New Study Which Made 90 Adults Play 'GTA' or 'The Sims 3' For At least 30 Mins Every Day For 2 Months Finds 'No Significant Changes' in Their Behavior (arstechnica.com)

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. From a report: 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. The participants were subjected to a wide battery of 52 established questionnaires intended to measure "aggression, sexist attitudes, empathy, and interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs (such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness, risk taking, delay discounting), mental health (depressivity, anxiety) as well as executive control functions." The tests were administered immediately before and immediately after the two-month gameplay period and also two months afterward, in order to measure potential continuing effects. 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.

Comments

Wrong testing methodology

[humankind]

I'm not concerned with video games changing peoples' behavior, turning normal people into psychopaths.

What I would like to see studied, is the potential for video games to make psychopathic and sociopathic people more efficient in their anti-social abilities.

For example, I don't think playing ultra-realistic first person shooters will necessarily make anyone want to go out and shoot someone, but it seems to me, if you're a psychopath and you're into those games, they can train you to be a much more efficient psychopath when it comes time to assaulting a school or public place.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[gurps_npc]

That is quite honestly ridiculous. Most video games are not based on real world physics in part because real world physics is boring. Who wants to play a game where you have to carry all the bullets you fire? Nobody wants to reload that often.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not only that, it's testing a claim no one is making.

The question that we need to ask ourselves is if violent video game playing by young children and young adults affects their development. And there's a lot of signs that it does: that it desensitizes them to violence, that it makes them more willing to hurt and kill.

And, as you point out, there's also the open question of how violent video games affect people with mental illnesses.

This study is meaningless. It answers a question no one asked. With the explosion of school shootings, we should be asking ourselves "what's changed?" and one of the obvious answers is the increasing violence and realism of video games.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Anonymous Coward]

That is quite honestly ridiculous. Most video games are not based on real world physics in part because real world physics is boring. Who wants to play a game where you have to carry all the bullets you fire? Nobody wants to reload that often.

You sound like a person who hasn't actually played a FPS game in at least two decades.

FPS games today thrive on realism, from the weapons used to the world maps modeled to exacting standards of accuracy. Movement is not as accurate (people don't run and jump everywhere) but there's more realism than you think.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not concerned with video games changing peoples' behavior, turning normal people into psychopaths.

Good. So, you're only worried about that 1% of the population that are psychopaths.

What I would like to see studied, is the potential for video games to make psychopathic and sociopathic people more efficient in their anti-social abilities.

You mean becoming CEOs of corporations?

For example, I don't think playing ultra-realistic first person shooters will necessarily make anyone want to go out and shoot someone, but it seems to me, if you're a psychopath and you're into those games, they can train you to be a much more efficient psychopath when it comes time to assaulting a school or public place.

Practice makes perfect, right? So, yes, I'd imagine even unrealistic video games would make psychopaths who want to shoot up a school do a better job of it. So would simply sitting down and thinking about it. Much more useful would be actually practicing maneuvers in mock exercises. That by far would be the most useful thing as far as preparing. I think they call it joining the Army.

PS - It sounds like you want to criminalize being a psychopath. Or push for a study to confirm that if people practice X they'll get better at X, regardless of whether they're planning to do X. Either way, it's very absurd simply because it's rather pointless. Statements like yours remind of the No Fly List. If people are so untrusted they're not allowed to fly, why aren't the being arrested for their crimes? And if they haven't committed a crime, why are the being punished and disallowed from flying? Any position that simply grants government officials to arbitrarily decide people can be punished is obviously abusable and abused. The TSA is a shinning example.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Anonymous Coward]

While you may learn tactics from video games you won't learn to aim or reload. When it comes down to it you'd be better off with paintball for learning tactics and learning to drive a dumptruck if you just want to kill people.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[ShanghaiBill]

With the explosion of school shootings, we should be asking ourselves "what's changed?" and one of the obvious answers is the increasing violence and realism of video games.

I think you mean: with the DECLINE in school shootings, we should be asking ourselves "what's changed"? and one of the obvious answers is that video games give kids, and especially troubled kids, an alternative outlet.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Junta]

The realism of aiming with a mouse or worse yet, a joypad.

Even in Oculus touch games that have you actually 'aim', generally there's a lot of auto-aim going on.

No, the games are designed for people to have fun and *feel* like they are better than they are (because requiring the same precision as real world would just be tiresome).

They are designed to *seem* real but not at all be useful.

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[c6gunner]

FPS games today thrive on realism

lol. Good one. Yeah, in real life, the best way to make the enemy miss you is by jumping up and down.

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[c6gunner]

With the explosion of school shootings, we should be asking ourselves "what's changed?" and one of the obvious answers is the increasing violence and realism of video games.

ShanghaiBill does an excellent job of debunking the idea that school shootings are on the rise, but, even if we were to pretend that they are actually on the rise in the USA, your conclusion is retarded. Violent and realistic FPS games don't magically stay confined within your borders. People all over the world play them. Unless you're claiming that school shootings are on the rise around the globe it's idiotic to conclude that games are the reason.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[e3m4n]

remember when the Cell phone companies cited research after research that proved that texting while driving was no less dangerous than listening to the radio?

Why dont they do the same research on 300 15yr-olds playing for 5hrs per day? How many people play call of duty for just 30min a day? My martial arts instructor was telling me, just two weeks after that 'swatting' incident that resulted in death, his own 26yr old son (we wont go into why he lives at home but its not entirely uncommon) getting into an online pissing match with someone and giving out the address telling the guy to show up so he could kick his ass. I just dont get how a game can cause people to escalate to the point of wanting to beat eachothers ass, and at the same time, people claim it doesnt alter their behavior. Damn near anything done pseudo-anonymously changes people's behavior. Just look at the type of flames people respond to on forums like this. They say things that we all know they would never say face-to-face to someone. That in itself is a clear case of altering behavior.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[guruevi]

Not quite realistic though. The physics and graphics improved but you almost always play a superhero space-marine bullet-sponge with near perfect aim and no issues of bodily function, exhaustion or ill effects from environment, exposure or combat.

