Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior

[Phyroxis]

There still seems to be a strong bias here in the fact that they decided to single out games as something that would desensitze you to violence. I'm fairly certain that if they had them watch A Clockwork Orange or Dawn of the Dead then the results would be similar.

Studying a specific subject =/= bias, its a reflection of 1. (lack of) funding and 2. scope/depth. Scientists don't get buckets of money to study things. This team specifically looked at aggression and video games, there are others that look at aggression and movies. They both have similar findings.

The goal of an experiment is to get a specific as possible, to look at one specific instance. Broadening the scope brings the possibility of more and more confounds, jeopardizing validity. Its actually the mark of a good study if its specific. The goal of science is to run multiple studies, each with a small change. That way you can find where there is, or is not, an effect.

Just because one team doesn't look at EVERY type of media, doesn't mean that the media they study is the ONLY media that has the effect they find. That is to say, yeah, they found that videogames influence aggression but that doesn't mean that music, movies, or TV do not influence aggression. On the contrary, other scientists have studied violent music, movies, or TV and have shown that they can certainly influence aggression.

Think of science as a large number of people using small picks to mine, as opposed to one or two people using a mechanized drill. Zerg over protoss =P

 

[Charli]

I'm the most balanced person my friends know :S ...

Studies. Pft... they all do stuff like this.

 

[TiefBlau]

Psychologists just have no concept of cause and effect.

Skinner would disagree. In fact, the entire branch of behavioral psychology is based on the concept of cause and effect.

Sure videos games can effect reactions in people predisposed to their influence.

They assign the cause to the wrong place and so claim you need to prevent people from observing something to keep them sane.

Who said all psychologists think precisely that way? That's certainly not the definition of psychology, nor is it a law that all psychologists abide by.

Could it be that your own incredibly skewed sentiments regarding a very small, limited exposure to the concept of psychology might not be representative of psychology as a whole?

A truly sane person can confront/observe anything without being harmed by it.

Rape and child molestation notwithstanding.

If I murdered your parents in front of you, would it harm you, or do you need a biological predisposition to that kind of stuff? Does that make you less than sane? I'd say quite the opposite. The fact that it does psychological harm is proof that you are, in fact, sane. Anyone that can watch their loved ones die before their very eyes and not be affected by it needs to be locked up, in my opinion.

Psychology doesn't believe in self determinism (much like Stephen Hawking) and their crazy theories lie around that principle, that life is all about effect and no cause.

Okay, now I know you're just making this up on the spot.

First off, has it ever occurred to you that you might be making a broad, sweeping generalization when you assume all psychologists believe video games are bad for you?

Next, "life is all about effect and no cause" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone trying to sound scientific say. Don't even try. This is the equivalent of those Hollywood-style "computer experts" that try to hack into the government system by making a GUI in visual basic or something.

Finally, humanistic psychology is all about self-determinism. But I'll expand on that in the next line.

That one is the effect of their body/brain/chemicals, when the exact opposite is the truth.

...But you just suggested that predisposition had a huge part in how violent video games affect us...

Never mind. What I'm getting at is that psychology covers a huge number of ideas and ways to go about studying and creating theories. The single definite criterion for being able to call it psychology is just pertaining to the mind. In other words, you're trying to say that all sciences pertaining to the mind, from behavior, to biology, to cognitive function, is all bullshit. Why? Because there was an experiment conducted by psychologists that notes a correlation between video games and aggressive behavior to a small extent. And we wonder sometimes why other people consider us gamers petty.

This isn't about nature vs. nurture. This is about blatantly obvious truth shaking its flacid dick in your face, and your stubborn refusal to accept its existence because it might somehow hurt the game industry's feelings.

 

[Phyroxis]

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.

 

[TiefBlau]

Yeah, and all the shit they put on TV doesn't do the exact same? Weak willed individuals will be susceptible to anything given enough time.

I have been playing all types of video games for the past 22+ years and have yet to murder or hurt anyone, and I have played ALL of the most violent and psychopathic games I have been able to find, didn't make me aggressive any more than I would have already been. I'm damn near a pacifist as a general rule in the real world but of course I understand the line between reality and fantasy.

