6 ms·

Association between violent video games and aggression among adolescents

18 points by 001sky 14y ago

codeka 14y ago
The big problem I have with this kind of thing is the Grade 9 to Grade 12 age group. Violent video games are generally not meant for children, so why study their affects on children? I understand that you want parents to be informed about their choices for their children, but unfortunately, this kind of study has a history of being (ab)used by groups trying to limit adult's access to this kind of video game, which I have a serious problem with.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- d5tryr 14y ago
  Probably best to throw any science under the bus if it's going to get in the way of normal grown ups simulating mass murder.
  - codeka 14y ago
    This is exactly the kind of emotionally-charged comment that is not conducive to a rational discussion. Let's not "throw science under the bus" at all. In fact, there have been studies[1] which show violent crime decreases as access to violent video games increase. [1]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8798927/Violent-video-games-reduce-crime.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8798927/Vi...
    - 001sky 14y ago
      relevant > http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm
    - pygy_ 14y ago
      Not all studies are created equal. The study in the article you link to shows that violence decreases in the short term when a violent block buster is released, because violent individuals are busy playing. The article also criticizes lab studies that show an immediate effect as synthetic, not reflecting reality. The study linked above looks at mid/long term effects on a large-ish cohort in a real world setting.
      - codeka 14y ago
        Studies[1] have also shown that competitiveness of the game is a better predictor of aggression, rather than violence. This study does nothing to control for that, as far as I can see. Its certainly a fact that most violent games are also quite competitive. > The study in the article you link to shows that violence decreases in the short term when a violent block buster is released, because violent individuals are busy playing. That's right, but I fail to see how that's a flaw in the study? [1]: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2011/08/video-game-competition-not-violence-could-be-culprit-in-aggression-study-says-/1#.UHKN6_p9L4c http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/201...
- lobotryas 14y ago
  > Violent video games are generally not meant for children, so why study their affects on children? First, a few points: * Many things are "not meant" for teenagers, yet teens acquire (or do) them anyways. Examples include: alcohol, tobacco, watching R-rated movies, etc. * You may have forgotten just how old kids in highschool are. Specifically, these are teenagers from 14-15 (Grade 9) to 17-18 (Grade 12). While no one under 18 should be playing M-rated games, these individuals are hardly babies. To answer your bigger question: studies like this are important because teens are a huge video game demographic and are still developing (mentally and physically) during their highschool years. Only now are we seeing such an abundance (and easy access to) video games of all kinds, including violent video games. We must have more such long-term studies in order to understand any potential risks for Jimmy if he spends 3+ hours every day playing a game in which his character "kills" humans (who are mostly foreigners and often in gruesome ways). You are welcome to mention parental responsibility and voluntary rating guidelines (and these are good points). I'm also against the terrible, blanket attempts at regulating violent video games we've seen in California and other states. However if we discover a link between violent video games and long-term increases in teen aggression then I see nothing wrong with strengthening legislation concerning the sale of M-rated games to minors.
  - codeka 14y ago
    Just to give a little context for my comments, I'm from Australia and we've just this year finally introduced an R rating for video games (after 10 years of lobbying - previously, MA15+ was the highest available). To be honest, I'd love to be debating the issues in California because that's positively progressive to the kind of debate we've had here in regards to video games :)
  - nc17 14y ago
    A link is not enough, you'd have to show causation. If not, you might as well be banning the sale of umbrellas because they are linked to rain. That's the main weakness in the study, btw. It could well be that kids who are prone to violence are more attracted to violent games.
    - 14y ago
- rayiner 14y ago
  Grades 9-12 are a core demographic of violent video games.
wookietrader 14y ago
As far as I can tell from the abstract (the rest is behind a paywall) this study will not help in the question of causality. By such studies we can not tell whether violent games -> aggressive behaviour or just, which probably no one will take into doubt, aggressive behaviour -> violent games. So, nothing new to see here.
- hkuo 14y ago
  It seems from the abstract that they're not looking for causation between those two but what other factors are involved that can explain the correlation.
  - sdoering 14y ago
