Please, just stop. For the love of God, Yahweh, the FSM or whatever diety you choose to believe kills kittens when someone does something wrong. Today I came across a video, which I'll talk about later in this post, which really rubbed me the wrong way. It was so blatantly misinformed that it really made me angry. So, hopefully I can incite change in at least a few people.
If nothing else, I'll ask one thing. Stop swallowing the propaganda thats being fed to you. Video games are not training your kid to become a mass murderer, sociopath or felon. Its gotten to the point where people are regurgitating this nonsense with no factual basis, simply because they've heard so many other people say it. Its untrue, and frankly, idiotic.
(This is a paraphrase from another thread on yehoodi, forgive me for not wanting to retype a majority of this)
I'm a senior designer for EA's online games division, the largest game developer in the world. I work on Massively Multiplayer Online games (MMOs). They're called Massive for a reason. It is estimated that over 200 million people play these games worldwide. Like anything with such a wide distribution of population, there are extremes. Not everyone who drinks is an Alcoholic, not everyone who gambles is an addict, and not everyone who plays MMOs does so to these extremes. Demonizing the genre due to a few examples is as wrong as demonizing all people who gamble or drink.
Many people like to say that there is evidence proving video games are harmful. Sadly those reports do exist. However, they're from disreputable, biased and anti-gaming activists. The people pushing this agenda have done no scientific study or research to give any reputable proof to these claims. In fact, most of the major players in the modern anti-video game activism are the same exact people who attacked the TV, Movie and Music industries for their content. Jack Thompson, the most vocal of the activists and a Florida Lawyer, is currently in the midst of disbarment hearings by the Florida Bar. He even had the balls to try to sue the Florida Bar for investigating his frivolous lawsuits against the gaming industry, most of which he was soundly defeated. He's the same lawyer who gave attorney general Janet Reno a letter at a campaign event requesting that she check a box to indicate whether she was homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual, and then attacked her publicly for her alleged homosexuality. He is also the same lawyer who attacked 2 Live Crew for obscenity. The list goes on.
Regardless of the completely baseless claims from these raving lunatics, Senators Joe Lieberman, Sam Brownback, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Rick Santorum pushed the Children Media Research and Advancement (CAMRA) Act through committee last year, which they first introduced in May 2004.
CAMRA will enable the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which will work in coordination with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to research "the effects of viewing and using electronic media, including television, computers, video games and the Internet on children's cognitive, social, physical, and psychological development."
Sadly, those who are in favor of the bill are the most heavily anti-gaming lobbyists and senators, who are more concerned with their personal beliefs than scientific evidence. Prior to this, funding has been blocked from many organizations friendly to the gaming industry that wanted to publish studies showing that the effects are not nearly as harmful as they've been claimed to be, so our industry has little faith that the study will be as neutral as we can hope.
However, there have been several studies in Korea and Japan, where gaming is a much more prominent activity than the US. In Korea a large majority of the population, yes MAJORITY, play online games. Games such as Starcraft are even televised several channels. Their Gaming champions are treated roughly akin to professional sports players in the states, and payed about as well. Scientists there have been dealing with a much heavier dose of gaming, and thus have done extensive studies on the subject. They've found that effects can come about from long term game exposure in certain conditions. Children under the age of 12 who have had extensive exposure to violent video games have shown diminished beta brainwave patterns and a suppressed limbic system, which is the area of the brain that regulates impulse control. However, because of the rapid decrease in omega 3 fatty acids in the diets of parents and children over the last 40 years which can also do this, the exact cause is hard to pin down to a singular cause. Short term exposure in scientific study was shown to have short term effects, but no lasting effects in anyone above the age of 12. Yet, all subjects studied developed significantly improved reflexes, motor skills, problem solving skills, and reaction times. Studies of patients with traumatic brain injury also showed significant brain development that rivaled that of ROT exercises. Exposure to video games in elderly drivers has also been shown to improve motor function, peripheral vision, and reaction time, thus making them better and safer drivers.
Yet, things like this still happen. In the clip, Fox News attacks Pandemic/Bioware's new mega hit Mass Effect for containing "full digital nudity and sex'. The problem... it doesn't. Not even close. Geoff Keighley, who works for G4 TV and finds himself defending the completely insane accusations of people lobbying against the gaming industry tries to interject this. The people attacking the game flat out admit they've never even played it, and the "newscaster" admits her only knowledge of the game is from a cursory glance at the website right before the interview.
There is so much misinformation in this clip, its hard to know where to start. What happened to research in journalism?
As Geoff points out, there is no full digital nudity or sex. There's one 30 second scene in 30 hours of gameplay that shows a side shot of an alien breast. You get more nudity an average R rated movie, and at least those breasts aren't blue and scaly (yes, the breast you see in the game is blue and scaly). The fact that one of the "panel" calls this "Luke Skywalker meets Debbie Does Dallas" is astounding, and demonstrates that they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
The scene has to be actively sought out in the "choose your adventure" style game, by falling in love. If you decide to hack and slash your way through the game instead of playing the good guy, you'll never see it. The Misogynistic angle they try to take by saying that the game is taken completely from the perspective of a man, as Geoff points out, is also false. You can play the main character as a woman OR a man. Your choice.
Then, there's the "expert". She doesn't get two sentences in to her uninformed blathering before she spouts this gem. "If you look at the statistics, who's playing video games but adolescent males."
OK. I'll bite. Lets look at the statistics.
These are taken from the ESA, the Entertainment Software Association. This is somewhat of an overseeing body in the gaming industry, much like the MPAA or the RIAA. I would love to quote the entire article, though everyone should read it, but its too long. I'll just pull out the relevant parts.
Quoted from "ESA" For Computer Gamers...
* Thirty percent of most frequent game players are under eighteen years old.
* Twenty-six percent of most frequent game players are between 18 and 35 years old.
* Forty-four percent of most frequent game players are over 35 years old.
For Console Gamers...
* Forty percent of most frequent game players are under eighteen years old.
* Thirty-five percent of most frequent game players are between 18 and 35 years old.
* Twenty-five percent of most frequent game players are over 35 years old.
What about Women Gamers?
* Thirty-eight percent of game players are women.
* Women age 18 or older represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (30%) than boys age 17 or younger (23%)
These numbers are probably not what you expected. In fact, they show completely contrary information to what most people believe, that adolescent males are the majority of gamers. In fact, the majority of gamers are in the 18-49 year old range with a staggering 24.2% of gamers being 50 years or older.
Sorry Miss Expert, looks like YOU should look at the statistics.
What really kills me about these people, is the way they speak about children. They speak of them like wild animals, who do whatever they want without any control from the parents. I just simply don't understand this. Video games carry an ESRB rating, similar to the MPAA rating on movies. Here's a quick guide to the rating system, though its pretty self explanatory:
Quote How do you tell what a game is rated?
Nearly every video game published in the United States will have the ESRB rating located somewhere on the outside of the packaging. This is normally on the back in the lower left corner of the box. The rating will be one of the categories described below.
There are 7 categories in the video game rating system:
1. EARLY CHILDHOOD:
Titles rated EC - Early Childhood have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older.
Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
2. EVERYONE:
Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
Note: Roughly 54 percent of games fall into this category.
3. EVERYONE 10+:
Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language, and/or minimal suggestive themes.
4. TEEN:
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood and/or infrequent use of strong language.
Note: Roughly 30.5 percent of games fall into this category.
5. MATURE:
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain mature sexual themes, more intense violence and/or strong language.
Note: Roughly 11.9 percent of games fall into this category.
6. ADULTS ONLY:
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content suitable only for adults. Titles in this category may include graphic depictions of sex and/or violence. Adults Only products are not intended for persons under the age of 18.
7. RATING PENDING:
Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) - have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game's release.)
The easiest way to prevent children from seeing what you do not want them to see in video games is to look at the ESRB rating. It will tell you what, if anything, a game contains, and the appropriate age range as described above. If it has something that you don't want your kids to see, don't allow it in your house. In addition, game companies and console game system makers have gone to great lengths to add parental controls that can help you monitor and regulate game usage. Bypassing all the safeguards in place to prevent adult games from reaching children's hands is like bypassing safeguards in place to prevent children from seeing porn. I'll never understand a parent who willingly buys a game that is clearly labeled AO (ADULTS ONLY) for their adolescent child, then complains about the content. Its akin to buying your child porn and then complaining to the publisher for their content.
Another thing to note, is the grossly misrepresented number of violent and mature games. As the ESRB article above states, roughly 11.9 percent of games fall into this category. The media likes to bill the industry as a production house for violent and abhorrent content. However, they fail to mention that over half the games produced carry no objectionable material whatsoever, and another 30% on top of that are the equivalent of a PG-13 movie. However, games like "The Sims" (Which happens to be the best selling video game of all time) "Viva Pinata" and "Animal Crossing" don't seem to make the news much. Instead, you see "Grand Theft Auto". Just like many other aspects of the news media, violence and sensationalism sells. Thankfully, thats not true for the gaming industry, regardless of how its billed.
So, hopefully this has shed a bit of light on the subject. I'm more than willing to answer any questions you might have on what your perception is, and how it meets up with the reality.
Quoted from "DJLarkin" So, hopefully this has shed a bit of light on the subject. I'm more than willing to answer any questions you might have on what your perception is, and how it meets up with the reality.
Great post and I agree with most of it.
I'll bite a bit.
It is unfortunate that the media concentrates on the more aggressive games and not others like Sim City, The Sims, etc... that are just flat out awesome but get swept up in the hype. But I know how I feel after playing some of the more aggressive games and I'd be surprised if others didn't feel more aggressive immediately after playing those types.
- Any studies on the impact of some higher adrenaline games like GTA, Doom, etc... on someone's emotional state?
- Does one portray more aggressive behaviors after being absorbed in that environment for a period of time? Is there a time limit when one does or does not portray some of those more aggressive behaviors (say after 30 mins vs 2 hours)?
- Are the ones that portray more aggressive behavior just predisposed (so the game is not really a cause but more of an enabling median)?
Quoted from "DJLarkin" So, hopefully this has shed a bit of light on the subject. I'm more than willing to answer any questions you might have on what your perception is, and how it meets up with the reality.
Great post and I agree with most of it.
I'll bite a bit.
It is unfortunate that the media concentrates on the more aggressive games and not others like Sim City, The Sims, etc... that are just flat out awesome but get swept up in the hype. But I know how I feel after playing some of the more aggressive games and I'd be surprised if others didn't feel more aggressive immediately after playing those types.
- Any studies on the impact of some higher adrenaline games like GTA, Doom, etc... on someone's emotional state?
- Does one portray more aggressive behaviors after being absorbed in that environment for a period of time? Is there a time limit when one does or does not portray some of those more aggressive behaviors (say after 30 mins vs 2 hours)?
- Are the ones that portray more aggressive behavior just predisposed (so the game is not really a cause but more of an enabling median)?
Good questions. I touched lightly on them in my post, but its easy to miss them in all the other data.
Quote Short term exposure in scientific study was shown to have short term effects, but no lasting effects in anyone above the age of 12.
Because of the interactive aspect of video games, the brain interprets some of the signals differently than, say, an action movie. Watching a movie, you're somewhat detached from the subject matter, as you have no control. However, when you're controlling things, your lower brain activity goes on autopilot. Much like watching a scary movie where you're unsure of the outcome, the introduction of stress causes your brain to produce epinephrine AKA adrenaline. The effects of adrenaline on your body can explain the aggressive feeling, but its completely temporary. The physical response is similar to what you might find when doing something extreme or stressful, like playing sports or skydyving, but to a much lesser extent. Your heart rate will increase, pupils will dilate, among various other physical responses to the adrenaline in your blood. However, its not psychoactive, it does not alter your frame of mind, aside from the increased blood flow to the brain.
As for predisposition to violence, its hard to interpret the numbers. Because so many people play video games, separating correlation from causation is difficult. PBS has a nice short article on Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked. (though I'm not sure about their 90 number)
Quote 1. The availability of video games has led to an epidemic of youth violence.
According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful. It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester.
2. Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.
Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here. If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences which can contribute to anti-social behavior. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.
What is really interesting is the statistics on non gaming activity of gamers, from the ESA article quoted above.
Quote Gamers devote more than triple the amount of time spent playing games each week to exercising or playing sports, volunteering in the community, religious activities, creative endeavors, cultural activities, and reading.
In total, gamers spend 23.4 hours per week on these activities, compared to 6.8 hours per week playing games.
Seventy-nine percent of game players of all ages report exercising or playing sports an average of 20 hours a month.
Forty-five percent of gamers volunteer an average 5.4 hours per month.
Ninety-three percent of game players also report reading books or daily newspapers on a regular basis, while sixty-two percent consistently attend cultural events, such as concerts, museums, or the theater.
Fifty percent of gamers are regularly involved in creative activities, such as painting, writing, or playing an instrument. In addition, adult gamers exhibit a high level of interest in current events, with 94 percent following news and current events, and 78 percent reporting that they vote in most of the elections for which they are eligible.
There will always be something out there for [bleep!] parents to pin the blame on for why their kids turned out to be such little [bleep!]s. Before video games it was slasher movies and before that it was Dungeons And Dragons and before that it was rock and roll and swing music, etc...
The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...
Quoted from "SwingKid570" There will always be something out there for [bleep!] parents to pin the blame on for why their kids turned out to be such little [bleep!]s. Before video games it was slasher movies and before that it was Dungeons And Dragons and before that it was rock and roll and swing music, etc...
You said it. I doubt the time will ever come when parents say "oh yeah, I/we effed up."
"Change your thoughts, and you change your world" - Norman Vincent Peale.
Quoted from "DJLarkin" I'm more than willing to answer any questions you might have on what your perception is, and how it meets up with the reality.
How do I get past the level boss for the Bowser Jr.'s Lava Reactor world of Super Mario Galaxy?
Keep moving, as the platforms will sink in to the lava, and avoid the flaming rocks the giant squid spits out. When the squid spits out a green melon, spin attack it. Three times and you've won.
How could violent video games create violent people? This isn't like television, where you could end up seeing the content by simply channel surfing. All of the hyper-violent games (Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat, Doom, whatever) are fairly expensive ( 50- 60 for the latest games), and the box's label gives you a good idea what sort of game you are buying. No one buys Duke Nuk'em and expects to find child-friendly non-violent material. The act of buying such a game shows that the consumer has an existing desire for violent material - actually playing the didn't create it.
- Any studies on the impact of some higher adrenaline games like GTA, Doom, etc... on someone's emotional state?
J Adolesc. 2004 Feb;27(1):41-52 Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness.
Uhlmann E, Swanson J.
Department of Psychology, Yale University; 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. eric.uhlmann yale.edu
The effects of exposure to violent video games on automatic associations with the self were investigated in a sample of 121 students. Playing the violent video game Doom led participants to associate themselves with aggressive traits and actions on the Implicit Association Test. In addition, self-reported prior exposure to violent video games predicted automatic aggressive self-concept, above and beyond self-reported aggression. Results suggest that playing violent video games can lead to the automatic learning of aggressive self-views.
- Any studies on the impact of some higher adrenaline games like GTA, Doom, etc... on someone's emotional state?
J Adolesc. 2004 Feb;27(1):41-52 Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness.
Uhlmann E, Swanson J.
Department of Psychology, Yale University; 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. eric.uhlmann yale.edu
The effects of exposure to violent video games on automatic associations with the self were investigated in a sample of 121 students. Playing the violent video game Doom led participants to associate themselves with aggressive traits and actions on the Implicit Association Test. In addition, self-reported prior exposure to violent video games predicted automatic aggressive self-concept, above and beyond self-reported aggression. Results suggest that playing violent video games can lead to the automatic learning of aggressive self-views.
"Overall, our results suggest that exposure to the violent game did not significantly influence the self-reported aggressiveness of either male or female participants."
However, later in the article the writers state that violent video games are the cause of increased aggressiveness in many of those who have played these games a lot. This statement is despite the fact that there is no way to prove causality.
Did those subjects have more aggressive tendencies because they play violent video games, or do they play violent video games because they have aggressive tendencies? There's no way to tell without long term studies.
Quoted from "VLG" Did those subjects have more aggressive tendencies because they play violent video games, or do they play violent video games because they have aggressive tendencies? There's no way to tell without long term studies.
Excellent question. Other research has addressed this issue:
Quote Dr. Anderson and colleagues have shown that playing a lot of violent video games is related to having more aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Furthermore, playing violent games is also related to children being less willing to be caring and helpful towards their peers. Importantly, research has shown that these effects happen just as much for non-aggressive children as they do for children who already have aggressive tendencies (Anderson et al., under review; Gentile et al., 2004).
Also to further support the responsibility of parents, the article I quoted above also has this:
Quote Parents have an important role to play. Psychologists have found that when parents limit the amount of time as well as the types of games their children play, children are less likely to show aggressive behaviors (Anderson et al., under review; Gentile et al., 2004). Other research suggests that active parental involvement in children's media usage-including discussing the inappropriateness of violent solutions to real life conflicts, reducing time spent on violent media, and generating alternative nonviolent solutions to problems-all can reduce the impact of media violence on children and youth (Anderson et al., 2003).
Quoted from "BigCat" How could violent video games create violent people? This isn't like television, where you could end up seeing the content by simply channel surfing. All of the hyper-violent games (Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat, Doom, whatever) are fairly expensive ( 50- 60 for the latest games), and the box's label gives you a good idea what sort of game you are buying. No one buys Duke Nuk'em and expects to find child-friendly non-violent material. The act of buying such a game shows that the consumer has an existing desire for violent material - actually playing the didn't create it.
Prior to 1993, there were approximately zero homicides where the killer blamed Doom for causing him to commit the crime. Since then, that number has grown to at least several dozen. Explain that!
Quoted from "DJLarkin" Many people like to say that there is evidence proving video games are harmful. Sadly those reports do exist. However, they're from disreputable, biased and anti-gaming activists. The people pushing this agenda have done no scientific study or research to give any reputable proof to these claims.
That's inaccurate:
Quote
REVIEW OF RESEARCH SHOWS THAT PLAYING VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CAN HEIGHTEN AGGRESSION
Boys Play Games Longer and May Be More Vulnerable to Increases in Aggressive Behavior
WASHINGTON Violent video games can increase aggressive behavior in children and adolescents, both in the short- and long-term, according to an empirical review of the last 20 years of research. These findings are presented at the 113th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in Washington, DC.
According to researchers Jessica Nicoll, B.A., and Kevin M. Kieffer, Ph.D., of Saint Leo University, youth who played violent video games for a short time experienced an increase in aggressive behavior following the video game. One study showed participants who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes rate themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing. In another study of over 600 8th and 9th graders, the children who spent more time playing violent video games were rated by their teachers as more hostile than other children in the study. The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures and were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students. They also performed more poorly on academic tasks.
http://www.apa.org/releases/violentvideoC05.html
Quote In fact, most of the major players in the modern anti-video game activism are the same exact people who attacked the TV, Movie and Music industries for their content.
I think we need to separate those who make baseless attacks on video games from those who actually do research on it. Also, it makes sense that those who are interested in research on the effects of violent TV and Movies on children would also be interested in the effects of violent video games on children.
Prior to Doom's existence, no one could blame their behavior on it. :-P
People will always find something on which to blame their out-of-control behavior. I seriously doubt video games are the sole factor in the violent behavior of some people. It seems unlikely that a person with no other violent external influences (abusive home, etc) would be turned toward committing violent crime based solely on their choice of gaming entertainment. By the same token, it also seems unlikely that a person who blames their acts of violence on games has no other violent influences in their life.
- Any studies on the impact of some higher adrenaline games like GTA, Doom, etc... on someone's emotional state?
J Adolesc. 2004 Feb;27(1):41-52 Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness.
Uhlmann E, Swanson J.
Department of Psychology, Yale University; 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. eric.uhlmann yale.edu
The effects of exposure to violent video games on automatic associations with the self were investigated in a sample of 121 students. Playing the violent video game Doom led participants to associate themselves with aggressive traits and actions on the Implicit Association Test. In addition, self-reported prior exposure to violent video games predicted automatic aggressive self-concept, above and beyond self-reported aggression. Results suggest that playing violent video games can lead to the automatic learning of aggressive self-views.
I'm glad you cited that study, I was hoping someone would. I've seen it, and actually cited it in a paper in college. Its a perfect example of how information can be twisted to make something innocent seem very damning. The situation was fairly absurd. 121 Psychology students played 10 minutes of both Doom and Mahjongg. They then took an Implicit Association Test as well as a self evaluation test. In the self evaluation, they did not self associate violent game playing with increased aggressiveness.
From the same article:
Quote Our main interest was whether playing Doom changed participants self-reported aggressive
self-concept. We carried out a 2 (game condition: violent vs. non-violent) 2(gender) ANOVA on
participants scores on the 3 self-reported aggressiveness measures. This revealed no significant
effects of game condition on the feeling thermometer measure (Fo1), semantic differential
measure (Fo1) or Buss and Perry scale (F(1,111) =3.00, p 0:09). There were no main effects of
gender on the feeling thermometer (Fo1) or semantic differentials (F(1,111)=2.77, p 0:10), but
a significant gender difference emerged on the Buss and Perry scale, with men scoring as more
aggressive (M 73) than women (M 64), F(1,111)=9.73, p 0:002: There were no significant
interactions between participant gender and game condition on either the feeling thermometer
(F(1,111) =1.18, p 0:28) semantic differentials (Fo1) or Buss and Perry scale (F(1,111)=1.81,
p 0:18). Overall, our results suggest that exposure to the violent game did not significantly
influence the self-reported aggressiveness of either male or female participants.
Only the IAT showed an Automatic Aggressive Response, meaning that the people taking the test associated certain objects and words in a certain way faster after playing the violent game. However, the IAT has been heavily criticized as a method of measuring cultural knowledge or memory, rather than an endorsement of that knowledge. The study also did not research any long term effects, aside from anecdotal cultural evidence.
What it really came down to was a pitifully small sample of people with similar backgrounds, predisposed to a certain behavioral type, had an increased response to a memory test after playing a violent game for 10 minutes. Not exactly a damning take on violent video games.
However, the study is not completely useless. I wouldn't doubt that there was a mild increase in certain behavioral patterns due to the increased adrenaline levels. As I stated before, increased levels of adrenaline released by the brain while playing games can trigger mildly enhanced aggressiveness, but nothing compared to the activities that people are encouraged to do on a daily basis; exercise, play sports, and move around. All of these activities trigger much higher levels of adrenaline, and lead to much more aggressive behavior than playing video games.
Statistically, there are going to be examples of gamers showing aggressive behavior simply due to the sheer number of people playing these games. However, with the stated hypothesis that violent media is causing increased aggressive behavior, that should be demonstrated in statistics that measure youth violence. In fact, youth violence has declined steadily since 1993, despite their population steadily increasing. This contrasts sharply with many of the claims made against violent media.
Quoted from "DJLarkin" As for predisposition to violence, its hard to interpret the numbers. Because so many people play video games, separating correlation from causation is difficult. PBS has a nice short article on Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked. (though I'm not sure about their 90 number)
To be fair, we should point out that those myths that are posted on the PBS site are from Henry Jenkins. a video game advocate and professor of media studies who as far as I can tell is a communications professor, and does not do behavioral research on violent video games.
Here are some myths about violent video games by a research psychologist who has conducted research on and studied aggression--including on video games--for decades. I think you all will find it interesting. There are additional interesting facts at the link at the end of the quote:
Quote Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts,
and Unanswered Questions
by Craig A. Anderson
Craig A. Anderson received his PhD in psychology from Stanford University in 1980. He has been a faculty member at Rice University (1980-1988), Ohio State University (visiting,1984-1985), and the University of Missouri-Columbia (1988-1999). He joined Iowa State University in 1999 as Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology. He has received teaching awards at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, and has been awarded "Fellow" status by the American Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association. He is currently on the Executive Council of the International Society for Research on Aggression. His research on attribution theory, depression, social judgment, covariation detection, biases, and human aggression has been published in top social, personality, and cognitive, journals. His recent focus on violent video games has led to U.S. Senate testimony, addresses to and consultations with numerous scientific, governmental, and public policy groups worldwide, public policy research awards, and articles and stories in top science news outlets. His published works can be found at his web site.
Quote The new debate frequently generates more heat than light. Many criticisms are simply recycled myths from earlier media violence debates, myths that have been repeatedly debunked on theoretical and empirical grounds. Valid weaknesses have also been identified (and often corrected) by media violence researchers themselves. Although the violent video game literature is still relatively new and small, we have learned a lot about their effects and have successfully answered several key questions. So, what is myth and what do we know?
Quote Myths and Facts Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
Myth 2. The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.
Facts: Methodologically stronger studies have yielded the largest effects (Anderson, in press). Thus, earlier effect size estimates based on all video game studies probably underestimate the actual effect sizes.
Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).
Myth 4. Field experiments are irrelevant (aggression measures based either on direct imitation of video game behaviors (e.g., karate kicks) or are normal play behaviors.
Facts: Some field experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching, hitting, pushing, and pulling hair, behaviors that were not modeled in the game. The fact that these aggressive behaviors occur in natural environments does not make them "normal" play behavior, but it does increase the face validity (and some would argue the external validity) of the measures.
Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.
Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).
Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game effects than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.
Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.
Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).
Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.
Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
Is there anyone who reads Yehoodi that would be in the anti-game camp? I mean the type of person who makes this an issue, gives money/time or even bothers to judge the ratings on games?
DJ makes a good point but there is a point to be made for observational learning and modeling, and he is hardly an agendaless source. I do agree that video games are used as a sensationalist scapegoat.
The real enemy is the very small active group of people out there who don't like something (obscene or immoral) and wish to put their values on other people. This agenda tops everything else. Fortunately, all that results is a waste of time and annoyance for many in the industry. Lots of industries have other stupid hoops they have to jump through too and other unfortunate have essentially lost their businesses.
What can be done about these people? Not much. So, I ignore them.
Quoted from "Larry" Is there anyone who reads Yehoodi that would be in the anti-game camp? I mean the type of person who makes this an issue, gives money/time or even bothers to judge the ratings on games?
DJ makes a good point but there is a point to be made for observational learning and modeling, and he is hardly an agendaless source. I do agree that video games are used as a sensationalist scapegoat.
The real enemy is the very small active group of people out there who don't like something (obscene or immoral) and wish to put their values on other people. This agenda tops everything else. Fortunately, all that results is a waste of time and annoyance for many in the industry. Lots of industries have other stupid hoops they have to jump through too and other unfortunate have essentially lost their businesses.
What can be done about these people? Not much. So, I ignore them.
Larry, I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, there IS a point to be made about observational learning. Thats why the gaming industry rates their games and restricts the sale of mature games to minors. This argument should be entirely moot, as children should not even have access to graphic violent or sexual video games. Parents who neglect to oversee the lives of their children are in no position to blame anything for their behavior but themselves. If they find material objectionable and dangerous to their children, yet still provide it to them, who is really to blame? This point is lost so often in these arguments, and was one of the original points I had with this thread.
snazzyuserid:
I'd love to respond point by point to many of the things you've posted, but it would easily take the rest of my evening, so I'll make a few quick points.
Quote Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).
The impact of video games containing violence has recently become a focus of research because children are theoretically more susceptible to behavioral influences when they are active participants than when they are observers. To date, violent video games have not been studied as extensively as violent television or movies. The number of studies investigating the impact of such games on youth aggression is small, there have been none on serious violence, and none has been longitudinal.
A recent meta-analysis of these studies found that the overall effect size for both randomized and correlational studies was small for physical aggression (r = .19) and moderate for aggressive thinking (r = .27) (Anderson & Bushman, in press). In separate analyses, the effect sizes for both randomized and cross-sectional studies was small (r = .18 and .19, respectively). The impact of video games on violent behavior remains to be determined.
Quote Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
From the Department of Justice:
Maybe Grand Theft Auto is making people steal more?
I'm sorry, there's just no way to spin those numbers to show that violence and aggression is increasing as a result of video game exposure. In fact, the timeline seems to demonstrate that as video games become increasingly more popular, violent trends are decreasing. With literally hundreds of millions of people playing games, if they caused this hyper aggressive behavior in even a fraction of the people who play them, violent trends would be increasing instead of decreasing.
And, well, this:
Quote According to researchers Jessica Nicoll, B.A., and Kevin M. Kieffer, Ph.D., of Saint Leo University, youth who played violent video games for a short time experienced an increase in aggressive behavior following the video game. One study showed participants who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes rate themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing. In another study of over 600 8th and 9th graders, the children who spent more time playing violent video games were rated by their teachers as more hostile than other children in the study. The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures and were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students. They also performed more poorly on academic tasks.
While the observations could easily be called anecdotal, biased and unscientific, I'm not about to completely dismiss them as untrue. There could be a link established with a poorly supervised home life that allows these children access to violent games they should not have access to, as well as a low IQ, to their aggressive behavior.
From the CDC:
Quote Risk Factors
Research on youth violence has increased our understanding of factors that make some populations more vulnerable to victimization and perpetration. Many risk factors are the same, in part, because of the overlap among victims and perpetrators of violence.
Risk factors increase the likelihood that a young person will become violent. However, risk factors are not direct causes of youth violence; instead, risk factors contribute to youth violence (Mercy et al. 2002; DHHS 2001).
Research associates the following risk factors with perpetration of youth violence (DHHS 2001; Lipsey and Derzon 1998; Resnick et al. 2004):
Individual Risk Factors
History of violent victimization or involvement
Attention deficits, hyperactivity, or learning disorders
History of early aggressive behavior
Involvement with drugs, alcohol, or tobacco Low IQ
Poor behavioral control
Deficits in social cognitive or information-processing abilities
High emotional distress
History of treatment for emotional problems
Antisocial beliefs and attitudes
Exposure to violence and conflict in the family
Family Risk Factors
Authoritarian childrearing attitudes
Harsh, lax, or inconsistent disciplinary practices
Low parental involvement
Low emotional attachment to parents or caregivers
Low parental education and income
Parental substance abuse or criminality
Poor family functioning
Poor monitoring and supervision of children
Peer/School Risk Factors
Association with delinquent peers
Involvement in gangs
Social rejection by peers
Lack of involvement in conventional activities
Poor academic performance
Low commitment to school and school failure
Community Risk Factors
Diminished economic opportunities
High concentrations of poor residents
High level of transiency
High level of family disruption
Low levels of community participation
Socially disorganized neighborhoods
---
I'm not about to say that violent games don't contribute to aggression AT ALL. There is clear factual evidence to demonstrate that games, like all media, can contribute to aggression. The main ideology that I protest against is that they are the ROOT and CAUSE of a youth aggression epidemic and a spree of youth violence. Like anything, moderation and supervision is the key. Ratings and parental controls exist for a reason, and we in the industry and the community encourage their use. There are even sites like gamerdad.com that offer up great perspectives on this issue. Don't use us as a scapegoat for poor parenting. Taking a little responsibility to raise children properly will have a larger impact than any violent media could ever have.
Quoted from "DJLarkin" The main ideology that I protest against is that they are the ROOT and CAUSE of a youth aggression epidemic and a spree of youth violence.
Yep, they don't seem to be the only cause of violence but the evidence does seem to indicate that they are one of the causes. I share your disdain for those who overblow the case, but also for those who try to say it is nothing to worry about. We do seem to have some pretty compelling evidence so far, but as I always say, to each their own.
Kids watch and play violent video games if they're ALLOWED to - that is all. My 2c: Eliminating violent video games so that your kid doesn't watch them is about as sensible as castrating your son so he doesn't have sex too young. As a parent, you have to teach, educate, discourage, guide, and set the example. Your kid gets more of an education from watching you behave at a sports game than from anything you say.
"Change your thoughts, and you change your world" - Norman Vincent Peale.
Quoted from "DJLarkin" While the observations could easily be called anecdotal, biased and unscientific, I'm not about to completely dismiss them as untrue. There could be a link established with a poorly supervised home life that allows these children access to violent games they should not have access to, as well as a low IQ, to their aggressive behavior.
[...]
I'm sorry, there's just no way to spin those numbers to show that violence and aggression is increasing as a result of video game exposure. In fact, the timeline seems to demonstrate that as video games become increasingly more popular, violent trends are decreasing. With literally hundreds of millions of people playing games, if they caused this hyper aggressive behavior in even a fraction of the people who play them, violent trends would be increasing instead of decreasing.
It's also entirely possible that games have a different effect on different types of people. Playing Quake could make Joe want to go out and shoot somebody and at the same time serve as an outlet for John who now decides not to go out an shoot somebody. From the looks of the crime data, it's a safer bet that there have been more John's than Joe's in the last 15 years. That doesn't mean we ignore Joe; that's what the ESRB's are for and as people here agree what parents are for... just that it's possible that there are both positive and a negative effects of the medium and that at the moment the negatives are being outweighed quantitatively. That certainly doesn't help the case for censorship.
There's also the question of what video game media (or any media) is replacing. If I read about somebody killing a police officer because he believes that he's living in the Matrix, it would be hard for me to believe that the Matrix movie is so unique that nothing else would have triggered this. Maybe otherwise that kid would have killed the cop because he believed he's Luke Skywalker and the cop is Darth Vader, or any of thousands of other things that could push somebody who clearly doesn't have a strong grip on reality over the edge.
We live in a country with 300 million people. It stands to reason that some of those people are completely insane and violent, no matter what their hobbies are. We have hunting fanatics and ex-military crazies and gamer crazies and christian crazies.
Funny related story: a psychologist went on Fox news and talked about how bad video games are and now the gamers are spamming her Amazon.com book page with one star reviews.
Stop blaming video games for bad parenting
DJLarkin
Please, just stop. For the love of God, Yahweh, the FSM or whatever diety you choose to believe kills kittens when someone does something wrong. Today I came across a video, which I'll talk about later in this post, which really rubbed me the wrong way. It was so blatantly misinformed that it really made me angry. So, hopefully I can incite change in at least a few people.
If nothing else, I'll ask one thing. Stop swallowing the propaganda thats being fed to you. Video games are not training your kid to become a mass murderer, sociopath or felon. Its gotten to the point where people are regurgitating this nonsense with no factual basis, simply because they've heard so many other people say it. Its untrue, and frankly, idiotic.
(This is a paraphrase from another thread on yehoodi, forgive me for not wanting to retype a majority of this)
I'm a senior designer for EA's online games division, the largest game developer in the world. I work on Massively Multiplayer Online games (MMOs). They're called Massive for a reason. It is estimated that over 200 million people play these games worldwide. Like anything with such a wide distribution of population, there are extremes. Not everyone who drinks is an Alcoholic, not everyone who gambles is an addict, and not everyone who plays MMOs does so to these extremes. Demonizing the genre due to a few examples is as wrong as demonizing all people who gamble or drink.
Many people like to say that there is evidence proving video games are harmful. Sadly those reports do exist. However, they're from disreputable, biased and anti-gaming activists. The people pushing this agenda have done no scientific study or research to give any reputable proof to these claims. In fact, most of the major players in the modern anti-video game activism are the same exact people who attacked the TV, Movie and Music industries for their content. Jack Thompson, the most vocal of the activists and a Florida Lawyer, is currently in the midst of disbarment hearings by the Florida Bar. He even had the balls to try to sue the Florida Bar for investigating his frivolous lawsuits against the gaming industry, most of which he was soundly defeated. He's the same lawyer who gave attorney general Janet Reno a letter at a campaign event requesting that she check a box to indicate whether she was homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual, and then attacked her publicly for her alleged homosexuality. He is also the same lawyer who attacked 2 Live Crew for obscenity. The list goes on.
Regardless of the completely baseless claims from these raving lunatics, Senators Joe Lieberman, Sam Brownback, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Rick Santorum pushed the Children Media Research and Advancement (CAMRA) Act through committee last year, which they first introduced in May 2004.
CAMRA will enable the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which will work in coordination with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to research "the effects of viewing and using electronic media, including television, computers, video games and the Internet on children's cognitive, social, physical, and psychological development."
Sadly, those who are in favor of the bill are the most heavily anti-gaming lobbyists and senators, who are more concerned with their personal beliefs than scientific evidence. Prior to this, funding has been blocked from many organizations friendly to the gaming industry that wanted to publish studies showing that the effects are not nearly as harmful as they've been claimed to be, so our industry has little faith that the study will be as neutral as we can hope.
However, there have been several studies in Korea and Japan, where gaming is a much more prominent activity than the US. In Korea a large majority of the population, yes MAJORITY, play online games. Games such as Starcraft are even televised several channels. Their Gaming champions are treated roughly akin to professional sports players in the states, and payed about as well. Scientists there have been dealing with a much heavier dose of gaming, and thus have done extensive studies on the subject. They've found that effects can come about from long term game exposure in certain conditions. Children under the age of 12 who have had extensive exposure to violent video games have shown diminished beta brainwave patterns and a suppressed limbic system, which is the area of the brain that regulates impulse control. However, because of the rapid decrease in omega 3 fatty acids in the diets of parents and children over the last 40 years which can also do this, the exact cause is hard to pin down to a singular cause. Short term exposure in scientific study was shown to have short term effects, but no lasting effects in anyone above the age of 12. Yet, all subjects studied developed significantly improved reflexes, motor skills, problem solving skills, and reaction times. Studies of patients with traumatic brain injury also showed significant brain development that rivaled that of ROT exercises. Exposure to video games in elderly drivers has also been shown to improve motor function, peripheral vision, and reaction time, thus making them better and safer drivers.
Yet, things like this still happen. In the clip, Fox News attacks Pandemic/Bioware's new mega hit Mass Effect for containing "full digital nudity and sex'. The problem... it doesn't. Not even close. Geoff Keighley, who works for G4 TV and finds himself defending the completely insane accusations of people lobbying against the gaming industry tries to interject this. The people attacking the game flat out admit they've never even played it, and the "newscaster" admits her only knowledge of the game is from a cursory glance at the website right before the interview.
There is so much misinformation in this clip, its hard to know where to start. What happened to research in journalism?
As Geoff points out, there is no full digital nudity or sex. There's one 30 second scene in 30 hours of gameplay that shows a side shot of an alien breast. You get more nudity an average R rated movie, and at least those breasts aren't blue and scaly (yes, the breast you see in the game is blue and scaly). The fact that one of the "panel" calls this "Luke Skywalker meets Debbie Does Dallas" is astounding, and demonstrates that they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
The scene has to be actively sought out in the "choose your adventure" style game, by falling in love. If you decide to hack and slash your way through the game instead of playing the good guy, you'll never see it. The Misogynistic angle they try to take by saying that the game is taken completely from the perspective of a man, as Geoff points out, is also false. You can play the main character as a woman OR a man. Your choice.
Then, there's the "expert". She doesn't get two sentences in to her uninformed blathering before she spouts this gem. "If you look at the statistics, who's playing video games but adolescent males."
OK. I'll bite. Lets look at the statistics.
These are taken from the ESA, the Entertainment Software Association. This is somewhat of an overseeing body in the gaming industry, much like the MPAA or the RIAA. I would love to quote the entire article, though everyone should read it, but its too long. I'll just pull out the relevant parts.
These numbers are probably not what you expected. In fact, they show completely contrary information to what most people believe, that adolescent males are the majority of gamers. In fact, the majority of gamers are in the 18-49 year old range with a staggering 24.2% of gamers being 50 years or older.
Sorry Miss Expert, looks like YOU should look at the statistics.
What really kills me about these people, is the way they speak about children. They speak of them like wild animals, who do whatever they want without any control from the parents. I just simply don't understand this. Video games carry an ESRB rating, similar to the MPAA rating on movies. Here's a quick guide to the rating system, though its pretty self explanatory:
The easiest way to prevent children from seeing what you do not want them to see in video games is to look at the ESRB rating. It will tell you what, if anything, a game contains, and the appropriate age range as described above. If it has something that you don't want your kids to see, don't allow it in your house. In addition, game companies and console game system makers have gone to great lengths to add parental controls that can help you monitor and regulate game usage. Bypassing all the safeguards in place to prevent adult games from reaching children's hands is like bypassing safeguards in place to prevent children from seeing porn. I'll never understand a parent who willingly buys a game that is clearly labeled AO (ADULTS ONLY) for their adolescent child, then complains about the content. Its akin to buying your child porn and then complaining to the publisher for their content.
Another thing to note, is the grossly misrepresented number of violent and mature games. As the ESRB article above states, roughly 11.9 percent of games fall into this category. The media likes to bill the industry as a production house for violent and abhorrent content. However, they fail to mention that over half the games produced carry no objectionable material whatsoever, and another 30% on top of that are the equivalent of a PG-13 movie. However, games like "The Sims" (Which happens to be the best selling video game of all time) "Viva Pinata" and "Animal Crossing" don't seem to make the news much. Instead, you see "Grand Theft Auto". Just like many other aspects of the news media, violence and sensationalism sells. Thankfully, thats not true for the gaming industry, regardless of how its billed.
So, hopefully this has shed a bit of light on the subject. I'm more than willing to answer any questions you might have on what your perception is, and how it meets up with the reality.
Page(s): 1 2 3 4 Next > (91 items total, 30 per page)
mity
(is this the longest post ever on yehoodi not written by mouth? )
mouth
Hey, I resemble that remark. I mean - resent, yeah that's it.
:wink:
Air
Great post and I agree with most of it.
I'll bite a bit.
It is unfortunate that the media concentrates on the more aggressive games and not others like Sim City, The Sims, etc... that are just flat out awesome but get swept up in the hype. But I know how I feel after playing some of the more aggressive games and I'd be surprised if others didn't feel more aggressive immediately after playing those types.
- Any studies on the impact of some higher adrenaline games like GTA, Doom, etc... on someone's emotional state?
- Does one portray more aggressive behaviors after being absorbed in that environment for a period of time? Is there a time limit when one does or does not portray some of those more aggressive behaviors (say after 30 mins vs 2 hours)?
- Are the ones that portray more aggressive behavior just predisposed (so the game is not really a cause but more of an enabling median)?
DJLarkin
Good questions. I touched lightly on them in my post, but its easy to miss them in all the other data.
Because of the interactive aspect of video games, the brain interprets some of the signals differently than, say, an action movie. Watching a movie, you're somewhat detached from the subject matter, as you have no control. However, when you're controlling things, your lower brain activity goes on autopilot. Much like watching a scary movie where you're unsure of the outcome, the introduction of stress causes your brain to produce epinephrine AKA adrenaline. The effects of adrenaline on your body can explain the aggressive feeling, but its completely temporary. The physical response is similar to what you might find when doing something extreme or stressful, like playing sports or skydyving, but to a much lesser extent. Your heart rate will increase, pupils will dilate, among various other physical responses to the adrenaline in your blood. However, its not psychoactive, it does not alter your frame of mind, aside from the increased blood flow to the brain.
As for predisposition to violence, its hard to interpret the numbers. Because so many people play video games, separating correlation from causation is difficult. PBS has a nice short article on Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked. (though I'm not sure about their 90 number)
What is really interesting is the statistics on non gaming activity of gamers, from the ESA article quoted above.
Addict
DJ, that's all well and good, but really it pales in comparison to the horrific menace that is the Chupacabra
SwingKid570
There will always be something out there for [bleep!] parents to pin the blame on for why their kids turned out to be such little [bleep!]s. Before video games it was slasher movies and before that it was Dungeons And Dragons and before that it was rock and roll and swing music, etc...
The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...
alf
That needs to change.
I mean, if it's acceptable to have video games where players kill people...
DJLarkin
Don't even get me started on that puritanical outlook...
Swifty
How do I get past the level boss for the Bowser Jr.'s Lava Reactor world of Super Mario Galaxy?
√4 = Rainbows
OpeningMinds
You said it. I doubt the time will ever come when parents say "oh yeah, I/we effed up."
"Change your thoughts, and you change your world" - Norman Vincent Peale.
DJLarkin
Keep moving, as the platforms will sink in to the lava, and avoid the flaming rocks the giant squid spits out. When the squid spits out a green melon, spin attack it. Three times and you've won.
BigCat
How could violent video games create violent people? This isn't like television, where you could end up seeing the content by simply channel surfing. All of the hyper-violent games (Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat, Doom, whatever) are fairly expensive ( 50- 60 for the latest games), and the box's label gives you a good idea what sort of game you are buying. No one buys Duke Nuk'em and expects to find child-friendly non-violent material. The act of buying such a game shows that the consumer has an existing desire for violent material - actually playing the didn't create it.
Beckto
I learned how to have sex from playing the SIMS.
westiegrrl
&
Leisure Suit Larry for me - my parents said if I could pass the age-check questions I could play. They failed, I passed.
Nothing like a game where you have to tell the character to put a condom on least he get an STD and die.
MCQ & CHRIS
J Adolesc. 2004 Feb;27(1):41-52 Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness.
Uhlmann E, Swanson J.
Department of Psychology, Yale University; 2 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. eric.uhlmann yale.edu
The effects of exposure to violent video games on automatic associations with the self were investigated in a sample of 121 students. Playing the violent video game Doom led participants to associate themselves with aggressive traits and actions on the Implicit Association Test. In addition, self-reported prior exposure to violent video games predicted automatic aggressive self-concept, above and beyond self-reported aggression. Results suggest that playing violent video games can lead to the automatic learning of aggressive self-views.
oopsmybad
In honor of this thread, I think I will go jerk off to a half nekkid NElf.
VLG
From the article:
"Overall, our results suggest that exposure to the violent game did not significantly influence the self-reported aggressiveness of either male or female participants."
However, later in the article the writers state that violent video games are the cause of increased aggressiveness in many of those who have played these games a lot. This statement is despite the fact that there is no way to prove causality.
Did those subjects have more aggressive tendencies because they play violent video games, or do they play violent video games because they have aggressive tendencies? There's no way to tell without long term studies.
snazzyuserid
Excellent question. Other research has addressed this issue:
http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html
snazzyuserid
Also to further support the responsibility of parents, the article I quoted above also has this:
http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html
Signet
Prior to 1993, there were approximately zero homicides where the killer blamed Doom for causing him to commit the crime. Since then, that number has grown to at least several dozen. Explain that!
- James
snazzyuserid
That's inaccurate:
http://www.apa.org/releases/violentvideoC05.html
I think we need to separate those who make baseless attacks on video games from those who actually do research on it. Also, it makes sense that those who are interested in research on the effects of violent TV and Movies on children would also be interested in the effects of violent video games on children.
redbean
Possible explanation:
Prior to Doom's existence, no one could blame their behavior on it. :-P
People will always find something on which to blame their out-of-control behavior. I seriously doubt video games are the sole factor in the violent behavior of some people. It seems unlikely that a person with no other violent external influences (abusive home, etc) would be turned toward committing violent crime based solely on their choice of gaming entertainment. By the same token, it also seems unlikely that a person who blames their acts of violence on games has no other violent influences in their life.
