More studies on violent video games
UltimaGecko
hates endnotes Join Date: 2003-05-14 Member: 16320Members
hates endnotes Join Date: 2003-05-14 Member: 16320Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">...apparently violence raises the fight or flight response</div><a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-11-28T174606Z_01_N28224642_RTRUKOC_0_US-VIDEOGAMES-BRAIN.xml&WTmodLoc=InternetNewsHome_C2_internetNews-2" target="_blank">This article</a> details a study done at the Indiana University School of Medicine by a Dr. Vincent Matthews. His study concluded that violent video games (tested on 44 subjects of ages 13-17) produced a short term arousal of the fight or flight response - indicating that, at least in the short term, violent video games could potentially increase violent behavior.
<!--QuoteBegin-Reuters+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Reuters)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CHICAGO (Reuters) - Teens who play violent video games show increased activity in areas of the brain linked to emotional arousal and decreased responses in regions that govern self-control, a study released on Tuesday found.
The study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to record tiny metabolic changes in brain activity in 44 adolescents who were asked to perform a series of tasks after playing either a violent or nonviolent video game for 30 minutes.
The children, with no history of behavior problems, ranged in age from 13 to 17. Half played a T-rated first-person shooter game called "Medal of Honor: Frontline," involving military combat, while the other group played a nonviolent game called "Need for Speed: Underground."
Those who played the violent video game showed more activation in the amygdala, which is involved in emotional arousal, and less activation in the prefrontal portions of the brain associated with control, focus and concentration than the teens who played the nonviolent game.
"Our study suggests that playing a certain type of violent video game may have different short-term effects on brain function than playing a nonviolent, but exciting, game," said Dr. Vincent Mathews, a professor of radiology at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis and the study's author.
After playing the games, the children completed tasks requiring concentration and processing of emotional stimuli while their brain activity was scanned. Alterations in brain function reflecting changes in blood flow appeared as brightly colored areas on the magnetic resonance images.
"What we showed is there is an increase in emotional arousal. The fight or flight response is activated after playing a violent video game," Mathews said.
The findings were presented at a meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.
The $13 billion U.S. video game industry, with revenue rivaling Hollywood box office sales, is at the center of a cultural battle over violent content. Lawmakers' various attempts to ban the sale of violent video games to children have been blocked by courts in Louisiana, Illinois, California. Michigan and Minnesota.
Video games with a T-rating (for Teen) are considered suitable for ages 13 and older. They may contain violent content, strong language or suggestive themes.
Numerous behavioral and cognitive studies have linked exposure to violent media and aggressive behavior. Now, researchers are using advanced imaging technology to scan the brain for clues to whether violent video games cause increases in aggression.
Mathews said he hopes to conduct additional studies on the long-term effects on brain function of exposure to violent video games. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably likely to result in more politicians' attempts at condemning violent video games; do you think the study has legitimacy (or is the age focus too narrow). MoH:Frontline is rated Teen, so it is intended for ages 13+, fitting the tested group. Personally I think the test would reveal something similar in those 17+ as well. But then again, does a short-term increase in adrenaline-based fight or flight responses necessarily indicate an increase in future aggressive behavior?
<!--QuoteBegin-Reuters+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Reuters)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CHICAGO (Reuters) - Teens who play violent video games show increased activity in areas of the brain linked to emotional arousal and decreased responses in regions that govern self-control, a study released on Tuesday found.
The study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to record tiny metabolic changes in brain activity in 44 adolescents who were asked to perform a series of tasks after playing either a violent or nonviolent video game for 30 minutes.
The children, with no history of behavior problems, ranged in age from 13 to 17. Half played a T-rated first-person shooter game called "Medal of Honor: Frontline," involving military combat, while the other group played a nonviolent game called "Need for Speed: Underground."
Those who played the violent video game showed more activation in the amygdala, which is involved in emotional arousal, and less activation in the prefrontal portions of the brain associated with control, focus and concentration than the teens who played the nonviolent game.
