Slashdot Mirror
Videogames Really Are Linked to Violence
ahoehn writes "Amanda Schaffer has written a refreshingly balanced piece about the connection between video games and violence. Instead of regurgitating the typical reactionary voices in this debate, she looks at what scientific studies suggest about the issue. From the article: 'Pathological acts of course have multiple, complex causes and are terribly hard to predict. And clearly, millions of people play Counter-Strike, Halo, and Doom and never commit crimes. But the subtler question is whether exposure to video-game violence is one risk factor for increased aggression: Is it associated with shifts in attitudes or responses that may predispose kids to act out? A large body of evidence suggests that this may be so ... Given this, it makes sense to be specific about which games may be linked to harmful effects and which to neutral or good ones. Better research is also needed to understand whether some kids are more vulnerable to video-game violence, and how exposure interacts with other risk factors for aggression like poverty, psychological disorders, and a history of abuse.'"
I'm not a scientist, but I've played one in a video game.
I like how the blurb says absolutely nothing new about the topic.
Suck a lemon?
But what is important is, which one of them is the major culprit in the process of "farting".
with the fantastically loose relation-establishing logic of this article, correlation between snooker, billards and 3-pool and violence can be established too. But, we then need to discern which of these billards game types are a major factor in committing violent crimes.
Read radical news here
We've known from past studies that gaming is one of many, many factors influencing aggressive behavior. The extremely limited extent of this effect, and the fact that it's far more subdued in the vast majority of the population makes it a non-issue.
A decent ratings policy, combined with enforcement for some of the more mature games w/ younger children should suffice...
Anyhow, today I did two things apart from study: play counter-strike, and play tennis. I have to say, I was *far* more ready for a throwdown after playing in 15-30mph wind for a few minutes. Stressors happen. So do idiots who blame them for everything.
... is a study that can differentiate between videogames increasing the violent tendencies of the player and increasingly violent people playing violent videogames. Anything else is just trying to translate correlation into causation with a lot of handwaving.
Can videogames affect the mindset of people? Sure - I'm sure I'm not the only one who, after a particularly intense multi-player session of burnout ponders the best way to force the slowpoke ahead of you off the road. But I'm also sure that I'm not the only one who has realized that this is not the proper way to deal with a slowpoke ahead of you blocking traffic. What I'd like to see in one of these studies is the establishment of the direction of the link, and whether the increase in violent thought patterns translated into action. If someone can actually show that, I'll be all on-board the "violent videogames are bad for you" band-wagon. Anything short of that, and I'll fight for my right to play the latest Doom-incarnation without censor interference.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
...but maybe not. All of these studies are by the same researcher, a guy named Craig Anderson, who has been pushing his conclusion long before he had any data for it. There is a strong confirmation bias at work here. His latest study argues that people who play games like Halo are more aggressive at the end of the school term than people who play something like Myst.
But here's the complication. Myst appeals to casual gamers--people who play games in their spare time. Halo appeals to hardcore gamers, who do it as a hobby. That means they make time for it. Given that the time they make for it may be time taken from their studies, and their work load may be piling up, is this result due to the aggressive influence of gaming, or due to the impact of the stress of having their workload pile up at the end of the term? Too much work, and too little time to do it, will make anyone irritable, impatient, and aggressive. All he has demonstrated here is that the people who play Myst are different from the people who play Halo. Duh! The industry could have told him that years ago.
Recent research into human behaviour finds too main causal factors: genetic predisposition (measured in twin studies), and peer influence (for example, why do children speak with the accent of their peers and not that of their parents.) These probably account for as much as 90% of variance. The remaining 10% includes parent, teachers, life experience, and all media. So how much influence is left for video games? Not a lot.
i play CS:Source almost every day and i'm NOT FUCKING VIOLENT oke??? I will CRUSH YOUR HEADS if you ever bring this topic up again.
The study in TFA basically compares the way players of Myst and Wolf 3-D treat each other. Amazing! In a game that deliberately increases adrenaline through various means (play Wolf 3D if you haven't, you'll jump out of your skin in some places even though the graphics are really low-tech), players show aggressive behaviour toward one another. I bet we'd see this effect in other competitions that are heavy on the adrenaline, such as football or hockey.
Myst, on the other hand, does not involve anything of the sort, focusing instead on intellectual puzzles. There's no real time pressure except for the other players. An RL analogue I suppose would be Chess. Not surprisingly, highly intellectual activities where the players are not directly competing with each other leads to a more patient sort of competitive behaviour. Less adrenaline means more reasonable discourse.
