Study Claims Anti-Game Research More Reliable

[OpiumSkittle]

This was not an independent review. Brad Bushman is one of the leading anti-game researchers. I refuted a lot of his own research in my thesis.

 

[weirdee]

Great points especially your last paragraph. To read not just the responses to the article but Mr. Tito's article itself you would think that all Scientists were either politically motivated, monatarily motivated or cowards. I really don't think it's the place of anyone HERE to judge that. Most people involved with Science aren't in it for the money. Please admit that some of these folks in fact have no dog in the race and actually DO try to stay objective, not only that but it has long been known that you cannot observe something without affecting it so there are tools in psychology as well as other Sciences that are designed to specifically overcome that weakness in method.

The fact is Mr. Tito's article is far more biased than the studies that I've had an opportunity to view so far (and yes I've been following this case as closely as I can since I for one fear what this conservative court will rule.) Isn't journalism supposed to look a lot more balanced? This is in the "news" section, right?

There was a great article in my ex-roomate's copy of Game Informer last month that believe it or not had one of the editors defending a behavioral Scientist for just doing his job while he was being demonized by the game industry. It's worth a read just to see what one of these studies looks like and hear both sides from a journalistic and objective standpoint.

Also nothing in Science is ever proven. An idea is or is not supported and some more so than others. Whenever I hear someone talking in terms of absolutes, I know it's not Science. Using Mathematics is about as close as you can get (rigorous support) and empirical evidence which is the type that usually supports behavioral studies is the best we have right now.

What games DO have on their side in this case however is just how broadly California has tried to define "violence." Even in the opinion of someone who has worked closely with the Supreme Court it is far too broad and will likely be thrown back for a more detailed explanation. Personally seeing the make up of this court, combined with the likelihood that there would be no real public outrage from any group those in power would mind upsetting, it all makes me quite nervous about this case. Although I admit that if I had to take a Scientist or a gamers word for whether or not some levels of violence in games lead to developmental issues, Science trumps gamer every time. I have a feeling most of the general public would agree with me on that. Most of them (go ahead poll the tea party movement if you feel really brave) are already really fed up with what they see as gamers and their #$#$ you attitude anyway. Right now violent video games are just what many politically motivated candidates are looking for during an election year - a scapegoat.

Oh and I almost forgot. While I know he's just another one of those nigh completely biased Science type people who would never do something just to advance the cause of productive thought, Einstein has a very salient quote: "Democracy, taken in its narrower, purely political sense, suffers from the fact that those in economic or political power possess the means for molding public opinion to serve their own class interests."

That issue was the one with Saint's Row 2 on the cover, right? I'm doing a report and I'm using a bit of that article you mentioned as a source...

Thanks for clarifying what I was thinking while reading this article. While I am concerned about the decision being made here and how it will affect us...I am also thinking we should be way more critical of our game research in general, instead of trying to split things along pro and anti sentiments regardless of any actual responsibility we have towards our society.

Overall I find the methodology a bit flawed as instead of trying to pit two sides against each other in a research finding debate and then decide the fate of an entire industry's works based solely on which way the wind blows on the subject, it would have been a bit more responsible to conduct additional properly run, unaffiliated studies for more subject matter to work with, which so far are pretty hard to find considering the amount of special interest groups involved in the matter. We can't have the ESA indiscriminately employing the HULK SMASH method on every study that shows negative effects from games regardless of how legit they are just as much as we can't have politicians stringing up games without even understanding what they are about.

And even if games are dangerous to some degree, shouldn't we be trying to work with each other to ensure responsible handling of them rather than just try to strangle each other over who has absolute control? Sure, impressionable people are more likely to be affected, but the issue has more to do with helping the people who have these problems dealing with games rather than blaming the games outright.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If games promote violent behaviour, then we have one billion people exposed to behaviour inducing substances.

If 90% of games these days are violent, we have 90% of those billion with a potential change of committing violent behaviour.

If only 1% of those commit a violent act, and 1% of those end in deaths (within the next year), we have an annual increase of 900,000 violent crimes and 900 brutal murders.

The British Crime Survey states that

Levels of BCS violent crime showed no statistically significant change compared with the
previous year. Violence against the person offences recorded by the police fell by six per cent
and robberies by one per cent.

The US Crime Survey states that the US homicide rate, has declined substantially since 1991.

Given that Call of Duty (which is often quoted as the most violent of games) has racked up 600 million hours of game play, and in it's first day sold 5.6 million copies, we would expect (from the previous figures) 560 homicides purely attributable to Call of Duty: Black Ops within the year.

That would place it at the same level as deaths by fire. Nearly double the death rate caused by STDs (excluding AIDS). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate
30 times as many people are killed by accident.

Now, if there are 560 homicides directly caused by Black Ops annually, can anyone find me evidence of one?

Because, if there is a number lower than double digits, then we're talking about something that kills in less than 10 in a billion cases.

Again, that's ten times less chance than Earth being destroyed by a meteorite strike.

If the skeptics have any hard figures to add to that, I'd be happy to see them. Because even with my figures, that's still only a 1:10,000 chance of homicide.

 

[Belated]

I don't see what the big deal is if they do restrict sales. Sales are already restricted as it is, just privately. No game retailer is going to sell you something M-rated if you don't have an ID. All this would change is that it would be signed into law. It's just peace of mind for the ignorant "concerned parents", and redundancy to everybody else.

EDIT: My opinion was swayed by a later post.

 

[DTWolfwood]

i have enough faith the justices will see the light of day.

Videogames don't only include "violent" games so to slap a label on the entire industry based on a few examples is unconstitutional. They should see that.

 

[Xersues]

I grew up on video games. Some violent shit too. I don't maim, destroy, kill, harm, or otherwise infect the populous. I am an American that believes in free speech, the right to bare arms, am atheist, we don't know how to spend our money, and am politically neutral because I can smell bullshit when its given to me.

Matter of fact, I think Middle School was probably more harmful to me than Duke Nukem 3D.

Just sayin. I seem to be a well adjusted adult in society and I bet most of you are too.

 

[DTWolfwood]

I don't see what the big deal is if they do restrict sales. Sales are already restricted as it is, just privately. No game retailer is going to sell you something M-rated if you don't have an ID. All this would change is that it would be signed into law. It's just peace of mind for the ignorant "concerned parents", and redundancy to everybody else.

here watch this. maybe it will let you see what the big deal is
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech
or read this
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_281/8356-Battlefield-Washington

 

[mikev7.0]

Great points especially your last paragraph. To read not just the responses to the article but Mr. Tito's article itself you would think that all Scientists were either politically motivated, monatarily motivated or cowards. I really don't think it's the place of anyone HERE to judge that. Most people involved with Science aren't in it for the money. Please admit that some of these folks in fact have no dog in the race and actually DO try to stay objective, not only that but it has long been known that you cannot observe something without affecting it so there are tools in psychology as well as other Sciences that are designed to specifically overcome that weakness in method.

The fact is Mr. Tito's article is far more biased than the studies that I've had an opportunity to view so far (and yes I've been following this case as closely as I can since I for one fear what this conservative court will rule.) Isn't journalism supposed to look a lot more balanced? This is in the "news" section, right?

There was a great article in my ex-roomate's copy of Game Informer last month that believe it or not had one of the editors defending a behavioral Scientist for just doing his job while he was being demonized by the game industry. It's worth a read just to see what one of these studies looks like and hear both sides from a journalistic and objective standpoint.

Also nothing in Science is ever proven. An idea is or is not supported and some more so than others. Whenever I hear someone talking in terms of absolutes, I know it's not Science. Using Mathematics is about as close as you can get (rigorous support) and empirical evidence which is the type that usually supports behavioral studies is the best we have right now.

What games DO have on their side in this case however is just how broadly California has tried to define "violence." Even in the opinion of someone who has worked closely with the Supreme Court it is far too broad and will likely be thrown back for a more detailed explanation. Personally seeing the make up of this court, combined with the likelihood that there would be no real public outrage from any group those in power would mind upsetting, it all makes me quite nervous about this case. Although I admit that if I had to take a Scientist or a gamers word for whether or not some levels of violence in games lead to developmental issues, Science trumps gamer every time. I have a feeling most of the general public would agree with me on that. Most of them (go ahead poll the tea party movement if you feel really brave) are already really fed up with what they see as gamers and their #$#$ you attitude anyway. Right now violent video games are just what many politically motivated candidates are looking for during an election year - a scapegoat.

Oh and I almost forgot. While I know he's just another one of those nigh completely biased Science type people who would never do something just to advance the cause of productive thought, Einstein has a very salient quote: "Democracy, taken in its narrower, purely political sense, suffers from the fact that those in economic or political power possess the means for molding public opinion to serve their own class interests."

That issue was the one with Saint's Row 2 on the cover, right? I'm doing a report and I'm using a bit of that article you mentioned as a source...

Thanks for clarifying what I was thinking while reading this article. While I am concerned about the decision being made here and how it will affect us...I am also thinking we should be way more critical of our game research in general, instead of trying to split things along pro and anti sentiments regardless of any actual responsibility we have towards our society.

Overall I find the methodology a bit flawed as instead of trying to pit two sides against each other in a research finding debate and then decide the fate of an entire industry's works based solely on which way the wind blows on the subject, it would have been a bit more responsible to conduct additional properly run, unaffiliated studies for more subject matter to work with, which so far are pretty hard to find considering the amount of special interest groups involved in the matter. We can't have the ESA indiscriminately employing the HULK SMASH method on every study that shows negative effects from games regardless of how legit they are just as much as we can't have politicians stringing up games without even understanding what they are about.

And even if games are dangerous to some degree, shouldn't we be trying to work with each other to ensure responsible handling of them rather than just try to strangle each other over who has absolute control? Sure, impressionable people are more likely to be affected, but the issue has more to do with helping the people who have these problems dealing with games rather than blaming the games outright.

Yes I think you have the right issue, a group of angsty folk are walking away from a small plane. I think the most telling thing about that article was that the Scientist they were defending really didn't sound like he was "anti-game." Yet the industry did everything they could to paint him as biased.

I agree with you that we need to be more critical of ALL research. I mean we can develop all the double blind tests and things like that we want yet it still doesn't change the fact that it's only empirical evidence. The studies that concern me most are the ones that are conducted by nueropsychologists, more to the point, the fact that there aren't many and that's probably the "hardest" Science we have to use at this point. We need as close to "fact" as we can get. Your kids are worth that effort I believe.

Many of the studies are unaffiliated, I think it's just each legal side of the arguement grabbing the ones that apply to their cause most. That's my biggest problem, I believe the studies that are showing as inconclusive due to the inconsistency of method aren't being picked up by any side. Until we employ more rigorous methods, My opinion is that a lot of unbiased tests would come out as inconlusive. That voice I feel is being muted just because it doesn't "sing" legally.

I couldn't agree with you more about retailers, publishers, parents, and the kids themselves all working together and having a voice in this but that is the common sense good solution and since I just love quoting Doctor Einstein: "All of us who are concerned for peace and the triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field." That being said I think it would be possible if more folks were involved and willing to work together and not just going into knee jerk defense mode, which goes for all of us.

Great topic to pick for your assignment by the way, I hope that will get people talking about it. I myself am trying to write a speech for toastmasters on the subject. So if anyone can add links to more studies it would be appreciated.

Also to those who have accused me of not loving games and being willing to just throw them under the bus without objective consideration please go read my post in the "Have you ever been in love with a game thread." Cool. Now please stop treating me like an anti-gamer, thanks.

 

[airrazor7]

it almost sounds like these guys are playing a game in the court room.

