So im reading CNN today and some group is publishing its anual list of the most violent video games, or as they now call them “Killographic”. As always these groups preach that playing violent video games causes children to become violent.
I have googled the topic to check for studies but really only found some dubious work. Are there any studies that actually show a connection between violence and video games? And im not talking about a study where someone interviews teenage boys convicted of a violent crime! Of course they will blame it on video games!! But any real scientific type studies that have been done I would love to see.
Also, im not a parent but I did grow up as a video gammer. I was 10 when I got my Atari 2600 then moved to a C64, to Sega Genesis, to PS1, PS2 and I also have an Xbox and GCube. I have yet to notice any side effects in my case, but I wonder if parents out there on SDMB worry that violent games may lead their kids to be violent?
Many studies have indicated that there is a positive correlation between playing real-life violent video games and aggressive behavior and delinquency. A good description of one such study, and a list of other studies done in the area, can be found here. As that study indicated:
You can also check out the bibliography for more “real, scientific-type studies.”
As hundreds of other people, and the video game industry, will point out, correlation does not mean causation. It is very difficult to ever determine causation when looking at human behavior. It’s that whole “free will” thing, as well as the nearly infinite amount of influences, both major and minor, that go into every human activity.
Personally, I tend to agree with the study I quoted, that playing violent video games does tend to cause aggresive behavior in children, and young adults. However, American’s love their violence, and the more the better. Just ask Quentin Tarantino.
"Two studies examined violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. …The results from both studies are consistent with the General Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency). "
[quote]
The extant experimental studies of video games and aggression have yielded weak evidence also. Four studies found at least some support for the hypothesis that violent video game content can increase aggression (Cooper & Mackie, 1986; Irwin & Gross, 1995; Schutte, Malouff, Post-Gorden, & Rodasta, 1988; Silvern & Williamson, 1987). However, none of these studies can rule out the possibility that key variables such as excitement, difficulty, or enjoyment created the observed increase in aggression. In our experience with video games and in the movie literature (Bushman, 1995), violent materials tend to be more exciting than nonviolent materials, so the observed effects could have been the result of higher excitement levels induced by the violent games. [/quote}bolding mine.
Interesting article, but about the only thing I saw they could confirm convincenly is that for 20mins after playing a violent game someone is more excited and aroused than when not playing a violent game! The bolding above is a clear example of how they cannot still draw any line from one to another.
Ummmm, you did read the entire paper, right? Because the part you quoted was in the part of the paper where they discuss the earlier research, and, point out how it may have been flawed so they could correct for it.
And in reading the entire paper, you also would have come across
And I’m sure you continued to read the entire paper when they discussed the effects as being not solely in the immediate situation after playing, but also in the cognitive realm.
You sure did dismiss the entire study damn quick and without even bothering to read the entire thing. You sure you want this information and a possible debate, or would you rather just more it to the pit?
umm, yes actually I did. my point was that 4-5 other studies showed nothing in that section did not show any significant correlation between games and violence. So why should I now believe this study?
and like you I can quote anything I want to support a position:
Appears? so after studying some 200+ men and women it appears that way? doesnt sound positive to me.
Likely? as in how likely? 20%? 50%? While I agree the study was done in a resonable manner, the conclusions they came to are no different than the other 20 done before them. We THINK there might be a correlation, but we dont know. I was hoping for someone to make a definitive stand and give some hard numbers.
If I came across in “pitting” mode, I did not mean to.
Well, as to your initial problem with the study being that the original studies hadn’t taken into consideration the state of excitement after playing any video game, and that this study corrected for that issue (In Study 2, games were selected to create equal arousal states as measured by heart rate and blood pressure. Furthermore, excitement ratings were used as a covariate to further ensure that this route was closed off in this investigation), you might want to give it more credence. Or you could look at their methodology, their experiments, and such, and determine it for yourself.
Then there is no study, no explanation, that would ever convince you. As I’ve said before, you want proof of causation between violent video games and violent actions. Well, there is no study in the world that would convince you, mainly because we’re talking about the causation of human action, which you can never precisely pin down.
Actually, they said there WAS a correlation. What they didn’t say was that there was a causation. As they said: In sum, Study 1 indicates that concern about the deleterious effects of violent video games on delinquent behavior, aggressive and nonaggressive, is legitimate. Playing violent video games often may well cause increases in delinquent behaviors, both aggressive and nonaggressive. However, the correlational nature of Study 1 means that causal statements are risky at best.
Well, here are their hard numbers. And their interpretation of their hard numbers are:
Is it possible to take a nice, normal, person, sit him down behind Quake III for a few hours, and turn him into a slobbering psychopath?
If people become more prone to violence after playing violent games, is this increase in aggression more than, equal to, or less than the increase in aggression after people are exposed to other violent media?
Is there anything about violent video games that make them noticably different in their effects than other violent media?
