Villanova Research Video: Violent Games Only Make Angry People Aggressive
Villanova Research Video: Violent Games Only Make Angry People Aggressive
August 24, 2007
Unless you're already experiencing anger management issues, violent video games will not make you more aggressive.
At least, that's the conclusion of researchers at Villanova University, led by Prof. Patrick Markey. The study, which measured the responses of 167 students who played violent games like Doom 3 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein as well as non-violent fare such as Tetris Worlds and Project Gotham Racing. Said Prof. Markey:
The news of the research goes back to mid-April, but this is the first we've seen of this video report:
At least, that's the conclusion of researchers at Villanova University, led by Prof. Patrick Markey. The study, which measured the responses of 167 students who played violent games like Doom 3 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein as well as non-violent fare such as Tetris Worlds and Project Gotham Racing. Said Prof. Markey:
So probably what's happening is these school shooters aren't doing the shootings because they played the violent video games. They're doing the school shootings because they are angry and maybe they've been provoked in life. Perhaps one of these provocations might be about video games but there's all the other daily provocations that happen. So it's not the video game's fault for these school shootings. It's the person's fault for these school shootings.
The news of the research goes back to mid-April, but this is the first we've seen of this video report:
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 07/09/08 at 05:30am
gamepolitics: tetsuya, he doesn't have my fax # (or any of my #'s) since I moved last year.
gamepolitics: tetsuya, he doesn't have my fax # (or any of my #'s) since I moved last year.
Posted 07/09/08 at 12:40am
Jack Wessels: @PHOENIXZERO: Do you really think that would stop him?
Jack Wessels: @PHOENIXZERO: Do you really think that would stop him?
Posted 07/09/08 at 12:29am
PHOENIXZERO: Wonder if Jack ever got the memo that attacking a judge, especially the one who presided over your own hearing will only make him look worse.
PHOENIXZERO: Wonder if Jack ever got the memo that attacking a judge, especially the one who presided over your own hearing will only make him look worse.
Posted 07/08/08 at 11:10pm
Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of : Dennis you should post that story about JT insulting Judge Tunis. There might be more you could find that Kotaku missed.
Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of : Dennis you should post that story about JT insulting Judge Tunis. There might be more you could find that Kotaku missed.
Posted 07/08/08 at 08:32pm
lordlundar: Jack should realize that when you call everyone crazy, then the only crazy one is the you.
lordlundar: Jack should realize that when you call everyone crazy, then the only crazy one is the you.
Posted 07/08/08 at 06:06pm
DarkTetsuya: @GP I just fear for the safety of your fax machine cause you didn't post it :P
DarkTetsuya: @GP I just fear for the safety of your fax machine cause you didn't post it :P
Posted 07/08/08 at 06:02pm
PHOENIXZERO: @Krono Yeah, that's probably where it came from. Don't remember if a source was mentioned. Other than it being called a "story" or "study".
PHOENIXZERO: @Krono Yeah, that's probably where it came from. Don't remember if a source was mentioned. Other than it being called a "story" or "study".
Posted 07/08/08 at 06:02pm
PHOENIXZERO: Because I was bored and channel surfing. =(
PHOENIXZERO: Because I was bored and channel surfing. =(
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:59pm
GRIZZAM PRIME: PHEONIXZERO, Why the hell are you watching CNN's sodomy butt baby(HLN)?
GRIZZAM PRIME: PHEONIXZERO, Why the hell are you watching CNN's sodomy butt baby(HLN)?
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:53pm
Krono: @PHOENIXZERO: Would that be the AP story about how schools should teach 11+ year old how to avoid abusive datings relationships?
Krono: @PHOENIXZERO: Would that be the AP story about how schools should teach 11+ year old how to avoid abusive datings relationships?
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:34pm
PHOENIXZERO: Oh joy, new subject and they bring out Cooper Lawrence who takes a mention about videogames. It's a segment called "Sex Normal for 11-Year-Olds" having to do more so with mental and physical abuse in "relationships" of 11-14 year olds and not sex. >_<
PHOENIXZERO: Oh joy, new subject and they bring out Cooper Lawrence who takes a mention about videogames. It's a segment called "Sex Normal for 11-Year-Olds" having to do more so with mental and physical abuse in "relationships" of 11-14 year olds and not sex. >_<
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:28pm
PHOENIXZERO: Certainly a stupid segment with their "adolescent psychologist" and a game is different than a movie. Two callers, underwhelming. >_>
PHOENIXZERO: Certainly a stupid segment with their "adolescent psychologist" and a game is different than a movie. Two callers, underwhelming. >_>
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:24pm
PHOENIXZERO: CNN has wanted to be Fox Jr since Fox started spanking them in the ratings and Turner was removed from power.
PHOENIXZERO: CNN has wanted to be Fox Jr since Fox started spanking them in the ratings and Turner was removed from power.
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:11pm
PHOENIXZERO: UGH, they have the CT AG on there... He sounds like Jack.
PHOENIXZERO: UGH, they have the CT AG on there... He sounds like Jack.
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:09pm
PHOENIXZERO: >_> You can call in 1-800-TELL-HLN.
PHOENIXZERO: >_> You can call in 1-800-TELL-HLN.
Posted 07/08/08 at 05:09pm
PHOENIXZERO: CNN HLN is doing a segment on Beer Pong with their other "morality" blowhard Mike Galanos.
PHOENIXZERO: CNN HLN is doing a segment on Beer Pong with their other "morality" blowhard Mike Galanos.
Posted 07/08/08 at 03:47pm
Jabrwock: This just in! Jack insults someone. News@11
Jabrwock: This just in! Jack insults someone. News@11
Posted 07/08/08 at 03:44pm
mogbert: I think we can skip that story, we can't cover JT every time he insults someone, we would run out of server space...
mogbert: I think we can skip that story, we can't cover JT every time he insults someone, we would run out of server space...
Posted 07/08/08 at 03:43pm
gamepolitics: nah, intentionally didn't post that... it's just a publicity grab... I only have so much JT tolerance, save 4 more relevant news
gamepolitics: nah, intentionally didn't post that... it's just a publicity grab... I only have so much JT tolerance, save 4 more relevant news
Posted 07/08/08 at 02:57pm
Xlorep DarkHelm: Dennis doesn't post every little tidbit of information about Whacky-Jacky.
Xlorep DarkHelm: Dennis doesn't post every little tidbit of information about Whacky-Jacky.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
If you go out and kill people, you have more issues then liking violent games/movies/pictures/books.
In other news, oranges and apples are fruits!
Oh and Good day to all here. First time poster, long time lurker.
I actually disagree that it's unnecessary. Yes, many of us believe exactly what this report is saying and have for some time, but I think it's necessary to get as much good press out there as possible, simply because the amount of negative press is almost overwhelming to the majority of Americans. The more out there showing the truth of the story instead of what the mainstream media shows, the better.
I certainly don't want to rain on anybody's parade, but we criticize our opponents all the time for relying on flawed studies. Is it right for us to do just that?
This is what we have been saying all along. If you take all of the school shootings that have been blamed on video games and compare them, one of the common denominators is aggression and a prediliction for violent imagery/media.
Some would say that violent video games are another common denominator but, how does that explain Seung-Hui Cho was not reported as playing any at all? The only thing he did on a computer at college apparently was read and write his disturbingly violent prose.
Angry violent people probably prefer to play violent games. But so do a lot of normal reasonable people. It is not the games that cause violence, rather the already violent people who play them.
The statistics say it all. With the massive sales of the GTA games, the widespread and continuing popularity of Counter-strike and Halo, if these games actually did make people violent and train them to kill then hardly a day would go by without some gamer going on a rampage. The fact a handful of the millions of people who bought the games were deranged and violent beforehand is no cause to condemn the games.
As an example, there are hundreds of millions of Christians in the world. The Westboro Baptist Church is a collection of roughly 150 disgusting bigots. Would you tar every Christian with the brush of being a bigot just because a miniscule fraction of their numbers acted that way? Or blame religion for the way they act? Of course not. In the same way, do not blame video games and insult gamers just because of a handful of violent and mentally unstable people have chosen to play them.
it actually has been for awhile (at least in the courts) the twinkie defense is out
Please, Massacre Chaser, go away when you see this article. Don't bother trying to refute it. You may not be crazy, by a hyper-conservative, religious standpoint(no doubt, your shrink got their credentials from the same place as "Doctor" Kent Hovind), but that doesn't mean you're right. By any stretch.
Stop making an issue out of something you're too ignorant to understand.
Go sue some modest income homemaker over ruining your pants or something. It almost worked for a judge! Until he was thrown out and made a net-wide mockery.
You know, just saying, before he actually sets foot in this thread, as is bound to happen.
dont give him any ideas!!!!! the poor chung family has enough troubles (the chungs own the drycleaners where pearson lost his pants and his mind)
You're misunderstanding the study... Essentially what they were doing was having a large group play video games, and then studying how different types of games affected individuals with different psychological profiles.
Tetris and PGR are non-voilent games, so they were control in terms of reaction to the games. Then the people in the study would've been scored on some psychological profile as to their emotional state going into the study.
You then have several possible outcomes... If violent games cause agression then a majority of the 167 people should become more aggressive after playing Doom 3. This would be evidence of a causal link.
However, if only those with a tendancy towards agression and anger get more agressive, while those whose are more normal don't, then it's not a causal link. The video game didn't *cause* the agression, it was already there. The video game just brought it out...
Is this the major news for the industry Thompson was refering to yesterday? Well I certainly didn't see anything else major, so that must be it!
Incidently, how did the hearing go?
;P
BTW: I run video-game shows over at Villanova as well as many other colleges in the region at least 2-3 times a year for their fundraisers and social events and we have all sorts of games from old school NES to Madden and Halo and I have witnessed myself the POSITIVE energizing effect video-games can have and to my eyes it is no more different than watching a sporting event and the reactions are just as strong with Mario or Track & Field with the Power Pad as they are with Madden or a multi player Halo or Goldeneye match. Go figure?
Oh and guess what the number one most popular game is with college students?
Duck Hunt!
an no lives were lost
I would argue that this particular facet of the study is flawed. Mostly because I'm not convinced any increased aggression he saw was actually because of the violent content and not just from a frustrating game.
"I’d like to see the actual study, as I strongly disagree with him on the idea that games can’t be used to alleviate aggression. When I still owned the game, there was nothing more satisfying after a particularly frustrating day than smashing things Hulk: Ultimate Destruction."
He's debunking the idea of cathartic effect, not debunking the idea that you can feel better after gaming. Carthartic effect implies that doing the violent action in virtual allows you to "release your anger". On the other hand, having defeated many enemies on a particularly difficult level, you feel a sense of euphoria and accomplishment. THAT is what feels satisfying. The accomplishment.
This is why games like GTA are fun, but games where the whole purpose is just to gun down unarmed civilians are boring. GTA provides a challenge, because the gangsters/cops/etc can shoot back, or come to the rescue of any innocents you shoot. It's not the act of shooting that makes you feel good, it's the act of defeating a challenging enemy.
I think what he meant by that was that it doesn't give off that sort of professional therapy-type level of stress relief.
Playing to let off steam for a some normal life-related stuff, like, i dunno, taking a break from studying for a big exam, or a long day at work, etc, that definitely is true and certainly works for me. But as a form of therapy to recover from something a bit more drastic, even life-changing, no, that wouldn't work. That's what i got from the way he worded it.
"I would argue that this particular facet of the study is flawed. Mostly because I’m not convinced any increased aggression he saw was actually because of the violent content and not just from a frustrating game."
This part I agree with. I would like to see how the "aggressive/non-aggressive" players fared in the "non-violent" games. How did those predisposed to aggression fare when the non-violent game was extremely challenging and frustrating?
A. These people have been paid off by Blank Rome of course!
B. This is not a valid study because it disagrees with my bulletproof hypothesis.
C. Obviously, the people who conducted this study are wrong, because I've been on national TV __ (insert number) of times.
D. Hooah!
E. Random Press Release saying that Jack has contacted __ (insert organization or person) here, and that he wholeheartedly believes that they give a damn about what he says.
No
Shit
Sherlock
You forgot F. All of the Above.
"This part I agree with. I would like to see how the "aggressive/non-aggressive” players fared in the “non-violent” games. How did those predisposed to aggression fare when the non-violent game was extremely challenging and frustrating?"
Since I have the article, to answer your question there were no significant differences between high, moderate and low anger groups on non-violent video games. However, the study did not address the issue of game frustration/challenge and would merit further study and funding.
"This part I agree with. I would like to see how the "aggressive/non-aggressive” players fared in the “non-violent” games. How did those predisposed to aggression fare when the non-violent game was extremely challenging and frustrating?"
