Study About 'Sexist Games' is Severely Flawed

[Lizzy Finnegan]

Study About 'Sexist Games' is Severely Flawed

A new study claims to have found a correlation between "sexist" video games and a lack of empathy. But there are some issues.

Read Full Article

 

[TelosSupreme]

I'll just insert the obligatory, "NO DUH" right here. Most of these studies/reports are commissioned by people with a severe case of confirmation bias. Besides, we've already seen countless other studies with much longer testing cycles and a larger set of variables accounted for that have found absolutely no real effects caused by video games. Hell, the most notable one I can think of in recent memory is this decade-long study with a sample size of over 11 thousand children:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131119/03314525287/study-11k-children-video-games-probably-dont-alter-behavior.shtml

This vilification of entertainment media, especially that of video games, has gotten old eons ago.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Crazy..at no point during this study did anybody with even half a working brain stop to think how stupid the various decisions shaping this study were. Each process the study used, my worry for the research scientists state of mental health increased two-fold. It reads like a student's first attempt at opportunity sampling. What medication have they been abusing? I recommend some violent videogames, like pokemon or that one arcade machine that tests your endurance to an ever increasing electric shock. Never did any harm to me. Apart from a few "accidents" at the care home with residents pacemakers that stains an otherwise worrying C.V.

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

So a biased, rigged study about how gaming is sexist wasn't peer-reviewed by anyone, fact checked at all, and was accepting as utter fact by several news outlets? I'm shocked. I'm surprised no one in the study talked about tropes.

 

[kiri3tsubasa]

This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

Amen. The only difference between the hatred against video games then and the hatred now is the politics of the people attacking games, that's all. The same tactics, the same mindset, the same "Won't somebody think of the children?" arguments, etc. It's just this time people in the media (both gaming and otherwise) share the said politics, so more often than not they're on the same side of those attacking games. I'm just glad to see that there are some people who are willing to do some digging, tell the truth, and don't suffer from a severe case of cranial-rectal inversion such as Ms. Finnegan here.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

The thing is though that it is well established that fictional violence (whatever in games or movies) desensitizes people to violence in the short term. This is nothing new. The more important, and as yet unanswered, questions are if there is a long term effect and if people are more prone to act in an aggressive manner after being desensitized by media.

It is not moral hysteria to report on actual scientific findings, especially not findings that are in line with prior research.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

The best part is that whenever a study comes up it either debunks the whole violence angle or has such shoddy methodology that it can be thrown out without a second thought.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Okay, I'm going to sidestep the whole study and just ask one question that I think is a fair one to ask - why make an article attempting to criticize a study while not reporting on the original study itself? Its not like its an old study whose credibility has suddenly fallen into question. I just don't see the point. Its like making a long-winded response video to a Youtube video with 12 views - who gives a shit? If one doesn't care to report on it when it was published why does one care about a response to it? I don't understand any logic behind it besides "because clickbait".

What if it was being reported uncritically as fact in a bunch of other publications like Cnet, Time, The Daily Telegraph, and The Daily Beast? There are a lot of publications just taking the study at face value while this is one of only three that actually look into the study.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

Okay, I'm going to sidestep the whole study and just ask one question that I think is a fair one to ask - why make an article attempting to criticize a study while not reporting on the original study itself? Its not like its an old study whose credibility has suddenly fallen into question. I just don't see the point. Its like making a long-winded response video to a Youtube video with 12 views - who gives a shit? If one doesn't care to report on it when it was published why does one care about a response to it? I don't understand any logic behind it besides "because clickbait".

Because the study is a trainwreck. I don't see how this could be reported on without editorializing even a little, considering the wildly hyperbolic and oddly presumptuous statements the researchers seem to make. It would be like trying to report on a study about the effects of caffeine on the nervous system by starting from the premise that "serial killers usually drink coffee, right?"

Also, the study was covered over the past few days by a number of large publications and it's related to gaming; which makes it news.

