In this article (http://gamerant.com/psych-game-violence-aggression-theory-117/) there was a study on video games and does it cause increased aggression. To me any study that says video games cause increased aggression is BS the first video game I played was the first Doom and today while I am slightly aggressive I am also well controlled of my emotions and actions but not because of video games but do to my way of life I have found that being aggressive will not get me anything or anywhere. So I ask all of you does video games cause aggression?
Poll: Aggression and Video Games
- Thread starter Taggart3131
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Violent media whether its games, tv shows, movies, theater performances or books will cause aggression as well as most competitive activities. This is pretty well documented but I don't think games are inherently worse in this fashion. For example I live in England where football (or soccer to you folks across the pond) hooliganism is pretty well known... and that's committed by people who just watch it.
yes anger stemming from anything can make a person aggressive. The most rage I've gotten out of a game was from league of legends and I've broken many many things called my family horrible horrible things and hell even lost friends. Though after many anger management classes I can see that games are only a spark to light the flames and any game can get the flames going. I have seen my younger siblings get vocal over Pokemon matches. personally my angry behavior has also dropped yet I still play games all the time. all i got is personal evidence but to me it seems that anger and games are usually a correlation made stronger by a personal problem.
Does it cause aggression? No. Can it cause agression? Of course. See the difference? It doesn't necessarily make you agressive, but i can cause agression based on many factors.
Anyone who says it cannot, is just insecure.
Anyone who says it cannot, is just insecure.
No, I don't believe so. I believe that many is the case that a good gaming session helps your attitude. And if you're thinking like people getting mad and rage-quitting, that is a tiny spat which does not last long. That is the game annoying you, some. That's not anger in the proper sense. That's irritation. It doesn't last and it doesn't make you a violent person. Only you can do that, only the attributes that you have can make yourself a monster. I have the power to crush anything in my house with my bare fists. I am very in touch with my anger. Things get on my nerves and I play PLENTY of violent games. I have not destroyed much of anything in my whole life, nor done similar to another person.
Funny you mention this as currently part of my thesis relates to aggression in video games. From the studies Ive read the majority of scientific research found that video games (especially those with violent content) do indeed have a link in potential to cause aggression. As one member stated before one particular study notes that the competitive nature in some game genres (mmofps, moba etc) do raise aggression as a result of this competitive motivating factor.
Yeah that about sums it up.Lufia Erim said:
"It depends" isn't a very interesting or definitive answer but it's the best one you're ever going to get on a topic like this.
Competition leads to increased aggression and a desire and drive to win. Who'd have thought it?Misericorde said:
In other words, I fully agree with this post. Its not "video games", its competition. I know I personally am pretty much totally relaxed when playing single-player, but if I play multiplayer nerves can fray a bit. Look at the average football match and how wound up people can get. Especially the Ultras which can result in people getting STABBED for supporting the opposing team [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4808246.stm].
I don't think that's quite true. I don't think you can distinguish between that and anger in any real way.FalloutJack said:
And some people really do rage quit hard. One of the people in my group of friends would regularly get gradually more and more angry and abusive during gaming sessions, to the point where he was no fun to play with, and it hurt the entire group, and had a lasting impact. Every session, you're walking a tightrope to keep him from going beserk. Eventually we had to take him aside, and ask him to cut it out, because it just ruined the game for everyone else, and the question he needed to ask himself was, was he playing to enjoy the game? Because that's the only reason you should be playing(At least in this setting), and if you're not getting the enjoyment, then you're coming at it from the wrong angle.
But yeah, in the end it is up to you what you do, and up to you to control yourself.
That said, I think it's entirely reasonable that a game might cause someone to feel aggressive. Whether they act on it or not is up to them, but say, losing over and over in multiplayer, encountering cheaters, getting stuck in Dark Souls, they're all very good at changing your mood.
That's not a particularly scientific point of view then. And the zealous denial of evidence contradictory to unsubstantiated personal beliefs doesn't exactly paint gamers in a positive light. It's certainly a response that observers will characterise, coincidentally, as aggressive. You see it really frequently in gaming circles, and it's frankly ridiculous. I know there've been various wankers who want to ban games, but outright denying that they can have any effect is to deny the very reason we play them. Even if they do make you more aggressive, it just puts them in line with many sporting events, a bunch of music, and a host of other things. And if it doesn't correlate to violence, there's no reason to have a social concern anyway.Taggart3131 said:
Hmm...I do believe there was a rather compelling point made in response to the similar claim that television turned people into killers. Where was it...ah, here it is.
And really, who can argue with that?
And really, who can argue with that?