    In studies like these you can only look for correlation, not causation. But you can look for other factors, so to eliminate some theories. here for example the socialization-hypothesis. So it seems, that they have found a way to debunk the theory, that more violent teens tend to play more violent videogames. they controlled for pre-playing aggression-levels, and they monitored the developement of aggression over a longer period of time, to see, if the level of aggression changed (as it seems to do), when playing violent games. So yes, the can only show a more or less strong correlation between these two factors (and there might be a lot of other factors not controlled for), but they can show, that some other hypothesis does not explain the data. not more - but not less either.
    - pygy_ 14y ago
      In this case, the temporal sequence suggests a causation. A non-causal association would have to be induced by a confounding factor that first causes teens to play violent video games then to behave aggressively, but never in the other order. The causal effect is reinforced by the dose effect in the context of this temporal sequence, i.e. the more hours they play per day, the more likely they are to behave aggressively.
      - gojomo 14y ago
urbionic 14y ago
The point everyone seems to miss is that violent media does not necessary cause violent behaviour in individuals but instils the idea that conflict can only be resolved through violence, which when trying to rally public support for war is rather useful to the powers that be.
lutusp 14y ago
> Association between violent video games and aggression among adolescents Another trash psychology study that takes a correlation and tries to claim it's a cause-effect relationship. > In the past 2 decades, correlational and experimental studies have found a positive association between violent video game play and aggression. "Correlational ... positive association ..." Indeed. Everything but the words "one caused the other." "Sustained violent video game play was significantly related to steeper increases in adolescents' trajectory of aggressive behavior over time." Yes, and still a meaningless correlation. Did the video game cause the aggressive behavior, or the reverse? Or is there some third factor that caused both? We don't know and this study can't tell us. I am perpetually amazed at what passes for science among psychologists. "Our findings, and the fact that many adolescents play video games for several hours every day, underscore the need for a greater understanding of the long-term relation between violent video games and aggression, as well as the specific game characteristics (e.g., violent content, competition, pace of action) that may be responsible for this association." Here, by trying to claim a cause-effect relationship but one not based in evidence, the psychologists cross the line into pseudoscience. There is precisely zero scientific evidence on which to base a claim that there is a cause-effect relationship between aggressive behavior and video game play (or the reverse). All we can say for sure is this is what the researchers hoped to find. A real scientific study would empanel two groups of teenagers as identical as possible, force one group to play video games, and forbid this activity to the other group. About that proposal I can say three things: 1. It would qualify as science in a field with copious amounts of pseudoscience. 2. It would be unethical in the extreme. 3. It will never happen. This study is a perfect picture of "psychological science", which is to science what military music is to music.
- gizmo686 14y ago
  Did you read the entire paper, or just the abstract? I ask because I only was able to get the abstract, so there might be something in the rest of the paper for your arguments. However, the abstract seemed very careful not to make overly broad conclusion. It says the playing violent videogames is a good predictor for being agressive, and being agressive is not a good predictor of playing violent video games. This is not sufficient to claim causation, which they do not (in the abstract at least), however this type of corralation that exists only where A preceeds B definantly suggests it. As to you concerns about sampling, they seem to be following best practices for this type of study, random. As long as both groups you are comparing are selected using the same random, your results are valid (for the group which they were selected from). Most statistical tests (which I assume were used in the main paper) are designed assuming the groups are random, and will provide valid statistics.
aviraldg 14y ago
Allow me to suggest an alternative explanation: aggressive kids tend to like violent games.
- jarofgreen 14y ago
  From Abstract: "In contrast, no support was found for the selection hypothesis."
andrewcooke 14y ago
the following article could have been written for this thread: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/correlation_does_not_imply_causation_how_the_internet_fell_in_love_with_a_stats_class_clich_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...
cykod 14y ago
Violent crime rates are down significantly in the US since 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States) Given the popularity of video games in American life it just seems odd that we haven't seen a massive spike in crime given the number of mass murder simulators we've been exposing our young'uns to since arcades became popular in the late 70's. That's not to say that immersive violent video games don't have any effect - but given how much young males play video games (they also happen to commit the most crimes http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/ageracesex.cfm http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/ageracesex.cfm ) it seems strange there's no visible uptick - if the sky is falling, wouldn't there be some way to tell?