A true combat simulator would be boring and 99% of people wouldn't make it 5 minutes into the first fight (if one even popped up). Unlike what most people believe, firing a fully automatic weapon is hard, expensive and requires a lot of training, even a handgun is hard to accurately use repetitively and anyone with an ounce of actual police or military training would be taking you out before you even empty your clip.

That's also why most of these 'school shooters' generally already have $10k+ worth of guns, had used and trained on them extensively and why even one guard or police officer, trained in close quarter combat in the school would stop them dead in their tracks.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[humankind]

You do realize the military uses FPS games to train soldiers?

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[known_coward_69]

They are anything but realistic. Go check the war videos out on Youtube. Most times it's people firing at someone they can't see cause they are hidden and too far away and you have to call for fire support to smoke them out.

No one ever runs around shooting like in FPS games

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[humankind]

Good. So, you're only worried about that 1% of the population that are psychopaths.

That's a strawman argument as well as a false dichotomy. I said no such thing.

But you illustrate in your misdirected reply, the problem with these studies, as others have pointed out. They provide an answer to a question, a premise that virtually nobody buys into -- an extreme position that suggests merely playing a FPS can turn somebody into a psychopath. I don't know anybody making such claims. Nobody thinks playing GTA is going to make someone run out and car-jack somebody or pistol-whip a hooker.

The real deeper issue is, do these ultra-realistic games de-sensitize people to inhumane and immoral behavior?

And are there some people who are "at risk" being subjected to this media?

I find it amusing that, for example, it's considered inappropriate to say "fuck" on tv or show someone genitals -- because presumably that might influence certain types of people in an anti-social way, but you can shoot someone in the head and spew a catchy one-liner and it's no big deal?

So it's not that if you see boobs on tv, you're going to rape someone, but there is a premise that if sexualization in certain circumstances is presented in an inappropriate way, it can negatively influence certain types of people.

PS - It sounds like you want to criminalize being a psychopath.

There you go again, arguing with a strawman that in no way represents any argument I made.

The truth is, being a psychopath can be a criminal act. It depends upon the nature of the behavior, but generally speaking, if you're doing something psychopathic, it might be criminal. If you have psychopathic tendencies.... I think there needs to be ways for people to ID these traits and give these people some sort of therapy. Psychopathy is a potentially dangerous condition. Don't you agree? This doesn't mean I want to lock psychopaths up. I'm all for civil rights and the law. But we as a society need to do a better job of self-policing and providing therapy for people who need it.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Bing Tsher E]

The school shooters are also cold blooded sociopaths, shooting defenseless children. Nothing in a 'combat' game is like that. I suppose one could drop out of the quest track of the game, find a farm and just shoot the pigs or the chickens,

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Bing Tsher E]

I have heard gamers claim that. I've also heard people with actual experience in the military say it's really rare.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[drinkypoo]

Most video games are not based on real world physics in part because real world physics is boring. Who wants to play a game where you have to carry all the bullets you fire? Nobody wants to reload that often.

I am currently waiting in the queue for Armored Warfare, a Free-to-Pay game in which you drive nominally realistic armored military vehicles around and shoot at other vehicles. Your ammunition loadout and reload times are realistic, if nothing else is... The last game I was very good at was Tactical Ops, a terrorist/counter-terrorist mod for Unreal Tournament. In both of these games, there are realistic ballistics physics including drop and lead. And before that, it was Mechwarrior IV, where you not only have to carry all the bullets you fire, but you fiddle and customize what weapons are on the vehicle. There's tons of people who want to play games like that.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[drinkypoo]

They don't use off the shelf games, they have games specifically designed for their training which are nothing like what you'll find on steam.

Way back in the day they had a rifle simulator based on the NES. More recently, Full Spectrum Warrior and F2C2 are both games which were developed from training tools (and used as recruitment tools.)

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[drinkypoo]

I find it amusing that, for example, it's considered inappropriate to say "fuck" on tv or show someone genitals -- because presumably that might influence certain types of people in an anti-social way, but you can shoot someone in the head and spew a catchy one-liner and it's no big deal?

Psychologists have been saying that it won't hurt a child to see genitals on television for a long time, but people write angry letters if they see dongs and they don't write angry letters when they see guns.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[clovis]

I've seen numerous such studies since the 1980's back it was said the violent TV shows were making kids be violent.
I don't know why anyone would spend money on looking at changes in adults for these kinds of things.

The studies that I find are meaningful look for changes and differences between individual children rather than average changes for the groups as a whole.
Correlation studies of groups of people for this topic are not interesting because it's the aberrant individuals that are the problem, and the ratio of healthy to aberrant buries the problem when large group studies are done.
Marginally increasing aggression in healthy people makes no difference to society, but increasing violent tendencies in a schizophrenic American teenager can (has) create a huge problem.

People vary greatly, and what I find interesting is how violent TV and games affect those people who already show disturbing tendencies.
It appears to me that studies show most (i.e healthy) kids are not affected or only slightly affected by such shows and games.
But studies that seek (or control for) kids already showing violent tendencies do show significant effects.

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[chadenright]

Terrorists train with actual rifles. Furthermore, twice as many terrorists in the US were home-grown right-wing extremists as were islamic jihadis between 2008 and 2016, and six times more terrorists were right-wing extremists than left-wing extremists in the US.

The data suggests that it's not the jihadis that are the problem, and it's not those darn "liberals," it's the nazis and the KKK who are more effective at killing Americans than anyone else.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Kjella]

The real deeper issue is, do these ultra-realistic games de-sensitize people to inhumane and immoral behavior?

