Image: wibs24
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
If your children are like 99 percent of boys and 94 percent of girls, they play video games. And, if they are like 50 percent of boys and 14 percent of girls, they prefer games with “mature” – read: violent -- themes, such as Grand Theft Auto, an urban dystopia of gun fights, car chases, pole dancers and prostitutes, where blood splatters realistically on the “camera lens.” Should you worry whether such a game will warp your children’s minds? A new paper by Cheryl Olson, a public health specialist at Harvard, suggests the answer may be: au contraire.
Olson surveyed children’s reported motivations for video game playing and found that their top rated choices were to have fun, compete well with others, and to be challenged. She then elaborates on the psychological benefits such play might afford, describing how video games facilitate self-expression, role play, creative problem-solving, cognitive mastery, positive social interactions and leadership. Sounds more utopian than dystopian, right?
If only it were that simple. As laudable as it is to debunk negative stereotypes about non-violent game play, it is less laudable to gloss over the negative effects of violent video games. Olson’s rosy spin on violent video games positions her on one side of a heated academic debate with staggering stakes in policy and industry. (See recent salvos here, here and here.)
One contingent warns that violent games reduce empathy and effective anger management skills, and promote aggression. The other contingent rebuts that such research plays into “moral panic,” exaggerates the negative impact and ignores the positive effects of violent game play. Given the sheer popularity of violent video games, their psychological impact is an urgent issue for society, and for the millions of parents whose children dive into virtual worlds for hours every day. Let’s take a closer look at the research in question.
According to Olson’s findings, 28 percent of boys and 5 percent of girls strongly agree that liking “guns and other weapons” motivates their game play. About 25 percent of boys and 11 percent of girls also strongly agree that video games help “get my anger out.” Children citing anger management motivations were more likely to play violent video games because “you can take your anger out on the people in the game.” Grand Theft Auto, the most popular of such games, apparently boasts no violence against children or animals (great!) but does provide “tremendous freedom to commit mayhem,” Olson writes.
Olson then shifts to the purportedly educational function of violent game play. Particularly jarring is an anecdote she cites describing how Grand Theft Auto hones problem-solving skills: a young boy “learned that a quick way to find passengers was to run over pedestrians and wait for them to get up; they would then climb into his cab.”
Also troubling is the speculation that because play-fighting is one way boys negotiate intimacy with girls, violent game play may “have a role in promoting healthy boy-girl friendships.” I don’t think you have to be a feminist social psychologist to imagine that punching half-dressed prostitutes to steal their money does little to prepare young boys for healthy relationships with women. Even brief exposure to these images increases tolerance for sexual harassment among men, according to a 2008 study led by psychologist Karen Dill of Fielding Graduate University.
To be fair, Olson briefly cites research suggesting that game features such as "opportunities for competence and mastery" trump violence in predicting enjoyment. And she devotes one paragraph to cautioning that such games trade on stereotypes of minorities and women. Finally, in sharp contrast to her thesis, Olson suggests that parents monitor children’s game play for “negative effects such as increased anger, irritability, or aggression.” Interesting. If the games facilitate healthy development, allow pre-teens to “purge negative feelings” and to inhabit the role of the bad guy while bonding and competing with their peers, why should we worry?
Here’s a glimpse at the research that Olson doesn’t talk about.
The belief that behaving aggressively gets aggressive urges “out” may persist as lay theory but it has long been discredited by experimental research. A 2001 review by social psychologists Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman revealed that playing violent video games increases aggressive behaviors, feelings, and physiological arousal and decreases prosocial behavior. Further, identifying with a game character can inspire learning, but when that character is violent, "wishful identification" may increase post-game aggression, according to a 2007 study led by psychologist Elly Konijn at VU University Amsterdam. Also, a 1995 study by Brad Bushman of Iowa State University suggests that aggressive outcomes of violent game play are magnified in people who already have aggressive tendencies. Thus, it may be exactly those who chronically use video games as an (inappropriate) anger management tool who are most vulnerable to its negative effects.
Olson notes that young adults may benefit from playing survival and horror games “over and over until the frightening content has been mastered,” but such mastery may come at a price. Exposure to violent video games can desensitize people to violence. In 2006, Bruce Bartholow, a psychologist at the University of Missouri, and colleagues reported that chronic violent game players show less activation of a particular brain wave in response to violent images than non-violent players do, indicating that they feel less aversion. And this lower reactivity predicted increased aggressive behavior in a subsequent competitive task.
Brain waves and lab games can feel distant from real life, so let’s follow Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson to the movies. They wanted to determine whether people leaving a violent film might be less likely to help a young woman who had dropped her crutches (a confederate of the researchers) than those leaving a non-violent film. Guess which crowd took significantly longer to help the “injured” young woman? Yup: the violent film crowd.
Are patrons of violent films simply less sensitive than patrons of non-violent films? Bushman and Anderson accounted for this explanation by staging the crutch routine as people were entering and exiting the film. No differences emerged as a function of which movie people were headed to see. Watching violence dilutes our ability to respond empathically to others’ pain.