18 points by 001sky 14y ago

The big problem I have with this kind of thing is the Grade 9 to Grade 12 age group. Violent video games are generally not meant for children, so why study their affects on children? I understand that you want parents to be informed about their choices for their children, but unfortunately, this kind of study has a history of being (ab)used by groups trying to limit adult's access to this kind of video game, which I have a serious problem with.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
d5tryr 14y ago
Probably best to throw any science under the bus if it's going to get in the way of normal grown ups simulating mass murder.
- codeka 14y ago
  This is exactly the kind of emotionally-charged comment that is not conducive to a rational discussion. Let's not "throw science under the bus" at all. In fact, there have been studies[1] which show violent crime decreases as access to violent video games increase. [1]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8798927/Violent-video-games-reduce-crime.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8798927/Vi...
  - 001sky 14y ago
    relevant > http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm
  - pygy_ 14y ago
    Not all studies are created equal. The study in the article you link to shows that violence decreases in the short term when a violent block buster is released, because violent individuals are busy playing. The article also criticizes lab studies that show an immediate effect as synthetic, not reflecting reality. The study linked above looks at mid/long term effects on a large-ish cohort in a real world setting.
    - codeka 14y ago
      Studies[1] have also shown that competitiveness of the game is a better predictor of aggression, rather than violence. This study does nothing to control for that, as far as I can see. Its certainly a fact that most violent games are also quite competitive. > The study in the article you link to shows that violence decreases in the short term when a violent block buster is released, because violent individuals are busy playing. That's right, but I fail to see how that's a flaw in the study? [1]: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2011/08/video-game-competition-not-violence-could-be-culprit-in-aggression-study-says-/1#.UHKN6_p9L4c http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/201...
lobotryas 14y ago
> Violent video games are generally not meant for children, so why study their affects on children? First, a few points: * Many things are "not meant" for teenagers, yet teens acquire (or do) them anyways. Examples include: alcohol, tobacco, watching R-rated movies, etc. * You may have forgotten just how old kids in highschool are. Specifically, these are teenagers from 14-15 (Grade 9) to 17-18 (Grade 12). While no one under 18 should be playing M-rated games, these individuals are hardly babies. To answer your bigger question: studies like this are important because teens are a huge video game demographic and are still developing (mentally and physically) during their highschool years. Only now are we seeing such an abundance (and easy access to) video games of all kinds, including violent video games. We must have more such long-term studies in order to understand any potential risks for Jimmy if he spends 3+ hours every day playing a game in which his character "kills" humans (who are mostly foreigners and often in gruesome ways). You are welcome to mention parental responsibility and voluntary rating guidelines (and these are good points). I'm also against the terrible, blanket attempts at regulating violent video games we've seen in California and other states. However if we discover a link between violent video games and long-term increases in teen aggression then I see nothing wrong with strengthening legislation concerning the sale of M-rated games to minors.
- codeka 14y ago
  Just to give a little context for my comments, I'm from Australia and we've just this year finally introduced an R rating for video games (after 10 years of lobbying - previously, MA15+ was the highest available). To be honest, I'd love to be debating the issues in California because that's positively progressive to the kind of debate we've had here in regards to video games :)
- nc17 14y ago
  A link is not enough, you'd have to show causation. If not, you might as well be banning the sale of umbrellas because they are linked to rain. That's the main weakness in the study, btw. It could well be that kids who are prone to violence are more attracted to violent games.
  - 14y ago
rayiner 14y ago
Grades 9-12 are a core demographic of violent video games.

wookietrader 14y ago

As far as I can tell from the abstract (the rest is behind a paywall) this study will not help in the question of causality. By such studies we can not tell whether violent games -> aggressive behaviour or just, which probably no one will take into doubt, aggressive behaviour -> violent games. So, nothing new to see here.

