Slashdot Log In
Brain Changes When Viewing Violent Media
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Dec 06, 2007 02:43 PM
from the argh-must-destroy-pokemans dept.
from the argh-must-destroy-pokemans dept.
Ponca City, We Love You writes "Scientists at Columbia University have used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to show that a brain network responsible for suppressing inappropriate or unwarranted aggressive behaviors became less active after study subjects watched several short clips from popular movies depicting acts of violence. These changes could render people less able to control their own aggressive behavior. Although research has shown some correlation between exposure to media violence and real-life violent behavior, there has been little direct neuroscientific support for this theory until now. 'Depictions of violent acts have become very common in the popular media,' said researcher Christopher Kelly. 'Our findings demonstrate for the first time that watching media depictions of violence does influence processing in parts of the brain that control behaviors like aggression.' The full research paper is published on the The Public Library of Science, a peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication, that publishes all its articles under a Creative Commons Attribution License."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
surprising (Score:4, Funny)
Re:surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Evidently, not many people who read
Parent
Re:surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
so when they look back and say "When I was a kid, nobody went crazy" it doesn't exactly apply to current games, Also anecdotal evidence is almost always wrong.
Parent
MOD PARENT UP - survival value (Score:3, Interesting)
So look at the statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's forget about anecdotes and look at the statistics. What has happened to rates of violent crimes as games have gotten more and more realistically violent? They've dropped. [usdoj.gov] What's more, they've dropped most dramatically in the very demographic group that plays these games. That doesn't necessarily prove that games prevent violence, but it does prove that the pro-violence effect of games (if there is any at all) is so small as to be utterly swamped by other social and demographic factors affecting rates of violence.
As for brain scans, you can be sure that pretty much any activity that people enjoy and like to do repeatedly alters brain activity, but the interpretation of these changes in blood flow over rather large regions of the brain is still pretty much at the level of "Just-So" stories. At this point, it's a lot more speculation than science.
Parent
Re:Laughable example (Score:5, Insightful)
And 2005 is lower than 2000. But this kind of data snooping is meaningless. If you cherry-pick at these little year to year fluctuations that are down at the level of the statistical noise, you can rationalize any kind of claim you want. I'm not talking about the small and obviously statistically nonsignificant fluctuations over a year or two. With this sort of statistics, only large, consistent multiyear trends are meaningful. And the clear trend over the period when videogames have been increasing in popularity has been downward.
Which merely restates my point--the pro-violence effect of videogames if any is negligible relative to other social and demographic factors impacting rates of violence.
As for the "uncanny valley," the term was coined to account for the fact that people find state-of-the art humanoid computer graphics in multimillion dollar movies where each frame can take minutes to render to be eerie, rather than convincingly human. Are you seriously arguing that the much less sophisticated graphics in games have crossed the valley?
This is sheer rationalization. Over the period when games have gone from blocky 2D cartoon characters to 3D human-looking characters with simulated blood and gore, the only clear trend is downward. So you are arguing that it is just about to start trending upward "real soon now?"
I am a neuroscientist, and have been following such studies for years. I stand by my assessment. These blood flow measurements are intriguing, and can tell us a lot about which parts of the brain are being activated under particular circumstances, but we are a long way from understanding what that means in terms of human thought, emotion, and behavior. It is still very much speculative.
Still doesn't looks like an upward trend, though does it? If anything, it seems to have stabilized, and at a much lower level than before videogames became popular. Obviously, a downward trend cannot continue forever, or criminals would at some point be resurrecting the dead. Currently, we aren't that far above the levels that prevailed in the '50's. If videogames had such a powerful pro-violence effect--one sufficient to justify all of this concern and investment in research, then shouldn't there be a clear upward trend?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is an interesting link for you: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Conf/MemePap/Marsden.html [vub.ac.be]
Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there is a difference between "The Miracle of Life" and Ross dogging Rachel from behind while she gives him a "Reach-Under" with Chandler screaming, "Could that BE any freakier?".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
It's true. (Score:5, Funny)
After watching violent movies I beat my wife much worse than usual.
Re:It's true. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to the documentary you can condition yourself out of the behaviour by developing a reaction that takes you out of that moment, e.g when you were playing warcraft by programming your self to say "one moment" calmly as
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How long does it last (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, but how long does it last? Given the fact that I am not very likely to take off my shoe and bludgeon the person in front of me in the theater to death, how does this effect my likelyhood to do the same thing after the movie when I see someone I am not fond of?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's my question. The finding isn't that surprising. If you are standing in a crowd and someone is running around bashing people's skulls in... it makes sense that you be more prone to violence so you can defend yourself with all necessary force. Seems like a sane evolutionary adaptation.
However, this finding implies(or at least in the media's reporting of it) that violent games will cause kids to be more violent. If a kid plays a violent game, does that make them more violent in 5 minutes? 2 days? 2 wee
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is different then 'make kids more violent'.
Bull I play video games all the time. (Score:3, Insightful)
So here is a question. How does it effect younger people?
Or what is the effect if the media is interactive in nature?
I am just waiting to see what excuese the "Video games don't contribute to violence" lobby will have to say about this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bull I play video games all the time. (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point the video game violence issue is the same as whether we as a country should have laws banning homosexual activity, and whether we should ban alcohol consumption. Do we want freedom or an authoritarian state?
Note that alcohol consumption contributes to a *lot* more harm every year than video games and I support the right to consume alcohol.
Parent
Re:Bull I play video games all the time. (Score:5, Insightful)
People say that parents should control what there kids watch and play but then why restrict tobacco and alcohol? Shouldn't parents control what kids drink and smoke?
