Study Finds Similarities Between Videogame Addiction, Asperger's

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Off the top of my Google-Head

2004 Gaming Trends [http://www.video-games-survey.com/2004_results.htm]
Effects of Gaming [http://acrlog.org/special-features/gaming-survey-results/]

I would say though that gamers and the gaming scientists have no interest in proving the positive or harmful effects in games.
The former has been done by the US Military, which is why they use Military Trainers.
The latter cannot be proven, as there are far too many variables involved.

This may be more what you're looking for
{url=http://www.gamingresearch.co.uk/[/url]

And let's pull out a few positive ones

GRIFFITHS, MD., 2005. The therapeutic value of videogames . In: Goldstein, J. and Raessens, J., eds., Handbook of computer game studies. Boston : MIT, pp. 161-171.

GRIFFITHS, MD. and DAVIES, MNO., 2005. Videogame addiction: does it exist? In: Goldstein, J. and Raessens, J., eds., Handbook of computer game studies. Boston : MIT, pp. 359-368.

GRIFFITHS, MD., 2004. Why is playing video games fun? In: Newman, J. and Simons, I., eds., Difficult questions about video games. Nottingham : Public Beta, pp. 224-225.

DE, FREITAS, S. and GRIFFITHS, MD., 2007. Online gaming as an educational tool in learning and training . British Journal of Educational Technology. vol 38, pp. 536-538.

And some negative ones

GRÜSSER, SM., THALEMANN, R. and GRIFFITHS, MD., 2007. Excessive computer game playing : evidence for addiction and aggression? CyberPsychology and Behavior. vol 10, pp. 290-292.

CHUMBLEY, J. and GRIFFITHS, MD., 2006. Affect and the computer game player: the effect of gender, personality, and game reinforcement structure on affective responses to computer game-play . CyberPsychology and Behavior. vol 9, pp. 308-316.

However...

Most of the negative articles are based on gambling or recreational drugs. NOT gaming.

But if I was a Home Office Spokesman, I know which ones I'd choose.


As for proving them wrong, you're talking a monumental task.

 

[xMacx]

Hi M - sent my professional background via PM. I have a fear of putting professional pages on a forum .

I'd be happy to help you out with the paper - I've reviewed for a number of publications (see the website), so I should be able to provide some competent reviews (I hope!)

Specifically gaming related? I'm afraid that isn't my area. I have spent more of my life defending myself against media flogging of studies focusing on gender, sexuality, and mental health. My most recent small-scale absurdity: my mom comes at me with this study she read about that said that computer use and video games contribute to insomnia, so you shouldn't use them or play them before bed.

That's a great example, and probably pretty representative of the experience of a lot of people who complain about the validity/usefulness of psychological research. But the problem here isn't the research, right? It's the report your mom read (and then your mom) reporting the conclusions of a study without adequately understanding all of the constraints or how generalizable the results are to real world situations (which you point out later on).

I think researchers are frustrated by this as well - oftentimes the caveats are what allow for generalization. For example, the original study might have shown that video game play directly before attempting to sleep leads to longer times to reach REM-stage sleep. The headline on a blog or magazine comes out as "Video game play makes it more difficult to sleep!" True? Kind of, but it's not exactly what the study was examining (speed to REM, not difficulty) and easy for people who haven't seen the original research to misinterpret.


I'd guess my point is only that oftentimes people aren't provided with enough information to truly judge whether research is valid or not. So many who don't agree with particular results (or see results that don't agree with their mental model of how they or the world work) call it out as being invalid simply because they don't have enough information to adequately judge the constraints of the research findings.

It's a two-way street, you know? Researchers have a responsibility to produce reliable results, while the media does have a responsibility to provide enough information to understand what the results mean for the rest of us. It sounds like we're all on the same page with the media - I am interested to hear if anyone has some research study with games that they felt was completely wrong, or was shown to be untrue.

 

[dekkarax]

this research seems interesting, but it will be interpreted the wrong way, I saw an article about it in the Daily Mail, it was twisted to seem far more negative than it really is, which annoys me. God helps us all if Jack Thomson finds out..

Besides, correlation may mean there is a connection, but most of the time it means jack squat, a graph was once publish showing a correlation between global temperature and number of pirates (lack of pirates causes global warming!) so correlation can't prove anything unless backed up with more evidence.

now if you'll excuse me, I'm of to buy a parrot so I can save the world, ARRR!

 

[xMacx]

Your examples aren't research studies.

Ah, and therein lies the rub. Very few 'serious' researchers want to do 'serious' research on games; because it's like researching the positive effects of Cannabis, Alcohol or Smoking. People don't want to hear it and won't pay for the research.

I don't think that's true - EA and Microsoft both fund gaming institutes. Thomas Malone was doing research on the effect of motivational aspects of games at IBM in the 80's. There's a huge amount of government funded research going on in the serious games industry. There's a lot of good research going on in games right now - what would you cite to show that serious researchers don't like to research games?

Did you want positive gaming surveys or negative gaming surveys? I'll see what I can hunt down.

Within the context of what we're looking for, it's game studies that reported some findings, and then were shown to be invalid/unreliable/inaccurate.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Ooooh, here's a beaut

The annual award is presented to the author of Scotland's top undergraduate BEd thesis. Karen Crichton's entry - 'The Business People of Tomorrow?' An investigative Report into the influence of the Commercial Computer Game, Roller Coaster Tycoon 2, on Enterprise Education' - won widespread praise from the judging panel.

The thesis is an insightful investigation into whether commercial computer games, such as Roller Coaster Tycoon 2, which aims to get children to create and manage their own theme park, makes pupils more enterprising.

The study concludes that the pupils involved in playing the game had a positive attitude towards enterprise education before the investigation began due to "existing teaching strategies" but the game created a real-life context for enterprise education that developed their understanding and skills.

Within the context of what we're looking for, it's game studies that reported some findings, and then were shown to be invalid/unreliable/inaccurate.

Oh good grief...Anyone got a magnet for this haystack?

what would you cite to show that serious researchers don't like to research games?

Serious and games? That's like Highbrow and Fiction.

Comics/Cartoons are rarely studied by 'Serious' Researchers; but tell me that "The Simpsons", "Tom and Jerry" or "MAUS" doesn't have a serious effect. You find me a serious research on then and I'll get you the overturned research.

 

[xMacx]

Off the top of my Google-Head..

...As for proving them wrong, you're talking a monumental task.

Didn't want to quote the whole thing - but I think we're missing each other somewhere on this.

There's several posts in this thread talking about gaming research showing one thing, then being shown to be inaccurate/invalid, etc. Check the first page (I think.)

My request was to back up the statements of being "sick and tired of inaccurate research" by showing some of these studies that were shown to be inaccurate.

I'm not following the studies you cited - half of them are book chapters, not single studies, and as far as I know, none of them have been shown to be inaccurate. What were you trying to show with all of those?

either (1) there have been invalid studies and it's a process of finding the old studies that were invalid (that might involve using the "search" function) or (2) there's a lot of people talking about being tired of invalid research when the invalid research doesn't exist.

so yeah, let me know what you were thinking.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Gotcha!

Games make you relax vs. Games make you more aggressive. [http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/02/science-says-game-violence-makes-players-relax/]

Apologies : I work very fast at times and didn't latch onto the fact you wanted invalidated ones.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I bet others are sick of this by now....

My request was to back up the statements of being "sick and tired of inaccurate research" by showing some of these studies that were shown to be inaccurate.

Doesn't contrary research prove inaccuracies?

I'm not following the studies you cited - half of them are book chapters, not single studies, and as far as I know, none of them have been shown to be inaccurate. What were you trying to show with all of those?

They were research studies done on the effects of gaming that were contrary. Unfortunately the Intraweb doesn't carry a lot of the studies themselves, or they have to be bought.

either (1) there have been invalid studies and it's a process of finding the old studies that were invalid (that might involve using the "search" function) or (2) there's a lot of people talking about being tired of invalid research when the invalid research doesn't exist.

1) Invalid studies are often taken out of the public forum. I remember one by Penn and Teller that proved that second hand smoke was less harmful than car-fumes. (Was on their programme "Bullshit")
2) Research that has valid methodology can have invalid results.

Let's take gaming. This has to be a double blind test and will require movement of the subjects to a laboratry condition. Unfortunately, this also interfere's with their regular eating, sleeping, toilet habits which has already been shown in a previous study to have significant effects on the mental well-being of the subject. I 'think' that changing your eating habits is as stressful as losing a distant member of the family, but it's been a while since I did Psychology at College.

Now if the gamers are stressed, it may not be the games.

so yeah, let me know what you were thinking.

Done my best.

 

[xMacx]

Ooooh, here's a beaut!

Dude - you found an award that someone in Scotland gave a undergraduate schoolteacher for looking at a video game's effect of attitude towards education. That's not really good research - or invalid research, for that matter. What was your point with this?

Oh good grief...Anyone got a magnet for this haystack?

MY POINT EXACTLY! If people are so "sick and tired" because invalid/inaccurate research studies are so prevalent, it shouldn't be hard to find. Right?

Serious and games? That's like Highbrow and Fiction.

