Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior

[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.

 

[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?