The ‘active media perspective’ and the ‘active user perspective’ offer two different research methods which can often provide varying results. Whilst the ‘active media perspective’ looks at ‘what effect the video game has on the player and the effects of media on attitude, perception and behaviour.’ The ‘active user perspective’ looks at ‘what the player does with the game, or the meaning, role, and function of the media.’ The two tests above are examples of the ‘active media perspective’ as they aim to see if violent video games increase aggression by studying the effect the game has on the player’s attitude and behaviour.

 

The ‘active media perspective’ is more commonly used and makes up the majority of the research surrounding the violent games debate. Craig Anderson, an active media researcher said: “we believe that debates can and finally should finally move beyond the simple question of whether violent video game play is a causal risk factor for aggressive behaviour; the scientific literature has effectively and clearly shown the answer to be ‘yes.'” The perspective is often criticised however as it usually only looks at short term effects - similarly tests done in a laboratory often struggle to replicate real life situations.

 

There are several tests which are used to determine if there is a link between violent games and aggressive behaviour. One example of these tests that is often used is the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task. Users are encouraged to play a violent or non violent game. Afterwards they are asked to play a reaction time game against a fictional opponent, if they win they get to blast the opposite player with a loud noise, controlling the volume and length of the noise. Aggressive behaviour is recorded when someone emits a long, loud beep.

 

Another test is the ‘Hot Sauce Paradigm.’ In this task users are asked to prepare a cup of chilli sauce for a fictional player. The more chilli the user puts in, the more aggressive they are deemed to be. Some studies have shown that players who engaged in violent video games beforehand added more chilli, suggesting aggression is increased by playing a violent game. The problem with these tests comes when games are linked to real violence and this is used as evidence. A violent game may increase a player's aggresiveness as shown by these two experiments, however these acts are a far throw from actual violence. These tests can be interesting, but it provides only a strenuous link at best.

 

A test done using the ‘active user perspective’ would probably involve a range of subjects split into two, with half playing a violent game and the other half playing a non violent game. Afterwards they would then be asked to fill out a multiple choice psychological evaluation to determine the level of aggression in the players. Any change in the level of aggression between the two groups can safely be assumed is attributed to the different games. The active user perspective is determined to find out what the player does with the game and sees the context of the game and the player as important in understanding the effect it may have. In particular looking at the potential effects on children, researchers in Denmark watched as a group of kids aged 5-17 played video games.

 

They were not there to see what the game did to the children, rather to watch and assess to try and understand the children’s perception of the game and their ability to distinguish reality and fiction. The results led researchers to believe that children see video games as just another toy, an opportunity for play. Criticisms of this perspective come when trying to determine the results as they cannot be easily compiled as there is no way of knowing if the students are representative of society as a whole. Often the sample size is too small and there is a limited scope of results.