DJLarkin
I'm glad you cited that study, I was hoping someone would. I've seen it, and actually cited it in a paper in college. Its a perfect example of how information can be twisted to make something innocent seem very damning. The situation was fairly absurd. 121 Psychology students played 10 minutes of both Doom and Mahjongg. They then took an Implicit Association Test as well as a self evaluation test. In the self evaluation, they did not self associate violent game playing with increased aggressiveness.
From the same article:
Only the IAT showed an Automatic Aggressive Response, meaning that the people taking the test associated certain objects and words in a certain way faster after playing the violent game. However, the IAT has been heavily criticized as a method of measuring cultural knowledge or memory, rather than an endorsement of that knowledge. The study also did not research any long term effects, aside from anecdotal cultural evidence.
What it really came down to was a pitifully small sample of people with similar backgrounds, predisposed to a certain behavioral type, had an increased response to a memory test after playing a violent game for 10 minutes. Not exactly a damning take on violent video games.
However, the study is not completely useless. I wouldn't doubt that there was a mild increase in certain behavioral patterns due to the increased adrenaline levels. As I stated before, increased levels of adrenaline released by the brain while playing games can trigger mildly enhanced aggressiveness, but nothing compared to the activities that people are encouraged to do on a daily basis; exercise, play sports, and move around. All of these activities trigger much higher levels of adrenaline, and lead to much more aggressive behavior than playing video games.
Statistically, there are going to be examples of gamers showing aggressive behavior simply due to the sheer number of people playing these games. However, with the stated hypothesis that violent media is causing increased aggressive behavior, that should be demonstrated in statistics that measure youth violence. In fact, youth violence has declined steadily since 1993, despite their population steadily increasing. This contrasts sharply with many of the claims made against violent media.
snazzyuserid
To be fair, we should point out that those myths that are posted on the PBS site are from Henry Jenkins. a video game advocate and professor of media studies who as far as I can tell is a communications professor, and does not do behavioral research on violent video games.
Here are some myths about violent video games by a research psychologist who has conducted research on and studied aggression--including on video games--for decades. I think you all will find it interesting. There are additional interesting facts at the link at the end of the quote:
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html
Larry
Is there anyone who reads Yehoodi that would be in the anti-game camp? I mean the type of person who makes this an issue, gives money/time or even bothers to judge the ratings on games?
DJ makes a good point but there is a point to be made for observational learning and modeling, and he is hardly an agendaless source. I do agree that video games are used as a sensationalist scapegoat.
The real enemy is the very small active group of people out there who don't like something (obscene or immoral) and wish to put their values on other people. This agenda tops everything else. Fortunately, all that results is a waste of time and annoyance for many in the industry. Lots of industries have other stupid hoops they have to jump through too and other unfortunate have essentially lost their businesses.
What can be done about these people? Not much. So, I ignore them.
DJLarkin
Larry, I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, there IS a point to be made about observational learning. Thats why the gaming industry rates their games and restricts the sale of mature games to minors. This argument should be entirely moot, as children should not even have access to graphic violent or sexual video games. Parents who neglect to oversee the lives of their children are in no position to blame anything for their behavior but themselves. If they find material objectionable and dangerous to their children, yet still provide it to them, who is really to blame? This point is lost so often in these arguments, and was one of the original points I had with this thread.
snazzyuserid:
I'd love to respond point by point to many of the things you've posted, but it would easily take the rest of my evening, so I'll make a few quick points.
From the surgeon general:
From the Department of Justice:
Maybe Grand Theft Auto is making people steal more?
I'm sorry, there's just no way to spin those numbers to show that violence and aggression is increasing as a result of video game exposure. In fact, the timeline seems to demonstrate that as video games become increasingly more popular, violent trends are decreasing. With literally hundreds of millions of people playing games, if they caused this hyper aggressive behavior in even a fraction of the people who play them, violent trends would be increasing instead of decreasing.
And, well, this:
While the observations could easily be called anecdotal, biased and unscientific, I'm not about to completely dismiss them as untrue. There could be a link established with a poorly supervised home life that allows these children access to violent games they should not have access to, as well as a low IQ, to their aggressive behavior.
From the CDC:
---
I'm not about to say that violent games don't contribute to aggression AT ALL. There is clear factual evidence to demonstrate that games, like all media, can contribute to aggression. The main ideology that I protest against is that they are the ROOT and CAUSE of a youth aggression epidemic and a spree of youth violence. Like anything, moderation and supervision is the key. Ratings and parental controls exist for a reason, and we in the industry and the community encourage their use. There are even sites like gamerdad.com that offer up great perspectives on this issue. Don't use us as a scapegoat for poor parenting. Taking a little responsibility to raise children properly will have a larger impact than any violent media could ever have.
snazzyuserid
Yep, they don't seem to be the only cause of violence but the evidence does seem to indicate that they are one of the causes. I share your disdain for those who overblow the case, but also for those who try to say it is nothing to worry about. We do seem to have some pretty compelling evidence so far, but as I always say, to each their own.
OpeningMinds
Kids watch and play violent video games if they're ALLOWED to - that is all. My 2c: Eliminating violent video games so that your kid doesn't watch them is about as sensible as castrating your son so he doesn't have sex too young. As a parent, you have to teach, educate, discourage, guide, and set the example. Your kid gets more of an education from watching you behave at a sports game than from anything you say.
"Change your thoughts, and you change your world" - Norman Vincent Peale.
Signet
It's also entirely possible that games have a different effect on different types of people. Playing Quake could make Joe want to go out and shoot somebody and at the same time serve as an outlet for John who now decides not to go out an shoot somebody. From the looks of the crime data, it's a safer bet that there have been more John's than Joe's in the last 15 years. That doesn't mean we ignore Joe; that's what the ESRB's are for and as people here agree what parents are for... just that it's possible that there are both positive and a negative effects of the medium and that at the moment the negatives are being outweighed quantitatively. That certainly doesn't help the case for censorship.
There's also the question of what video game media (or any media) is replacing. If I read about somebody killing a police officer because he believes that he's living in the Matrix, it would be hard for me to believe that the Matrix movie is so unique that nothing else would have triggered this. Maybe otherwise that kid would have killed the cop because he believed he's Luke Skywalker and the cop is Darth Vader, or any of thousands of other things that could push somebody who clearly doesn't have a strong grip on reality over the edge.
- James
Marcelo
We live in a country with 300 million people. It stands to reason that some of those people are completely insane and violent, no matter what their hobbies are. We have hunting fanatics and ex-military crazies and gamer crazies and christian crazies.
Funny related story: a psychologist went on Fox news and talked about how bad video games are and now the gamers are spamming her Amazon.com book page with one star reviews.
http://kotaku.com/348355/quack-gets-amazon-book-rating-spammed
Page(s): 1 2 3 4 Next > (91 items total, 30 per page)
Related Content
No related topics found.