Research Finds Negative Effects in Violent Videogames
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
What the fuck is this "At the end of each session, they were given the beginning of a story and asked to list 20 things the lead character would say or do in it." I mean, hell, anyone with half a brain will think of a grim/violent attitude to a character who's been killing people in the game, such as a CoD soldier, Nikko Bellic, etc. WHY would a Dirt 2 character (aka rally pilot) be aggressive? I'm sorry, but at least this part of the research could only lead to one outcome...
As for the "noise". I feel that in fps multiplayers there's an instinctive feeling of "humiliation" when you lose, which automatically means there's an "extra" amount of "primitive" excitement when you win, the abilities required in a racing game and a shooting game are far too different, thus bringing different aspects/levels of excitement to the players.
Edit: I do believe, firmly, that violent games - in CERTAIN PEOPLE, who, for many other reasons, already have a tendency for violence OR, in the case of younger audiences, some sort of difficulty to differentiate reality from fiction, thus failing to have a decent grasp on social morality - can lead to an ultimate outburst of violence, probably due to the high level of interactivity that don't usually get from other media.
As for the "noise". I feel that in fps multiplayers there's an instinctive feeling of "humiliation" when you lose, which automatically means there's an "extra" amount of "primitive" excitement when you win, the abilities required in a racing game and a shooting game are far too different, thus bringing different aspects/levels of excitement to the players.
Edit: I do believe, firmly, that violent games - in CERTAIN PEOPLE, who, for many other reasons, already have a tendency for violence OR, in the case of younger audiences, some sort of difficulty to differentiate reality from fiction, thus failing to have a decent grasp on social morality - can lead to an ultimate outburst of violence, probably due to the high level of interactivity that don't usually get from other media.
This experiment is total rubbish in my opinion. mainly because of the core testing element it seems to use: "tell me a story"
Ok, so if i say to you: "don't think about a pink elephant" what are you going to think about? a pink elephant! thus if i asked you to tell me a story after that, chances are you might set it in the zoo because i gave you the idea of an animal. What was this guy expecting after having people play violent videogames? Of course they were going to discuss things at the forefront of their minds. He has no basis to draw conclusions in projecting over such a long term period in the future thanks to three days of study with a patchy core concept of experimentation.
A better test would have been say: examine peoples behavior for a week with no videogames, then have them play violent games the next week before examining their behavior during the videogame week and then the week after where you ban videogames again. I'd guarantee you that the aggressive behavior seen to have been induced by playing these games dissipates. But this still doesn't give anywhere near enough data for a long term conclusion. You would need a study spanning easily a year or more to be able to draw those kinds of conclusions!
add this experiment to the pile of useless amongst most other studies done on videogames
EDIT: Yet, as a scientist, i'm open and actually want to see more experimentation done on videogaming as an entertainment medium with its effects on a persons behavior documented. But only if the experiment is solid enough and data set broad enough to be taken seriously and hold up to questioning certain demographics and timescales.
Ok, so if i say to you: "don't think about a pink elephant" what are you going to think about? a pink elephant! thus if i asked you to tell me a story after that, chances are you might set it in the zoo because i gave you the idea of an animal. What was this guy expecting after having people play violent videogames? Of course they were going to discuss things at the forefront of their minds. He has no basis to draw conclusions in projecting over such a long term period in the future thanks to three days of study with a patchy core concept of experimentation.
A better test would have been say: examine peoples behavior for a week with no videogames, then have them play violent games the next week before examining their behavior during the videogame week and then the week after where you ban videogames again. I'd guarantee you that the aggressive behavior seen to have been induced by playing these games dissipates. But this still doesn't give anywhere near enough data for a long term conclusion. You would need a study spanning easily a year or more to be able to draw those kinds of conclusions!
add this experiment to the pile of useless amongst most other studies done on videogames
EDIT: Yet, as a scientist, i'm open and actually want to see more experimentation done on videogaming as an entertainment medium with its effects on a persons behavior documented. But only if the experiment is solid enough and data set broad enough to be taken seriously and hold up to questioning certain demographics and timescales.
If games made people violent then i expect hundreds of thousands of acts of violents connected to games. How many people are violent after eating a doughnut? There is no way you can make a link between games and violence. An not violence as in throwing a joypad as your frustrated through messing up a section of gameplay...i agree that happens. But actually a game making you go out and stab or kill another human being? No i doubt that so much.If thats the case then ban everything that stresses people out, music, driving, work and everything else.
I'd be interested to know how many of the study participants play games in their free-time and whether or not that was accounted for in this study. 'Cause I'm not overly fond of first-person shooters, so I can see myself getting pretty frustrated after 20 minutes of dying repeatedly. Along the same lines, my parents would be completely lost if you handed them a controller and told them to play CoD4. Pretty sure they don't even understand the concept of a "thumbstick" or how to control the camera. While my brothers are both very into first-person shooters and spending ONLY 20 minutes playing one of those games would be pretty annoying for a completely different reason.
On a completely different subject, I'm curious what kind of results a study like this one would turn up with a video game that has more mixed elements. They chose first-person shooters as their "violent" games. What about a first person RPG-style shooter game, such as Fallout 3 or Skyrim? Those games have the potential for just as much violence, but they also offer a lot of non-violent gameplay and interesting scenery. I'm curious how aggressive people might be after spending 20 minutes of crafting increasingly complex suits of armor or arranging the nuka-cola bottles in their player-owned house ...
On a completely different subject, I'm curious what kind of results a study like this one would turn up with a video game that has more mixed elements. They chose first-person shooters as their "violent" games. What about a first person RPG-style shooter game, such as Fallout 3 or Skyrim? Those games have the potential for just as much violence, but they also offer a lot of non-violent gameplay and interesting scenery. I'm curious how aggressive people might be after spending 20 minutes of crafting increasingly complex suits of armor or arranging the nuka-cola bottles in their player-owned house ...
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?
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?
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".
I think I've had enough of video game "research".
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.
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. . .Mr F. said:
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.
UltraXan said:
Anecdotes don't equal evidence.chiefohara said:
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.
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.
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.
Could we see some real, usable evidence?Mr F. said:
Can you show me some solid studies, preferably something that's been validated, with firm links?
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?
Right there. You are willing to accept something as fact because it "seems" logical.
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.
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.jollybarracuda said:
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.