"Our study suggests that playing a certain type of violent video game may have different short-term effects on brain function than playing a nonviolent, but exciting, game," said Dr. Vincent Mathews, a professor of radiology at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis and the study's author.
After playing the games, the children completed tasks requiring concentration and processing of emotional stimuli while their brain activity was scanned. Alterations in brain function reflecting changes in blood flow appeared as brightly colored areas on the magnetic resonance images.
"What we showed is there is an increase in emotional arousal. The fight or flight response is activated after playing a violent video game," Mathews said.
The findings were presented at a meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.
The $13 billion U.S. video game industry, with revenue rivaling Hollywood box office sales, is at the center of a cultural battle over violent content. Lawmakers' various attempts to ban the sale of violent video games to children have been blocked by courts in Louisiana, Illinois, California. Michigan and Minnesota.
Video games with a T-rating (for Teen) are considered suitable for ages 13 and older. They may contain violent content, strong language or suggestive themes.
Numerous behavioral and cognitive studies have linked exposure to violent media and aggressive behavior. Now, researchers are using advanced imaging technology to scan the brain for clues to whether violent video games cause increases in aggression.
Mathews said he hopes to conduct additional studies on the long-term effects on brain function of exposure to violent video games. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably likely to result in more politicians' attempts at condemning violent video games; do you think the study has legitimacy (or is the age focus too narrow). MoH:Frontline is rated Teen, so it is intended for ages 13+, fitting the tested group. Personally I think the test would reveal something similar in those 17+ as well. But then again, does a short-term increase in adrenaline-based fight or flight responses necessarily indicate an increase in future aggressive behavior?
Comments
<a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-11-28T174606Z_01_N28224642_RTRUKOC_0_US-VIDEOGAMES-BRAIN.xml&WTmodLoc=InternetNewsHome_C2_internetNews-2" target="_blank">This article</a> details a study done at the Indiana University School of Medicine by a Dr. Vincent Matthews. His study concluded that violent video games (tested on 44 subjects of ages 13-17) produced a short term arousal of the fight or flight response - indicating that, at least in the short term, violent video games could potentially increase violent behavior.
Probably likely to result in more politicians' attempts at condemning violent video games; do you think the study has legitimacy (or is the age focus too narrow). MoH:Frontline is rated Teen, so it is intended for ages 13+, fitting the tested group. Personally I think the test would reveal something similar in those 17+ as well. But then again, does a short-term increase in adrenaline-based fight or flight responses necessarily indicate an increase in future aggressive behavior?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think the study tests what it should be testing. Playing a first person shooter is significantly different from playing a racing game, and it doesn't surprise me that our brains respond differently. A study with merit would take an existing violent game, and replace all of the artwork with non-violent imagery. Paintball guns for instance, or even just abstract shapes. Then see if there is any difference.
A person would be tested pre-game playing for various levels and forms of aggressive behaviour and marked as either "high" or "low" on that scale. Then each person would play a non violent and violent game.
Results (acorss many studies): Both high and low showed little aggression after the nonviolent game (duh). but, low people showed no <b>statistically significant</b> difference in after aggression after a violent game (there was a slight increase, but not much) whereas pre-high people showed a huge increase in after aggression.
So it seems depending on social factors within ones life (status, money, parents, peers, etc) are a larger influence on violent behaviour than the game itself, which as you said, may raise a fight or flight response for natural reasons.
What I'd like to see is a study similar to this one but with another group that watch the beach invasion intro in Saving Private Ryan prior to the reading. I'd bet the response would be tenfold that of the WW2 game players.
--Scythe--
However, watching one of those movies expose you to it for a max of 3 hours (Saving Private Ryan), while playing a game can be done pretty much non-stop, so the time of exposure is potentially much longer.
Anyway, I recognize a general defensive attitude from gamers towards gaming research that has focus on violence. Not only here on these forums.
I'm an avid gamer myself, but I really do see that gaming does "something" with me, and I'd be happy to have that mapped up in a proper manner than to deny it all together.
Seriously though, I am not a violent person. Or rather, I am not a violent person in the real world. On the interblag or in singleplayer games, however, I delight in violence (although a more accurate description would probably be that I delight in gaming, and that violence is often an integral part of it). Anyone who has played football or american football has probably caused far more harm and injury than I have. I have worked in a hospital where I was a small but important part of a large insitution designed to heal wounds and injuries, save lives, and generally care for the health and well-being of my fellow man. And I have also killed thousands of virtual representations of humans.
In short, I am not one of the bad eggs. If more people were like me, the world would be a less violent place. In fact, many people ARE like me. I know many fellow gamers, both from the real world (hey, I'm in a compsci course, over half of us are gamers) and from the interblag. Most or all of these people are excessively violent in the virtual world, while they (at least the ones I know from the real world, and probably most of the others too) are not violent in the real world.
In light of all that, I think I can be forgiven if I think that studies like these are a waste of time. Why conduct studies when the answer is so obvious? Nobody conducts studies to ascertain whether water is wet. Why conduct studies to ascertain whether violent video games make people violent in real life or not when the answer is readily apparent, supported by the cold, hard facts of my personal experience?
Think about it: The two bloodiest wars in human history were conducted before the existence of video games. While some killers become known for their excessive consumption of video games, far more do not. The apparent conclusion should be that not playing video games makes you violent, not the opposite. Why not look into that?
Think about it: The two bloodiest wars in human history were conducted before the existence of video games. While some killers become known for their excessive consumption of video games, far more do not. The apparent conclusion should be that not playing video games makes you violent, not the opposite. Why not look into that?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would mean that they are wrong, and politicians hate being wrong even more then religious leaders. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
The thing is, you admit that you enjoy playing games so games do affect you in some emotional way. I cannot think of a single case where a prolonged emotional stimulus will not have impact on the way you behave and react.
I certainly recognize that ...
1) I enjoy playing games.
2) Games are a constant supply of feel-good that I can just tap into whenever I feel like it.
3) Feelings and emotions are tied to the physiological body where various hormones and hormone production play a vital part.
4) Prolonged exposures to some hormones (adrenaline, for example), have significant bad impact on your body.
Now, I am not a biochemist, but I believe that chain of thought as well as that I recognize I do not know much about this warrants a study.
As for whether this study is worth it or not; you cannot know the outcome of a study before it's done. If you deem the outcome obvious, then deem it so in a scientific way. By your statement, most of the research we do today is wasted. Modern research is as much about validating as well as refuting claims through empiric evidence, and "it seems obvious" is not so.
Your statement to that previous wars have been fought without videogames is pretty silly; just because people have been violent before doesn't mean that people can't be stimulated to become violent now.
No, I'm gonna risk going for your motives instead and postulate that you do not like this study because it may interfer with something you enjoy. I may or may not be right, but I can absolutely relate to that myself, as I too become very defensive when my own enjoyment is in question.
You are right, any sort of ban on video games would negatively impact my hobby, and as such I am against it.
Prolonged exposure to adrenaline has significant bad impact on your body? What about exercise?
When I called the studies a waste of time, I compared them to a study to ascertain whether water is wet. Another comparison would be a study to ascertain whether Sol sends out light. If such studies constitute the majority, then yes, I think most of the research we do today is wasted.
I know the statement about the wars was silly, that is why I made it. What about the one about killers, though? What is the ratio of murderers to non-murderers among video gamers compared to the rest of the population? If it is higher, is it because video games make people violent or because violent people are drawn to video games? In the latter case, will the violent people stop being violent if the video games are taken away? If the ratio of murderers to non-murderers is LOWER among gamers, why? What would that mean? What about people who don't kill other people, but merely beat their wives, children, other family members, friends or random strangers? Do they play video games? Do they watch TV? Are they republicans? Democrats? Do they play golf? Don't they? Do they drive a Lexus? Is their favourite color red? Are they vegetarians?
