Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Gaming Damages Violence Inhibitions 52

Posted by Zonk from the scooping-up-the-field-mice-and-bopping-them-on-the-head dept.
Next Generation reports on another study that finds a link between videogames and violent tendencies. From the article: "The men were also invited to play simple games against opponents in other rooms. Winners were allowed to send an unpleasant, loud blast to their defeated opponents. Game players were more likely to make their foes suffer than non-game players. It may be worth noting that very similar studies have produced the opposite conclusion. In one such study, violent-game players and non-gamers each issued noise blasts at people. In that study, the gamers administered the lowest intensity noise blasts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gaming Damages Violence Inhibitions More

Gaming Damages Violence Inhibitions

Comments Filter:

  • So? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Zarxrax ( 652423 )
    So how does giving someone a "noise blast" make you a more violent person? This type of study seems so flawed that its humorous.
    • oops, i mean, FIRST POST ...damn... a little late now...
    • Violence is probably misused in this context. I'd say the noise blast probably indicates a higher level of aggressive tendencies, more along the lines of taunting them for losing than punching them in the nose. Gloating over a kill online comes to mind.
    • I think, given the restrictions placed on psychological studies, the "noise blast" is probably reasonable. Sure, "whiffle bat to the head" might have been a better measurement of violence, but that probably wouldn't get you printed up in any journals.

      I think a more valid complaint might be the study's muddying of "competitive behavior" and "videogames". The result I'm assuming we're supposed to draw is that videogames make you more violent, because people playing these games were sending more noise blasts t
      • Is it no wonder that FPS players sent a loud ass noise to their opponent when they won? It is standard fare to talk shit and taunt someone you just "pwned" in that genre. Those games are played online, and then when you emulate that environment you get results that are the same, what a shock.

        What I would really like to see are the results broken down by these players favorite genre. Who sent more blasts, RPG guys or RTS guys?

        Either this guy didn't know enough about the online FPS gaming subculture to know
        • I'd like to see comparisons to men who play league sports- hockey, football, basketball, etc. I think we'd see a similar rate of noise there, there's definitely a similar rate of taunting.
    • So how does giving someone a "noise blast" make you a more violent person? This type of study seems so flawed that its humorous.

      I'm not sure. That may be more competitive in nature. The gamers get the options to punish his opponent much like they would punish people online (like killing someone in hand to hand in Counter Strike or DoD... it is just embarassing to die like that).

      But would playing video make you immune emmotionally to gun fire, burning flesh, blood, guts, people screaming and crying. The only

      • I'm not sure. That may be more competitive in nature. The gamers get the options to punish his opponent much like they would punish people online (like killing someone in hand to hand in Counter Strike or DoD... it is just embarassing to die like that).

        I don't think that it so much a matter of punishment but the equivalent of a victory dance. And taking a victory in hand-to-hand is simply boasting, saying "see, I don't even need weapons to win you".

        But would playing video make you immune emmotionally

    • Assault with compressed air particles in the audible range?
    • And it's not as if people don't use air horns at, say, sporting events....
    • Agreed. I'd give a noise blast at every opportunity I could, but that's because I'm a flippant jerk, not violent.

  • Different People, Different Results (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StingRay02 ( 640085 ) on Thursday December 08, 2005 @06:13PM (#14214330)
    If there have been a number of different studies that have come to different conclusions, then I'd say that would indicate that there's something else at play here.

    Of course, that's not going to stop headline writers, politicians and Jack Thompson from ignoring any other findings and just going to shock value.

    • Of course, that's not going to stop headline writers, politicians and Jack Thompson from ignoring any other findings and just going to shock value.

      Please don't mention JT. He's a troll who tries to get publicity to sell his books. Don't reward him for being an asshole; never name him. Remember, every time you mention him, you help him become better known, and therefore make more profits.

      • I like PA's take on him. Everybody hates him, but if he disappears, someone might replace him that actually knows what they're doing. The more publicity he gets and the more he's associated with the anti-game movement, the less credibility the movement has, and politicians like Clinton are going to be less likely to glom onto it as a political maneuver.

        • I like PA's take on him. Everybody hates him, but if he disappears, someone might replace him that actually knows what they're doing.

