Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior

[Phase_9]

For the love of-correlation does not imply causation. I'd think an associate professor of psychology should know that much, since they teach that in high school.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Spoiler

I'm sorry, but was any of that even remotely necessary? Not only do you miss his point, you try to inject common sense into a field where that can easily be challenged. This is my main grievance when discerning between whether the Escapist wants to be an editorial site or a news one, and this is just demeaning to journalism. We don't care if any of this makes any sense to you, you're not a trained psychologist or cognitive researcher. You are an objective journalist, you are not in a position to say whether it makes sense or not and doing so is purely opinion based, making it not an objective news report. Not only that, but you clearly attempt to paint Mr. Bartholow as one of those "anti-game" radicals against all things fun, which is hardly what his point was. He even states that all media does the same and that it would be silly to think that video games are the sole factor. But it is a factor, and that is the crux of his research. I suggest that you, Mr. Tito, keep working on this, and I say this with utmost sincerity.

Instead of just simply stating your opinion, ask us our opinion. Go "So what do you think? Is this study bunk, or does it warrant some notice? What do our scientists thing about the write-up? Leave your comments below!" or something like that. Don't give us your (obvious biased, as this is a gaming site) opinion on whether it has merit or not as that just puts us in the unmovable mindset that "this man is wrong! He is doing everything wrong!"

On top of that, every single time we get some sort of "anti-game" research statement, all of a sudden we all get defensive. We always go "Dude, like, we already knew that! Of course games cause you to be more aggressive, that's, like, common sense yo!". And every time there is a "pro-game" research, we all go "Oh ho ho! This proves that games aren't as bad as the naysayers say they are!" and completely disregard any negative effect that they may have. This study, while done before, was, as far as I can see, much less agenda driven and put forth with the data at interest, not because they wanted to prove something.

Here's the thing; games have both positive and negative effects, that is absolutely undeniable. When it comes to aggression and/or violent behavior, what we haven't found out is whether those effects are long- or short-term. Of course someone who has played Call of Duty 10x as much as someone else can become more aggressive, but the question is why does it affect him more than someone else? Other people play Call of Duty the same amount of time yet are totally chill. This is all a mystery to us, and the dramatic effects that video games, and all media, cannot be denied.

Now, when the politicians and agenda-driven researchers come in, they tend to blow things out of proportion. Those are studies try to push their own beliefs as to what video games can do, and this if prevalent on both the anti- and pro-gaming sides. Whenever there is a "video games cause aggression" research thing, we always get defensive and point out every single flaw it has, yet when a "video games help eyesight" suddenly we're all for it and mock the others for even thinking that video games could somehow be negative in any way and we don't scrounge the experiment with the same amount of scrutiny as the previous one.

Exactly. Personal bias is something that should be kept out of journalism, and just because we happen to like a thing doesn't mean there aren't potential problems with it.

Though, is the thread screwed up for anyone else? Keeps flickering on and off.

 

[Joker7]

It would be interesting to find out who funded this study and paid to get these BS results..

 

[FightThePower]

there always seem to be pop-pyschologists who want to play the aggression card and pass that off as encouraging violence...............Bartholow's study will be published in the "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology."

You do realise these are peer-reviewed scientific journals and therefore unlikely to contain any crap from 'pop-psychologists', right?

There is no point trying to argue against the notion that games cause aggressive behaviour. The studies are overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that they do; but it seems to be mostly short-term effects. It's the same with any other media, and that's the point we should be pressing; yes, violent videogames cause aggressive behaviour, but so do violent films, and there is no controversy with them, so why treat games differently?

 

[JDKJ]

Spoiler

I'm sorry, but was any of that even remotely necessary? Not only do you miss his point, you try to inject common sense into a field where that can easily be challenged. This is my main grievance when discerning between whether the Escapist wants to be an editorial site or a news one, and this is just demeaning to journalism. We don't care if any of this makes any sense to you, you're not a trained psychologist or cognitive researcher. You are an objective journalist, you are not in a position to say whether it makes sense or not and doing so is purely opinion based, making it not an objective news report. Not only that, but you clearly attempt to paint Mr. Bartholow as one of those "anti-game" radicals against all things fun, which is hardly what his point was. He even states that all media does the same and that it would be silly to think that video games are the sole factor. But it is a factor, and that is the crux of his research. I suggest that you, Mr. Tito, keep working on this, and I say this with utmost sincerity.

Instead of just simply stating your opinion, ask us our opinion. Go "So what do you think? Is this study bunk, or does it warrant some notice? What do our scientists thing about the write-up? Leave your comments below!" or something like that. Don't give us your (obvious biased, as this is a gaming site) opinion on whether it has merit or not as that just puts us in the unmovable mindset that "this man is wrong! He is doing everything wrong!"