hkuo 14y ago
It seems from the abstract that they're not looking for causation between those two but what other factors are involved that can explain the correlation.
- sdoering 14y ago
  In studies like these you can only look for correlation, not causation. But you can look for other factors, so to eliminate some theories. here for example the socialization-hypothesis. So it seems, that they have found a way to debunk the theory, that more violent teens tend to play more violent videogames. they controlled for pre-playing aggression-levels, and they monitored the developement of aggression over a longer period of time, to see, if the level of aggression changed (as it seems to do), when playing violent games. So yes, the can only show a more or less strong correlation between these two factors (and there might be a lot of other factors not controlled for), but they can show, that some other hypothesis does not explain the data. not more - but not less either.
  - pygy_ 14y ago
    In this case, the temporal sequence suggests a causation. A non-causal association would have to be induced by a confounding factor that first causes teens to play violent video games then to behave aggressively, but never in the other order. The causal effect is reinforced by the dose effect in the context of this temporal sequence, i.e. the more hours they play per day, the more likely they are to behave aggressively.
    - gojomo 14y ago

urbionic 14y ago

The point everyone seems to miss is that violent media does not necessary cause violent behaviour in individuals but instils the idea that conflict can only be resolved through violence, which when trying to rally public support for war is rather useful to the powers that be.

lutusp 14y ago

> Association between violent video games and aggression among adolescents Another trash psychology study that takes a correlation and tries to claim it's a cause-effect relationship. > In the past 2 decades, correlational and experimental studies have found a positive association between violent video game play and aggression. "Correlational ... positive association ..." Indeed. Everything but the words "one caused the other." "Sustained violent video game play was significantly related to steeper increases in adolescents' trajectory of aggressive behavior over time." Yes, and still a meaningless correlation. Did the video game cause the aggressive behavior, or the reverse? Or is there some third factor that caused both? We don't know and this study can't tell us. I am perpetually amazed at what passes for science among psychologists. "Our findings, and the fact that many adolescents play video games for several hours every day, underscore the need for a greater understanding of the long-term relation between violent video games and aggression, as well as the specific game characteristics (e.g., violent content, competition, pace of action) that may be responsible for this association." Here, by trying to claim a cause-effect relationship but one not based in evidence, the psychologists cross the line into pseudoscience. There is precisely zero scientific evidence on which to base a claim that there is a cause-effect relationship between aggressive behavior and video game play (or the reverse). All we can say for sure is this is what the researchers hoped to find. A real scientific study would empanel two groups of teenagers as identical as possible, force one group to play video games, and forbid this activity to the other group. About that proposal I can say three things: 1. It would qualify as science in a field with copious amounts of pseudoscience. 2. It would be unethical in the extreme. 3. It will never happen. This study is a perfect picture of "psychological science", which is to science what military music is to music.

gizmo686 14y ago
Did you read the entire paper, or just the abstract? I ask because I only was able to get the abstract, so there might be something in the rest of the paper for your arguments. However, the abstract seemed very careful not to make overly broad conclusion. It says the playing violent videogames is a good predictor for being agressive, and being agressive is not a good predictor of playing violent video games. This is not sufficient to claim causation, which they do not (in the abstract at least), however this type of corralation that exists only where A preceeds B definantly suggests it. As to you concerns about sampling, they seem to be following best practices for this type of study, random. As long as both groups you are comparing are selected using the same random, your results are valid (for the group which they were selected from). Most statistical tests (which I assume were used in the main paper) are designed assuming the groups are random, and will provide valid statistics.

aviraldg 14y ago

Allow me to suggest an alternative explanation: aggressive kids tend to like violent games.

jarofgreen 14y ago
From Abstract: "In contrast, no support was found for the selection hypothesis."

andrewcooke 14y ago

the following article could have been written for this thread: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/correlation_does_not_imply_causation_how_the_internet_fell_in_love_with_a_stats_class_clich_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...

cykod 14y ago

Violent crime rates are down significantly in the US since 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States) Given the popularity of video games in American life it just seems odd that we haven't seen a massive spike in crime given the number of mass murder simulators we've been exposing our young'uns to since arcades became popular in the late 70's. That's not to say that immersive violent video games don't have any effect - but given how much young males play video games (they also happen to commit the most crimes http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/ageracesex.cfm http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/ageracesex.cfm ) it seems strange there's no visible uptick - if the sky is falling, wouldn't there be some way to tell?