The question, of course, is whether activities that cause high adrenaline actually do cause violence. I'd say yes, though in many cases the violence is contained to a particular activity, say sacking the quarterback. I'd say I'm a violent, aggressive person. However, I'd also add that I try to keep those tendencies away from places where it's not appropriate. I love a good adrenaline rush, and I'd rather not take cocaine or meth to get one. Just because WoW and football bring out my overly dominant tendancies doesn't mean that WoW and football are bad, nor WoW players and football players.
For some real news, try finding a causal link between people who have high-adrenaline outlets (don't forget competitive sports!) and violent criminals (as determined by conviction rate). I doubt that we'll find anything significant there.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
How is this any different than Joe Six-pack who gets pissed off after his team looses on Monday Night Football and decides to beat his wife to take out his frustrations, or the guy that has a bad hole on the golf course and wraps his driver around a tree? There have been losers like that since Ally Oop lost 20 clams on a Mastodon race, went back to his cave and clubbed his wife. Some people just can't handle things not going their way. If there was a way to screen them and take them out of gene pool I'd be all for it, but to try and point the root cause to some external influence is just shifting the blame. The problem isn't that Johnny plays counterstrike; it's that Johnny has a violent temper and lack of self control. You can plug any anything in place of video games, the stock market, sports even jobs, basically anything that can involve a positive or negative outcome can lead to violence in a person inclined to be violent.
Two of the studies use kids - who the entire video game industry agrees shouldn't play violent games, and to that extent has developed a rating system to help *parents* control this.
The third study simply says that the college undergrads were more aggressive after engaging in a mentally stimulating activity. People tend to be more aggressive right after watching sports too. We've known this for years.
So, what we have here is two studies that have very low validity because they have nothing to do with reality and one that's deliberately designed to come to the conclusion 'video-games make people aggressive'.
Can we have some real science now, please?
And a new study conducted by me says everyone is unique in their own way and reacts differently to different situations.
Yay, I saved billions in research, someone send me a new gaming rig, my old P4 is showing it's age.
(If you don't, I'll play a few levels of Doom at you.)
Given that violent crime dropped dramatically from the mid-90s on (during the same time period in which the first generation to grow up with violent videogames came of age) the burden of proof for this lies on the side that proposes a link between videogames and violence. Unless there is really clear proof that violent crime would be even lower than it already is, I don't see much of a positive correlation between the two in the real world.
I haven't seen any studies that indicate one way or another whether violent books contribute to violent behavior. Why is nobody concerned about this?
That's rhetorical... the answer is that video games are new and scary to a large group of relatively influential people. In a few decades, nobody will worry about this issue at all.
And, as another poster mentioned, how about the catastrophic number of injuries and deaths throughout the nation caused by sports? Why aren't people enacting panicked legislation banning sports? It's because they are familiar with sports, they played sports when they were young.
All we have to do is fight a delaying action... stop as many inane laws as possible for another 10-20 years. After that, nobody will care.
Football, baseball, hockey, basketball, dodgeball, foosball, ping-pong, bocce ball, lawn darts, beer pong, soccer, racing, raquetball, handball, volleyball, wrestling, javelin and frisbee golf have been linked to violence.
This can mean only one thing! Video games are at fault! Down with teh gory bits! Er.. wait...
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
I really like this topic. So I am wondering if I should use my 4 remaining mod points or post something here... Any thoughts?
:)
Ahh.. damn.
But seriously. We've known there's a link to pretending to do something and actually ending up doing it. Look at the prisoner vs. guard studies in that college of which the name I forget... Basic idea: normal people pretended to be prisoners and other normal people pretended to be guards. After a while, the people who were pretending to be prisoners actually FELT like prisoners (even though they could leave whenever they wanted in reality) and the Guards.. oh man the guards... they started getting violent and abusive. We're talking college students.. I mean, they're the epitome of maturity, I don't understand how this could've happened
Ok so that wasn't entirely serious. Let me try again. People who like violence will play violent video games. This does not mean the game turned them violent. It was already in them. It's human nature. Really.
TLF
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Those that don't want violence in video games should just start producing non-violent ones. With all the violent games out there, you would guess there is quite a bit of a market left for non-violent onces, but except a little sports game here or a mini-game there, the market is mostly ignored by the developers/publishers. Where are the non-violent triple-AAA titles?
Does everyone who has violent tendencies who does not play video games go out and commit murder? No.
Does everyone who has violent tendencies who does play video games go out and commit murder? No.
Sometimes they do though. Who is to say that running over a hooker in GTA4 to get their money back did not push them over the edge? One could also argue that if running over the virtual hooker did not make him "snap" something else would have. You could also argue that being able to run over virtual hookers may have stopped him from "snapping" sooner. The possibilities for debate for this topic are endless but what it really comes down to is the person who does the act.
