Games Lead To Violence and Drugs?

A joint University of California, SFO/University of Pittsburgh study has been released which finds "playing violent videogames can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol", Gamasutra reports. Reuters is also carrying the story, with some information about methodology available in that piece. From the article: "Brady and Matthews had a group of 100 male undergraduates aged 18 to 21 play either Grand Theft Auto III or The Simpsons: Hit and Run. In the Simpsons game, players took the role of Homer Simpson and their task was to deliver daughter Lisa's science project to school before it could be marked late. In Grand Theft Auto III, players took the role of a criminal, and were instructed by the Mafia to beat up a drug dealer with a baseball bat."

Comments

it bears repeating

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

correlation != causation

Re:it bears repeating

[egomaniac]

correlation != causation

A valuable thing to remember, but completely irrelevant here.

The "correlation != causation" caution applies when it is possible for there to a third, unexplained phenomenon which causes both the supposed cause and the supposed effect. For instance, ice cream consumption and heart attacks both increase in the summer -- but the actual cause of both increases is the summer heat.

That sort of relationship isn't possible here. The "cause" in this case is whether or not the students were assigned to the experimental group -- students in the experimental group had a different experience than students in the control group. Given that the students were (presumably) properly randomly assigned, no factor can possibly have influenced whether or not they were in the control group, and therefore the only possible causes for the differences in the experimental group are the experiment itself or randomness. The latter can be largely controlled by increasing the size of the trial to increase our confidence that we are seeing a real effect.

Think about it this way: imagine the experiment were to decide the effects of gunshot wounds to the head. You divide the students into two groups, and shoot all of the experimental group students in the head. They all die. None of the control group students die. Now, say "but correlation doesn't equal causation!" and realize that it doesn't make any sense. There just isn't any way for some unexplained effect to have altered both which group the students were assigned to and whether or not they died.

Re:it bears repeating

[shotfeel]

And lets also not forget that all kinds of activities cause short-term changes in physical states (like blood pressure) and psychologica states (like attitudes). Including "healthy" ones like exercise, or "normal" ones like driving in heavy traffic.

This study still does not address long-term changes, at least based on the little bits available.

Re:it bears repeating

[MindStalker]

Two things I would have liked to see.
1. A pre-test to compare each persons responces before gaming (they probably did this)
2. A physical activity control group.

As we all know playing these games do cause temporary aldrinaline and testotarone (spellling???) increases. These test were preformed immediently after playing and as such the results could have been related. Would have enjoyed seeing a group sent out to play football, or even just run track. I bet you would see similar responces..

Re:it bears repeating

[jusdisgi]

The "correlation != causation" caution applies when it is possible for there to a third, unexplained phenomenon which causes both the supposed cause and the supposed effect.

This statement may be technically correct; it's also extremely misleading, because the phrase "when it is possible for there to be a third, unexplained phenomenon which causes both the supposed cause and the supposed effect" is equivalent to "always"

This is why the maxim "correlation does not imply causation" is not instead, "correlation implies correlation once you've established that there are not other variables involved." The reason is that you can't eliminate all the possible factors, because you might not know about some of them. And your post above is an excellent example of how this thinking can progress so stupidly. Your entire argument starts by saying "correlation != causation only counts if there are other explanations" and then you totally and completely ignore the investigation for such variables. You simply assert that no such variables exist in this case, and go on from there to argue that in fact correlation does imply causation. Which ultimately is very handy for you, since the task of actually trying to eliminate all conceivable other variables is obviously not possible, much less practical.

Correlation does not imply causation. Period. Don't go dicking around trying to say that there aren't any other possible factors for a given case. It doesn't work that way.

Flamebait

[gerbalblaste]

Someone please mod this article +5 flamebait.

Mark article "redundant"

[Opportunist]

How many "studies" are we going to read on this? How often are we getting told "games make you violent"? How often are we going to say "bullshit"?

It doesn't accumulate more truth by saying it more often. Games make you as violent as D&D did in the 80s, TV did in the 60s, radio did in the 30s and books did before that. It's the same "old generation who don't know jack about X blames it for the problems created by the way people are" shit we've been seeing for centuries now.

Re:Mark article "redundant"

[Psmylie]

Speaking of D&D... this type of argument has gotten under my skin since the early 1980's, when I started playing D&D. That's when I first started getting irked by the whole "[blank] makes kids violent/drug users/satanists" thing. My own father, a smart enough man normally, felt the need to sit me down and ask me if I understood that I wasn't really casting spells and fighting monsters. All because of the stupid hype generated by people who grossly misrepresented a pretty harmless hobby.

