Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Games Lead To Violence and Drugs?

Posted by Zonk on Tue Apr 11, 2006 03:44 PM
from the unlikely dept.
Government Entertainment Games Politics
A joint University of California, SFO/University of Pittsburgh study has been released which finds "playing violent videogames can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol", Gamasutra reports. Reuters is also carrying the story, with some information about methodology available in that piece. From the article: "Brady and Matthews had a group of 100 male undergraduates aged 18 to 21 play either Grand Theft Auto III or The Simpsons: Hit and Run. In the Simpsons game, players took the role of Homer Simpson and their task was to deliver daughter Lisa's science project to school before it could be marked late. In Grand Theft Auto III, players took the role of a criminal, and were instructed by the Mafia to beat up a drug dealer with a baseball bat."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] 'Boozy Gamer' Researcher Questioned 109 comments
Via GameSetWatch, a Gamespy interview with Sonya Brady, the person who ran the research study we reported on a while back. The one that claimed gamers enjoy getting high, drinking alcohol? From the article: "What kind of feedback have I received? My feedback from research colleagues and other older adults has generally been positive. What I find most interesting is the feedback I have received from adolescents and young adults. Some people are interested in learning more about the research, even if they are skeptical of the results. Other people have been very angry."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Games Lead To Violence and Drugs? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I have a feeling that it's probably the other way around: people who don't like drinking and marijuana in real life probably will be less likely to play GTA.

    • Re:Other way around? (Score:5, Informative)

      by diamondmagic (877411) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:53PM (#15108755) Homepage
      If you bothered to read the article at all, you would know that this was not an observational study, but a scientific study in which the subjects were required to play a randomly selected game. GTA resulted in the worse-off outcome. That's it, that is all there is.
      • I actually did RTFA (after giving an earlier testimonial spiel) and it was interesting. Something in me is screaming common sense though that GTA might make people more competitive and get the heart racing a little more than Simpsons Hit and Run.

        "Oh noes, I'm going to deliver the science project before you!"

        Also, they only seemed to study the short term effects. They didn't see if the subjects were still as hostile the next day or the implications of more chronic video game playing.
        • It is common sense. The more engaging (the bigger the adrenaline rush) the higher your blood pressure is going to be. All the outcomes mentioned are in line with any activity that raises the "excitability" level. You want to talk high bp and a tendency towards violence, let's compare this to say, a similar group of men who just watched their favorite sports team lose a close game.

      • Re:Other way around? (Score:4, Funny)

        by vertinox (846076) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:17PM (#15108959)
        GTA resulted in the worse-off outcome.

        So did scientists provide the booze and pot aftwards?

        Or did the test subjects have to fend for themselves?
    • Simply put, what came first. The chicken or the egg.

      Is the fact that these "kids" play GTA because they are already inclined to activities that are illegal in their legal system OR does the game make them inclined?

      Simply put, do violent games make people aggresive OR do aggresive people play violent games.

      The problem is that "violent game" is such a vague term. Almost all games are violent but 99% of the time you are the good guy fighting the legions of evil.

      GTA San Andreas has you drowning a rapper and

    • Not entirely true. I might be the exception, but I don't drink, or smoke, never have and quite possibly never will (alcohol simply doesn't appeal to me, and smoking is a disgusting nasty habit, which does nothing worthwhile for you), and I love the Grand Theft Auto franchise. My Liberty City Stories-armed PSP is always with me, and I try to get as much as possible out of the larger offerings. I think they're really good games (from a playability standpoint, not necessarily the morality.)
      • Smoking stops you from doing dangerous things like "jogging". Remember, it is joggers who find the dead bodies on the side of the road. Nobody finds a dead body sitting at home and playing GTA

        Apologies to dave attell
  • and play Kirbys Avalanche. OH NOES, puzzle games lead to selling yourself for smack. Totally.
  • correlation != causation

    • Re:it bears repeating (Score:5, Insightful)

      by egomaniac (105476) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:19PM (#15108973) Homepage
      correlation != causation

      A valuable thing to remember, but completely irrelevant here.

      The "correlation != causation" caution applies when it is possible for there to a third, unexplained phenomenon which causes both the supposed cause and the supposed effect. For instance, ice cream consumption and heart attacks both increase in the summer -- but the actual cause of both increases is the summer heat.

      That sort of relationship isn't possible here. The "cause" in this case is whether or not the students were assigned to the experimental group -- students in the experimental group had a different experience than students in the control group. Given that the students were (presumably) properly randomly assigned, no factor can possibly have influenced whether or not they were in the control group, and therefore the only possible causes for the differences in the experimental group are the experiment itself or randomness. The latter can be largely controlled by increasing the size of the trial to increase our confidence that we are seeing a real effect.