Comics/Cartoons are rarely studied by 'Serious' Researchers; but tell me that "The Simpsons", "Tom and Jerry" or "MAUS" doesn't have a serious effect. You find me a serious research on then and I'll get you the overturned research.

There's been serious media research (including the effects of Tom and Jerry) for over 30 years. Seriously, did you even search for media research before you made your last point?

For starters: check all of Don Zillman's work since the mid 70's - over 100 journal articles easy. See studies on media and aggression, or any of the books on the topic. And check any of the communication journals over the past 30 years. Comics and cartoons have been seriously studied, most notably by academics in communications and within the instructional design community. Many of those concepts have been implemented in signage and iconography that you use today when interacting with your computer or even basic public signage.

No offense, but I think you might need to do your due diligence on the field to even attempt to make some of the arguments you're trying to make.

 

[xMacx]

I bet others are sick of this by now....

I bet they are too, but it's still fun .

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Aggression isn't neccesarily a bad thing. Point: Rugby matches are nothing more that aggression fueled slugging matches, but nobody complains about them, true? (Except the opposition no.8's parents, because their darling son was stupid enough to run headlong into my shoulder). Because it's acknowledged that once you get off the pitch, the aggression's gone, have a few drinks and soak in a really cold bath etc etc. What a great deal of the public fail to understand is that 90% of gamers do the same, as do 90% of rugby players. There is still that 10% (arbitariy number) who don'tleave it on the CPU or on the pitch. But the public are used to the nutter left-flank who can't let it go- the gamer, however, does not conform to their sterotype of the scholarly nerd, etc etc.

Plus, I think there is a point here: Play to many games and fail to interact with others and you can kiss goodbye to those social skills.

 

[xMacx]

Gotcha!

Games make you relax vs. Games make you more aggressive. [http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/02/science-says-game-violence-makes-players-relax/]

Apologies : I work very fast at times and didn't latch onto the fact you wanted invalidated ones.

Fair enough.

This is a great example, though - several studies have shown a finding with one kind of game, then one study shows a different effect for a different type of game. These aren't contradictory findings.

Most studies have examined a different type of game with a different user base - these aren't exactly comparable studies, regardless of what joystiq might lead you to believe. It suggests that there's more to the game experience than a simple main effect (good) and I'm hoping doesn't compare itself to other studies (that would be bad).

this is also why a study showing a contrasting effect is not necessarily inaccurate; when dealing with multifaceted phenomena (like games), you're going to get contradictory findings from studies whose focii is different.

More on the WOW study in a minute - the experimental design from the blurb seems awfully problematic.

 

[xMacx]

Because it's acknowledged that once you get off the pitch, the aggression's gone, have a few drinks and soak in a really cold bath etc etc.

Actually not true; see Zillman, 1978-on. See excitation transfer theory.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Dude - you found an award that someone in Scotland gave a undergraduate schoolteacher for looking at a video game's effect of attitude towards education. That's not really good research - or invalid research, for that matter. What was your point with this?

Was still looking for positive research.

MY POINT EXACTLY! If people are so "sick and tired" because invalid/inaccurate research studies are so prevalent, it shouldn't be hard to find. Right?

Wrong I'm afraid, and my point comes in. Invalid/inaccurate research is so hard to find because it takes serious time and effort to disprove something; especially something that says 'becomes more prevalent'; and we're back to Heineken, how would you prove that it's inaccurate to say it's "Probably the best lager in the world"?

Serious and games? That's like Highbrow and Fiction.

Comics/Cartoons ...

Ok, I was being facetious. But let's look at the facts.

Fact 1 : Studies ...oh..hold on a moment..

Have a quick gander at this.
Overturned Media Violence Study [http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm]

That what you're looking for?

A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2003 found that nearly half (47 per cent) of parents with children between the ages of 4 and 6 report that their children have imitated aggressive behaviours from TV. However, it is interesting to note that children are more likely to mimic positive behaviours ? 87 per cent of kids do so.

Do I get to lie down now? All this research is making me aggressive.

 

[xMacx]

Gotcha!

Games make you relax vs. Games make you more aggressive. [http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/02/science-says-game-violence-makes-players-relax/]

Why the WOW study is problematic for comparison to previous violence studies:

Sampling different populations: many of the other studies have recruited non-experts or have compared experts and non-experts. The WOW study uses a quasi-experimental approach with no control group for comparison. This is especially problematic because there is a long line of research showing physiological and psychological differences for expert populations (See Myrtek, 2003); so does this study actually show that gamers respond differently to violence, or that players with heavy experience in a game are insensitive to arousal effects?

Test-Retest - from the blurb, it appears they had users take the same test before and after the experiment. How can you differentiate from post game effects and users becoming accustomed to the test? Further, how do you control for testing bias? When you give users a n aggression test before and after the game, it's not real difficult to figure out what you're looking for - and gamers are an awfully willing group to protest that they're not influenced. Think that might affect their answers?

This is not mentioning the issue with self-selection into different game types.


This doesn't mean the study is all wrong, just that it's results should be confined to talking about WOW players after a 2 hour session. No more, no less. Because of the design, you can't really generalize to the larger population easily. Which pulls back to the main point - research, good or bad, is limited to its focii. Great research can be expanded to a large part of the human population; most research addressed a restricted subset of the population being tested.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Why the WOW study is problematic for comparison to previous violence studies:

Sampling different populations: many of the other studies have recruited non-experts or have compared experts and non-experts. The WOW study uses a quasi-experimental approach with no control group for comparison. This is especially problematic because there is a long line of research showing physiological and psychological differences for expert populations (See Myrtek, 2003); so does this study actually show that gamers respond differently to violence, or that players with heavy experience in a game are insensitive to arousal effects?

Test-Retest - from the blurb, it appears they had users take the same test before and after the experiment. How can you differentiate from post game effects and users becoming accustomed to the test? Further, how do you control for testing bias? When you give users a n aggression test before and after the game, it's not real difficult to figure out what you're looking for - and gamers are an awfully willing group to protest that they're not influenced. Think that might affect their answers?

This is not mentioning the issue with self-selection into different game types.

Like I said, HOW hard is it gonna be to invalidate a study?

This is especially problematic because there is a long line of research showing physiological and psychological differences for expert populations (See Myrtek, 2003);

So Myrtek basically says that you cannot generalise on the psychological effects for a total population?
Now I'm no lawyer/doctor/reporter/psychologist, but doesn't that shoot the Times and Telegraph in the foot for saying that Video Games promote Violence in all players?

 

[xMacx]

MY POINT EXACTLY! If people are so "sick and tired" because invalid/inaccurate research studies are so prevalent, it shouldn't be hard to find. Right?

Wrong I'm afraid, and my point comes in. Invalid/inaccurate research is so hard to find because it takes serious time and effort to disprove something; especially something that says 'becomes more prevalent';



How is this wrong? If people are tired of the presence of invalid studies, it should be easy to find them? If it's hard to invalidate, hence there aren't many available, then where are all these claims of invalid research coming from?

Show me how this claim is wrong - I'm confused. Look at point 1 and 2 on my first post on this: Either there isn't much and people are overstating the case, or there is and people have a valid point. I'm arguing number 1; apparently, so are you, except you're telling me I'm wrong. Help me out?




and we're back to Heineken, how would you prove that it's inaccurate to say it's "Probably the best lager in the world"?

I would give you a book about construct validity and a paper on the challenges of measuring preference in statistical tests. I'd just be restating what has been written ad-infinitum by more established researchers. this really isn't that difficult/challenging of a problem, it's just involved - check out any market research text to see how to argue for or against this.

Serious and games? That's like Highbrow and Fiction.

Comics/Cartoons ...

Ok, I was being facetious. But let's look at the facts.

Fact 1 : Studies ...oh..hold on a moment..

Have a quick gander at this.
Overturned Media Violence Study [http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm]

That what you're looking for?

A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2003 found that nearly half (47 per cent) of parents with children between the ages of 4 and 6 report that their children have imitated aggressive behaviours from TV. However, it is interesting to note that children are more likely to mimic positive behaviours ? 87 per cent of kids do so.

Do I get to lie down now? All this research is making me aggressive.

Not just yet! Answer the question of what this summary you linked to or the finding you've suggested actually makes any point. See the old Bobo doll studies - kids mimic actions they're exposed to; the type of action is almost irrelevant.

So how does this relate to your point? I'm of the opinion that this is topically relevant to games but almost irrelevant to refuting earlier research studies.

 

[xMacx]

This is especially problematic because there is a long line of research showing physiological and psychological differences for expert populations (See Myrtek, 2003);

So Myrtek basically says that you cannot generalise on the psychological effects for a total population?
Now I'm no lawyer/doctor/reporter/psychologist, but doesn't that shoot the Times and Telegraph in the foot for saying that Video Games promote Violence in all players?

You've got to read some of the stuff to understand and apply it - see my post to ms earlier about the same thing. Myrtek and my post make the argument that expertise affect participant responses.

And science in general argues that expanding findings of a sample to the whole population is problematic because it's difficult to ensure that your sample matches the population.

Google Sampling Error and that should spell it out for you.



If they said all players, that would be problematic. Do they?

 

[xMacx]

Root -

My one concern is that it appears (at least to me) that you're doing exactly what media reports do - overgeneralizing and polarizing your points in an attempt to make your position stronger.

-It's impossible to find this out
-this research says that all people do X
-this report says that all gamers are like Y

I haven't seen anythign that ever argues that a whole population is a particular way. Science isn't ever that clean, least of all when you talk about a complex phenomena like gaming.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Ok...attempt to summarise before bed. It's been a long day.

If you're looking for invalid research, your own digression on the WOW topic has made that invalid or at least shaky.
If you're looking for invalidated research, that would mean that you'd have to research the research; where there's rarely any evidence other than the samples taken.

You're right. We do both argue 1, but where you're saying "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE", I'm saying "WE CANNOT GET THE EVIDENCE" mainly because it's either subjective or wildly expensive.

Root -

My one concern is that it appears (at least to me) that you're doing exactly what media reports do - overgeneralizing and polarizing your points in an attempt to make your position stronger.

-It's impossible to find this out
-this research says that all people do X
-this report says that all gamers are like Y

I haven't seen anythign that ever argues that a whole population is a particular way. Science isn't ever that clean, least of all when you talk about a complex phenomena like gaming.

A fair call, but I hope false.

The problem is that scientific surveys, for us plebs that just like games, are extremely difficult to understand, widely used with little or printed in newspapers with no actual reference to the study or even worse, in opposition to the study.

I'm sure you're aware of the famous study that 'showed' 'Black' men to be stupider than 'White' men where the results had been massively skewed to show this hypothesis.

But, as an example, here's the TIMES take on this.

(If you're non-British, the TIMES is the top level of newspaper here. It's CNN rather than FOX)

Video games will be forced to carry cigarette-style health warnings under proposals to protect children from unsuitable digital material.

The report, commissioned by the Prime Minister in response to a growing moral panic about video games, will conclude that they can harm the development of children?s beliefs and value systems and desensitise them to violence. It will also recommend that retailers who sell video games to anyone under the age rating on the box should face a hefty fine or up to five years in prison, The Times has learnt.

The report, written by Tanya Byron, the clinical psychologist and television parenting guru, is also expected to address the dangers of children?s use of the internet.

Ok? Notice that the age ratings are coming in BEFORE the report is finished.

Now, let's look at Tanya's report.here [http://www.dfes.gov.uk/byronreview/pdfs/Final%20Report%20Bookmarked.pdf]

Now, as a psychologist, what does that first image show to you?

But let's go further to the conclusion

I believe that alongside new technology we need a new culture of responsibility, where all in society focus not on defending our entrenched positions, but on working together to
help children keep themselves safe, to help parents to keep their children safe and to help
each other support children and parents in this task.

I've got no problem with that. But that's not what is envisioned, or stated. What's stated is that negligent retailers will be fined or jailed; almost in opposition to "working together".

It also states this report in her bibliography.
News-medical.net (2006) ?Internet exacerbates problems of anorexia and bulimia in teens? 4 December www.newsmedical.net/print_article.asp?id=21194

Which states
{quote]The study author Rebecka Peebles, an adolescent medicine and eating disorder specialist says parents and doctors need to realize that the Internet is essentially an unmonitored media forum, and it is not possible to completely control the content of an interactive site.[/quote]

So, in conclusion, the Internet is unmonitored but we will be monitoring it.

Now, let's assume that Mummy Gamer sees this reference and Daddy Gamer sees a reference to his little princess being groomed; how much of the true scientific report will even be looked at, or will little Gamer jnr. be banned.

Well, let's take a look from another Editorial from the same TIMES.

I hate video games, on or offline. I hate the way they suck real people into fake worlds and hold on to them for decades at a time. I hate being made to feel hateful for saying so, and I hate being told to immerse myself in them before passing judgment, because it feels like being told to immerse myself in smack and teenage pregnancy before passing judgment on them.

This is not because of anything wrong or bad about video games or heroin or teenage parents. It's not even because of game-induced homicide or web-grooming of little girls by perverts - serious problems, but statistically low-risk. It's because, compared with everything else on offer in a kid's life, video games and heroin and teenage pregnancy are a colossal waste of time.

Dr Byron says a third of ten-year-olds in England spend more than three hours per school day playing video games. In England, maybe. In my house, only when I'm dead. Meanwhile, I want my kids to overdose on wind, rain, mud, gravy, tents, mountains and overcooked bacon. (Oh, and do their homework.) Why is that suddenly so weird?

- Giles Whittal

Invalidated Research? I think so.