Re:Mark article "redundant"

[paeanblack]

My own father, a smart enough man normally, felt the need to sit me down and ask me if I understood that I wasn't really casting spells and fighting monsters.

Be thankful...you've got a good father. The question may have sounded stupid to you, but if your dad actually bothered to ask you what you are up to, get your feedback on why it interests you, and trust your judgement as to whether it was a healthy hobby, I hope you are walking around knowing he's the shit.

Hell, invite him to join your next session.

Re:Mark article "redundant"

[ultranova]

Not that I made it easy on them anyway. I later got into Ceremonial Magick and joined the O.T.O. after I turned 18, which opened a whole new series of fears for them. Entirely unfounded, but it certainly damaged our relationship the night he suddenly stated (after having seen the dagger on my dresser - for ceremonial purposes only) that if I ever tried to hurt any of them I'd better get it right the first time because I would only get one chance. I downplayed his concern but inside I was all, "Fuck YOU you fucking retard who obviously has no clue who I am!"... I don't talk to them anymore.

So basically, you joined some weird cult of wizards, carried around a ceremonial dagger, and are now deeply hurt that someone might be suspicious of you.

Yeah, your father's clearly just plain crazy.

what are the numbers?

[egomaniac]

This is a very small trial -- only 50 people in each group. I wonder how significant the results are, and if they would still exist in a larger trial (my guess is most of the effects would disappear). While I can certainly believe blood pressure increases and other physiological effects, I'm very skeptical that a short time playing a violent videogame would somehow change your attitude towards marijuana.

It's not impossible, of course, I just want to see the results validated in a larger trial. At the very least I want to see the numbers from this trial -- I suspect that the effects are very small and just on the edge of statistical significance.

Standard FUD

[RsG]

If you read the link about their methodology, it becomes clear that the study is crap. According to Reuters:

"Regardless of whether they grew up in a violent environment, the researchers found, young men who had played the violent game were less cooperative and more competitive in completing an assigned task with another person, compared to those who played the Simpsons game. They were also more likely to have permissive attitudes toward alcohol and marijuana use."

How exactly does one get from "have a more permissive attitude" to "more likely to use drugs/drink"? Fucks sake, I've got a completely permissive attitude to other people's bad habits, but that doesn't mean I'd like to share them. If you spun this study the other way, it'd be saying "gamers more permissive, less likely to force their views on other people".

Either the study itself is politically funded crap, or the spin being put on it is.

Re:Standard FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right about this being FUD, and are right in pointing out that attitudes do not equal behavior.

Every time I read this sort of study, I am angered that this work continues to be done without providing any context.

To those of you who are questioning the study as being correlational, or not being large enough, or whatever: I sympathize with you, but you are wrong.

There are a number of experimental studies out there now that demonstrate that playing violent video games increases aggressive, delinquent attitudes. As much as you would not like to believe this, it is true.

There are problems with these studies, however, and they are at least threefold:

(1) As the parent post notes, correlations between attitudes and actual behavior are very modest at best. If there ever were a law of social psychology, that would be it. Although playing violent video games likely does alter attitudes toward violence and delinquent behavior, it's a much bigger jump to say that those attitudes are leading to violent, delinquent behavior.

(2) There's no indication that these attitudinal changes last beyond the timeframe of the study. It's not just that attitudes don't lead to behavior, it's that attitudes at one point are only moderately correlated with attitudes at another point--especially attitudes induced by a temporary environment.

(2) Any sort of quasi-social influence alters attitudes. If this weren't true, there would be no advertising. Watching TV ads of scantily-clad women likely increases sexist attitudes toward women; watching violent TV likely increases violent attitudes; playing football with friends likely increases hostile attitudes; seeing women stroking a man's chin after he shaves with Gillette makes you more likely to like Gillette; going on a roller-coaster ride changes your risk-taking attitudes; etc. ad nauseum. The problem with these studies is that they never show that the magnitude of these game-induced changes in attitudes is any larger than any other effect on attitudes. If someone wants to argue that games should be regulated in some way on the basis of this research, they should show that somehow games are different in their effects from any other activity, such as playing football, or going to a rock concert, or watching advertisements, or anything else.