Take me for example. I have not gone on a killing spree but I have picked up smoking recently. I'm 23 years old. Both of my parents and all my family members smoked or dipped and have for all of my life. Out of the dozen or so close friends I have all but two smoke habitually and the other two will do so on occasion. Did this make me predisposed to smoking? Perhaps. Did my friends and family strap me in a chair and force me to smoke cigarettes until I was addicted? Of course not. I made a decision to smoke knowing full well the consequences that could come from my actions. If I were to go pick up a gun today, point it at someone and fire it would be decision I made for myself. I can fool myself into thinking I can get away with it just as I could fool myself that I was not going to get addicted to smoking cigarettes but the issue still remains: I pulled the trigger. Whatever mind tricks I played on myself would be because I knew I was going to get caught.
As far as being insane goes, I know if for whatever reason I did kill someone I would plead insanity and do whatever I could to pull it off. I'll take heavily medicated and alive over the needle any day. I'm sure some people who do plead insanity really are but I'm sure most are just smart enough to know how to stay alive.
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
The only thing that I've learned from the debate is that studies are a primary cause of conflict.
Scientific debates always seem to end with a bunch of guys in nice outfits yelling at each other until their faces turn red.
Clearly, we need to ban science.
The author of this article fails to reference a recent study that reaches completely different results.
f fected-by-violent-games/2007/04/01/1175366055463.h tml
An Institute in Australia studied 120 11-15 year-olds and concluded that violent games did affect children who were already predisposed to violence and aggression, but children who were not violent to begin with were unaffected.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most-kids-una
I think we should probably be careful about hanging our hats on the argument that video games are completely innocuous, because I think there's going to be a mounting accumulation of evidence linking games to violent behavior.
Here's what we know from a neuropsych framework:
1) Impulsivity and aggression are linked to activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) (the "fight or flight" part, if you remember your basic psych). The more the sympathetic system is activated, the more likely we are to make rash, impulsive decisions. The racing-heart/sweaty/stressed feeling you get when you lose your temper? That's the sympathetic nervous system talking, hopping you up on adrenaline. (And noradrenaline, et cetera) Think of how much more likely people are to make stupid, impulsive decisions when they've lost their temper than when they're thinking "rationally". (e.g., road rage or bar fights)
2) Video games, exciting movies, gambling, and the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers (if you're five) all activate the SNS. We know this from measuring galvanic skin response, looking at pupillary reflexes, or simply measuring the level of cortisol in the bloodstream.
3) It could be inferred, then, that video games are likely to increase your arousal which will then make you more likely to cut that guy off when you're driving home from the LAN match or escalate the trash talk into something physical. AS COULD ANYTHING ELSE EXCITING. We've seen this, somewhat less conclusively, from behavioral observations. Five-year olds are more likely to karate-chop the dog after some Power Ranger action. People are more likely to drive recklessly after playing a lot of Gran Turismo or watching Oceans Twelve.
In short, video games *do* change the brain... and that's why we like them. We crave excitement and novelty. We like being surprised; we like scary movies; we like jumping out of planes; we like gibbing people in Quake. We *like* jacking up our SNS.
I think we, as gamers, are setting a trap for ourselves when we say that video games have no impact on our cognition. Of course it does. Everything does. Claiming there's no mental impact of gaming is a foolish position, and when you lose this argument, it makes it that much harder to win the subsequent arguments. A more interesting question is whether games go behind the simple modulation of arousal levels. Are games fundamentally different than sky-diving, for example? I don't think so, but honestly, the jury is out. I can see the other side, too. We tend to play games for nine straight hours, when it's a rare person who sky-dives that much. When we're gaming, we actually envision ourselves in the role of Kratos, God of War, while we don't usually have that involvement with action movies. Maybe games *are* different.
Of course, the *real* question is how much this matters. Even if there were a well-controlled, randomized study showing that the amount of game time played directly correlated with the likelihood of a violent crime, is that enough cause to ban games? I think not, but, then again, I prefer not living in a nanny-state.
Anyway, just some thoughts... (and yes, I am a neuroscientist. And a gamer.)
To add on to your argument, the birth rate has risen exponentially in recent years... and so has the death rate! Clearly we can conclude that babies kill people!
First, I want to establish something: I am not in favor of censorship in this area, ever. In fact, I'm not in favor of pretty much any kind of censorship, even kiddie pr0n -- go after the psycho who made it, not the pervert with a stack of DVDs.
No matter what the effect of a piece of information, it is the effect that should be policed, not the information. In other words, if violent video games cause people to be violent, then police those people, not the violent games themselves. A game can't make you violent unless you let it.
With that out of the way...
Videogames have not made me more violent, measured in acts of violence. I'm actually not that aggressive. But violent games, anime, and movies probably have given me more of a capacity for violence.