No media psychologists worth their salt would conclude that violent video games will turn your children into gun-toting sociopaths. Instead, violent media may affect us in countless subtle ways, increasing hostility and apathy to those around us. Rather than straining to rehabilitate an antisocial genre, why not go in search of non-violent but equally exciting, challenging, and enjoyable games? Let the multi-billion dollar gaming industry respond to social pressure and create non-sexist, non-racist, non-violent games that confer as many developmental benefits as violent games apparently do.
See what we're tweeting about
46 Comments
Add CommentLess activation of a particular brainwave, theoretical identification, and so on hardly seem convincing when you compare the sales of violent video games with actual incidence of violence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a 30 year old that grew up playing violent video games, I've watched video game popularity skyrocket, while violent crime rates have steadily and appreciably declined.
It's hard for me to see these kinds of articles as anything other than sky-is-falling, luddite, generationalism... it's just old hat, like the violent movie, tv, radio, pulp fiction books before them, a generation has been raised on a diet of new media and escaped descent into mindless barbarism.
Less activation of a particular brainwave, theoretical identification, and so on hardly seem convincing when you compare the sales of violent video games with actual incidence of violence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a 30 year old that grew up playing violent video games, I've watched video game popularity skyrocket, while violent crime rates have steadily and appreciably declined.
It's hard for me to see these kinds of articles as anything other than sky-is-falling, luddite, generationalism... it's just old hat, like the violent movie, tv, radio, pulp fiction books before them, a generation has been raised on a diet of new media and escaped descent into mindless barbarism.
First I would like to see the proof that "violence" itself is bad. Then we can move on to discussing the profound and natural fear of violence that seems so common nowadays.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not about "getting the violence out of the system" it's about actually taking joy in the violence - pure and simple and causing no real world harm in the process as compared to practicing with swords as was common for centuries of human development. Before that we had the club and spear for how long?
"Let the multi-billion dollar gaming industry respond to social pressure and create non-sexist, non-racist, non-violent games that confer as many developmental benefits as violent games apparently do"
Why would we ever want to do that? Humans have practiced and do practice violence as a basic function of human nature, we did not evolve on the planet of the pristine rainbow people. Fearing violent video games and thought is like fearing your own sexuality or other biological functions. The people and nations that thrive today, everywhere on the planet, do so because they were better at violence than the people there before them.
I agree with Justa. We've been hearing this same thing for years, but how many children are growing up to be desensitized to violence? I've been playing violent video games for years and I still am quite affected when I see a horrible shooting on the news or things of that nature. If you can't separate fantasy from reality, you have a bigger problem that violent video games.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is amazing is that as the first poster pointed out is that these anti violent zealots like Dara can't even show is a correlation much less causation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is like the anti-pornography brigade that argued that porn causes rape. Fifteen years of internet porn later, rape statistics state otherwise. Further, communities with higher rates of broadband access have LOWER rates of rape and other sexual crimes.
The best Dara can come up with is a single study that shows it takes a little longer for those who just came out of a violent movie to help an "injured" person. How much longer? She doesn't say, could it be one second, two, or ten? While the time may be statistically meaningful, I would be willing to bet that from a practicality standpoint it would be indistinguishable.
The only thing worse than censorship based upon political or religious grounds is censorship allegedly based on scientific grounds. We get it, you don't like GTA. Don't play it. As a parent maybe you shouldn't let your kid play it.
It is articles like these that aren't even remotely supported by science that make me wonder why I even come to this site.
Regards
I find this sort of article extremely frustrating, as I find it totally out of place in the "scientific community". Little is actually done to discredit the study. Rather, the author obviously disagrees so goes about siting other, conflicting, studies. Why not attack the study on grounds of logic? Citing non-scientific studies that come to outlandish conclusions does not help the author. I mean, come on! Was it the same group of moviegoers in each instance that was confronted with the crutch-less woman?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, this is just getting me angry. I'm 43 and have been playing video games since the year the original Atari VCS was released (1976?). I grew up with friends that played video games - many, many of them contained violent content. None of us has grown up desensitized to violence. If I considered this a study, then it would be about as scientific as many of the studies this author cites.
In parting, if such a huge percentage of males are playing violent video games, wouldn't we be experiencing a HUGE increase in the rate of violent crime? I don't know, but it seems so.
I find this sort of article extremely frustrating, as I find it totally out of place in the "scientific community". Little is actually done to discredit the study. Rather, the author obviously disagrees so goes about siting other, conflicting, studies. Why not attack the study on grounds of logic? Citing non-scientific studies that come to outlandish conclusions does not help the author. I mean, come on! Was it the same group of moviegoers in each instance that was confronted with the crutch-less woman?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, this is just getting me angry. I'm 43 and have been playing video games since the year the original Atari VCS was released (1976?). I grew up with friends that played video games - many, many of them contained violent content. None of us has grown up desensitized to violence. If I considered this a study, then it would be about as scientific as many of the studies this author cites.