Since I have the article, to answer your question there were no significant differences between high, moderate and low anger groups on non-violent video games. However, the study did not address the issue of game frustration/challenge and would merit further study and funding. For further detail check my blog.
"Since I have the article, to answer your question there were no significant differences between high, moderate and low anger groups on non-violent video games. However, the study did not address the issue of game frustration/challenge and would merit further study and funding. For further detail check my blog."
Thx for the info.
It would be nice to factor that in. Do a study, but use 100% non-violent games, but rate their effect on aggression vs game difficulty/skill of the player. IE do players who have never played the game get all frustrated, vs players who have had the opportunity to play it for a while to get used to it.
Actually, I think there's a game that actually makes itself impossible to play. I don't remember the details but i think I read it on joystiq or kotaku. Anyone knows or remember that game?
video games do not cause violence and ill kill anyone who disagrees with me!
(im a huge fan of absurdist humor)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/1999/12/13
Vintage, but applicable, I think ^_^
"He’s debunking the idea of cathartic effect, not debunking the idea that you can feel better after gaming. Carthartic effect implies that doing the violent action in virtual allows you to “release your anger”. On the other hand, having defeated many enemies on a particularly difficult level, you feel a sense of euphoria and accomplishment. THAT is what feels satisfying. The accomplishment."
Actually that's exactly what I'm talking about. In my example of Hulk, it was absolutely a cathartic effect, not defeating difficult enemies. If I was working on a frustrating piece of code, or if something else had me twisted in a knot I would fire that up and then it was just "CPPCRUSADER SMASH!" The satisfaction came from just smashing anything and everything that was in front of me. I would just play until I felt the anger or frustration had been vented, then get back to work.
That fact, coupled with the flaw I pointed out earlier just makes it hard for me to fully take this study seriously. I think with some more research and adjustments to the study like the questions and a better selection of games, this study could actually yield some useful info, but its not quite there yet.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
@ Jabrwock
Actually, I think there’s a game that actually makes itself impossible to play. I don’t remember the details but i think I read it on joystiq or kotaku. Anyone knows or remember that game?"
Umm, Superman for N64
lol!!!
Also supposedly I'm supposed to be desensitized to violence. Then why do I get squeamish when near gory real life injuries? Why when seeing a photograph of a real life head shot did I get physically ill and depressed for days?
Playing a video game might make a person more aggressive within the bounds of acceptable aggression in our society, ie hitting a punching bag, etc. But I tend to believe that sports would have a quite similar effect. Besides, everyone needs a little bit of aggression. Hell if Jack himself didn't have any aggression (though he may have a tad too much), then he wouldn't even have the gall to file these frivolous lawsuits.
I agree, I've never felt more aggressive after just playing a game.... Unless the game caused me some degree of frustration. But that frustration only lasted until I either cleared the area/cause of the frustration or quit playing.
But that cant be, because 1 million + kidds HAVENT gone on shooting sprees or killed people....
I really cant understand how people can spew such bullshit and i REALLY cant understand the people that actually listen...
No study is perfect, but I'd love to read it. I especially want to know if they had their own drfinition of aggression and anger, or if the used pre-defined values in the psychology literature. I'll have to find it later.
-Mike Schwinger
omg...redundancy...
"If you look in the dictionary, under 'redundant' it says 'see redundant'" -Robin Williams
I'm sick of ALL these crap surveys. They are NEVER peer reviewed, making them unscientific, and furthermore the whole (pseudo) science behind it is fundamentally flawed.
100 or even 1000 people can NEVER be a proper sample group. It is simply statistically too small.
There are billions on people on the planet, millions of whom play games. A study of 167 people is only going to show you how those 167 people react in that very narrow experimental situation.
And I'm not even going to get into the issues behind what is "aggression", and what are normal levels in humans are. The whole normalisation of human activity is also a flawed measure.
Ummmm...it is a peer reviewed paper (you could easily check this out). Its published in the Journal of Research in Personality (a highly ranked journal -- I'm a psychology PhD student). Also samples of 100 are extremely common and can be very relevant. Statistically if the effect is large enough an even smaller sample can detect it. If you have access to this paper (or others like it) you can read that the results are statistically significant (i.e., it is extremely unlikely -- even with this small sample -- they happen just due to chance).
for thises tobic
Post new comment