          But that's just it - he does know what he is doing. He is using the anti-game movement to gain wealth and fortune; he doesn't really give a rats ass about their cause. He isn't a crusader, he's a looter pretending to be one. Actually getting games banned would be harmfull to him, since he would then have to find something else to bash to get attention.

          The man isn't a lun

          • Point granted. Perhaps replacing "knows what they're doing" with "cares about what they're doing" would be a better way to phrase it. There're media whores everywhere, this guy's not a new phenomenon. Add to that "he's a treacherous (since he doesn't believe in his own message), calculating bastard who is spreading FUD to line his own pockets" pretty much describes the mass media at large, and as long as FUD continues to sell papers and jack up TV ratings, there's going to be a market for people who want

  • Follow-up ideas (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SandSpider ( 60727 ) on Thursday December 08, 2005 @06:14PM (#14214343) Homepage Journal
    I would suggest trying the experiment with happiness as a condition versus just gaming. People who are happy have a tendency to do all sorts of things that don't involve critical thinking, so it's possible that this would also modify their tone choosing ways.

    =Brian

    • Re:Follow-up ideas (Score:3, Insightful)

      by StingRay02 ( 640085 )
      Anonymity's probably an important factor, as well. Did the participants know who was in the next room or not, and how well? Anonymity is a powerful "jackass" motivator.

  • Bad Science (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HunterZ ( 20035 ) on Thursday December 08, 2005 @06:14PM (#14214345) Journal
    It may be worth noting that very similar studies have produced the opposite conclusion.

    If the same test performed twice shows opposing results, the only valid conclusion is that these tests were obviously not controlled enough to enable people to draw valid conclusions from their respective outcomes. Or, maybe the researchers are trying to find a connection between "games" and "violence" (as defined by the test) where there is none (or at least none perceivable by means of this test).
    • I suspect this is more a case that the article is mis-interpretting the results, rather than that the study itself was flawed. For example, it found that gamers showed less reaction to "violent" images. That makes perfect sense to me. I mean, what is Soldier of Fortune 2 except a series of violent images? It's bound to wear out your aversion reflex.

      The other part of the study was getting them to play games against people in other rooms and afterward the winner could send a noise to the loser. Sounds

  • What kind of blast?!?! (Score:4, Funny)

    by crotherm ( 160925 ) on Thursday December 08, 2005 @06:18PM (#14214368) Journal

    unpleasant, loud blast

    Sounds like me after a hearty lunch of Mexican food....

  • Doctors, police or soldiers would probably also show less reaction to violent images, so that part is unrelated to videogames specifically and more exposure to violence in general. The second shows more about competition and violence than violence and videogames. I'm betting after a round of ping-pong or pool people would be more violent too. I'm actually going to researching in ISU's media Research Lab next semester and so it'll be interesting to see how that is explained.

  • True Violence Inhibitions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Thursday December 08, 2005 @06:29PM (#14214470)
    I'll share something I normally don't share.

    When I was younger (I'm nearing thirty now), I was a wrestler. I was also very successful in judo and soccer, but wrestling was my focus for more than a decade. I won plenty of state and national championships. I never lost a single grecco match in my life. Wrestling, though something I excelled tremendously at, was a sport I was forced into by my step-dad. I'm not unique. Many kids are forced into their parents' sports or endeavors and many sports - especially in environments where a parent is likely to seek some form of retribution against you if you aren't perfect at it (such as hours and hours of being yelled at or being physically abused nightly for "poor" performance in practice) - will induce poor attitude and self-control as a result.

    I can tell you that as a kid, I would never turn down a fight. I would never START a fight, but if you picked on my enough or tried to gang up on me with your friends, I would beat you into a bloody pulp. When I was ten, I gave an 18 year old kid down the street 17 stitches across his skull for jumping me (with his friends) in the pitch black dark on my way home one night.

    Fortunately, once I was out of that situation (the step-dad), I spent what was left of my childhood living with my grandfather who was a peacemaker. He was a pacifist of sorts who served his country and was a stand-up guy that nobody in the world had a bad thing to say about. I didn't even start playing videogames until long after he started taking care of me. And you know what? With good "parenting", all the videogames in the world won't change you. Nor the books nor the movies or music. But with bad parenting, your children will be prone to act out and be violent and physical and let things affect them in a much harsher way.

    Videogames don't make you impatient. Videogames don't make it hard for you to understand, deal with or cope with people. Videogames don't make you react to bad situations with physical solutions. Poor upbringings and role models do. I'm proud to be an adult who, though I could stand up for myself in any fight with any person(s) at any time anywhere, has not been in a fight in over a decade (and not at all in my adult life). I play a sick amount of videogames and watch terrible movies and read horrible books - but I still somehow know that it's not that difficult to diffuse situations or take a supposed momentary hit in pride to avoid having to hurt someone (I never liked hurting people when I got in fights anyway and I felt sick to my stomach afterward - but it was a matter of beat the shit out of them or get the shit beat out of me when I got home and my step-dad found out that I didn't beat the shit out of the person who did me wrong).

    I'm so fucking tired of hearing everything blamed but the parents. If you live in the ghetto and are raised by parents who are seldom there, are violent and loud amongst each other, aren't loving or close and treat you more like a posession or obligation than a family member and don't know how to reason things out without fists and arguments - chances are you will be that way too. Chances are videogames will instigate that violent impulse you already have - but just about anything else that gets your blood pressure up and riles you will cause you to return the same response - not just video games.
  • Well, being able to gloat in the context is PRECISELY why I play video games that feature COMPETITION. "I'm better than you aren't lolol", is all.
    Betcha a gamer that only likes Tetris clones and Brainfood would be the most nonviolent ones compared to MMO and Duke-like Griefers, Gankers, Looters, PK's, LPB's and Snakers (of which I am a proud member!)

    I fail to see the relevance of this experiment. Football (soccer if you either hate or worship your president) fans are renowned the world over for being fair p

  • But is it really violence? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MachDelta ( 704883 ) on Thursday December 08, 2005 @06:43PM (#14214580)
    What I find interesting between the two studies mentioned is that, apparently, gamers are liable to send more frequent blasts but with decreased intensity. To me this signals increased competitiveness rather than violence or hostility. Taunting is frequently seen in sports or activites that involve players squaring off against one another, but this doesn't nessecarilly mean those players are more violent.

    Personally, as a gamer, I can see myself possibly barbing my opponents with more frequency than others might. I can definitly see the reduced intensity though, as the best barbs are subtle and infuriating, rather than overstated and forceful. I think this is because frustrating or irritating your opponent to the point where they quit is self-defeating (within the context of a game). Prodding them just enough to encourage more attacks or perhaps more reckless attacks, however, is to invite more opportunities to win, and thus, more fun.


    So perhaps the only thing these studies are proving is that gamers enjoy playing more games... ?
    Just a thought.

  • testosterone? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ColonBlow ( 120356 )
    These were competitive games, which raise the blood pressure and natural desires of humans to dominate. What if they were single player games, without human competitors? I'm curious if that would have any difference on their actions.

  • noise blast != violence (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hlee ( 518174 )
    I'm not a psychologist, but there seems to be a huge distinction between air horning and stabbing someone.

    People who enjoy delivering sound blasts in this experiment could at best be diagnosed as antisocial. This can't be compared to psychopaths whose affinity to violence have long since plagued humanity prior to the existence of videogames.
    • Just FYI, the Diagnoistic and Satistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV's classification of Antisocial Personality Disorder was classified as "psychopath" and "sociopath" in earlier versions. The latter two terms are no longer recognized by the DSM (and the American Psychological Association).

      That said, I personally wouldn't even classify the people that gave louder blasts as antisocial, as such people have a remarkable lack of empathy for others across all situations. I don't think one should expect too m

  • A Valid Study with Improper Conclusions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by robbway ( 200983 ) on Thursday December 08, 2005 @07:07PM (#14214755) Journal
    The article concludes two things about gamers: They react less to graphic images and are more likely to send a loud sound to the loser.