I do disagree with Liz on her point about the age-restriction thing, as we know all too well that very few games with an 18+ rating are actually played by people exclusively over the age of 18-- and that's okay, by the by. But the study specifically singles out violence against women, links it exclusively to lack of empathy (which is ridiculous, since lack of empathy is a leading factor for all violent behavior regardless of the recipient), uses GTA as a "sexist" game (while asking from players to play missions NOT involving women in any way) and then reaches the insane conclusion that indifferent response to a picture is somehow a sound scientific conclusion. In the meantime, things like prior experiences, cultural differences and family background don't seem to be factored in and that's in a sample size that's already too small and over half of it is female.

Also, what the flying does that even mean?

?It is OK for a guy to use any and all means to ?convince? a girl to have sex

How about you make that a little more vague? Next time, answer the question yourselves whydontcha?

Absolutely embarassing. Even for a layman, this is a disaster. Remember that English TV nanny persona that run an 'experiment' with kids playing videogames, after which she and the others in that 'experiment' tried their hardest to manipulate the results to perpetuate this "games are bad for children" narrative? That's of about the same quality.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

I've been reading up on statistical analysis recently for some research work, and even after only ten or fifteen hours of studying the subject, I can tell you that a study group of 48 people is utter nonsense. "Statistical power" is, basically, the size the study needs to be in order to yield accurate results. This study is almost comically underpowered. You'd need to test thousands of people to get anything useful.

That's not even starting on how they exclusively picked teenagers beneath the game's content rating, or how they coloured the results of the study by classifying GTA as a "violently sexist" game before determining whether it had any impact on violence or sexism.

This shouldn't have been published. It's not a study, it's a puff piece.

 

[The Enquirer]

Well what a stupid fucking study. There's an age gate on more mature games for a reason. Let's also not forget Jim's video on violent video games. Even though it is mentioned in the video and was originally published on this very website, please keep the warning in mind Jim gives regarding the violent clip. The suicide footage starts at 1:20 and ends at 1:50. Skip this portion if you are not comfortable with it

 

[Karadalis]

This is quite literately the whole "Video games cause violence" shit all over again with a new coat of paint. Thank you millennial hipsters for having to make gamers go though this shit all over again.

The thing is though that it is well established that fictional violence (whatever in games or movies) desensitizes people to violence in the short term. This is nothing new. The more important, and as yet unanswered, questions are if there is a long term effect and if people are more prone to act in an aggressive manner after being desensitized by media.

It is not moral hysteria to report on actual scientific findings, especially not findings that are in line with prior research.

All the answers you need can be found in the crime statistics... wich have been pointing downwards permanently since 1990... wich means that videogames had no negative effect whatsofreaking ever on society.

The tragic part is that this isnt exactly rocket science, i dont need year lasting studies with 11 thousand participants to see that video games as a medium had no negative effect on society, unless someone wants to claim that the crime statistics would be even lower if videogames werent a thing.

Yet the media needs its bogeyman. No matter if its rock n roll, comics, dungeon and dragons or rap music. All of these where accused of "corrupting the youth" or " X leads to Y" fallacies... the media never gets tired of claiming the newest form of entertainment is somehow responsible for all the evils in the world. Only this time nothing came out yet to replace gaming as the big next thing so in scarcety of alternatives the media decided to go for another round, this time with the help of professional victims and internet hipsters, and im afraid "game journalists" who perpetuated the status quo of the pariah gamer...

Its a moral scare to get in those sweet sweet clicks and television scores. a ever repeating cycle so to speak.

 

[Strazdas]

Okay, I'm going to sidestep the whole study and just ask one question that I think is a fair one to ask - why make an article attempting to criticize a study while not reporting on the original study itself? Its not like its an old study whose credibility has suddenly fallen into question. I just don't see the point. Its like making a long-winded response video to a Youtube video with 12 views - who gives a shit? If one doesn't care to report on it when it was published why does one care about a response to it? I don't understand any logic behind it besides "because clickbait".

When bad information goes unopposed it often gets confused for the truth. That youtube video may have only 12 views, but thats 12 people who wanted that video to be made. That being said, if one does not care about a report on the study why does one comment on such report?

 

[Damir Halilovic]

They asked teenage boys whose hormones are turning their brains into a supernova if "It is OK for a guy to use any and all means to 'convince' a girl to have sex" and expected rational mature answers?

These KIDS are 15 years old. Holy fucking shit.

Into the trash it goes.

