce the two major components of their research. Following the detailed description of the multifaceted construct of empathy, the chapter contains an overview on findings from current research on media effects with a particular emphasis on video games. Numerous studies document the negative effects of violent media on many variables explained by different theoretical models. In addition to violent media content, however, other risk and resilience factors (e.g., moral issues) are also likely to moderate the effects of violent video games. The authors present empathy as a potential moderator for behavior in social situations. The chapter ends with a critical evaluation of current findings, stressing the importance of analyzing empathy and its role for the effects of media content. Keywords: empathy; media effects; theoretical models Happ, Christian and André Melzer. Empathy and Violent Video Games: Aggression and Prosocial Behavior. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, doi: / DOI: /

10 2 Empathy and Violent Video Games Media are deeply related to the way we live our everyday life. Nowadays, digital media are used widely and across all generations. At the same time, a general decrease in altruism, empathy, and charity, as well as an increase in selfishness in our society are recurrently discussed (for example, Penner et al., 2005). In line with this, crime against stigmatized, marginalized, or otherwise defenseless groups has increased (for example, homeless people; Konrath, 2010). Recently, attention has grown regarding both the effects of media use and the role of empathy (for example, Anderson et al., 2010; Bennett, 2012; Prot et al., 2014b). Both fields of research share their relevance for society and, thus, our daily social interactions. Surprisingly, these two important areas of research have not yet been connected systematically. In the present work, empathy and media research will be linked appropriately. In addition, a comprehensive and innovative area of research will be presented that facilitates addressing open questions in future research. Public interest in media effects research is typically rekindled by news media. This includes suggesting causal relationships between violent media consumption and school shootings, or adverse effects of media entertainment on individual health such as, for example, aggression or addiction, or reports on negative changes in social behavior in the so-called digital native generation. Consequently, the effects of the consumption of violent content in various types of media have been widely investigated for some decades. Research about video games, the former new kid on the media violence block (Anderson et al., 2010, p. 152), has almost outnumbered studies regarding other forms of media (for an overview see Happ, Melzer, & Steffgen, 2014a; Prot et al., 2014a). As violence in media content (for example, Smith, Lachlan, & Tamborini, 2003) is ubiquitous and prominent, it may lead to detrimental effects on the users (for example, Anderson et al., 2010). However, the focus of the present work is not investigating the effects of media use, but the concept of empathy and its potential role in research on media use. Empathy, not solely a factor in the therapeutic process, has become tremendously important in the fields of social and personality psychology, because a person s individual level of trait empathy is closely linked to numerous behavioral and cognitive outcomes in his or her daily social interactions (for example, Hoffman, 2001). More precisely, research suggests that taking the perspective of another person and understanding his or her feelings is a relevant element of social competence. DOI: /

11 Of Empathy and Media Content 3 To date, empathy has been investigated in many areas, but little attention has been paid to its relevance in the context of media. It is well known, however, that people respond emotionally to media content (for example, Nathanson, 2003; Schramm & Wirth, 2006). For example, some users are moved by the storyline of a movie, some are immersed in a video game or feel deeply relieved with the happy end of a novel. The processes a fictional character actually triggers in media users, however, are not yet fully understood. Among other factors, emotional responses following media consumption are triggered by stable individual dispositions (for example, trait empathy) and current situational settings (for example, state empathy induced in the situation itself). Inspired by the lack of research on empathy in the context of media, we explore the mechanisms behind the potential moderating functions of empathy. Before describing the empirical studies we have conducted (Chapter 2 and Chapter 3), we need to introduce the concept of empathy in more detail (Section 1.1). After that, we will report current findings from media effects research related to the repercussions of media consumption on the users feelings, thoughts, and actions (Section 1.2). 1.1 Empathy: a multifaceted concept Numerous factors play a role when investigating the effects of violent media content on users because not all users are affected by violent content in the same way and at all times. One of the complex factors in this process is empathy (Nathanson, 2003). Empathy can be situated both in the media user (that is, as a personality trait) and in the situation (that is, feeling empathy while using media). The following section introduces the psychological concept of empathy. An overview will be given on how and why empathy may be relevant as a moderator in the media context. Definitions The term empathy was originally coined by Titchener (1909) as a translation from the German word Einfühlung to describe the process of perceptually seeing something from the inside (see Batson & Shaw, 1991). Today, most empathy researchers commonly define empathy as an emotional response that stems from another s emotional state or condition and is congruent with the other s emotional state or DOI: /

