Daily Dose of Violent Video Games Causes 'No Significant Changes' In Behavior, Study Finds (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A new, longer-term study of video game play from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Germany's University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf recently published in Molecular Psychiatry found that adults showed "no significant changes" on a wide variety of behavioral measures after two straight months of daily violent game play. Most scientific studies on the effects of video game violence measure participants right after the completion of a gameplay session, when the adrenaline prompted by the on-screen action is likely still pumping. Researcher Simone Kuhn and her co-authors argue that "effects observed only for a few minutes after short sessions of video gaming are not representative of what society at large is actually interested in, namely how habitual violent video game play affects behavior on a more long-term basis." To correct for the "priming" effects inherent in these other studies, researchers had 90 adult participants play either Grand Theft Auto V or The Sims 3 for at least 30 minutes every day over eight weeks (a control group played no games during the testing period). The adults chosen, who ranged from 18 to 45 years old, reported little to no video game play in the previous six months and were screened for pre-existing psychological problems before the tests. Over 208 separate comparisons (52 tests; violent vs. non-violent and control groups; pre- vs. post- and two-months-later tests), only three subjects showed a statistically significant effect of the violent gameplay at a 95 percent confidence level. Pure chance would predict more than 10 of the 208 comparisons would be significant at that level, leading the researchers to conclude "that there were no detrimental effects of violent video game play."

Comments

Shocking

[chadenright]

Isn't this the same thing gamers have been saying for years? Nice to finally have a study to back it up.

Re:Shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the numbers of people that play COD and the like I think we would have noticed without a study :O

Despite playing 2000 hours of wrecking/demo derby my car is still in one piece so there's that also :)

Re:Shocking

[ShanghaiBill]

Isn't this the same thing gamers have been saying for years?

No. There has never been much evidence that video games have a harmful effect, and yet another study using "psychological tests" doesn't really add anything. It is more important to look at ACTUAL VIOLENCE. Video game players have significantly LOWER arrest rates for violent crimes than peers who spend little time playing. The most plausible explanation for this is that spending time gaming leaves less time out in the street getting in trouble, but gamers also have different social connections, and are less likely to join gangs and associate with criminals. Gamers are also less likely to use drugs or alcohol.

Re:Shocking

[rtb61]

Not all violent video games are equal. There is a noticeable difference in interaction and user choices based upon how realistic the game attempts to be, more cartoonish or closer to realistic visuals. I think you need to separate that out and redo the test and measure the psychological impact of playing the more realistic game versus the more cartoon based visuals game.

I do notice a difference playing those different styles of game the realistic being far more stressful than the cartoon based which can be quite relaxing, although for some reason the environment needs to behave in a more realistic fashion even when drawn in a cartoon manner. The player representation can be quite cartoon based, and still generate that interactive feel just in a less stressful manner, more fun.

Still not create violence though more just draw in more violent tending people, when given a quality gaming choice. Sometimes having to play more realistic than you would prefer for the game play experience. Cartoon based definitely has a much wider gameplay audience.

Re:Shocking

[gumbi west]

It's not a very powerful setup. They had 30 people in each group and 6 dropped out of two groups.

To see how lousy it is, consider that "Delay-discounting task delay" Was lowered in the control group from 0.76 before the study to 0.03 at the end of the study while the GTA group saw their level rise from 5.22 to 25.34 (see Table 1). The conclusion their methodology came to was that there was no difference between the two groups (p=0.26).

So, the authors conclude 0.03 is about equal to 25.34.

if you're seeing differences that large and concluding there is no difference the design makes it junk science. The conclusion was a result of the design.

That doesn't mean that these games cause problems, only that this study isn't very informative.

Re:Shocking

[angel'o'sphere]

It is more important to look at ACTUAL VIOLENCE. Video game players have significantly LOWER arrest rates for violent crimes than peers who spend little time playing.
Obviously.
They have no time harrassing other people and get arrested for it. They spent 8h or more playing, and if they have bad luck 4h - 8h at school or university.
On the other hand if playing any game is not mind altering for you, you likely have a mental probelm, too.

Re:Shocking

[Calydor]

By that logic, reading books, watching movies, listening to TV and staring blankly out the window are all mind altering. ANY sensory input alters your mind ever so subtly.

Re:Shocking

[ShanghaiBill]

The question is if violence being normalized in popular media makes us more violent or more accepting of violence.

That is indeed the question. And the answer, according to the evidence, is "No".

Re:Shocking

[Dragonslicer]

Video game players have significantly LOWER arrest rates for violent crimes than peers who spend little time playing. The most plausible explanation for this is that spending time gaming leaves less time out in the street getting in trouble, but gamers also have different social connections, and are less likely to join gangs and associate with criminals. Gamers are also less likely to use drugs or alcohol.

What is the definition of "peers"? I would think that the most plausible explanation is that teenagers and young adults that spend a large amount of time playing these video games are more likely to be part of at least middle-class families.

Re:Shocking

[angel'o'sphere]

Exactly :D
That was the point.

Re:Shocking

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually it is not.
First of all, a study is not evidence, it is a study with a result.
Secondly, everything is mind altering, otherwise you would be dead.
The study indicates that video games (violent video games?) don't cause people to run mad and shoot.

My point was: if you do something 8h a day it changes your thought processes, for the good or the bad.
If you don't agree, you probably never studied anything.