In a good way or a bad way? I mean obviously seeing the goatse guy for the second time doesn't have nearly the same shock value. Spend a week on 4chan and you'll never be fazed by anything on the Internet ever again. Either that or you'll have ripped your eyeballs out of their sockets. But I don't think a paramedic is nonchalant about causing trauma, gore and death even though they've probably seen more than their fair share of it, in fact I think it's quite the opposite. I'm totally desensitized to shooting people in games, like if we're playing Payday 2 I don't even spend an ounce of thought that we're shooting cops. Or random civilians, except you're penalized for that. It's just a game, the "people" are just pixels and doesn't have anything to do with shooting real people with real guns in my head.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[fazig]

I beg to differ on the "would never say face-to-face to someone". It may be a pseudo-anonymous thing in the following example as well, but it that doesn't stop it from going as far as a face-to-face situation. Just think about actual, physical violence among sports fans of opposing teams.
Here I can talk from personal experience since I've attended soccer matches in the past and was greeted by some more radical fans of opposing teams and their flying cobblestones as we made our way to the train station. Fortunately police in riot gear was already nearby since they expected this to happen.
All I can say from observation is that people can get very emotional and riled up about any kind of shit. And when you're in a community that doesn't discourage but even fosters aggressive behaviour, things can get out of hand quickly. This is where the communities of very competitive video games may get problematic since a lot of these games only focus on very limited aspects of player interaction.

I do agree that this would be a case where behaviour is altered. But think back to the example with sports fans. Is it the games themselves that make fans alter their behaviour or rather social interactions with other consumers, perhaps opposing consumers? Probably a combination of both. But in my eyes the multi-player or multi-fan part seems to be a crucial factor in this.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[William Baric]

FPS don't teach you shit about real life combat. I have no problem believing that soldiers play video games and justify that by saying "it's training", I certainly did play video games when I was in the military, but it doesn't change that the excuse of training is complete bullshit.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[rtb61]

I have never ever heard of gamers who play 30 minutes a day, I have heard of gamers who would play 30hours a day if they could. 30 minutes a day of gaming does not a gamer make. I would start at about 4 hours per day as a minimum, at least 3 days out of 5days. Than compare the differences in physiological state between playing GTAV mulitplayer and Sims 3 casual. I would defy researchers to not come up with huge differences in psychological state, between deep exposure to the two.

Want realistic tests, do eight hours a day for a month and then check the difference for during and after, psychological and physiological, this with a controlled diet.

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[dunkelfalke]

There is no therapy for the antisocial personality disorder.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[rtb61]

First test for armour training, put you inside one and bash on the hatch and see if you are claustrophobic. A toy one you play with is nothing like the real thing that can kill you if you are stupid, is cold as bitch or hot as hell and noisy as fuck, and most surfaces will hurt like bitch when you bump them and it sucks hard after a week. APCs are better than tanks as long as you don't have to share them with grunts, then you have much more space. A game like the real military, hmm, boring as fuck most of the time, putting up with douche bag failed jockstraps all of the time, with intermittent periods of life or death depending upon how fucking murderously crazy your government, woohoo, what fun. I suppose you would set game difficulty of the game on how murderously crazy you government is, USA number 1 and winning is how many days you get to survive in one piece with those fucking crazy murderous bastards sending you all over the place, to play false flag target or subjugate, brutalise and kill people who refuse. This for all sorts of absurd excuses, reality, they just like killing when they are not at risk, gets them off, seriously (they really do watch those live stream snuff flicks and Hollywood celebrate them like this snuff flicks have any value beyond serving the ego of those who ordered the murderous rampage).

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[another_twilight]

The real deeper issue is

Says you. Why? What are you seeing that makes you look at video games for an explanation?

ultra-realistic games

The point of a game is that it's not realistic. People play games to explore a different rule set. Knowing that it's a game will see people exhibit behaviour that they wouldn't outside the game. You imply but don't argue or support a contention that as realism increases so does the impact or influence of the game. I'm not aware of any research or study that supports this although it's been a while since I went looking. Do you have anything to base this on?

de-sensitize people to inhumane and immoral behavior?

The same argument has been levelled against music, comics, paperback novels etc. at different points in history.

I find it amusing that, for example, it's considered inappropriate to say "fuck" on tv or show someone genitals -- because presumably that might influence certain types of people in an anti-social way, but you can shoot someone in the head and spew a catchy one-liner and it's no big deal?

I find it disturbing that the US has such a repressed attitude towards sex and nudity but is so much more comfortable with violence. But you'll note, that's not isolated to video games. It's cultural and is expressed in a range of different ways within that culture.

But we as a society need to do a better job of self-policing and providing therapy for people who need it.

With this I am in utter agreement.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Sigma 7]

And there's a lot of signs that it does: that it desensitizes them to violence, that it makes them more willing to hurt and kill.

Pretty sure there's a video game called "Real Life" that does even more desensitization, especially in sections where children get forced into violent situations, and getting punished for it. If only said game received the same type of regulations that conventional video games receive.

With the explosion of school shootings, we should be asking ourselves "what's changed?" and one of the obvious answers is the increasing violence and realism of video games.

If the increasing violence/realism of video games was the issue, why is said explosion mostly contained in the USA? That may be an obvious reply, but it isn't the obvious answer.

One important thing that did change was that Obama was president for 8 years, and people somehow became upset with that. The other change is the following president saying "fake news" more often than a broken record, along with a rise in what amounts to a populist party.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[DethLok]

Do they stay worked up an hour later? Or 12 hours later?

Because the study showed that they didn't. Some got worked up in the game, but calmed down within minutes, and where not changed over the long term.

And that's what the study was measuring, long term changes, not players getting worked up in a game.

