Short-term versus long-term. Of course games make you more agressive, so do sports. Your body is riddled with adrenaline. They probably took the test right after the game session. They should have taken it a week later.
Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem with this and all research like it is that desensitization to violent images does not equal desensitization to actual violence, nor does it equal increased aggression. Until a reliable study is done on if/how desensitization to violent images is connected to actual increased violence then studies like this mean nothing at all other than video game players get less excited when they see violent images.
Gonna have to second the edit here.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
This whole article came off as nothing more than a desperate attempt to persuade people this shrink is talking out of his ass. I don't know anything about the study, but this article has done nothing but convince me that he might possibly have a point.
Clearly he's got enough evidence to unnerve whoever wrote the article and is therefore at least worth hearing out.
Pfft, what a waste of funding. Call me when the social sciences can say they no longer look for trends, but can find actual laws which themselves can be reduced to physical ones. Until then, unless a Natural scientist says it (and it's peer-reviewed), it's likely malarkey.
I did a report on this (or a very similar) study for a statistics class and I must say that this article is terribly biased. They were told that the high sound levels would cause permanent hearing damage and the general trend was that the violent video games caused more issues. That said they chose a group that was highly influential and ignored immersion, but the sound test was a decent way to research.
desensitized -- past participle, past tense of de·sen·si·tize (Verb)Greg Tito said:
1. Make less sensitive.
2. Make (someone) less likely to feel shock or distress at scenes of cruelty, violence, or suffering by overexposure to such images.
Dictionary, much?
The question here is not whether people are desensitized to violence by exposure to the same...there is no question that they are. This is part of the evolutionary process, to adapt to environmental surroundings in an effort to survive. If we didn't become desensitized, then our ancestors would never have kept on gutting fish or skinning animals, and we would have starved or succumbed to the elements. It's the same mechanic that allows us to ignore offensive smells when overexposed to them; or to screen out distracting noises when focus is needed. Our bodies make these adjustments that our instincts may operate unfettered. Notice that when you walk away from the offending smells/sounds, your body returns to normal...only to require another readjustment period upon more exposure. The more exposure we have over time to the same input, the smaller that readjustment period becomes. So, the question is not "Does violence desensitize us to violence," or, "Does a lifetime of violence desensitize us to violence more than periodic exposure," and instead becomes:
Does a person's relative desensitization to violence increase their propensity to commit violence?
As of yet, there is no conclusive evidence to make a statement one way or the other; the only evidence so far seems to indicate that a person's relationship with the amount of violence they are willing to commit is a very intimate one, and oscillates on an axis dependent on more than just simple exposure to violence. There are just as many would-be hunters who put their guns away forever after their first kill as there are habitual professionals who move on to harder quarry or tools that require more skill for the love of the hunt.
It all just depends on who you are, and that is more than just what you are exposed to.
Incidentally, I agree that this is one of the most unprofessional articles I've ever seen on The Escapist, and am quite disappointed...particularly considering that Mr. Tito chooses to use very aggressive diction in a response to a study about violence. Not a very good way to support the notion that those who play violent video games are not more aggressive than the Average Joe, especially when an erroneous argument regarding the very definition of desensitized is made.
OK. I appreciate you taking the time to do all of that, but I'm not going to break it down bit by bit like you did and make the side scroll bar any smaller than it already is on this thread.Phyroxis said:
First, as I said before, I'm glad that you took the time to break it down.
Yes, I know that we're no longer allowed to actually have violence against people during our studied. Same thing goes with the sensory depravation studies. I think that that was just poor wording there. I didn't mean show them by beating someone in front of them. I meant show them things that happened to real people. There are plenty of videos and such out there that show horrible things happening to people.
Yeah, sure, a lot of it is opinion, but you can't deny that there's a very real possibility that if you were to ask those people that took the test if they had any predispositions towards anger, aggression, or anything of that nature, that you'd see a greater number of those people (which are undoubtedly in the general population, and thus in the general population sample) would be more likely to show increased aggression.
I believe there was a study done some time ago that was a similar concept to this one, but it showed that videogames where you played a human and fought other humans, or played something not human and fought humans, that it made it more likely for the people to play the games to show aggression towards humans. It does make a certain amount of sense, but again my argument of other mediums affect stands as far as my opinion goes on it. Unfortunately, I heard about the study a long time ago, and don't recall where I heard it from.
As for the books I've read, I've read gen psych books, personality psych books, done a bit of research on bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia, read a few cog psych books, and a smattering of others. Sadly, I don't own many of the books that I've mentioned, as I either borrowed them or sold them back once I was done with them. If I had them, I'd gladly source them to you as a fellow Escapist who's interested in psychology.
It's not that I don't understand how the testing process and whatnot works, it's just that I lack practical experience in it. Just like I know how a nuke works, but I've never fired one. I just haven't taken the higher level courses that actually involve doing tests of your own and teaching you how to do them.
I pointed out that as a former psych major, I still felt that the tests didn't do wha was claimed to have been done, which is "prove" that videogames are correlated to aggression. It wasn't an appeal to authority so much as, "I'm not even in that field anymore, and I still smell something funny."
I'd love to discuss this with my gen psych professor, but sadly, he's retired now and I've lost contact with him. He was one of the last people to participate in a sensory depravation test. He also gave me the only A in his gen psych class, which surprised me, because I thought I'd have gotten a B. Which reminds me, I know this is off topic, but as a fellow psych enthusiast, do you know what a type of memory is that is neither short nor long term memory? It's not Jung's Universal Subconscious, it's not a lie, not a forgotten memory, there were a few others, but I don't recall them. I ask because it was an extra credit question, but he wouldn't tell us the answer. I asked his wife, who I also had as a professor, and he called me out on it in class the next day. XD
I didn't think that she's know because she was his wife, I asked her because she was the only person I knew on campus that had a psych degree other than him (I wasn't acquainted with the other psych professors at the time). She said that she didn't know off the top of her head and later, she admitted to having an interesting discussion with him at dinner about it. Apparently they both thought fairly highly of me. He asked me why I asked her, and I told him that the only rule he had set was that we had a specific timeframe, and that I'd be stupid not to use all available resources. He extended the time, and I was the only person in the class that kept trying for it, but I never figured it out.
One day at dinner though, I stopped in mid sentence and thought that it was muscle memory. I went to tell him the next day (this was a few terms after my gen psych class) but I found out that he had retired. Anyway, I thought you might know, or at least have as much fun as I did looking for the answer.
Let's see, where was I...
I think that just about covers it, actually. Oh, wait, one more thing.
Yes, games are just going through their paces, just as music and movies have.
No, I probably won't study this specifically. I might do a study on it at some point, but my main concern is getting people working, making cities and companies more efficient, reducing crime, and making education better. Game fall to the wayside when it comes to improving necessary things in life rather than things that we want. At least, in my opinion.
Let me know if you do find the answer to that question though. Everything else, we can just agree to disagree. There's no point in filling up this thread with more of our disagreements.
Isn't it simply a case that video game characters will become a child's role model? You then want to re-enact your role model's actions?
When I was a young teen, I had an N64. All my games were either cartoonish, involving jumping on an enemies head to get rid of them, or running around with a gun and shooting them. I was sensible enough not to jump on anyone and I didn't want a gun.
However, I was also a huge fan of WWE. I copied all my favourite wrestlers. I pedigree'd one lad on the school field, DDT'ed another on concrete and locked one little bastard in a Tazzmission.
Point is, kids try to copy their role models. It has nothing to do with video games specifically. Closest thing in recent years that I have wanted to do is be able to jump around cities like in Assassin's Creed.
What these studies fail to show is - what in my opinion greatly helped me - an improvement in vocabulary; subjection to a (non graphic or violent) maturity, logic and lifestyle you may not otherwise be subjected to; perception and awareness of your surroundings; general improvement in puzzle solving abilities... etc. I've played games since the SNES and from my experience, I've only benefitted from games (although I could have probably found a girlfriend sooner) and any sadistic traits were inbound or enhanced from MOVIES like Saw or Hostel.
There's no point in trying to advocate or vindicate video games. Both sides are probably correct. It's down to the gamer and their parents to be able to see how they deal with such games. Hence why games have age restrictions. Hence why some responsible parents will see a mature child and buy them a game. But just as likely, some parents will see an age restriction for their little bloodthirsty retard of a brat and buy it anyway.
The media have it down to a tee - they can have it both ways. They try to destroy the games industry by blaming all corruption on video games, yet the same magazine or website under the reviews section will claim the game is a 'must have' or 'game of the year' which is the source of peer pressure. They dig their own hole, fill it with liquid gold and then whine about it and make yet more money.
When I was a young teen, I had an N64. All my games were either cartoonish, involving jumping on an enemies head to get rid of them, or running around with a gun and shooting them. I was sensible enough not to jump on anyone and I didn't want a gun.
However, I was also a huge fan of WWE. I copied all my favourite wrestlers. I pedigree'd one lad on the school field, DDT'ed another on concrete and locked one little bastard in a Tazzmission.
Point is, kids try to copy their role models. It has nothing to do with video games specifically. Closest thing in recent years that I have wanted to do is be able to jump around cities like in Assassin's Creed.
What these studies fail to show is - what in my opinion greatly helped me - an improvement in vocabulary; subjection to a (non graphic or violent) maturity, logic and lifestyle you may not otherwise be subjected to; perception and awareness of your surroundings; general improvement in puzzle solving abilities... etc. I've played games since the SNES and from my experience, I've only benefitted from games (although I could have probably found a girlfriend sooner) and any sadistic traits were inbound or enhanced from MOVIES like Saw or Hostel.
There's no point in trying to advocate or vindicate video games. Both sides are probably correct. It's down to the gamer and their parents to be able to see how they deal with such games. Hence why games have age restrictions. Hence why some responsible parents will see a mature child and buy them a game. But just as likely, some parents will see an age restriction for their little bloodthirsty retard of a brat and buy it anyway.
The media have it down to a tee - they can have it both ways. They try to destroy the games industry by blaming all corruption on video games, yet the same magazine or website under the reviews section will claim the game is a 'must have' or 'game of the year' which is the source of peer pressure. They dig their own hole, fill it with liquid gold and then whine about it and make yet more money.
^This. Basically this study is just a replication of a variety of studies that show that any type of competitive activity (war game, sports game, IRL sports, etc) increases aggression in the short term. Other than that, the desensitization thing is interesting, but their operational definition of desensitization (short-term reduction in response to violent images) doesn't match the theory of desensitization (long-term reduction in response to violence.)yanipheonu said:
But yeah, people need to stop getting mad about this. This study isn't anything new haha.
Other things that can cause aggression: Competitive sports, driving, lack of sleep, alcohol ect.
Even if these clowns manage to prove that playing games can make people temporarily more aggressive, what then? Should we outlaw everything that causes aggression in people.
People can get angry to the point of murder while driving, shouldn't we outlaw that?
Even if these clowns manage to prove that playing games can make people temporarily more aggressive, what then? Should we outlaw everything that causes aggression in people.
People can get angry to the point of murder while driving, shouldn't we outlaw that?
I'm so tired of biased reporting on this site. Not every researcher who's looking for some coarilation between violence and video games is out to get us. If you belittle the research your reporting on your not all that much better than Fox News on their side of the fence.
It is unfortunate that I do, otherwise I'd have no hostility towards the social sciences.Kahunaburger said:
Unless it reduces to physical law, it's just not a thing.
We have a bit of conflicting evidence here from the nice campaign called W.R.O.N.G http://www.computerandvideogames.com/300040/news/no-solid-link-found-between-violent-games-and-aggression/Greg Tito said:
this study shows that violent video games DO NOT effect you, the only ones that do are the sport games really
Of course video games desensitize people to violence. You eat enough of a food and it starts to lose its taste. You hear a song enough and you start to hate it. You say a word enough and it starts to lose its meaning. You knife enough people in the face and it becomes just one more frag.
It's probably best that they do become desensitized to violence. Can you imagine how messed up it would be if someone was playing a game because they got a rush from the idea of hurting and killing people ?
All in all violence isn't necessarily a bad thing. Me and my friends will sometimes just pick up a stick or something and go at each other. We're usually drunk but that's mostly because we know we won't really feel it as much. Why do we do it ? Because it's fun, and it kinda brings us closer. You can spend years building up a close friendship but nothing brings friends closer together than beating the crap out of each other and then enjoying some mead. Violence isn't good either don't get me wrong, it really depends on the situation.
It's probably best that they do become desensitized to violence. Can you imagine how messed up it would be if someone was playing a game because they got a rush from the idea of hurting and killing people ?
All in all violence isn't necessarily a bad thing. Me and my friends will sometimes just pick up a stick or something and go at each other. We're usually drunk but that's mostly because we know we won't really feel it as much. Why do we do it ? Because it's fun, and it kinda brings us closer. You can spend years building up a close friendship but nothing brings friends closer together than beating the crap out of each other and then enjoying some mead. Violence isn't good either don't get me wrong, it really depends on the situation.