Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior

[Scrustle]

Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Throw science at the wall, see what sticks.

Unfortunately for this Professor, he pretty much threw a super-ball at rubber.

 

[Krabbenhuhn]

Although I generally agree with the notion that violent videogames are not a primary cause of aggression, thinking that there is no effect AT ALL is bollocks, too.
A word on the measurement: the noise-blast paradigm is actually a pretty good one and as close to real-life agression as you may get in the laboratory - Mr. Tito'c complaints about the construct validity are thus a bit naive (after all agression is defined as applying aversive stimuli to someone who tries to avoid such treatment--and the noise is pretty intense). On the other hand, noise level of the game might indeed be a confound, but the paradigm actually tests if you were provoked by your bogus opponent and as a result give your opponent louder blasts (you don't hear the blast that you set). My conclusion: If the paper by Bartholow is not to your liking, try to counter it on the ground of if methods. And if you try this, know the methods!
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but psychology is a science for a reason--just because everybody has an opinion on another one's psyche doesn't make him a psychologist.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

Yeah, as a former psych major,

and out goes your credibility. If you took anything beyond general psych, I'd be surprised. You certainly have no grasp of experimental design (or, more importantly, Human Subjects constraints). Long, long, gone are the days of being able to directly observe aggression (see Standford Prison Experiment).

Seriously? You can't even spell correlation right.

Really? You're going to judge me based on the fact that I mispelled something, which is something most people do from time to time, I might add, and because I switched majors? You know nothing about me. You have no idea how far I progressed along my psych courses before I found out that I liked sociology better.

I've read several books regarding violence and the psyche, hell, I've even watched several documentaries and clips from the prison experiment. Don't presume to judge me because I might not have Psy. D. at the end of my name. And did you not read my entire post? I said that it was because of things like this that I want I'm studying sociology and social psychology. Because I want to do research almost exclusively, and this would be one of the things that I'd do it on.

I don't care if you disagree with me. I do care that your disagreement with me seems to be a personal attack on me, and not the seemingly reasoned argument in the rest of the post that you attacked me in.

 

[Lance Arrow]

This 'study' here makes me more violent than any videogame ever could. Congratulations, science.

Anything else I wanted to say has been ninja'd a billion times already.

 

[wandatheavenger]

Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

This test is BS, the results are BS, and this is exactly why I want to do sociology and social psychology, so that I'll be able to come up with better and more comprehensive tests than these. Ever think about looking into someone's background before allowing them to participate in the tests? For instance, someone that came from an abusive household might internalize it more than someone that comes from a "normal" family? There are so many outside variable here that it sickens me that this was allowed to be published.

If the test is on the general population*, picking people out because of their background is terrible, terrible science. Random sampling and assignment are less likely to bias the outcome.

*If a different population is the focus of the study, then sure, screening is necessary.

I'm not saying to study only people who might lean towards violence, but you should certainly see if your subjects have a tendency towards it before assuming that the general population would react the same way. That may have just been poor wording on my part, but that's what I meant. I don't care that he took a random sample, I do care that they don't seem to take into account that outside factors may have contributed to the increased aggression that they had studied.

A friend of mine is just about the perfect example. Most of the time, he's pretty relaxed, but if he starts getting stressed out, he becomes irritated, and much more aggressive. I've played games with him, and he's almost hit me because I made a crack about something. One time, we were playing Nazi Zombies, and he went to the random weapon box. I said that he'd probably get the Panzershrek because he wanted the laser, and lo and behold, Panzershrek. I laughed, because I had no idea that I'd be right. He paused the game, took a step towards me with a raised fist, and I got ready to take him down. Luckily, his reason kicked in, and he only kicked me out of his house.

Some people just have a short fuse. Some people are just more prone to violence. Taking in people's background would probably not be a bad idea when doing a test like this.

 

[Jader7777]

When I play Donkey Kong Country sticker bush symphony 2 I want to break things, start fires and bunch babies.

 

[farscythe]

eh...i watch the news every day..i think over the years that has de-sensitized me to violence more than video games can ever hope to

 

[bad rider]

Yeah, as a former psych major, I'm calling BS on this one. Unless you show real violence happening to real people, and their reaction is the same to videogames, I'm not buying that it's a direct coorelation.

