Slashdot Mirror
Video Racing Games May Spur Risky Driving
kiwimate writes "A study concludes that people who play car racing games may be more likely to take risks and drive aggressively when driving in real life.
According to the article, "The study appeared in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, published by the American Psychological Association"." Just because after I play Grand Theft Auto I want to ram other cars does not mean I'm a worse driver. Honest.
After playing GTA; Vice City, I saw a parking lot full of police cars, and I thought to myself, that would be worth it.
I never did.
Now I broke the ice, everyone else can post there coming-out story.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
This is a pretty stupid assertion.
Wouldn't the people most likely to enjoy this genre be predisposed to this behaviour?
Why don't these "researchers" understand the importance of self-selection?!?
And who, according to insurance companies, is the riskiest group? Teenage boys.
Next study! People who date teenage girls are risky drivers!
People who play racing car games may be more likely to be seagulls.
Question everything
Crashing constantly in GTA actually makes me more careful by fear of having as many accidents as in GTA
You just got troll'd!
watching 'care bears' for an extended period of time will make you a more caring and sensitive person.
Any time i see the 'video games made me do it' excuse, I think that the appropriate sentence should be forced to watch 'Barney' for an entire month. Since the person is so easily influenced, this should work perfectly for rehabilitation.
People who like to drive cars really bloody quickly and dangerously, surprisingly, also like to play computer games where they can drive cars really bloody quickly and dangerously. Other people on the otherhand, who are less interested in killing themselves in flashy cars, prefer other types of games. Sounds a bit like reverse causation? Really should be a cohort study.
I've seen this after movies too. I remember well seeing "Gone in 60 seconds" (when it came out, long ago) and then watching all the idiots do burn-outs from the theatre and go peeling out. The funny thing was that apparently the cops were aware of this too, so they had some cars strategically placed after the shows ended.
Of course one could still bring up the cause->effect arguement, as it's unclear as to whether or not people drive like idiots due to game/movie influence, or people who drive like idiots like those types of games/movies.
... I kept peering around corners wanting to shoot fire extinguishers.
Not that I ever actually did it.
Of course, if I could've gotten my hands on that shrink ray gun thing...
I played GTA pretty seriously for awhile. The sense of freedom was amazing.
When I first played (and when my wife first played), we tried to obey the traffic laws and stay in the proper lane. After realizing how pointless that was, we were driving on sidewalks, ignoring pedestrians, and laughing with glee when running red lights.
Your brain is very good at unlearning old skills and relearning new ones. The catch is that when doing very similar things, it's easy for one set of skills to bleed into another. Switching from throwing a whiffle ball to a softball requires a period of adjustment. Driving like an insane maniac to a law abiding citizen requires a degree of concentration.
The vast majority of people will likely use caution, focus, and not have any problem at all. Some folks, however, may have difficulty making the switch. Ban all driving games? That seems a bit silly. Banning cell phones or music in cars would likely have a more concrete effect.
A study has shown that people who are generally behaving badly in trafic are more likely to enjoy games like GTA. Other research has shown that people who are using have had an X-Ray taken of a leg are more likely to have had a broken leg. This clearly shows the dangers of X-Ray imaging. Statistical Relation != Cause
I'm a keen driver, and a strong advocate of road safety, so I've looked at a fair bit of the research that's available. Most variables that have been found to affect driver attitude are based on something that is happening while they're actually in the car: things like tiredness, drink and drugs obviously have an effect, but so do things like the type (actually, speed) of music you're listening to. (Some groups of drivers also generally exercise better judgement regardless of the immediate circumstances: to find out who, take a look at what counts for/against you when your insurance premium is worked out!)
Then again, perception of speed is also affected by recent experience: think how slow it feels when you come off a high speed road into a town, even if you're doing the limit around town, and compare that with how that limit feels when you're just starting driving and already in town. That's perception rather than attitude and judgement, though.
So while the conclusions here seem plausible, they're also a bit unusual. I saw a story very similar to this a few days ago in the UK media. Anyone know if these are all the same thing, or there's a recent research trend generating several sets of results in quick succession?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
We could live in a world without excitement. A world in which we are not stimulated or thrilled. A world in which we could only watch movies or play games approved by the Flanders family of the Simpsons. There will be unbalanced people who will be inspired by what they watch. So instead of collecting cat skulls, they pretend they're the hero of GTA. Or Manhunt. Or Barbie Horse Adventures.