 

[Bobular]

In my last year at school they started getting potential new teachers to teach a class and getting the kids to rate them. I remember after one batch of potential teachers they asked the class who would they prefer, and almost all the male students responded 'The hot one'.

That's how most teenage boys are. If they want to do a fair and useful study (witch it sounds like they didn't want to) they would use people who are, as a group, not likely to use 'I did your mum' as the ultimate comeback.

I also think that if they showed me a picture of a girl that had been abused and said 'this girl's been abused, how do you feel?' I would probably just give a meh. Its nothing to do with me, I don't know the person, will probably never meet the person, there's nothing I can do and this being a study she's probably an actress. That doesn't mean I don't care about abuse or I would commit abuse, just that I don't care about a picture your waving at me.

 

[Amir Kondori]

When a study is using terms like "violent sexist video games" which are very loaded and subjective without hard definitions you know it is bullshit.

This was published in PLOS One, an open access journal that anybody can and has published in. They charge the authors to publish, basically whereas most traditional journals would be selective about which studies they published, PLOS One will publish nearly anything as part of their business model.

I would take this poorly researched and poorly controlled psych study with a huge grain of salt.

 

[maninahat]

I'm not sure all the criticisms of the study are legitimate.

* Age ratings on games are a fairly arbitrary in the first place, so it would be wrong to assume that immature gamers can't give an accurate reflection on the effects of playing a mature game. Age is probably a factor in how we respond to games, but it would be silly to assume that an underage gamer would have no response worth measuring. It's like ignoring a study that finds smoking as bad for children, because cigarettes have an age rating on the pack.
* Whilst I agree it would have been worth gauging the participants opinions prior to getting them to play the games, I could also see a concern that this could bias them for when they answer the same set of questions later. Test subjects, once they realise what it is they're being tested on and what the test is specifically trying to do, have a habit of adjusting (consciously or unconsciously) their behaviour.
* So what if the study shows only pictures of violence against women? The object of the test was to see if empathy levels were effected by sexist games, not to see who the participants empathise with more.

Over all, it is a single test with a very small sample size, that is only of limited value by itself (not withstanding all the other criticisms I agree with). Newspapers will naturally do their stupid thing of uncritically parroting it, but that's unfortunately not new. My only real concern is that gamers have an instinct to reflexively pooh-pooh any game study that says something negative about the effects of gaming. Many people here would have probably dismissed the study without even looking at it, let alone doing some critical analysis of it.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

All the answers you need can be found in the crime statistics... wich have been pointing downwards permanently since 1990... wich means that videogames had no negative effect whatsofreaking ever on society.

This is not "all the answers I need" to draw that conclusion. The most salient problems are that crime statistics are influenced by many things, from government policies to social equality to crime prevention efforts to the level of trust in law enforcing agencies and many more. If most of these are getting better, the detrimental effect of one minor element (and video game violence is minor compared to police corruption, for example) can be mitigated by the positive effect of the other factors.

The tragic part is that this isnt exactly rocket science, i dont need year lasting studies with 11 thousand participants to see that video games as a medium had no negative effect on society, unless someone wants to claim that the crime statistics would be even lower if videogames werent a thing.

Yet the media needs its bogeyman. No matter if its rock n roll, comics, dungeon and dragons or rap music. All of these where accused of "corrupting the youth" or " X leads to Y" fallacies... the media never gets tired of claiming the newest form of entertainment is somehow responsible for all the evils in the world. Only this time nothing came out yet to replace gaming as the big next thing so in scarcety of alternatives the media decided to go for another round, this time with the help of professional victims and internet hipsters, and im afraid "game journalists" who perpetuated the status quo of the pariah gamer...

Its a moral scare to get in those sweet sweet clicks and television scores. a ever repeating cycle so to speak.

And that is all your opinion and not proof of anything. Let me be clear about this: I absolutely don't think video games have caused any major problems or increased crime rates. But so far the scientific data is still not sufficient to draw a conclusion either way, and the short term scientific findings very much suggest that violent games (just like movies) can have a detrimental effect on our short term ability to feel empathy and compassion and increases our affinity for violent or aggressive solutions to problems in the short term. Whatever that has any significant impact on how we conduct ourselves is another matter.