In parting, if such a huge percentage of males are playing violent video games, wouldn't we be experiencing a HUGE increase in the rate of violent crime? I don't know, but it seems so.
Seems like video game enthusiasts (and addicts) are ignoring the diminished empathy towards others which seems to come with the territory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing apathetic when empathy is the normal more evolved human behavior should concern all of us.
How would you like to see the human species continue to evolve? Towards more violence or more concern for others and problem solving skills that don't involve causing pain and suffering?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, it's very revealing that a proponent of violent games would even question why violence is bad.
If violent tendencies are fostered rather than the alternatives to violence, we might not, as a species, "dodge bullets" as we have in the past when on the brink of annihilation as happened many times in the not so distant past.
Look for the documentary titled something like: "On the Brink" to see that single individual non-violent impulses or intuitions kept us from going over the nuclear edge. It's truly amazing we've survived this far but it points to a basic will to work things out rather than totally give in to our less evolved impulses.
Don't worry, survival instincts won't disappear. They'll click in when needed but the point is only when really needed - not because of some artificially reduced humanity.
Personally, it's very revealing that proponents of violent games would even question why violence itself is bad as is seen on this board.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf violent tendencies are fostered rather than the alternatives to violence, we might not, as a species, continue to "dodge bullets" as we have in the past when on the brink of annihilation. This has happened many times in the not so distant past.
Look for a documentary titled something like: "On the Brink" or "On the Nuclear Brink" to see how single individuals' non-violent impulses or intuitions kept us from going right over the nuclear edge. It's truly amazing we've survived this far but it points to a basic will to work things out rather than totally give in to our less evolved impulses.
Don't worry, survival instincts won't disappear. They'll click in when needed but the point is only when really needed - not because of some artificially reduced humanity.
I agree with most of what has been said in the comments. I strongly believe that the delay in helping with the dropped cruches is a temporary condition and does not permanently alter the person's character. I think we are ignoring the forest for the trees, and others quoting no increase in violence regardless of the increase in violent movies, games and tv are spot on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think violent games are good, nor do I think they are bad. They just are an aspect of humanity that has carried over from our more primitive animalistic evolution. Plain and simple. The one thing games, the internet and other technological advances in general may do is facilitate the current rising inability for people to intimately relate and empathize with one another. Does that equate to increase in violence or rap or ... ?
No, it just means we are less accommodating and more selfish than we use to be, but that doesn't mean we are more violent. We just end up adjusting how we deal with our evolving culture and environment. We are evolving whether we want to or not. These advances in technology are like a freight train with no brakes. Constantly fighting against it is a losing battle.
And no, I am not a gamer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Rhythman
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've confused me. Are you suggesting that violence is fostered through video games? What is your evidence?
Interesting;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was just reading "War of the Machines" SciAm July 2010.
Towards the end of the article is the issue of drones and other robots used remotely to kill from thousands of miles distant of the "action".
Even with many collateral deaths and untold maimings there's effectively no uproar or discussion of this form of warfare taking place in areas where there's been no declaration of war or the usual "serious commitment that involved currying public favor" involved in what we've previously considered "War".
It would be interesting to see how the brains (let's just call it feelings or humanity for now) of people producing targeting information and those operating the drones respond to the grainy black and white videos on their screens thousands of miles distant from the body fluids and such.
Do they respond with glee even when they don't know for sure if their targets were bystanders? Would they have hesitated just a bit to check that out if they hadn't trained decades on games meant to conflate entertainment with mayhem, suffering and death?
If you haven't seen the video released by WikiLeaks of the journalists being blown away, look it up. I just hope the first response of most here isn't "alright!!!" when the shots are fired. Please reflect on the reality of what you'll see there before the giddy butterflies in the stomach and imaginary Metal soundtrack kick in.
I'm more interested in the proof shown here that it reduced empathy and appears to suppress what I'd like to believe are more evolved human traits in our ways of working out our problems and making this world a better place day by day, year by year and millennium by ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't it be much more informative if people posting here revealed how many years or hours they've played these games?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's my bias: I've never played a violent video game (I'm nearing 60 but no Luddite by any means) and never will.
It just isn't appealing and I get lots of pleasure from things in life that don't involve splattering blood and such when accompanied by music-soundtracks.
I'm a musician and that aspect alone - mixing music and violence as entertainment - (not dramatic entertainment as in non-exploitative films) - completely opposite to the positive musical endeavors I and many spend their lives to achieve.
Knowing that some are actually killing while listening to violent music is another aspect that deserves discussion.