Note that they found a correlation between driving fast and people who play racing games. Maybe people who like to drive fast can't drive as fast as they want, so they pop in a racing game simulater. As far as the shooter game comment, most young men are aggressive to one extent or another. If someone blows off some steam by playing Halo 3, I would prefer that to them blowing off someone's head in real life.
I'm a better driver after I play video games. I learned 90% of what I know about cars from Gran Turismo 3. I can see the lines of a turn, can apply the use of braking and acceleration better, and I am better at avoiding other drivers and retaining awareness of my surroundings. I think bad drivers should play more racing simulators and stop doing so many studies.
"Luck is a tag given by the mediocre to account for the accomplishments of genius." -Heinlein
"The researchers then studied 68 men and found those who played even one racing game took more risks afterward in traffic situations on a computer simulator than those who played another type of game."
Oh man - you mean, after playing a game where you're rewarded for driving recklessly, the same gamers drove a little recklessly IN ANOTHER GAME?
SHOCKING.
The end conclusion is totally nonsensical.
"The question of age restrictions, legally or voluntary, should be discussed not only for "shooter" games but also for [racing] games, which have an impact on traffic safety," Kubitzki said.
The research didn't prove that. Correlation != Causality. Why do so many researchers have a problem with this?
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
Say it with me: RTFA.
The article didn't just study if gamers were more likely to agressively drive. They also used individuals who were not games and had them play either a race car game or a control game. Those playing the race car game had more risky behavior in a more formal driving simulator than those who played the control game.
Granted not a perfect study, but there is some causation.
I don't know why GTA is always mentioned when somebody talks about games involving cars ...yes it's a driving game, but there's a big difference between driving a car to mow down people and driving a car to win a race. The former is just silly and uses the car as a vehicle (pun intended) to drive (pun intended also) a story or a plot. The latter is, depending on the game, a true test of how driving is supposed to be done, or not done.
True story, as it just happened a couple of months ago: For the first time in my life my car severely fishtailed on me and without ever having experienced it before in real life, I knew what to do in that I had slammed enough rally cars into the snow in various games like GT4 to know "oh, when the car goes like this, I should do that..." and I translated my controller movements into real turns of the wheel. And it worked! I got out of it and kept going.
In this case I feel like my time with GT4 made me a better driver because I recognized a situation I had never experienced in real life but had so many times in the game that I was able to "figure it out". I'm not even going to pretend I'm ready to take an Aston-Martin Vanquish out on the Nurenburg, but I get the difference between "real" driving and "fantasy ha-ha no big deal if I crash a $600k car into the wall at 200mph" type.
Frankly, if I really had a Vanquish, I'd be too nervous about getting it into an accident that I doubt I'd ever leave the garage.
... they put people in a fairly realistic driving game where they were perfectly safe from harm and encouraged them to drive badly.
They then put them in another driving simulator where they were also perfectly safe and they drove worse than those who hadn't played the video game.
At not time did they put them in a situation where their driving may have had actual consequences to themselves or others, but they taught them it was fun and safe to drive recklessly in a video game and then put them in front of another video game? Why am I not suprised...?
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
I'm cognizant of how I feel after playing hours of Burnout 3, but I haven't felt compelled to cause major pileups, run people off the road, or drift around corners. I've never found myself racing under an Interstate overpass thinking, "Checkpoint!"
However, I have felt the urge to jockey for the most favored position at the next red light after playing hours of Tetris. But then that's just common sense: no one wants to get stuck in the lane behind a slowly accelerating long piece... er, I mean truck.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Hell...I've been driving that way WAY before they ever came out with racing video games....that's the fun of having a 2 seat sports car, or muscle cars with powerful engines.
I'd dare say the radar detector is more of a driving force than the video game. I don't even look at the speedometer till I hear the Valentine One go off....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
But it's a really laid back sort of impatience...
This guy's the limit!
But isn't the simulator just another video game?
For most people "good driving" means "The particular way I drive." Drive slow? Slow drivers are good drivers. Drive fast? Fast drivers are good drivers. Drive carefully? Careful drivers are good drivers. Drive recklessly? "Daring" drivers are good drivers.
Nearly everyone thinks they are a better than average driver. They aren't.
Bad drivers have certainly been around long before video games. Hell, I'm sure there were Roman charioteers who yelled at other charioteers, "Learn to drive, ya moron!" That does not in any way imply that video games do not contribute to reckless driving. RTFA, the experiment was well designed.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Your Freudian slip is showing.
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
Say it with me: Correlation does not imply causation.
