The data collection stage of this research comprised two steps. The first step, presented in the previous chapter, involved a content analysis that compared the classification information given to some video games in Australia with their overseas counterparts. The second step used the results of this analysis to develop a
questionnaire that was distributed to parents. The purpose of this questionnaire was to gather information surrounding the role that video game classification plays when parents make game choices for their children. This chapter details the design, methods and results of this questionnaire.
5.1 Research design
This research examines how parents in Australia use video game classification to moderate game choices for their children, as well as whether the classification given to games provides enough information for parents to make these choices. The previous chapter detailed a content analysis that compared the classification information given to video games in the ‘MA15+’ classification category in Australia during the years 2009 - 2010 to their overseas counterparts. The results from this analysis show that the classification information given to games in Australia does not tend to correspond with the classification given to the same game title overseas. It is unclear whether this is a result of societal norms, or whether the games classification system in Australia is not applied as rigorously as the systems in use overseas.
If game classification does not provide an accurate representation of classifiable
elements within games, this may impair parents’ ability to make informed game choices, which may ultimately lead to children playing games with inappropriate content. This chapter explores how, or if, parents use the classification to make game choices, as well as attempting to gain insight into how parents make these choices.
161
5.2 Research framework
5.2.1 Theory
Theories and models that have been used to explore the effects of video game content on game players have the overarching objective of identifying cause and effect. While they help to illustrate the pathways that explain why this research is needed, they fail to offer a suitable framework on which this research can be defined. When the health and wellbeing theories and models described in section 2.2.1 are taken into account, issues of decision-making and protection begin to emerge. The HBM (Health Belief Model) was designed to bring clarity to why people uptake health services, and provides solutions on how to increase the likelihood of this happening. Using this model, if the pathways of threat and outcome expectations are satisfied, then there should be a greater uptake in carrying out the recommended course of action. Overlaying the HBM on this research shows that the pathways can be satisfied by parents understanding the threat involved with exposing their children to inappropriate content in games, and by perceiving that the benefits of change outweigh any barriers. If these pathways are satisfied, then the expected outcome is that parents are more likely to moderate the games that their children play.
The HBM provides a starting point of the theory for this research, but the problem is more complex than threat coupled with outcome expectations. It appears that the decision-making process to mediate video games does not end when this decision has been made. As can be seen by earlier discussion, parents may find that information that they are presented with may be incomplete, thus requiring further investigation. For example, they may investigate a game that carries an ‘MA15+’ classification and feel that it is suitable for their child to play, but they might find that the next ‘MA15+’ game that their child wants to play is not necessarily suitable for them. Thus, the decision to moderate video games, or not moderate as the case may be, is something that needs vigilance. In addition, an enduring issue is the fact that the subject matter (video games)
162 is a constantly evolving medium, and as such threat appraisals are likely to be an ongoing process.
The PMT model contains constructs that help to define some of the issues that are not addressed by the HBM, shining light onto the decision-making process that occurs.
More detail is provided in the threat appraisal pathway than there is with the HBM, and the addition of the coping appraisal pathway shows that there are a range of factors that need to be considered when evaluating how someone will cope with a situation. As well, there is a construct for source information that illustrates how information feeds both the threat appraisal and coping appraisal pathways. Overall, these constructs provide a deeper understanding, offering more guidance for research design.
To provide further clarity to the decision process that parents make during the coping appraisal pathway, the ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model) was integrated into the model as an interstitial process, linking the threat appraisal and coping appraisal constructs. Unlike the model proposed by Munoz et al. (2010), which included an emotional response as part of the coping appraisal, the proposed modification to the PMT provides a circular route which describes the cognitive process that parents may perform once they have information on which to base decisions. This construct could be considered as the Vigilance construct - the area where parents seek more information and revisit decisions based on their learning. The peripheral route in this construct is a one-way process; once taken, it does not allow for revisiting the threat appraisal path as it is premised on the fact that parents will accept what they have been told. The central route is a circular pathway, allowing for parents to learn information then revisit the threat appraisal based on their updated knowledge. Parents that take the central route in their consideration of the games that their children are permitted to play could be considered to be making more informed game choices. Once these pathways have been satisfied, protection motivation flows through to intention which leads to making informed game choices for children.
163 This modified version of the PMT is effectively a Vigilant Protection Motivation Theory (VPMT). This modified model will be used to guide this research, identifying processes and barriers that parents may encounter when making game choices for their children.
This theory will help to discover whether parents perceive inappropriate content in video games to be a threat, as well as exploring their perception of their ability to cope with making safe game choices. Figure 8 illustrates how the issues surrounding protecting children from inappropriate content in video games map to the constructs of the VPMT.
By satisfying each of these constructs, pertinent issues begin to emerge on which to develop the framework for the questionnaire. This model was further modified as a result of theme development in Study 2 - Exploring Parental Use of Game
Classification. The details of this modified model can be seen in section 6.6.
Figure 8 - Proposed Vigilant Protection Motivation Theory (VPMT)
164 5.2.2 Mapping research issues to VPMT constructs
Mapping the constructs of the VPMT to the issues discussed within this research assisted with categorising the issues, which allowed them to be defined as questions.
Table 22 below shows how the constructs of the VPMT translated into questions that formed the basis of the data collection stage for this research.
Table 22 - Using VPMT constructs to form the basis of the questionnaire
Construct Question
Source information Which of the classification elements do you use to help you make game choices for your children?
Which of the following information sources are you aware of, and do you use to research information about whether particular games are suitable for your child to play?
Extrinsic reward Do you feel that it is important to be seen to be protecting children from inappropriate content in video games?
Intrinsic reward If your child does not agree with a game choice you make (restricting a game) do you change your mind if they keep asking?
Perceived severity Do you feel that content in video games can harm children?
Perceived vulnerability Do you feel that your child is mature enough that content in video games will not cause them harm?
Do you feel that exposure to violence in video games can make your child more aggressive?
Do you feel that it is important to protect children from inappropriate content in video games?
Self-efficacy Do you feel that you have enough information to make safe game choices for your child?
Response-efficacy On which of the following consoles are you aware of parental controls and do you use the parental controls?
Do you feel your child is in agreement with you about the type of games they are allowed to play?
Do you feel that if you moderate the games your child plays, they will just play them elsewhere?
When your child is playing games at someone else's house, do you feel that the supervising adult is aware of which type of games you feel are suitable for your child to play?
When another child is playing video games at your house, are you aware of which type of games their parents or guardians feel are suitable for them to play?
Response cost What are some of the reasons for allowing your child to play a game which the classification level indicates is not suitable for them to play?
165
5.3 Research approach and methods
This study used a survey design, utilising an online questionnaire for the data collection tool. Participants were self-administering, completing the questionnaire themselves. The questionnaire collected both quantitative and qualitative data, resulting in a mixed-method design. The quantitative data provided a measure of how parents utilise video game classification for their child, as well as providing demographic information which could be collated to provide a quantifiable view of the participant set. To deliver insights into how parents feel about video game classification and the role it plays when making game choices for their child, both quantitative and qualitative information was collected order to deliver insights into the processes that parents use when making game
choices. This section will discuss the methods used to implement this questionnaire, including distribution, recruitment, sampling and participation.
5.3.1 Questionnaire design
The questionnaire that was used as the data collection tool in this study comprised the following stages: