Research Finds Negative Effects in Violent Videogames

[Phishfood]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it. "Video Games can cause aggression, aggression can mean violence."

The same way football players are more likely to use steroids than a lazy teenager, a person who drives everyday is more likely to get in a car accident, and a surfer is more likely to be eaten by a shark. Theres bad in everything, but i dont see them banning bulk tubs of "Scooperman" because to much "Frozen Dairy Desert" can lead to heart failure.

In the end, studies like this get us nowhere, and never will. Just because people are more angry after a few thousand rounds of CoD, doesnt mean they will go out and 360 noscope the neighbors cat.

Right, and especially with the example of CoD is it the GAME making people mad or the little cunts that play it?

 

[littlewisp]

Oh, so it's still socially acceptable to watch violent movies and read violent books, but video games cross the line? A good movie/book puts you brain first into the action, and while you're not actively participating with your fingers, you're still participating by not turning it off/putting it down/walking away -- tacit compliance, innit? All the while we cheer the main character on as he or she curb stomps mob#13 and moves on to the next one. Yeah, I know, GTA and all of that, but what about people who write/film fictional violence? Shouldn't we be afraid of them committing violent acts, too? Oh no, we shall never attend another comicon! All of those violent comic book writers are just one step away from losing it and going on a murder spree!

I think I've had enough of video game "research".

 

[Hawk of Battle]

No control group, small sample size, limited timespan, no comparisons to similar tests done with other media... yeah, this isn't science. Do it again on a larger, more broad scale, over a longer period of time and compare the results, then we'll talk.

 

[littlewisp]

Oh look, the gaming community is refusing to accept any evidence to state that their hobby could cause harm!

Sorry, we are starting to look too much like the pot smoking community. Every study that says our hobby can have negative effects is immediately ignored, any study that says our hobby can have positive effects is immediately preached from the mountaintop of moral superiority.

Finally, one quick point: Correlation does not indicate causation, Violent crime rates being stable (Or decreasing) does not neccesarily invalidate all of the research that shows videogaming can cause more violence, there is a substantial leap of logic taking place there.

But I do not see the point in writing any more. Chances are I am going to get flamed for what I have written so far.

Play lots of violent games, become more aggressive overall. Seems logical, I am willing to accept that as fact. Now, it is important to note that this study is not saying that people will become psychotic axe murderers, nor that we will start punching people in the face. Just that consuming lots of violent media can increase levels of aggression.

Why is that hypothesis so hard to accept?

For me the problem is that there always seems to be that quiet undertone of sensationalism. Of course I'll feel a little more aggressive after going toe to toe with someone, but there's that lurking sense in these reports that well, if you feel aggressive you know what's coming next. . .

It bothers me because when I was a teenager my mom heard some news report or other about a D&D obsessed kid or two sacrificing their parents (or something like that). I'm talking pen and paper D&D. Guess who was banned from playing any sort of role-playing game because it was going to turn me into a slavering murder fiend?

There are always going to be the crazy exceptions who see something, hear of something, or play something and it's enough to convince them to go over the line. For the rest of it though, if we're going to do studies let's do them properly. It's the same thing, for me, as when I hear of a 20 day study on 30 people trying to link cancer to tomatoes. Uh, really? It's like the whole thing with parabens. Yes, there's evidence that they're not good, but until I see some ten, twenty year studies with more than sensationalist headlines (or metals in deodorant because a few women with breast cancer used specific types of deodorants with that metal in them) it's something to be taken with a grain of salt. I had a friend tell me that my problems with eczema and period pains were caused by parabens. So I took up the challenge and no longer use products with parabens in them. Still have issues with eczema, still have awful lower back pains before my period. Is it less? Hard to tell. These almighty studies though, aren't anywhere near complete enough to be handed out to the public willy-nilly. It's important because some people take these things as infallible proof -- just like my friend and his campaign against parabens.

Besides that, I don't believe there are enough controls on studies like these. Have we defined a scale of violence? What amount of violence begins to cause problems? I've seen/heard of people flinging controllers and beating keyboards over simple platformers where your goal is to beat the setting -- is that any less concerning than someone screaming into a headset over a game of CoD?

In the meantime all I can do is think of my well-meaning mother, informed by "studies" like these and the hours of begging it took to convince her to buy us Super Smash Brothers.

 

[Captain Anon]

here's a sample from the positive side of this

 

[ZombieMonkey7]

Another garbage scientific research find to add to the list

 

[Something Amyss]

I've been playing violent games since I was 4, starting with Unreal Tournament. Now it's things like... *looks at steam game list* TF2, L4D(2), Saints row the third, UT3, Dawn of War, Vindictus, Skyrim... Am I aggressive? No, quite the opposite, actually.

I've played violent video games for 20 years.

Haven't killed anyone yet.

Anecdotes don't equal evidence.

That's like saying "I've been smoking 40 years now and don't have cancer. These cancer warnings are bullshit!"

Look, we do know that there is at least a relationships between violent video games and aggressive/violent people. That does not mean that it causes it, but it does make it kind of ridiculous to dismiss any relationship out of hand simply because you've never killed anyone or aren't aggressive.

Look, the logic of this study and the methodology appears to be crap. But two wrongs really don't make a right.

 

[Cryo84R]

As much as I may dislike the findings, we must go with the best available data we have when forming conclusions. Is this study comprehensive or authoritative? No, but it's data appears to be valid and scientific. As honest intellectual individuals, we must set aside our personal beliefs when confronted with evidence and question not only the evidence, but our beliefs. The mark of a good scientist is the ability to toss out long held, even intimate and personal beliefs when presented with contradictory data.

Again, I'm not saying this is authoritative by any means, but please keep an open mind to all sources of valid data, regardless of conclusion.

EDIT: That being said, I do some some holes in the study methodology.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh look, the gaming community is refusing to accept any evidence to state that their hobby could cause harm!

Could we see some real, usable evidence?

Sorry, we are starting to look too much like the pot smoking community. Every study that says our hobby can have negative effects is immediately ignored, any study that says our hobby can have positive effects is immediately preached from the mountaintop of moral superiority.

Can you show me some solid studies, preferably something that's been validated, with firm links?

Finally, one quick point: Correlation does not indicate causation, Violent crime rates being stable (Or decreasing) does not neccesarily invalidate all of the research that shows videogaming can cause more violence, there is a substantial leap of logic taking place there.

While indeed that alone is not an issue, there remains the fact that the media tends to report violence as an epidemic, then tie video games and the rap music and kids and their dern ifones and STAY OFF MY LAWN! to said epidemic.

And you know what? The Bureau of Justice basically says in its report "don't let the lower violent crimes rates stop you from pissing yourself over violent crime." Even the people who reported the low in violent crime are trying to make sure we're still worried about it.

There's an A to B to C here. It's just not what people are saying, but rather what they're reacting to.

While yes, the lower rates of crime do not mean games don't cause violence, surely logic dictates that the failure of such a "demonstrable" claim about such a prevalent media to cause any significant shift says something significant, would it not?

I mean, you were talking logic, right?

Play lots of violent games, become more aggressive overall. Seems logical, I am willing to accept that as fact.

Right there. You are willing to accept something as fact because it "seems" logical.

Why is that hypothesis so hard to accept?

Do you understand what a hypothesis is? You have accepted this "hypothesis" as fact. I have no problem with accepting it as a possibility. I just want to see it demonstrated by people actually behaving like scientists.

And honestly, I think aggressive games probably do engender aggression, but there are a couple of catches here:

1. My observations, the grounds upon which I believe this, are evidence in any sort of viable scientific or psychological sense. There are issues like a skewed base and confirmation bias.

2. My big question is, is this any different from other media? I've noted the same sort of observational link between aggression and Monday Night Football. Nobody is studying football's link. This seemsto be something that is present in a lot of media and activities. Which brings up 2A: so what? Like, video games, if they can increase aggression, seem no different than any number of other media.

Growing up as I did in the late 80s and early 90s, there was a major crusade against sugar in soda. Juice manufacturers loved it. They pitched soft drinks with more sugar, more chemicals, more problems. This looks like it's specifically looking to unreasonably target games.

Now, hypotheses are fine, but a hypothesis is something to be tested, revised, retested, etc. It's not the end all. It's an educated guess.

Part of the end result here really should be the question of "is this exclusive to video games?"

We've been here before with jazz, rock, metal, comic books, novels (yes, novels), pot (which will cause you to violently kill people because ponies), etc. I'd like to see some evidence that can pass that level of scrutiny.

 

[Farther than stars]

Seems like pretty valid research. I guess the big issue though has never been "do games make people aggressive" but "do video games make people violent", two very different things, the latter of which is a lot harder to test because of human ethic laws and such silliness (kidding, of course).

But a lot of this research does seem to be pointing to the possibility that someone with pre-existing violent behaviors could, theoretically, become more prone to releasing that violence on people, with an increase in aggression caused by violent video games. Should be interesting to see where this research leads in a few years, and if we'll ever actually see a noticeable decline in violent games in the future.

I like the fact that these studies seem to be getting more acceptance from the gaming crowd. I agree with your issues about the research, but when we look at the bigger picture and see that so many independent studies are indicating this link between violence in games and aggression in people, those who vehemently deny the link begin to sound like smokers who say that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.
I'm not saying this issue is as clear cut as that. I can't think of a single psychological link that's as concrete as a physiological one, but the field of psychology has made great strides over the last few decades to associate individual behaviour with physical stimuli; it's pretty much the entire science.
Of course, that's not to say we should lose perspective. I think many gamers who deny these kinds of studies fear they stigmatize the whole of gaming culture. And that might be true, but then rejecting large swathes of scientific research doesn't make the community much more outsider friendly.

 

[Farther than stars]

Another garbage scientific research find to add to the list

You're aware that the longer that list becomes, the less valid your arguments become, right?