12 4 Empathy and Violent Video Games condition (Eisenberg et al., 1991, p. 65). However, the term empathy is often confused with the term sympathy and similar constructs (Batson, 2009). Even though an overlap exists between these two concepts, there is also an important difference. While empathy describes congruent feelings with a target person (Eisenberg, 2000), sympathy refers to differing feelings between the observer and the target. As an example, one may feel both empathy and sympathy for a good friend who lost a parent. While a sympathetic reaction may also include feelings of relief for the target, an empathic reaction can only be the same or a very similar sadness the target is feeling. Another term that may seem appropriate for naming sympathy may be the concept of compassion, which Lazarus (1991) describes as being moved by another s suffering (p. 289). However, while empathy describes the visceral or emotional experience of actually feeling another person s feelings, compassion only refers to the emotional response when perceiving suffering (Seppala, 2013). In addition to the affective (that is, emotional) component of empathy, current definitions typically include a cognitive dimension, mostly named perspective taking (see Cohen & Strayer, 1996; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). Yet, cognitive empathy slightly differs from perspective taking, as cognitive empathy denotes a person s knowledge of another person s internal state including both feelings and thoughts. In contrast, perspective taking relates to imagining how one would think and feel in the other s place (for a more detailed overview see Batson, 2009). Notwithstanding this distinction, we will refer to the cognitive side of empathy as perspective taking thereby adopting the terminology used in other publications (for example, Davis, 1983; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). In sum, affective empathy describes the process of feeling what a target person feels (Davis, 1994; Hoffman, 2001), whereas cognitive empathy is the ability to take the perspective of another person, thereby understanding his or her feelings. Thus, empathy is defined as the ability to understand and share in another s emotional state or context (Cohen & Strayer, 1996, p. 988). Either component on its own does not fully describe empathy as affect and cognition are typically linked in empathy (Cohen & Strayer, 1996). In this sense, cognitive empathy is a necessary requirement for feeling affective empathy (for example, Zillmann, 1994). Evidently, empathy is a complex factor and more than an automatic response (for example, Haidt, 2003). Even though empathy may have a strong evolutionary basis, empathy as a personality trait can be learned or promoted in trainings (for DOI: /

13 Of Empathy and Media Content 5 example, Manger, Eikeland, & Asbjørnsen, 2001; for an overview see Berghofer, Gonja, & Oberlechner, 2008). The fundamental importance of being able to empathize is most easily understood when imagining the absence of empathy. In fact, the constant and continuous lack of either of the two components may even have severe effects on psychological health. While autistic patients, for example, lack the ability to sense other people s thoughts and intentions, people suffering from psychopathy have difficulties in reading others emotions (Pinker, 2011). Consequently, both patient groups show severe difficulties in all interpersonal interactions. In turn, this emphasizes the role of empathy in social competence and thus, as the glue in the social world (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). Correlates of empathy In general, being empathic is perceived as a socially desirable personality trait that is directly related to many other positive outcomes and forms of social behavior. Empathy increases, for example, the willingness to feel with others and help them (Hoffman, 2000), and correlates positively with prosocial behavior (for example, Eisenberg & Miller, 1987), normative behavior (Bierhoff, 2000), and with a positive family atmosphere (for example, Davis et al., 1996). This willingness to help others may even include members of stigmatized groups (Batson et al., 1997b). In line with these findings, trait empathy is negatively correlated with antisocial and delinquent behavior (for example, Miller & Eisenberg, 1988; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004), bullying (Gini et al., 2007), and cyberbullying (for example, Steffgen et al., 2011). Most of these relationships found in adult samples have also been replicated in children (Eisenberg et al., 1993; Kaukiainen et al., 1999; Scrimgeour, 2007). Research on empathy trainings further supports these findings. After attending intervention programs on empathy-related learning participants behave less aggressively (for example, Feshbach & Feshbach, 1982; Pfetsch et al., 2011) and show fewer social problems (for example, Chalmers & Townsend, 1990). As empathy training promotes the reduction of negative social behaviors to the benefit of prosocial interactions with others, (affective) empathy mediates social behaviors (for example, Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). To our knowledge, it has not been tested whether perspective-taking skills mediate the effects of empathy on aggressive and antisocial responding. Recent findings suggest that affective and cognitive components of empathy affect subsequent behavior differently and some studies even found counterintuitive effects of empathy (for example, Epley & Caruso, DOI: /