This is Scientific American, not Science, so I would not necessarily expect commenters to have a handle on, or any interest in, the actual firsthand scientific literature underpinning Dara Greenwood's arguments. But the effect of violent media exposure on aggressive and violent behavior happens to be one of the most robust and replicated observations in basic behavioral/social science research. Dara cites a few exemplars to provide a flavor of the general findings, but you naysayers should note that these exemplars are drawn from a body of work dating back to the mid-1900s. The effect has been shown via all the major methodologies of the field (experiments, longitudinal and cross-sectional field studies, intervention designs) for a variety of different forms of aggression running the gamut from mild verbal or relational acts up through serious violent and nonviolent antisocial behavior. The notion that exposure to violence of any kind is "good" for children is ludicrous and has been roundly negated in the scientific literature. Generalizing based on one's own experience ("I played violent games and I am not a violent criminal, therefore there can be no effect") is idiotic and revelatory of ignorance with respect to the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKudos to Dr. Greenwood for a thoughtful, accurate, and accessible article!
I've been playing violent video games for years and I haven't shot anyone all week.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompare that to my tetris days when I used to stab people all the time just to see if the knife blade would fit in the gap between someones ribs.
And the Win for the thread goes to David N'Gog,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for pookie, I spent a good amount of time researching the effects of violent media on human behavior. The studies are poorly done to say the least. For example, as stated before, if there were any causation between violent video games and violence in society we'd see a huge increase in the amount of violence in society. Yet, we don't. Why? Because although a person who plays a violent video game or sees a violent movie may have a temporarily heightened level of aggression this higher level of aggression is rarely carried out in real life.
For example, after seeing a Rocky movie, a person may come out of the movie "pumped" and this may be reflected in some dumb ass study that shows heightened arousal, but in reality the person is not anymore likely to engage in violent behavior. Why? Because people have a brain that allows for thought, and most people use their brain and thus think before they act in violent ways.
Psychologists try to extrapolate a heightened arousal to heightened aggression, to heightened violence. The reality is that people do think before they act and as a result, the heightened arousal leads to some heightened aggression but before it can escalate to heightened violence the frontal lobe of the brain takes over and says, "Hey dumb ass, you may get hurt, arrested, or lose your girl friend, don't be stupid." And guess what we walk away.
My main problem with this type of study as stated in my other post was that it is a back door towards censor ship. Even if, violent media could be shown to cause violence in some people (which it can't), our freedom of speech is more important than allowing our rights to be taken away by some psychologists.
Regards
Joe Dokes
Hello Joe Dokes,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say, "I spent a good amount of time researching the effects of violent media on human behavior." I would ask, what was the nature of your inquiry? Certainly you are not a scientist, because if you were then you would understand that the published studies on violent media effects are indeed well-designed, by accepted standards for this form of empirical inquiry.
Regardless, there are a few things you do not seem to understand about the literature. If you really are a consumer of the scholarly work, take a look at the meta-analysis published by Bushman and Huesmann in the 2006 volume of the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. There is an important difference between the theories that (with empirical evidence) account for short term and long term effects of exposure to violent media. Newer experimental work is helping to bridge those theories, and recent studies by Bushman and colleagues are starting to show that the "temporary" effects you describe might actually last up to a day after a brief laboratory exposure.
I'm not sure the issue is censorship. I do not think psychologists would want to ban the production of violent media. I think the very obvious, very clear, very palatable take-home message here is that CHILDREN'S exposure to violent media should be MONITORED, REDUCED, or ELIMINATED by the adults who purport to care for them. Even the ridiculous Olson paper described above, which suggests (yuck) that Grand Theft Auto is somehow useful for children to play, acknowledges that parents should monitor their children's usage for adverse effects.
Any psychologist studying violent media would recognize that people have brains, and it is ignorant for you to insinuate otherwise. But we know that brain development is altered by social experiences, that environment ("nurture") accounts for at least half of the variance in development, and that children's early experiences affect the development of their core beliefs and worldviews.
We also know, of course, about cognitive dissonance, and thus we can infer that those who "doth protest too much" about the research on violent media effects are probably having a really hard time coping with the violent images and urges that permeate their consciousness from time to time thanks to a childhood rife with violent media exposure.
Pookie,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a graduate student in history I took a seminar in cross cultural history that looked at sexuality across time and space. As a result of this class I looked at the rise of pornography and pornographers in the US and its relationship to technology. As a result of this enquiry I needed to look at what the various phycological studies on pornography and its effects.
The conflicting studies on the issue led me to divide pornography into two separate sub categories. Violent and non-violent pornography. As result I read nearly 100 studies on the subjects of both pornography as a media and violent media in general.
The results of my enquiry led me to the conclusion that effects of pornographic media (not the subject here) were inconclusive at best or had a mildly positive impact on the viewers. As stated above, areas with the earliest and highest penetration of high speed internet had a more immediate and pronounced reduction in sex crimes. In looking at violent media, the data was slightly more clear.
For example, it is as you've stated that after viewing violent media we can see a reduction in both empathy and an increase in aggression. Yet, while this has been shown to be statistically reproducible it doesn't mean that it is or has been shown to be materially significant. For example, the crutch study. Exactly how much longer did it take the violent group to respond? A number that might be statistically meaningful but not meaningfully significant. Another question, does the reduction in empathy only occur towards strangers or does it also occur towards people in our on peer groups or family, again a reduction in empathy towards strangers might be problem, but a reduction of empathy towards family and friends is far more problematic.
