Slashdot Mirror
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."
Isn't this the same thing gamers have been saying for years? Nice to finally have a study to back it up.
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.
There is a difference between someone who is ill and plays video games, versus someone who is ill because they play video games.
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?
the privilege of buying a firearm
Owning and using guns is a right, not a privilege.
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.
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...
It's turtles all the way down.
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
but now we're discussion violent video games instead of gun control. Mission Accomplished.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Worth noting: they studied only non-gamers adults, and if I understand correctly, not just after gameplay.
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.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
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.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
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.
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.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."