8 ms·

Am I misunderstanding this? "Sustained violent video game play was significantly related to steeper increases in adolescents' trajectory of aggressive behavior

by 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.
    - gojomo 14y ago
      Yes, too bad the full text is behind a paywall. So I haven't read the full study, but I was once upon a time a teenager. I recall many aspects of my and my peer's psychological lives that would not be easily available to an outside researcher as part of their "comprehensive set of potential 3rd variables".
zerostar07 14y ago
Still, one would like to test for the opposite (stopping video games -> less aggressive behaviour). I remember as a kid we played war games outdoors, i think kids have always done that in some ways.
- arethuza 14y ago
  "as a kid we played war games outdoors" When I was a kid (70s) our "war games" were quite remarkably violent - I'm surprised that nobody got killed. These days I watch my teenage son play rugby - which is itself rather violent (although generally very good natured) and from what I can see it is a pretty good sport for teenagers who like playing it (as my son is going to a rugby-oriented school he is lucky, it must be miserable for kids who hate rugby).
lutusp 14y ago
> They write that they find support for the "socialization hypothesis", presumably meaning that players pick up norms from the violent games. Yes, they say that, but the study offers no evidentiary support for that opinion. Scientific papers are not supposed to be soapboxes for the opinions of the researchers, only the careful reporting of scientific results. And the result of this study is that there is a correlation between aggressive behavior and video game play. Correlation is not causation. Aggressive behavior might lead to a preference of video games, or the reverse. This study cannot sort it out. And a study that did sort it out would do it by forcing people to play, or not play, video games, for an extended period. That's unethical and will never happen.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Correlation is not causation You speak from experience? There is strong orthogonal logic that supports the hypothesis that simulated violence is effective in generating, inducing, and manipulating aggression in human subjects. viz> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4625843 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4625843
  - lutusp 14y ago
    >> Correlation is not causation > You speak from experience? It's not as though I invented this idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus... > There is strong orthogonal logic that supports the hypothesis that simulated violence is effective in generating, inducing, and manipulating aggression in human subjects. There is no evidence whatsoever to support a cause-effect relationship such as you suggest. If a study were to be designed that could uncover such a relationship, it would violate experimental ethics and would not be funded. And your link offers no scientific support whatsoever for your claim. It's an opinion piece, not a scientific study. It offers precisely zero evidence in support of its opinions.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      That experiment was Vietnam. You need to read its main reference.

by IvarTJ 14y ago

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.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    Yes, too bad the full text is behind a paywall. So I haven't read the full study, but I was once upon a time a teenager. I recall many aspects of my and my peer's psychological lives that would not be easily available to an outside researcher as part of their "comprehensive set of potential 3rd variables".

zerostar07 14y ago

Still, one would like to test for the opposite (stopping video games -> less aggressive behaviour). I remember as a kid we played war games outdoors, i think kids have always done that in some ways.

arethuza 14y ago
"as a kid we played war games outdoors" When I was a kid (70s) our "war games" were quite remarkably violent - I'm surprised that nobody got killed. These days I watch my teenage son play rugby - which is itself rather violent (although generally very good natured) and from what I can see it is a pretty good sport for teenagers who like playing it (as my son is going to a rugby-oriented school he is lucky, it must be miserable for kids who hate rugby).

lutusp 14y ago

> They write that they find support for the "socialization hypothesis", presumably meaning that players pick up norms from the violent games. Yes, they say that, but the study offers no evidentiary support for that opinion. Scientific papers are not supposed to be soapboxes for the opinions of the researchers, only the careful reporting of scientific results. And the result of this study is that there is a correlation between aggressive behavior and video game play. Correlation is not causation. Aggressive behavior might lead to a preference of video games, or the reverse. This study cannot sort it out. And a study that did sort it out would do it by forcing people to play, or not play, video games, for an extended period. That's unethical and will never happen.

001sky 14y ago
Correlation is not causation You speak from experience? There is strong orthogonal logic that supports the hypothesis that simulated violence is effective in generating, inducing, and manipulating aggression in human subjects. viz> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4625843 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4625843
- lutusp 14y ago
  >> Correlation is not causation > You speak from experience? It's not as though I invented this idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus... > There is strong orthogonal logic that supports the hypothesis that simulated violence is effective in generating, inducing, and manipulating aggression in human subjects. There is no evidence whatsoever to support a cause-effect relationship such as you suggest. If a study were to be designed that could uncover such a relationship, it would violate experimental ethics and would not be funded. And your link offers no scientific support whatsoever for your claim. It's an opinion piece, not a scientific study. It offers precisely zero evidence in support of its opinions.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    That experiment was Vietnam. You need to read its main reference.