Sure, it does desensitize to violence to a certain degree, but I don't really think it'd be any more so than movies would. I'm not even sure that the fact that you're the one dishing out the pain in videogames has any more effect that watching a movie. I find it amusing that some people say, "They're disassociating themselves from people by playing as this character." and some of the same people turn around and say, "They're becoming more violent because they play these games." People need to make up their minds.

This test is BS, the results are BS, and this is exactly why I want to do sociology and social psychology, so that I'll be able to come up with better and more comprehensive tests than these. Ever think about looking into someone's background before allowing them to participate in the tests? For instance, someone that came from an abusive household might internalize it more than someone that comes from a "normal" family? There are so many outside variable here that it sickens me that this was allowed to be published.

I'm sure the test sample was random. We don't know enough about the gathering methods to say for sure. Actually, that is my main argument. Of course video games desensitize people to violence to some degree. But so does every other medium. I've yet to see tests that cross examine this to see the varying differences between media.

To be fair, this sort of test has been repeated across other mediums e.g. television. All the guy has pointed out is that video games can cause aggression. Also psychology studies have shown aggression in sports or children just being frustrated can cause aggression. Shit loads of things can cause aggression, which is exactly what he points out at the end.

Though it would be interesting to see a comparative study.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Yeah, as a former psych major, I'm calling BS on this one. Unless you show real violence happening to real people, and their reaction is the same to videogames, I'm not buying that it's a direct coorelation.

Sure, it does desensitize to violence to a certain degree, but I don't really think it'd be any more so than movies would. I'm not even sure that the fact that you're the one dishing out the pain in videogames has any more effect that watching a movie. I find it amusing that some people say, "They're disassociating themselves from people by playing as this character." and some of the same people turn around and say, "They're becoming more violent because they play these games." People need to make up their minds.

This test is BS, the results are BS, and this is exactly why I want to do sociology and social psychology, so that I'll be able to come up with better and more comprehensive tests than these. Ever think about looking into someone's background before allowing them to participate in the tests? For instance, someone that came from an abusive household might internalize it more than someone that comes from a "normal" family? There are so many outside variable here that it sickens me that this was allowed to be published.

I'm sure the test sample was random. We don't know enough about the gathering methods to say for sure. Actually, that is my main argument. Of course video games desensitize people to violence to some degree. But so does every other medium. I've yet to see tests that cross examine this to see the varying differences between media.

To be fair, this sort of test has been repeated across other mediums e.g. television. All the guy has pointed out is that video games can cause aggression. Also psychology studies have shown aggression in sports or children just being frustrated can cause aggression. Shit loads of things can cause aggression, which is exactly what he points out at the end.

Though it would be interesting to see a comparative study.

Oh, I know. I would just like to see a series of experiments examining most of these then seeing a comparison. My uneducated hypothesis is that video games would "rank" second or third behind sports and possibly film/television. I may be going to college for journalism, but I love statistics and psychology. The people here trying to attack psychology as a whole is a bit infuriating.

 

[Scrustle]

Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

I know exactly what a correlation study is which is why I didn't bother to read any further. You cannot use a correlation study to infer cause and effect. End of.

 

[xchurchx]

well we did a more controlled type of research over here in the uk with violence
and it turned out that ppl who played violent games were more relaxed than those who played ........ wait for it........ SPORT GAMES!
yep apparently sport games cause more agression towards other ppl than shooting or fighting games
who would of thought.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

I know exactly what a correlation study is which is why I didn't bother to read any further. You cannot use a correlation study to infer cause and effect. End of.

No, but they can be good indicators. Insisting that they are worthless is silly.

 

[wandatheavenger]

Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

I know exactly what a correlation study is which is why I didn't bother to read any further. You cannot use a correlation study to infer cause and effect. End of.

No, but they can be good indicators. Insisting that they are worthless is silly.

Well, then there's the detail that this was in fact not a correlational study, by his definition, but rather one that satisfies all requirements for causal inference.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

I know exactly what a correlation study is which is why I didn't bother to read any further. You cannot use a correlation study to infer cause and effect. End of.

No, but they can be good indicators. Insisting that they are worthless is silly.

Well, then there's the detail that this was in fact not a correlational study, by his definition, but rather one that satisfies all requirements for causal inference.

And thus I overlook a fundamental detail. Sorry.

 

[Jumplion]

This article illustrates one of the primary problems with the Escapist.