Many of these studies strike me as being gross oversimplifications made with the purpose of pointing fingers and playing the blame game rather than deal with the real, complex world. Let us play with pseudocode for a moment:
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1-->if (ColumbineStudent == playedVideoGames && ColumbineStudent == killedPeople) display("Playing Doom made Eric shoot people");<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
The way I see it, many studies don't go far beyond that. No complex reasons, just simple correlation. If somebody who killed somebody also played video games, the video games made them do it.
However, I understand what you mean by the "oversimplification", and I detest it as well. It turns out that the media coverage of any study is oversimplified, while the study itself doesn't have to be. The media conclusion and coverage does not represent the actual study or the rationales behind it.
I applaud this research for being pretty thorough and differentiating between different game genres. Moreso than any of the other attempts at studying this field. However what they discovered wasn't particularly amazing. When you're playing an FPS you're often fighting for your life and those of your simulated buddies. Of course this will result in heightened emotional responses. When you're playing a racing game it's all about beating your opponent or your own best time. There's little emotion going on.
What I'd like to see is a study similar to this one but with another group that watch the beach invasion intro in Saving Private Ryan prior to the reading. I'd bet the response would be tenfold that of the WW2 game players.
--Scythe--
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe it's me, but I also tend to get frustrated more with FPS games than racing or sports games (although sports games can get up there), and I would think constant failure (dying) may also have an impact on the level of adrenaline and such. I'm not sure if everyday psychologists are going to be knowledgeable enough to recognize the diverse kinds of events in video games. Player skill, frustration, level design (is it cool or fun to just look around), and other factors may also have an impact on fight or flight response. I'd figure if you broke out the Cradle level from Theif 3 you'd also get a rather high increase in fight or flight responses, but they wouldn't be based off of violence at all.
I have to wonder if it's really possible to find a FPS game where you shoot people and it's still fun without the possibility of something else also having a very great impact on gameplay. Then again, there is the tension of survival in FPS games, your character is never is fear of dying in a racing game, so there's just nothing to really be subconsciously afraid of, either. They need a very basic game, a very simple game, and a very easy game that is still fun to test FPS, the more interaction the player has with the game (different kinds of enemies, ease of death, weapon choice, level exploration options, etc.) the more variables there are that could potentially be influencing the player besides the violence.
It seems as redundant as carrying out a study and finding that "people are more scared coming out than they were going in" immediately after watching... I dunno, whatever is an up to date horror movie. I dislike horror movies.
I have to say, that is possibly the most open minded thing I've heard in months. I agree. I know that everything I do has some effect on me, though the level of permanence of that effect varies. (For instance, something that happens in 15 seconds could be forgotten in less time, or if it's traumatic it might stick with you for the rest of your natural life.) But here I am gaming at least every other day, so that repeated insertion of the same stimuli must have a permanent effect. I wouldn't mind knowing what that is.
Alternatively, I do NOT want to be hounded for playing games, or have my games restricted or beaten down because the government feels that dealing with real criminals is too hard and pushing around a bunch of nobody corporations is much easier. Rather than taking down any games they feel might make some child into the next equivalent of a colombian druglord, they should actually be taking down the current day druglords. (Just a random example, since, as we all know, the "War on Drugs" was such a miserable failure that the government is too afraid to even mention it less our fickle populace even remembers how badly they ****ed up.)
Why is it that we're so ready to create new problems that we can pretend to fix, rather than solve old ones?
What is wrong with us, or this nation for that matter?
So these tests were carried out right after playing the games? Well... y'know, there are going to be effects in the body and brain. Because the games are designed to do just that. Get you tense, scared etc... It just means the game's doing it's job well.