14 6 Empathy and Violent Video Games 2009; Vorauer & Sasaki, 2009). For example, Kuppens and Tuerlinckx (2007) found that empathy may increase aggression under certain circumstances. More precisely, when someone else is responsible for an unpleasant situation, empathic efforts may lead to a stronger realization of the blameworthiness of the other s actions, and hereby increase anger levels. Empathy may even cause sadism or schadenfreude when combined with feelings of anger or aggression (Bischof-Köhler, 2006). Furthermore, in negotiation processes, only cognitive empathy (that is, perspective taking) is helpful for finding an agreement, while affective empathy is not. Galinsky et al. (2008) could show that perspective taking increases individuals cognitive ability and their chances to claim resources at the bargaining table. Empathy, however, did not prove nearly as advantageous and at times had even detrimental effects with regard to achieving individual profit. The authors conclude that, while (affective) empathy is an essential tool in many aspects of social life, (cognitive) perspective taking appears to be a particularly critical ability in negotiations. In addition, so-called skilled manipulators (Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999) understand others emotions without sharing them. Rather, they use their empathic skills to bully others. Regarding the research on empathy, all of these findings highlight the importance of taking into account the different dimensions of empathy as well as the context in which empathy takes place. The role of empathy as a potential moderator between different social situations and participants corresponding behavior has been frequently studied (for example, Barrett-Lennard, 1993). Commonly, researchers use experimental manipulations in these studies. To increase empathy in participants, participants may be invited to imagine what they or someone else would feel like in a certain situation (see Batson, Early, & Salvarini, 1997a; Davis, 2004). Putting oneself into the shoes of a victim in a violent situation, for example, has been shown to lead to experiencing the negative impact of violence more strongly (Heckhausen, 1989). This experience may change participants perception of violent behavior (Miller & Eisenberg, 1988) and their own future behavior substantially (for example, Calvert, Strouse, & Murray, 2006; Steffgen et al., 2011). Assessment of traditional empathy Even though empathy is also related to neural processes (mirror neurons; Gallese et al., 2011; Singer et al., 2006) and the neuropeptide oxytocin DOI: /

15 Of Empathy and Media Content 7 (Bartz et al., 2010), most studies assess empathy by means of self-report questionnaires. Empathy may also be measured via observing facial and gestural reactions to emotional content (for a detailed overview see Miller & Eisenberg, 1988; Zhou, Valiente, & Eisenberg, 2003). When using questionnaires, however, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) is one of the most frequently used and reliable measures of empathy (for an overview see Holz-Ebeling & Steinmetz, 1995; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; Steins, 1998). In addition to the cognitive dimension of empathy (perspective taking; for example, I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective. ) and the affective dimension of empathy (empathic concern; for example, I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me ), the IRI also measures the dimensions of personal distress and fantasy empathy. The personal distress subscale primarily covers self-related feelings and has therefore often been excluded from the total score of empathy (Eisenberg, 2010; Paulus, 2009; for example, I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the middle of a very emotional situation ). Conversely, the fantasy empathy subscale has been one of the first scales to measure empathy in fictional contexts. This component is supposed to measure both affective and cognitive reactions to emotional content in various media channels (for example, After seeing a play or movie, I have felt as though I were one of the characters ). This differentiation is necessary as empathic reactions to real situations might be based on other cognitive and emotional processes than fictional ones (Leibetseder, Laireiter, & Köller, 2007). The development of an appropriate measure for media empathy is, however, not the focus of the present work (see Happ & Pfetsch, 2014). 1.2 Media use and media effects Before describing the most important results from the vast research landscape of media effects, we will present a short overview of findings on current media use and media content. Media use and media content In Western society, the prevalence of media use in its various forms (for example, TV, Internet, video games) has grown dramatically. From DOI: /

