Violent Videogames Cause "Macbeth Effect"

[getoffmycloud]

I love how people are getting all defensive about this when the study isn't one of those videogames turn people into Hitler studies it is just looking at the effects of a violent videogame on someone who has never played them compared to someone who has.

 

[Dr.Panties]

Quick, everybody!

Scramble to find reasons to disbelieve this study in the way that you never would if their findings had been different!

Yeah, quickly everyone. You know, like you do when participating in a discussion, debate, and/or argument about something in which you are emotionally or otherwise invested.

But that's my exact point.

People who are invested in games (that is to say, people here) always dismiss any of these studies that have even slightly negative results. "Oh, they've got an agenda". "They've just got it in for games." "This is bullshit, I play CoD every day and I never killed anybody." Even something like this which is vague and not particularly critical.

Then, on those rare occasions when someone says that video game violence doesn't have any effect, everybody is all, "Fuck yes Science has prevailed!"

Basically, this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8903-Gamer-Science].

That doesn't strike you as the slightest bit silly?

It doesn't strike me as anything other than typical of what we are. This constitutes us. This is what we do, and have done, since the capacity for argument manifested. And I will do exactly the same, and so will you, despite any pretensions to the contrary.

Introduce a context within which consensus is, fundamentally, unachievable (the inernetzz), and no-one should be surprised, least of all one as articulate as yourself. This is said without irony and, for what it's worth, I retract the tone of my previous post.

 

[Thaliur]

I clicked on this article because the preview showed Patrick Stewart. Now WHERE is Patrick Stewart?!

 

[mad825]

Just seems like students confirming/replicating previously known knowledge.

 

[Nackl of Gilmed]

Guys, drop the pointy sticks and back away from the nice people in the white coats. They didn't actually claim to have proven that you don't feel moral guilt and therefore are bad. There's been no demonstration that the so-called experienced gamers were also desensitized to displays of actual real-world violence, so I don't see that this is any kind of attack on our characters.

Besides, if they do attack our characters we'll kick their asses.

 

[Alterego-X]

...Macbeth?

Really, Macbeth The Scottish Play is hardly the best thing to use in a parallel study with violent video games.

They didn't make up the name, it was already called the Macbeth Effect long before it was connected to video games.

The only thing this experiment is trying to prove about video games, is that first time players feel guilty about them.

It doesn't need to prove that guilt materializes in cleansing, because THAT HAS ALREAD BEEN PROVEN in several other experiments.

 

[Sushewakka]

As an actual science researcher, I must agree on the issue raised against the sample size. While I understand the point of the study (people more frequently exposed to violent media are more desensitized to violent media: tautology ahoy!), the sample size is insufficient for statistical relevance.

 

[FalloutJack]

...Macbeth?

Really, Macbeth The Scottish Play is hardly the best thing to use in a parallel study with violent video games.

They didn't make up the name, it was already called the Macbeth Effect long before it was connected to video games.

The only thing this experiment is trying to prove about video games, is that first time players feel guilty about them.

It doesn't need to prove that guilt materializes in cleansing, because THAT HAS ALREAD BEEN PROVEN in several other experiments.

I believe the point that we're trying to wrestle with here is that there's nothing unclean about gaming, ergo the idea that this study is...well...bogus. I'm fairly certain it's not important that it's an effect elsewhere...

 

[Hugga_Bear]

76 people.
Expecting significant results.
Lol no.

That's a pathetic sample size and the findings are bullshit. I don't give a damn if it's negative or positive (this isn't really either) but do your science correctly. 76 people. That's not even funny for an experiment.

 

[9thRequiem]

Okay, seriously?

A recent study conducted by the University of Luxembourg had 76 people play violent videogames for 15 minutes

That is pathetic. A fundamental of the scientific method is that the larger your sample group is, the more accurate you are going to be. 76? That's nothing. Also, what does 76 "people" mean? What ages were they? What kind of people in general? Was any social science included here at all?

It's not like "People who game a lot tend to not buy cosmetics as a present" is a bad stereotype, but this experiment is a joke.

Agreed.
I'm also not seeing any evidence of a control group - all this study says to me is that experienced gamers buy less cosmetic product.
And you can find this out by visiting ANY convention / LAN party / gathering of experienced gamers.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

Can anyone find the actual research article? The source of this article leads to the Luxembourg university website, but no link to the actual research article.

 

[Saxnot]

so, this is cute, but you can bet there's going to be another experiment stating the opposite in 3 years. Social psychology is more about interesting results than factual ones

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

A recent study conducted by the University of Luxembourg had 76 people play violent videogames for 15 minutes, after which they were told to select gift items for others. Those who were "inexperienced" with violent games were more likely to select "hygienic products" like shower gel, deodorant and toothpaste than those who played violent games on a regular basis.

A very conclusive and useful study. I performed a study too. The majority of 76 people beat up and nicked the wallets of researchers at the University of Luxembourg for performing what they considered useless research, then played violent videogames as a reward and a form of catharsis for morally righteous beating up of pointless researchers. Many also lit up a celebratory cigarette in a mirror of post-coital bliss.

 

[Andrew_C]

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
to the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life is but a walking shadow. A poor player
that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And is heard no more. 'Tis a tale
Told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing!

I thought I'd forgotton that quote.

I think this just proves that casual gamers have better personal hygiene than hardcore gamers.

Heh, I was thinking that too.

EDIT; spelin

 

[Strazdas]

All I can tell that this prooves is that some people are more likely to buy hygiene products than others. And as a gift? That just proves that they have no idea what to actually get someone, since 'hygiene' products are used by most people, so it's a roundabout (If rather cheap) gift.

Exctly what i saw in this article as well. I always buy hygiene products as ifts because i suck at giftmaking.

 

[M0rp43vs]

I had head about the Macbeth effect from a cracked article a while back
Number 4 here, http://www.cracked.com/article_18991_6-weird-things-that-influence-bad-behavior-more-than-laws.html

Why are people here getting so defensive? Guys who are not used to violence and get freak outed by violence want to feel clean. Guys who are used to this stuff and know it's fake don't worry.

I don't see where the article says it causes us to kick babies or steal candy from kittens. I doubt there'd be any outcry if it said "Violent videogames cause people to become wonderfully handsome and sexy".

The thing that bothers me about this thing though is the fact that the sample size is so small(76?) and the fact that we already know of the Macbeth effect. Sounds like a sensationalist article than a real study

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Who gives deodorant and toothpaste as a gift for people? I guess if those people's teeth are falling out and they smell like skunks, but other than that, get them something they actually want.

I've never understood giving "need" type items as gifts. Unless they are dirt poor and can't afford the "need" items, gift giving is for "wants" or the extra means to get wants.

If I getting hygiene products or other need items, it tells me that the giver knows nothing about what I like but thinks it isn't "classy" to give money or gift cards(which I think is stupid, because I see it as great respect and thoughtfulness to let me decide what I want), or is one of those people that think it is inappropriate to give me the things I want for whatever stupid reason. The last one one being my parents when I became an adult(child to 17 I got the things I wanted, toys and video games and other interests, then 18 to now, I get gloves, boots, blankets, socks.....yeah...thanks).

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Oh no somebody is doing some research into violence in games. Quick, somebody mock them with poorly thought out attacks or the world will not know they should not take them more seriously than you.

 

[Inkidu]

I can see this being good in a lot of ways, if gamers tend to tie a cathartic or cleansing event to their violent game playing how is that bad?

 

[Sneezeguard]

I wonder if there was a control group during this experiment who were given non-violent games to play and then asked to select gifts or a group given no games to play and ask to select gifts