Videogames Really Are Linked to Violence

ahoehn writes "Amanda Schaffer has written a refreshingly balanced piece about the connection between video games and violence. Instead of regurgitating the typical reactionary voices in this debate, she looks at what scientific studies suggest about the issue. From the article: 'Pathological acts of course have multiple, complex causes and are terribly hard to predict. And clearly, millions of people play Counter-Strike, Halo, and Doom and never commit crimes. But the subtler question is whether exposure to video-game violence is one risk factor for increased aggression: Is it associated with shifts in attitudes or responses that may predispose kids to act out? A large body of evidence suggests that this may be so ... Given this, it makes sense to be specific about which games may be linked to harmful effects and which to neutral or good ones. Better research is also needed to understand whether some kids are more vulnerable to video-game violence, and how exposure interacts with other risk factors for aggression like poverty, psychological disorders, and a history of abuse.'"

Bullskeet.

[supasam]

I like how the blurb says absolutely nothing new about the topic.

Irrelevent

[wframe9109]

We've known from past studies that gaming is one of many, many factors influencing aggressive behavior. The extremely limited extent of this effect, and the fact that it's far more subdued in the vast majority of the population makes it a non-issue.

A decent ratings policy, combined with enforcement for some of the more mature games w/ younger children should suffice...

Anyhow, today I did two things apart from study: play counter-strike, and play tennis. I have to say, I was *far* more ready for a throwdown after playing in 15-30mph wind for a few minutes. Stressors happen. So do idiots who blame them for everything.

Agression vs. Violence

[mandelbr0t]

The study in TFA basically compares the way players of Myst and Wolf 3-D treat each other. Amazing! In a game that deliberately increases adrenaline through various means (play Wolf 3D if you haven't, you'll jump out of your skin in some places even though the graphics are really low-tech), players show aggressive behaviour toward one another. I bet we'd see this effect in other competitions that are heavy on the adrenaline, such as football or hockey.

Myst, on the other hand, does not involve anything of the sort, focusing instead on intellectual puzzles. There's no real time pressure except for the other players. An RL analogue I suppose would be Chess. Not surprisingly, highly intellectual activities where the players are not directly competing with each other leads to a more patient sort of competitive behaviour. Less adrenaline means more reasonable discourse.

The question, of course, is whether activities that cause high adrenaline actually do cause violence. I'd say yes, though in many cases the violence is contained to a particular activity, say sacking the quarterback. I'd say I'm a violent, aggressive person. However, I'd also add that I try to keep those tendencies away from places where it's not appropriate. I love a good adrenaline rush, and I'd rather not take cocaine or meth to get one. Just because WoW and football bring out my overly dominant tendancies doesn't mean that WoW and football are bad, nor WoW players and football players.

For some real news, try finding a causal link between people who have high-adrenaline outlets (don't forget competitive sports!) and violent criminals (as determined by conviction rate). I doubt that we'll find anything significant there.

Presenting these studies: Smarmy McJunkscience

[ductonius]

Two of the studies use kids - who the entire video game industry agrees shouldn't play violent games, and to that extent has developed a rating system to help *parents* control this.

The third study simply says that the college undergrads were more aggressive after engaging in a mentally stimulating activity. People tend to be more aggressive right after watching sports too. We've known this for years.

So, what we have here is two studies that have very low validity because they have nothing to do with reality and one that's deliberately designed to come to the conclusion 'video-games make people aggressive'.

Can we have some real science now, please?

The burden of proof is against the author's side

[earthbound kid]

Given that violent crime dropped dramatically from the mid-90s on (during the same time period in which the first generation to grow up with violent videogames came of age) the burden of proof for this lies on the side that proposes a link between videogames and violence. Unless there is really clear proof that violent crime would be even lower than it already is, I don't see much of a positive correlation between the two in the real world.

Books?

[Toonol]

I haven't seen any studies that indicate one way or another whether violent books contribute to violent behavior. Why is nobody concerned about this?

That's rhetorical... the answer is that video games are new and scary to a large group of relatively influential people. In a few decades, nobody will worry about this issue at all.

And, as another poster mentioned, how about the catastrophic number of injuries and deaths throughout the nation caused by sports? Why aren't people enacting panicked legislation banning sports? It's because they are familiar with sports, they played sports when they were young.

All we have to do is fight a delaying action... stop as many inane laws as possible for another 10-20 years. After that, nobody will care.

This is a great topic for discussion.

[The Living Fractal]

I really like this topic. So I am wondering if I should use my 4 remaining mod points or post something here... Any thoughts?

Ahh.. damn.

But seriously. We've known there's a link to pretending to do something and actually ending up doing it. Look at the prisoner vs. guard studies in that college of which the name I forget... Basic idea: normal people pretended to be prisoners and other normal people pretended to be guards. After a while, the people who were pretending to be prisoners actually FELT like prisoners (even though they could leave whenever they wanted in reality) and the Guards.. oh man the guards... they started getting violent and abusive. We're talking college students.. I mean, they're the epitome of maturity, I don't understand how this could've happened :)

Ok so that wasn't entirely serious. Let me try again. People who like violence will play violent video games. This does not mean the game turned them violent. It was already in them. It's human nature. Really.

TLF
TLF

Re:some people are just wired wrong

[wellingj]

I wanted to Parent as insightful but I'd like him to consider the fact that it is a very similar
aggression that allows people to see an injustice and actually do something about it rather than
sit on the sidelines. Also if it wasn't for this kind of aggression do you think we'd of had a civil
rights movement? Some times the only way to make things 'right' is by aggression. I'm not saying that
every one should as aggressive as they are in a video game. I'm just saying that you can't totally
decry this part of our humanity(or is that instinct?) because it is very vital to your own personal
continued existence when it comes to actual injustice. The problem as I see it is that no one taught these
kind of people what to expect from life. And there is the rub, because not many video games teach you how
to loose graciously, where life sometimes demands it.

Studies are a primary cause of conflict

[ShakaUVM]

The only thing that I've learned from the debate is that studies are a primary cause of conflict.

Scientific debates always seem to end with a bunch of guys in nice outfits yelling at each other until their faces turn red.

Clearly, we need to ban science.

We should be careful here...

[toddt]

I think we should probably be careful about hanging our hats on the argument that video games are completely innocuous, because I think there's going to be a mounting accumulation of evidence linking games to violent behavior.

Here's what we know from a neuropsych framework:
1) Impulsivity and aggression are linked to activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) (the "fight or flight" part, if you remember your basic psych). The more the sympathetic system is activated, the more likely we are to make rash, impulsive decisions. The racing-heart/sweaty/stressed feeling you get when you lose your temper? That's the sympathetic nervous system talking, hopping you up on adrenaline. (And noradrenaline, et cetera) Think of how much more likely people are to make stupid, impulsive decisions when they've lost their temper than when they're thinking "rationally". (e.g., road rage or bar fights)
2) Video games, exciting movies, gambling, and the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers (if you're five) all activate the SNS. We know this from measuring galvanic skin response, looking at pupillary reflexes, or simply measuring the level of cortisol in the bloodstream.
3) It could be inferred, then, that video games are likely to increase your arousal which will then make you more likely to cut that guy off when you're driving home from the LAN match or escalate the trash talk into something physical. AS COULD ANYTHING ELSE EXCITING. We've seen this, somewhat less conclusively, from behavioral observations. Five-year olds are more likely to karate-chop the dog after some Power Ranger action. People are more likely to drive recklessly after playing a lot of Gran Turismo or watching Oceans Twelve.

In short, video games *do* change the brain... and that's why we like them. We crave excitement and novelty. We like being surprised; we like scary movies; we like jumping out of planes; we like gibbing people in Quake. We *like* jacking up our SNS.

I think we, as gamers, are setting a trap for ourselves when we say that video games have no impact on our cognition. Of course it does. Everything does. Claiming there's no mental impact of gaming is a foolish position, and when you lose this argument, it makes it that much harder to win the subsequent arguments. A more interesting question is whether games go behind the simple modulation of arousal levels. Are games fundamentally different than sky-diving, for example? I don't think so, but honestly, the jury is out. I can see the other side, too. We tend to play games for nine straight hours, when it's a rare person who sky-dives that much. When we're gaming, we actually envision ourselves in the role of Kratos, God of War, while we don't usually have that involvement with action movies. Maybe games *are* different.

Of course, the *real* question is how much this matters. Even if there were a well-controlled, randomized study showing that the amount of game time played directly correlated with the likelihood of a violent crime, is that enough cause to ban games? I think not, but, then again, I prefer not living in a nanny-state.

Anyway, just some thoughts... (and yes, I am a neuroscientist. And a gamer.)

Re:In other news, my butt is linked to my nose

[warewolfe]

I hate replying to ACs, but...

There is another and more logical reason for the army to have it's soldiers practice shooting at targets and that is to become better at hitting their targets. I'm guessing that is why it is called "target practice" and not "desensitisation drill".

Frankly the idea that violent people like violent things makes a lot more sense than being brain washed by computer games.

Here is my "Asinine comparison". Opening umbrellas causes rain as there is a strong correlation between rain and the people opening their umbrellas. Well, maybe I can not prove it "causes" rain but I think I can get away with saying that it is a contributing factor.

Re:Presenting these studies: Smarmy McJunkscience

[servognome]

The football players I knew were (and to my knowledge, have been as long as the damn sport has been around!) always the most obnoxious, arrogant, and physically abusive people around.

Other than the physical part, I've found there are always people who are arrogant, obnoxious, and abusive when they are in an element they feel they control. Try playing as a noob on WoW, and you'll enjoy a few people who "have 4 level 60 chars" and spew out obscenities and verbal abuse.

Re:Bullskeet.

[SphericalCrusher]

Yeah, that tends to really get on my nerves. The title seems like it's stating a fact, although the article is based on opinions and "Scientific research." I would appreciate it if they would not make their titles jump to conclusions in order to pull reader's attentions. But I guess that's business, right?

Re:In other news, my butt is linked to my nose

[Zero_DgZ]

"Why else do you think the military makes people practice shooting targets over and over again?"

Uh. Because a large part of what the military does involves making you shoot at things? Notice that as part of your training the military does not make you play a bunch of Unreal Tournament. If you were becoming a truck driver they'd make you drive a lot of trucks. If you were becoming a pilot they'd make you fly a lot of planes, &c.

Re:Hmmm.. maybe...

[LWATCDR]

Here is the problem. Just as some people see violent video games as an easy scapegoat other refuse to consider the possibility that they do contribute to violence.
I have played video games for 30 odd years. I am now what I consider a casual gamer but in the past I was pretty hard core for the time.
A video game will not make a good Quaker in to a mass murder. However they do influence you mood. I can remember going to Malibu Grand prix and driving a few laps. I soon learned that I need to wait a little while to drive home because I was wired that my driving tended to be a little aggressive.
Like alcohol violent and intense video games probably can cause problems for people with a certain predispositions and or a lack of life experience.
Should parents worry if teens and pre-teens are playing to many violent video games? Probably, but I would worry if they where reading too many handgun magazines and or apocalyptic literature as well. It could very well be that playing a lot of violent video games is a possible symptom and not cause. Or it could be a contributing factor.

BTW the reason that violent crime was so low around late nineties was because of an economic boom.

More personal experience...

[SanityInAnarchy]

First, I want to establish something: I am not in favor of censorship in this area, ever. In fact, I'm not in favor of pretty much any kind of censorship, even kiddie pr0n -- go after the psycho who made it, not the pervert with a stack of DVDs.

No matter what the effect of a piece of information, it is the effect that should be policed, not the information. In other words, if violent video games cause people to be violent, then police those people, not the violent games themselves. A game can't make you violent unless you let it.

With that out of the way...

Videogames have not made me more violent, measured in acts of violence. I'm actually not that aggressive. But violent games, anime, and movies probably have given me more of a capacity for violence.

For example: I am completely desensitized to the games I play: Counter-Strike: Source, Quake 3, etc. CS:S, for example: I can shoot a fairly realistic-looking human in the face, watch them crumple to the ground, blood splattered on the wall behind them, and feel nothing at all. I can do this all day -- in general, games, especially multiplayer ones, do not give me any kind of adrenaline rush.

I've also been to the arcade, so in a basic sense (Time Crisis 2, House of the Dead), I know how to pick up a gun, aim, and fire.

I do occasionally listen to the news, and oddly, I felt worse for certain characters who die in certain movies (Serenity, spoiler alert, etc) than I did when I heard about the Virginia shooting. I'm talking purely on a feeling level here -- the movie almost brought me to tears, but the news simply made me go "meh" or "wtf". Intellectually, I understand that one is real and the other isn't, but I think I would have to know the kids who died to be able to mourn for them.

Still, I can't say that it's fundamentally changed me. If I was the kind of person who would solve problems by punching someone, well, I now know how to point and shoot, and clean up after. But I'm not that kind of person -- sure, it does occur to me that it might be easier if I could just spray an Uzi across the room, but I choose not to.

So it comes back to, guns don't kill, people do. The videogames and guns may have enabled that student, but they weren't the root cause. Certainly, we could react by tightening gun laws, or tightening security at schools, but we should also be trying to create a world where, given the choice, people won't choose to kill each other. On an individual level, especially -- were that kid's parents there for him? Anyone in his dorm?

Stupidly idealistic, I know. But it's a start, I hope.

Like you know what your talking about....

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been reading this thread for less than 5 seconds and I know much more than the people who have been studying for 9 years. Trust me, I'm not the dumb one here.

I also believe I can fix all the terrorist and intelligence problems the U.S. has, plan a national attack, develop nuclear weapons, and fix your car, I have watched two episodes of "24" and I know Jack! ...Don't even bother replying... I watched MacGyver man, don't mess.

Re:maybe violent people like violent video games

[oliverthered]

and maybe violent video games let them vent their frustration in a virtual world instead of going out in the the real word and venting it.

Short Sighted Navel Gazing

[tbannist]

There is a big problem with this article and others like it. It is very difficult to get reasonable results out of them. There is no single causational trigger for violence. If there were, we'd see armies of 28 days style zombies everywhere.

The evidence pretty clearly indicates that all media has a weak influences on violent behaviour whether it be comics, novels, newspapers, music, movies, television, or video games, but real life has the largest impact. The violence we witness or participate in is more important than any other factor.

For young children, parents tend to play the pivotal role in their development. The parent's reaction to violence can be more important than all of the media that the child consumes. But a parent actually has to be there. They have to talk to their children. They have to make sure that their children are understanding the context of what they see and hear.

I think the "protect the children" crowd has it terribly, terribly wrong. They want to protect children from seeing the consequences of violence. That might be worse than teaching children self-confidence instead of knowledge, which everyone should know by now was disastrously bad. Children learn from what they see and hear, when violence is portrayed as having no consequences they learn that violence has no consequences.

Re:More personal experience...

[erik_fredricks]

I've also been to the arcade, so in a basic sense (Time Crisis 2, House of the Dead), I know how to pick up a gun, aim, and fire.

Not to call you out on this one, but I'd like to address the underlying mentality.

I carry a gun. I drill with guns frequently, and I teach others. I enjoy gunning down people in GTA, I love the visceral chainsaw in Gears of War, and the ragdoll physics in Crackdown are a total blast.

But the real thing is a different arena completely. Trust me, videogames don't teach you how to handle a gun. In fact, most gamers do very badly at the range, as they've got ingrained misconceptions that have to be unraveled. Light-guns, force-feedback and hi-res graphics don't prepare you for the real thing. I've had countless people fire a real gun, flinch, and remark something to the effect of, "I didn't expect that...it's not like games at all."

Real guns are much louder (~150db), recoil is more pronounced, people in real life don't just grunt, fall down and melt into the floor when shot or stabbed. I've seen (but not inflicted) both in real life, and trust me, it's completely different in reality. Real blood has a smell.

There is a level of detachment in vicarious media, no matter how "realistic" it may be, and no amount of "desensitization" will prepare someone to cross the line into real-world violence. Plenty of two-legged predators never play videogames. The factors contributing to real-world violence are completely different. You can play Bonestorm 3D 18 hours a day, but essentially, you're just interacting with pixellated content. There's still a "leap of faith" (I can't think of a better phrase) from that to inflicting violence on living things.

IIRC, Seung-Hui Cho wasn't a big gamer. Neither were Charles Whitman [wikipedia.org] or George Hennard [wikipedia.org]. Sure, videogame violence can look shocking and visceral, but I've yet to see credible evidence that it crosses over into physical violence.