DethLok

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[Evtim]

Suppose that there is a correlation. And? Ban video games because some potential killer might become 10 percent more effective? What if he goes to the gym? That would also make him better killer. Hey, the best strategy actually is to join the army. They train you to kill for free and even give you money! Hmm...dificult discussion this is.

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[DThorne]

Almost all FPS games are categorically *not* sims - they don't attempt to model loading characteristics of weapons or the act of actually shooting. We aren't talking flight sims here - which *do* attempt to accurately cover the process of flight and specific aircraft - after all you're fiddling with a keyboard and mouse or a game controller. The sad reality is that if you want to learn how to shoot, in the US at least you go out and buy a gun and start shooting. How anyone can suggest playing an Xbox somehow trains someone to murder is mind boggling.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[allcoolnameswheretak]

I'm not concerned with video games changing peoples' behavior, turning normal people into psychopaths.

Absolutely. I'm vastly more concerned about Donald Trump and Faux News turning normal human beings into violent psychopaths.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Well, there was that infamous opening scene in a Call of Duty game that invited you to gun down civilians in an airport as an undercover agent who had infiltrated a terrorist group.

I really hated that scene, not just because it was tasteless, but because the game prevented you from doing the right thing and saving those people - shooting any of the terrorists would fail the mission. And the terrorists would uncover your identity and kill you at the end, no matter what you did.

The entire thing felt like a cheap excuse to let the player run amok and indiscriminately murder people in an airport.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[AmiMoJo]

I doubt games alone could alter most people's behaviour significantly, but along with other things...

Have a look at some of "The Golden One's" videos on YouTube. While games are only a small part of his journey, along with fantasy novels and bodybuilding, it's hard to ignore the fact that he fantasises about murdering people he dislikes, enacts those fantasies in the game world (see his Skyrim videos), then goes out into the real world to pose like the characters in the games and books, and finally ends up doing some MMA fighting.

Most of his videos are about how the world would be so much better if it was just like Game of Thrones too. So while playing Mortal Kombat for 30 minutes a day probably won't make you rip someone's spine out, for a certain small number of people it may be more than just a video game. If you are feeling brave try searching YouTube or any hentai site for "ryona".

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[AmiMoJo]

The nature of school shootings has changed. Used to be more disputes between individuals ending with someone getting shot, now there are more mass murders by people with severe mental illnesses.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[AmiMoJo]

The other interesting question that is being largely overlooked is if gamer culture is being used as a gateway to extremism.

If you look at a Venn diagram of hardcore gamers, incels, red-pillers and the like there seems to be some overlap. Leaked emails from Brietbart show that Milo Yianoppolis was groomed for that role, before he self-destructed.

There has been some study of it, e.g. the book Kill All Normies.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[drinkypoo]

A toy one you play with is nothing like the real thing that can kill you if you are stupid

What war games have taught me is that war is shitty because even when I am kicking ass I still only win about 80% of the time. That last 20% is a bitch when it kills you.

A game like the real military, hmm, boring as fuck most of the time, putting up with douche bag failed jockstraps all of the time, with intermittent periods of life or death depending upon how fucking murderously crazy your government, woohoo, what fun.

My father was a marine ATC in Korea. He told me in no uncertain terms that he regretted signing up, and that I should never enlist. Much of his advice was bullshit, but that part seemed pretty good.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[drinkypoo]

Full Spectrum Warrior is based on squad tactics, so I honestly don't know where you're going with this. It's also 14 years old and never managed to sell many copies.

It's a violent game which is highly similar to an actual military training tool, from which it was directly developed. That's where I'm going with that. I didn't think the narrative was that hard to follow. There are TONS of games with realistic ammunition limits and ballistics.

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[Z80a]

You're not being very honest here, as you're not exactly taking account the scale of the groups you're comparing.
There's 200+ millions christians in america, against just 3.3 Million Muslims, which many could be actually fully integrated, unlike the ones in the Muslim mass immigration you're having in europe, where terrorist groups can (and do) easily infiltrate their combatants.

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[Type44Q]

This would explain how mild-mannered losers who've never handled guns in their lives are able to turn into Neo and take out so many people so effectively (I don't tend to believe the usual witness reports of other active shooters at these scenes; I think the "mad skillz" explanations hold more water).

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[Type44Q]

If you'd ever been into MUD's, you'd know that increased realism... doesn't necessarily make things more realistic.

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[Type44Q]

My father was a marine ATC in Korea. He told me in no uncertain terms that he regretted signing up, and that I should never enlist. Much of his advice was bullshit, but that part seemed pretty good.

My dad was trained by the NSA for the Air Force and although he was only enlisted, he impressed the right people and it opened doors for him; a net positive experience, presumably.

He also told me unequivocally to never enlist.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Oswald McWeany]

I'm not concerned with video games changing peoples' behavior, turning normal people into psychopaths.

What I would like to see studied, is the potential for video games to make psychopathic and sociopathic people more efficient in their anti-social abilities.

For example, I don't think playing ultra-realistic first person shooters will necessarily make anyone want to go out and shoot someone, but it seems to me, if you're a psychopath and you're into those games, they can train you to be a much more efficient psychopath when it comes time to assaulting a school or public place.

There are "normal" brains and "psychopath" brains. A violent video game isn't going to turn a normal well-balanced individual into a psychopath. Quite the opposite, it's going to give them an outlet to get the aggression they might have out of their system in a safe, sanitary way. Now, if someone has a bit of an abnormal brain, not your average Joe on the street, but a potential future school-shooter, and they play a violent video game; rather than be a safe way of relieving aggression, might it cause them to become more aggressive. I don't know, but it is a plausible scenario.

I in no way, believe that violent video games make non-violent, average people become more violent. There have been way too many studies over the years that prove this isn't true. In fact, I recall reading one study a year or two back that showed the complete opposite; people who played violent video games committed fewer violent acts.

That said, people who are capable of shooting up a school probably aren't of your typical mental profile. It takes a certain kind of brain and thought process to be able to justify to yourself doing such a terrible thing. People do lots of bad things, but as a species we are mostly pre-programmed to be conscientious and cooperative (even though we all occasionally do jackassy things... the idea of being capable of mass murdering others is a foreign thought to us).

Could these atypical people who ARE capable of mass murder be "provoked" by violent games? It is possible. It is possible that a normal healthy outlet for normal people, such as games, could trigger already unstable people or make their condition worse.

I don't think it will improve their ability to carry out acts though. It won't make them better at shooting or killing. An already atypical mind might be desensitized to it though if they are unable to differentiate reality from the fantasy of a game.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[russotto]

even one guard or police officer, trained in close quarter combat in the school would stop them dead in their tracks.

Unless, of course, they decided they were too close to retirement to bother.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[guruevi]

Or instructed by superiors not to interfere in order to further a narrative.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Sloppy]

They should have done a study where one group was required to write angry letters about silly stuff, and the other group went on to live their lives. Then see which group acts crazier after that.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[bronney]

May I introduce you to the game called "Postal" sir? :D Have fun!

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[meta-monkey]

What's a "per capita?"

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Reziac]

Further, tho I'd probably find being required to play GTA at least somewhat relaxing.... if I had to play the Sims every day, by the end of the first week I'd have committed a violent act upon the testers.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[q4Fry]

I also heard that real Scotsmen only take off their kilts to shave their nuts, and sometimes not even then.

Re:Wrong testing methodology

[Whorhay]

I don't know what the training is like these days. However I know Green Beret training used to include and entire squad emptying their magazines on full auto as rapidly as possible in the event of an ambush. Apparently doing that elicits a strong impulse in your enemy, the ambusher, to seek cover. Then you do a rapid reload and start looking for actual targets to pick off with semi-auto or burst fire. An M16 on full auto will empty a 30 round magazine in under 3 seconds, so yeah using full auto outside of very specific situations is just silly.

Re: Wrong testing methodology

[Whorhay]

My Father served as a Medic in Vietnam and only ever told us kids the funny stories regarding his time there. Then was outraged when my brother invited a Marine Recruiter over for dinner one night, still didn't bother giving voice to his misgivings. Myself and my brother both ended up enlisting, and came out of it pretty well with no combat time. We only learned after the fact that he was terrified the whole time that we'd end up dead on foreign soil fighting for some commercial interest.

My Dad has never been accused of being a good communicator. I plan to do better with my kids, though I luckily don't have any personal war time horror stories to use.

Flawed study?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying violent games lead to violent behavior, but their study seems kind of flawed in that the idea behind the claim is that violent games during childhood development desensitizes the child to violence, leading to them being more inclined to resort to using it down the road. That's nowhere near the same thing as claiming fully developed adults playing violent video games will start becoming violent themselves.

Re:Flawed study?

[fluffernutter]

I came here to post just this. They completely missed the whole 'developmental phase' aspect. It's hard to tell exactly what they were trying to prove with this actually. Perhaps how much money they could raise for a totally useless study.

Re:Flawed study?

[alvinrod]

If that were true, I think we'd have seen a massive increase in violent crime by now. Doom came out in the early 90's and by the early 00's we had games like GTA being sold in the millions. Crime rates have been declining all that while and if I had to make a guess part of that may be do to kids staying home and playing these violent video games instead of joining gangs and committing violent crimes in their neighborhoods.

While it's not a substitute for an actual study to understand precisely what type of effect (if any) childhood exposure to violent video games has, a statistical analysis at the population level should be sufficient to tell us that either it doesn't exist, or that it's very minimal.

Re:Flawed study?

[fluffernutter]

Massive rise in crime.... like the 109 school shootings in the last 5 years?

behavioral changes

[PopeRatzo]

When I played GTA V, it took a lot less than 2 months for me to start acting like my hero, Trevor Philips. I don't know what it was about that guy, but I found him a rather touching tragicomic character.

The scene after he gives Patricia Madrazo back to her Mexican gangster husband after kidnapping her and he's driving away from the exchange and "If You Leave Me Now" by Chicago starts playing in the car had me laughing and crying at the same time. Except for the credits sequence in Saints Row IV, I don't think anything in a video game has ever affected me so profoundly.

https://youtu.be/bPADGxsf8a8

Apart

[Plumpaquatsch]

'No Significant Changes' in Their Behavior - apart from playing a computer game for at least 30 minutes a day all of a sudden. Errrm?

i play GTA 5 often

[FudRucker]

i mostly ride the motocross bike around the mountains & desert for fun, i love bikes but damn near killed myself on one so i dont have a bike in the real world anymore so i pretend to ride on GTA5 i play it about an hour a day, sometimes a little more, sometimes less, plus i can be a bad boy and make the cops chase me around, its easy to lose em on the dirt bike in the mountains & desert, sometimes i get away sometimes i get killed, but its just a video game fantasy, its not real life, i know i could never get away with that in the real world, i would be dead or in prison

Re:i play GTA 5 often

[thegarbz]

Nice sentence but not long enough for a Slashdot headline.

Re:i play GTA 5 often

[FudRucker]

proper grammar is not my forte...

Re:i play GTA 5 often

[e3m4n]

well as a grown adult you have a better prefrontal cortex that is capable of predicting the consequences of your action. To claim that they have no effect on younger kids would be to undermine the entire ESRB rating system. There is a reason why these games have ratings. IMO the problems we see is that shitty parents ignore these ratings and let kids play games way outside their age group. Letting 12yo and 13yo play M+ games its not the same as letting adults play them. Unfortunately I have seen numbers as high as 50% of my highschool kid's peers are playing M+ games and their parents dont care. Meanwhile they run around and want to blame everything else besides their shitty parenting. IMO the punishment for letting kids play M+ games should be as severe as serving a minor alcohol.

