Slashdot Mirror
Research Credibility In the Video Game Violence Debate
An anonymous reader writes "Two researchers who have a history of publishing studies that claim violent video games lead to violence have now published a new study claiming that they've come up with an 'objective' way to measure why violent video games lead to violence. They've taken the names of people who signed an amicus brief on the upcoming Supreme Court case on an anti-violent video game law in California, and decided that if you added up the number of publications by each side the ones who supported 'video games lead to violence' had more publications, and thus that was 'proof' that they had more credibility. Yes, quantity is more important than quality. The fact that the researchers who published this 'study' also wrote the amicus brief that supported the same claim seems to call their objectivity into question as well."
Sounds like crap...
...proved quite nicely (and objectively) that violent video games incite an ~insensivity~ to violence, rather than promote violence itself. But whatever...
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
Seriously.
As someone growing up watching The Three Stooges back in the 70's, I can't fathom why all the school kids didn't poke each others' eyeballs out, tear each others' hair out, etc, etc, etc.
You can't canny get more violent than that.
I guess our parents told that stuff in films . . . shouldn't be carried out in street fights . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
from here "The data for the study came from the PsycINFO database, which provides more than 3 million references to the psychological literature from the 1800s to the present, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters or essays, and books." Something's wrong, I think. 3 million references is a lot!
/. could get it's members to write a lot of publications about how video games are not responsible for violence. If their logic is true, then they would have to admit defeat and admit they are wrong, but I am sure something "new" would show up allowing them to remain on their moral high horse.
That links violent literature, film, music, and other such media to violent behavior? The earliest "videogames" came about in the late 40's depending on such a definition. Other media, and violent people, have been around much longer. Why do we blame video games now?
Let's assume video games are to blame for all of the anger issues young people exhibit today; why aren't the shop keepers, parents and other such "guardians of merchandise" to blame for essentially enabling the behavior? A 10 year old kid shouldn't be able to walk in and buy the latest blood and gore exhibition from any reputable game store. Don't try to trash the gaming industry. Instead, throw the parents/guardians under the bus. They're responsible for letting the child play the game. They don't monitor the kid's behavior and correct them when they are out of line.
Someone else publish more papers than [these two researchers] saying that [video games don't cause violence].
The additional quantity will disprove them.
So granted that Slashdot is all "hey-man-don't-regulate-my-games". I mean, I'm in the same boat, video game engineering was my employment at one point, and I'd tend to not want restrictions on the source of both my paycheck and entertainment. (The "who's ox is getting gored" bias, as we'd say down on the farm.)
But honestly, this summary/article is a pretty shitty, rambling, poorly-founded, juvenile, knee-jerk complaint. Assessing the level of expertise in differing camps is a fairly common technique nowadays -- analyzing published articles in the subject matter at hand, the prominence of the journals in question, the influence as measured by citations, etc. "And, again, the entire basis of this result is a meaningless dataset." Meaningless? Uh, no. It's just an analysis whose conclusion you don't like. (Or as I might tell my stats students: "You'll do a month of statistics, present it to your boss who doesn't like the result, and then he'll tell you to go to hell.")
Final line FTA: "They're starting with an established position and trying to figure out ways to present evidence to support that. That's not science." Um, actually, that's pretty damn close to the actual definition of science (hypothesis, followed by experimental design). As long as you're intellectually honest enough to admit when the results contradict your starting position.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Hmmm... I would say the original article is actually trying to assess quality rather than quantity by looking at the number of publications by the signatories rather than the number of signatories. Number of publications in peer-reviewed journals is actually a fairly common standard for measuring academic credentials. If what they claim is true one wonders how those many signatories with no publications are involved, they might well be from the gaming industry.
This of course still does not prove that violent games cause violence (which I strongly), but it does add to the credibility of this idea.
Instead of reading as "two researchers prove their point" this thing reads more like "two researchers prove their own idiocy"
Liberty.
When I hear things like that, I point out that more people claim to have been abducted (not just seen, but actually touched) by aliens than saw Jesus in the flesh after he rose. So, if pure numbers makes an argument, then there's more proof in the existence of aliens then Jesus.
Not that I'm arguing for or against anything, just pointing out the absurdity of the arguments...
Learn to love Alaska
Violence in the media does not lead to violent behavior. It leads to a fear of being victimized. That is why gun sales are up, and polls show people are more paranoid despite crime being at a 30-year low.
All this anti-video game BS needs to stop.
Just as romance novels can lead (or at least are related to) *some* women having unreasonable expectations from men, and how porn can lead (or at least is related to) *some* men being more likely to view women as sex objects, they are still "legal" and freely available for public consumption. In the USA there is still *some* protection for free speech under the constitution (assuming that the content isn't "obscene" - and I know it when I see it...).
I have a feeling that many people who react so strongly and shout "video games aren't related to ANY violence at all!" fear their favorite entertainment medium being threatened/regulated. Which is a reasonable fear, considering some countries, such as Australia's, stance on video games. However, it can be easily shown that some video games are related to the release of endorphins and adrenaline, which is why they are "fun." Guess what? Some of those chemicals released in the brain are related to violence.
I guess what I'm saying is: there is at least *some* evidence, through empirical research, that Video Games are related to violence. It just seems so silly to see slashdot, which is a well informed community, deny evidence. The evidence, however, does NOT mean that playing a game is a magic bullet that will "cause" a person to be violent. I play games myself, but the theory of carthesis has been pretty much shown to be bull, and I still hear gamers say "it helps me relax." When hooked up to sensors, however, playing a game does anything but make a gamer relax (heightened blood pressure, pulse, release of adrenaline, etc.).
Guns are used to kill people, and yet they are still legal. I think no one can deny that guns were developed as a means to kill - be it animals, humans, etc. But something that is so clearly related to violence is still legal. Video games, even if found to cause violence, should also still be legal.
Sometimes I feel like users on slashdot are a bunch of 13 year old boys, scared that their mom will take away their games if any evidence that games are linked to violence is accepted. Just accept it already, get on with your lives, and raise a stink if the big bad FCC comes in.
I just went to citeseer and searched for "spherical earth": 149 documents found.
A search for "flat earth" gave me 231 documents, so the Earth must be flat!
Studies show that sedentary activities for hours increases heart disease, even if you exercise during the week as well.
What would kill more people, violence stimulated by video games, or heart attacks and strokes at younger ages due to lack of exercise?
I believe the fact that video games reduce violence is fairly simple to see for anyone who has access to the data.
Look at it like this. The first console generation began in 1972. Prior to that, we had a GREAT DEAL more wars than after that. In fact, a vast majority of wars (including the horrors of WWI and WWII) occurred *before* the first video game was even conceived!
How can anyone, anyone at all, argue that video games *increase* violence when the numbers show that conflicts following video game production are, proportionally, less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of all conflicts prior to the invention of video games? Further, considering how much larger our population is now, each conflict should be considered to be even *less* due to being a far smaller portion of the total population as opposed to conflicts which occurred when the population of the world was in the millions.
The numbers don't lie here people. Video games decrease wars. Also the lack of pirates contributes to global warming.
Those guys were hilarious.
These researchers have published a new study, but where is the proof that its results are true?
They better start publishing more on this topic....
nt
Reminds me of this comic
http://dresdencodak.com/2011/04/19/dark-science-09/
The problem is that one side of the argument is clearly the obvious side to take, even though it's not necessarily true. Sort of like the climate change debate, most folks already have their mind made up. So thanks to the wonders of groupthink, studies that come down on video games get the funds and publicity, so subsequent studies are done with the same unconscious bias.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
Having read quite a lot that these two have published, as well as literature from the opposing side, it's quite clear that these two don't really know what the hell they're talking about. They consistently create experimental conditions comparing games that aren't comparable to test for violence effects, with silliness like 'lets see if Unreal Tournament causes people to have higher arousal than those playing Farmville!'. While they -may- be experts on aggression, they clearly have no idea the mechanics or theory involved in actually playing video games. While "games research" is kind of new, it also still requires specialization to work with, part of which is an actual understanding of games, gameplay, and mechanics. From the literature these two publish, it is fairly evident that they don't have it. Dmitri Williams said it best - "People researching games should PLAY GAMES", and it seems like these guys haven't touched a video game in their lives.
Yes, the "video games are violent" people publish a lot. But the quality of their experiments, and result reporting is very very lacking. This is evident by the methodology mention in TFA which "provides strong support" according to Bushman. No, it does not. If anything, it shows people staggering and back tracking to find support for something they suspect based on opinion, and realize they haven't done a reasonable job proving.
