Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior

[kypsilon]

So after they studied these brainwaves and whatnot did they bother to see what the long-term outcome of these brain scans indicated? If such readings indicated a fundamental change in the test subjects such that after an hour or two post-game they were still exhibiting the increased aggression, then he might have a case. Otherwise his argument can be applied to anything...like shoveling the driveway in winter increases my aggression. (I absolutely HATE shoveling the driveway.)

In the end his entire experiment is a complete waste of money, proving a fact about a human reaction that exists in a number of ways in one's everyday life.

You raise a completely valid point with studies like this. Most of them are short term studies that look only at the immediate effect. This, honestly, could be a reflection of the Jackie Chan effect (kid walks out of a movie theater after watching a Jackie Chan movie, whats he doing?)

However, this study actually looked at gamers and non-gamers and found that gamers had increased desensitization to violent pictures when compared to non-gamers, suggesting that there is something different between gamers and non gamers to cause the gamers to have that reduced reaction. IF the only differences between gamers and non-gamers is eliminated through randomization, then it stands to reason that games cause gamers to be more desensitized to violent pictures than non-gamers.

Now, while that finding may be clinically significant, it may not mean much in the real world. That is, a non gamer and I may not mentally have the same neural reaction to violent simuli, but we may physically react to it in the exact same way. For example, maybe a non gamer and I see a dead body in an alley way. I may be less grossed out than the non gamer, but still grossed out enough to want to GTFO, same as them.

Interestingly enough, hypothetically one could say that desensitizing someone's reaction to violence could be a good thing, not in a "I can hit you with a bat without blinking an eye" sort of way, but being able to keep your head in a potentially dangerous scenario may give you the option of thinking clearer and reacting to the situation at hand better. Does that make sense?

See modern military boot camp. You think the rough obstacle courses with live fire are just for shits and giggles? =P

Also, oops. Looks like I got stuck in a triple-post.

The bulk of the population of Israel is pressed into compulsory military service, maybe we should see if they exhibit an increased rate in gamer rage? ;}

 

[AnOriginalConcept]

Video games can potentially cause desensitization to violence and a temporary increase in aggression? Gasp! This is me trying to sound surprised.
EDIT: Also, I found this article terribly nonprofessional. Could you sound any more defensive?

I wholeheartedly agree with both statements.

 

[Elegy of Fools]

Also!

[HEADING=3]Personal anecdote =/= Scientific validity[/HEADING]

=/= != !=

I never did really get what "!=" meant. I assume it's just "does not equal", in which case I rather prefer =/= since it's more of a "not equal" sign to me. Whatever.

It's a scripting function; and just a joke, really. I'm fine with =/= since it gets the point across far better than !=

OT?: I was being unfairly aggressive because I played 25 minutes of Dead Rising 2.

Seriously, though, did they play the "tone" for each subject? Because if I was volunteering for this experiment and someone blasted me with a really loud tone and then I was asked to pick a tone for someone else, my decision would be more morally based than aggressively, regardless of the amount of gaming I had done. Again, how I think versus how other people think and that's just hard to factor.

 

[KezzieZ]

So... no other media does this? No violent TV shows, films, or books can desensitize or cause any sort of aggression? That makes total sense. /sarcasm

Still, I don't think this sounds like an accurate test. Showing someone a picture of a dude with a gun after they play one game or the other doesn't really prove much, does it? I certainly don't think so.

Watch the video, the man explicitly states that video games would not, and never have been a sole factor in aggressiveness/violence, but one factor.

I've noticed. I just tend to have knee-jerk reactions to this sort of stuff since it could still end up as debate fodder regardless of the "not a sole factor" point.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

This is fantastic news. Now I just need someone to show a link between desensitisation/volume and violence and I'll be able to go on my long-planned killing spree, safe in the knowledge that I can say to the judge "the videogames made me do it".

 

[Jumplion]

Also!

[HEADING=3]Personal anecdote =/= Scientific validity[/HEADING]

=/= != !=

I never did really get what "!=" meant. I assume it's just "does not equal", in which case I rather prefer =/= since it's more of a "not equal" sign to me. Whatever.

It's a scripting function; and just a joke, really. I'm fine with =/= since it gets the point across far better than !=

OT?: I was being unfairly aggressive because I played 25 minutes of Dead Rising 2.

Seriously, though, did they play the "tone" for each subject? Because if I was volunteering for this experiment and someone blasted me with a really loud tone and then I was asked to pick a tone for someone else, my decision would be more morally based than aggressively, regardless of the amount of gaming I had done. Again, how I think versus how other people think and that's just hard to factor.

Ah, now see, that's where the questions lie. It's easy to go "Oh, I would totally be all moral and not give them such a loud sound for very long" but more often than not we never do what we think we would do. Cracked [http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5-psychological-experiments-that-prove-humanity-doomed.html] presents this in an informative, yet equally hilarious way.

