Video games linked to aggression in boys

[ldi222]

Most studies done on violence and video games support the conclusion that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior in children and adolescents, especially boys, researchers said on Friday.

An analysis of 20 years of research shows the effects can be both immediate and long-lasting.Full story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050819/hl_nm/aggression_dc)

I dont know, maybe their studies have some merit but it still seems like the latest mainstream bandwagon is to paint gaming in a negative light.

Editor: Researchers say violent games, but the writer (obvious a non-gamer) says video games, as in all games; this is a terrible article.

One quick search for "Video Games" on the APA website (http://www.apa.org/) confirms it.

[Tia]

Actually there was also a long term research pulished that said the complete opposite. SadlY I cannot remember where I saw it. Point it... for every research that says A, you can find at least one that says B.

[Crono]

20 years of research huh? Must be collective unless you consider Pong, Tetris and the like as "violent video games"

[OSX]

I have this longstanding fantasy of some pseudo-intellectual conservative bringing these types of studies up in conversation and me throwing anything I holding at the moment into their face and screaming at them "STOP BEING SUCH A GODDAM PUSSY!"

I really hope it comes to that someday.

Because really, I dont know either way if these are for real and true or not, but what I do know is I'm tired of them and just wish people would stop this. They did the same things with comic books back in the day and I really hate living through another soccer-mom propaganda campaign.

[CapnAJ]

Boys, by nature, are aggresive.

Great research!!

[Commissar Rob]

I shall simply refer to my new t-shirt.

http://www.zestuff.com/product_image.php?imageid=111

'Nuff said.

[bKangy]

All those blocks slotting together and forming lines which then flash and vanish to score points must surely make boys aggressive!

On a serious note, what the fuck? As if pushing fucking Action Man, fake assault rifles and such for young boys didn't already actively ENCOURAGE aggressive behaviour already. Oooh no, it must be VIDEO GAMES.

[DevDict]

"People are stupid. They will believe anything that they want to be true or fear to be true." - Wizard's First Rule.

[H.M._Murdock]

After hearing how upset some kids get after owning them in Halo 2 you all see no possible link between violent behavior in children and violent games? Bad example.... some kids probably get just as mad and violent after losing at Yahtzee.

[Crono]

I remember when I was 11, playing Dominos, Scrabble and Parcheesi how mad I'd get when someone would beat me... luckily I was able to cool down with a few rounds of Mortal Kombat.

[Hieremias]

These articles make me so mad I want to leap across the room at the journalists, drop them with a few uppercuts, kick them in the crotch, then for a finishing move rip off their skulls with their bloody spines dangling beneath.

....

What?

[RMan]

Actually there was also a long term research pulished that said the complete opposite.
Yes, and we went decades before finding conclusive links between cigarette smoking and cancer. Since behavioral influences are substantially more difficult to prove, I’m sure it will be some time before we get good studies, and even longer before people on both sides of the argument to actually listen to them. In the absence of clear scientific evidence, I always fall back on common sense, as with smoking it’s pretty obvious that continuous smoke inhalation is more likely to be bad than good (even if this common sense was often ignored by smokers).

[Commissar Rob]

Yes, and we went decades before finding conclusive links between cigarette smoking and cancer. Since behavioral influences are substantially more difficult to prove, I’m sure it will be some time before we get good studies, and even longer before people on both sides of the argument to actually listen to them. In the absence of clear scientific evidence, I always fall back on common sense, as with smoking it’s pretty obvious that continuous smoke inhalation is more likely to be bad than good (even if this common sense was often ignored by smokers).

Dear Lord man! Are you making a logical, reasoned, rational plea for...dare I write the words...common sense?!?

Methinks you are...what are you DOING on the Internet? :eek:

[Wonka]

Hmmmmm.

The article is poor. Teachers said children were more hostile? Oooh there's something that I didn't expect to hear. How is this evidence of anything other than the prejudice of educators?

