Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 79, Issue 11–12, pp 683–698 | Cite as

Increased Cognitive Load during Video Game Play Reduces Rape Myth Acceptance and Hostile Sexism after Exposure to Sexualized Female Avatars

  • Glenna L. Read
  • Teresa Lynch
  • Nicholas L. Matthews
Original Article

Abstract

The present study investigated how task demand (cognitive load and interactivity) and avatar sexualization in a video game influenced rape myth acceptance (RMA), hostile sexism, and self-objectification. In a between-subjects design, 300 U.S. college students either played or watched someone else play a videogame as either a sexualized or non-sexualized female avatar under high (memorize 7 symbols) or low (memorize 2 symbols) cognitive load. Hypotheses were derived from the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (LC4MP) and perspectives on stereotype processing. Results contradicted hypotheses that greater task demands and sexualization would produce greater RMA, hostile sexism, and self-objectification. Instead, we found that sexualization did not affect these variables. Greater cognitive load reduced rape myth acceptance and hostile sexism for those in the sexualized avatar condition, but it did not affect self-objectification. We discuss these results with respect to the LC4MP and suggest that the processing of stereotype-inconsistent information might be the underlying cause of these unexpected findings. These results provide tentative evidence that cognitively demanding video game environments may prompt players to focus on stereotype-inconsistent, rather than stereotype-consistent, social information.

Keywords

Video games Sex role stereotypes Media effects Avatars LC4MP Sexualization 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

There were no sources of funding or conflicts of interest to report.

Informed Consent

The research involved human participants and included an informed consent that was approved by Indiana University’s Institutional Review Board.

Supplementary material

11199_2018_905_MOESM1_ESM.docx (427 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 427 kb)