If you actually -read- the literature, and start poking it with a stick there is some evidence that starts to form to make a clear picture. That picture is that there -is- an effect of violence in video games, the effect is incredibly short term (hours) and very small, and that there are cognitive -benefits- to playing video games that quite longer term. Additionally, the small, short-term effect seems to only be a risk condition for people with very specific personality issues who would need to fit other risk-factors anyways for it to actually be an issue.
I'm a first year student studying psychology, and I happened to write a paper on the subject of the effect of violent video games, and I have some opinions on this subject.
First of all, I'd like to say RTFA. The summary above is one of the worst summaries I have seen, presenting the matter in an extremely biased fashion. First of all, what the researchers in question (Bushman, Anderson, Sacks) did is not so outrageous as the article suggests. To rephrase it in a less biased way, they looked at the people who signed both the pro and con amicus briefs, and looked at how many had actually published something within the topics of the effects of video game violence or media violence. They then looked at how many of these published studies were published in respectable journals ("respectability" was calculated using a method called "impact factor", which measures the relative amount of references to articles in a certain journal). Here they found that the signers of the brief supporting the link between violent video games and violent behaviour, had 48 times more studies published in respectable journals then the opposing side, fourty eight TIMES more studies. They did this to asess the credentials and credibility of the people signing each brief, not to somehow directly prove that violent violent games cause agression, such as the OP suggests, and I would say their assesement is legitimate. What they did here was to show that almost none of the people (17%) calling themselves "experts" who signed to the fact that violent video games did not cause agressive behaviour had published a single study on the subject area, and that the studies that they had published were only accepted by obscure journals with very little credibility to them (ie. they are of very low quality). They did not prove that violent video games cause agression, but they did prove that almost all the people who said that it didn't had almost no credentials whatsoever, and that the opposing side had plenty. Make of that what you will.
This assesement paints a picture of the situation that is pretty much in agreement to what I discovered when I wrote a paper on the subject: that there are only three (Ferguson, Kilburn, Freedman) serious researchers who deny the link between violent video games and agression, and that the rest are industry funded dickheads whose only purpose is to confuse the public into thinking that there is a real debate on the topic. All of the most recent experimental, cross-sectional and longitudal studies with a decent number of citations and credibility all supported the fact that violent video games are a risk factor for increased agression (by agression I mean agressive behaviour, cognition and affect). The largest and most credible meta-study I could find (done by Anderson et al in 2010), showed without any doubt that almost all psychological research done on the subject points to the fact that this risk factor is real.
Denying the link between exposure to video game violence and increased risk of agressive behaviour, cognition and affect goes against all relevant psychological theory, former research on media violence, and even current research on the topic. The research that the OP dismisses clearly show that the people that are still denying it are the same industry funded idiots who have always denied any proper science being done on the subject of media violence, people who have no real scientific credibility. Note that we are talking about a risk factor here, not a causal link. The research doesn't show that all kids who play violent video games become violent individuals; it does however show that in combination with other factors it can play a role in making them so.
The article says that the researcher's developed a "novel" method. However, I'm pretty sure the Salem Witch Trials used this first. If the majority called "Witch!" off to the fires she went.
Someone else publish more papers than [these two researchers] saying that [video games don't cause violence].
The additional quantity will disprove them.
No, no... There's a much better solution: Bring back the Colosseum. Make a spectacle of violence, nay, revel in it. Let the lions eat the criminals. Let the gladiators slay men and beasts... Who would want to play a silly violent video game when you can see / hear / smell / taste / participate in the real thing?
Face it, we're animals. Some of us have more animosity than others. Ever since the first human fell down and the others laughed we've been entertained by violence. Today, we consume our violent entertainment safely from the comfort of our sofas and desks in the form of movies, books, video games, eBullying... There's no need to trip or pull the chair out from under your friends for laughs (risking minor injuries) when you can virtually murder them in a game, or watch hundreds of unfortunates injure themselves on Youtube (or a Funniest Video show -- yes, that's right: By and large society says, "It's funny when people get mildly injured").
Would the censors rather us return to actually watching real murders for fun? Is liking violence perverse? Not if the majority of people enjoy it in some form or another -- Perverts are outliers, ergo, it's the prude pro censorship dolts that are perverse.