The science for this is weak. Its really very difficult to measure whether violent games make kids more hostile OR if violent kids just like to play violent games.

And who the hell is Jessica Nicoll?

And for that matter where in the hell is Saint Leo University?

[Goronmon]

Can someone please show me where in the article it actually mentions sources for this "information" the writer is describing?

I mean, all I got from it was "I think video games are a bad influence and some people agree with me."

Seriously, where is this information coming from that "proves" the link?

[gojira]

I play games and I'm not violent at all. When I find who is publishing this drivel, I'm going to shoot them with a rocket launcher!!!!11!!!111!eleven!!


;

[*Legion*]

I have this longstanding fantasy of some pseudo-intellectual conservative bringing these types of studies up in conversation"

Conservative? You think you're going to get anti-violence whining from where the NRA dwells? Wrong side of the spectrum bud.

[Beelzebud]

Sure. The video games cause all the aggresion.

But little league football is just a fun excerise in good manners.. :D

[Liquidize105]

Can someone please show me where in the article it actually mentions sources for this "information" the writer is describing?

I mean, all I got from it was "I think video games are a bad influence and some people agree with me."

Seriously, where is this information coming from that "proves" the link?
I'm assuming this is it (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp784772.pdf). I don't know why the author didn't link to it.

[The Iron Weasel]

I'm so tired of these comments i could cry, honestly people like fucking jack thompson can eat shit and die because hes fucking with my god damn life consuming hobby, as you all know gaming isn't as casual as people seem to think and you get invested in these games and its just GAHH!

[Wonka]

Yes, and we went decades before finding conclusive links between cigarette smoking and cancer. Since behavioral influences are substantially more difficult to prove, I’m sure it will be some time before we get good studies, and even longer before people on both sides of the argument to actually listen to them. In the absence of clear scientific evidence, I always fall back on common sense, as with smoking it’s pretty obvious that continuous smoke inhalation is more likely to be bad than good (even if this common sense was often ignored by smokers).

We did go decades before that was shown. But I think that most people would agree with me that this is not the same situation at all. The ability to distiguish between fantasy in a game or movie and reality seems to be something that almost all of us are inately very capable of. In contrast, we do not have any sort of natural defenses against smoke (other than not to breathe it).

This alternate idea that we are somehow easily victimized by what types of media we are exposed to just seems wrong to me. I don't know everybody, but nobody that I know is anywhere NEAR that sensitive to suggestion. The same was also true when I was 10. I can accept that certain individuals might have some mental illness that makes them susceptable to suggestion. But as a member of an entire generation that grew up playing these games I can assure you that we are not all homicidal maniacs. Instead, there has been an overall decrease in such behavoir. It's not like smoking where suddenly several decades later we are all going to start sprouting tumors. The assertion here is that the games would make people more violent RIGHT AWAY. And that simply hasn't happened.

[Darkbase]

In other news;
Episode Of Minor Depression Found To Increase The Risk For Developing Major Depression
Those who feel sad and lack an interest in regular life activities for at least two weeks and qualify for a diagnosis of minor depression are six times as likely to develop major depression compared to those who don't have these symptoms.
( /\ copied straight from the APA homepage)

Now I'm not saying video games can obviously cause young males to be violent, but...wait yes I am, and so does competitve sports, so lets ban our children from that.

[Namielus]

The reason we keep seeing these studies is because people get so upset about them, the difference between video games being linked to aggression verses football being linked to aggression is no one cares what the study says. Gamers just need to learn to dodge this simple trick.

If I got upset if someone argued with me over the color of mustard I'm only lending my credibility to the subject by responding to an inflammatory attack.