Re:Shocking

[K10W]

The study was pretty bad. It was GTA5 vs Sims 3. Not exactly violent games. They should be studying modern, violent & hyper competitive games. You know; the ones where abuse is rampant & swatting occurs at the extremes.

swatting doesn't necessarily occur in violent games at all. It occurs in competitive niches regardless of genre (runescape for instance, LoL, Dota) and in most popular streamers with large viewing figure; both stream and game primarily composed of younger audiences and player base. There is a ton of hyper competitive violent stuff that attracts more mature audiences and I'm yet to see abuse in any of those streams or within game comms, never heard of swatting in them as it seems limited to immature player/viewer games with very large numbers with possible extra factors such as high monetisation or low barrier to entry. Thus you see the attitudes in communities of COD or CS are quite different to something like EfT, Onward, Arma, Squad and so on.

The Sims...

[tomxor]

participants play either Grand Theft Auto V or The Sims 3 for at least 30 minutes every day

I wouldn't be surprised if the people forced to play "the sims" exhibited slightly more violent tendencies immediately after playing compared to GTA... that game just pisses me off.

Re:The Sims...

[Calydor]

Odd. I found Sims 3 to be a very relaxing experience, especially once I had World Adventures and started turning my mansion into a museum. It was almost zen-like finishing collections and getting everything to sit just right.

Re:The Sims...

[war4peace]

Let them play Hatred and then measure their levels :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:The Sims...

[war4peace]

Hmm, I have played it. It was a pretty well done game.

Re:The Sims...

[Lotana]

Is there anything else except running and gunning? Is there a plot?

From all the videos I have seen, it is so repetitive. You seem to just run into coffee shops, effortlessly gun down civilians, cops spawn, you shoot them, repeat.

I would be bored after about 20 minutes of this. That is the length of time before violence just stops being special. It's like takedown animations in games: At first they are sublime, but after seeing them three times it just becomes annoying delays in the gameplay. Like quicktime events.

Re:The Sims...

[war4peace]

The police start hunting you in the sewers, for example.
I haven't played it for long, but I thought it was a welcome addition to gaming. Sort of a big Fuck You to SJW, positive discrimination and general flatness of current Western society.

Re:The Sims...

[tomxor]

We are very different people.

Guns cause violence

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It's guns. Access to guns. Also, not having proper mental health evaluation prior to allowing a person the privilege of buying a firearm to go form their militia.

Don't believe people who say that the purpose of guns is "intimidation". That's horseshit. The only purpose for guns is to kill or maim.

Q: How do you get a conservative to care about using proper pronouns? A: Call an AR-15 an "automatic".

Re:Guns cause violence

[sexconker]

the privilege of buying a firearm

Owning and using guns is a right, not a privilege.

Re:Guns cause violence

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me the stats!

I would expect to see this: the presence of guns increases the degree to which guns are involved in violent encounters, but DECREASES the overall number of violent encounters, resulting in a net reduction of fatalities and injuries overall.

If you want to challenge that, you need to show more than an increase in "gun violence." You need to show an increase in "overall violence." Every single stat that comes out of anti-gun groups shows "gun violence" without any representation of "overall violence."

Your position is based on your fear of guns, and biased stats.

Re:Guns cause violence

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you're not in charge, because you are dangerously stupid and naive.

The Second amendment is not a grant of permission for people to own guns, it's a restriction on the US government that it can never keep us from having them. It is our only guarantee of freedom from oppression by that government. It means that if they want to take freedom away, they will have to kill us to do it.

You want to make it possible for them to round us up at their leisure. You are a suicidal idiot. Its a common malady among your kind.

Re:Guns cause violence

[jordanjay29]

I often find ACs to be raving lunatics as well.

Re:Guns cause violence

[harrkev]

Poverty causes violence. Google the phrase "Chicago crime gap." The cliff notes version is that some Chicago zip codes have dozens of shootings per year, and some have none. The gun laws are the same. The difference is the average income in those zip codes. People with money don't usually go around shooting each other. Poor people seem to do so much more often.

But as to access to guns, just look to history for a negative example. Back a few decades ago you could MAIL ORDER guns without a background check. You could get a Browning Hi Power 9mm pistol (invented in the 1920's) with a 13 round magazine delivered right to your door. Add in four extra magazines and two boxes of ammo, and you have 65 rounds of death that fits in your pockets.

But back in the 50's you didn't have random shootings. It isn't the guns that have changed (other than a little plastic, they haven't), but the culture has changed.

I am sure that violent video games and movies do little to NORMAL people, but might be enough to push mentally ill people over the edge.

Re:Guns cause violence

[harrkev]

No, you find people who don't want their karma shot to hell because people will mod them down just because they don't agree with what they have to say.

I have seen this myself first hand. If you aren't part of the political group-think, you are modded into oblivion.

Re:Guns cause violence

[another_twilight]

I've come across articles/studies that point to income inequality more than outright poverty.

When everyone around you is doing about as well as you, for good or ill, there seems to be less crime, overall. When there's clearly some people drawing more from the pool than others, crime increases. Add guns and you see more gun crime.

WRT the 50s;

I'm not certain that there was less poverty, or less inequality (consider racial rights), but there was less mobility, less ubiquitous communication and more homogeneous communities - so perhaps it was just that there were less opportunities to have the inequality made obvious.

Re:Guns cause violence

[another_twilight]

dangerously stupid and naive

and

You are a suicidal idiot

would get this modded down for being flamebait.

I've seen unpopular opinions presented in reasonable and well argued fashion modded quite highly. When I have mod points I pay particular attention to comments I disagree with that are well presented to try to make sure I'm not contributing to an echo chamber. I'd say that there are more mods that do this than negatively mod due to disagreement. I'm not saying '-1 Disagree' doesn't happen, but that it happens more rarely than is claimed, and is often reversed as moderators find a decent post that's been modded down and 'correct' the moderation.

The GP post deserves negative moderation, regardless of content. Claims of persecution based on content are a fantasy of self importance.

Re:Guns cause violence

[Nidi62]

the privilege of buying a firearm

Owning and using guns is a right, not a privilege.

