Psychology Study Blames Games for Aggressive Behavior

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Games are fake, so they won't react to it the same way unless it was real, right?

stop trampling on my hobby! I hate you all who try to live off grants by trying to link video games to murders! doing these cheap, worthless, pointless, high school level experiments! who the hell is founding this? This crap went on news? This is SICK! it sickens me EVERY TIMES I see people do this kind of thing! stop! I played duke 3D in JR. high! and I am no murder today, in fact, I am a teacher, who STILL PLAY VERY VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES! (I teach mostly arts, by the way)

I am NOT A MURDER, but I enjoy killing inside my games! I thought fallout3's "bloody mess" was a "MUST GET", and it's hilarious, but I can't even help a kid in the after school "fix" his/her "booboo" because I can't stand sight of a cut, they disgusts me. I love to run over bots/players in games with cars, tanks,trucks.. you name it... but when I accidentally ran over a squirrel once, it bothered me for days! (i didn't really know if I killed it or not, just saw it ran infront of y van...) take these for your data, you leeches.

Phyroxis:

Lullabye:

Phyroxis:

No. Responsive in a brain-activity sense, as in desensitized to seeing violence.

Think of responsiveness as thoughts/neural activity, and aggression as action. At least in this instance.

Uhh.....but an action is(im pretty sure) caused by a reaction in the brain.

Not always the case. Besides, we're talking about two different things, one is looking at violent pictures and the other is actually causing harm (possibly) to another person.

The study is saying that someone who has just played a violent video games has less of a mental aversion, or is less upset by violent pictures than someone who has not just played a videogame.

It also is saying that that same person is more likely to harm (again, a lot of "ifs" here) someone more than someone who had not just played a violent videogame.

Like if i'm 'less responsive to violence but more aggresive' then someone punches me in the face, will i beat the crap outta them whilst feeling apathetic? is that what they are trying to say? cus it makes no sense....

Your scenario is actually somewhat accurate and makes more sense than you might think. Except you'd need to take out the "someone punches me in the face" part, because that is going to be WAY more of a justification to be violent than a videogame could ever compare to.

Say you and I just watched two different movies, I watched Bambi and you watched The Terminator. I'm feeling super happy and lovey and shit, and you're all pumped from watching shit die and shit explode. You've already been watching violence and destruction, I have not.

We both are walking together (come up with your own reason) and we see a fight taking place. I am much more likely to be bothered by it than you are, that is I am more sensitized and you are more desensitized. As I said earlier, you've been watching violence already; I have not.

Now, how will either of us behave in reaction to this fight is less certain. If the study is to be held true, you're more likely to want to see someone get hurt more than I am. As for driving behavior, there really isn't science to back up what either of us would do (as affected by media) because we're not being presented with the explicit opportunity to harm someone (in experiments like this one, they give the participant the opportunity to, say, press a button to harm someone).

I hope that clears it up a bit. The bottom line is, the farther your hypothetical (or real life) situation gets from that which actually occurred in the experiment, the more likely the experiment won't apply and you'll need other experiments to fill in the blanks.

That actually cleared up quite a bit. Thank you for taking the time to post this.

Well, I won't simply dismiss these "scientific findings" just because I think that studies that are conducted for a reason will yield the results they were made to find. I have come to accept them and try to learn from them.

Let's assume the claim "violent video games can make you more aggressive" is true until proven otherwise. Is this effect only observed in video games or is this a natural reaction, say, to stressful, high-adrenaline situations? If the latter is the case, then big whoop, but if not, how can this be? A type of stimulus unbeknownst to other media, how do we deal with it? A scientific mystery.

Or just standard, rehashed, old news. Anyway, I don't think anything major is gonna happen in the near future. If I should be wrong, I revoke my previous statement and claim the opposite.

Considering that the report opens claiming that "scientists have known for YEARS that playing violent video games causes aggression" i would like to ask which scientists that would be. and which studies that conclusion was reached from. just saying "scientists" is ambiguos and proves nothing. Also surely it would be psychologists rather than scientists. And if there was a control group it wasnt mentioned. it seemed it pitted gamers against non gamers in a succesion of violent images and i can imagine the gamers played the videogame while non-gamers did not before response to violent images was measured. It just seems odd that those who had not previously played videogames did not seem to play videogames before the test. if anything there should have been four groups. gamers having played the game. gamers having not played the game before the test. non-gamers who did not play the game. non-gamers who had played the game. the test itslef seems shoddy or the report is very simple.

Evilsanta:

Eri:
Bitch please. De-sensitized to virtual violence is not the same thing as being de-sensitized to real life violence. Just ask Penn and Teller.

...Damn it! Ninja'd by the second poster! Has to be that pony avatar...Giving some kind of poster bonus...

OT: Geez, It's not like this study has been done a couple of time with the same result. And as Eri here wrote that virtual and real life violence is DIFFERENT.

Double Ninja'd!!!

Either way I found this quite hilarious

"In the next phase of the experiment, subjects engaged in a competition where they could blast noises at each other at whatever decibel level they chose. The group who played the violent games employed louder noises than the control group, which Bartholow believes proves that games cause aggression."

OH DEAR ME! I hope they don't get bruises. Such horrible video games enticing our youth to be competitive with one another/ Sarcasm

Either way like Evil Santa and Eri said, it's a temporary increase in aggression and honestly, so what if we're de-sensitized to virtual violence? Ever seen a guys head go "SPLAT" on the windshield of a car in real life!? Yeah not so funny or entertaining at all. It's horrifying.
But I digress the OT was right in placing the quotation marks around prove because this sounds like just another feeble and almost irrelevant attempt at saying video games are bad.

This makes me angry enough to beat the shit out of someone.

let me summarise: southern US state says 'games bad.'
southern US states also cancel proms because they hate lesbians.

Nifty. Still doesn't account for the Dick Factor, or the personal experiences. Violent video games amuse me, while cheap AI with an arbitrary timer on a mission lead me to spew obscenities faster than a 13 year old who just learned some new vocabulary and wants to show everyone. It depends solely on the circumstances and mindset that I'm in at the time. Say for instance, my thumb slips while playing, and I hit the wrong button, or that the controller is not aging well and doesn't react to every button press anymore, and while I clearly press the button, it doesn't register, like holding the down button to duck when a giant pillar of spikes crashes over your head, but the controller decides to not continue to register the button being held down and decides you wanted to stand right into the giant spiky phallus. That infuriates me more than anything. I also tend to be of a very disfavorable disposition when my tooth decides to shoot agonizing jolts of pain through my jaw, which also causes me to be, as some have put it, "a bit irate" or "possibly tetchy".

And, funnily enough, that image of the blue cup they flashed aggravated me on the sheer premise of "they're trying to pacify me!", which make me feel put upon. Tsk.

Even if it DOES promote aggressive behavior... SO WHAT?

I mean, how is it not expected to, if I play a good match of any decent FPS or Fighting Game, my heart will be pumping and OF COURSE I'll be more aggressive. I'm not going to punch someone in the face or something though, that's stupid.

plexxiss:
Considering that the report opens claiming that "scientists have known for YEARS that playing violent video games causes aggression" i would like to ask which scientists that would be. and which studies that conclusion was reached from. just saying "scientists" is ambiguos and proves nothing. Also surely it would be psychologists rather than scientists. And if there was a control group it wasnt mentioned. it seemed it pitted gamers against non gamers in a succesion of violent images and i can imagine the gamers played the videogame while non-gamers did not before response to violent images was measured. It just seems odd that those who had not previously played videogames did not seem to play videogames before the test. if anything there should have been four groups. gamers having played the game. gamers having not played the game before the test. non-gamers who did not play the game. non-gamers who had played the game. the test itslef seems shoddy or the report is very simple.