[RMan]

We did go decades before that was shown. But I think that most people would agree with me that this is not the same situation at all.
In terms of scientific study I think it's VERY close, as close an analogy as you're likely to get. I was not referring to the similarity of cigarette smoking to game playing, but the fact that the influences on the studies and the publication of them coupled with the difficulty of the study itself made the general public’s knowledge of the dangers of smoking take a very long time to establish (that’s on top of the smokers that didn’t want to hear it).
The ability to distiguish between fantasy in a game or movie and reality seems to be something that almost all of us are inately very capable of.
You are SOOO missing the point. I don’t think hardly anyone is “fooled” into thinking video game violence is no different than real life violence; the question is what INFLUENCE does it have.
...But as a member of an entire generation that grew up playing these games I can assure you that we are not all homicidal maniacs.
I really wish people would stop taking things to the extreme like this, this is about links to aggression, nowhere did I, or likely this study (didn't read the whole study) suggest that video games make people homicidal. IMO, people who jump to this level as an argument against the possibility of violent games promoting violent behavior are either not thinking about their argument, or are just plain fanatics.
Instead, there has been an overall decrease in such behavoir.
This is also reaching for a reason not to think about the possibility of a link. Life spans have consistently gone up in the last 100 years, even though negative health factors like smoking or car accidents have gone up. This is because they are only factors, and when you have thousands of other factors you can have a negative rise, and the total sum still go up, it’s pretty simple mathematics. Violent video games can get worse, and violent crime can continue to drop, this is not proof that violent videogames aren’t an influence.

I think it pretty funny that many people would argue that video games have no influence on behavior, then this statistic about violent crime decreasing makes them say “see, violent videogames have been a positive influence.” It goes from videogames being no influence to them being a positive one because of a stat that is derived from a huge number of other factors; basically, anything to avoid the possibility of them being a negative one.
The assertion here is that the games would make people more violent RIGHT AWAY. And that simply hasn't happened.
And how did you come to the conclusion that it hasn’t?

[RMan]

Now I'm not saying video games can obviously cause young males to be violent, but...wait yes I am, and so does competitve sports, so lets ban our children from that.
That's a good example, although for most competitive sports I'd say that the positives generally outweigh the negatives. You do get aggressive/competitive behavior, but you also get exercise, a focus on teamwork, and social interaction. However, like video games, you have to make judgments on the sport, for instance Basketball or Baseball (although I hate baseball) would be almost wholly positive for kids, but I wouldn’t want my kid involved in Ultimate Fighting or Backyard Wrestling, as they are almost wholly bad influences, even without a physical injury.

In case anyone’s wondering, I don’t think violent videogames are a REALLY bad influence on behavior, but they are a small influence, and that influence will get worse with some games as the experiences get more graphic and realistic. I think both extremes of the argument are silly (as extremists generally are) and often pull focus from reasonable discussion of the problem.

[Goronmon]

And how did you come to the conclusion that it hasn’t?
There has been no proof that it has and after playing GTA, I don't suddenly feel violent. If anything, it makes me feel lazy.

So, there you go. No evidence to support that it has and my experience to show that it hasn't.

[Rafer]

Now I'm not saying video games can obviously cause young males to be violent, but...wait yes I am, and so does competitve sports, so lets ban our children from that.

Like, I don't know why soccer is legal, there's overwhelming evidence that it causes people to become violent and riot. You ever hear about a riot breaking out at a Counter-Strike match?

[Racknahm]

Like, I don't know why soccer is legal, there's overwhelming evidence that it causes people to become violent and riot. You ever hear about a riot breaking out at a Counter-Strike match?
Yeah, it lasted a few seconds before everyone ran out of breath.

[RMan]

There has been no proof that it has and after playing GTA, I don't suddenly feel violent. If anything, it makes me feel lazy.

So, there you go. No evidence to support that it has and my experience to show that it hasn't.
Hehe, please don't be offended when I, or the rest of the world don't hold the self observations of miscellaneous internet gamefan as more conclusive than these other studies.

[Dracula-X]

I think this study is bull, and if you disagree I'm gonna punch you in the face.

:)

There was a nice article I read some time ago (I apologize, no links, but I believe it was from a doctor) which in short said that video games can help youngsters by providing an outlet for aggression. It was a good read, completely reasonable at the time...