On top of that, every single time we get some sort of "anti-game" research statement, all of a sudden we all get defensive. We always go "Dude, like, we already knew that! Of course games cause you to be more aggressive, that's, like, common sense yo!". And every time there is a "pro-game" research, we all go "Oh ho ho! This proves that games aren't as bad as the naysayers say they are!" and completely disregard any negative effect that they may have. This study, while done before, was, as far as I can see, much less agenda driven and put forth with the data at interest, not because they wanted to prove something.

Here's the thing; games have both positive and negative effects, that is absolutely undeniable. When it comes to aggression and/or violent behavior, what we haven't found out is whether those effects are long- or short-term. Of course someone who has played Call of Duty 10x as much as someone else can become more aggressive, but the question is why does it affect him more than someone else? Other people play Call of Duty the same amount of time yet are totally chill. This is all a mystery to us, and the dramatic effects that video games, and all media, cannot be denied.

Now, when the politicians and agenda-driven researchers come in, they tend to blow things out of proportion. Those are studies try to push their own beliefs as to what video games can do, and this if prevalent on both the anti- and pro-gaming sides. Whenever there is a "video games cause aggression" research thing, we always get defensive and point out every single flaw it has, yet when a "video games help eyesight" suddenly we're all for it and mock the others for even thinking that video games could somehow be negative in any way and we don't scrounge the experiment with the same amount of scrutiny as the previous one.

Exactly. Personal bias is something that should be kept out of journalism, and just because we happen to like a thing doesn't mean there aren't potential problems with it.

Though, is the thread screwed up for anyone else? Keeps flickering on and off.

It's Wednesday. Zero Punctuation Day. The site always experience problems on Zero Punctuation Day.

 

[ImprovizoR]

Increased aggression in society? Is this guy a fuckin' idiot? There's less violence now in the world than ever before you dumb shit. And someone is supposed to take these studies seriously. Geez what a moron.

 

[RA92]

Though, is the thread screwed up for anyone else?

Same 'ere. Because my previous comment just wouldn't upload, I kept reloading the page. Later I found I made six posts. Ghastly.

 

[kannibus]

Said it before and I'll say it again.

1) Video Games do make me more aggressive sometimes.
2) A badly cooked steak makes me more aggressive more often.
3) Playing football makes me more aggressive nearly every time I play it.
4) University/Course Exam makes me more aggressive ALWAYS.

I suggest we ban such Exams as they are clearly detrimental to the health of young people everywhere.

 

[JDKJ]

there always seem to be pop-pyschologists who want to play the aggression card and pass that off as encouraging violence...............Bartholow's study will be published in the "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology."

You do realise these are peer-reviewed scientific journals and therefore unlikely to contain any crap from 'pop-psychologists', right?

There is no point trying to argue against the notion that games cause aggressive behaviour. The studies are overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that they do; but it seems to be mostly short-term effects. It's the same with any other media, and that's the point we should be pressing; yes, violent videogames cause violent behaviour, but so do violent films, and there is no controversy with them, so why treat games differently?

There are no studies of which I am aware that establish a causal link between video games and violent behavior. This study doesn't purport to do so, either. Aggressive behavior is not the same thing as violent behavior.

 

[Booze Zombie]

That's funny, I play violent games all the time and still feel like I'm going to chuck when I see real violence; I guess context is important, ecological-validity and all of that shit... heh.

 

[copycatalyst]

It seems the claims don't suit the data from this experiment. All they have shown is that playing violent games (providing a series of violent images) desensitizes someone to violent images. Doesn't mean much in terms of actual behaviour.

 

[Rienimportant]

Besides, just to parrot what I remember learning, correlation doesn't mean causation. As far as I can tell, he's taking a correlation, ignoring the possibilities of third factors, and calling it a win.

But I'm no psych buff.

 

[Keldon888]

I don't doubt the validity of the experiment, I doubt his conclusions.

Desensitized is just a familiarity, and really has no bearing on seriousness of an act, like its been said, you can watch CSI and be desensitized with viewing a dead body. So does seeing anything. So there's no real revalation there.

But the aggressions? Testing someones aggression right after an act is crap for showing anything. If I just come off the soccer field I'm going to be more aggressive, such is the nature of a competition.

I feel like this is comparable to giving a bunch of people bad fish to eat, then if someone gets sick claiming fish makes people sick, it's kinda true, but so can any other food in that situation.

 

[Carlston]

And in two months another study will show it does none of these things.


How bout your snotty kid is aggressive and violent maybe it's because the parent allows them to act that way and blames video games instead of punishing the child...

 

[Speakercone]

I would posit that sport makes people much more aggressive than games do, even if games can be conclusively shown to increase aggresiveness. Moreover, I'd posit that sport not only causes aggression, but also increases the instances in which aggression turns into physical violence given that sportsmen are psychologically rewarded for physically and psychologically dominating another person, particularly in contact sports like rugby or American football.

To this end, I'd like to see a study of high school bullying which demonstrates how many of those bullies who engage in physical or psychological violence against others are routinely exposed to violent sports. If a correlation is found, this would be cause for further study. If such studies demonstrated causation, then perhaps we would have grounds for banning sport in schools.

Then people who concoct misleading studies like this could be hoist from their own petard.

 

[II2]

I'd believe its true in so far as watching violent images desensitizes people to seeing violent images (as appear on a screen), but I'd doubt the results of a study that hinges on the "choose the volume of the sound after winning" factor.

I'd speculate you'd get just as much or more volume in people sounding off after winning a competative, physical sport.

I've been playing videogames my whole life and yeah, sure, I'm desensitized to virtual violence, but I still find virtual depictions of REAL life violence bother me and further the EXPERIENCE of real life violence bothers me a lot, even by proxy.

E.G: Been in bars or at concerts where some fairly nasty fights have broken out and my response has been a defensive oriented "Whoa whoa! NOT cool!" snapshot mix of surpise, fear, anger and concern for my personal well being and for that of my friends who were there, as opposed to the laid back 'yeah, alright!' attitude this study suggests I SHOULD be feeling (after years of deep immersion in virtual violence and aggression)...

TL;DR - Misleading study, untruthful correlation to real life perception of violence.

 

[Koios]

This study feels more like a proof of competitive video games causing overly-competitive behavior... if I just finished playing Call of Duty and was then told to play a game involving blasting sound at people, I'd probably blast some pretty loud sounds too... and I'd expect loud sounds blasted at me as well... The presentation of this study doesn't feel like it was well planned...

 

[FightThePower]

there always seem to be pop-pyschologists who want to play the aggression card and pass that off as encouraging violence...............Bartholow's study will be published in the "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology."

You do realise these are peer-reviewed scientific journals and therefore unlikely to contain any crap from 'pop-psychologists', right?

There is no point trying to argue against the notion that games cause aggressive behaviour. The studies are overwhelmingly in favour of the argument that they do; but it seems to be mostly short-term effects. It's the same with any other media, and that's the point we should be pressing; yes, violent videogames cause violent behaviour, but so do violent films, and there is no controversy with them, so why treat games differently?

There are no studies of which I am aware that establish a causal link between video games and violent behavior. This study doesn't purport to do so, either. Aggressive behavior is not the same thing as violent behavior.

As usual, I read and type too quickly. Yes, you're right, that should be aggressive behaviour, not violent behaviour.

Interestingly, I did a quick dig and whilst violent games leading to aggressive behaviour is fairly well established, according to a recent study: "Neither video game violence exposure, nor television violence exposure, were prospective predictors of serious acts of youth aggression or violence."

So yeah, definitely not violent then.

EDIT: Just found this as well, taken from a book attacking violent videogame hysteria:

One such study is a ?noise blast? test, which is supposedly designed to measure aggression through the volume and duration of a noise blast one test subject administers to another. Yet, as the authors point out, it is hard to draw any conclusions about real-life activities from a test without any context or real world implications.

Maybe this study isn't so good after all.

 

[kek13]

Let me tell you guys a story...

I was playing god of war one evening and then my dog walked into the room, his paw was bleeding (I presumed that his nail got ripped out from him tripping on the stairs in my house) I was absolutely horrified at this.
I think I stared in shock for a few seconds before I scooped him up and drove him to the local vet and I was shaking with fear in the waiting room at the thought that he might be in severe pain and at the very real possibility that he might have to be put down. (he's a 15 year old dog and I wasn't sure how much it might cost to have the vet preform surgery or if it would be better for my dog to just die there and then)

Just a half hour earlier I was shoving my virtual blades of chaos down a minotaurs throat and tearing a minion in half.
Not to discredit this man's research as I do believe that depending on other factors in a person's life, seeing violence in either a video game, movie or various other forms of media can be a contributing factor to aggressive behavior if only temporary.

And by the way for those who are wondering, my dog is still alive and well with me.

 

[NickCooley]

Pull a gun on the kids and see how they react. Then tell me that they're "desensitized to violence" you worthless hack.