With rights comes responsibility. Just as the right to free speech doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a theater, the right to bear arms doesn't allow you to, well, open fire in a theater. Just as reasonable limits on speech can exist without affecting your freedom of speech, so too can reasonable limits on firearms. I say this as someone who owns multiple firearms, and also believe the Constitution was written very specifically, and that the 2nd Amendment is the second amendment for a reason, because it shows how important gun ownership was to the founders.

Some easy, reasonable fixes: federal law already says it is illegal fire persons under 21 to purchase handguns from a licensed dealer. Amend that law to say firearms with an ammunition capacity over 5 rounds and/or barrel length. This takes care of most handguns (besides a limited number of revolvers, most of which are used for hunting as well) and AR-style rifles while still permitting the sale of hunting-geared weapons (shotguns, bolt actions, semi-autos like the modern BAR). Second would be require the attendance of a free course outlining firearm safety, handling, laws, and basic marksmanship before being able to attain a CCL or purchase a firearm as well as yearly recurrent training covering the same topics. We already make hunters do it, so it's a logical step.

Re:Guns cause violence

[Talderas]

Every time a shooting event comes up it's reported in the media and people go into an irrational frothing rage demanding action to prevent an event that they are statistically unlikely to ever experience or have someone that they know or tangentially related to experience. For the sake of comparison, your are more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than killed in a mass shooting incident. There's a fixation on longarm rifles when the statistics show that longarm rifles are not anything close to a majority contributor to firearm related homicides (that's the dominion of handguns where it's over 10x more likely to die to a handgun than rifle). If you're going to die in a homicide, you're more likely to get killed by someone's fists than a longarm rifle.

I've never particularly bought the "firearms are more dangerous" argument as it was quite legal for individuals to own and operate cannon which were far more dangerous and for the sake of argument it's worth pointing out that the only reasons I don't own a self-propelled howitzer are because I don't want one, can't afford one, and am not certain someone capable of making one would sell it to me. If one were to counter by suggesting, that self propelled artillery isn't a problem because it's expensive and not everyone can afford it then I would counter by suggesting then that you are in support of outcome where the rich upper class are only permitted to exercise a right protected to them by the Bill of Rights.

I've also thought that spending money to make schools "safer" was a thorough waste of taxpayer money. They could undoubtedly generate far more positive returns by investing those same funds elsewhere. It's really nothing more than a business payoff for insurance against events that aren't likely to happen just to make parents "feel" safe.

All of this response is nothing more than faulty risk analysis. It's no different from the people that avoid giving their kids vaccines because they're afraid of autism which in turn increases the risk of their child become sick and/or potentially dying. Likewise with airplane crashes where people become paranoid their plane is going to crash and instead travel by car where they are increasing their risk of an injury or fatal accident.

My father recently commented to me about all the threats made against schools that are popping up. There's nothing rare about that. It's common, it's just being reported more frequently. Hell, I had to wait on the bus one day when I was on high school because K-9 times were going through my school due to a bomb threat and that was two decades ago. Kids are assholes and stupid. They think that they can call in a threat and get out of school. I had to illuminate him on the concept of SWATting. He couldn't comprehend why kids would do that.

Here's my stance. I'm up for reasonable gun control but not until you introduce the 28th Amendment. Be honest that your goal is to ban firearms entirely because as long as handguns are out there and the supermajority firearm homicide weapon, going after rifles is really a side diversion. Everything that is being pushed is a method that justifies violating due process and the 4th Amendment or violates the 2nd Amendment with regard to weapons that aren't a significant problem.

Re:Guns cause violence

[svendsen]

Actually I CAN yell fire in the theater. I can yell it as loud as I want too. Even if there is no fire I CAN yell it. Now there are consequences for said action but there is nothing stopping me from yelling fire in a theater.

Which seems like a stupid nit picky point right? Well no. There are no barriers (yet) to me speaking. How about we make every take a free course outlining speaking safety, libel/slander laws, basic decency before being able to speak and/or exercising the use of the first amendment along with recurrent training covering the same topics?

Given how much our government has shredded the bill of rights anyway let's not allow them to shred it further.

Re:Guns cause violence

[Nidi62]

How about we make every take a free course outlining speaking safety, libel/slander laws, basic decency before being able to speak and/or exercising the use of the first amendment along with recurrent training covering the same topics?

We do. It's called compulsory primary education. The US already mandates at least an 8th grade education, and pretty much all of those topics are generally covered.

Re:Guns cause violence

[harrkev]

Anonymous Coward said:

I'm OK with using taxes to fund social programs to reduce poverty too.

It seems like there is a group of people that want mass shootings to happen and will fight anything that will reduce them.

First, wouldn't it be better to have a stronger economy so that the poor could just get jobs instead of having to rely on social programs? That way they can pull themselves out of poverty and get the satisfaction of doing it themselves rather than relying on the government.

I have not seen ANYBODY that wants mass shootings to happen. Everybody wants to stop mass shootings. However, the approaches differ:

One group wants to reduce the rights of everybody in the hopes that the criminal might have a harder time getting a gun.

The other groups knows that reducing the rights of an honest person does not make them safer. They want the victims to at least have a chance to fight back, and having armed victims might very well deter the criminal. Plus, other weapons exist. Our WORST mass shooting in the US pales in comparison to the Nice, France attack that killed 86 -- with a truck. Some people realise that 17 dead with a gun is not worse than 17 dead with a bomb or a knife or a truck.

But I dare you to show me ONE sane person that does not want to stop any sort of mass murder.

Re:Guns cause violence

[svendsen]

I would disagree those topics are covered at all in the US public school system (or in any real or useful depth...especially complex libel/slander laws). However that wasn't my point which I was trying to make and I should have clarified my response better.