If I can dig that up I'll post it.

[Paranoia]

I'm sure we can find more aggressive behaviour if we open up a book on world histories.

[Drinking_Buddy]

I really would love a world in which video games causeing aggression in boys was the worst that was happening to our kids

That way I could sleep better knowing that I dont live in a world with a broken foster home system and where babies dont get put on burning grills because they wont stop crying.

[Apex]

I shall simply refer to my new t-shirt.

http://www.zestuff.com/product_image.php?imageid=111

'Nuff said.

I want that T-shirt!!!

[DJACE]

Being a first time poster on this fine site, I feel kinda bad to be the bearer of bad news.

At my young age, I sadly count among these researchers, thus making me the least popular guy on the forum as of...now. However, I was not always this way. I grew up with video games, from my father and I playing Wolfenstien 3D on the family computer, to building my own machine to beat down my friends at Battlefield. So when I was told by my science teacher to choose a subject to do a scientific study on, what else would I think of then video games?

So, being an idiotic sophmore in high school, I thought, "Hey, how about I prove all those studies that say video games are bad."

(Right now, having given away my age at the time, everyone has discounted my opinion, but I ask you hear me out.)

Well, after choosing my subject, I had to read about it. So I went and hunted down all the studies I could find on video games and violence. That way, I could hopefully get in contact with an actual researcher in the field, who could oversee my own research.

The most prolific researcher is Dr. Craig Anderson (http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/index.html) of Iowa State. He is basically the number one guy to go to for information on the subject. Thus, he was the research I myself was in contact with until I decided to give up on my research.

Now that I've give you the background, here's the meat of my post. The studies are right. The researchers use various psychological tests to gauge the aggression of subjects, such as aggression surveys and a particularly fun system based on letting the subjects shock or barrage each other with loud sounds. This way, researchers get to see how people who have been playing a non-violent video game for 20 minutes, such as Tiger Woods PGA Tour, compare to people playing 20 minutes of agame like GoldenEye. You will note though, they never use any recent games. The still use the results they got from the NES Mario Brothers ("This playing jumped on the enemies more then they jumped over!")

Sadly, though some researchers belive in catharsis (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=catharsis) with video games, various research studies and meta-analysis studies (researchers too lazy to do their own research, so they write a paper (http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01AB.html) summarizing other papers), most of the studies show that yes, violent games cause aggression. Common sense should agree, since any player will admit that spending a few hours turning people into giblets, no matter how fake those people are, make the player's heart race, a sign of aggression. And those who don't admit it are liars, or cold blooded psychos. (An interesting note, one study showed that an hour of video games was, for the heart, like a mile walk workout. Not good for the rest of the body though.)

But notice the language I used. Did I say it caused violence? Noooo. I said aggression. Big difference there that the media does not point out. Video games do not make killers out of the players, just makes them a bit more edgy then they were 3 hours ago. Like competitive sports, family reunions, and high school, all the games do is make the player feel a bit more inclined towards anger. It doesn't cause school shootings or murders. Those are the results of hundreds of little things, from bad parenting and bullies to a hot day and lack of sleep, contributing towards a person's psyche to make them snap.

But, since the media gets ratings from fear, they don't point out the difference between violence and aggression. And since researchers get grants based on publicity (such as Dr. Anderson's speech to the senate (http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/00Senate.html)), they won't correct the media.

The research isn't wrong. It's just being twisted to suit the activists' needs.

[Citizen Philip]

So, did any of these studies have any critera that could ever result in a "does not make you aggresive"? By being, so emotionally detached from whatever you are doing to the point, that regardless if you are winning or losing any of your biometric reading would rate similar to working in a cubical/sitting on the subway?

I am winining, my heart races. Literal translation: I am killing people in a game. Conclusion: My heart is racing because I enjoy killing people. Games make me violent?