As to the topic of whether or not video games make children more violent -- No. Absolutely not. My nephew spends all his free time playing video-games -- He's living a far less violent life than those I know who grew up without them: Running loose outdoors, torturing of defenseless critters on occasion, and having the odd fist fight for no good reason.
Perhaps I've just led a less sheltered life than some -- I consider myself a good person, but I can tell you from experience: In a pinch, exhibiting violent behavior can be a real life saving trait.
TL;DR: We are animals; Are life forms that kill, such as lions, "violent"? Are snakes? Frogs? Fish? ...mosquitoes? Amoeba? Venus fly traps? Mosses? Even trees rob life giving light from other plants -- Violence is part of life. Deal with it.
... I'd like to point out that the researchers are not claiming to have settled the issue of video game violence by counting the credentials. They're merely pointing out that there is more scientific credentials behind one of the two briefs delivered to the court.
"The justices were presented with two briefs, arguing opposite sides, and they may think the contradictory briefs simply cancel each other out," Bushman said.
Still, I don't think it's a very strong argument, and it can easily be misused.
On the contrary, it means they've corroborated their story. And the more such support they discover, the more they're going to get their findings published, and thus, the more their findings will be corroborated.
It's called argumentum ad bootstrapum. Google it.
"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
Games for mature people. Most people is ignorant, and don't know there are games for mature people. Not all videogames are for childrens.
The problem is... ..some people is ignorant.
Heres the problem that need fixing.
-Woof woof woof!
And thus be the all-governing supreme authority on everything!
Well, since volume of work determines what's true, guess this closes the book on the whole climate change 'debate' since 100% of the peer reviewed papers are in support of it. Sucks that video games cause violence, but one must pick their battles. Eat it, warming deniers!
If they publish one more study putting down violence in my video games, I'm going to kick there motherfucking assholes!
If anything, researchers look for ways to refute their competitor's position.
Then that's not science, it's marketing.
By that definition, science doesn't put food on a researcher's table; marketing does. So if you disagree with the mixture of science and marketing that characterizes research over the past decade at least, then how do you recommend to promote the progress of science?
My parents took away duck hunt before I started taking a handgun to the local goose population. I was an angry 12 year old, I tell you...
Keep an eye out for their upcoming catagorical and objective proof:
After giving 1000 violent young offenders a video game to play, 1000 of them were still violent young offenders.
Furthermore,
After giving 1000 non-violent young offenders a video game to play, all 1000 of them had committed some acts of virtual violence - and therefore were now violent young offenders.
I know /. is pro-game and anti-censorship. SO AM I. That said, I'm really disappointed by the proliferation of anti-scientific misunderstandings propagated by the OP and commenters. (For instance: OP needs to RTFA. The study measures both quantity AND quality.) As a media studies scholar, I've studied the evidence, and there really is a statistically significant correlation (which DOES NOT equal an effect 100% of the time or anywhere near that often) between consuming violent media and engaging in real-world violence.
I'd say more, but these folks do a MUCH better job:
http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/articles/Huesmann/2003.Huesmann&Taylor.Case%20against%20thecase%20againstmedia%20viol.inGentile.pdf
Read this chapter, read some more of the evidence, then share your thoughts based on the actual data. Don't oppose scientific findings based on policy preferences.
"claiming that they've come up with an 'objective' way to measure why violent video games lead to violence."
When you set out to do a study and you've already got your conclusion, you're an ideologue and a pseudoscientist, cherry-picking evidence to suit your pre-conceived agenda. The hypothesis that video games increase violent behaviour is dead and buried. Next.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Looks like 21st century research is reverting from scientific empiricism to medieval scholasticism.
We are the 198 proof..
Calling them researchers is an insult to all people who actually do research.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
I saw these kids trying to do UFC style chokes today.
I told them to stop and that chokes are NOT cool. One kid got hurt after ignoring me. Douche bag adult there was doing nothing to stop them.I would say watching UFC lead to them trying chokes (when they say " I didn't tap"). If they have access to a grim reaper minigun then we may be in trouble! If kids can emulate, they will! But to emulate call of duty they would need an arsenal hanging around and some friends to shoot. Good luck with that. If you have that in your house then you have problems.
The moment they said "why", rather than "whether", they ceased to be objective.
http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1192#comic
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
the same i do to every claim : since i took up gaming again, i haven't hit anyone over the head
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?