Every time Extra Credits show how games can affect a person positively, it is immediately taken as the truth and a brilliant one at that.

Every time a psychology study comes out that links violent gaming with heightened agression (which, by the way, is not the same as violence.), unprofessional articles are written and everyone gets defensive.

It's a two-way street. Either we accept that gaming can have no possible effect on our psyche or we accept that, as games can elevate us, they can also lower us.

I'd give you a huge, but i'll settle for this [http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/325/1/f/Place_Brofist_here_by_Defiant_Ant.jpg].

Surely all of this aggressive behaviour must be manifesting itself in out of control record crime rates, right? No wait, the FBI just released its preliminary report which states that violent crime is at a 40 year low and dropped more than 5% last year. Well what about Japan, they play a lot of video games, no their crime rate is one of the lowest in the world. I suggest that we blame aggressive behaviour on comic books or heavy metal music again, I did not get enough of that the first time around.

Interesting thing to note, I do believe that youth crime rates have steadily risen. And nobody has ever said that video games were the only cause for increased aggression, only one goddamn factor. Could people please stop being so inanely defensive over something that we really shouldn't be defensive over? It's not like this guy is specifically out to get anything, it's simply an experiment to see what short-/long-term effects we can find from these things.

 

[bad rider]

Fuck sake another one of these studies. I thought to myself "I bet it's another correlation study". Read the start of the article, and sure enough I came to the word correlation. No need to read any more. Correlation studies prove nothing.

You might do yourself a favor by learning a little bit about research prior to deciding whether or not to even read the article. Don't make the mistake of equating what you call a 'correlation study' with one that is non-experimental. A correlation is a statistical procedure that quantifies the direction and magnitude of the relationship between two variables and is not the type of study one chooses to undertake. While non-experimental studies can only hint at causality with varying surety (though some of the more elegant ones are able to account for all but one or two confounds), the study in question is very much an experiment, one of those things that is actually able to show causal relationships.

Were the folks here complaining about the results to actually read (and understand) the academic article that reports these findings, they'd be much less likely to question the merits of the study. This is what happens when we let people who don't know what they're talking about comment on science. Next thing ya know, we'll have some ignorant quack sue to get the Large Hadron Collider shut down for fear that it will create an earth-destroying black hole. Oh wait...

I know exactly what a correlation study is which is why I didn't bother to read any further. You cannot use a correlation study to infer cause and effect. End of.

It wasn't a correlation study, it was a lab experiment. The independent variable (non-violent or violent video-games) was manipulated to see if it caused a change in the dependent variable (brain response towards violent images). Which it did.

*Edited because I worded poorly the statement*

 

[Jakub324]

I'm so fed up about all this desensitisation BS. Yes, it does that, but it does not, repeat NOT make people violent in real life. What if the UK was invaded and I had to pick up a fallen soldiers rifle and fend nasty Russians off, I'd be able too. I'd help stop said Ruskies killing all those brains that are calling videogames the doom of society.

 

[NaramSuen]

Surely all of this aggressive behaviour must be manifesting itself in out of control record crime rates, right? No wait, the FBI just released its preliminary report which states that violent crime is at a 40 year low and dropped more than 5% last year. Well what about Japan, they play a lot of video games, no their crime rate is one of the lowest in the world. I suggest that we blame aggressive behaviour on comic books or heavy metal music again, I did not get enough of that the first time around.

Interesting thing to note, I do believe that youth crime rates have steadily risen. And nobody has ever said that video games were the only cause for increased aggression, only one goddamn factor. Could people please stop being so inanely defensive over something that we really shouldn't be defensive over? It's not like this guy is specifically out to get anything, it's simply an experiment to see what short-/long-term effects we can find from these things.

What source says that youth crime rates have steadily risen? All the statical data I have seen agrees that youth crime in the United States has been steadily decreasing since a high in 1994. Crime rates across the board are at the lowest levels in decades.

Jumplion I do not know how old you are, but I am defensive of this issue because I have been dealing with people like this researcher my entire life. I have had to listen to experts talk about how Dungeons & Dragons and heavy metal encourages people to worship the "devil," skateboarding leads to juvenile delinquency and video games cause anti-social behaviour. People who make unsubstantiated claims should be subjected to as much scorn as we can heap upon them.