I am losing, I become more tense/frustrated. Literal translation: I am not killing people fast enough to be winning. Conclusion: The game is encouraging me to be more violent, so I can kill more. Games make me violent?

So a game encourages me to aggresively pursue victory, my biometric readings indicate I have gone into a more chemically/biologically aggresive stance to achieve my objective.

Well, gosh. Hold the press.

[DJACE]

Heh, even aging researchers aren't simple minded enough to look for just one sign of aggression. Most papers use both a survey to test violence (the people test themselves) and a physical test (such as allowing subjects to blast white noise into each other's ears). They then have people who have played a non-violent game through the same tests. People who have played the games with violence usually use more aggressive behavior, such as attacking others with harmless white noise. It doesn't make them snap and go crazy, but more likely to be mean.

The result of a heart racing isn't linked directly to violence, but aggression. The same aggression that makes people hard workers and successful in life. Aggression isn't a bad thing. Everyone should have some aggression. However, all violent acts can be linked to thoughts of aggression, so people fear it, and the media distorts it.

[Wonka]

I really wish people would stop taking things to the extreme like this, this is about links to aggression, nowhere did I, or likely this study (didn't read the whole study) suggest that video games make people homicidal. IMO, people who jump to this level as an argument against the possibility of violent games promoting violent behavior are either not thinking about their argument, or are just plain fanatics.

I didn't make this claim either. The sensationlist AP article that we are discussing made this claim. I was just adressing the claim as it is.

I think it pretty funny that many people would argue that video games have no influence on behavior, then this statistic about violent crime decreasing makes them say “see, violent videogames have been a positive influence.” It goes from videogames being no influence to them being a positive one because of a stat that is derived from a huge number of other factors; basically, anything to avoid the possibility of them being a negative one.

And how did you come to the conclusion that it hasn’t?

I didn't make this claim either. I did NOT say that games had a positive effect and I also did NOT say that they had no impact on temporary feelings of aggression. What I said was that we were probably NOT turning into a bunch of programmed homicidal monkeys. And I stated the drop in crime as evidence that this is *probably* not happening. Since the drop in crime is the only actual measurement of real "actual" violence in this case, we simply don't have any way of knowing whether or not gaming is a "factor" as you have claimed. All we have are two very crude models: 1) "gaming is not a factor" and 2) "gaming is a factor but there are other mysterious forces somehow keeping us sane in spite of it". One of these theories matches with my personal experiences and the other does not. And wow, would you look at that. We are all out of information that anybody knows (about real violence anyhow) already. Based on this (admittedly small) amount of information I conclude that *I* think games are safe, and that I probably do not need to worry about turning into a violent zombie anytime soon.

I don't have time to adress that whole cancer analogy except to say that the case for cancer being caused by smoking is (and was) FAR FAR FAR more concrete than the case for games causing violence (and this was also true 50 years ago before there was definitive proof). Cancer studies have a much more robust mechanistic model. In contrast, nobody even knows exactly how memories are stored let alone how the mind works. This is just a bad analogy.



I also wanted to compliment DJACE for his post. Nice Jeoorb!

[Mason]

I think it pretty funny that many people would argue that video games have no influence on behavior, then this statistic about violent crime decreasing makes them say “see, violent videogames have been a positive influence.” It goes from videogames being no influence to them being a positive one because of a stat that is derived from a huge number of other factors; basically, anything to avoid the possibility of them being a negative one.

And how did you come to the conclusion that it hasn’t?

Actually, since the best indicating factors of violent crime are economic decline, and video games are the playthings of affluent societies, I'd say it is pretty likely that you'd tend to see an inverse relationship between games and crime. They're both symptoms of broader economic factors, though.

[Mason]

That's a good example, although for most competitive sports I'd say that the positives generally outweigh the negatives. You do get aggressive/competitive behavior, but you also get exercise, a focus on teamwork, and social interaction. However, like video games, you have to make judgments on the sport, for instance Basketball or Baseball (although I hate baseball) would be almost wholly positive for kids, but I wouldn’t want my kid involved in Ultimate Fighting or Backyard Wrestling, as they are almost wholly bad influences, even without a physical injury.

