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."
...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
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!
/. 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
Instead of reading as "two researchers prove their point" this thing reads more like "two researchers prove their own idiocy"
Liberty.
but it does add to the credibility of this idea.
It does? Only if the original studies were actually valid and truly proved what they were attempting to prove. I've seen none that actually link real-world violence to violent entertainment. Only temporary aggressive thoughts which almost never amount to anything.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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
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!
"video games aren't related to ANY violence at all!"
I can't speak for them, but I speculate that most of them probably mean that any 'normal' person wouldn't be so drastically effected by a video game that it would change them completely.
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."
That almost never amounts to anything. Temporary aggressive thoughts, maybe. But given the amount of people who view/play violent entertainment, you'd think that more people would be violent. The effect is likely so miniscule that it doesn't do anything to the average person, even if they are children.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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?
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.
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!
I wonder what the violent video games from the 1800s looked like.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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."
I will objective proof that it is indeed crap by adding up the number of adjectives by each side found in this very post.
Crap, crap, good, crap, crap, crap, good, crap.
There you go; objectively proven. "Crap" has far more publications than any other word in this post, therefore it is far more credible.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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?
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.
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.).
Relax is not the right word. It helps you escape. Your regular life may be full of worry, stress, and insecurity. Perhaps you have feelings of powerlessness and you're afraid to take action. A game is empowering and makes you feel good. After it's over you can ride that high and let your body cool down and relax and you'll feel more satisfied than you did before when you felt powerless and used by the system. In that sense, it does help you relax. You're not relaxing *while playing*, but it can help you to relax later since it took your mind off of all the things that were stressing you out.
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.
Meh, it's trivial. Sure, I get excited when I play a game. I'm more aggressive. But I'm harmlessly aggressive. My aggression is directed at a fantasy. I'm more dangerous if I get a lecture from my boss that pisses me off, because at least then my aggression is targeted at a real person. Is it impossible that a person could commit a violent act in a moment of heightened aggression from playing a video game? I guess not.... but why single out video games? They are one of many, many activities that result in increased aggression, and they are generally played in a relatively safe and nonthreatening setting where a violent situation is unlikely to arise.
Also, is there a difference between violent and nonviolent games? That is, if you're playing Gears of War which has gore all over the place vs a platformer where you're getting frustrated by falling and dying repeatedly. I've noticed that a violent easy game tends to make me less agitated than a challenging (or worse, cheap) non-violent game. I've had moments where I really wanted Mario to die in a fucking fire. ;)
"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.
Ach! It's all bollocks!
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.