"Look judge, my number/score is clearly higher than the other team so based on that I am clearly better."
It's as if they are trophy/acheivement whores on PSN & Live

They're probably trying to argue on the grounds quantity because they know that most, if not all of their research has no merit. Basically the logic of anti-gaming research is that if people view a violent situation then the viewers will develop violent tendenices. If that were true then we would have to ban all media, like news stations and journals, from ever displaying anything about bombings, rapes, murders and homicides for fear of humanity going the way of a Hamlet ending.

 

[DanDeFool]

Our studies must be better because they come from better sources = Appeal to Authority = logical fallacy = FAIL

QED

Technically appeal to authority isn't necessarily wrong if the person has authority in that field. Appealing to newton in regard to force diagrams isn't fallacious for example.

No, it's not necessarily wrong to appeal to authority, but it's still a fallacy because you're looking at the origin of the argument rather than the argument itself.

It's like saying that because Barack Obama supports the Democrats, the democrats must be the best political party. Certainly, Barack Obama is an expert in the field of policymaking, but he supports the democrats out of a clear political bias, so his authority in this field is dubious.

There have been other posts about how the more experienced researchers in the "gamez r bad 'mmkay?" field may have their own biases.

 

[Lawyer105]

I predict that the anti-gamers will win by a landslide, because policitians (and the people that are supported by them) lack the spine to stand up against anything unpopular. Since gaming is demonised in much of the media the average (read brain-dead, drooling retard) person is firmly convinced that games are evil!

Policitians, as we all know, are in the business of getting elected. Running the country is only what the pretend to do. Since an election is simply a popularity contest of average (see above) people, politicians cannot afford to back RIGHT, unless it is also POPULAR.

So games are gonna come short. Again.

The Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life so their decision will have no effect, what so ever, on whether or not they keep their jobs. There will be some political pressure, don't get me wrong. The point is the Supreme Court is the last place where popularity does not always win.

Oh good! We might actually have a chance then!

 

[Jodah]

I predict that the anti-gamers will win by a landslide, because policitians (and the people that are supported by them) lack the spine to stand up against anything unpopular. Since gaming is demonised in much of the media the average (read brain-dead, drooling retard) person is firmly convinced that games are evil!

Policitians, as we all know, are in the business of getting elected. Running the country is only what the pretend to do. Since an election is simply a popularity contest of average (see above) people, politicians cannot afford to back RIGHT, unless it is also POPULAR.

So games are gonna come short. Again.

The Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life so their decision will have no effect, what so ever, on whether or not they keep their jobs. There will be some political pressure, don't get me wrong. The point is the Supreme Court is the last place where popularity does not always win.

Oh good! We might actually have a chance then!

Yep, I can see this going either way based on prior decisions in similar cases (none involving video games but similar situations). The main issue with predicting it is that there are two newer justices. They have no past cases to look at.

 

[Bad Jim]

The State of California's brief - called the Gruel brief after the lead lawyer on the team - was signed by 115 people who believe that violence in games promotes violent behavior, while 82 people signed the Millet brief in support of the EMA's position that games are protected by the First Amendment.

Has nobody thought that those two things aren't mutually exclusive?

I did. The argument is a bit like this: Far more academic papers refer to climate change than the planet Jupiter. Ergo, Jupiter does not exist.

I also thought that the judge himself should decide what is protected by the First Amendment.

 

[weirdee]

If yall want to read more on related subjects, another source I'm using for my paper is Game Addiction by Neils Clark and P. Shauvaun Scott. So far it looks like it takes an evenhanded approach to the issue, rather than throwing red flags left and right and pushing an agenda regardless of evidence.

 

[I.N.producer]

I found this excellent article by C.J. Ferguson "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: A Meta-analytic
Review of Positive and Negative Effects of Violent Video Games." Found at: http://www.tamiu.edu/~CFERGUSON/videometa2.pdf

It's basically an examination of the effects of video games, as shown by several other studies, he actually looks at positive and negative effects by analyzing the results of other studies.

Ferguson has another analysis of research methods that are used in many of the studies, including the studies by Bushman and Anderson. That is here: http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/videometa1.pdf

Just a note: Ferguson has a degree in clinical psychology, teaches classes in abnormal psychology, and does research on media effects and research methodology.