You'll do.

-Psychologists are a type of scientist. But scientists are also "academi[cs] battl[ing] against videogames", so the distinction might have been lost on the journalist.

-There were four groups: High previous exposure to videogames/non-violent game;
High previous exposure to videogames/violent video game;
Low previous exposure to videogames/non-violent game;
Low previous exposure to videogames/violent video game.

The violent games were Call of Duty: Finest Hour, Hitman: Contracts, Killzone, and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. The non-violent games were Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy, MVP Baseball 2004, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4, and Sonic Plus Mega Collection. Each participant played one of the games for 25 minutes before the two tests (for desensitisation and aggression).

-The experiment is pretty sound; the report woefully incomplete.

Lord Honk:
Well, I won't simply dismiss these "scientific findings" just because I think that studies that are conducted for a reason will yield the results they were made to find. I have come to accept them and try to learn from them.

Let's assume the claim "violent video games can make you more aggressive" is true until proven otherwise. Is this effect only observed in video games or is this a natural reaction, say, to stressful, high-adrenaline situations? If the latter is the case, then big whoop, but if not, how can this be? A type of stimulus unbeknownst to other media, how do we deal with it? A scientific mystery.

Or just standard, rehashed, old news. Anyway, I don't think anything major is gonna happen in the near future. If I should be wrong, I revoke my previous statement and claim the opposite.

It is probably not just a "stressful, high-adrenaline situation" thing. From the paper: "All games were pre-tested to ensure relative equivalence on how enjoyable, arousing, and frustrating they were." "Arousal" being the key word. This would refer to psychological arousal, i.e. stress. They could be criticised for the informal way they judged "relative equivalence", though, as there is no details given on how they did that.

Being desensitised to violence is not even remotely the same as being actively violent. A few years back I saw someone run over and killed by a large four-wheel-drive, after seeing that I don't tend to get shocked by images of grievous wounds and the like, however I have no desire to go out and cause such injury to people - Despite also being an avid Call of Duty player.

^ Somewhere in there there's a slightly mangled but hopefully understandable argument.

Hahahahaha ... "causal association"?! Hahaha, right. That's like a horoscope being causally associated with a particular individual, in other words "circumstance" or even "coincidence"!

Sheesh, this guy needs to go back to school. Maybe reread his Jung and have another think-through what causality actually means when it comes to psychology.

Hmm... In how many Disney movies at least one character dies?

And the amount of violent games I have played as child I should be a violent mass-murderer, yet if you raise you fist I get spooked, also I haven't ever hit anyone - not even the immigrant kids who cracked my skull during 8th grade...

MasterOfWorlds:

Phyroxis:

MasterOfWorlds:
Yeah, as a former psych major,

and out goes your credibility. If you took anything beyond general psych, I'd be surprised. You certainly have no grasp of experimental design (or, more importantly, Human Subjects constraints). Long, long, gone are the days of being able to directly observe aggression (see Standford Prison Experiment).

Seriously? You can't even spell correlation right.

Really? You're going to judge me based on the fact that I mispelled something, which is something most people do from time to time, I might add,

No, I'm not judging you on the fact you misspelled something. I'm judging you on the fact that you opened your post with "I'm an ex-psych major" as an assertion of expertise. Which it is not. Its like saying "I know how to use a hammer" and then calling yourself a General Contractor. It does nothing for your argument but make you look like you don't know what your doing.

and because I switched majors? You know nothing about me. You have no idea how far I progressed along my psych courses before I found out that I liked sociology better.

I don't have to know your life story to evaluate your claims, and, honestly, your claims were found wanting. I didn't give you much time in my original post because your initial appeal-to-authority was all that was really needed to be addressed.

I've read several books regarding violence and the psyche, hell, I've even watched several documentaries and clips from the prison experiment. Don't presume to judge me because I might not have Psy. D. at the end of my name. And did you not read my entire post?

So having read many books (what kind, academic or pop?) makes you an expert and thus exempt from having to present well-founded, logical arguments? Well, I'll concede that having read books could give you a great background from which to work from. That of course then begs the question, why didn't you source some of your vast library? Doing that would have given us a lot more to work with. In fact, if you can source me some of your books, I'd be interested in expanding my knowledge base with them.

And, if you had seen the prison experiments, you'd then know that as a result of them we can't do human subjects research involving violence, anymore. You claimed that the only way a study could draw correlation is if there was direct person-on-person violence, something that is almost certain to never happen in academia again (more on this later).

Also, while Psy. D. (and more importantly Ph.D) may give you a little credibility, leaving the degree out of an online debate is probably the best way to go. This is an internet forum, degrees mean much less than a solid argument. Besides, people throw degrees around online, all the time. They also tend to be horrible at arguing logically (actual Ph.D's have other forums in which to debate; scientific journals). Instead of inflating yourself with unverifiable claims (of degree, expertise, whatever), why not show your chops by throwing up some sound arguments (don't worry, I'll get to your original post)?

I said that it was because of things like this that I want I'm studying sociology and social psychology. Because I want to do research almost exclusively, and this would be one of the things that I'd do it on.

Wanting to study psychology and sociology is admirable (and is a trait I share, no less) but it doesn't lend credibility to your argument. It can humanize your online presence and make people feel as if they can relate to you more, but it does nothing to your argument.

I don't care if you disagree with me. I do care that your disagreement with me seems to be a personal attack on me, and not the seemingly reasoned argument in the rest of the post that you attacked me in.

Not a personal attack. You had no seemingly reasoned argument (getting to it). You started your post with posturing and you were not backed up by the rest of your post. Had you actually shown some proof of having relevant experience (in experimental design, logical postulating, etc) I'd have left your claim totally alone. But you did not. You said "I'm an former psych major" and to back it up, you used knee-jerk "feelings". That is fine if your intent is to express opinion, but you've said yourself that you were trying to argue with reason.

The original post

MasterOfWorlds:
Yeah, as a former psych major, I'm calling BS on this one.

Already covered this.

Unless you show real violence happening to real people, and their reaction is the same to videogames, I'm not buying that it's a direct coorelation.

It is not necessary to show real violence happening to real people. If you honestly had read several books on violence and aggression, you'd know that there is no longer the opportunity in social sciences to study human-on-human violence, why? Because we have ethics, yay. This is why studies must now design proxies for violence.

Also, this entire claim is useless as its straw-manning to begin with. The authors didn't say violence, they said aggression. These are two different concepts. Violence is a subset of aggression. Aggression can be thoughts, intentions, feelings, and actions while violence consists of actions. The authors found a direct correlation between videogames and aggression, not violence.

Sure, it does desensitize to violence to a certain degree, but I don't really think it'd be any more so than movies would. I'm not even sure that the fact that you're the one dishing out the pain in videogames has any more effect that watching a movie.

Never did the authors say that videogames were more desensitizing than any other form of media. They didn't study other forms of media in this study, so they couldn't make claims about it. They even went so far as to say vidoegames are probably not the main source of aggression and that there are many different factors.

[/quote]

I find it amusing that some people say, "They're disassociating themselves from people by playing as this character." and some of the same people turn around and say, "They're becoming more violent because they play these games." People need to make up their minds.

Irrelevant opinionating. Its something I agree with, but it doesn't pertain to the article being discussed. This is also a tactic used to draw the reader into ally-ship with the writer, not through logic but through emotional connection.

This test is BS, the results are BS,

Because you say so! Are you really more qualified than an entire IRB, team of academic researchers, editorial board, and peer reviewers? Have you taken the time to read the article yourself, and actually evaluate it? This claim could be true (its highly unlikely) but you don't give any support for it, leaving what could be an incredible revelation to be just a cry out in the dark.

and this is exactly why I want to do sociology and social psychology, so that I'll be able to come up with better and more comprehensive tests than these.

Good! We need more people researching videogames. Just don't expect wildly different results. It'd be great if you could contrive an experiment to disprove this, but there is such a body of research now to back up the videogames-correlate-with-aggression claims that you'd be in for a Nobel prize if you could pull it off.

Ever think about looking into someone's background before allowing them to participate in the tests? For instance, someone that came from an abusive household might internalize it more than someone that comes from a "normal" family?

All of which are dealt with through random sampling and repeated studies. This is where your lack of experimental design knowledge shows through. Its not bad, nor does it mean I'm attacking you. It just means that you don't yet have the concepts needed to understand how this study is actually empirically sound.

[/quote]There are so many outside variable here that it sickens me that this was allowed to be published.[quote]
More opinionating and posturing without backing up your claims. What outside variables? Do you even know what that means?

Now, for my opinionating. The fundamental flaw with any of these comment sections is that there are people on this site who tend to knee-jerk. They think that because a scientific article that says vidoegames cause or are correlated to aggression means that that is an inherently bad thing that society and the gub'ment are going to do something about.

But, if you stop and look for a second, so many technologies and media forms have been demonized in the past. Games are just going through their time. Not yet have games been seriously attacked for being aggression-inducing, certainly not as a result of empirical studies (and much more as a result of fake experts asserting unjustified claims). Appeals to emotion and fear will always trump logic and argument, why? Because its so easy to fear something, and its a challenge to step back and cooly evaluate something.

So do gaming a favor and learn to argue logically, separate out the posturing from the logically-based arguments and critically dissect the studies that come into your view. Don't pretend like they're WRONG just because you dislike the findings, actually dig into them and figure out if they're unbased. If they're unbased, then show people why they're unbased, don't just give them your word for it. Why? Because if someone values them self to be logical, they can't fight against sound logic without being a hypocrite.

(Seriously, posts like these do no one any good. Good thing yours was a bit more reasoned than that.)

Allow me to offer a different explanation for these results. When you play a video game such as Call of Duty, you might shoot someone. That person then might respawn and shoot you. You will then respawn. From this, your brain concludes that the events on the screen are not actual violence, or more specifically not actual death, and so becomes less affected by them. As you play more of these games, the fact that what you are seeing on the screen is not real is repeatedly hammered into your brain.

When you are then shown violent images on the same screen, your brain automatically assumes what it has just been repeatedly told, that the on-screen violence is not real.

The other day I was watching Pan's Labyrinth, cringing at a man's eyes being stabbed out. Out of curiosity I watched the behind the scene's bonus features showing how the scene was made. The next time I watched the film, I was considerably less affected by this scene because I understood exactly how it had been produced and may brain understood that what it was seeing on the screen was not real.

What a joke study.
Being desensitized to violence, doesn't equate being amoral.
Good behaviour is about morals, not about fainting at the first sign of blood.

If games made kids act violently, then youth violence should have exploded with our skyrocketing games industry, when in fact violent crimes commited by youths decreased whenever gaming grew.

Just stick to reason and you can not lose against the anti-game lobby.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Simple. They're not real. Your brain has had millenia of practice working out that little nugget rationally.

Your brain is easily fooled. If your brain can remember not-real events as if they happened, why is it so hard to believe that not-real things can affect it? Because they do. Your brain is easily fooled into believing things that aren't real, even when a part of you knows it isn't. That's because your brain is not interested in giving you the truth; your brain is interested in giving you the information that looks relevant.

That's why, shock, people can cry at sad movies even when they know the events up there weren't real or true, and can be repulsed by fictional rape, racism and murder even though they aren't real. Those are real effects, and for the most part they occur without any conscious input on our part. It is ignorant to believe that violent images in video games have no effect whatsoever, just as it's ignorant to believe that watching violent images on TV has no effect, or that watching someone else actually commit a violent act has no effect whatsoever. It all does, because your brain, on a deep level, can't tell the damn difference between an actor portraying Rodney King being actually-not beaten on the TV and Rodney King being beaten on the TV.

Correlation does not imply causation. End of story.

There might be something to this. While playing Mortal Kombat the x-ray attacks made me feel a little uncomfortable every time I saw them for the first day. The day after, not at all.

Short-term versus long-term. Of course games make you more agressive, so do sports. Your body is riddled with adrenaline. They probably took the test right after the game session. They should have taken it a week later.

The problem with this and all research like it is that desensitization to violent images does not equal desensitization to actual violence, nor does it equal increased aggression. Until a reliable study is done on if/how desensitization to violent images is connected to actual increased violence then studies like this mean nothing at all other than video game players get less excited when they see violent images.

I hate these studies, there only done so that they can get media attention. It's funny that you only ever see the negative studies on the news and never the one's that say playing violent games has no affect.

I still blame the violence on the rock and roll crazed youth of America.

RedEyesBlackGamer:
Video games can potentially cause desensitization to violence and a temporary increase in aggression? Gasp! This is me trying to sound surprised.
EDIT: Also, I found this article terribly nonprofessional. Could you sound any more defensive?

Gonna have to second the edit here.

This whole article came off as nothing more than a desperate attempt to persuade people this shrink is talking out of his ass. I don't know anything about the study, but this article has done nothing but convince me that he might possibly have a point.

Clearly he's got enough evidence to unnerve whoever wrote the article and is therefore at least worth hearing out.

Pfft, what a waste of funding. Call me when the social sciences can say they no longer look for trends, but can find actual laws which themselves can be reduced to physical ones. Until then, unless a Natural scientist says it (and it's peer-reviewed), it's likely malarkey.

I did a report on this (or a very similar) study for a statistics class and I must say that this article is terribly biased. They were told that the high sound levels would cause permanent hearing damage and the general trend was that the violent video games caused more issues. That said they chose a group that was highly influential and ignored immersion, but the sound test was a decent way to research.

Greg Tito:

Bartholow also mentioned that subjects who already play a lot of violent games had less reaction to the violent imagery, which apparently means something more significant than mere familiarity. "Those individuals are already so desensitized to violence from habitually playing violent video games that an additional exposure in the lab has very little effect on their brain responses," he said.

I'm sorry, this makes no sense to me. If someone watches a lot of CSI, and then is shown a picture of a dead body, of course they are going to have less of a reaction than those who have never seen anything like that. That doesn't mean that these people are "desensitized" to violence, it just means there is a basic familiarity with those kind of images.

desensitized -- past participle, past tense of deĚsenĚsiĚtize (Verb)
1. Make less sensitive.
2. Make (someone) less likely to feel shock or distress at scenes of cruelty, violence, or suffering by overexposure to such images.

Dictionary, much?

The question here is not whether people are desensitized to violence by exposure to the same...there is no question that they are. This is part of the evolutionary process, to adapt to environmental surroundings in an effort to survive. If we didn't become desensitized, then our ancestors would never have kept on gutting fish or skinning animals, and we would have starved or succumbed to the elements. It's the same mechanic that allows us to ignore offensive smells when overexposed to them; or to screen out distracting noises when focus is needed. Our bodies make these adjustments that our instincts may operate unfettered. Notice that when you walk away from the offending smells/sounds, your body returns to normal...only to require another readjustment period upon more exposure. The more exposure we have over time to the same input, the smaller that readjustment period becomes. So, the question is not "Does violence desensitize us to violence," or, "Does a lifetime of violence desensitize us to violence more than periodic exposure," and instead becomes:

Does a person's relative desensitization to violence increase their propensity to commit violence?

As of yet, there is no conclusive evidence to make a statement one way or the other; the only evidence so far seems to indicate that a person's relationship with the amount of violence they are willing to commit is a very intimate one, and oscillates on an axis dependent on more than just simple exposure to violence. There are just as many would-be hunters who put their guns away forever after their first kill as there are habitual professionals who move on to harder quarry or tools that require more skill for the love of the hunt.

It all just depends on who you are, and that is more than just what you are exposed to.

Incidentally, I agree that this is one of the most unprofessional articles I've ever seen on The Escapist, and am quite disappointed...particularly considering that Mr. Tito chooses to use very aggressive diction in a response to a study about violence. Not a very good way to support the notion that those who play violent video games are not more aggressive than the Average Joe, especially when an erroneous argument regarding the very definition of desensitized is made.

Phyroxis:
long post is long

OK. I appreciate you taking the time to do all of that, but I'm not going to break it down bit by bit like you did and make the side scroll bar any smaller than it already is on this thread.

First, as I said before, I'm glad that you took the time to break it down.

Yes, I know that we're no longer allowed to actually have violence against people during our studied. Same thing goes with the sensory depravation studies. I think that that was just poor wording there. I didn't mean show them by beating someone in front of them. I meant show them things that happened to real people. There are plenty of videos and such out there that show horrible things happening to people.

Yeah, sure, a lot of it is opinion, but you can't deny that there's a very real possibility that if you were to ask those people that took the test if they had any predispositions towards anger, aggression, or anything of that nature, that you'd see a greater number of those people (which are undoubtedly in the general population, and thus in the general population sample) would be more likely to show increased aggression.

I believe there was a study done some time ago that was a similar concept to this one, but it showed that videogames where you played a human and fought other humans, or played something not human and fought humans, that it made it more likely for the people to play the games to show aggression towards humans. It does make a certain amount of sense, but again my argument of other mediums affect stands as far as my opinion goes on it. Unfortunately, I heard about the study a long time ago, and don't recall where I heard it from.

As for the books I've read, I've read gen psych books, personality psych books, done a bit of research on bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia, read a few cog psych books, and a smattering of others. Sadly, I don't own many of the books that I've mentioned, as I either borrowed them or sold them back once I was done with them. If I had them, I'd gladly source them to you as a fellow Escapist who's interested in psychology.

It's not that I don't understand how the testing process and whatnot works, it's just that I lack practical experience in it. Just like I know how a nuke works, but I've never fired one. I just haven't taken the higher level courses that actually involve doing tests of your own and teaching you how to do them.

I pointed out that as a former psych major, I still felt that the tests didn't do wha was claimed to have been done, which is "prove" that videogames are correlated to aggression. It wasn't an appeal to authority so much as, "I'm not even in that field anymore, and I still smell something funny."

I'd love to discuss this with my gen psych professor, but sadly, he's retired now and I've lost contact with him. He was one of the last people to participate in a sensory depravation test. He also gave me the only A in his gen psych class, which surprised me, because I thought I'd have gotten a B. Which reminds me, I know this is off topic, but as a fellow psych enthusiast, do you know what a type of memory is that is neither short nor long term memory? It's not Jung's Universal Subconscious, it's not a lie, not a forgotten memory, there were a few others, but I don't recall them. I ask because it was an extra credit question, but he wouldn't tell us the answer. I asked his wife, who I also had as a professor, and he called me out on it in class the next day. XD

I didn't think that she's know because she was his wife, I asked her because she was the only person I knew on campus that had a psych degree other than him (I wasn't acquainted with the other psych professors at the time). She said that she didn't know off the top of her head and later, she admitted to having an interesting discussion with him at dinner about it. Apparently they both thought fairly highly of me. He asked me why I asked her, and I told him that the only rule he had set was that we had a specific timeframe, and that I'd be stupid not to use all available resources. He extended the time, and I was the only person in the class that kept trying for it, but I never figured it out.

One day at dinner though, I stopped in mid sentence and thought that it was muscle memory. I went to tell him the next day (this was a few terms after my gen psych class) but I found out that he had retired. Anyway, I thought you might know, or at least have as much fun as I did looking for the answer.

Let's see, where was I...