The argument as I understand is that one must ask the government permission (in this case via government approved training) to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

I cannot agree to any position that requires an adult US citizen in good standing to pass a government test (especially one the citizen pays for either via fees, taxes, missing work, and/or giving up time) to exercise their constitutional rights.

Now there should always be consequences when those citizens exercise their rights in evil and bad ways (yelling fire in a theater where no fire exists, inciting violence, libel/slander, shooting people, keeping people as slaves, etc. etc.).

Re:Guns cause violence

[ArylAkamov]

Pretty sure access to inanimate objects are not the root cause of violence, do you have brain damage?

Q: How do you get a conservative to care about using proper pronouns? A: Call an AR-15 an "automatic".

One is real and based off of mechanical operation, the other is nonsense based off feelings. Do you have brain damage?

Re:Guns cause violence

[pnutjam]

The m-16 entered service in 1964 and started being sold to civilians that same year.

Guns have become more accurate, lower recoil, and easier to use.

Re:Guns cause violence

[pnutjam]

You want to make it possible for them to round us up at their leisure. You are a suicidal idiot. Its a common malady among your kind.

Guns don't stop this, they usually act as an excuse.

Re:Guns cause violence

[erapert]

And here I am without mod points.
So instead I'll just mention that Defense Distributed and their Ghost Gunner project are important ideas-- no matter which side you're on, no matter what your opinion of the people involved, they're still an important thing to consider in all this.

Re:Guns cause violence

[harrkev]

Guns have become more accurate, lower recoil, and easier to use.

Some truth in what you say, but let's look further.

More accurate. Some truth, but a lot of that is optics. However, the typical "mass shooting" distance is a few feet, so that is not really an issue. Even with the Las Vegas shooting, they guy was shooting at a giant crowd, so accuracy was not really the issue -- just aim for the middle of the crowd.

Lower recoil. Yes, but by using WEAKER BULLETS. The stock AR-15 is not legal to hunt deer with in my state because it TOO WEAK. Do you think we would be better off going back to the days of more powerful ammo?

5.56x 45 ammo -- what is used in the standard AR-15. Around 1,700 to 1,800 J of energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Compare that to the .30-06 (the previous "war" ammo). Around 2,800 to 2,900 J of energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So, which one would YOU rather be shot with?

Easier to use? Hmmmm. The AR-15 has the usual assortment of magazine release, safety, bolt release buttons as any other rifle. Plus, it has a SEPARATE bolt handle and forward assist. I would call that MORE COMPLICATED than many other rifles. If you get a failure to feed on an AR, it is less obvious how to clear it So, for the AR-15, no. Not true at all. Now for pistols, you have a point. The Glock has no safety.

So, is it your belief that having a single safety lever has confused many would-be mass shooters because they could not figure out how to get the pistol to fire?

Re:Guns cause violence

[pnutjam]

Just pointing out your spin, keep it up.

I would rather be shot with a .30-06, but I try to avoid both.

I doubt anybody is confused by a gun, then or now. They are pretty simple to use. I would prefer someone be able to carry less ammo and have a harder time readjusting after aiming, if they are shooting at me.

I personally think we should limit high capacity magazines (require additional licensing or tax stamps), severely limit hand guns, and outlaw the carry of loaded weapons, especially in a ready-to-fire state.
I'm astounded by how many dumb-asses think they need to carry with a hot round in the chamber. If it was really about safety they would be wearing a helmet and carrying a fire extinguisher, not a gun.

Re:Guns cause violence

[harrkev]

Well, you forget one small thing about the .30-06. Hunting (aka hollow-point) rounds are VERY common. Those expand and do a LOT more damage. So, yeah, I would still go with the 5.56 for being less lethal.

So, you want the victims unarmed? Yeah, that makes them much safer for sure. Guns are used to PREVENT crime much more often that you think. A friend of mine had to pull his gun out for times so far. Each time, demonstrating that he was armed was enough to cause the attackers to flee, no shots fired, nobody hurt. But I am sure that you will pretend that this doesn't happen.

https://www.justfactsdaily.com...

Re:Guns cause violence

[harrkev]

But stuff like this never happens, right?

https://www.statesman.com/news...

http://www.philly.com/philly/n...

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01...

Re:Guns cause violence

[desdinova 216]

it would be nice if the first and fourth were as vigorously protected. but that's what happens when there isn't an industry group that has nearly unlimited money to bribe legislators

Re:Guns cause violence

[pnutjam]

Obviously your immersed in the fear culture that stoke the imagination of gun nutters. I avoid conflict without a gun. I do carry a knife, that is mostly for utility.

I'm also bulletproof, so I've got that going for me. ;)

Re:Guns cause violence

[harrkev]

One final bit of information. Concealed carry permit holders are MORE HONEST than the average person -- by far.

The methodology was to look at the states that publish this data (admittedly not a lot), but if they say how many concealed carry permits are revoked for committing a crime, you just divide that by the total number of permits in that state. That is pretty unambiguous and not subject to skewing the numbers.

https://www.dailywire.com/news...

Yeah, it could also be that the concealed carry permit holders are NOT more honest, but just smarter than average and just don't get caught (but not terribly likely). Pick your interpretation.

Re:Guns cause violence

[harrkev]

So, I am the one "immersed in the fear culture" but you are the one so terrified of guns that the thought of being near a loaded one makes you pee your panties. Riiiiight.

I really don't care what lies you have to tell yourself to justify your position. Just don't lie to me. Have a great day. I am done.

Re:Guns cause violence

[JesseMcDonald]

Now there should always be consequences when those citizens exercise their rights in evil and bad ways (yelling fire in a theater where no fire exists, inciting violence, libel/slander, shooting people, keeping people as slaves, etc. etc.).