Finally, my real big concern over violent media is the issue of free speech. For example, in my research, the human brain makes no distinction towards the message of the media. Thus, the media doesn't matter. The violence in Hamlet is the same psychologically speaking as the violence in GTA. As a result it is just as easy to censor Hamlet as it is GTA. Whether the violent content has meaning or is used in an artistic way is irrelevant as far as the brain is concerned.
Regards,
Joe Dokes
Disappointing article!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPut games once again as bad things. Says that violence is always bad. Considers pursuing other games because of the development they provide without considering the experiences that may have been sought with the violent and competitive games, leveraging the field to have space for all kinds of games. And in the end, blames the money. Shame on you scientific american. You sounded more like a social activist.
It is amazing to see people criticize scientific studies being presented in everyday language by a scientist (Dr. Greenwood), as "non-scientific." People who play violent video games are biased in favor of these games, and motivated to believe that they can cause no harm. There was a time smokers believed the same thing about cigarettes. So, by the logic of some of these commentators, they should smoke 2 packs a day, drink and drive, and eat Big Macs for breakfast, because look at all the people who do these things without any problem!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the section where the author references the Olson paper and talks about boy-girl relationships, I believe the relationships Olson is referring to are friendships made through playing a game with a girl.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs well, I'd like to see the author actually suggest a fun non-violent video game concept that confers all the advantages of a violent one instead of taking a high minded attitude and then dumping the problem on others.
On another note, parents should watch their child for an increase in aggressiveness or open anger after any violent activity, including seeing a violent movie, or taking karate lessons. Not everyone reacts the same way to a stimulus and every parent should be cautious of that, yet you make it sound like only video games will illicit this tendency. If we're going to accept your premise that violent video games have subtle effects on our psyche, should we be worried about watching the news? I've read Sci-Am since I was 10 and I can tell you I saw some pretty violent imagery relating to news articles.
Finally, since you lump all violent video games in as being racist/sexist in your final paragraph and the very idea that violent video games are anti-social is laughable as many of them require working with other humans, and many violent games become competitions and bonding activities for groups of friends. As a psychologist, you obviously knew how your statements would be taken, and you went for maximum impact over the truth in some cases which I feel detracts from your credibility greatly.
I play violent video games but I can see the possibility that study is correct, especially when dealing with young or impressionable minds. I doubt that, if there is a negative consequence, that it has a prolonged impact on "normal" individuals or a significant impact on society. The studies I have seen all look at the subjects immediately after playing a violent game. I would like to see a study that had a more long term focus. I remember as a teenager seeing a James Bond movie and having the thrill of the movie transfer to the drive home. But I didn't drive that way the next day. Undoubtably this will give fuel to those who want to censor games. What must be made clear is that one does not have the right to fine tune human behavior in democratic societies by enacting laws. Laws should only be made if there is a clear danger to society that no other institution can remedy. It is easier and cheaper to inform and allow a responsible public make choices than it is to pay for law enforcement and legal fees arising from micromanaging society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrand Theft Auto is rated "Mature". It cannot be sold to a child. If a child is playing it, an adult bought it for them. If you do not want your children to play Grand Theft Auto, then step up and act like a parent. There are plenty of non-violent video games that you can buy for them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe played Robin Hood and "Cowboys and Indians" before World War Two. Then we played various games based on killing Germans and shooting down German planes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI doubt if it did us any harm.
And there was a lot of what would now be considered unacceptable violence at home and at school.
Children are violent creatures, but they grow out of it. It must have had survival value in primitive times.
No media psychologists worth their salt would conclude that violent video games will turn your children into gun-toting sociopaths. Instead, violent media may affect us in countless subtle ways, increasing hostility and apathy to those around us. Rather than straining to rehabilitate an antisocial genre, why not go in search of non-violent but equally exciting, challenging, and enjoyable games? Let the multi-billion dollar gaming industry respond to social pressure and create non-sexist, non-racist, non-violent games that confer as many developmental benefits as violent games apparently do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm, that's entertaining, posting a comment when you hit "sign up" instead of "submit." Maybe somebody should fix that, given that previous posters seem to have had the same problem? Anyway, I think the weasel words at the end of the article become more apparent when the shoe is on the other foot:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo video game players worth their salt would conclude that studies that involve deceiving subjects will turn scientists into lying sociopaths. Instead, studies that attack video game players may affect our youth in countless subtle ways, increasing hostility and apathy to science. Rather than straining to convince youth that they should not enjoy their hobbies, why not go in search of non-condescending but equally exciting, challenging, and enjoyable research? Let the finger-wagging scientists respond to social pressure and create non-antagonistic, non-dowdy research that confers as many scientific benefits as violent game research apparently does.
I find it interesting that the article takes the study she disagrees with to task and yet seems to take the studies she agrees with on face value without questioning if they are valid or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not a social scientist but I have read several of Anderson's studies. In none of the Anderson co-authored studies I have read does he define exactly what is meant by "aggression." The closest I have seen him define the term is a graph in one study that listed "raising one's voice" as an example of aggression. It seems as if an examination of results of Anderson and his peers would be more useful since yelling at someone seems quite different from killing someone.
