Study: Gamers Less Aggressive with Buddies
Study: Gamers Less Aggressive with Buddies
September 29, 2009
Did you know that playing violent multiplayer games will make you more aggressive against strangers than friends? That's the conclusion of a new study published in the latest issue of the Evolution and Human Behavior science journal. PC World's Game On column also looked at the study.
The study, conducted by psychologists from the University of Missouri, observed 42 young men divided into 14 teams of three. The players played Unreal Tournament 2004 within their team and against other teams. When playing against teammates, the mode was Deathmatch. When playing against other teams, the mode was Onslaught. Before and after each match, the testosterone and cortisol levels of each player was tested.
According to the study's abstract from the journal's web site:
For 14 teams of three young men, salivary testosterone and cortisol were assessed twice before and twice after competing in within-group and between-group video games that simulated violent male–male competition. Men who contributed the most to their teams' between-group victory showed testosterone increases immediately after the competition, but only if this competition was played before the within-group tournament. High-scoring men on losing teams did not show this immediate effect, but they did show a delayed increase in testosterone. In contrast, high-ranking men tended to have lower testosterone and higher cortisol during within-group tournaments. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that men's competitive testosterone response varies across ingroup and outgroup competitions and is muted during the former. The testosterone response during the between-group competition also suggests that violent multiplayer video games may be appealing to young men because they simulate male–male coalitional competition.
This seems to follow what I have found personally. In first-person-shooters or player-vs.-player competition in MMOs, challenging people I know is more about camaraderie. Against people I don't know, it is more about survival of the fittest and bragging rights.
What emotional responses have you found when competing in video games?
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:22am
Valdearg: They see this as the Government encouraging the "sinful sexual behavior." They don't want gays to score ANY victory, even one th
Valdearg: They see this as the Government encouraging the "sinful sexual behavior." They don't want gays to score ANY victory, even one th
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:22am
gellymatos: Oh, hell yes. And nothing annoys me more than that fact. They stray and make real catholics look bad. And yes, they could be...
gellymatos: Oh, hell yes. And nothing annoys me more than that fact. They stray and make real catholics look bad. And yes, they could be...
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:21am
Valdearg: Also, you really think that people who are smart enough to practice law REALLY believe that this law will prevent them from expressing their religious beliefs? The fact is that these guys hate gays, and don't want them to be protected in any way.
Valdearg: Also, you really think that people who are smart enough to practice law REALLY believe that this law will prevent them from expressing their religious beliefs? The fact is that these guys hate gays, and don't want them to be protected in any way.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:20am
Valdearg: The catholic teachings, perhaps, but certainly, there are PLENTY of Catholics who condone violence and hate. Just like these guys.
Valdearg: The catholic teachings, perhaps, but certainly, there are PLENTY of Catholics who condone violence and hate. Just like these guys.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:19am
gellymatos: violence or hate against anyone.
gellymatos: violence or hate against anyone.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:18am
gellymatos: Like I said, paranoia that the law could make it illegal to voice an opinion on gay marriage. And catholics don't condon...
gellymatos: Like I said, paranoia that the law could make it illegal to voice an opinion on gay marriage. And catholics don't condon...
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:15am
Valdearg: Can you find a different reason behind the lawsuit, other than the fact that they want to protect their "right" to perpetrate violence against homosexuals, based on their religious beliefs?
Valdearg: Can you find a different reason behind the lawsuit, other than the fact that they want to protect their "right" to perpetrate violence against homosexuals, based on their religious beliefs?
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:14am
Valdearg: The fact is that this Law Center, which specializes in the defense of Catholic Beliefs, kind of like a Catholic ACLU, I suppose, is challenging a law that PROTECTS homosexuals from violent acts motivated by hatred of gay people.
Valdearg: The fact is that this Law Center, which specializes in the defense of Catholic Beliefs, kind of like a Catholic ACLU, I suppose, is challenging a law that PROTECTS homosexuals from violent acts motivated by hatred of gay people.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:13am
gellymatos: Again, sorry I jumped the gun like I did.
gellymatos: Again, sorry I jumped the gun like I did.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:13am
Valdearg: @Gelly: It's a liberal blog. Its not designed to be balanced. Does that mean that everything there is completely false, and not worth investigating? Nope.
Valdearg: @Gelly: It's a liberal blog. Its not designed to be balanced. Does that mean that everything there is completely false, and not worth investigating? Nope.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:12am
Valdearg: To be completely honest, I would argue that that assessment is more biased and farther from reality than the Daily Kos assessment.
Valdearg: To be completely honest, I would argue that that assessment is more biased and farther from reality than the Daily Kos assessment.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:12am
gellymatos: I'm sure the story itself is true, it's just that the site seems to be biased. More so than Fox. And that takes effort.
gellymatos: I'm sure the story itself is true, it's just that the site seems to be biased. More so than Fox. And that takes effort.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:11am
Valdearg: Would you rather I link straight to the horses mouth? Here's the story from the Law Center involved in the suit.