16 8 Empathy and Violent Video Games early infancy onwards, children are provided with many mediatized windows to the world that add to their socialization experienced with families and peers (Wilson, 2008). Even if children and adolescents are not actively seeking media information, involuntary exposure to these media windows is inevitable (Melzer, Happ, & Steffgen, 2010). In line with this research, Dill (2009) showed that children in the US spend more time watching television and movies, playing video games, and surfing the Internet than they spend in school per year. Video games especially play an increasingly prominent role in people s lives (for example, Gentile, Coyne, & Walsh, 2011). Gaming motives are diverse. For example, recent findings indicate that players seek to escape from the pressures and demands of their real life into the fictional worlds filled with success, exhilaration, love, and excitement (Raney, 2011). In addition to their economic significance, video games that may be played on various devices (for example, computers, handheld devices, cell phones, and game consoles; see Williams, Yee, & Caplan, 2008) are of major relevance for social processes. In terms of media content, studies show that 68 per cent of all video games contain some sort of violence. These figures are mirrored in other media: 60 per cent of television programs and 90 per cent of all movies show violent content (Smith et al., 2003). Additionally, at least six out of ten TV programs feature forms of physical aggression in the plot (Strasburger & Wilson, 2003; Wilson, 2008). For video games, it has been demonstrated that violent content makes games even more attractive to players (Persky & Blascovich, 2007). Game violence may take different forms, including shooting other characters or hunting ghosts, which have not yet been reviewed systematically (see Barlett & Rodeheffer, 2009). Adding to these forms of implemented fictional violence, the user-generated content of mediabased digital communication modes (for example, mobile phones, chat) may also contain aggressive and even violent elements (for example, cyberbullying; Jäger, Fischer, & Riebel, 2007). Media effects Within the sheer expanse of media available, the amount of violence portrayed in the media may be problematic (Melzer et al., 2010). Plenty of studies focus on the relationship between violent media use and media effects (for example, Nije Bijvank, Konijn, & Bushman, 2012). DOI: /

17 Of Empathy and Media Content 9 The negative effects of violent media use (for example, Boxer et al., 2009), especially for television content (for example, Murray, 2008; for a meta-analysis see Paik & Comstock, 1994) and violent video games content, have been well documented (for a meta-analysis see Anderson et al., 2010; Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Bushman & Huesmann, 2014; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014). However, some authors doubt the existence of a causal relationship between violent media consumption and aggression in media users. These authors claim, for example, that methodological limitations and ideological statements would overstate the impact of violent media, leading to false claims that such media are harmful or represent a public health crisis (for example, Elson & Ferguson, 2014; Ferguson, 2007, 2008; Savage & Yancey, 2008). From a methodological perspective, measuring aggression in the laboratory is indeed problematic (for example, Ritter & Eslea, 2005). Aggression is typically defined as any behavior that is intended to harm another person who is motivated to avoid the harm (Baron & Richardson, 1994). For ethical reasons, however, it is impossible to grant access to real physical ways to inflict violence on others. Therefore, alternative measures indicating aggression have to be used, such as variants of the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (Taylor, 1967). In this paradigm participants are led to believe that they would be playing a reaction time game against another participant (in fact, there is no opponent) in which the winner of a round would punish the loser with a noise blast (Bushman, 1995). Generally, louder and longer noise blasts sent to the alleged opponent are considered indicators of higher levels of aggression. Although the validity of the procedure has been repeatedly demonstrated (for example, Anderson, Lindsay, & Bushman, 1999), its often-unstandardized use and analysis has been criticized (Elson et al., 2014). Not surprisingly, these different opinions on whether or not media has harmful effects on users have repeatedly led (and still lead) to heated discussions on a number of topics relevant to society. These include the predictability of school shootings (for example, Anderson & Dill, 2000), more restrictive and even prohibitive regulation of media use (for example, Bushman & Pollard-Sacks, 2014; Liptak, 2010), and the role of protective factors in media users (Gentile & Bushman, 2012). Although similar pattern of effects have been reported for other media, such as television use (Eron et al., 1972; Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007; Maass, Lohaus, & Wolf, 2010), video games differ both in quantitative and qualitative ways. Compared to the television medium, for example, differences DOI: /