The study does not single out video games. Watch the video, the researcher tries his best to not pin this on games.

And again;

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

You could be the most Amish of all players, but that does not invalidate any findings brought on by these types of studies. Sure, we may not like these findings, but that does not automatically make them wrong. This study in particular is not about people becoming more violent, it is about tracking the short-/long-term effects of playing violent video games and it can apply to all forms of media.

Why don't these people understand this?

It's enough that my rights as a gamer have to be defended, but it's definitely not helping our case when everyone starts acting like children and cupping their hands over their ears and calling names to any scientist who doesn't say what they want to hear.

 

[Lullabye]

I don't get why they say 'makes them more aggresive' then right after state 'makes them less responsive to violence'. Isn't that contradictory?

No. Responsive in a brain-activity sense, as in desensitized to seeing violence.

Think of responsiveness as thoughts/neural activity, and aggression as action. At least in this instance.

Uhh.....but an action is(im pretty sure) caused by a reaction in the brain.
Like if i'm 'less responsive to violence but more aggresive' then someone punches me in the face, will i beat the crap outta them whilst feeling apathetic? is that what they are trying to say? cus it makes no sense....

 

[Elegy of Fools]

I think it's backwards. Humanity has always proven a natural gravitation towards violence; video gaming just so happens to be a form that doesn't directly kill anyone. I think in order to play violent video games, one would already have a predisposition to desensitizing or being entertained by violence.

Am I entertained by violence? Certain kinds, sure; the ones that are intended to be entertaining. Will any old violence sate my "bloodlust?" No; I'm actually rather bothered by real acts of violence and aggression; but I don't overreact, which is part of my nature. I imagine that my brainwaves would show a "desensitization." Now if you showed a shot of, say, my mother being hit by something, or some guy punting a puppy, I'd be bothered; and I imagine a great deal of people would be. It really depends on the particular act of violence.

Of course I can only base this "study" on myself because I don't have any way of proving how someone else thinks. This is Psychology trying to consider itself a real science when it's based on conjecture and interpretation.

For the record, I like psychology because of its implied interpretive nature; studies like this just try to create fact out of loosely understood data.

Also!

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

=/= != !=

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Here are my questions...

What was Hitler's excuse? Played Tetris for a couple of hours and didn't once see the straight line block?

Or Billy the Kid's? Too much stickball?

Gah, I don't wanna post on this anymore. Professor, please take it away.

 

[zarguhl]

Rape and child molestation notwithstanding.

If I murdered your parents in front of you, would it harm you, or do you need a biological predisposition to that kind of stuff? Does that make you less than sane? I'd say quite the opposite. The fact that it does psychological harm is proof that you are, in fact, sane. Anyone that can watch their loved ones die before their very eyes and not be affected by it needs to be locked up, in my opinion.

...But you just suggested that predisposition had a huge part in how violent video games affect us...

On the first part of your quote, I'd say that a person who is properly stable and sane would at the time of the event feel terrible about it (or do something about it) and then after that it would cease effecting them. It wouldn't then cave them in for life. It may spur them to act so that such things don't happen again (as opposed to just being upset about it for life).

On the second part - by predisposition I meant that the person mentally has something else that is triggered by the game, the game itself (like the murdering of parents) doesn't affect the person mentally, it simply affects a preexsting issue and triggers a reaction.

And psychology knows nothing of how to get at the actual source of mental problems, so they instead merely tackle the symptoms.

 

[ROBOcity123]

Donkey Kong Country Returns made me angry enough to punch a baby in the throat!

 

[Phyroxis]

I don't get why they say 'makes them more aggresive' then right after state 'makes them less responsive to violence'. Isn't that contradictory?

No. Responsive in a brain-activity sense, as in desensitized to seeing violence.

Think of responsiveness as thoughts/neural activity, and aggression as action. At least in this instance.

Uhh.....but an action is(im pretty sure) caused by a reaction in the brain.

Not always the case. Besides, we're talking about two different things, one is looking at violent pictures and the other is actually causing harm (possibly) to another person.