I think this is a thorough, balanced summary of some of the most important aspects of this work. Unfortunately, most of the scientist doing work on the psychological outcomes of video games are of an age where they were not raised with realistic video game. There is little doubt that this generation gap influences not only study design, but the interpretation of data. It will be in the next few decades as the folks raised on "grand theft auto" and its kind, are able to design and execute truly informative, ecologically valid studies. Until that time however, I think all empirical worked in this field must be met with exactly the sort of intellectual rigor and diverse (as well as critical) thinking that Prf. Greenwood has brought to this piece. I found it extremely thought provoking-- thank you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish the article of this piece had shown the courtesy of talking with me or reading my other research before making sweeping judgments about my results or my purported biases. Previous papers that go into much more detail can be found at http://www.grandtheftchildhood.com/GTC/Research_Papers.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article and I agree with the previous studies that DO show violent video games DO cause harm to children. It would seem basic common sense to conclude that indulging in violent play of this graphic sort which intensely shows images of violence, especially against women, would ultimately influence the gamer. Even if the person had a good moral standing to begin with, I think it will still affect the person in smaller ways such as temper and the ability to practice social virtues like patience and compassion. Why anyone would want to make violence an entertainment, I have no idea. Real life is already violent enough for many people. People who create have a responsibility to UPLIFT humanity, not drag it down. Does the gaming industry want to create "nazi's" or do they want to create saints? I would hope the latter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI noticed one reader commented on the studies listed. I think most parents can put forth data on violent games (or tv shows) and how it affects their children. I have seen children who are given license to watch violent tv programming, behave a lot more aggressively than those who don't. It makes perfect sense to conclude that a child, who is still forming neural pathways, not to mention, trying to comprehend social understanding as a human being, would be influenced by environmental factors. It is true that persons who grow up in an abusive household, for example, often display psychological problems due to it or worse, they mirror the abuse themselves when they grow up. This is an environmental factor (as often the abuse is result of step-parent or foster parent, so not biological). Violent video games and tv programs would be an environmental factor. Children today watch/play HOURS of tv and video games, so they DO affect children. To think otherwise, is extremely naive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommon sense: doing something a lot gets you used to it. Frequently seeing others do kind things makes kindness acceptable. Frequently seeing others do violent things make violence acceptable. Which kind of world do you want to become old and crippled in?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you actually read these studies and taking into account their validity. Take for instance the movie study on delayed reaction... yes it is accurate to say the the violent movie goers took longer to help the person, but it's like a difference of ONE second (6.89s vs 5.46s)... the fact that you identify that as "significant" speaks bounds about how much you actually looked at these studies. Seems to me that it's more like you just read the articles that were published about it, which i can't help but notice tactfully avoiding giving actually numbers and just mentioned there was a 26% difference, never bothered to mention how big (or small) 26% was...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thing i would mention about the movie study is asking the question of what kind of movies the participants watched on normal occasion... because when it comes down to it, both groups were just about even in their reaction time before the movie... if there are people in these groups who watch violent movies on a regular occasion, then this would mean that the MINOR effects seen right after the movie are actually only SHORT TERM, and thus do not prove any kind of long lasting damage... heh, i might even guess that those who watched the violent movie might have potentially been exhilarated after the film and thus just weren't paying as much attention to their surrounds causing that one second difference in reaction time; what bushman calls a lack of empathy could just be a lack of attentiveness to one's surrounding.
This speaks a lot about some of the studies i've seen on violence in media... the researchers see an insignificant difference such as reaction times that can be measured in milliseconds and claim that this is proof of violent and empathetic tendencies; they also ignore all kinds of little variables that might come up. What these people are doing is coming up with theories and are making an aim to prove the theory as opposed to conduct a purely unbiased study to test their theory; as such they try to spin or exaggerate the results to prove themselves right... hell some of these studies end up getting debunked by other researchers... a REAL researcher would realize that minor differences are not nearly enough to draw conclusions from and that they need to do a LONG TERM study over several years to actually show any kind of significant effect.
Have you actually read these studies and taking into account their validity. Take for instance the movie study on delayed reaction... yes it is accurate to say the the violent movie goers took longer to help the person, but it's like a difference of ONE second (6.89s vs 5.46s)... the fact that you identify that as "significant" speaks bounds about how much you actually looked at these studies. Seems to me that it's more like you just read the articles that were published about it, which i can't help but notice tactfully avoiding giving actually numbers and just mentioned there was a 26% difference, never bothered to mention how big (or small) 26% was...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thing i would mention about the movie study is asking the question of what kind of movies the participants watched on normal occasion... because when it comes down to it, both groups were just about even in their reaction time before the movie... if there are people in these groups who watch violent movies on a regular occasion, then this would mean that the MINOR effects seen right after the movie are actually only SHORT TERM, and thus do not prove any kind of long lasting damage... heh, i might even guess that those who watched the violent movie might have potentially been exhilarated after the film and thus just weren't paying as much attention to their surrounds causing that one second difference in reaction time; what bushman calls a lack of empathy could just be a lack of attentiveness to one's surrounding.
This speaks a lot about some of the studies i've seen on violence in media... the researchers see an insignificant difference such as reaction times that can be measured in milliseconds and claim that this is proof of violent and empathetic tendencies; they also ignore all kinds of little variables that might come up. What these people are doing is coming up with theories and are making an aim to prove the theory as opposed to conduct a purely unbiased study to test their theory; as such they try to spin or exaggerate the results to prove themselves right... hell some of these studies end up getting debunked by other researchers... a REAL researcher would realize that minor differences are not nearly enough to draw conclusions from and that they need to do a LONG TERM study over several years to actually show any kind of significant effect.
It's not accurate to mention a study of 2001 or 1995 about videogames, as the industry of videogames did a revolution much after that time, and in that time there was no GTA! You would need more recent researches
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's worrying the amount of time 'may' appears in this article. Until such a time as an unambiguous link between violence and video games is demonstrated, there is really no point in this sort of speculation, and certainly not in a science magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Greenwood: I would like to bring your attention to a few thoughtful critiques of the studies you cite (Bushman, Anderson):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2006/07/review_of_carne.html
In this piece, Castronova (an economist who surely understands statistics very well) points out numerous problems with a study by Anderson and Bushman that claimed to offer proof of a direct link between video games and violence.
This post on the broader media effects paradigm is also worth a read:
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2010/03/mediafx-full-of-sound-and-fury.html
Finally, I had 2 questions regarding the effect. Are there psychological studies that state clearly how long the effect (of desensitization or aggressive thoughts or heart rate increase) lasts? Does it last for a few seconds in the lab?
Second, are there any studies that examine this issue without using a convenient college student (predominantly white and middle-upper middle class, in univs like Iowa and Michigan, I'd assume) sample?
I have been playing video games since I was three years old. I'm 18 now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto say that a violent video game promotes violence is to say that a racing game promotes reckless driving. But how many people do you see like that on the road?
The negative effects of video games generally manifest themselves because they are already there in a youth.
For example, if anyone was to play an RPG and had to choose a class (wizard, warrior, archer, or any of those likes), they'd be able to make a decision and rationalize it based on their own schema, personality, values, and even some sense of symbolism from the classes presented.
Someone who chooses a wizard may value wisdom and have a mantra of "knowledge is power". This is not because the video game influenced them, but because they understand the pre-existing symbolism behind it.
And those who are thought to be influenced by violent video games are more likely violent by nature. Anyone who enacts this violence in real life is not only influenced by their nature more than the game.
The fact that the debate over the effects of violent video games inspires such passionate responses (from academic and non-academics alike!) underscores the importance of continuing to study the appeal and consequences of this kind of play. I would urge all of us not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To be sure, understanding individuals self-reported *perceptions* about why violent games are enjoyable is an important part of the story (and indeed, this is Olsons major contribution), but it is only one part and it is only one method of inquiry. Also crucial to the story is research examining associations and effects of violent game play from other methodological angles. Experimental, correlational, longitudinal, and neurological evidence provides an eclectic and yet highly coherent picture. Typically, the effects of violent game play are: associated with increased aggression and decreased sensitivity to violence, magnified for individuals who have aggressive tendencies, obtained even after accounting for a host of usual suspects that would point toward alternative explanations and, on par with many other small to medium effect sizes obtained in the social sciences. As such, they tell us something about basic psychological processes and outcomes associated with a seemingly benign and enjoyable recreational activity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider a useful, if imperfect, analogy to research on body image and media exposure. Not all girls and women who read fashion magazines develop intense body anxiety or eating disorders. However, research suggests that brief exposure to such images increases body dissatisfaction. Further, similar to how trait aggression interacts with violent video game playing, women with greater body anxiety tend to consume such images more frequently than women with less body anxiety and also tend to be more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of such images. Despite the overwhelming popularity and allure of fashion magazines, and despite our understanding that fashion magazines offer consumers more than just images of unrealistically slim and glamorized women, few of us would argue that such images are healthy role models for young girls. Further, many of us have argued in favor of adding more diverse body types to the glossy pages. Yet, when it comes to thinking about aggression and the appeal of violent media, many people are much less willing to acknowledge even the possibility of negative effects. (Why this might be so has been the focus of a chapter by University of Michigan social psychologist Rowell Huesmann and Laramie Taylor: Huesmann, L. R. & Taylor, L. D. (2003). The case against the case against media violence (pp. 107-130). In D. Gentile (Ed.) Media Violence and Children. Westport: Connecticut: Greenwood Press.-no relation!).