18 10 Empathy and Violent Video Games include video games higher potential of immersion (that is, being more engaged in a fictional story; Williams et al., 2008), and its higher level of self-efficacy resulting from the interactive nature of the medium (that is, one s ability to complete tasks and reach goals; for example, Klimmt & Hartmann, 2006). Unlike movies and television, video games provide immediate and direct reinforcement and reward for successful actions (for example, entering the next level, compliments from peers) through visual effects and sound, for example (Melzer et al., 2010). This feedback and the corresponding learning processes may be dangerous for the user (Gentile & Gentile, 2008), as digitized violence and aggressive or antisocial behavior in video games is more often rewarded than punished (for example, Anderson et al., 2007). It is not surprising that the (usually negative) effects of violent content were found to be even larger for video games than for television (Anderson et al., 2007; Polman, Orobio de Castro, & van Aken, 2008). Consequently, in the present research we will focus on the use of the video game medium. Compared with neutral or prosocial gaming conditions, the effects of violence in video games are found on many individual and social levels. This includes increases in aggressive behavior (for example, Konijn, Nije Bijvank, & Bushman, 2007), aggressive cognitions (for example, Anderson & Carnagey, 2009), physiological arousal (for example, Carnagey, Anderson, & Bushman, 2007), and general health risks for players (for example, Borusiak et al., 2008). For example, violent video games have been demonstrated to increase players expectations of aggressive content when completing open (that is, neutral) stories. Violent game play has also been shown to induce the so-called hostile attribution bias, that is, the tendency to perceive ambiguous social interactions as aggressive (for example, Bushman & Anderson, 2002). Furthermore, playing violent video games has been shown to reduce prosocial behavior (Sheese & Graziano, 2005) and empathy in players (Carnagey et al., 2007). Furthermore, violent video game exposure has been reported to increase desensitization, which reflects a decreased sensitivity to violence and a greater willingness to tolerate higher levels of violence. Compared to their non-violent counterparts, for example, playing violent games has been demonstrated to cause less helping behavior (Sheese & Graziano, 2005) and less empathic responses (Carnagey et al., 2007; Krahé & Möller, 2010). In these studies, however, empathy is not systematically manipulated, but just operationalized as an outcome variable of media effects. DOI: /

19 Of Empathy and Media Content 11 While experiments and cross-sectional studies describe immediate or short-term effects, longitudinal studies provide evidence for negative long-term effects of violent video game content. Long-term studies also allow for testing interactions between media use and media effects (for example, Anderson et al., 2007; Gentile et al., 2011; Hopf, Huber, & Weiss, 2008; Möller & Krahé, 2009). Repeated exposure to in-game characters showing antisocial behavior, such as when playing violent video games repeatedly or over a longer time, has been reported to increase antisocial behavior and decrease prosocial behavior (Buckley & Anderson, 2006). It is important to note that, as for other media types (see Mares & Woodard, 2005), research does not only cover the potentially harmful, but also the beneficial effects of video games. This includes studies on the prosocial effects of non-violent (Sestir & Bartholow, 2010) or prosocial video games (for example, Chambers & Ascione, 1987; Gentile et al., 2009; Greitemeyer, 2011; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014; Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010, 2011; Rosenberg, Baughman, & Bailenson, 2013; Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile, 2012; Taylor, 2006). Other beneficial effects can be found when examining educational games (for example, Murphy et al., 2002) or in studies on the improvement of cognitive processing and behavioral responses due to playing video games (for example, Bavelier & Davidson, 2013; Dye, Green, & Bavelier, 2009). In line with this reasoning, prosocial games, for example, have been suggested to increase the activation of prosocial cognitive concepts in the players (Whitaker & Bushman, 2012). In sharp contrast to the vast amount of violent video games, however, only a few prosocial games are commercially available (for example, Greitemeyer, Osswald, & Brauer, 2010). In an interdisciplinary approach, psychologists, pedagogues, and computer scientists have coined the terms serious games and game-based learning to denote game-like tools that are carefully designed according to current models of educational learning (for example, Michael & Chen, 2005; Prensky, 2004; Ritterfeld & Weber, 2006). Thus, video games can provide an excellent medium for learning (Gentile & Gentile, 2008) and, thus, video games may either become a positive learning tool or a risk factor (Gentile & Bushman, 2012). As mentioned above, however, violent video games are by far more attractive to users than prosocial or neutral video games (Persky & Blascovich, 2007). DOI: /