"Consequences", sure. People may choose not to listen to you (or even associate with you) in the future. That is their right. But if the law says that you can be punished (e.g. with loss of property, liberty, or other legal rights) based on the content of your speech, your freedom of speech is being infringed.

This includes libel/slander laws, "incitement" laws, and yes, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Personally, I really wish people would stop putting forward this "yelling 'fire'" line in support of restrictions on speech; it was a poor ruling issued under duress. Consider the historical context—that line was used to uphold the punishment of people who opposed the draft, i.e. to stifle political speech. The court ruled that way mainly because the President at the time had already threatened to stuff the Court with partisan justices until he got the ruling he wanted. (At the time there was no limit to the number of justices which could be appointed to the Supreme Court. Today there can be no more than nine Supreme Court justices, in part due to this event.) Assuming everyone else behaves lawfully, the expected result of a false fire alarm is a certain amount of inconvenience, which is likely to get you banned from that theater (and possibly others) but otherwise poses no danger to anyone. If other patrons, believing that there is a real fire, panic and trample each other in their haste to escape, that is their fault and they should bear full liability for that outcome. Trampling people is not acceptable behavior whether or not there is a fire. This harm is the result of someone else's unreasonable behavior, not the false claim that there was a fire.

Re:Guns cause violence

[sexconker]

the privilege of buying a firearm

Owning and using guns is a right, not a privilege.

With rights comes responsibility. Just as the right to free speech doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a theater

Stop right there. You absolutely can do that. Go back to the drawing board and come back when you're not fundamentally wrong.

Re:Guns cause violence

[tomxor]

What is the basis of your "right"?

Re:Bullshit

[chadenright]

There is a difference between someone who is ill and plays video games, versus someone who is ill because they play video games.

A hilarious situation

[AbRASiON]

As we see some of the far left "journalists" in the gaming scene having become so puritanical the past 3 or 4 years, that they themselves have been claiming violence in video games does or can cause violence, now they're having mental breakdowns because they are arguably in agreement with Trump, causing all kinds of problems.

If you're looking to be offended, all the damn time, this is what you get.
Or maybe, just maybe, many of them were only offended because it got them more retweets, youtube videos watched and patreon bucks?

Re:A hilarious situation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a lot longer than 3 or 4 years. Remember Tipper Gore in the 1980s?

Re:A hilarious situation

[Hadlock]

I don't think the idea that violent games = gun violence has ever been part of the "far left" ideology. There's always exceptions, but I think by 2010 or so we'd pretty much proven out that crime and violent crime in particular has continued to drop despite the meteoric rise in violent video games. An entire generation of kids that grew up with Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter II, Smash Brothers, Doom, Quake, Call of Duty all made it to adulthood and we're busy having babies while still playing those same franchises. The only way that liberal america could make that kind of connection is if they're in the 45+ age group and missed out on modern videogames somehow, and are still living under a rock.

Re:A hilarious situation

[Talderas]

Video games causing violence isn't a left/right issue. It's more of an old vs young issue.

We need to stop scapegoating

[elrous0]

Now that that's cleared up, we can get back to blaming the NRA and scary looking guns.

Re:We need to stop scapegoating

[Gravis Zero]

Now that that's cleared up, we can get back to blaming the NRA and scary looking guns.

Nobody blame the murder machines for people being murdered by them! That's just scapegoating! The real problem (humans) can never be fixed so we should never try!

Wounding patterns of military rifle bullets (spoiler alert: they cause massive damage compared to regular bullets)

Re:We need to stop scapegoating

[harrkev]

Thanks for the link to wounding patterns. However, if I were told that I were going to be shot and I got to choose any common rifle, I would prefer to be shot with an AR-15. That is because it uses one of the WEAKEST of any center-fire bullets.

Case in point. I live in Colorado. The standard 5.56 AR-15 is ILLEGAL to use for deer hunting because it is not powerful enough. Yes, there are ways to modify the AR-15 to use different ammo to make it legal for use on larger game, but that is not terribly common.

Want proof? The Washington DC sniper used an AR-15 and there were survivors. If he had used a standard deer rifle, there would be no survivors. Pulse nightclub in Orlando -- more than half of those shot survived.

Now, back in WW2, the .30-06 cartridge was the most popular. That is perfectly capable of taking any North American large game. Any human shot with one of those in the torso is almost certainly not going to survive,

One of the main reasons for the AR-15 using such a weak bullet is that it is also lighter to carry. If you are marching for days, a lighter bullet means the difference between carrying 100 rounds of .30-06 and 400 rounds of 5.56. Since running out is a very bad idea in a war, they figured that more bullets are better, even if they are only marginally effective.

But yeah, let's ban the AR-15 to force criminals to use a more powerful gun. What could go wrong?

Re:I used to believe games have no effect

[sexconker]

violent crime committed by kids is way up

No it isn't.

correlated almost exactly with the rise in popularity of video games

You mean it started in the 70s, crashed, then went nuts in the 80s?

and it's leading to school shootings

No it isn't.

Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Daily grinding for hours on violent video game doesn't affect people but 30 second adverts go for thousands of dollars and a few posts on Faceplant can change the outcome of an election? Something doesn't add up.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Most videogames don't present themselves as conveying factual information, excluding some simulation-based and educational games, and they're usually more concerned with being fun (from the developer) or profitable (to the publisher) than acting as political propaganda.

Re:I used to believe games have no effect

[bug_hunter]

I'm not in the "games have no affect on kids" camp, but I'm also not a fan of "saying violent crimes committed by kids is way up" with no evidence camp.

Because they're actually way down from their height in 1994.

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb...
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb...
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb...

18 to 45, you say...