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice: 25th anniversary edition. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co..Google Scholar
  2. Beasley, B., & Standley, T. C. (2002). Shirts vs. skins: Clothing as an indicator of gender role stereotyping in video games. Mass Communication and Society, 5, 279–293.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327825mcs0503_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, V. S., Boys, S., Rose, C., & Beck, E. (2012). Violence against women in video games: A prequel or sequel to rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3016–3031.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512441078.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Behm-Morawitz, E., & Mastro, D. (2009). The effects of the sexualization of female video game characters on gender stereotyping and female self-concept. Sex Roles, 61, 808–823.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9683-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bethesda Game Studios. (2012). Skyrim creation kit [computer software]. Rockville: Bethesda Softworks, LLC.Google Scholar
  6. Bodenhausen, G. V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 726–737.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.726.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodenhausen, G. V., & Lichtenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871–880.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.871.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohner, G., Jarvis, C. I., Eyssel, F., & Siebler, F. (2005). The causal impact of rape myth acceptance on men’s rape proclivity: Comparing sexually coercive and noncoercive men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 819–828.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1982). Effects of prior knowledge on use of cognitive capacity in three complex cognitive tasks. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 421–436.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90709-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daviault, C., & Schott, G. (2013). Looking beyond representation: Situating the significance of gender portrayal within game play. In C. C. Carter, L. Steiner, & L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The Routledge companion to media and gender (pp. 440–449). Didcot: Milton Park.Google Scholar
  11. Dietz, T. L. (1998). An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games: Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles, 38, 425–442.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018709905920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dill, K. E., & Thrill, K. P. (2007). Video game characters and the socialization of gender roles: Young people’s perceptions mirror sexist media depictions. Sex Roles, 57, 851–864.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9278-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dill, K. E., Brown, B. P., & Collins, M. A. (2008). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1402–1408.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Entertainment Software Association. (2017). 2017 essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Retrieved from https://www.theesa.com/article/2017-essential-facts-computer-video-game-industry/.
  15. Feather, N. T., & McKee, I. R. (2012). Values, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and ambivalent attitudes toward women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2479–2504.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00950.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferragut, M., Ortiz-Tallo, M., Blanca, M. J., & Bendayan, R. (2017). Sexist attitudes and beliefs during adolescence: A longitudinal study of gender differences. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 32–43.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1144508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual virgins and vamps: The effects of exposure to female characters’ sexualized appearance and gaze in an immersive virtual environment. Sex Roles, 61, 147–157.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9599-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox, J., & Potocki, B. (2015). Lifetime video game consumption, interpersonal aggression, hostile sexism, and rape myth acceptance: A cultivation perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1912–1931.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515570747.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox, J., & Tang, W. (2014). Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 314–320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox, J., Bailenson, J. N., & Tricase, L. (2013). The embodiment of sexualized virtual selves: The Proteus effect and experiences of self-objectification via avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 930–938.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox, J., Ralston, R. A., Cooper, C. K., & Jones, K. A. (2015). Sexualized avatars lead to women’s self-objectification and acceptance of rape myths. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 349–362.  https://doi.org/10.1177/036168434553578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fredrickson, B. L., & Harrison, K. (2005). Throwing like a girl: Self-objectification predicts adolescent girls’ motor performance. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 29, 79–101.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723504269878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Towards understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269–284.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509–517.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grodal, T. (2000). Video games and the pleasures of control. In D. Zillmann & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Media entertainment (pp. 197–213). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 1-68). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Hartmann, T. (2011). Users’ experiential and rational processing of virtual violence. In S. Malliet & K. Poels (Eds.), Vice city virtue: Moral issues in digital game play (pp. 135–150). Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
  31. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1997). College women’s fears and precautionary behaviors relating to acquaintance rape and stranger rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 527–547.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00129.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jansz, J., & Martis, R. G. (2007). The Lara phenomenon: Powerful female characters in video games. Sex Roles, 56, 141–148.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9158-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson, W. A., Greenberg, S., Fisher, R., & Martin, D. (1970). Divided attention: A vehicle for monitoring memory processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 164–171.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krcmar, M., & Eden, A. (2017). Rational versus intuitive processing: The impact of cognitive load and moral salience on in game aggression and feelings of guilt. Journal of Media Psychology, 0, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46–70.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lang, A. (2006). Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication, 56, S57–S80.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00283.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lang, A. (2009). The limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The sage handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 193–204). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Lanis, K., & Covell, C. (1995). Images of women in advertisements: Effects on attitudes related to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 32, 639–649.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin, J. H. (2013). Do video games exert stronger effects on aggression than film? The role of media interactivity and identification on the association of violent content and aggressive outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 535–543.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lynch, T., Tompkins, J. E., van Driel, I. I., & Fritz, N. (2016). Sexy, strong, and secondary: A content analysis of female characters in video games across 31 years. Journal of Communication, 66, 564–584.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Macrae, C. N., Hewstone, M., & Griffiths, R. J. (1993). Processing load and memory for stereotype-based information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 77–87.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420230107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 37–47.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matthews, N. L. (2011). Skill gap: Quantifying violent content in video game play between variably skilled users [Master’s thesis]. Indiana University. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2smC7q1.
  47. Matthews, N. L., Lynch, T., & Martins, N. (2016). Real ideal: Investigating how ideal and hyper-ideal video game bodies affect men and women. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 155–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Milburn, M. A., Mather, R., & Conrad, S. D. (2000). The effects of viewing R-rated movie scenes that objectify women on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles, 43, 645–664.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007152507914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller, M. K., & Summers, A. (2007). Gender differences in video game characters’ roles, appearances, and attire as portrayed in video game magazines. Sex Roles, 57, 733–742.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9307-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. (1986). Expectancies and interpersonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 233–256.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.37.020186.001313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Social cognition: Understanding self and others. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  52. Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A meditational model linking self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00181.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois rape myth acceptance scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27–68.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pendry, L. F., & Macrae, C. N. (1999). Cognitive load and person memory: The role of perceived group variability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 925–942.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199911)29:7<925::AID-EJSP973>3.0.CO;2-O.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pennell, H., & Behm-Morawitz, E. (2015). The empowering (super) heroine? The effects of sexualized female characters in superhero films on women. Sex Roles, 72, 211–220.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0455-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Polman, H., de Castro, B. O., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent videogames on children’s aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 256–264.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20245.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 669–682). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  58. Potter, R. F., & Bolls, P. D. (2012). Psychophysiological measurement and meaning: Cognitive and emotional processing of media. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pratto, F., Cidam, A., Stewart, A., Zeineddine, F., Aranda, M., Aiello, A., ... Henkel, K. (2012). Social dominance in context and in individuals: Contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 587–599.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612473663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ratan, R. A., Taylor, N., Hogan, J., Kennedy, T., & Williams, D. (2015). Stand by your man: An examination of gender disparity in league of legends. Games and Culture, 10, 438–462.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412014567228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roberts, T., & Gettman, J. Y. (2004). Mere exposure: Gender differences in the negative effects of priming a state of self-objectification. Sex Roles, 51, 17–27.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000032306.20462.22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Royse, P., Lee, J., Undrahbuyan, B., Hopson, M., & Consalvo, M. (2007). Women and games: Technologies of the gendered self. New Media & Society, 9(4), 555–576.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rudman, L. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). From the laboratory to the bench: Gender stereotyping research in the courtroom. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 83–102). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Sherman, J. W., Lee, A. Y., Bessenoff, G. R., & Frost, L. A. (1998). Stereotype efficiency reconsidered: Encoding flexibility under cognitive load. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 589–606.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.589.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: 2. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Stangor, C., & Duan, C. (1991). Effects of multiple task demands upon memory for in-formation about social groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 357–378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90031-Z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stangor, C., & McMillan, D. (1992). Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 42–61.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Swim, J., Mallett, R., Russo-Devosa, Y., & Stangor, C. (2005). Judgments of sexism: A comparison of the subtlety of sexism measures and sources of variability in judgments of sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 406–411.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00240.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Szymanski, D. M., Moffitt, L. B., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Sexual objectification of women: Advances to theory and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 6–38.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010378402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tyler, L. K., Hertel, P. T., McCallum, M. C., & Ellis, H. C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 607–617.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.6.607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vandenbosch, L., Driesmans, K., Trekels, J., & Eggermont, S. (2017). Sexualized video game avatars and self-objectification in adolescents: The role of gender congruency and activation frequency. Media Psychology, 2, 221–239.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1142380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wigboldus, D. H. J., Sherman, J. W., Franzese, H. L., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Capacity and comprehension: Spontaneous stereotyping under cognitive load. Social Cognition, 22, 292–309.  https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.22.3.292.35967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Williams, D., Martins, N., Consalvo, M., & Ivory, J. D. (2009). The virtual census: Representations of gender, race and age in video games. New Media & Society, 11, 815–834.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809105354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yao, M. Z., Mahood, C., & Linz, D. (2010). Sexual priming, gender stereotyping, and likelihood to sexually harass: Examining the cognitive effects of playing a sexually-explicit video game. Sex Roles, 62, 77–88.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9695-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33, 271–290.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glenna L. Read
    • 1
  • Teresa Lynch
    • 2
  • Nicholas L. Matthews
    • 2
  1. 1.The Media SchoolIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.The School of CommunicationThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations