Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior

[Chase Yojimbo]

As an amateur Psychologist, I have to ask, how authentic was his studies. Judging from how sure he sounded, he must of had a hundred and more for his study. However, judging from what he has shown, and from the equipment that he is using as well as the accomidations that the people have, I say he is underfunded and is grasping straws, with only a few people to work with as guinea pigs.

Also his studies are purely pointed towards the fact that people who play violent videogames are always violent, he is not leaving enough room to actually leave the possibility that violent videogames also act as a release of endorfens that work as a 'stress releaf'. He is only looking at it through a Psychological and Stereotypical way, which is quite dangerous, and Psychologist have lost their jobs and reputation over drabble like this. He needs to be more precise before he can say it's 'The Facts'.

 

[Negatempest]

So this is A-okay.

But, this
[img src="http://img2.timeinc.net/health/images/health-news/violent-video-game-kid-150.jpg"]
Is not?

Look, we can look at HARD facts/information about the many debilitating injuries sports players ACTUALLY suffer compared to the aggression from playing video games...but video games are bad....

 

[MatthewGill]

This is such a bad test. The games that are violent are competitive, they create an environment in which you want to win, under any circumstances taking whatever advantage you can. If I'm playing anything where I can distract my opponent I'm going to, sometimes it means yelling, thus the loud noise. In a game that is non-violent there is no competition, thus relaxes the person, and from there aren't going to be as competitive, and not want to distract as much.

 

[Nayr]

I really feel like this is why psychologists wonder why people in the sciences don't take psychology seriously or as a real science. This is how one of my psych friends explains it, there are people like that who claim to be a professional (they may very well be) but then spew out crap like this violence and video games nonsense.

It's sad to because it is these psychologists that get the public eye, not the psychologists who do work which is meaningful in developing psychology as a science.

Also I hope no psychologist sees that as a rant against psychology.

 

[zarguhl]

Don't forget everyone. Psychology is a valid science!

Really!

 

[WouldYouKindly]

I've never played anything as horrifyingly violent as the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. That scene still sticks in my head as just about the most horrible thing I've ever seen on a screen. The thing is, it's the sounds that stick with you. The crying, the sick thwack of a bullet impact on flesh, someone calling for their mother. See how desensitized they are to the sounds of real human death or pain afterwards, something notably lacking from any video game, probably because you'd end up feeling terrible if the terrorist/nazi/russian/alien you just shot in the stomach started crying out for his mother while bleeding out.

 

[TiefBlau]

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 thought this when I read the title. Then I read the article and wanted to post this. Then I saw that someone beat me to it in the first comment.

Stop that. It's depressing.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

What these people don't understand is that, for many people, if they could not shoot bullets at imaginary terrorists and aliens, they would be shooting bullets at real co-workers and bosses.

 

[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.

 

[Jumplion]

What these people don't understand is that, for many people, if they could not shoot bullets at imaginary terrorists and aliens, they would be shooting bullets at real co-workers and bosses.

Bullshit, that really paints the gamer stereotype pretty badly, as if the sentiment that they really are social shut ins that will go on a rampage if not satisfied. If people couldn't control themselves simply because they didn't have some imaginary terrorist/alien to shoot at, we'd all be dead by now. People are placing this study, and many others like it, into extremes here. The argument was never that people go crazy after playing violent video games, it's the debate over how intense certain short-/long-term effects may be when playing or viewing any form of violent media.

The logistics of this, and many studies, may be in question, but too often people get extremely defensive over something that should be legitimately researched and debated.

 

[TiefBlau]

Don't forget everyone. Psychology is a valid science!

Really!

Quick question, just how much do you know about psychology? The name Freud? Maybe something about sitting on a couch and talking?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

It's so easy to criticize something you don't understand at even the most basic level, isn't it?
I'm not a psychologist, just sayin'.

Is psychology a science? Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of it knows that it's a science. Specific areas of it, however, have always been up to debate for various good reasons, but there's not a chance in hell you're going to refute an experiment this simple.

Maybe you ought to study a little more about what it means to be a science before you start making bold claims like these, scrub.

And while you're at it, why don't you take a look at what you're trying to argue here. Violent video games desensitizes people to violence? You're trying to say that this isn't the case? Are you kidding me? There's defending video games, and then there's lobotomizing yourself so you never have to notice anything wrong with it.

 

[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.

 

[Gerard Sjollema]

well, studies also show that apples can be bad for your health, my view on this is that it depends on the person playing. i for one keep games in perspective, just like with movies.
but i know people that will try to karate-kick everything in sight for a few hours after seeing a fight movie

games usually work as a stress reliever, unless the game sucks, but then i just press alt-F4

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

What these people don't understand is that, for many people, if they could not shoot bullets at imaginary terrorists and aliens, they would be shooting bullets at real co-workers and bosses.

Bullshit, that really paints the gamer stereotype pretty badly, as if the sentiment that they really are social shut ins that will go on a rampage if not satisfied. If people couldn't control themselves simply because they didn't have some imaginary terrorist/alien to shoot at, we'd all be dead by now. People are placing this study, and many others like it, into extremes here. The argument was never that people go crazy after playing violent video games, it's the debate over how intense certain short-/long-term effects may be when playing or viewing any form of violent media.

The logistics of this, and many studies, may be in question, but too often people get extremely defensive over something that should be legitimately researched and debated.

I'm not talking about the majority of gamers. However, for truly violent individuals, games are a much better outlet for that violence than killing real people in real life, which it seems to serve as in some degree.

As for whether games cause some aggression, probably to a certain degree. I've never gotten in a physical confrontation just because I was playing or had just played a game though whereas one time at a Flogging Molly concert I was about to attack (as in assault attack, not just mosh pit attack) four guys for very little reason until somebody else with me noticed what was about to happen and stopped it. Also, after the show, a guy bumped into me when I was at a pizza place and I jerked back and stopped myself just before I grabbed the guy to throw him over.

This might not seem very comparable, but once we start talking about banning things it is. People point at these studies about video games and say "we should ban games because they cause violence". However, I have never heard a case made that we should ban punk concerts even though they are a much more violent affair. So, yes, there is a level of legitimacy to the claim that video games cause aggression. However, to say it is a level of aggression that means it should be banned or restricted even though it causes much less aggression than many other things that nobody wants to ban, then we get to the reason why gamers tend to get defensive.

 

[wadark]

Lets also make note of the fact that it seems this man went into this study to "prove" a position that he already believed in personally. So it stands to reason that there's a good chance he devised tests that would inherently support his point. And reading through the specific tests he conducted appears to make this true.

As the article properly points out, familiarity and desensitization are two very different things. The CSI example is perfect. Being simply familiar with something will cause you to have a lower neurological reaction to that something, but that doesn't mean you are desensitized.

 

[jpoon]

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.

 

[Phyroxis]

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.

Knee-jerk, defensive posturing.

As for Tito, and all of you other knee-jerkers: Just because you don't like the study's findings, doesn't mean the findings are invalid. Besides, at no point did they call videogames bad, or say that videogames cause you to be violent. Only that video games can lead to increased aggression which itself is not something that is inherently devalued in our culture (see most professional sports). Stop knee-jerking, you, your hobby, and your life aren't under attack here. The experiment appears valid and with empirically supported (and historically supported) findings.

Only poor internal or external validity can put the certainty of findings in jeopardy. That all being said, the summary provided by Tito is not exactly unbiased. By which I mean, its entirely skewed in a very childish way.

Its strange that Tito chose to do it with this experiment, it for one is actually rather well designed when compared to some of the other "vg cause violence" studies. Also, Tito, did you even watch the video you attached? That alone should put your panties back in place, the experimenter took great pains to not indict videogames.

For Psychological experiments, it actually reads as experimentally sound. Sound "attacks" have been used as proxies for aggression before and, when compared to some of the other aggression proxies, they're actually pretty good (cf. "hindering" someone's progress in a task by pressing a button, when you can't even see that person).


We may not like the findings of this study, but that doesn't make them entirely wrong.

 

[Jumplion]

I'm not talking about the majority of gamers. However, for truly violent individuals, games are a much better outlet for that violence than killing real people in real life, which it seems to serve as in some degree.

Those people would have gone on killing regardless of what they let their aggression out.

And in your quote you state "for many people...they would be shooting bullets at real co-workers and bosses." This assumes that "many people" are truly violent individuals, mentally disturbed and cannot function without being able to shoot some aliens in a game. You probably didn't mean to state that, but that statement alone probably speaks to how much faith in humanity you have (it's not much, is it? I don't blame you...)

As for whether games cause some aggression, probably to a certain degree. I've never gotten in a physical confrontation just because I was playing or had just played a game though whereas one time at a Flogging Molly concert I was about to attack (as in assault attack, not just mosh pit attack) four guys for very little reason until somebody else with me noticed what was about to happen and stopped it. Also, after the show, a guy bumped into me when I was at a pizza place and I jerked back and stopped myself just before I grabbed the guy to throw him over.

Personal anecdote =/= scientific validity

These effects are prevailant throughout all violent media, not just video games. It's just that because some studies specify video games, we all of a sudden get defensive and think they're attacking our precious hobby.

And besides, these studies (at least this particular one) are not about someone becoming a more violent person for playing a game. It's about observing the short-term, and potential long-term effects of playing a video game, whether that be increased aggression or comprehension skills. Whether they be positive or negative effects is entirely up to the results of the tests, and these tests may very well be faulty to an extent.

It is great that people are being skeptical of these kinds of studies, they are often agenda driven. However, I don't think people are scrutinizing these studies for the right reasons, instead defending this medium by completely ignoring any sort of point that the opposing side is made. If we were to put the same amount of effort into dissecting a "pro-game" study, it would be much less hypocritical of us when we scrutinize these particular studies.

This might not seem very comparable, but once we start talking about banning things it is.

Nobody is calling for a ban. The only people that do are ignorant politicians and agenda-driven research, which this study is, at least from what I have read, neither.

People point at these studies about video games and say "we should ban games because they cause violence". However, I have never heard a case made that we should ban punk concerts even though they are a much more violent affair. So, yes, there is a level of legitimacy to the claim that video games cause aggression. However, to say it is a level of aggression that means it should be banned or restricted even though it causes much less aggression than many other things that nobody wants to ban, then we get to the reason why gamers tend to get defensive.

Again, these are ignorant politicians. This study mentioned nothing about banning anything, nor did it single out video games in particular (watch the video, it's practically the opposite of what the article tries to paint him). Politicians don't even know what they talk about half the time. People read about these studies and automatically assume that they are trying to push an agenda, and to an extent that is forgivable because sometimes they are. But don't criticize something because you don't like its position on your hobby. Call out the short-comings of "pro-game" studies as they can be equally agenda-driven.

People need to stop being so defensive about any shortcoming that video games, or indeed any form of media, may have to the public. They have an effect, either positive or negative, and understanding those effects contribute to our understanding of a lot of things.

 

[zarguhl]

And while you're at it, why don't you take a look at what you're trying to argue here. Violent video games desensitizes people to violence? You're trying to say that this isn't the case? Are you kidding me? There's defending video games, and then there's lobotomizing yourself so you never have to notice anything wrong with it.

Psychologists just have no 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.

A truly sane person can confront/observe anything without being harmed by it. 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. That one is the effect of their body/brain/chemicals, when the exact opposite is the truth.

 

[Jumplion]

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.