Re:i play GTA 5 often

[bobbutts]

I drank pretty heavily in HS from age 16 and I had no problems in college with binge drinking. Many people who had no experience before getting to college had serious problems. I think the problem is being forced to the sidelines while society constantly celebrates drinking. When they finally get the green light it's pedal to the metal.

Proxy vs actual behavior

[gurps_npc]

This study found the truth because it looked at actual behavior instead of proxies for negative behavior.

The problem with looking at proxies (besides their being no need to measure them when you can measure the real stuff) is that Video games are proxies for real life.

So when you try to see if a proxy for violence results in the presence of proxies for violent behavior, surprise surprise. Fake sugar tastes sweet but does not have calories. That is why you use sugar substitutes. Same thing for video games. You use fake violence instead of real violence.

Of course, not. Duh!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Everyone knows you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

I'm old

[bobstreo]

I've honestly never played GTA anything.

You want to know what makes me want to kill people using my car?

Idiots in rush hour driving back and forth to work.

I've seen so many road rage incidents around me that I just got to the point where I just leave a huge cushion of space between me and the person in front of me, waiting for them to do something totally stupid and unexpected, like 4 lane swerves, jamming their brakes on for no reason...

Don't even get me started about when weather conditions become less than ideal.

Re:I'm old

[afxgrin]

Thanks for providing that extra cushion space. I'll make sure to pass you so I can get one or two car lengths ahead to be stuck behind the person ahead of you. Eventually, if I cut off every single person I'll get home 15 seconds sooner while producing a massive wave of braking behind me. Please don't freak out too much though - I have a Baby On Board bumper sticker!

Flawed Study

[darkain]

I mean, both games are about as equally violent. Have you ever played The Sims and turned the fridge backwards? Or let your Sims go swimming, then remove the ladder so they cannot escape? Or when the house catches fire, simply remove the front door? That game is violent as fuck y0!

Re: Flawed Study

[c6gunner]

You sound like a budding school shooter right now ...

Re: Flawed Study

[Bing Tsher E]

My wife plays Roller Coaster Tycoon, and she delights in picking unhappy park customers up with the pincers and drowning them in the pond.

Proxy for Culture of Violence

[mentil]

Pointing the finger at violent video games/media is really shorthand for a broader concern: a culture which excuses or promotes violence. This culture is so pervasive in the USA (even outside of media) that a little extra exposure likely makes no significant difference, particularly since most violent games have little or nothing to say on the value of violence in society.

I suspect a larger effect would be found if subjects were made to either listen to NRA Radio for 30 minutes every day for two months, or to listen to a comparable anti-violence media source (sorry can't think of a good one right now) the same amount. I'm not putting the blame solely on the NRA, it's just a good example of a steady drip of new info that can be consumed for 30 minutes each day; a gangsta rap Spotify playlist might have the same effect.

Re:Proxy for Culture of Violence

[Anonymous Coward]

True! When I visited the US it was more "normal" to carry a gun around town than to go to a movie that flashed an exposed boob.

<flamebait>I wonder what it says about a society when it is more ok to own tools for killing than to acknowledge that sex is a very natural thing. But hypocrisy seem to be integrated with the culture.</flamebait>

Re:Proxy for Culture of Violence

[guruevi]

Yet over the last few decades violence has decreased, not increased. The same arguments were used in the 80s about television and before that about radio and before that about books. The thing is, what sets of a psychopath is more about years of environmental issues that lead up to it (bad parenting, being a target for bullying, incompetent and insensitive school administrators) than what they used last week as entertainment.

It's easy to point the finger and blame something you don't understand than taking responsibility for and changing yourself or your community.

Re:Proxy for Culture of Violence

[mentil]

I was talking more about gang-bangers than mass shooters; no psychopathy is required. Insisting that psychopathy IS required, and normal psychology means someone is nonviolent, contributes to the problem. Indeed violence has gone down, but that's apparently a regression to the mean, with a prior outlier created by TEL pollution. Presumably, intelligence improved in the lowest percentiles, which I suspect led to increased resistance to the culture of violence. If the culture creates an impulse to commit violence, then impulse control would be the mitigating factor, and higher intelligence means better impulse control.

Two problems: Adults and 30 minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

This seemed like one of those studies that is paid by a corporate sponsor to come up with the desired results. First, adults are the wrong people to be testing. They have already established that the logic part of the brain doesn't fully develop until later in life. It should have been tested with teenagers. What anti-social teenager only plays for thirty minutes per day? It is more like 4 to 6 hours per day.

Dupe

[neoRUR]

This study is so good they did it twice..
https://games.slashdot.org/sto...

GTA and... Sims 3?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Is the Sims 3 violent? Or was there a parallel study checking whether diamonds would start spontaneously appearing over people’s heads in the real world?

Re:GTA and... Sims 3?

[Bing Tsher E]

A virtual sociopath can do some pretty strange things in The Sims that gets shocking reactions out of the A.I. avatars.

The questions..

[Junta]

1) Does being forced to play violent games make a random mature person violent? I don't think anyone was thinking it would, but this study suggests what most people believe.

2) Do people who have an inclination toward violent behavior also tend to like these games in any useful indicator? Probably not, the sample size of video game players is so high compared to the actual violent offenders. While it may be the case that violent people like these games, there are so many more non-violent people who indulge.

3) Do developing youths become more violent as a result of video games? I think that's the key question people wonder about. I think there are plenty of people who have not been made particularly worse by video games. Maybe it *could* contribute to someone getting more violent, but it seems the probability is low.

4) Do video games help refine violent skills? Pretty sure the answer, if anything, is to make those skills worse (they tend to try to make the player feel like it's realistic, but make the player feel awesome by succeeding by cheating for them... a lot).

