Empathy and Violent Video Games

Aggression and Prosocial Behavior

C. Happ, A. Melzer

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137440136
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Personality in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Through three empirical studies, this book explores the mechanisms behind moderating functions of empathy in violent video games, revealing new insights that will inform the ongoing debates about the effects violent media content.

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, 2014. DOI: 10.1057/9781137440136.0004.

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.

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).

1.1Empathy: 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 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 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, 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 (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).

1.2Media 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 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 ficti...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Of Empathy and Media Content: Bringing Together Two Important Areas of Research
• 2  The E in Media is for Empathy
• 3  What Empathy Does to the Video Gamer
• 4  Dear Researcher, Gamers, Parents, and Teachers...
• References
• Index