The media companies don't want any real restrictions because just like the Tobacco companies all they care about is money. Any pretense that they care about freedom is just spin.
Hey I like to play Quake just as much as the next person but how the fanboys on Slashdot fall for media compaines freedom flag waving for profit just makes me nuts.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clockwork Orange (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK... but (Score:5, Insightful)
Did it ever occur to anyone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not junk science. (Score:4, Informative)
"In a paper in the Dec. 5 on-line issue of PLoS ONE (published by the Public Library of Science), Columbia scientists show that a brain network responsible for suppressing behaviors like inappropriate or unwarranted aggression (including the right lateral orbitofrontal cortex, or right ltOFC, and the amygdala) became less active after study subjects watched several short clips from popular movies depicting acts of violence."
That's not junk science. IT's saying "Is there an effect, and if so what is it?"
They know a lot about what the brain does. the fMRI in it self is amazing. for example, limited studies have shown it to detect when people are lying 100% of the time. Pretty cool stuff. The next question, does that hold for a larger pool of people. If it does work, is it considered self incrimination? or is it physical evidence?
Any ways, the mysteries of the brain are starting to unravel in some very unexpected ways.
This study seems good. certianly good enough to warrant a better study with a larger pool of people.
Parent
That said... (Score:2)
* Still a liar too stupid to be an effective bully. But right.
Re: (Score:2)
Link Broken (Score:3, Interesting)
FTFY.
Efficient brain function... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be more interested in seeing the results of people watching real violence on T.V and knowing it, or seeing the results of a child who doesn't know that fake violence in a movie is not real.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"If the subject knows that the sex they are watching is fake then the brain wouldn't have to worry about filtering out sexual behavior because it is not sexual behavior. Perhaps the brain is just being efficient.
"I'd be more interested in seeing the results of people watching real sex on T.V and knowing it, or seeing the results of a child who doesn't know that fake sex in
Next logical step (Score:2)
Of course, the results probably wouldn't be as popular or easy to write a press release about - porn makes people happy!
What they proved... (Score:5, Informative)
What they didn't prove:
Violent imagery makes you violent.
Most of the studies present a violent image and ask you questions after. Partly because it'd be unethical to show them imagery and then attempt to induce violence. Thus they must use proxies which only prove a relationship from the imagery to the proxy.
Common Study:
Show a 3 min clip from bioshock - ask "are you feeling more or less violent" or "please push this button as hard as you want" and then write a conclusion " Bioshock makes you violent".
I doubt violent imagery has no effect on you, it likely agitates the flight or fight response but I am skeptical on whether it can induce violence in a normal/average person. I dislike how media and various groups try to portray a stronger relationship. Doom 3 has not made me a serial killer, it's highly unlikely doom 6 will make my children serial killers, and if it does it's probably partly mine and my communities fault. It my kid does end up being a serial killer there is most likely a biological factor too. Media alone does not make a killer.
Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like therapists use certain interactive video imagery programs to help people with extreme phobias. If you have severe arachnophobia, but spend several hours every day interacting with realistic spiders in an simulated environment, you will be less likely to have a panic attack when confronted with a real-world spider. This is a long-documented psychologically valid method.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm particularly interested in this "otherwise" category. What (non video) games out there will reward me for beating upon someone who isn't remotely a threat?
Monopoly: Mob Edition - when someone lands on your space, you walk over to their side of the table and "collect rent" by any means necessary. Alternately, you may choose not to injure them, in exchange for protection money.
violence is catharsis (Score:3, Interesting)
therefore, a superior way to prevent spasms of violence in real life is to allow for some way to express violence in harmless ways
such as violent videogames
what gets released harmlessly on a keyboard or joystick is that which will not be released in real life situations
it's not like the violent videogame creates violence. what made the ancient romans violent? violent is inherent to human nature. look at a roomful of 4 year olds if you don't believe this. a violent videogame can only catalyze the release of violent potential that is already in the person
so certainly, if someone is already unstable, a violent videogame could serve as the flashpoint which makes a previously unstable person blow up. but this still isn't a ding against violent videogames, since something else would have eventually set an unstable person off
by and large, violent videogames reduce violence in society
the daily friction of life creates a build up of rage. the question is how is that rage released. a violent videogame provides that release, in exaclt the mechanism described above. but it's not like that rage has anywhere else to go were it not for violent videogames
i think we as a society should play more violent videogames to reduce real world violence
i am not in the least joking
there are unstable individuals who can't differentiate from reality who should not play them, sure. as if the existence of violent videogames or not makes them any more or less unstable
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
The brain learns by imitation (Score:4, Informative)
Why doesn't it affect everyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
PloS ONE is not peer reviewed (Score:3, Informative)
This is quite unlike traditional scientific journal (and unlike all the other PLoS journals which are quite traditional apart from being Open Access) where an article is reviewed anonymously by peers (from the same discipline) before publication.
It is actually quite nice that PLoS, apart from pioneering Open Access, also experiments more fundamentally with the scientific process, by adapting techniques from sites like
But it is misleading to state that the article has been published in a peer reviewed journal, as it means something different in this case. It would be more correct to say that it has been published for peer review in a journal. At the time I'm writing this, no peers have yet to review the article.
Most scientist would hesitate publishing in PLoS ONE simply because it does not have an impact factor rating, which is very important for how valuated when seeking grants etc.
So what? It's a matter of responsibility (Score:3)
Its called thinking. (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesnt mean its negative or positive response, that would still be up to the individual.