20 12 Empathy and Violent Video Games Theoretical explanations for media violence effects The General Aggression Model (GAM) integrates a wide range of more specific social-cognitive models of aggression. It has been repeatedly applied to the effects of violent video game content (for example, Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Anderson & Carnagey, in press; Carnagey & Anderson, 2004). The model shows how learning in combination with developmental processes shapes aggressive behavior and eventually contributes to changes in personality. In addition to violent stimuli, situational and personal variables interact to affect thoughts, but also feelings and the bodily arousal of a person (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a). Together, these factors determine the interpretation of aggressive (media) stimuli (Anderson et al., 2004) and the resulting behavioral response. In the long term, the constant consumption of violent content may lead to desensitization and a more hostile personality (for example, Buckley & Anderson, 2006). Frequent users of violent media may become numb to the pain and suffering of others (Bushman & Anderson, 2009). The GAM is therefore in line with the above-mentioned findings of studies on violent video game effects (but see Elson & Ferguson, 2014). Applied to other types of social behavior (for example, helping), GAM is known as the General Learning Model (GLM; Buckley & Anderson, 2006; Gentile et al., 2009). According to GLM, playing prosocial games, for example, activates prosocial cognitive concepts, whereas violent video games increase the activation of aggressive cognitions (Whitaker & Bushman, 2012). The intensifying interaction between violent media consumption and levels of aggression, which reinforce each other, is postulated in the downward spiral model (Slater et al., 2003). As the GAM was often misinterpreted as describing a deterministic view on the effects of violent video games (for example, Anderson & Bushman, 2002b), the GAM has been recently suggested to render probabilistic predictions. According to the risk and resilience perspective (Gentile & Bushman, 2012), for example, violent gaming is defined as only one among other social, biological, and psychological factors when predicting antisocial behavior. When comparing the influence of these factors, however, the effect of media violence is assumed to be similar or even larger than the effect of many other public health threats (for example, condom use and sexually transmitted HIV; Bushman & Huesmann, 2001; Huesmann, 2007). This probabilistic perspective seems more appropriate than the causal approach occasionally used in DOI: /

21 Of Empathy and Media Content 13 recent decades, which has been widely criticized (for example, Elson & Ferguson, 2014). To facilitate the process of investigating the role of video games in the prediction of aggressive behavior, Gentile (2011) has identified five dimensions in which video game players may be affected or which may moderate the effect video games have on the player. According to this proposition, the extent to which violent video games affect the user depends not only on the content, but also on various other factors. This includes the amount of game play, the context (for example, playing the same violent video game together with or against others), the structure (for example, more realistic screen representations), and the mechanics (for example, playing a racing game with brake and wheel vs. playing with a controller) of the game (see Gentile, 2011 for an overview). In this research, we will especially investigate the interaction between content and context factors, which we will describe in more detail in the following. Moderating factors of video game effects Theoretical approaches like the GAM enable researchers to formulate hypotheses and investigate video game effects in greater detail, as studies may focus on specific variables or risk factors in the players. In this sense, potential mediators and/or moderators of the effects of violent video games may be tested that help determine how players perceive media content and how violent game exposure affects emotion, cognition, and behavior (see also Gentile, 2011). Mediators and moderators can be situated in the player and/or his or her social environment (for example, family variables, personality traits), in the situational context (for example, playing alone or in a group), or in the medium (for example, level of realism, speed of actions). Other factors may include the player s perception of the game and the cognitive processing of the content (for example, identification with certain video game characters). So far, empathy has mostly been explored as a mediator for prosocial behavior in the video game context (Greitemeyer, 2009; Greitemeyer et al., 2010; Prot et al., 2014b). This means, instead of proposing a direct relationship between media use and behavior, video game play is suggested to first influence empathy in users, which then in turn influences prosocial behavior. Medium-related factors are commonly controlled in experimental research. When exploring the effects of the video game content by DOI: /

22 14 Empathy and Violent Video Games contrasting violent and non-violent games, for example, gaming conditions need to be matched on numerous variables. Competitiveness (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011a; Carnagey & Anderson, 2005; Schmierbach, 2010), game perspective (for example, first-person-shooter; Farrar, Krcmar, & Nowak, 2006), technical parameters (for example, the virtual environments vs. traditional platforms; Persky & Blascovich, 2007), and difficulty and speed (see Adachi & Willoughby, 2011b) are only the most prominent examples. Potential effects may otherwise not be causally linked to the (violent) content of the game. Player-specific characteristics, such as gender, age, and general media use, as well as some personality traits (for example, aggression; Przybylski, Ryan, & Rigby, 2009), have already received much research attention lately (Barlett, Harris, & Baldassaro, 2007). In addition, situational gaming variables have also been covered by numerous empirical studies (for example, playing alone or in teams; Greitemeyer, Traut- Mattausch, & Osswald, 2012; playing versus watching someone else play; Polman et al., 2008). However, more complex factors such as the justification of virtual violence in the video game (for example, being a soldier killing either zombies or terrorists; Hartmann, Toz, & Brandon, 2010) or the degree to which a player identifies with a violent avatar (Konijn et al., 2007), have only recently been subject to experimental studies and are not yet fully understood. DOI: /

23 2 The E in Media is for Empathy Abstract: The authors provide an in-depth analysis of the current research on empathy in violent media, and video games in particular. They argue that little attention has been paid to the role of empathy in the media context so far. Happ and Melzer present two experimental studies that test the effects of empathy induction before playing a video game on players perception and behavior. Study 1 aims at exploring the role of empathy as a moderator in a prosocial video game and a violent video game. Study 2 tests the differential effects of feeling empathy with violent video game characters. Inducing empathy in video games turns out to be beneficial, but it may also have deleterious consequences, depending on whom one feel empathy for. Keywords: complex findings; empathy in games; experiment Happ, Christian and André Melzer. Empathy and Violent Video Games: Aggression and Prosocial Behavior. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, doi: / DOI: /

24 16 Empathy and Violent Video Games Against the backdrop of the behavioral effects of video games, it is surprising that empathy has only recently been introduced into the field of video game research (for example, Bartholow et al., 2005; Hartmann et al., 2010; Konijn, Nije Bijvank, van der Heijden, Walma van der Molen, & Hoorn, 2008; Prot et al., 2014b). As we have seen in Chapter 1, human behavior is multicausal (Gentile & Bushman, 2012), and playing violent video games is neither a necessary nor a sufficient factor for aggression. Situational factors like, for example, the level of empathy shown in the medium or the personality of the player not only interact with media experience, but may also function as independent and strong risk factors when predicting prosocial or antisocial behavior following media use (for example, Engelhardt, Bartholow, & Saults, 2011). Players with high empathy, for example, generally oppose unjustified violence in video games (Hartmann et al., 2010). In accordance with suggestions by Anderson, Gentile, and Dill (2012), we investigate the role of empathy as a (potentially protective) context factor in media exposure in three experimental studies, thereby further elucidating the roles of an important moderator that has not yet been closely researched. Statistically, context factors or moderators may either increase or reduce negative effects of violent video games (see, for example, Baron & Kenny, 1986). Therefore, knowledge about these variables is likely to be helpful in specifying prevention and intervention approaches in the context of media. In this research, we seek to advance the understanding of a potential moderating function of empathy induced in the context of media effects (state empathy), not as a personality factor or individual disposition (trait empathy). As empathy is shown to reduce negative effects in violent real world settings (for example, Miller & Eisenberg, 1988), similar positive effects are to be expected in virtual environments (for example, Hodson, Choma, & Costello, 2009). In this chapter, we will provide an in-depth analysis of the current research on empathy in violent media (Section 2.1), and empathy in video games in particular (Section 2.2). Subsequently, we will present the rather unexpected results from our first two experimental studies (Section 2.3). 2.1 Empathy and violent media content As mentioned above, media effects may be moderated by empathy in various ways (for an overview see Nathanson, 2003). For example, sad DOI: /