As far as I know, no study has answered any of these questions. Disclaimer: Yeah, I play violent games, though not as often as I’d like to – too many FPS give me motion sickness. I do find them enjoyable for a variety of reasons, but I don’t recall wanting to shoot up my workplace after a night of Doom. Then again, I am a nice, level-headed adult, not a mental midget who thinks all problems can be solved by guns and wars.
The authors of the study indicate that there should be more concern given to video game violence than other violent media for three reasons. First, many violent video games involve the player identifying with the aggressor, for example the player is Tommy Vercetti. In movies and television, the identification is not so blatant. Second, video games are, by their nature, require more active participation, as opposed to the passive role taken in movie watching. Finally, the authors think the addictive nature of video games, as well as their reinforcement characteristics, enhance the learning and performance of aggressive scripts. So, yes, the dangers of violent video games seem to be more serious than that of other types of media.
But, does that study show wether violent games turned people who would not have been violent, violent? Does it disprove the possibility that violent people may be more attracted to violent games?
Also, have any studies been done on any positive outcomes from violent games? Stress relief? An alternative outlet to someone whom might be other-wise violent in society?
I take issue with this becuase 99% of the people I have known have been gamers, and most of them have played violent games, and NONE of them fight, own guns, or hurt people (well, maybe verbally).
While I haven’t read the study in detail, I have to say that your description makes it sound like these points are theorized by the researchers, but not proven with empirical data. I mean, I could just as easily argue that watching Kill Bill on an IMAX screen is more inductive to violence than video games, because it’s a non-stop bigger-than-life total-immersion experience. Heck, many of the same positions could be made for kids playing Cowboys & Indians, or a bunch of guys playing with Paintball guns in the woods.
I’m always somewhat skeptical of these “Let’s blame X for social problems” positions, because there’s the implication that if X was banned/regulated/censored, the problem would go away, and ignores the reality that most of these problems were around long before X arrived on the scene. What FPS was Cain playing before he killed Abel?
The three reasons that the authors of the study raised concerning the violence in video games versus the violence in movies and television were based on prior studies also.
As to the idenitification with the aggressor, they pointed out a prior study which indicated that “When viewers are told to identify with a media aggressor, postviewing aggression is increased compared with measured aggression of those who were not instructed to identify with the aggressor.” For the active participation issue, they pointed to prior research and stated: "Research on the catharsis hypothesis reveals that aggressive behavior usually increases later aggressive behavior (cites removed). The active role of the video game player includes choosing to aggress and acting in an aggressive manner. Finally, the authors relied on research into the reinforcement mechanisms and stated: "Braun and Giroux (1989) noted that video games are “the perfect paradigm for the induction of ‘addictive’ behavior” (p. 101). Griffiths and Hunt (1998) found that one in five adolescents can be classified as pathologically dependent on computer games. Video game “addiction” may stem, in part, from the rewards and punishments the game gives the player ( Braun & Giroux, 1989; Dill & Dill, 1998; Klein, 1984), much like the reward structure of slot machines.
They went on to point out that these three reasons do not act completely separately, but work together to create a unique learning experience: “In a sense, violent video games provide a complete learning environment for aggression, with simultaneous exposure to modeling, reinforcement, and rehearsal of behaviors. This combination of learning strategies has been shown to be more powerful than any of these methods used singly.”
These people were not just making their conclusions up, but relying on prior research, both inside and outside of the violent video game mileau. They were supported by emperical data. This is nothing new, the American military has used STRICOM (Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command) to help train soldiers for over a decade.
With the exception of some far right bizarros, and, of course, the ever-profit motivated trial lawyers, nobody is placing the blame for violence solely on video games. However, it is a mistake to dismiss the claim that violent video games are completely without effect.
It’s also a mistake to dismiss the claim that coffee, sex, and everyday annoyances are completely without effect.
What’s your point?
If I can find two psychopathic killers who both had a copy of Dianetics, can we pointing out the dangers of Scientology? Oooohh…I bet most killers in the last 10 years had Snapple occasionally.
The OP asked: “Are there any studies that actually show a connection between violence and video games?” I answered that question, and then subsequent questions about the study. That’s my point. That there is a credible study that shows a correlation between violent video games and aggressive behavior.
That’s my point.
It’s not the hysterical cry for regulation that you appear to want from me. Nor is it the hand-wrenching wailing of “somebody think of the children” that you superimpose on my posts. You can attempt to be as prone to hyperbole and wit in your attack on a strawman, but it still remains a strawman.
Good Luck getting that study printed, or even acknowledged.
True, but AFAIK it’s to teach coordination and group tactics, not to turn soldiers into mindless killing machines or anything like that. I recall an article in Wired magazine on how the US Army was using a modified version of Doom for training (turning the graphics and sound effects into more realistic versions, mostly), and the instructor said that the game made a great tool for giving the soldiers experience in teamwork.
Well, that’d be silly – everything has an effect, even if it’s only an infinitesmally small one.