      Think about it this way: imagine the experiment were to decide the effects of gunshot wounds to the head. You divide the students into two groups, and shoot all of the experimental group students in the head. They all die. None of the control group students die. Now, say "but correlation doesn't equal causation!" and realize that it doesn't make any sense. There just isn't any way for some unexplained effect to have altered both which group the students were assigned to and whether or not they died.
      • I think what he was trying to get at was that this study is really fuckign stupid.

        Did they ask them whether they thought it was ok for gays to marry? or whether pre marital sex is an ok choice?

        i dont see why not since they seem to be linking all sorts of random shit together. this whole article is sensationalist nothing trying to be meaningful something. Its like asking people to play a game of basketball and then getting their opinion on the italian election. These things are so far removed from having any
        • It's actually really simple, and makes sense. The way they worded the abstract was a bit weird... but it was the thing about blood pressure that should stand out. I'd be pretty willing to bet that if you had a hundred people, and had half of them sit on a couch for twenty minutes, and the other half get on a treadmill for twenty minutes, you'd probably get the same result as comparing cartoon vs. realistic simulated violence.

          So... umm... Exercise leads to violence and risky behavior?

      • The "correlation != causation" caution applies when it is possible for there to a third, unexplained phenomenon which causes both the supposed cause and the supposed effect.

        This statement may be technically correct; it's also extremely misleading, because the phrase "when it is possible for there to be a third, unexplained phenomenon which causes both the supposed cause and the supposed effect" is equivalent to "always"

        This is why the maxim "correlation does not imply causation" is not instead, "correl

        • You have completely and utterly misunderstood my argument.

          You can indeed eliminate all external causes in this case. The two factors that are correlated are "student was in the experimental group" and "student experienced increased permissiveness of violence and drugs". Since the first factor (student was in the experimental group) was random, it by definition cannot have any influencing factors. It is therefore impossible for there to be a common cause of both "student was in the experimental group" and
        • Two things I would have liked to see.
          1. A pre-test to compare each persons responces before gaming (they probably did this)
          2. A physical activity control group.

          As we all know playing these games do cause temporary aldrinaline and testotarone (spellling???) increases. These test were preformed immediently after playing and as such the results could have been related. Would have enjoyed seeing a group sent out to play football, or even just run track. I bet you would see similar responces..
    • And lets also not forget that all kinds of activities cause short-term changes in physical states (like blood pressure) and psychologica states (like attitudes). Including "healthy" ones like exercise, or "normal" ones like driving in heavy traffic.

      This study still does not address long-term changes, at least based on the little bits available.
      • Shouldn't it be correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation?

        Because correlation != causation would mean correlation does not equal causation, which may or may not be true.

        Or am I wrong?

        "Correlation != causation" is a reminder that the two words mean different things, because people often seem to forget that. Of course they sometimes overlap -- by definition any time you have a cause you are also going to have a correlation.
      • Yes but as pointed out elsewhere, it could have been a secondary causation. Playing violent games leads to temporary increases in stress/hormone levels, increases in hormones levels causes peoples perception to change.. Primary causation is almost impossible to prove unless the test was hours later, and I doupt it was.

  • Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gerbalblaste (882682) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:48PM (#15108707) Journal
    Someone please mod this article +5 flamebait.
    • I would like to see the study that showed that drinking and smoking pot make you more inclined to play moronic violent games - because surely being pissed and stoned is not a state to be in if you want to be able to play very well.
      And where is the study that says watching ultra violent films is good for your mental health. Dodgy entertainment has always been bad for your outlook, thats why throwing christians to the lions isnt on the tv anymore, or bear baiting or any number of unsavory visceral entertainme

  • Mark article "redundant" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:48PM (#15108708)
    How many "studies" are we going to read on this? How often are we getting told "games make you violent"? How often are we going to say "bullshit"?

    It doesn't accumulate more truth by saying it more often. Games make you as violent as D&D did in the 80s, TV did in the 60s, radio did in the 30s and books did before that. It's the same "old generation who don't know jack about X blames it for the problems created by the way people are" shit we've been seeing for centuries now.

    • Re:Mark article "redundant" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Psmylie (169236) * on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:55PM (#15108777) Homepage
      Speaking of D&D... this type of argument has gotten under my skin since the early 1980's, when I started playing D&D. That's when I first started getting irked by the whole "[blank] makes kids violent/drug users/satanists" thing. My own father, a smart enough man normally, felt the need to sit me down and ask me if I understood that I wasn't really casting spells and fighting monsters. All because of the stupid hype generated by people who grossly misrepresented a pretty harmless hobby.
      • My own father, a smart enough man normally, felt the need to sit me down and ask me if I understood that I wasn't really casting spells and fighting monsters.

        Be thankful...you've got a good father. The question may have sounded stupid to you, but if your dad actually bothered to ask you what you are up to, get your feedback on why it interests you, and trust your judgement as to whether it was a healthy hobby, I hope you are walking around knowing he's the shit.

        Hell, invite him to join your next session.

        • Re:Mark article "redundant" (Score:5, Funny)

          by Psmylie (169236) * on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:45PM (#15109169) Homepage
          This is true, and I don't blame my dad for being concerned. Parents need to know what their kids are into, if only to provide proper context for them. I blame the irresponsible people in the media who put out frantic warnings about cults, suicides and violence, which led my father into thinking that this game might be seriously messing me up. As we all know, it's not the game itself that has these effects... it's the Cheetos and Mountain Dew.

        • Not that I made it easy on them anyway. I later got into Ceremonial Magick and joined the O.T.O. after I turned 18, which opened a whole new series of fears for them. Entirely unfounded, but it certainly damaged our relationship the night he suddenly stated (after having seen the dagger on my dresser - for ceremonial purposes only) that if I ever tried to hurt any of them I'd better get it right the first time because I would only get one chance. I downplayed his concern but inside I was all, "Fuck YOU you

    • There was a Wired article on this a couple days ago. Choice quote:

      Comic Books "Many adults think that the crimes described in comic books are so far removed from the child's life that for children they are merely something imaginative or fantastic. But we have found this to be a great error. Comic books and life are connected. A bank robbery is easily translated into the rifling of a candy store. Delinquencies formerly restricted to adults are increasingly committed by young people and children ... All ch
      • I think that about covers the legitimacy of this study.

        John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy were also Christians. Shouldn't that lead to the conclusion that Christians like to kill people?

        I could provide a much longer list of "Christians" who have committed various violent crimes, but I don't really think that's necessary.

        How many of you were in Middle/High school at the time of the Columbine shootings? How many of your schools outlawed trenchcoats after that? Because everyone knows that wearing a trenchcoat means
      • Actually, the story about the study is profoundly unscientific; either it's been misreported or it was dishonest to begin with. Basic stuff like leaping from "more permissive attitude towards drugs/alcohol" to "more likely to use/drink". If that kind of FUD was actually in the study's conclusions, then it isn't worthy of being called science.

  • A datum (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kesch (943326)
    Ahem, I would like to testify that I have played GTA and other violent video games.

    I do not believe it to be legal (in the US. This anwser is subject to change in other countries.) or responsible for teenagers (like me) to use marijuana or alcohol.

    Finaly I would like to add that I understand a datum does not a study make and that correlation!=causation.

  • what are the numbers? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by egomaniac (105476) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:53PM (#15108761) Homepage
    This is a very small trial -- only 50 people in each group. I wonder how significant the results are, and if they would still exist in a larger trial (my guess is most of the effects would disappear). While I can certainly believe blood pressure increases and other physiological effects, I'm very skeptical that a short time playing a violent videogame would somehow change your attitude towards marijuana.

    It's not impossible, of course, I just want to see the results validated in a larger trial. At the very least I want to see the numbers from this trial -- I suspect that the effects are very small and just on the edge of statistical significance.

  • Standard FUD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RsG (809189) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:55PM (#15108776)
    If you read the link about their methodology, it becomes clear that the study is crap. According to Reuters:

    "Regardless of whether they grew up in a violent environment, the researchers found, young men who had played the violent game were less cooperative and more competitive in completing an assigned task with another person, compared to those who played the Simpsons game. They were also more likely to have permissive attitudes toward alcohol and marijuana use."

    How exactly does one get from "have a more permissive attitude" to "more likely to use drugs/drink"? Fucks sake, I've got a completely permissive attitude to other people's bad habits, but that doesn't mean I'd like to share them. If you spun this study the other way, it'd be saying "gamers more permissive, less likely to force their views on other people".

    Either the study itself is politically funded crap, or the spin being put on it is.

  • Atari Adventure (Score:5, Funny)

    by GutSh0t (91783) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:56PM (#15108789)
    Adventure turned me into the depraved shell of a man that I am today. But the colors...
  • They asked college guys if they liked drugs and alcohol after playing GTA?

    They probably liked them before GTA!

    • They asked college guys if they liked drugs and alcohol after playing GTA?

      No kidding, when I read "videogames can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol" in the summary, I was thinking that college students are the target market for marijuana and alcohol.

      Next, I'm sure they'll figure out how to link those girls in those "Girls Gone Wild" tapes to videogames somehow.