Statistical Deference

[BoredWolf]

It amazes me that any news group or individual is willing to place the equivalent of 'blind faith' in these purported studies. How were the test subjects selected? Was there a control group? Do young men in general believe that it is OK to smoke marajuana and drink alcohol? Was the study designed to prove this particular outcome, or did it stumble upon this while 100 guys were playing GTA? Anyone who knows anything about statistics can see that information in such studies is warped or misrepresented in an attempt to prove/disprove some widely contended POV (i.e. video games made me do it). The only reason this study is "controversial": there is no scientific blueprint listed for this study. Take any new statistics with a grain of salt... everyone has an agenda.

Re:Other way around?

[Kesch]

I actually did RTFA (after giving an earlier testimonial spiel) and it was interesting. Something in me is screaming common sense though that GTA might make people more competitive and get the heart racing a little more than Simpsons Hit and Run.

"Oh noes, I'm going to deliver the science project before you!"

Also, they only seemed to study the short term effects. They didn't see if the subjects were still as hostile the next day or the implications of more chronic video game playing.

In that case

[dcocos]

"playing violent videogames can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol"

If this also works on older men, I'd be willing to give my copy of GTA3 to a Senator or Representative in the hopes that it would change their minds about smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol, to make it legally acceptable.

Control? Baseline? Researchers?

[jevvim]

I believe this is the abstract for the published study: Effects of Media Violence on Health-Related Outcomes Among Young Men

The abstract makes me think this was a poorly conducted study. Where's the control group that played no games? What if playing games reduces these thoughts in a way that varies based on the game? You could also have gotten this result by baselining the attitudes of the subjects before the experiment, but then you also might have lost all the interesting quotes like "Media violence exposure may play a role in the development of negative attitudes and behaviors related to health."

They did find that blood pressure tends to go up while playing games. In addition, those with exposure to home and community violence had a more sigificant blood pressure change with the violent game than with the other game. I think they might have just verified post-traumatic stress disorder.

I'm so sick of the underdog getting picked on

[Deagol]

Back in my day it was D&D, before then it was comic books and Mad Magazine, and now it's Video Games.

I would bet my next paycheck that a good, solid study could find a correlation that watching daytime soaps and prime-time drama leads people in their 20's and 30's to getting the idea that infidelity is normal and then proceeding to emulate their TV drama stars and be unfaithful themselves. Gee -- there's a shocker.

Yet, do you see the Family Values people lobbying daytime television producers to clean up their shows? It probably would help imrpove the state of the American family if we weren't bombarded by perfectly beautiful, young, cheating couples on 95% of the programs being shown. But mo, they'd never attack an entrenched mainstream form of entertainmens. Ditto movies (except if it's wildly successful and has gay cowboys, then they'll attack it). Or how about the violence of professional sports? Isn't Superbowl Sunday reportedly one of the worst days of the year when it comes to wife abuse?

Such double standards.

I think regulation of expression is a last-resort option. People are free to take their own actions, for better or for worse. I however think that we should address all forms of entertainment with a similar statndard. Well, except for porn -- that's a slightly different can of worms.

Re:I'm so sick of the underdog getting picked on

[kabir]

Well, I'd like to suggest that you get used to it. I was chatting with a friend of mine the other day who just happens to be an English professor at a local university and he told me something interesting: Apparently novels used to be quite the questionable media. They were blamed for, among other evils, corruption of young ladies moral characters. Novels! Those Bronte sisters were pretty wild, I suppose. Anyway, my point is only that every new media goes through a phase where the established power structure doesn't understand/accept it and seeks to demonize it. It's just the way these things seem to work, so you should probably get used to it. Whatever the next new thing after videogames is, well, we'll probably be just about the right age to go after that ourselves...

Just for the hell of it though, I'd love to see the results of the same study done with a pair of short novels. Those results might actually be informative as we'd be able to compare two different types of media a little more directly. Whatever the outcome though I don't think it would worry me much. Every day I engage in an activity which raises my blood pressure, doubtless increases my negative affect, and most certainly increases my negative social processing. It's called work, and man, that shit will mess you up. It probably drives more Americans to drug use (I'm including alchahol and tobacco here) than anything else. That's just a guess, of course, but it sounds resonable to me.

Violent games make you a libertarian?

[Stormwatch]

So, they say "playing violent videogames can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol."

Let me rewrite this: "playing violent videogames can lead young men to believe that the government does not have the right to forbid you from consuming mild mind-altering substances, as long as your actions do not harm others' lives."

Sounds pretty good to me.

Re:Also bears repeating: RTFA.

[MindStalker]

Yes but as pointed out elsewhere, it could have been a secondary causation. Playing violent games leads to temporary increases in stress/hormone levels, increases in hormones levels causes peoples perception to change.. Primary causation is almost impossible to prove unless the test was hours later, and I doupt it was.