Yes, it does!
What it doesn't do is prove causation. Of course it implies causation. Then you investigate that implication.
Oh, you are too lazy? Then I shall help you out. Yes, they ruled that out by taking people who had never played video games, giving them a driving test, having them play the games, and take another driving test.
Sorry, I know you wanted to feel like you were smarter than these scientists and had, like, totally thought of something they hadn't. Maybe next time.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
there was a period of my life i played doom for hours a day, every day, for months on end (endlessly downloading free mods)
and, i am an avid gun control advocate. for example, i think the line "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a hilarious example of propaganda, because it conveniently forgets that a gun is not neutral technology: it is designed with a specific purpose in mind, that enables people to easily express murderous will in a way that without easy access to guns, they would not be able to express
now some of you might say that this represents an interesting bit of hypocrisy on my part: that i am saying a gun enables evil actions, but a violent video game doesn't
exactly. tha tis what i am saying. 100%. ill will, violence, is in the heart of every man and woman (and child: study your average toddler for five minutes). therefore, there is nothing a violent videogame can impart upon a person that is not already there. a violent videogame can not enable someone to think something that they already had thought of before. violent rage and anger is violent rage and anger. it is original sin. we are not born vessels of purity that are corrupted. we are born screaming shit flinging demons (again: study your avergae toddler) that is molded into cilivized human beings. media cannot ENABLE you to violence, but it can enable the HARMLESS RELEASE of violence that already exists in you. it's not like suddenly people started commiting crimes they had never thought of before because of a videogame. are you telling me ancient rome was populated by video game addicts? blamign violent media for the state of the world is a classic bullshit "the devil made me do it" effort at avoiding personal responsibility
meanwhile, a gun is a bit of technology with a specific purpose: to kill people. the argument that a gun is neutral, without intent, is false: millions of hours of mental effort and design went into making a tool that, in your hand, is ideally designed for point and click murder. that has real meaning as to the blameability of a gun
this is real life, not fantasy we're talking about now. most people can tell the difference
now technology IS neutral. something like chemistry, or physics, is neutral. for example, E=MC2 is neutral technology. what does it mean? it doesn't mean anything until applied. a nuclear power plant? not neutral, a quantifiable good. a neutron bomb? not neutral, a quantifiable evil
likewise with guns: a blasting cap is a quantifiable good: it is meant, it is designed, for the purpose of shaping hills for highways, for example. what is a gun meant for, designed for? the underlying chemistry for a blasting cap and a gun is the same, and is neutral. and of course you can use a blasting cap to kill someone, or use a gun to do good: compete in target practice, announce the start of a race, etc. but these examples are ludicrous: you can't argue that these esoteric uses have any bearing on what 99.999% of guns or blasting caps are INTENDED for
INTENT. it's a magic word. it changes the argument
so yes, guns kill people. and if you parse my words above, i am not destroying the concept of personal responsibility by saying that: if you play violent videogames for 10 months straight, and go out and kill someone, you, and YOU ALONE, are responsible. because fantasy, media, cannot enable you to do something in real life. actually, the opposite: it can enable the harmless release in fantasy of pent up energies that might be imparted on someone else in real life. violent videogames are catharsis, a bleeding of ill will that already exists in us, each of us. a violent videogame can NEVER impart into someone a murderous will in real life that would not exist had the videogame not existed. to say it can, is to buy the lame excuses of a criminal
but, in real life, if you had a piece of technology which made it easier to express your ill will? that has real meaning. guns ENABLE evil. they are DESIGNED to be efficient killing machines. if you honest
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
... that what we bathe our minds in will affect us.
How and how much it will affect us are debatable, but the standard Slashdot denials seem a bit naive.
In other news, Katamari Damacy has proven to cause Diogenes syndrome (Compulsory Hoarding) in players.
Space Invaders players more likely to become Fighter Jet pilots !
PacMan players more likely to develop eating disorders !
Politicians to start paying to develop games where the player has to vote for them !
Click on my website to download my new creation : a game called "Give me all your money, and pay me hookers"
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You'll have that sometimes...
Really.
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
i am perfectly happy to backtrack and say that all of my words should only apply to handguns as you say, not the nebulous concept of a firearm, which can include things like rifles for hunting deer, etc. because my original point was to have people look closely at what a tech was designed for: it's intent. rifles are clearly for hunting deer. handguns are clearly for killing people. so your point is well taken, and i adjust my argument accordingly, thank you for pointing that out
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it