For example: I am completely desensitized to the games I play: Counter-Strike: Source, Quake 3, etc. CS:S, for example: I can shoot a fairly realistic-looking human in the face, watch them crumple to the ground, blood splattered on the wall behind them, and feel nothing at all. I can do this all day -- in general, games, especially multiplayer ones, do not give me any kind of adrenaline rush.
I've also been to the arcade, so in a basic sense (Time Crisis 2, House of the Dead), I know how to pick up a gun, aim, and fire.
I do occasionally listen to the news, and oddly, I felt worse for certain characters who die in certain movies (Serenity, spoiler alert, etc) than I did when I heard about the Virginia shooting. I'm talking purely on a feeling level here -- the movie almost brought me to tears, but the news simply made me go "meh" or "wtf". Intellectually, I understand that one is real and the other isn't, but I think I would have to know the kids who died to be able to mourn for them.
Still, I can't say that it's fundamentally changed me. If I was the kind of person who would solve problems by punching someone, well, I now know how to point and shoot, and clean up after. But I'm not that kind of person -- sure, it does occur to me that it might be easier if I could just spray an Uzi across the room, but I choose not to.
So it comes back to, guns don't kill, people do. The videogames and guns may have enabled that student, but they weren't the root cause. Certainly, we could react by tightening gun laws, or tightening security at schools, but we should also be trying to create a world where, given the choice, people won't choose to kill each other. On an individual level, especially -- were that kid's parents there for him? Anyone in his dorm?
Stupidly idealistic, I know. But it's a start, I hope.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I have been reading this thread for less than 5 seconds and I know much more than the people who have been studying for 9 years. Trust me, I'm not the dumb one here.
...Don't even bother replying... I watched MacGyver man, don't mess.
I also believe I can fix all the terrorist and intelligence problems the U.S. has, plan a national attack, develop nuclear weapons, and fix your car, I have watched two episodes of "24" and I know Jack!
There is a big problem with this article and others like it. It is very difficult to get reasonable results out of them. There is no single causational trigger for violence. If there were, we'd see armies of 28 days style zombies everywhere.
The evidence pretty clearly indicates that all media has a weak influences on violent behaviour whether it be comics, novels, newspapers, music, movies, television, or video games, but real life has the largest impact. The violence we witness or participate in is more important than any other factor.
For young children, parents tend to play the pivotal role in their development. The parent's reaction to violence can be more important than all of the media that the child consumes. But a parent actually has to be there. They have to talk to their children. They have to make sure that their children are understanding the context of what they see and hear.
I think the "protect the children" crowd has it terribly, terribly wrong. They want to protect children from seeing the consequences of violence. That might be worse than teaching children self-confidence instead of knowledge, which everyone should know by now was disastrously bad. Children learn from what they see and hear, when violence is portrayed as having no consequences they learn that violence has no consequences.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
There is another and more logical reason for the army to have it's soldiers practice shooting at targets and that is to become better at hitting their targets. I'm guessing that is why it is called "target practice" and not "desensitisation drill".
Actually they call it "marksmanship training", "target practice" is for your local civilian range. Also, there is a VERY STRONG desensitation element. They do not use round bulls-eye targets like a civilian range, they use human silhouette targets. Furthermore, these human silhouettes are then made to move, pop up and drop down as if taking cover, and fall over when hit like human beings; not remain static like in target practice. Even hunters use static target, they don't (well are not supposed to) take a shot while an animal like a deer is moving. Finally, some training is going digital and are effectively serious video games. These simulation allow for even more realistic movement and situations. We have moved beyond desensitation and have moved into stimulus/response and muscle memory, things that formerly had to be learned in the mud not in front of the computer.
The military believes in desensitation. In a ROTC class we were shown color combat footage shot by Navy combat camermen who went ashore with Marines during the invasion of the island of Tarawa. Numerous Navy cameramen were killed, they were in the middle of this assault. Think of the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan, now think more graphic, more blood. Now dwell on the fact that it was real. We were told that the purpose of these training films was desensitation. That we weren't immunized in any way, that the goal was to shorten the duration of the initial shock of combat should we find ourselves in such circumstances. Now keep in mind that this was a passive activity. A video game is interactive, you participate, your actions have results - this have even greater effect for desensitation.
All that said, we have the right to play a violent video game just as we have the right to read a violent book or watch a violent movie. In defense of these rights, do not undermine your credibility by dismissing desensitation, it is real.
I remember some findings by a Professor Harold Hill of Gary, Indiana that showed that Pool caused a great deal of trouble in River City, Iowa. If I recall correctly, this was evidenced by the fact that Trouble starts with a capital T which rhymes with P and that stands for Pool.