The study is saying that someone who has just played a violent video games has less of a mental aversion, or is less upset by violent pictures than someone who has not just played a videogame.

It also is saying that that same person is more likely to harm (again, a lot of "ifs" here) someone more than someone who had not just played a violent videogame.

Like if i'm 'less responsive to violence but more aggresive' then someone punches me in the face, will i beat the crap outta them whilst feeling apathetic? is that what they are trying to say? cus it makes no sense....

Your scenario is actually somewhat accurate and makes more sense than you might think. Except you'd need to take out the "someone punches me in the face" part, because that is going to be WAY more of a justification to be violent than a videogame could ever compare to.


Say you and I just watched two different movies, I watched Bambi and you watched The Terminator. I'm feeling super happy and lovey and shit, and you're all pumped from watching shit die and shit explode. You've already been watching violence and destruction, I have not.

We both are walking together (come up with your own reason) and we see a fight taking place. I am much more likely to be bothered by it than you are, that is I am more sensitized and you are more desensitized. As I said earlier, you've been watching violence already; I have not.

Now, how will either of us behave in reaction to this fight is less certain. If the study is to be held true, you're more likely to want to see someone get hurt more than I am. As for driving behavior, there really isn't science to back up what either of us would do (as affected by media) because we're not being presented with the explicit opportunity to harm someone (in experiments like this one, they give the participant the opportunity to, say, press a button to harm someone).


I hope that clears it up a bit. The bottom line is, the farther your hypothetical (or real life) situation gets from that which actually occurred in the experiment, the more likely the experiment won't apply and you'll need other experiments to fill in the blanks.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Phyroxis]

And psychology knows nothing of how to get at the actual source of mental problems, so they instead merely tackle the symptoms.

See the modern American medical model?

Also, your claim isn't entirely true. There are some things that are really well documented (some phobias, for example) and source-understood. But, yeah, there are plenty of things that have indeterminable roots. That doesn't, however, mean you can't "fix" them (again, see many phobias. Except hoarding, hoarders be craz-ay).

 

[Phyroxis]

But violent media does foster aggressive behavior. It's not just games, TV, music, books, all of what you consume has an effect on you. That's just scientific fact. Ask me and I'll provide a link.

Look, Greg, just because you're part of a games website doesn't mean you have to act like a creationist and ignore science that you don't agree with.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx

I have many more links like this. The evidence is overwhelming.

*like*


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

 

[Phyroxis]

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.

 

[ManWithHat]

I remember when I was playing Borderlands. I was playing a hunter and shooting bandits in the head. My thoughts were "This is a fun game. I would like to play more like it."

Then my roommate bought one of those plastic nerf guns that shoot darts. After a few minutes shooting it, I wanted a real one. No, seriously. I looked up the kind I wanted, went to a gun shop, talked to some people, and researched the nearest shooting range in which I could take classes.

Of all the violent games I played through the years, a little plastic toy gun affected me more than anything else.

Next study: toys make kids violent!

 

[TiefBlau]

On the first part of your quote, I'd say that a person who is properly stable and sane would at the time of the event feel terrible about it (or do something about it) and then after that it would cease effecting them. It wouldn't then cave them in for life. It may spur them to act so that such things don't happen again (as opposed to just being upset about it for life).

On the second part - by predisposition I meant that the person mentally has something else that is triggered by the game, the game itself (like the murdering of parents) doesn't affect the person mentally, it simply affects a preexsting issue and triggers a reaction.

Alrighty! You have finally arrived at a scientifically verifiable hypothesis. Took a couple prods for someone who's trying to argue that psychology isn't a science, but you got there eventually.

Now prove it.

And if you ever do (which you won't, but in either case), congratulations. You are now a psychologist. You studied and experimented on the mind.

And psychology knows nothing of how to get at the actual source of mental problems, so they instead merely tackle the symptoms.

Again, this is an incredibly broad generalization. I don't have time to teach you all about the different perspectives on psychology, so I'm just going to leave you with this:

You are saying that of every scientist that has ever studied the human mind, not a single one has ever tried to explain what goes on in it, and why things happen.

If you honestly believe this, I can't help you.

'Night.