Topic: Playing video games that include violence doesn't lead to violent behaviour, study shows
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE started this discussion 5 years ago #101,464
Video games do not lead to violence or aggression, according to a reanalysis of data gathered from more than 21,000 young people around the world.
The researchers, led by Aaron Drummond from New Zealand’s Massey University, re-examined 28 studies from previous years that looked at the link between aggressive behaviour and video gaming, a method known as a meta-analysis.
The new report, published in the journal Royal Society Open Science on Wednesday, found that, when bundled together, the studies showed a statistically significant but minuscule positive correlation between gaming and aggression, below the threshold required to count as even a “small effect”.
“Thus, current research is unable to support the hypothesis that violent video games have a meaningful long-term predictive impact on youth aggression,” the report said.
Between them, the various studies included in the research dated back to 2008, and had reported a range of effects, including a small positive correlation between violence and video-game use in around a quarter of them and no overall conclusion in most of the rest, with one 2011 study finding a negative correlation.
One common argument for a negative effect of gaming is that small harms can accumulate over time: if a player ends every game slightly more aggressive then, over the long term, that might add up to a meaningful change in temperament. But the study finds no evidence for such an accumulation, and in fact finds evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
Studies consistently find that the “long-term impacts of violent games on youth aggression are near zero”, they write.
“We call on both individual scholars as well as professional guilds such as the American Psychological Association to be more forthcoming about the extremely small observed relationship in longitudinal studies between violent games and youth aggression,” the authors conclude.
While that link may be slim, other studies have shown interesting effects on wider emotional behaviour. Research from the University of New South Wales in 2018, for instance, found that people who frequently played violent video games were less distracted by violent images in other contexts, a phenomenon the study author called “emotion-induced blindness”.
The researchers, led by Aaron Drummond from New Zealand’s Massey University, re-examined 28 studies from previous years that looked at the link between aggressive behaviour and video gaming, a method known as a meta-analysis.
The new report, published in the journal Royal Society Open Science on Wednesday, found that, when bundled together, the studies showed a statistically significant but minuscule positive correlation between gaming and aggression, below the threshold required to count as even a “small effect”.
“Thus, current research is unable to support the hypothesis that violent video games have a meaningful long-term predictive impact on youth aggression,” the report said.
Between them, the various studies included in the research dated back to 2008, and had reported a range of effects, including a small positive correlation between violence and video-game use in around a quarter of them and no overall conclusion in most of the rest, with one 2011 study finding a negative correlation.
One common argument for a negative effect of gaming is that small harms can accumulate over time: if a player ends every game slightly more aggressive then, over the long term, that might add up to a meaningful change in temperament. But the study finds no evidence for such an accumulation, and in fact finds evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
Studies consistently find that the “long-term impacts of violent games on youth aggression are near zero”, they write.
“We call on both individual scholars as well as professional guilds such as the American Psychological Association to be more forthcoming about the extremely small observed relationship in longitudinal studies between violent games and youth aggression,” the authors conclude.
While that link may be slim, other studies have shown interesting effects on wider emotional behaviour. Research from the University of New South Wales in 2018, for instance, found that people who frequently played violent video games were less distracted by violent images in other contexts, a phenomenon the study author called “emotion-induced blindness”.
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/jul/22/playing-video-games-doesnt-lead-to-violent-behaviour-study-shows
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE (OP) double-posted this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #1,145,750
Quite happy to have read this. It's been a bit of a longstanding thing in psychological research, to look for a link between video games and violence.
Of course, I'm sure that the usual moral guardians and gun apologists will continue to try and use games as a convenient scapegoat, but it's nice to see a big study like this that goes against them.
Of course, I'm sure that the usual moral guardians and gun apologists will continue to try and use games as a convenient scapegoat, but it's nice to see a big study like this that goes against them.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,751
But a few people that say nigger and say that blacks are substandard is a reason for a radical upheaval of life as we know it.Ok.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Coil E. Leafeon !QnI1ArmPmY joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 32 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,759
It's kind of funny when new outlets report that a mass shooter played video games and it turns out that in reality what they played was Candy Crush or something.
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,760
Video games have the opposite effect to be honest. It's an outlet for anger/aggression. If you hate being around people just take out your anger by running over some people in GTA or pimping some hos in Saints Row. It's not something I would do IRL.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,764
Does watching “Joker” make you want to shoot late night talk show hosts?
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,767
Your earnest enthusiasm at this being debunked warms my frozen gamedev heart.
I also think it's an interesting kind of disconnect, since the thing warming my dead fucking heart is believing that it'll finally kill the argument for good, since I'd like to posit that the question isn't actually "do video games cause violence". (The answer is no, obviously.)
