The Effects of Moral Justification and Disregard
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
The Effects of Moral Justification and Disregard
Experiment 2
Hypotheses A second 2 × 2-experiment focused on the effects of moral justification (justified vs. unjustified) and disregard or distortion of consequences (no consequences vs. consequences) on emotional outcomes of playing a violent video game. Justification is a key determinant of moral disengagement (Bandura, 2002; Zillmann, 2000). Fighting for a just purpose or for a moral authority frames harm-doing as appropriate and thus suppresses dissonance (Opotow, 1990; Raney, 2002). Also, if the consequences of doing harm to social entities are neglected (i.e., not named, not visible, not discussed) or distorted (i.e., labeled in a euphemistic way or portrayed in a funny or aesthetic way), perpetrators perceive less or no mayhem, and aversive feelings of wrongdoing are reduced (Bandura, 2002; Zillmann, 1983). Accordingly, the second experiment tested the following hypotheses:
H1: If a video game frames virtual violence as justified, players (a) feel less guilty, (b) have fewer negative emotions, (c) enjoy the game play more than if the same game frames the action as unjustified.
H2: If a violent video game does not portray (or distorts) the consequences of virtual violence, players (a) feel less guilty, (b) have less negative emotions, (c) enjoy the game play more than if the game portrays the consequences of violent actions.
106 Journal of Communication 60 (2010) 94–119 © 2010 International Communication Association
- Hartmann & P. Vorderer Moral Disengagement
Method
Participants and procedure Subjects participated in both experiments in consecutive order. The sample and procedure was similar to those of the first experiment.
Material For the second experiment, a new level of the popular ego-shooter Operation Flashpoint (Bohemia Interactive) was developed by modifying the original software. A modified cinematic introduction established a new narrative. The audiovisual movie-sequence showed a torture camp in the (fictional) Oka region where innocent people were murdered by paramilitary forces. In the remainder of the introduction and depending on the experimental condition, subjects either learned that they would play a soldier of the United Nations (UN), about to attack the torture camp to restore humanity (justified action), or to play a soldier of the paramilitary forces that would continue their cruelty and defend the camp (unjustified action).
Actual game play followed. As a UN soldier player started the game in a quiet forest just before the torture camp, as a paramilitary soldier in a quiet section of the camp. In this sequence, players received instructions about how to navigate through the environment and how to shoot and reload their weapon. The torture camp itself consisted of an insolated area surrounded by walls so that subjects could not get lost during the game. Either UN soldiers or paramilitary forces were positioned as opponents, and they only made use of a single weapon, a gun. Shooting opponents either resulted in bloodshed and a dying character screaming and tumbling to the ground (consequences) or in a mundane ‘‘ping’’ sound and a character who simply vanished (no consequences). Every 2 minutes, a walkie-talkie voice (introduced as the commander) commented on the action, either in a harsh, realistic way (consequences) or in a euphemistic way (no consequences).
As in the first experiment, game play was modified so that users (a) could only shoot with one weapon (a gun), (b) had unlimited ammunition but occasionally needed to reload, (c) could not die. Also, only the number of opponents shot (kill-counter) appeared on the screen.
Measures Measures were the same as in the first experiment. Again, dependent measures included the feeling of guilt (α = 0.93; M = 1.89; SD = 1.18), general negative affect (α = 0.92; M = 17.54; SD = 7.93), and game enjoyment (α = .88; M = 2.65; SD = 1.02). Guilt and negative affect were strongly correlated (r = 0.76; p < .01). Enjoyment had a significant negative correlation to guilt (r = −0.27; p < .05), but not to general negative affect (r = −0.17; p = .13).
One question checked for the effectiveness of each manipulated factor. To assess the justification manipulation, subjects were asked how much they supported/opposed the motives of the authority for whom they fought (1, strongly oppose; 5, strongly support; M = 2.87; SD = 1.08). To assess the portrayed consequences manipulation,
Journal of Communication 60 (2010) 94–119 © 2010 International Communication Association 107
Moral Disengagement T. Hartmann & P. Vorderer
subjects were asked to indicate the degree of mayhem that was shown in the game (1, hardly any; 5, extensive; M = 2.49; SD = 1.01).
As in the first experiment, control factors included subjects’ previous familiar- ity with the game Operation Flashpoint (1, not at all; 5, very much; M = 1.86; SD = 1.02), the number of shot opponents (kill-counter; M = 42.21; SD = 19.68), the degree participants thought that ‘‘this is just a game’’ (1, not at all; 5, very much; M = 3.93; SD = 1.16) and that ‘‘this is just an experiment where I have to follow instructions’’ (1, not at all; 5, very much; M = 3; SD = 1.32).
Results
Treatment check Players of the justified violence condition supported the motives of their author- ity (UN soldiers) more (M = 3.39; SD = 0.86) than players that fought for the paramilitary forces in the unjustified violence condition (M = 2.43; SD = 1.07; t(81, 94) = 4.57; p < .01). However, players confronted with no (or distorted) con- sequences did not report significantly less mayhem (M = 2.37; SD = 1) than players whose shot opponents screamed and died (M = 2.57; SD = 1.02; t (82) = 0.89; ns).
