Brain Changes When Viewing Violent Media

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."

How long does it last

[TheLostSamurai]

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.

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?

Efficient brain function...

[sweet 'n sour]

If the subject knows that the violence they are watching is fake then the brain wouldn't have to worry about filtering out violent behavior because it is not violent behavior. Perhaps the brain is just being efficient.

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.

Possible Explanation

[Tony Freakin Twist]

I would propose that perhaps the age-old argument for the presence of violent media - that it mitigates real violence by offering a release valve - would be the explanation here. I'm not a neuro-scientist (IANANS), but wouldn't less activity mean that that portion of the brain is not working as hard at blocking violent impulses, maybe because there are fewer of these impulses?

violence is catharsis

[circletimessquare]

the issue of unwanted expression of violence isn't that you can't suppress it, but that you have too much rage. it doesn't matter if your ability to decipher right and wrong is pristine when you are in a fit of madness: the gates of reason may be strong, but the flood can be worse

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

Link Broken

[pragma_x]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense [wikipedia.org]

FTFY.

Re:How long does it last

[MBCook]

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 weeks? 6 months? The first isn't that surprising, it's the others that are important. Does the effect last, and is it strong at that point?

Re:Efficient brain function...

[The Underwriter]

If the brain were "just being efficient", then porn wouldn't be the biggest thing on the internet. Your statement phrased ANOTHER way...

"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 a movie is not real."

Though knowing whether its real or not may intensify the response, people still "get-off" on soft porn, action flicks, sitcoms, soap operas, etc. The id can't distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Why doesn't it affect everyone?

[192939495969798999]

If this was the case, then why doesn't every boxing match break out into 50,000 individual boxing fights? Apparently it only affects people who would not only reenact something that on the surface is dangerous, but also explicitly says "DONT DO THIS" in effort to dissuade people from ... trying to do it.

Re:surprising

[ArcherB]

So passing a visual stimulus that is interpreted by the brain as violent affects the corresponding area of the brain...? Who would have guessed that...

Evidently, not many people who read /. Go back and read any of the summaries that deal with violent video games and look at all the people who say that video games have no effect on the minds of children. Take THIS [slashdot.org] one for example:

Firstly, the ratings are knee-jerk reactionary mostly meaningless bullshit. kids aren't as stupid as we make out, and know the difference between cartoon and computer game versus real life violence.

Or THIS [slashdot.org] one:

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=275887&cid=20322901

And finally, THIS [slashdot.org] one and it's response:

There are exactly zero, none, studies/experiments/research papers that have been able to support the theory that violent video games have an adverse affect on children.

I'm afraid it's not quite as obvious as you would think.

Go tell the Athenians

[Kupfernigk]

In the classical tragedies (Aeschylus, Euripides) all the violent action takes place off the stage. It was considered too upsetting to show it on stage. But most of the men in the audience would have been involved in at least one war. (it's well known that a philosopher like Sokrates could afford a hoplite panoply and had been in battles.)

I wonder if there is in fact a connection. The kind of short term warfare in the Classical period did not lend itself to desensitisation. The audience had probably seen arrows and spears sticking in people they knew. They knew what war was about, and they did not need or want a graphic representation in a tragedy.

If this bit of cod philosophising is right, then perhaps violent games do have a desensitising effect similar to that experienced by real soldiers in prolonged wars.

If so it is worrying, because desensitisation is part of the military process of overcoming the reluctance of citizens to be soldiers. (This is necessary to keep soldiers alive on the battlefield. My father had the job of landing boatloads of Canadians on the beaches on D-Day. When I asked what happened to them, he simply looked very miserable and said "They were too nice", and would not be drawn further.) Perhaps the US Government is covertly keen on the idea of producing a large pool of potential killers without the expense of all that military training. But the worry must be that after a period in which violence in society has in general been in decline, as the violent game generation grows up it may start to rise again. The corollary of which is that the research needs to be done, and the opposing sides need to do what comes so hard to bigots, which is shut the fsck up and pay attention to the results of that research, wherever it leads.

Re:How long does it last

[geekoid]

actually it says that the part of the brain that suppress violent becomes used less.

This is different then 'make kids more violent'.

Re:It's true.

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

You may joke. I remember one time my wife asked me a question while I was playing Warcraft II years ago. It was a perfectly innocent question but I turned round and shouted at her horribly. It took me a few seconds to realise what had happened. I was on an adrenaline high. The game was fantasy, but the adrenaline was real. (And probably someone had just ogre rushed me...)

MOD PARENT UP - survival value

[CustomDesigned]

Good point. There is a big difference between Bugs Bunny violence and hyper realistic violence - whether movies or todays super 3D performance video games. There would also seem to be some survival value in the response. If there is a lot of violence going on around you, you need to be ready to respond in kind (or find a good hiding place).

Re:Maybe not games

[einhverfr]

There is a pretty convincing body of evidence which suggests that the "Werther" effect is in fact real. I.e. that reading about a sympathetic character who commits suicide makes one more likely to do the same. So yes, I would say that reading does invoke the same effect.

Here is an interesting link for you: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Conf/MemePap/Marsden.html [vub.ac.be]

Re:surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in other words, you wanted to bring up a bunch of arguments you couldn't win the first time even though they aren't really on topic.

Firstly, the ratings are knee-jerk reactionary mostly meaningless bullshit. kids aren't as stupid as we make out, and know the difference between cartoon and computer game versus real life violence.

Except the study does not touch on whether children can differentiate between reality and fantasy.

There are exactly zero, none, studies/experiments/research papers that have been able to support the theory that violent video games have an adverse affect on children.

And there still aren't. This study shows the brain reacts to violent imagery in specific ways. Going directly from there to 'adverse affect [sic] on children' is skipping quite a few steps.

Re:It's true.

[MrKaos]

I watched a documentary about the brain recently, and this trait was addressed specifically - and you can change it. The aggressive reaction was a trait left of from post puberty teenage brain development while the amygdala was learning coordination of the varying areas of the brain.

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 a reaction to any interruption.

Adrenaline may have been flowing but you should still be able to exert control, and thats a lot better than yelling at your wife dood.