Videogames 7 - videogames and the effects model

Relevant image to today's discussion.

The effects model
 Proposed by Albert Bandura, it stipulates that media has a direct effect on us.  Representations of violence can 'model' or demonstrate violent behaviour, and audiences 'copy' violent and socially unacceptable behaviour they see in media products. This theory goes by the hypodermic needle model, a passive theory of audience interaction. The viewer simply allows the media producer's ideologies, to be pumped into them and absorbed. 

An example:

'The Germans are different theory (Sonderweg)' - Came about during WW2, it was interpreted by many that the German people were inherently biologically different from the rest of the world. The other conspiracy theory in juxtaposition was that Jewish people were 'evil', greedy, etc; With this being spread by the Nazi party's prominent amount of propaganda at the time.

Albert Bandura - The Bobo doll experiment

Showed footage of an adult punching a large bouncy doll to a set of children, these children were then put in a room with the said doll, they then went on to mimic the actions seen within the video, punching and throwing it. In essence, copying what they saw within a media text.

The first flaw here is, this doll doesn't inherently look that human-like, if the children were shown differing footage of true real adults fighting each other its extremely likely the experiment would heed different results. The second flaw is just that, these are children. They act inherently different from adults, they are oftentimes irrational, easily manipulated by those they respect.

To what extent does 'Assassin's Creed' present a threat to the audience, both target, secondary and unintentional?:

A staple of videogames is a 'HUD' which breaks the fourth wall to the audience and distances them from the narrative to talk directly to them and indicate information towards the player. It shows them their health, ammunition, a map of where to go, and objectives as what they should do to progress in the game. The distance between the player and narrative takes away from realism, and I believe immediately simmers any threat produced by the gameplay on screen.

'HUD' display in 'Assassin's Creed: Oddessy'

Interacting with copious amounts of violence is in many cases one of the primary objectives aside from climbing things in all of these games. The murder here is to an extent glorified due to the rewards gained from participating in the violence, (Items from the dead enemy, 'experience points', etc) as well as through mechanics like the game slowing down time with an especially gruesome animation upon killing the final enemy of a grouping as if a climax of the player's excitement. The threat presented by all of this is that the player is never truly faced with consequences for their violent transgressions, there is really no negative or reason not to participate in the violence.

The hole in the ship of the model of videogames as catalysts for violence is purely the fact that it is simply fingers being pointed, there is arguably next to no evidence for these claims that these media products have such a direct effect upon their audiences. Theories like Bandura's Bobo doll experiment simply don't speak as to the average audience member's interaction with a media text, it takes advantage of a child's naivety to prove a point, and nothing else.

Alternatives towards the effects model (Can be used to criticise it.):

Stuart Hall - Receptionist Theory - Audiences will negotiate media products based around their own personal culture, background as well as their understanding. 

George Gerbner - Cultivation Theory - Audiences are manipulated via repetition of ideological perspectives (cultivation)

Henry Jenkins - Fandom - Audiences can use or take pleasure from media products in literally any way they feel, even if it completely contradicts the dominant reading of said text.