 

[CommanderL]

Is it really because the specific games in the study were violent games, or because they were just games that use The Computer is a Cheating Bastard [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheComputerIsACheatingBastard] mechanics?

Those games are pretty much guaranteed to create an increase in my homicidal tendencies, regardless of the actual genre of game.

you asshole You linked to tv tropes have you no soul Its like rick rolling but your trapped all day
-just teasing-


The study looks dodgy the sample size seems to small

I know, I fell into my own trap. I just spent two hours on there after making that comment...

Only two hours that's kinda short but you reap what you sow

 

[Jakub324]

No shit, genius. If all I've seen of Private Whatever-His-Name-Is is killing Nazis then I'll obviously think of him killing Nazis, won't I?
If all I've seen Lewis Hamilton do is race, that's what I'll see him doing.
I honestly wonder how these people are still any kind of researcher.

 

[GenderNeutralOctopus]

This study DOES NOT implicate a tie between playing video games and violence - only video games and aggression. An important distinction.

Violent video games, over a period of time, make people more defensive and they expect others to be more aggressive - sound familiar, gamerbros?

It?s important that we begin to develop more gaming interactions that revolve around violence - because gameplay does effect on who we are.

Which is not to say that aggression is unmanagable, or even bad!

 

[DrOswald]

Another garbage scientific research find to add to the list

You're aware that the longer that list becomes, the less valid your arguments become, right?

I am not saying that I agree that this study is garbage, but 1,000 or 1,000,000 garbage studies prove nothing more than a single garbage study. If the study is carried out under improper conditions then the results are not valid. That is the complaint most often leveled against these studies, that they are done poorly and the results are therefore invalidated and should be ignored.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I hate these studies, and for a very simple reason.

None of the researchers seem to have a personal relationship with the gaming scene. They don't seem willing or able to understand that any source of frustration in any shape or form will make people aggressive. I've seen my father come home from work looking like he was about ready to chew a baby's head off, and I've seen my mother drink herself to sleep in order to cope with the sometimes awful reality of working in a nursing home.

I'm a gamer, and I have access to something my parents don't, in this respect. That's a sense of distance between me and games as a source of frustration. It's not because I can't get past this or that stage that my day is ruined. I don't need to put anyone through a couple hours of me being grumpy because I keep getting fragged or stun-locked or whatever. I am not what I do while playing games. In most other avenues of life, however, things *are* taken personally. I *am* my thesis. I *am* my currently shitty job. I *am* my own lack of enthusiasm for Christmas.

What these studies show is that some people, sometimes, are unable to make that distinction. So a noob-tuber destroyed you in BlOps. Does that entirely define who you are? Does that negate everything else you're good at? Of course not. Get over it, and consider that the noob tube is there *specifically* for the task of evening out the playing field between new players and veterans.

It's off-topic, I know, but that's something that bugs me a lot. Competitive CoD types seem to consider that their poison of choice has nothing *but* competitive mechanics. Anybody who tries to fit in who can't level out with that expected competition is a parasite, according to these gamers.

Everyone's been a newbie once before. I wish some of the more passionate types in the FPS crowd would remember that.

 

[Farther than stars]

Another garbage scientific research find to add to the list

You're aware that the longer that list becomes, the less valid your arguments become, right?

I am not saying that I agree that this study is garbage, but 1,000 or 1,000,000 garbage studies prove nothing more than a single garbage study. If the study is carried out under improper conditions then the results are not valid. That is the complaint most often leveled against these studies, that they are done poorly and the results are therefore invalidated and should be ignored.

My point is that if there are a million studies out there that suggest the same link, they're a lot less garbage than any unscientifically founded arguments, because they have an academic community backing them up.

 

[Falseprophet]

I wonder how many studies have been done on whether action/horror movies make people more violent and/or aggressive. Or *gasp* whether action/horror NOVELS make people more violent and/or aggressive.

Probably not... those are respectable media, not like this modern trash you get today. Oh wait... it's EXACTLY the same for anyone who isn't an idiot. Too bad so many people are idiots.

No, those studies happened. Every new medium or genre that becomes popular with the younger generations tends to be feared by their elders. It happened with novels, with theatre, with jazz, with rock and roll, it upturned the comic book industry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_of_the_Innocent], it happened with goth culture, with heavy metal, with rap, with Dungeons & Dragons, with 80s action films, with 80s horror films--video games are just the latest target of those busybodies who squeal, "think of the children!"

TVTropes even has a trope for it [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheNewRockAndRoll].

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

You guys, I studied 70 people at a retirement home over a couple evenings. And I now have data that suggests that without canes, walkers and wheel chairs, movement everyone in the world would not be able to move around without falling over. It is imperative that we all buy walkers for ourselves lest we collapse under our own weight.

 

[1337mokro]

5 minutes of I wanna be the guy = me in a violent rage ready to strangle kittens.

6 hours of Planetside 2 = me in a coma from boredom.

I think your study should have taken into account frustration. Cod 4 is known to create raving rage because of competition. Condemned is more a game that makes you shit your pants out of fear raving hobo's will attack you from behind.