But, I don't even think that people saying "video games cause violence" believe this. Like, there are effects any fictionalized scenario has on our perception of topics that they present, but that's just as true of movies and books, like... video games aren't unique in that. You may never shoot a gun in your life, but you will have an idea in your head of what it's like if you've seen it in a movie or done so in a game, and that's as far as it goes. That can be pretty far in the right hands, don't get me wrong, but you get my point.
So if it's not true, then the function is a lot like most propaganda - it's not what's said, it's the act of saying it.
It doesn't convince people - or at least, it shouldn't, I sincerely hope it doesn't - but it gathers and retains people who understand the intent behind the act of saying it. You could debunk this one million, two million, three million times, and I still think the people out here saying it now would say it still, after that 3,000,000th debunk just because, it's not a real belief. That seems like kind of a big claim but it's how a lot of these things work, and you kind of have to ask yourself, what is the intent of saying "video games cause violence"? Well, it's usually to get people to stop talking about gun control and either refocus them on scapegoating video games or spend time debunking the already deeply false claim.
It's like when flat Earthers get proven wrong. It was never true to begin with, it just wraps itself in claims to be debunked to ignore the political and social implications of its claims. (Since flat Earther rhetoric is almost entirely predicated on an anti-Semitic conspiracy.)
I don't think "video games cause violence" has the same deep roots in anti-Semitism that flat Earthers do, but it definitely does tie back to other sources of political violence, like. You could disprove school shooters having mental illness a million times because it doesn't challenge the core belief of the people pushing that rhetoric, which is that white people should just be able to do shit like that without consequences.
This is a long and uncomfortably sincere post for Minichan dot fucking org but it's been on my mind. So... deal, I guess.
@previous (E)
Joker is a bad example, because it's constructed specifically in a way where the arguments in its meaning and intent cannot be peacefully resolved. A lot of "political" movies wind up being rorschach tests, where audiences will see what they want to see, but Joker is that deliberately. Like, Joker wants you to talk about it, and you are talking about it.
I also think it's an interesting kind of disconnect, since the thing warming my dead fucking heart is believing that it'll finally kill the argument for good, since I'd like to posit that the question isn't actually "do video games cause violence". (The answer is no, obviously.)
But, I don't even think that people saying "video games cause violence" believe this. Like, there are effects any fictionalized scenario has on our perception of topics that they present, but that's just as true of movies and books, like... video games aren't unique in that. You may never shoot a gun in your life, but you will have an idea in your head of what it's like if you've seen it in a movie or done so in a game, and that's as far as it goes. That can be pretty far in the right hands, don't get me wrong, but you get my point.
So if it's not true, then the function is a lot like most propaganda - it's not what's said, it's the act of saying it.
It doesn't convince people - or at least, it shouldn't, I sincerely hope it doesn't - but it gathers and retains people who understand the intent behind the act of saying it. You could debunk this one million, two million, three million times, and I still think the people out here saying it now would say it still, after that 3,000,000th debunk just because, it's not a real belief. That seems like kind of a big claim but it's how a lot of these things work, and you kind of have to ask yourself, what is the intent of saying "video games cause violence"? Well, it's usually to get people to stop talking about gun control and either refocus them on scapegoating video games or spend time debunking the already deeply false claim.
It's like when flat Earthers get proven wrong. It was never true to begin with, it just wraps itself in claims to be debunked to ignore the political and social implications of its claims. (Since flat Earther rhetoric is almost entirely predicated on an anti-Semitic conspiracy.)
I don't think "video games cause violence" has the same deep roots in anti-Semitism that flat Earthers do, but it definitely does tie back to other sources of political violence, like. You could disprove school shooters having mental illness a million times because it doesn't challenge the core belief of the people pushing that rhetoric, which is that white people should just be able to do shit like that without consequences.
This is a long and uncomfortably sincere post for Minichan dot fucking org but it's been on my mind. So... deal, I guess.
@previous (E)
Joker is a bad example, because it's constructed specifically in a way where the arguments in its meaning and intent cannot be peacefully resolved. A lot of "political" movies wind up being rorschach tests, where audiences will see what they want to see, but Joker is that deliberately. Like, Joker wants you to talk about it, and you are talking about it.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,769
@1,145,764 (E)
> Does watching “Joker” make you want to shoot late night talk show hosts?
Don't know but watching Kimmel does.
> Does watching “Joker” make you want to shoot late night talk show hosts?
Don't know but watching Kimmel does.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,771
I have played many shitty video games that make me want to strangle the developers so this study is not wctually correct.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,778
When I was studying psychology we had to write a research paper on this subject. We had to argue both sides, and the lecturer was biased towards the point of view that violence in TV, movies & video games does lead to violent behaviour. I was not, and I'm very glad to see that current mainstream research is now coming to this same conclusion that it doesn't.
The only semi-decent argument I could come up with against violent video games was in the case of child killers, e.g. Robert Thompson & Jon Venables. Their motive for killing James Bulger is still unclear, and one idea was that they had been exposed to on-screen violence from a young age. However that turned out to be nonsense. Thompson's home life was terrible and he, his mother and siblings suffered severe physical abuse from his father, who eventually abandoned them. His mother was also an alcoholic. Jon Venables is a more complex case - unlike his friend he did not endure the same kind of abuse, and his family was better off financially. However Venables went on to reoffend after he was released (and in fact was arrested for possession of child porn a couple of years ago) so it seems with him it was largely nature rather than nurture.
The only semi-decent argument I could come up with against violent video games was in the case of child killers, e.g. Robert Thompson & Jon Venables. Their motive for killing James Bulger is still unclear, and one idea was that they had been exposed to on-screen violence from a young age. However that turned out to be nonsense. Thompson's home life was terrible and he, his mother and siblings suffered severe physical abuse from his father, who eventually abandoned them. His mother was also an alcoholic. Jon Venables is a more complex case - unlike his friend he did not endure the same kind of abuse, and his family was better off financially. However Venables went on to reoffend after he was released (and in fact was arrested for possession of child porn a couple of years ago) so it seems with him it was largely nature rather than nurture.
Anonymous G replied with this 5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,779
@previous (I)
Yeah, I remember at the time the usual suspects (The Sun, The Daily Mail...) tried blaming Chucky 3 for the Bulger murder, which was complete bullshit.
Yeah, I remember at the time the usual suspects (The Sun, The Daily Mail...) tried blaming Chucky 3 for the Bulger murder, which was complete bullshit.
Anonymous B replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,784
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,787
Does this mean that no forms of media can shape your ideas and action or are video games just exempt?
Erik !jzYkdX7lIw joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 11 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,788
That's a relief. I can stop plotting to kill my neighbor now
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,805
We've seen correlations for decades that entertainment that keeps you home in general means less crime. Because people are at home and out killing or getting killed, presumably. It's very stupid to see people like the gun maker lobby use the idea of violent video games as a scapegoat because that idea is traditionally a limp-wristed academic, apparently liberal, point of view. Kind of like the idea that boys like action toys while girls like dolls only because we socialize them that way, it's kind of hooey.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,806
@1,145,787 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Does this mean that no forms of media can shape your ideas and action or are video games just exempt?
They were considering the narrow aspect of being violent due to violent entertainment. I imagine attitudes, tastes, and actual actions are not all equally subject to influence in the general population. For instance, I'm not going to watch shit-eating videos and decided that I could get into that. Indeed, the idea is already disgusting to me on a hard-wired level and I don't even want to see that in the first place.
> Does this mean that no forms of media can shape your ideas and action or are video games just exempt?
They were considering the narrow aspect of being violent due to violent entertainment. I imagine attitudes, tastes, and actual actions are not all equally subject to influence in the general population. For instance, I'm not going to watch shit-eating videos and decided that I could get into that. Indeed, the idea is already disgusting to me on a hard-wired level and I don't even want to see that in the first place.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,811
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,145,947
@1,145,778 (I)
Yeah, I think this is accurate. Anyone who becomes a murder or a spree killer and such has much more fundamental issues than just having seen a violent movie or played a violent game. If you look into any cases where dubious media outlets have tried to blame games, you'll see that the attacker had bigger and longer-standing issues.
@1,145,787 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You're being too general. Of course, all media including video games can influence people and expose them to different ideas, but I don't think that playing a violent video game could make a well-adjusted person more likely to be violent. It takes much more for someone to actually commit violence IRL than it does to slightly change their ideas, IMO.
@1,145,767 (F)
You're probably right in saying that this won't stop the people trying to push this narrative, but it will hopefully weaken their clout in getting their ideas passed into any kind of law.
It also comforts me to remember that the video games industry is very rich, so it can hire lawyers and lobbyists to defend itself if need be.
Yeah, I think this is accurate. Anyone who becomes a murder or a spree killer and such has much more fundamental issues than just having seen a violent movie or played a violent game. If you look into any cases where dubious media outlets have tried to blame games, you'll see that the attacker had bigger and longer-standing issues.
@1,145,787 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You're being too general. Of course, all media including video games can influence people and expose them to different ideas, but I don't think that playing a violent video game could make a well-adjusted person more likely to be violent. It takes much more for someone to actually commit violence IRL than it does to slightly change their ideas, IMO.
@1,145,767 (F)
You're probably right in saying that this won't stop the people trying to push this narrative, but it will hopefully weaken their clout in getting their ideas passed into any kind of law.
It also comforts me to remember that the video games industry is very rich, so it can hire lawyers and lobbyists to defend itself if need be.