One repeated concern some of you had with the methods I mentioned was their seeming irrelevance to real life. For example, some of you noted, correctly, that the helping delay in the Bushman and Anderson (2010) movie theater study was measured in seconds. I can see how this would inspire skepticism. However, *any* systematic difference obtained from averaging across large groups of people lends support to the phenomenon of desensitization. Further, the extent to which seconds may matter in real life depends upon the context and details at hand: if the woman in question was going into anaphylactic shock, a few seconds delay might have been a matter of life and death. And, to cite a particularly disturbing real world scenario, if the police would have waited another second or two to ascertain that Amadou Diallo was reaching for his wallet and not a gun, they might not have opened fire on an innocent man. Finally, the phenomenon of desensitization is one that accrues over timeas the brain wave study indicates, repeated exposure to violent media decreases our natural aversion to gore and death (it is no accident that the army uses violent video games to desensitize soldiers who must be able to kill other human beings, in real life).
Some of you also wondered whether this work has been replicated among non-college-student populations. The answer is less often, but yes. One recent example is a study by psychologist Paul Boxer at Rutgers University, Newark, and colleagues (2009) that sampled across high school students as well as incarcerated youth. They found that retrospective reports of exposure to media violence (violent video game play included) significantly predicted a higher level of recent and current engagement in both violent and nonviolent antisocial behavior, even when many other common risk factors for antisocial behavior (e.g., exposure to neighborhood violence, trait callousness, and psychopathology) were taken into account.
Others of you wondered whether the research cited reflected the more recent/realistic style of video games, a la GTA. Researchers have indeed begun to examine the effects of realism; for example, some work has focused on specific features such as the presence vs. absence of blood (e.g., Barlett et al., 2008; Farrar et al., 2006). Results show that the presence of blood exacerbates aggressive responding after game play. This ongoing body of research is nuanced, rigorous and conservative (e.g., often making sure violent and non-violent games are equivalently arousing). It is also transparent with regard to limitations, unanswered questions, and the need for further research.
Further research is a great note to end on. To continue explicating the appeal, processes and effects of this beloved pastime, scholars should continue probing the mechanisms, contexts, and individual motivations that contribute to violent video game enjoyment and outcomes. And, we should continue to challenge each other (academics and non-academics alike!) to maintain a high standard of intellectual scrutiny. Finally, our mission should be one of education, clarification, and media literacy, not censorship. Thank you for your thoughts.
Dr. Greenwood raises a compelling point in noting that the military makes use of violent video games to desensitize future combatants. Some of these games are available for download as a recruitment strategy (http://www.americasarmy.com/) Combat in real life is getting more like a video game (picture carrying out a remote air strike through a computerized drone). This is occurring at the same time that the games become more realistic and violent. The convergence of violent video games, preparatory play/training, and actual combat all point to the validity of the research cited by Dr. Greenwood. It seems to me that it is unusually urgent nowadays, in a time of war, recession, and uncertainty, for us to understand the cumulative impact of any activity - especially one marketed to children - that contributes to a reduced ability to respond with empathy to the pain of others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with the sociologists and psychologists is their research is almost always designed to confirm th prejudice and/or politics of the researcher.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnsurprisingly.... they get the results they designed the 'experiment" to confirm.
In reading such so-called 'research" we see it peppered with mere speculation and supposition... that, by the end of the article is stated as proven fact.
Then.. this unfounded speculation is quoted by other "researchers" as if it were a solid fact.. .and to buttress their own prejudices and politics.
What is most disturbing is to see the results of these practices upon the researchers, as a class of beings.
They end up in a quasi-delusional dream world that resembles the real one in the same way a comic book resembles it.
It would be preferable if these were willing liars and propagandists who made these unsupportable assertions... at least you could credit them with rationality.
Unfortunately... one can see by the cult-like , "true believer" expressions by the "researchers" that they seem to actually believe that their unfounded speculations are proven truths.
Are they just plain "not too bright"?
I think in most case this what we see.. none-too-bright , nor insightful people trying to work with tools they little understand.
They pretend to be scientists... but they deal in speculation more akin to science fiction.
We see that in this article.... pseudo-scientific posturing in support of superstitiously held ideas.
It's truly amazing to me how many people decry Dara's article on scientific grounds when it is clear they lack basic scientific reasoning skills--e.g., using case studies or personal experience to prove a point. First, I too enjoy playing violent video games. However, I can't claim they have or haven't affected me because I lack a suitable control group for my experience (e.g., I don't have an identical twin who was raised the same as myself with the lone exception that they did not play violent video games). So despite convictions to the contrary, we can't say whether video games have affected us or not based on personal experience--we simply don't know--thus the role of experiments! In addition, just because popularity of violent video games has gone up while violent crime has gone down is not necessarily evidence against the effects of violent video games. This would assume that a very complex behavior is determined by a single factor. Human behavior is much more complex. In addition, it fails to recognize law enforcement efforts to deter or prevent crime have arguable also become more effective. Finally, why are we ignoring the meta-analyses that have been conducted showing that violent media does influence people?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscan i just ask how old are the children that are described and interviewed at the start of this article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this