Keep in mind, while things are more graphic and gory than pre-video games, kids have long been playing 'chase each other and pretend to kill each other' games. Whether it's been 'cops and robbers' or presumably 'knights and knaves'.

Max Planck is normally pretty serious science...

[argStyopa]

...but it's hard to take this one seriously.

Sample size of 90.
Adults.
Playing 30min/day for 2 months?

Jesus, you could probably smoke CIGARETTES for 30min a day for 2 months and not see an impact.

Or was this 'study' intended to disprove the videogame/behavior link?

I really hate to say it...that's 3% of millions

[holophrastic]

3 of 90 is over 3% of a very huge population of millions and millions and millions of gamers. It the study's anywhere near predictive, that's a lot of damage.

I hate to say it because I spend a lot of time playing violent video games. And hey, no one's accusing me of very overly calm or patient. I'm certainly sexist, and I'm certainly not whatever interpersonally competent is.

Do I get to blame the games?

I've always wanted to be a member of the 1%. I suppose being a part of the 3% is pretty close.

Re:I really hate to say it...that's 3% of millions

[holophrastic]

Yeah, I read that, but the thing is that I don't believe the control groups are control groups if they are all people who would volunteer to be a part of such a study.

I've got a problem with measuring aggression and lack of social-ness of individuals who contribute their time and patience to research studies -- which by definition are helping other people (i.e. the researchers).

So I completely disagree with the 10%, and hence I also disagree that 3% is noise.

I think that if a person would volunteer to be a) be told what to do; b) do it every day for 60 days; c) fill out so many questionnaires; and d) get nothing out of it, that said person simply ain't pre-disposed to aggression in the first place.

I also think that any action that would affect a person's behaviour doesn't make them act differently, rather it makes them act "more" or "more often" or "more intensely" than before. (or less, as might be the case with would-be murderers who become butchers instead).

Combining those two, I think this study ought to have observed absolutely zero aggression, or even negative aggression, but wound up seeing 3% aggression.

That's the way I see it. And when I think about myself, I'm happy to participate is really quick studies, even thirty minutes of my time, but two months? Just thinking about that makes me mad.

Adults, 30mins/day, 2 months?

[QuietLagoon]

That is nothing like the typical game playing of a teen. It also ignores that teens are far more impressionable than adults.

30mins?

[bloodhawk]

While I personally don't believe games cause such issues, 30 mins a day is hardly a valid test. Most of the people they claim are affected are those doing 8-12 hour sessions a day. If you are going to do a test at least do it right and actually include the right demographics and usage patterns.

Re:1 in 30 at risk

[humankind]

So, about 3% of people can have effects from consuming violent media... so only 10 million Americans are at risk.

This should now be the canned response from the media whenever there's a school shooting:

"This mass murder is not statistically relevant given that so many other kids are not shooting up schools."

Wow... Not what I would have expected....

[chaboud]

Have you ever played The Sims 3? I'd expect that being forced to play that game daily would increase homicidal behavior substantially.

I wouldn't make it two weeks.

Re:Damn casuals

[chaboud]

Pfft.. That's like, the first day of play...

(I have two computers.)

Re: 1 in 30 at risk

[c6gunner]

So, about 3% of people can have effects from consuming violent media... so only 10 million Americans are at risk.

That's not how that works. 3 subjects showed an increase in violent behvior, whereas statistically we would expect 10. The linked article erroneously claims that their increase in violent behaviour was due to the video games, while the study does not draw such a ridiculous conclusion. On the contrary, the data shows that the increase in violence is lower than what would be expected of a representative sample who didn't play any games at all.

Probably not that good for training

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

but it seems to me, if you're a psychopath and you're into those games, they can train you to be a much more efficient psychopath when it comes time to assaulting a school or public place

The closest 99% of them will get to the weapons they've "trained" on is an AR15, and an untrained (by real live practice) civilian is going to be laughably bad with it. For example, the Dark Knight shooter illustrates the point. Out of like 80 rounds fired before being captured, he mostly wounded and only got like 15 fatalities. And remember, that happened in a theater, which is a veritable kill box, at a time when it was going to be fully packed with victims.

Fact is it works in our favor that they're learning from CoD and not living at the range doing real tactical training. If they did, you better believe the body count would be much worse because they'd be able to plan from real life understanding of what the weapons they can efficiently acquire can do.

This is a useless study

[jd]

Let's say that there's a genetic contribution to the issue of game violence affecting people. Let's say 1 in 100 are affected. A study of 90 people has an excellent chance of only looking at those who wouldn't be affected.

Let's say it takes 8 hours gaming a day - fairly typical for serious gamers. Half an hour will show nothing.

No, you start by finding those who purport to be affected, then look to see what makes them abnormal, neurologically and genetically. You then create a hypothesis that some permutation of these factors is relevant.

You then conduct a study to determine rarity, then a third study of sufficient size to guarantee a statistically significant number of interesting people are present.

In this study, you measure traits, then assign each person a UUID. It has to be double blind. They don't know what you're measuring, the observer doesn't know who had what traits.

Your hypothesis is that those who are vulnerable will show neurological changes as predicted. You do not rely on self-reporting other than to get the initial candidates, nor do you ever rely on psychology.

This is how you tell who is affected, how and why.

It's expensive, but you do this once and not once every few weeks. This strategy of producing the illusion of work actually costs more in the long run and answers nothing.

What I'd like to see are studies on gun violence

[rsilvergun]

and how gun culture pertains to it. But we've got laws against that here in the States.

Re:Recent Slashdot Study

[Bing Tsher E]

They're not supposed to avoid dupes. They're supposed to avoid dupes that didn't get a big enough hit count.