I don't think it's reasonable at all to think that. Plenty of people have tried to prove that or at least claim so, but their methods are either skewed or based upon a false premise. Your friend was aggressive in your gaming session because he was aggressive. You're probably right and that his motivation was all wrong, but unless you're also saying he's always a really nice guy or at least doesn't have outbursts for other reasons like that, I have to assume that that's just part of his personality. To parallel, everyone else having a good time didn't flip out if they lost, right? Or they didn't get out of hand in another way? Because if the effect isn't consistent, the game would've been just an innocent bystander.Loonyyy said:
Anyway, I was just sharing my two cents on the matter.
Aggression is not the same as an aggressive personality, or violence. It?s just talking about a temporary response state. So it?s basically just saying that directly after playing a tense game, you would hit a punching bag a little harder or have a slightly less polite tone. Not that it makes you a violent or less pleasant person overall.Taggart3131 said:
Personally I don't believe games cause aggression, but aggression can be caused by people playing games.
The more humans you add to the equation, the more likely aggression can form between them. People get competitive in close environments, and forms of aggression are not always physical. People backbite and stab their way (metaphorically) through the corporate ladder and even at menial jobs, it should be no surprise humans may trend towards aggressive means when interacting with each other in a perceived competitive environment. But that is not a game's fault, its a piece of humanity that exists within most of our natures. Its only how we choose to define situations that changes our behavior. Its not the things we do, its our perceptions of interaction with other humans.
By ourselves games are less likely to cause aggression to manifest, its again our perception of things we interact with non-socially that causes the outcome. Sometimes we get emotionally invested in completing something and the video game is getting the best of us, we get frustrated because our goal is not met, and that manifests in different ways for different people. Apply said situation to a job and you may get similar results.
Its situations and our own self-control and perception that serves as the root cause of aggression or lack thereof.
The more humans you add to the equation, the more likely aggression can form between them. People get competitive in close environments, and forms of aggression are not always physical. People backbite and stab their way (metaphorically) through the corporate ladder and even at menial jobs, it should be no surprise humans may trend towards aggressive means when interacting with each other in a perceived competitive environment. But that is not a game's fault, its a piece of humanity that exists within most of our natures. Its only how we choose to define situations that changes our behavior. Its not the things we do, its our perceptions of interaction with other humans.
By ourselves games are less likely to cause aggression to manifest, its again our perception of things we interact with non-socially that causes the outcome. Sometimes we get emotionally invested in completing something and the video game is getting the best of us, we get frustrated because our goal is not met, and that manifests in different ways for different people. Apply said situation to a job and you may get similar results.
Its situations and our own self-control and perception that serves as the root cause of aggression or lack thereof.
Pretty much.zerragonoss said:
It's also worth noting that ANYTHING can cause aggression, if it happens to be something that annoys you.
I mean, someone screwing up your order at a McDonald's could cause a rise in aggressive behavior. Doesn't mean you're going to jump over the counter and beat people for it.
Actually, the effects of violent media upon aggression is fairly well established from reliable sources on a scholastic level. Studies going beyond that are the problem.FalloutJack said:
There's a series of issues with the gamer response to such claims, the first of which is practically the thesis statement of the OP: we don't want to believe there is a link, and therefore we will reject any study that says otherwise. Another such issue is that gamers tend not to be bogged down by the pesky details of what a study says, because we're too busy being outraged at it. Gaming culture is heavily motivated by fear, persecution and paranoia. Few seem to read the studied and understand their parameters and limitations. They then reject them, often using less reputable individuals to discredit more reputable ones.
Gamers don't want to even entertain these notions, and come up with ways to rationalise, ignore, or dismiss the evidence while coming up with ways to attack the messenger. The problem is there's a very real possibility that the APA isn't out to get us, this is where the evidence leads, and gamers should stop taking a "feelz before realz" approach.
Forget about video games causing violence, did anyone read the study on how reading blurbs about studies on sensationalist commercial websites leads to misinterpretations and fluff?
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/violgametime.htm
To recap:
Study was submitted for peer review but has not been published, best advice is to take it with a grain of salt until it's fact checked and it's conclusion given the data is agreeable.
Also note worthy this was simply looking into the cumulative effects of playing violent video games, as players showed more aggressive tendencies after each consecutive day of playing violent video games, the author did a lot of postulating afterwords on the long term effects but noted it's near impossible and unethical to study this long term.
If anyone is interested in more relevant information, here's a meta study on violence in video games:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178997000013
Pretty much can be summed up with:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/violgametime.htm
To recap:
Study was submitted for peer review but has not been published, best advice is to take it with a grain of salt until it's fact checked and it's conclusion given the data is agreeable.