Control factors Again, it was tested whether control factors correlated with at least one of three dependent measures and whether they differed significantly among at least two experimental groups. Simple zero-order correlations showed that the more subjects believed that ‘‘this is just a game,’’ the less they experienced guilt (r = −0.27; p < .01) and negative affect (r = −0.36; p < .01). None of the other correlations were significant. Users’ awareness that ‘‘this is just a game’’ did not differ among experimental groups.
Data analyses Although the treatment check did not find an effective manipulation of the conse- quences portrayed in the game, the effect could have been too unconscious to be reflected later in the response to a question (O’Keefe, 2003). For this reason, the test of hypotheses was conducted as follows: A 2 (justified vs. unjustified violence) × 2 (consequences vs. no consequences) MANOVA was calculated with the orig- inal experimental groups as independent factor, and guilt, negative emotions, and enjoyment as dependent variables. Second, the same MANOVA was calculated, but this time with a quasi-experimental consequences factor (median-split of perceived mayhem at score 2) instead of the original factor.3
A 2 (justified vs. unjustified violence)× 2 (consequences vs. no consequences) MANOVA showed a significant main effect of justified virtual violence (Pillai’s F(3, 78) = 3.65; p < .05) on the feeling of guilt (F(1, 84) = 4.36; p < .05; η2part = .05) and general negative affect (F(1, 84) = 10.61; p < .01; η2part = .12), but not on game enjoyment (F(1, 84) = 0.006; ns; η2part = 0.06). Players that fought for a just
108 Journal of Communication 60 (2010) 94–119 © 2010 International Communication Association
- Hartmann & P. Vorderer Moral Disengagement
Figure 1 Interaction of justification × portrayed consequences on game enjoyment (N = 84).
cause reported significantly less guilt (M = 1.56; SD = 0.89) and less negative affect (M = 14.53; SD = 3.94), but not significantly more enjoyment (M = 2.68; SD = 1.04) than players that fought for an unjust cause (guilt: M = 2.16; SD = 1.32; negative affect: M = 20.02; SD = 9.45; enjoyment: M = 2.63; SD = 1.01). The manipulation of consequences resulted in no significant effect (Pillai’s F(3, 78) = .26; ns). The interaction justification × consequences approached significance (Pillai’s F(3, 78) = .25; p = .06) due to a significant effect on enjoyment (F(1, 84) = 4.24; p < .05; η2part = 0.1). The effect is portrayed in Figure 1. As shown, enjoyment was greatest if players fought for a just authority and the consequences of shooting characters was portrayed (M = 2.9; SD = 0.97) or fought for a bad purpose but no (or distorted) consequences of shooting characters were portrayed (M = 2.86; SD = 1.05). That is, enjoyment was highest when only one of the two moral disengagement cues were present.
In a second MANOVA, this time with the quasi-experimental consequences factor (perceived mayhem), justification again significantly affected the dependent variables (Pillai’s F(3, 78) = 4.03; p < .05). Players who fought for a just cause experienced less guilt (F(1, 84) = 5.11; p < .05; η2part = 0.06) and less negative affect (F(1, 84) = 12.28; p < .01; η2part = 0.13), but did not differ in terms of game enjoyment (F(1, 84) = 1; ns; η2part = 0.001). Unlike the original factor, the quasi-experimental factor portrayed consequences, that is the degree of perceived mayhem, significantly affected (Pillai’s F(3, 78) = 3.22; p < .05) users’ feeling of guilt (F(1, 84) = 7.4; p < .01; η2part = 0.09) and negative affect (F(1, 84) = 9.07; p < .01; η2part = 0.1), but—similar to the original factor—there was no difference in game enjoyment (F(1, 84) = 0.78, ns; η2part = 0.01). Players who perceived less mayhem felt significantly less guilty (M = 1.55; SD = 0.84) and experienced less negative affect (M = 15.02; SD = 5.79), but did not experience significantly more enjoyment (M = 2.76; SD = 1.06) than players that perceived much mayhem (guilt:
Journal of Communication 60 (2010) 94–119 © 2010 International Communication Association 109
Moral Disengagement T. Hartmann & P. Vorderer
M = 2.3; SD = 1.4; negative affect: M = 20.08; SD = 9.12; enjoyment: M = 2.52; SD = 0.96). The MANOVA also revealed a significant interaction of justification × perceived mayhem; Pillai’s F(3, 78) = 3; p < .05. Negative affect was by far most pronounced among players that fought for an unjust reason and perceived much mayhem (M = 24.09; SD = 9.72; F (1,84) = 5.23; p < .05; η2part = 0.06). Exploratory in-depth MANOVA analyses of the 10 negative affect items reveal that participants were more scared, irritated, and jittery when fighting for an unjust purpose and perceived the mayhem caused by their violent actions (all p < .05). The interaction effect on enjoyment that was found in the previous MANOVA only occurred as a trend this time (F(1, 84) = 2.81; p < .1). As in the analyses that included the experimentally manipulated factors, enjoyment was highest if players either fought for a bad authority and perceived less mayhem (M = 2.91; SD = 1.12), or if they fought for a good authority and perceived more mayhem (M = 2.79; SD = 1.14).
The Effects of Moral Justification and Disregard
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow