Research Finds Negative Effects in Violent Videogames
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
What I would like to know is whether they are considering whether the player is losing or winning when they determine how aggressive they are, because I'm a level headed person yet like anyone, when I'm losing or can't figure out a puzzle then I do become frustrated and that can lead to me being aggressive; like I'd hit my desk or when I was younger throw my pad. Additionally how competitive are the non violent games? Because if they're easier then of course the students are going to be less frustrated and therefore less aggressive.
Nah, this study or at least the media dissection of smells very much like rubbish. I wager that at the root of this study is an entity with an agenda. I expect that the exactly same results would arise if the subjects had done any activity which hypes up that part of the brain, say, an action movie, wrestling, boxing, a rock concert or a game of football. It's pretty unsurprising that the subjects forced to play sedate games were less agro immediately after, however, both states are temporary. There is the smell of bullshit in the air and more than a few flies.
Fine, I'll bite. Why do you presume all of these studies are faulty? What's wrong with their methodology?DrOswald said:
Look, this is one of the few reasonable studies about this. They are not stating anything that they havent found evidence supporting it. To simply call it false because of our bias will not help anyone. It is when someone tries to make an argument out of banning violent games that you should react.
I am pretty sure that if a 14 year old who only read 50 shades of grey several times a year would develop pretty strange sexual tendencies, but we dont ban it because of it.
I am pretty sure that if a 14 year old who only read 50 shades of grey several times a year would develop pretty strange sexual tendencies, but we dont ban it because of it.
I'm not sure if it's been brought up yet. But they completely forgot to test the effects of games like multiplayer Micro Machines, Bomberman, Mario Kart and/or co-op New Super Mario Bros and how aggressive they make people. Beautiful friendships have fractured over those games! Truly it should've been part of the research.
Yeah, that would have been the responsible approach for this study to take, but...Shakura Jolithion said:
I don't seem to recall a videogame study like this ever demonstrating responsible research methods.
I never said I did. I was responding to a statement you made trying to explain the fault in logic. Someone said (paraphrasing here) that this was another garbage study to ignore. You responded that the more studies that get put on the "These studies are garbage ignore them" list the less valid his point was. The purpose of every post I have made in this thread was explaining to you that if these studies are indeed garbage then they should be ignored completely.Farther than stars said:
But since you asked, generally speaking research done on the effects of violent video games has been shoddy at best in the past. I have usually been able to tear apart the experimental procedure with only the information presented in the article.
This time I cannot dismiss the procedure out of hand, through there are more than a dozen questions I would like to ask Professor Bushman about his procedure to determine if it really was a valid procedure.
That is not to say this procedure was without problems, just nothing that would cause me to dismiss it immediately. Lets start with the obvious.
The sample size of 70 students is small. I do not know how he came to the conclusion that 70 people was a significant sample size, but I am willing to bet it had more to do with practicality than scientific rigor, because 70 (actually 35 if the control group was as large as the test group) is far too small to make any certain conclusion unless the effects of violent video games were extremely drastic.
Second, even if the data collected could be counted on to be statistically reliable, his conclusions are far too sweeping and sure. Even if the experiment had been performed on 10,000 students across the globe, the conclusion that video games make you more aggressive over time would still be suspect because the data supports many other possible conclusions.
For example, I might have performed the exact same experiment in an attempt to show that the Maslow's Hammer effect gains strength as the person becomes more familiar with a tool. (in this case the tool being violence.)
Third, his claim that this was a long term study is ridiculous. Measuring a psychological effect over an absolute maximum of 72 hours (most likely only 48 hours) is not a long term study. He is flat out lying on this point. He also claims that it would be impractical and unethical to extend the test for longer than 3 days. I can understand if it is impractical for him, but saying it is unethical is moronic.
I am out of time here, so onto the conclusion
Basically, while the data might have been obtained using sound methods (impossible to determine without more information) his conclusions are not supported by the data. His experiment was poorly designed to test his hypothesis and he tried to hand wave that fact by claiming that a more rigorous experiment would be unethical. I have very little confidence in the validity of this study.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Of course you should disregard studies with faulty methodology, but the more independent studies are conducted, the less likely the chance becomes that all of them use a faulty methodology. Surely, all the issues you name are certainly valid, but personally I find them insignificant when faced with a multitude of other studies which indicate the same psychological effect by looking at it from different angles.DrOswald said:
Of course you could nitpick every other study for their flaws, but the process would be futile considering the fact that there are no perfect or ultimate conclusions. And in my opinion, scientific consensus has been reached on this issue. Now all that rests is to continue testing it and adapting it to new theories and, luckily for us, we don't seem to be running out researchers willing to do that for us.
I think anyone reading "Fifty Shades of Grey" several times a year would develop pretty strange sexual tendencies...plainlake said:
Also, loved the poster, especially the bit at the end with the dog roasting a marshmallow on the sweat, blood and tears of a few dozen writers. To wit, the following:
"There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed." - Ernest Hemingway
Ok, I am going to repeat this again. Having many studies does not make any of them valid. This isn't a roll of the dice sort of thing where you can expect every 1 out of 6 studies to be performed correctly. This is a crucial concept. You need to understand this. If you are going to perform a meta analysis you need to actually examine a large amount of studies and individually check each study for validity, throwing out bad data.Farther than stars said:
Second, there is no consensus on this issue. Just a few minutes on google brings up many studies with wildly varying results. Here are the findings of several studies, summarized and peer reviewed by Lillian Bensley, Ph.D., and Juliet Van Eenwyk, Ph.D., in their meta analysis of the issue.
"No effect of aggressive versus nonaggressive video games. Boys were more aggressive than girls before video game play and reduced aggression to a level similar to girls after play."
"No consistent findings"
"More aggressive behavior after violent video game."
"Video game play rated as moderately calming."
"No change in hostile mood after playing violent games. No associations of game preference with mood or psychoticism."
"Self-reports of hostile mood were higher after playing either video game than after no game. Difference between mildly and highly aggressive game was in predicted direction but not statistically significant."
"More aggressive behavior after playing or observing violent game and after watching violent cartoon than at baseline. No effect on fantasy behavior"
Their final conclusion: "In conclusion, current research evidence is not supportive of a major concern that violent video games lead to real-life violence. However, well controlled studies of adolescents are lacking. Also, this conclusion might change as more research is conducted on more recent and increasingly realistic games."
And from another, more recent meta analysis review by Christopher J. Ferguson, Ph.D., and John Kilburn, Ph.D.
"Publication bias was a problem for studies of aggressive behavior, and methodological problems such as the use of poor aggression measures inflated effect size. Once corrected for publication bias, studies of media violence effects provided little support for the hypothesis that media violence is associated with higher aggression."
And yet another conclusion from another similar meta analysis (Mark Griffiths, Nottingham Trent University, qualification not stated)
"To briefly conclude, the question of whether video games promote aggressiveness cannot be answered at present because the available literature is relatively sparse and conflicting."
Well, aside from using Google to do your academic research, the information does seems less conclusive than I previously thought. Those thoughts were probably instigated by a media-bias on The Escapist and in other news outlets tending to cite only those studies that conclude aggressive behaviour, since those are, after all, more sensational. I also cannot name the meta-study that led me to believe an academic consensus was being reached, but I believe it was the one by Mark Griffiths.DrOswald said:
I think the discussion pretty well ends here. It was nice talking to you.
Oh, look. Another flashy research news-bit about someone trying to link violence with video games.
Let's see here... Still the wrong assumptions and wrong premise, inconclusive testing, and a very weak ending. Well, I'd like to say that I'm relieved, but I was hoping that after Luxembourg, people would be smart enough to stop trying.
Allow me to put everyone who has ever tried to prove this stuff in the right perspective forever and ever: YOU ARE APPROACHING IT BACKWARDS. violent games (or any media) do not create violence. They are a direct result of tendancies that existed prior to their conception. In short, they are outlets FROM base violence to answer to a need FOR violence without actually DOING anything violent. It's therapy.
The idea is simple. To loosen up, people invent diversions and do things to entertain themselves, right? Right. (Kinda' has to be right unless one is into meditation...and even that is a mental diversion of some kind.) So, violent media is an avenue of entertainment which has been explored extensively since early civilization. (A Roman collisium or the first Olympics, for one.) Ergo, violent entertainment is a part of our history and culture at its core, responding to a need. The ones who act out are limited and crazy. The ones who sit there and watch are normal, a pacified audience. If you cut people off from it, they are more irritable (in part because there's nothing to look forward to).
But it OR the lack of it does not guarantee violence. Violent entertainment of any form is not a smoking gun. It's merely a notion towards an idea which is pure fantasy. Games are not real. Anyone supposedly influenced by what is not real to commit acts of horror is obviously one of a tiny percentage of the insane. It wasn't designed to be real, nor did the people selling it say "Go kill people", so anything you do that might exist in tenuous connection to a game is YOUR FAULT.
And that is why all of these researchers are crap.
Let's see here... Still the wrong assumptions and wrong premise, inconclusive testing, and a very weak ending. Well, I'd like to say that I'm relieved, but I was hoping that after Luxembourg, people would be smart enough to stop trying.
Allow me to put everyone who has ever tried to prove this stuff in the right perspective forever and ever: YOU ARE APPROACHING IT BACKWARDS. violent games (or any media) do not create violence. They are a direct result of tendancies that existed prior to their conception. In short, they are outlets FROM base violence to answer to a need FOR violence without actually DOING anything violent. It's therapy.
The idea is simple. To loosen up, people invent diversions and do things to entertain themselves, right? Right. (Kinda' has to be right unless one is into meditation...and even that is a mental diversion of some kind.) So, violent media is an avenue of entertainment which has been explored extensively since early civilization. (A Roman collisium or the first Olympics, for one.) Ergo, violent entertainment is a part of our history and culture at its core, responding to a need. The ones who act out are limited and crazy. The ones who sit there and watch are normal, a pacified audience. If you cut people off from it, they are more irritable (in part because there's nothing to look forward to).
But it OR the lack of it does not guarantee violence. Violent entertainment of any form is not a smoking gun. It's merely a notion towards an idea which is pure fantasy. Games are not real. Anyone supposedly influenced by what is not real to commit acts of horror is obviously one of a tiny percentage of the insane. It wasn't designed to be real, nor did the people selling it say "Go kill people", so anything you do that might exist in tenuous connection to a game is YOUR FAULT.
And that is why all of these researchers are crap.
I have to laugh at the whole "those who played violent videogames thought the lead characters would behave violently" bit. No fucking shit, the super-duper soldiers in CoD or Halo don't exactly act like they're peace-loving, generally happy people.
That's like asking whether you think a cookie will taste like a cookie, or whether it will taste like coffee grounds.
As for the whole "victory noise" thing, that may be a little more solid. That said, I've heard some fairly colorful screams come from my younger brother whilst playing sports games such as Madden or FIFA.
Instead of assuming that playing a violent game makes people violent, why not test the hypothesis that generally aggressive people naturally gravitate towards violent/aggressive entertainment mediums?
That's like asking whether you think a cookie will taste like a cookie, or whether it will taste like coffee grounds.
As for the whole "victory noise" thing, that may be a little more solid. That said, I've heard some fairly colorful screams come from my younger brother whilst playing sports games such as Madden or FIFA.
Instead of assuming that playing a violent game makes people violent, why not test the hypothesis that generally aggressive people naturally gravitate towards violent/aggressive entertainment mediums?