[rmdingler]

From adolescence, it was clear to me on the order of crystal that Wile E. Coyote repeatedly surviving misadventure had no bearing on reality and my belief in my own survival of the cliff fall, the rocket malfunction, or the fake tunnel collision.

That said, when it wasn't clearly a cartoon, I noticed different levels of lingering behavior modification. Following the first couple of Rocky movies, every boy under 18 leaving the theater felt compelled to display their boxing skills whether they actually existed or not.

It would be inane to purport the same tendencies affect a grown person, yet dismissing the effect on underdeveloped minds seems a bit premature.

Re:18 to 45, you say...

[pnutjam]

Show me the video game as realistic as film and you might have a point.

I like to play a destructible racing game, flat-out 2, I've never sideswiped someone into a tailspin in real life.

Re:I used to believe games have no effect

[known_coward_69]

50 years ago it was acting out cowboys and indians. in the old soviet union it was playing WW2 and no one wanted to be the germans

We already know this

[rsilvergun]

but now we're discussion violent video games instead of gun control. Mission Accomplished.

Re:We already know this

[harrkev]

Well, if we are talking about infringing on one constitutional right, why not another? As long as we are attacking freedom, let's do it big!

Re:We already know this

[phantomfive]

Good point, it did turn out to be an effective diversion tactic.

Re:We already know this

[dwpro]

Clearly we should be focused solely on the issue you care about, despite this being a years long study not remotely related to your hobby horse topic.

Uhhhh puh-leeze

[Anonymous Coward]

Violence in games are the same as violence in saturday morning cartoons. Watch tha wascal wabbit get creamed.
Fucktards.

Tough to apply to all ends of the spectrum

[geschbacher79]

If we look at truly disturbed people (such as those committing mass shootings or school shootings, etc), there are very very few of these people in a country of 350,000,000. Now this research could be entirely accurate when applying conclusions to your average 18-34 year old. But that doesn't necessarily mean that mentally disturbed people (if given the same daily exposure to video games as the test subjects) wouldn't be negatively impacted.

It's very possible that there is an effect, it's just a broad effect. Most people who try drugs don't get addicted to them: But those who are genetically predisposed to addiction will are much more likely to get addicted. (This is backed up by seeing that alcoholism is partially inherited).

I'm not proposing a policy change, or any changes in video games. But what would be interesting is to identify at-risk individuals (broken homes, lower IQ, prone to violence, lack of self-control) and measure the effects of daily violent game play vs what this test did, and measured average individuals.

Re:Tough to apply to all ends of the spectrum

[avandesande]

Nothing wrong with rough number.... not everyone is mentally or physically capable of pulling off a mass shooting.

Re:Tough to apply to all ends of the spectrum

[dbrueck]

Agreed. Another thing I wonder about is if there are in fact effects, just not effects that the studies are trying to measure. For example, does extreme violence in video games and movies have any sort of impact on how people value life or desensitize people to those things in some ways? (and if so, what is the impact of that?)

And to your point, it may be that 99.999% of the population isn't affected in any significant way, but that remaining 0.001% is, and unfortunately that still translates into thousands of people in the U.S. alone who might be predisposed to some sort of extreme reaction to it all.

I'm in the same camp - not proposing some sort of policy change, but I do think there is more to study in this area.

Re:Tough to apply to all ends of the spectrum

[houghi]

If you look at these individuals, you will get into what is causation and what is correlation. Mass murderers and rapists have existed for a long time. There was this guy who killed 25% of the world population (Cain).

It would be obvious that a person with a violent streak will be more interested in a violent game. The thing is if he then will be more or less likely to commit the crimes. For all we know, he will be satisfied with the artificial killing. Could be that he now wants to experience the real thing.

Just replace sex with violence and you should come to the same outcome, but somehow we do not.

Re:Tough to apply to all ends of the spectrum

[mileshigh]

Extremely valid point since e.g. mass shootings are done by 0.000001% of the population, yet the study was explicitly designed to NOT include people who would likely be part of that:

were screened for pre-existing psychological problems before the tests

The study's saying that healthy people were studied and found to be basically healthy. Wow! I'd have never guessed.

Imagine a "study" declaring that peanut allergies don't exist because 99 out of 100 people were fine after eating peanuts, and that rose to 99.9% when you screened out people with any other ("co-morbid") allergy. There are a lot of vital truths buried in "non-significant" minorities and co-morbidity.

This study (and many others) simply have the wrong design and tooling to inform the debate about mass shootings since those are already extremely rare events.

Since it only takes ONE statistically insignificant whacko to kill me, I'm not interested that 99.9999% of people are healthy. Not while I'm looking down the wrong end of a gun.

Re:I used to believe games have no effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Unleaded fuel.

Not Violent Games

[neoRUR]

If your going to make a study about violent video games, then use violent video games. (The Sims 3?)
While GTA V is a bit violent, it's not the same as a Call of Duty game, which is where you will find more representative base of people trending towards violence.
As it'a really kill another person game.

I think the study is correct, as I have been playing all video games all my life and I am not prone to any violent behavior, but i'm older and have been playing and developing them for a long time, I do play Call of duty WW2 and GTA V.

I also think that if your are prone to violence, then video game or not your going to do something.

But they should extend this to include more violent first person games.

Adults only

[manu0601]

Worth noting: they studied only non-gamers adults, and if I understand correctly, not just after gameplay.

Look at schools, not video games

[RazorSharp]

These types of studies do little to actually tell us anything. Behavior is a very difficult thing to study. So difficult, I would argue, that the vast majority of psychological studies cannot be taken seriously. What would be more interesting is to see how video games affect neurology. I'm willing to bet that neurologically there are many similarities between heavy video game players and gambling addicts.

