4 ms·

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 whe

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
      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. Yes, but not "never in the other order": just more often/strongly in the games-first order. And I don't find such confounding factors hard to think up for 9th-12th graders: difficult family life; social problems with peers; substance abuse; academic performance pressures; etc. If a teen were to react to any of these, first, by escaping into violent video games (as a relatively easy temporary mood boost), but then second, with measurable aggression, it would fit the sequential relation seen. But we wouldn't know with any sort of confidence if the violent-gameplaying interim behavior worsened or lessened the eventual aggression.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
IvarTJ 14y ago
Am I misunderstanding this? "Sustained violent video game play was significantly related to steeper increases in adolescents' trajectory of aggressive behavior over time. Moreover, greater violent video game play predicted higher levels of aggression over time, after controlling for previous levels of aggression, supporting the socialization hypothesis. In contrast, no support was found for the selection hypothesis. Nonviolent video game play also did not predict higher levels of aggressive behavior over time." They write that they find support for the "socialization hypothesis", presumably meaning that players pick up norms from the violent games.
- pygy_ 14y ago
  Yes, their evidence sugests a causal relation. They define socialization/selection in the abstract: the socialization (violent video game play predicts aggression over time) versus selection hypotheses (aggression predicts violent video game play over time)
  - gojomo 14y ago
    Unless they're missing some other factor that drives both aggression and the gameplay choices -- a factor other than the "previous levels of aggression" they mention as being a tested control. Perhaps, some other childhood stressor or failure in coping mechanisms? And if this other factor tends to trigger first, escapism into violent gameplaying, but then later (if unaddressed), actual aggression, I think they could see the "steeper increases in adolescents' trajectory of aggressive behavior" that's reported, even though the gameplaying is just a waypoint or signal rather than cause. (Under this hypothesis, it's possible the violent gameplaying aggravates the underlying issue, if it delays or prevents other remedies, but it's also possible the gameplaying serves to soften the aggression. You can't really tell from their sequenced relations analysis... you'd want some stronger random-like control on the amount of violent gameplaying.)
    - jarofgreen 14y ago
      > Unless they're missing some other factor From Abstract: "and a comprehensive set of potential 3rd variables were included as covariates in each analysis". Sounds like they certainly tried to control for that - you'd have to read the full study to see the details.
droithomme 14y ago
> "greater violent video game play predicted higher levels of aggression over time, after controlling for previous levels of aggression, supporting the socialization hypothesis"

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
    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. Yes, but not "never in the other order": just more often/strongly in the games-first order. And I don't find such confounding factors hard to think up for 9th-12th graders: difficult family life; social problems with peers; substance abuse; academic performance pressures; etc. If a teen were to react to any of these, first, by escaping into violent video games (as a relatively easy temporary mood boost), but then second, with measurable aggression, it would fit the sequential relation seen. But we wouldn't know with any sort of confidence if the violent-gameplaying interim behavior worsened or lessened the eventual aggression.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

IvarTJ 14y ago

Am I misunderstanding this? "Sustained violent video game play was significantly related to steeper increases in adolescents' trajectory of aggressive behavior over time. Moreover, greater violent video game play predicted higher levels of aggression over time, after controlling for previous levels of aggression, supporting the socialization hypothesis. In contrast, no support was found for the selection hypothesis. Nonviolent video game play also did not predict higher levels of aggressive behavior over time." They write that they find support for the "socialization hypothesis", presumably meaning that players pick up norms from the violent games.

pygy_ 14y ago
Yes, their evidence sugests a causal relation. They define socialization/selection in the abstract: the socialization (violent video game play predicts aggression over time) versus selection hypotheses (aggression predicts violent video game play over time)
- gojomo 14y ago
  Unless they're missing some other factor that drives both aggression and the gameplay choices -- a factor other than the "previous levels of aggression" they mention as being a tested control. Perhaps, some other childhood stressor or failure in coping mechanisms? And if this other factor tends to trigger first, escapism into violent gameplaying, but then later (if unaddressed), actual aggression, I think they could see the "steeper increases in adolescents' trajectory of aggressive behavior" that's reported, even though the gameplaying is just a waypoint or signal rather than cause. (Under this hypothesis, it's possible the violent gameplaying aggravates the underlying issue, if it delays or prevents other remedies, but it's also possible the gameplaying serves to soften the aggression. You can't really tell from their sequenced relations analysis... you'd want some stronger random-like control on the amount of violent gameplaying.)
  - jarofgreen 14y ago
    > Unless they're missing some other factor From Abstract: "and a comprehensive set of potential 3rd variables were included as covariates in each analysis". Sounds like they certainly tried to control for that - you'd have to read the full study to see the details.

droithomme 14y ago

> "greater violent video game play predicted higher levels of aggression over time, after controlling for previous levels of aggression, supporting the socialization hypothesis"