Re:Running over cyclists

[Bing Tsher E]

The first real cyclist you hit will be a messy experience, and it will probably screw up your vehicle enough that it will be the only cyclist you hit.

Re:Damn casuals

[Bing Tsher E]

There wouldn't be that much of a point in multiboxing with less than, say, four machines.

Re:Max Planck is normally pretty serious science..

[Bing Tsher E]

I dunno. Somebody who smokes cigarettes for 30 minutes a day for 2 months is definitely going to develop an addiction.

We would have a LOT more violent acts by smokers if their cigarettes became suddenly completely unavailable. They would only need to be completely unavailable for like a half a day for a lot of violence to crop up.

Meanwhile

[DontBeAMoran]

Another study made 25% of the subjects play King's Quest, 25% played Space Quest, another 25% played Police Quest and the last 25% played Leisure Suit Larry.

Those who played King's Quest saw no change.
Those who played Space Quest saw no change either.
Those who played Police Quest also saw no change.
Those who played Leisure Suit Larry haven't called back yet.

Re:Meanwhile

[CriticalYetLazy]

One of them did, all he could utter though was something like "Ken sent me".

totally irrelevant due to..

[gl4ss]

..actual military training being available.

you have a basically open for all applicants as a right military training that pays money. you could also go play airsoft or paintball.

playing gta or call of duty has little effect on your skills to perform in said task in real life.

americas army game even doesn't have that much effect, it's mostly about squad tactics.

a much more sane response but not so popular would be to ban gyms - they would have a much higher effect as regards to training. maybe, just MAYBE you should pay more attention to the education in the 14 to 20 range. they're not adults yet - banning antisocial people from school due to something inane as smoking a cigarette is just a fucking stupid tactic if you're not planning on alienating said persons from other pupils on purpose. put them in a special group in the school or whatever, banning them from the school(their entire social circles for daytime) entirely is just stupid.

anyways.. the fps games are largely not even trying to be simulations. there are plenty of game genres in which the games try to be simulators that could be applied to criminal behavior, but did they ban ms flight simulator? who the fuck would want to live in a society that bans ms flight simulator?

OTOH, "Pokemon Go" makes people violent

[tlhIngan]

Well, it may not be violent games then. Perhaps it's casual games like Pokemon Go.

Men reportedly attacked by man with tire iron over 'Pokemon Go'.

Actually no there isn't

[aepervius]

there's a lot of signs that it does: that it desensitizes them to violence

Actually no there is no evidence of such a thing. Please cite your evidence. My evidence is that in spite of having so many violent video game over 20 years, violence among young adult and kid either reduced or stayed stable. e.g. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/... in this case totasl youth crime in canada sink quicker than general crime https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/... if violent video game had any impact, you would expect a rise somewhere between 2000 and 2015 when video game spread started to peak up for youth, you would not expect to drop it now that it is even more widespread. So what is your evidence that youth are desensitized by violence ? Because they certainly commit less crime today, kinda strange for people desensitized ? Or maybe you were spouting belief based on no evidence. Just sayin'.

This just in...

[jockeys]

kid shoots another kid, in the head, because... (wait for it...) they wouldn't share a video game controller: https://www.usatoday.com/story...

I don't believe I've ever seen the claim that it changed adult behavior... you know, that's why we have a rating system that makes certain things unavailable to certain age groups (movies and games) so it seems kind of stupid that they only tested it on adults.

Also, others have made the comment but I'll just agree here: 30 minutes a day doth not a gamer make. Filthy casuals.

Wait, what? only nongamers need apply?

[macker]

"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."

So, only three (3) out of ninety (90) NON-GAMERS who were mentally strip-searched before entry had violent tendencies after playing games?

No Shirt, Hemlock!
(bowdlerized for your viewing comfort/sanitized for your protection)

Better still, even after being "subjected to a wide battery of 52 established questionnaires intended to measure {long list of normal human tendencies}"...
"immediately before and immediately after the two-month gameplay period and also two months afterward", only three test subjects retained enough sentience to react adversely. The remainder were presumably battered into submission by the 52 questionnaire batteries administered repeatedly over more than half a year.

Better, or worse: a sock full of batteries applied repeatedly to the back of their skulls?

Speaking of back, I want my grant money back!

The REAL Danger of Video Games

[sycodon]

Trying to play GTA on a sub par machine with glitchy internet connection resulting in missed scores, choppy graphics and terrible audio.

Now THAT'S enough to turn someone in a Mass Shooter.

Re:The REAL Danger of Video Games

[Oswald McWeany]

Trying to play GTA on a sub par machine with glitchy internet connection resulting in missed scores, choppy graphics and terrible audio.

Now THAT'S enough to turn someone in a Mass Shooter.

Yes, but they'll turn into a mass shooter that's easy to stop because they will freeze up for a few seconds once a minute.

30 minutes != addiction

[RogueWarrior65]

Would you call a person who walked for 30 minutes a day addicted to walking? Nope. Gym rats who spend hours in the gym every day are addicted. Not being able to forego a workout while on vacation is indicative of an addiction. This study doesn't look deep enough. Furthermore, they questions they should be asking is whether or not players of violent video games have altered their value of human life.

Oh good.

[sootman]

See, the problem with large numbers is... they're large.

Only 3% showed any change? Great. One snag: there are 50 million students in the U.S. 3% of them = 1.5 million.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/...

(To say nothing of the other flaws in the study that others here have pointed out.)

Still very dangerous to children

[Eravnrekaree]

Notice they said "adult". Not children, whose brains and personalities are still developing. I would exercise caution before assuming that video games have no negative effect on childrens behaviour. There is a lot of evidence that it does. For instance, there have been cases where stabbings had occurred over a fight over a video game among children.

Re:Max Planck is normally pretty serious science..

[Bing Tsher E]

Nicotine withdrawals aren't just 'addiction.'