When it comes to violence and trying to prevent it, I think we should be asking cultural questions rather than psychological ones. We call these mass shooters "disturbed" and assume their crimes are proof of psychological disease, but this probably isn't true. How many of these shooters have disorders that can be traced back to the neurological level, such as the various diseases we call "schizophrenia?" When it comes to depression, there's always a chicken and egg problem. Is the depression the cause of the neurological symptoms or is a neurological imbalance the cause of the depression. The answer isn't the same for all people.

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of mass shooters are technically sane (both in the clinical and legal sense). The fact that these shootings occur disproportionately in the United States seems to confirm that culture, not psychology or video games, is the main culprit. It's not possible to make wholesale cultural changes, but it is possible to restructure schools. Our schools, with the K-12 structure, shuffles kids along and organizes them by age rather than ability. Schools are primarily a social structure where we allow the kids to create their own social hierarchies and cliques and we need to radically restructure schools. We bitch and moan about bullying and shootings, but we never address that it's the archaic school systems that most likely drive the very problems that plague them.

Other countries have video games and don't have mass shootings. What they don't have is a school system that was designed over a hundred years ago and has never really changed. Our schools are culturally toxic and need to be radically modified.

Re:Look at schools, not video games

[hyades1]

"Other countries have video games and don't have mass shootings. What they don't have is a school system that was designed over a hundred years ago and has never really changed. Our schools are culturally toxic and need to be radically modified."

"What they don't have is guns fucking everywhere and a culture that values them more highly than children."

Fixed that for you.

Re:Look at schools, not video games

[RazorSharp]

I agree that access for guns increases school shootings, but I still think restricting gun access addresses a symptom, not the root problem. Even if these kids didn't have access to guns, we don't want to send them to a school system that causes them to hate their fellow peers and teachers so much that they would suicidally attack it given the opportunity.

It's similar to the abortion debate: making abortion illegal doesn't address the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies, especially those that end in abortion, are most common among the poorly educated. Yet people who oppose abortion think the solution is to make abortion illegal (which is stupid, because anyone can Google ways to induce a miscarriage) and these same people oppose meaningful investments in education.

These problems are the major drawbacks of our archaic government that encourages politicians to harp on hot-button issues and never concern themselves with nuance. We always want easy solutions that don't actually address underlying problems: make guns illegal, arm teachers, ban abortions, etc. The underlying problem is that our education system sucks. It's psychologically toxic and only benefits those who are born into privilege.

Re:Look at schools, not video games

[Whorhay]

I'm not sure about abortion being most common among the poor. I know when I went to school the abortion clinic in the rich area that had 10% of the population did a lot more business than the clinics in the area. Maybe it just meant everyone preferred that clinic regardless of where they lived. I expect though that it had a lot more to do with who could afford to get an abortion.

I think the violence problem is baked into a culture more deeply than just how our schools work. The US is very culturally diverse and even in areas that would appear to be fairly homogeneous there is a lot of internal tribalism going on. Where I work conversations can get pretty heated over dumb things like football, and you sure as hell don't want to bring up politics or religion. And that's among a smallish group of a couple dozen people that work together all day every day. Our culture is a huge melting pot but unfortunately many people aren't interested in actually letting other cultures meld with theirs.

Who plays for just 30 minutes?

[RogueWarrior65]

30 minutes is hardly enough to be called an addiction ergo at addiction levels, behavior changes.

Long term social impact?

[mattr]

Tldr but my personal (therefore potentially worthless) impression is the main impact of violent video games are likely:
- Immediate term: potential physical impact on preexisting heart or epileptic condition and psychological stress for those without militaristic mindset who mightbe forced to play. Combined with euphoeia / self actualization for most players.
- Long term: Reinforcement of militaristic outlook and interest in violent resolution scenarios. Combined with heightened or maintained support for military and weapons manufacturers since games allow you to play with guns without fatalities.
So it might be interesting to look at whether there is evidence in the data to support these hypotheses.

Re:Bullshit

[gweihir]

That idea is too complicated for this AC, obvious as it is.

How do they quantify behavior though?

[elcor]

In my experience it rewires the way I think. I am from earth, human body so it is likely that other people also get their mind rewired by GTA.

I love killing nazis

[pablo_max]

I live in Germany and I love killing Nazis. Not every day, but often.
Of course, I need to use a VPN service to play these games, as Nazi symbolism and likeness is illegal here for.. reasons.

There are still really Nazis here and amazingly, it has never occurred to me to go on a real life killing spree.

Re: I used to believe games have no effect

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to believe ADD was a result of bad parenting and then I raised a baby that was NOT the same as the other two.

Definition of violent games

[DrYak]

It was GTA5 vs Sims 3. Not exactly violent games.

Sims 3 is non violent on purpose (Gives a point of comparison)
On the other hand, GAT5 back at its time has been controversial (as is the case with other games in the serie).

Its just that, by the time the study gets designed approved financed and finally launched, the game technology has progressed.

They should be studying modern, violent & hyper competitive games.

Which again, by the time the study gets designed approved financed and finally launched, will have been forgotten.

It's almost a case of "{new technology that I haven't grown up with} will cause the end of civilisation as we know it ! ".
See Douglas Adams's quote from Salmon of Doubt about "Rule of reaction to technology".

You know; the ones where abuse is rampant & swatting occurs at the extremes.

One should make a distinction between toxic culture of some assholes playing games, and the game themselves.

This study partially attempts to solve it by - on purpose - using non-gamers. I.e.: people how aren't part of the "twictch.tv-swearing-and-swatting" scene and see how they react.

Re:Definition of violent games

[pnutjam]

Sims is clinical in it's violence.
My daughter said this to me once:
"My sim wouldn't listen to me so I set them on fire."
I've also heard plenty of accounts of walling sims into pools or other rooms where they will die.

Amazing...

[PatrickNarkinsky]

No significant effect on behavior after 30 minutes a day over eight weeks for psychology healthy individuals? Amazing! I'm not going to send my autistic spectrum kids to play 10 hours a day for years in end! Excellent!

Re:Amazing...

[Cederic]

If it helps any, I've managed close to that 10 hours/day for years and I still haven't killed anybody.

I haven't even physically assaulted anybody in decades. Last two times I was attacked I defused the situation instead of putting the idiot in hospital too.

Still, feel free to cause distress to your kids.

Re:Amazing...

[Kojow777]

I've managed close to that 10 hours/day for years and I still haven't killed anybody.

It's very rare for heavy duty gamers to cause assault to people in the real world because they are rarely in the real world.

Obviously...

[fullback]

no one conducting the study is old enough to know that road rage and incredibly aggressive and stupid driving is not normal.

Misses the point entirely

[Sqreater]

These studies never address the CULTURAL change in thought and behavior that takes place over decades. And movies are the greater threat there.

Not True

[ArhcAngel]

If it weren't for violent video games I would have gone postal numerous times by now.

Female nipples?

[houghi]

What about female nipples? Because a lot of people seem to think they are not intended for little children. What about sex? Advertising?

I find it hard to believe that when we look at one thing, it does have no significant impact on us and when we look at something else, it does.

"But we know that violence in a game is fake and violence in reality is bad, because of outside influences." Good, I do think that we can make good judgement about female nipples as well.So we should allow that on daytime tv, right? And the same can be said about marketing, so all the marketing companies in the world can close shop.

Because I really can not believe that it works on just violence we see, but not on anything else. If violence does not create violent people then rape-porn (Yes, I wen there.) will not create rapists and a female nipple on TV will not cause the destruction of humanity.Either that, or violent games DO influence people. It is either both or neither. Can't have the cake and eat it, too.

A Straw man post on a post critical of straw men

[rsilvergun]

Wow, congrats, you've achieved /. inception. I never questioned the validity or usefulness of the study (you calling that into question is the straw man you've set up). I questioned why to public at large is spending time discussing an issue already settled in the public discourse. Do all the studies you want on video game violence. Go nuts. But how about lifting the ban on gun violence studies? Or even talking about it. No?

Also you're sig is dumb. Given immortality those millions could find what to do on a rainy Sunday afternoon. I know it's a silly thing to get annoyed by but it's so profoundly ignorant it just bugs me. Take it off. How about a nice quote from Stephen Colbert

Re:Sims isn't a violent game? Since when?

[Talderas]

They're trying to correlation violent activity on part of the player with violent activity in real life. While there are violent demises for sim, there is very little direct violence that the player can engage in and instead the player must engage in Jigsaw-like psychopathic behaviors and design environments which can induce death in a sim. In GTAV you choose how you torture a poor sod (battery, toothpulling, groin smashing with a wrench, and others) and then dump him at an airport afterwards.

Oh really?

[Kojow777]

Then why do I have this insatiable desire to hurl fireballs at shelled creatures?

Re:Oh really?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Then why do I have this insatiable desire to hurl fireballs at shelled creatures?

Because the spikes on their backs hurt when you jump on them.

saturated

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is the USA already saturated in violence, so the games are only un-measurable noise.

Re:Bullshit

[alexo]

The broad with the sword tried to kill her gamer boyfriend, partially because she thought he spent too much time gaming. She was not a gamer.

Which proves that excessive gaming can be bad (or even fatal) to your health.

QED.

Re:My friend, a human being ...

[michael_wojcik]

After all the ghost videos he has watched, he hasn't turned into a ghost, yet

Twist ending: You are the ghost. That's why he's your friend.

Accurate sample ages?

[h8sg8s]

What about the 10-18 age range? Since brains are under their most rapid developmental phases between those ages, shouldn't those be the focus of these kinds of studies?

Re: I used to believe games have no effect

[ravenshrike]

No, ADD and ADHD are real disorders. Thing is, the majority of kids diagnosed with either one of them and given drugs don't have it.

Re:I used to believe games have no effect

[bug_hunter]

I'm inclined to believe that's a big factor, but short of reading Freakonomics I haven't done any research on the matter.
Though I do notice a lot less mohawk gangs as depicted in late 80s early 90s movies.

Rain is wet...

[XSportSeeker]

The fact that we even need studies like this to show to some politicians and people is just ridiculous, but it does show the ignorant age we're living in...
Dude, it's been at least a couple of decades now that we have violent games, and not only several of the most successful franchises in existence could be considered violent games, the gaming industry itself has been the biggest among entertainment industries for quite a while now.
We're talking about hundreds of millions of gamers in the US alone, going well above billions worldwide.
A fairly significant share of those are playing supposedly violent games.
If those have any significant effects in behaviour, we'd be living something close to Mad Max these days.
You have to quite frankly be a moron and completely ignorant on the subject these days to think violent games would make people violent.
A whole ton of the most notorious shooting cases and terrorist attacks are completely disconnected with games, and the few that are never implied that violent games were the cause - it was usually psychological disorders tied to bullying, paranoia or depression.
As most should know, correlation does not mean causation. If you are violent yourself and you play violent games, that does not mean the game is producing that violence, it just means that violent people might prefer playing violent games, which is only logical. Not that the games causes violent behaviour, not that games have some magical behavioural transforming power, not that violent games are only liked by violent people. There are tons and tons and tons of people (including myself) who have played 200+ hours of games like Counter Strike and whatnot, who would never want to shoot someone else, or even want to own a gun.
And yet, we need studies to prove some morons who don't know what they are talking about that violent games is not the root cause for violence in real life. It's fucking amazing. Having to waste all this time and money because of such ignorance.