25 The E in Media is for Empathy 17 events in a movie and tragic twists and turns in the storyline may lead to changes in the viewer s visual attention when feeling empathy with the protagonists (for example, Konijn & Hoorn, 2005; Shapiro & Rucker, 2004; Walma van der Molen & Konijn, 2007). Alternatively, identification with or emotions towards a video game character may increase as a result of the leading character saying something funny. Such events may alter the perception of the media content and thus may also affect the subsequent behavior of media users. Studies have shown, for example, that when attention is focused on the victim of violent behavior in a video game, empathy increases (Konijn et al., 2008) and the general acceptance of violence diminishes (Nathanson & Cantor, 2000). More generally, if players like the game character the attitude toward this character is positively influenced (Alhabash & Wise, 2012). However, when participants are asked to take the perspective of the character, or when they even identify with a potentially violent character, the features of the character (for example, the moral valence) become more relevant for predicting gaming perception and subsequent behavior. Consequently, high identification with a violent character has been repeatedly shown to increase aggression after playing violent video games (Konijn et al., 2007; Schneider, Lang, Shin, & Bradley, 2004). This effect is even greater when the avatar is created by the player him- or herself before game play (Fischer, Kastenmüller, & Greitemeyer, 2010). These effects mirror research findings on the identification with violent television characters (Funk, Bechtoldt-Baldacci, Pasold, & Baumgartner, 2004; Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron, 2003). Violent immoral heroes are frequently presented in the media (Hoffner & Cantor, 1991) and some authors have already investigated how morality is transported from a TV character to the viewer (Eden et al., 2014). However, only recently studies have started to investigate how players perceive the morality in video games (Hartmann et al., 2010; Joeckel, Bowman, & Dogruel, 2012; Weaver & Lewis, 2012). Remarkably, when the avatar in a video game is introduced in an emotional way, effects are not straightforward. Morally good characters were found to reduce negative behavioral effects after playing a violent video game (for example, Jin, 2011). In contrast, bad characters may even increase negative effects after an empathic or emotional introduction (see Haidt, 2003; Raney, 2005). Before we present our first experimental approach, we will look at the current state of research of empathy in the field of video games. DOI: /

26 18 Empathy and Violent Video Games 2.2 Empathy in video games: an overview As video games are both real and fictional at the same time (Juul, 2005) and hold elements of both storytelling and game, they are fundamentally distinct from other means of narrative (for example, film, books, and television; Dillon, 2005; see Chapter 1). While players control both avatars and event outcomes, theater audiences and readers of novels are only able to witness characters experiences in situations and events. In this context, it is necessary to distinguish the constructs of role-playing (as a character), role taking (for example, Coutu, 1951), and identification (Klimmt, Hefner, & Vorderer, 2009). While role taking is clearly related to empathy, role-playing bears no necessary relation to empathy (Coutu, 1951), even though it requires one to take a role (Puri & Pugliese, 2012). Additionally, video game identification means both adapting to fixed attributes of a character but also changing some attributes through individual decisions (Klimmt et al., 2009). Players generally prefer those games that provide opportunities for immersion and that allow them to empathize with characters in the narrative or even become the main character (Annetta, 2010). However, few experimental studies have manipulated empathy in video games so far. In all of our following studies, video games are used as the preferred media type. This is not only due to the technological advancement of video games, but also because in video games, empathy can play a specific role. Some characteristics of video games specifically promote identification with the avatar (for example, first-person perspective; Klimmt et al., 2009), as players may adopt novel identities in video games and try on ideal characteristics (Przybylski, Weinstein, Murayama, Lynch, & Ryan, 2012) to feel completely immersed in the game (for example, Persky & Blascovich, 2008). In contrast to other media types, video games promote more involvement in the story (for example, Jansz, 2005). Players may experience similar feelings as the character. They may even imitate the character s behavior after the game is turned off (Konijn et al., 2007). While some researchers claim that this process of perspective taking automatically triggers empathic emotions (Cohen, 2001; Zillmann, 1994), the possibility of feeling true empathy while playing a video game character has also been fundamentally questioned (Annetta, 2010; D Aloia, 2009; Schirra & Carl-McGrath, 2002). Nonetheless, this has not been tested systematically (for example, Jin, 2011). So far, research has shown that inducing empathy is a frequently used experimental manipulation DOI: /