Video Game Conditioning Spills Over Into Real Life

doug141 writes "Lessons learned in video games may transcend computers, PlayStations and Wiis. New research suggests that virtual worlds sway real-life choices. Twenty-two volunteers who played a cycling game learned to associate one team's jersey with a good flavored drink and another team's jersey with a bad flavored drink. Days later, 3/4 of the subjects avoided the same jersey in a real-world test. Marketers and lawyers will take note."

Comments

Weird Assumptions

[pete-classic]

It seems very strange to suppose that intentionally creating an association between visual and taste stimuli would magically not work, just because a video game is involved.

I mean, people have been learning things on television screens for decades. And projection screens for decades before that. What on Earth is surprising, or even interesting, about showing that putting a game controller in a person's hand doesn't thwart this method of learning?

-Peter

Re:Weird Assumptions

[MozeeToby]

I think the assumption here is that the gamer will identify with the product if it is associated with his 'team' in the game. Having the same advertising for two products, one associated with your team and another associated with the enemy makes you want the one associated with the 'good guys' more. Essentially, they're saying that connecting your product with the enemy will actually weaken its percieved value.

I suspect the army already knew this (or at least suspected it, since it is pretty logical). Look at the America's Army game they put out and you see a good example. No matter which side you are on, you are always drawn as a US soldier and the enemy is always drawn as a terrorist, even if you switch sides in the middle of a fight.

Re:Weird Assumptions

[A. B3ttik]

What they really need to do is see if people can learn things done -entirely- within Video Games.

Like what if in a Pepsi/Coke video game, Coke gives you Health and Pepsi hurts you... would these people start preferring Coke over Pepsi? Or maybe there would be some reverse psychology where since people -can't- have Pepsi in the game world, they will intrinsically want it more in the real world.

The mind is complicated, but I'm sure that, yes, connections are formed when playing video games just as they are anywhere else.

Video Game is just the vehicle

[stewbacca]

This has nothing to do with "lessons learned from video games" and says everything about the power of marketing.

not surprising

[jm4]

The shouldn't come as any surprise. Computer simulations are routinely used for training and conditioning in a variety of situations from flight training to military applications.

Sample Size?

[ChinggisK]

Twenty-two volunteers who played a cycling game

Good to see they're using a nice large group of test subjects.

Re:Great, more product placement in future games

[philspear]

First you bitch that you want the virtual worlds to be as realistic and lifelike as possible.

Then, you bitch that there are now ads in your virtual world, which of course is nothing like the real world(yes, that is sarcasm you smell)

What? Who wants games to be as "realistic and lifelike as possible?" I want GRAPHICS to be as realistic as possible, the actual content and gameplay can and should take liberties. Example: mirror's edge would be a terrible game if you randomly landed wrong, broke your femur, and had to spend months of real game time doing therapy before you could continue. Rock band would suck if you had to spend hours upon hours practicing, only for the band to break up and the game to be over after one gig. Super mario bros would have sold zero copies if the italian plumbers had to face a clogged toilet rather than saving the princess.

Jesus man, what kind of boring ass games do you play? Games are SUPPOSED to be unrealistic in that they take the boring or annoying (read; ADS) out.

(Note that if you were joking, little too subtle there, and the insightful mod didn't help.)

It's how it affects you, not if

[Temujin_12]

I'm tired of the "X/Y/Z doesn't affect me" mantra. Everything affects you.

Does reading slashdot 12 times a day affect you? Yes.

Would reading the entire constitution of the US everyday affect you? Yes.

Does skipping a night of sleep affect you? Yes.

Does holding down a full time job affect you? Yes.

Does playing video games affect you? Yes.

Everything you engage in affects you. It's called being human. It's not a question of whether something affects you, it's a question of whether you are mature enough to recognise HOW it effects you and make appropriate adjustments if necessary.

The insistence that you are somehow superior to every aspect of life and can only be affected if you allow it is just immature arrogance.

Statistics are valid anyways, right?

[jonaskoelker]

<sarcasm>Good to see they're using a nice large group of test subjects.</sarcasm>

The article is here: http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/29/4/1046.pdf

Could you please point to which of their inferences you think breaks down because of statistical problems caused by the sample size?

If no such problem exists, the sample size was fine.

I recall reading a set of guidelines for writing psych papers (discussing and critiquing an article). They said quite explicitly that complaining about sample size was about the cheapest shot available, so don't do it unless you can really back it up.

To the mods who think my parent is insightful: could you please spell out to me what the insight is? Because I haven't seen any problems with the sample size, only an unsubstantiated claim.

Re:And, yet... when violence is involved...

[pete-classic]

Well, I hope your comments aren't directed at me. I'm 100% for parents controlling the media their children consume. I convinced my step-mother not to allow her child to play GTA III.

I do, however, absolutely believe that I am better equipped to choose what media I consume than any politician. GTA III is one of my all-time favorite games.

-Peter