 

[Jumplion]

So... no other media does this? No violent TV shows, films, or books can desensitize or cause any sort of aggression? That makes total sense. /sarcasm

Still, I don't think this sounds like an accurate test. Showing someone a picture of a dude with a gun after they play one game or the other doesn't really prove much, does it? I certainly don't think so.

Watch the video, the man explicitly states that video games would not, and never have been a sole factor in aggressiveness/violence, but one factor.

I've noticed. I just tend to have knee-jerk reactions to this sort of stuff since it could still end up as debate fodder regardless of the "not a sole factor" point.

See, while I can understand a little knee-jerking, the amount going on here, and in most topics that have these kinds of studies, is astronomical. I primarily blame the way the article was written as it is heavily biased against the study and, in my eyes, incredibly unprofessional.

 

[Baneat]

You'd need to show real violence, would you not? For science!

How about the test they used to prove venting on pillows actually reinforced future aggression over contemplation?
They made them write an essay, telling them they'd be marked by the other testers

The testers marked half of them as shit and terrible, and made a control with good remarks on the essay

They showed them it, and made half of them punch a pillow for five minutes if they wanted to, and the other half had to sit and think for five minutes

They presented people with a sheet with blank letters,

such as R__E

and S__B

The venters were more likely to answer with violent words such as RAPE and STAB and the non venters picked ROPE and SLOB more often.

They gave them a drink, and said the marker of their essay must drink the whole thing, and gave them hot-sauce

The venters put more in on average.

 

[Zinaxos]

If/when I beat someone or a friend at a game they get blasted with a loud sound. Usually my yelling. If they're (scientists) making me blast someone with a sound, then I'm gonna blast them as loud as possible, probably because I'm a dick and it's funny. I'd do it if I beat them at Mortal Kombat or if I beat them at Peggle. What if I just want to torture my opponent?

 

[Torrasque]

My lawnmower makes me violent its a piece of crap. THey should study my brainwaves while trying to mow the lawn, they would be frghtened to death.

OH MY GOD. YARD WORK INDUCES VIOLENCE. OH MY GAWWWWWWWWWWWDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously though, I'm surprised I haven't seen a Fox News story on this amazingly accurate, scientific study.

 

[qwertyz]

Reaction to violent picture =/= reaction to actual violence.

I'm pretty sure if I saw a person hold a gun up to their head then shooting would terrify me intensely, and not make me say, "BLOOD, GORE, VIOLENCE, PEW PEW!"

 

[Moromillas]

During the study, 70 young adult participants were randomly assigned to play either...

This is where I stopped reading.

Even if this pseudo-science did hold weight, which it doesn't, it's hard to take seriously a study that has a test pool with a grand total of... 70 people... Not 70 thousand, not even 7 thousand.... 70! That's the equivalent of me buying two pieces of fruit, and then amusing 50% of all fruit isn't ripe, should one of them not be. And, people are supposed to take this seriously?

 

[Wintermoot]

wasn't the opposite shown true a few month,s ago?
PS maybe he should show another control group some violent movies (you know like Saw) and then do the picture test.

 

[Meric]

This article and comments section makes psychologists cry. please research how experiments are performed before attempting to critique one.

Bartholow published an almost identical/similar study back in 2006 if anyone wants a snap-shot of what the new one might read like

http://web.missouri.edu/bartholowb/pdfs/BartBushSestJESP2006.pdf


- A Psychologist

 

[KezzieZ]

True enough. News has an awful trend of being sensationalist on either side.

I have to admit that isn't very fair, particularly since games are making new ground regardless (since the NEA backs some games as art-worthy and Australia might have that new added rating some day).

 

[Flailing Escapist]

And I blame psychology studies for aggresive behavior!

 

[Phyroxis]

Causality may be questionable, but there certainly is a correlation.

Check my link again, and read Myth #5.

That does not disprove my assertion. All it said is that correlational studies provide opportunity for things to be disproven. This is true. But never will correlational design establish clear causality. You can make your case stronger and stronger but correlation can never say A => B only A is very, very likely to contribute to the occurrence of B.

Not to mention that "Myth" (which, contrary to the format of that post, is not actually proven a myth. Nor is the subsequent "fact" an actual fact rather than an opinion) is a trick some scientists use to make themselves feel better about the fact they can't draw causality (for whatever reason; human factors, design limitations) and that their field, as a result, is only considered "soft" science in the eyes of many.

And, as a note, I've already read many of Anderson's (and to a lesser extent, Bushman and Gentile) studies and they range from being well-designed to dangerously over-assertive in their claims. I take everything Anderson says with a huge grain of salt as he has shown his axe on a number of occasions. For example: http://videogames.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=009291 and his direct quote: "This relation between media violence and aggressive behavior is causal."

Causal is: kid plays video game, kid goes and aggressess. Not one study has yet been able to show that direct effect, why? Because you can't do it ethically. Sure, you can use a proxy (press a button, and it'll "hurt" someone you don't see) but then you lose quite a bit of external validity and, subsequently, the right to generalize in the way that Anderson does.