I think that just about covers it, actually. Oh, wait, one more thing.

Yes, games are just going through their paces, just as music and movies have.

No, I probably won't study this specifically. I might do a study on it at some point, but my main concern is getting people working, making cities and companies more efficient, reducing crime, and making education better. Game fall to the wayside when it comes to improving necessary things in life rather than things that we want. At least, in my opinion.

Let me know if you do find the answer to that question though. Everything else, we can just agree to disagree. There's no point in filling up this thread with more of our disagreements.

EdgeyX:
I hate these studies, there only done so that they can get media attention. It's funny that you only ever see the negative studies on the news and never the one's that say playing violent games has no affect.

thats called the file draw problem, and something academia does struggle with and often fails to acknowledge outside of a passing reference in the conclusion.

Isn't it simply a case that video game characters will become a child's role model? You then want to re-enact your role model's actions?

When I was a young teen, I had an N64. All my games were either cartoonish, involving jumping on an enemies head to get rid of them, or running around with a gun and shooting them. I was sensible enough not to jump on anyone and I didn't want a gun.

However, I was also a huge fan of WWE. I copied all my favourite wrestlers. I pedigree'd one lad on the school field, DDT'ed another on concrete and locked one little bastard in a Tazzmission.

Point is, kids try to copy their role models. It has nothing to do with video games specifically. Closest thing in recent years that I have wanted to do is be able to jump around cities like in Assassin's Creed.

What these studies fail to show is - what in my opinion greatly helped me - an improvement in vocabulary; subjection to a (non graphic or violent) maturity, logic and lifestyle you may not otherwise be subjected to; perception and awareness of your surroundings; general improvement in puzzle solving abilities... etc. I've played games since the SNES and from my experience, I've only benefitted from games (although I could have probably found a girlfriend sooner) and any sadistic traits were inbound or enhanced from MOVIES like Saw or Hostel.

There's no point in trying to advocate or vindicate video games. Both sides are probably correct. It's down to the gamer and their parents to be able to see how they deal with such games. Hence why games have age restrictions. Hence why some responsible parents will see a mature child and buy them a game. But just as likely, some parents will see an age restriction for their little bloodthirsty retard of a brat and buy it anyway.

The media have it down to a tee - they can have it both ways. They try to destroy the games industry by blaming all corruption on video games, yet the same magazine or website under the reviews section will claim the game is a 'must have' or 'game of the year' which is the source of peer pressure. They dig their own hole, fill it with liquid gold and then whine about it and make yet more money.

Iconoclasm:
Pfft, what a waste of funding. Call me when the social sciences can say they no longer look for trends, but can find actual laws which themselves can be reduced to physical ones. Until then, unless a Natural scientist says it (and it's peer-reviewed), it's likely malarkey.

You do know how the scientific method works, right?

yanipheonu:
Even if it DOES promote aggressive behavior... SO WHAT?

I mean, how is it not expected to, if I play a good match of any decent FPS or Fighting Game, my heart will be pumping and OF COURSE I'll be more aggressive. I'm not going to punch someone in the face or something though, that's stupid.

^This. Basically this study is just a replication of a variety of studies that show that any type of competitive activity (war game, sports game, IRL sports, etc) increases aggression in the short term. Other than that, the desensitization thing is interesting, but their operational definition of desensitization (short-term reduction in response to violent images) doesn't match the theory of desensitization (long-term reduction in response to violence.)

But yeah, people need to stop getting mad about this. This study isn't anything new haha.

Other things that can cause aggression: Competitive sports, driving, lack of sleep, alcohol ect.

Even if these clowns manage to prove that playing games can make people temporarily more aggressive, what then? Should we outlaw everything that causes aggression in people.

People can get angry to the point of murder while driving, shouldn't we outlaw that?

"The group who played the violent games employed louder noises than the control group, which Bartholow believes proves that games cause aggression."

this just feels like faulty logic to me.

since when did loud noises correspond to violence?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here