    Being "used to" and less affected by violent imagery is not an increase in violent tendencies. That's an improper conclusion. Someone who doesn't react as much to graphic imagery is the type of guy/gal you want by your side when something horrible happens. These are the people who will retain their cool and be able to minimize damage and save lives. These are the people that make great emergency response professionals like police, fire department, and ambulance workers.

    Making your opponents suffer from a loud sound after losing a round of whatever is not a violent act. It's an act of ego and competitiveness. Let's face it, if a game has no penalties for losing, the game is BORING! Verbal taunts, visual sneers, cat calls, and even those horn-blasters you hate at football games are meant to "up the ante," make winning worth something, and make losing just a tad more humiliating. With these things in play and taken to heart, the game being played will have more of a "rush" and the competition will be just plain better.

    The problem with the referenced study in the referenced article is that you can't go beyond the initial two conconclusions without taking more studies based on the assumptions that are made from the conclusions of the original study. Both of my explainations also assume a lot and would need more study to prove.

  • Please *rolling eyes* (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Thursday December 08, 2005 @07:07PM (#14214757)
    Guys have been loud and obnoxious to opponents over sporting events for decades. It doesn't have anything to do with games and everything to do with society. We like to stroke our egos when we do well. It's PEOPLE that are retarded, not games.
    • The other day in my son's karate class, they played a balance game. The last four kids (out of 15 or so, it was a busy day) standing on one leg in a certain posture got to choose a number of pushups for the other kids in the class to do.

      When it came time to dole out the pushups, the teacher asked each winner for a number from one to three. Every one of the winners chose to make the other kids do three pushups. Nobody said "one" to make friends, nobody chose the middle route with "two." All the kids went f

  • When people says things like this... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Thursday December 08, 2005 @09:12PM (#14215605) Journal
    it makes me so mad that I want throw down my controller and punch them in the face!
  • That's not a study.

    That's a young assistant professor creatively rehashing something like a "Clockwork Orange" point of view and putting on a straight face for the media while feeding his view to the masses as a "discovery".

    By "associating" a relative concept about human behavior that can be applied to any situation with a popular interest such as gaming he conjured "news", discovered a capacity for showmanship and a vehicle to further his academic career + prestige.

    Here's a fine exmaple of how lame the "st

  • For a new fad to come up and blow away all this "controversy" surrounding videogames. It's always the same.. "TRAVELING ON THE TRAIN WILL MAKE YOU MAD, THE SPEED WILL MESS UP YOUR BRAIN FOR GOOD!!" or "MICROWAVE OVENS CAUSE BRAIN TUMOUR!!" with every single new thing that comes up. I'm not even defending idiotic video game violence, I'd be more than happy to play the game Valve suggested.. (building stuff with people sounds interesting although not new. Ludocraft [ludocraft.oulu.fi] of Oulu, Finland (of Airbuccaneers-fame) cre

  • Winners were allowed to send an unpleasant, loud blast to their defeated opponents.

    Usually Halo night with my friends would involve some sort of chemical warfare among us in the form of victory farts.

    But then it could have been the Taco Bell / Burger King / Pizza Hut / etc that we ate between rounds too.. :P
  • Why hasn't there been a study comparing people that play videogames vs. people that play football, baseball, or basketball? You know, the sports where people actually DO go out of thier way to hurt eachother. I seem to remember that the violent people in my high school weren't the geeks and gamers, they were usually the baseball players. The football players seemed to have a better handle on thier aggression, possibly because of a form of release?
    • you bring up a very important point, which is that certain people are gamers, athletes, etc. by nature and this in turn makes up their personality (and their desire to blast loud noises at opponents).

      Saying that gaming "causes" aggressive or competitive behavior is like saying "committing a violent crime causes you to be a violent person later in life." Any study like this is inherently flawed because it is not comparing the same person before and after they become a "gamer", it is just comparing people tha
  • what about:

    football/soccer/hockey hooligans that berate the other team for no apparent reason ("my arbitrary geogsocial location is better than your arbitrary geosocial location! Shelbyville sucks, Springfield rules!"), and run around town smashing stuff when their team does OR doesn't win. I'll take some ribbing from MrFr4gs4Lot any day over ridiculous macho redneck physical sports fans.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close