The Effects of Moral Justification and Disregard e Case Assignment

The Effects of Moral Justification and Disregard e Case Assignment

Order ID	53563633773
Type	Essay
Writer Level	Masters
Style	APA
Sources/References	4
Perfect Number of Pages to Order	5-10 Pages

Description/Paper Instructions

The Effects of Moral Justification and Disregard e Case Assignment

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

1. 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

1. 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 e Case Assignment

RUBRIC QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points:  Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50:  The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50:  The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately.  Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50:  The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples.  The answer is complete. 50 points:  The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples.  No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points:  Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points:  Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points:  References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated.  Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points:  Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented.  APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors.  There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points:  Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented.  APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points:  Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20:  The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors  10 points out 20:  The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20:  The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points:  The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points:  Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements.  The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER CLICK ON THE LINK HERE:  https://essaysolver.com/orders/ordernow You Can Also Place the Order In www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow / www.essaysolver.com/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!

Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!

Why Work With Us!!

• Tired of getting an average grade in all your school assignments, projects, essays, and homework? Try us today for all your academic schoolwork needs. We are among the most trusted and recognized professional writing services in the market.

• We provide unique, original and plagiarism-free high quality academic, homework, assignments and essay submissions for all our clients. At our company, we capitalize on producing A+ Grades for all our clients and also ensure that you have smooth academic progress in all your school term and semesters.

• High-quality academic submissions, A 100% plagiarism-free submission, Meet even the most urgent deadlines, Provide our services to you at the most competitive rates in the market, Give you free revisions until you meet your desired grades and Provide you with 24/7 customer support service via calls or live chats.