Nonsense. The aggression linked to sports is far more of a problem, because our society takes sports seriously. Vast amounts of civic funds get spent facilitating and promoting sport entertainment. Success at sports is felt by many to be a matter beyond education, reason, and basic morality. Kids grow up seeing pro athletes who are simply good at playing a game, and who are treated like gods by their local community, slightly frowned-upon but never punished for any crime short of murder, and rewarded with a lifestyle more lavish than almost any in our society. The lesson? If you're good at a popular American sport, you literally are not beholden to the expectations of behavior that apply to regular people. And unlike a vague and temporary impulse toward aggression that violent video games might promote, this is an enduring lesson about the world that speaks to what we, as a society, value. Far more real, and far more damaging.

And participating in team sports would be a good thing if there was no pressure to succeed. Some kids suck at vector calculus, some kids suck at baseball, it's just natural. But kids are given very mixed messages about the repercussions of failure at sports, and that can be damaging. I mean, who believes it when the coach says that everyone should be happy just trying their best, when a child has already seen how our society rewards prowess at sports? Not even a 10-year old believes that line.

There are many realms of fantasy in our culture. Some of them (religion, sports) are validated and made real enough that most people would object to them even being called fantasies. Other social constructs, like film, video games, and novels, are enjoyed but never validated as part of the real world. If people made $25 million a year playing CS, and every father openly dreamed about their son being the best sniper that the Little League clan tourneys had ever seen, and half the major universities in the nation put academics in the back seat to cater to their elite CS squads, then I'd be willing to grant games a far broader psychological impact than they currently possess.

Yet do we get APA articles about the negative effects of sports whenever a father brains another father at their sons' hockey match? If so, the media doesn't run with them. Video games are a prime target because they are still widely considered to be a child/teenager thing, and the criminality of youth is a baseless narrative of which our society never tires (for the record, youth crime has dwindled amazingly over the past few decades, while crime among 35+ individuals has been steady or rising).

This is all about age, and age-based discrimination. Towns go aflame based on sporting events, but that's just good adult fun. But if the topic is children engaging in an activity that's popularly associated with children (even if we're discussing games that can't be legally sold to minors), suddenly everyone is a concerned security mom. Video games wouldn't be under such scrutiny if Americans weren't so afraid of their own children.

Short history of sports violence (http://www.detnews.com/2004/pistons/0411/21/d01-11876.htm)
Youth crime rates (CA) (http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/myth/myth.html)

[DJACE]

Fathers beating each other at sporting events isn't the fault of the sports themselves, it's the fault of the fathers' and their violent reaction to the sports. You can't create laws or rules based on a few individual bad reactions. It'd be like banning cartoons because some kids are epileptic. Or banning video games because some kids are generally psychotic misfits with bad parents and access to guns.

Just because you consider it "more real" doesn't make it any different. Advocating the ban of one form of entertainment to defend another is a juvenille way to face the issue. It's no different then the parents who hire Jack Thompson to sue video games in order to shift the blame from themselves and their own inadiquacies in parenting when their kids act up.

[Shodan2020]

If video games weren't so popular now, this article would probably say "violent movies" or "violent comic books" in the place of violent video games. This is not a new finding.

[OUX]

Like, I don't know why soccer is legal, there's overwhelming evidence that it causes people to become violent and riot. You ever hear about a riot breaking out at a Counter-Strike match?


Didn't a guy get stabbed to death with a screw driver at a CS tourney a few years ago?

[OUX]

Also I completely agree that video games increase aggresive behavior. Duh! Video games are from their very nature competitive. Non violent video games? HA! Laugh at you I will, sure I have seen people curse when they get pistol whipped in Halo but the biggest tantrums are almost always with a sports or "non violent" game. Games increase aggresion just like they increase hand eye coordination because you have to use it to win.