Also note worthy this was simply looking into the cumulative effects of playing violent video games, as players showed more aggressive tendencies after each consecutive day of playing violent video games, the author did a lot of postulating afterwords on the long term effects but noted it's near impossible and unethical to study this long term.
If anyone is interested in more relevant information, here's a meta study on violence in video games:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178997000013
Pretty much can be summed up with:
I didn't get a poke from you for some reason.Zachary Amaranth said:
*Shrugs*
It's not a feeling. I've been pretty much watching this so-called phenomenon since the first report way back in the time of the first Mortal Kombat. Even as a kid, I wondered about this and gave it some thought. Granted, as a child, I'm not that deep, but as I grew older, I had to remember all the times with any gaming friends, all the arcades I've been to, all the games I've personally played, all the reports I've seen... And those reports, they just walk into my life. I don't even go looking for those. People looking to make violence in video games look bad poke their necks out. The point is that I'm not just saying it just because I don't like the idea. I'm saying it doesn't seem to follow.
For it to be true, it must be largely consistant. There doesn't just have to be a handful of cases, but alot of them. I mean, very MUCH alot. There are tons of gamers out there, plenty of people who play these games. Now, games will do weird things. I leaned left and right, jumped up in my seat, and maybe did a few other things while kicking ass in an MK game along with my fighter, but the reason for that would be a fun reaction. You can say that there's an adrenal reaction of some kind, but it doesn't have to be aggression, and - given that the case of the games conundrum isn't stronger already - I would say that mostly it isn't.
Putting aside the studies that are just trying to look important or actually dishonest, there's probably some here and there that think what they've tested for makes their point. I do not agree because excitement may not be the same thing as aggression here, and is not as dangerous. Games get exciting. People get excited with them. It's only natural. However, the normal response to losing is disappointment, and if there is anger, it's not large anger if you're normal. You see, it's like reacting to people you hate on the internet. If you're seriously losing your shit over this, you're way overdoing it and that's not normal. But the posted snarky or even insulting posts back and forth are not nearly as aggressive as a human can be. I know, because I know in my self what human aggression can be in a real rage.
The kind of overreaction that causes violence is definitely abnormal. Ragequitting and shouting obscenities at the screen is an immediate venting to blow off steam (and quite common), but actually punching someone or something is a different kettle of fish. I don't think those cases, the things people are looking for - which would be actual problems to worry about - are more isolated and have to do with the person. I know this because of a PROPER use of Fermi Paradox. Fermi stated, kind of dickishly, "Where are the aliens?" in this big universe that might support life. I feel like he ignored the obvious answer that it's a big universe and not easy to spot stuff. However, if we asked "Where are all the aggressors?" and focused on the human beings on planet Earth - something we CAN observe - we find that there aren't nearly enough to call this consistant.
Think of all the sore losers and people who shout into microphones. Think of every person on these games who has a bad attitude when playing or might ragequit or whatever. There must be alot of them, because not everybody's fair or decent about these things. It could be said that if there's anybody who is potently going to be an aggressor for some reason, it's them. But uhh...we're not up to our armpits in violent people. Gaming is a serious media moneymaker. Tons of people buy and play stuff. Why aren't ALL the hardcores punching us in the nose? Oh, they might shout a bit, even alot, but they're mostly just hyped. How often do gamers outright slug each other when one wins and the other loses? Surely, this would be something large and traceable, even obvious. It doesn't happen that often, drop in the bucket compared to all the people spending hours playing, year after year, and no real pattern to follow.
The reason is doesn't follow, is the reason that it has never followed. Media doesn't brainwash. TV, radio, games, internet, etc. It doesn't actually change you. It can maybe enhance you, but it's still all you. You are responsible for your own actions. Remember that.
What strikes me with all these threads about aggression and video games is that most people commenting simply don't understand what "aggression" really is. Since I wrote my bachelor's on aggression and violence, allow me to extrapolate:
Violence is the end result of aggression, it is what happens when we no longer wish or can control our aggression. Most aggression rarely result in violence though.
Aggression is not quite an emotion, but rather a catch-all term for emotions and vulnerabilities that makes us more prone to initiate (or join into) conflict and violence. Aggression is composed of aggressors, the things that increase our aggression level.
So, what is an aggressor? It can be a lot of things. The most basic aggressors are physical, things like being tired or fatigued, being hungry, being in pain or feeling other physical discomfort. Other aggressors can be our emotional state, anger, irritation and sadness are all aggressors. Yet more aggressors are learned, an aggressor for me is when people insult my job, for someone else it can be if someone doesn't shake their hand or when the car acts up in the morning etc., all the things that "ticks us off". Gaming falls under the types of aggressors that are "lived", recent experiences that impact how we feel and think about our surroundings. In the case of my bachelor's a common finding was that a potent aggressor was if patients had to sit in a waiting room at the ER for hours without staff regularly checking up on them or keeping them informed.