      While I'll concede that it certainly looks like violence, drugs and alcohol, and sex are a lot more pr

  • It amazes me that any news group or individual is willing to place the equivalent of 'blind faith' in these purported studies. How were the test subjects selected? Was there a control group? Do young men in general believe that it is OK to smoke marajuana and drink alcohol? Was the study designed to prove this particular outcome, or did it stumble upon this while 100 guys were playing GTA? Anyone who knows anything about statistics can see that information in such studies is warped or misrepresented in

  • Yeah, just like.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by netfool (623800) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:03PM (#15108847) Homepage
    ...comic books, the Waltz (no kidding, look it up!) and Rock & Roll.
    • Don't forget D&D, rap and the automobile (oh noes! Billy and Sue can drive off to lover's lane! /moral outrage).

      Actually, a better question: Is there anything remotely enjoyable that senile reactionaries haven't been opposed too?
  • If only we never invented video games, teenagers would have never gotten interested in rebelling.

  • In that case (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dcocos (128532) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:10PM (#15108894)
    "playing violent videogames can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol"

    If this also works on older men, I'd be willing to give my copy of GTA3 to a Senator or Representative in the hopes that it would change their minds about smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol, to make it legally acceptable.

  • wtf? (Score:3)

    by corbettw (214229) <corbettw@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:13PM (#15108921) Homepage Journal
    [P]laying violent videogames can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol.

    What the hell? Are they saying it isn't?? What else am I supposed to with my evenings?
  • Umm, so what I don't get is, how is this a bad thing? None of these things mentioned, alcohol use, marihuana or sex without a condom are a problem when used in an informed, smart way.

    I don't get it.

    That is like saying, reading href="http://www.intowine.com/">In to Wine causes people to want to use alcohol.

    I mean come on!

  • Control? Baseline? Researchers? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jevvim (826181) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:25PM (#15109028) Journal
    I believe this is the abstract for the published study: Effects of Media Violence on Health-Related Outcomes Among Young Men [ama-assn.org]

    The abstract makes me think this was a poorly conducted study. Where's the control group that played no games? What if playing games reduces these thoughts in a way that varies based on the game? You could also have gotten this result by baselining the attitudes of the subjects before the experiment, but then you also might have lost all the interesting quotes like "Media violence exposure may play a role in the development of negative attitudes and behaviors related to health."

    They did find that blood pressure tends to go up while playing games. In addition, those with exposure to home and community violence had a more sigificant blood pressure change with the violent game than with the other game. I think they might have just verified post-traumatic stress disorder.

  • I'm so sick of the underdog getting picked on (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Deagol (323173) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @04:40PM (#15109133) Homepage
    Back in my day it was D&D, before then it was comic books and Mad Magazine, and now it's Video Games.

    I would bet my next paycheck that a good, solid study could find a correlation that watching daytime soaps and prime-time drama leads people in their 20's and 30's to getting the idea that infidelity is normal and then proceeding to emulate their TV drama stars and be unfaithful themselves. Gee -- there's a shocker.

    Yet, do you see the Family Values people lobbying daytime television producers to clean up their shows? It probably would help imrpove the state of the American family if we weren't bombarded by perfectly beautiful, young, cheating couples on 95% of the programs being shown. But mo, they'd never attack an entrenched mainstream form of entertainmens. Ditto movies (except if it's wildly successful and has gay cowboys, then they'll attack it). Or how about the violence of professional sports? Isn't Superbowl Sunday reportedly one of the worst days of the year when it comes to wife abuse?

    Such double standards.

    I think regulation of expression is a last-resort option. People are free to take their own actions, for better or for worse. I however think that we should address all forms of entertainment with a similar statndard. Well, except for porn -- that's a slightly different can of worms.

    • Well, I'd like to suggest that you get used to it. I was chatting with a friend of mine the other day who just happens to be an English professor at a local university and he told me something interesting: Apparently novels used to be quite the questionable media. They were blamed for, among other evils, corruption of young ladies moral characters. Novels! Those Bronte sisters were pretty wild, I suppose. Anyway, my point is only that every new media goes through a phase where the established power st
  • So, they say "playing violent videogames can lead young men to believe it is acceptable to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol."

    Let me rewrite this: "playing violent videogames can lead young men to believe that the government does not have the right to forbid you from consuming mild mind-altering substances, as long as your actions do not harm others' lives."

    Sounds pretty good to me.
    • This part bears repeating:

      "...youth growing up in violent homes and communities may become more physiologically aroused by media violence exposure, all youth appear to be at risk for potentially negative outcomes."

      This isn't a study saying "games make you violent". This study is demonstrating that games elicit physiological responses associated with violence and that people more "familiar" with the subject have greater responses.

      The same can be said of any media with violent content; it triggers a response

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.