It seems as redundant as carrying out a study and finding that "people are more scared coming out than they were going in" immediately after watching... I dunno, whatever is an up to date horror movie. I dislike horror movies.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe I'm not the best example of humanity to provide an opinion on violence, or on video games related to violence.
After a good couple of rounds of TS or The Warriors I like nothing more than going nuts on my punchbag to ensure that if there are any side effects of playing video games, that violent little outburst just quells the need to smack somebody in the face if they talk back to me.
TRUTH: During holloween, children are frequently scared, mostly in haunted houses.
LOGIC: Because of this the holiday of holloween is a large contributing factor in how violent our children are and should be toned down to avoid scaring those involved. Anyone who attempts to set up a haunted house should be given a large fine and possibly jailed.
This is why I hate media logic. If you remove a piece of a puzzle, you not only make the picture less clear, but all the other pieces are still in place. While violence in video games could certainly contribute to violence in teenagers, removing video games or limiting their content is not the answer. The issue is a much more deeply founded sociological one that is part of our species as a whole. Humans love to fight. Many humans will go out of their way to observe or contibute to the downfall of another human just to see the look on their faces as they plunge into the abyss. The issue with video games is top level, the issue with how parents discuss violence with their children over the violence in video games is a layer below that, and our never-ending need to spill the blood of others is at the bottom. So, while reducing violence in video games may reduce violence overall, a zero solution may never be achieved unless we manage to remove the chip at the base of the stack.
Of course, removing the bottom chip may cause the entire stack to tip over and fall unless we deal with the ones above it first.
So these teens showed chemical evidence of less self-control and more emotional response when playing the game. Well, of course - they're being encouraged to shoot people and overcome an enemy who is capable of ending your life.
What they <i>should</i> be doing is comparing a game like MoH with a game that has the same goals and threats but with no perceivable ties with violence. Do this by making it almost entirely abstract and removing all symbology (humans, guns, sandy beaches, etc - all symbols). This could most likely be very easily achieved with a simple MOD for MoH - replace enemies with blue squares, the environment with a blank or simple non-specific landscape - whatever. Just remove all evidence that any actual violence is taking place. <i>Then</i> run the same test with that MOD and the original MoH. See that would have <i>interesting</i> results - whatever they were.
Haha, writing this response is making me angry and lose self-control. Ban internet forums!! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
What they <i>should</i> be doing is comparing a game like MoH with a game that has the same goals and threats but with no perceivable ties with violence. Do this by making it almost entirely abstract and removing all symbology (humans, guns, sandy beaches, etc - all symbols). This could most likely be very easily achieved with a simple MOD for MoH - replace enemies with blue squares, the environment with a blank or simple non-specific landscape - whatever. Just remove all evidence that any actual violence is taking place. <i>Then</i> run the same test with that MOD and the original MoH. See that would have <i>interesting</i> results - whatever they were.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
MoH with Mario 64 a relevant example or not? I mean we all like to kill mushroom thingies.
I certainly say that video games contributed to my personality as an impressionable youth, but I feel it has very little affect on older children. Obviously video games are designed to heighten tension and emotion, but whether it actually effects agression on a long term scale is questionable. For a young child, I think they will certainly turn out more agressive. However, for someone like a 14 year old, I think it's safe to say that all the basic rules of society has already been implemented into their minds (don't kill, don't steal...)
The basis of my idea is that video games (especially violent ones) would definitely cause an increase in violence in young children while they are more impressionable (i.e. me). This also ties in to how parents raise their children. However, on older children, they will not be violent because they have already been ingrained with basic laws of society, and they should be old enough to understand that it's only a video games as opposed to a toddler that plays Doom...
my point was that video games provoking violence -- in context -- is absolutely irrelevent seeing as Im sure (though too lazy to research Ill just stick to probability) many many other possibly mundane things also provoke the same response in violent people and as such is not so much a flaw in gaming but a flaw in people.