In essence, aggressors are many tiny things that all "prime" us for getting into conflict. This does not mean that a single aggressor will make us go on a violent rampage, nor that the number of aggressors needed to initiate conflict is the same for all people. It only means that if enough of these aggressors stack, we will eventually seek conflict. It is well known that performing a competitive sport is an aggressor, for example, but being forced to perform a task that's too hard for us is also one. So is it really hard to believe that gaming might also be one?
Let's take an example: You have had a shitty day at work, your manager chewed you out, customers yelled at you and your co-workers slacked off and forced you to do some of their stuff too. On the way home your car broke down and the tow guy was an asshole, the taxi didn't show up for 40 minutes and when you finally got home you realize that the steak you intended to bbq for dinner had spoiled, forcing you to eat some re-heated mac and cheese from three days ago. When you at least get a chance to unwind you decide to start up your favorite game, Civilization 5, to unwind with a new round. Just a turn before you are about to settle your second city in a sweet spot with both horses and iron and 3 luxury goods Ghandi swoops in and settles there instead however. Would anyone be surprised if you, at that point cursed the f#####g AI bonuses and how it cheapens the game?
That's how aggressors work. Had you not had a really shitty day, you could probably have dealt with Ghandi's expansion just fine, maybe even considering it a cool challenge. Most of the time, most of us can mitigate the aggressors present in games (frustration, failure etc.) but that doesn't mean they aren't there. They become really visible when other aggressors are already pushing us towards the breaking point though.
As a closing not, aggressors and aggression are not inherently bad. That something increases aggression does not make it dangerous or bad. Aggression is a natural reaction to stress and threats and properly dealing with aggression is a must in modern society. Better that you curse that freaking noob that keeps spawn camping you then that you go out and pick a fight at a bar, right?
Violence is the end result of aggression, it is what happens when we no longer wish or can control our aggression. Most aggression rarely result in violence though.
Aggression is not quite an emotion, but rather a catch-all term for emotions and vulnerabilities that makes us more prone to initiate (or join into) conflict and violence. Aggression is composed of aggressors, the things that increase our aggression level.
So, what is an aggressor? It can be a lot of things. The most basic aggressors are physical, things like being tired or fatigued, being hungry, being in pain or feeling other physical discomfort. Other aggressors can be our emotional state, anger, irritation and sadness are all aggressors. Yet more aggressors are learned, an aggressor for me is when people insult my job, for someone else it can be if someone doesn't shake their hand or when the car acts up in the morning etc., all the things that "ticks us off". Gaming falls under the types of aggressors that are "lived", recent experiences that impact how we feel and think about our surroundings. In the case of my bachelor's a common finding was that a potent aggressor was if patients had to sit in a waiting room at the ER for hours without staff regularly checking up on them or keeping them informed.
In essence, aggressors are many tiny things that all "prime" us for getting into conflict. This does not mean that a single aggressor will make us go on a violent rampage, nor that the number of aggressors needed to initiate conflict is the same for all people. It only means that if enough of these aggressors stack, we will eventually seek conflict. It is well known that performing a competitive sport is an aggressor, for example, but being forced to perform a task that's too hard for us is also one. So is it really hard to believe that gaming might also be one?
Let's take an example: You have had a shitty day at work, your manager chewed you out, customers yelled at you and your co-workers slacked off and forced you to do some of their stuff too. On the way home your car broke down and the tow guy was an asshole, the taxi didn't show up for 40 minutes and when you finally got home you realize that the steak you intended to bbq for dinner had spoiled, forcing you to eat some re-heated mac and cheese from three days ago. When you at least get a chance to unwind you decide to start up your favorite game, Civilization 5, to unwind with a new round. Just a turn before you are about to settle your second city in a sweet spot with both horses and iron and 3 luxury goods Ghandi swoops in and settles there instead however. Would anyone be surprised if you, at that point cursed the f#####g AI bonuses and how it cheapens the game?
That's how aggressors work. Had you not had a really shitty day, you could probably have dealt with Ghandi's expansion just fine, maybe even considering it a cool challenge. Most of the time, most of us can mitigate the aggressors present in games (frustration, failure etc.) but that doesn't mean they aren't there. They become really visible when other aggressors are already pushing us towards the breaking point though.
As a closing not, aggressors and aggression are not inherently bad. That something increases aggression does not make it dangerous or bad. Aggression is a natural reaction to stress and threats and properly dealing with aggression is a must in modern society. Better that you curse that freaking noob that keeps spawn camping you then that you go out and pick a fight at a bar, right?