Valdearg: Would you rather I link straight to the horses mouth? Here's the story from the Law Center involved in the suit.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:10am
Valdearg: @Gelly: I love how you jumped on the A_L train, and EVERYTHING that EVER comes from Daily Kos is questionable. Clearly, NONE of it could POSSIBLY merit a closer look.
Valdearg: @Gelly: I love how you jumped on the A_L train, and EVERYTHING that EVER comes from Daily Kos is questionable. Clearly, NONE of it could POSSIBLY merit a closer look.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:09am
gellymatos: I'm sorry. I thought you were attacking the church due to your history of doing so. My bad.
gellymatos: I'm sorry. I thought you were attacking the church due to your history of doing so. My bad.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:08am
gellymatos: ...that these laws will make it illegal to voice an opinion against gay marriage. Third, Your source is questionable. And by...
gellymatos: ...that these laws will make it illegal to voice an opinion against gay marriage. Third, Your source is questionable. And by...
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:07am
Valdearg: @Gelly: Wow, jumping right to the defense of the church, despite the fact that I never implicated the Catholic church?
Valdearg: @Gelly: Wow, jumping right to the defense of the church, despite the fact that I never implicated the Catholic church?
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:06am
gellymatos: , not orders from the church. Second, the paranoia about these laws that SOME christians have is based off of the parnoid idea..
gellymatos: , not orders from the church. Second, the paranoia about these laws that SOME christians have is based off of the parnoid idea..
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:05am
gellymatos: Vald: Where to start. Oh yes. First, he doesn't seem to represent the whole church. His doing this out of his own conviction...
gellymatos: Vald: Where to start. Oh yes. First, he doesn't seem to represent the whole church. His doing this out of his own conviction...
Posted 02/09/10 at 10:59am
Valdearg: Honestly, the only thing I can imagine is the plaintiffs think it's their religious right to perpetrate violent criminal acts against homosexuals. Unfortunately, knowing some folks like that, it wouldn't surprise me if they did believe that.
Valdearg: Honestly, the only thing I can imagine is the plaintiffs think it's their religious right to perpetrate violent criminal acts against homosexuals. Unfortunately, knowing some folks like that, it wouldn't surprise me if they did believe that.
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
I avoid competing in video games. There's enough pointless competition in this world without it infesting my hobbies as well.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
I compete some, though due to hardware limitations not a lot, and I find there is NOTHING to be gained from being hostile to people.
A saying I remember is "If a person is nice to you but mean to others, they are not a nice person"
Let me guess you sometimes get together on gears2 just to sing koombaya and talk about flower arranging.
I must've missed the part where they controlled for the type of game.
@GamePolitics:
I hope jedidethfreak sues you for the unauthorized use of his likeness.
Aren't news stories exempt from that?
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Yes, but jedidethfreak don't know that. Matter of fact, jedidethfreak don't know nothing.
Not that I am one to agree with jedidethfreak on anything, ever but that was rather Thompsonesque attack on him.
Thank you. You're too kind. *takes a bow*
It looks like they've discovered the tribal instinct.
This is marvelous. More of a reason to play ODST. :D
I have to say, most of the these "violent video game" studies are absolutely terrible from a scientific perspective...but not this one. While yes, there could be room for controlling for different types of video games (ie- a non-violent, but competitive, game such as Wii Sports or Madden) and similar real world activities (ie - paintball, football, competitive board games, etc..), this is a good start.
I especially like that it had a very clear premise and sought to study multiple interactions over a longer period. This shows at least that what users experience when playing a "violent video game" is not the same for each user, nor for every game type. Very interesting...
--- "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
In my experience on this website, "bsolutely terrible from a scientific perspective" is analogous for "says something negative about games" while "not this one" means "says something positive about games". Without fail.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
You are correct. Although at it's heart, this one doesn't really seem to be about videogames. In any competition where it can be played against strangers and within a group of friends I've always noticed the same result as this study determined.
It seems to be a pretty straightforward thing that when you're playing with friends you of course won't be as aggressive as against strangers.
The problem with most of the "absolutely terrible" studies is that they produce results about correlation, not causation.
For example, you comment shows a correlation between "absolutely studies" and results that are considered "negative" towards videogames. That's merely a correlation though, and does not in fact show that all studies with results that are negative towards videogames are "absolutely terrible".
That's why I said that this one isn't that bad of a study. It's parameters could be widened to get more comparisons over a broader range of activities, but in and of itself, it does an excellent job of showing the effects of video games on testerone and cortisol levels. That's because it's a well designed study, regardless of whether those results should be considered positive or negative in regards to games.
--- "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
My comment merely states observed facts.
On this site
Negative results about gaming = "absolutely terrible" "junk science" "pushing an agenda" etc etc
Positive results about gaming = "Proper study" "Knows what they are doing" "No agenda to push" etc etc
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
My observed facts:
Negative results about gaming = DarkSaber responds, "F*** 'em. Who cares?"
Positive results about gaming = DarkSaber responds, "F*** 'em. Who cares?"
If nothing else, you have to admire the consistency.
I lol'd so hard because it's true.
And misleads those reading about the study by confusing correlation and causation.
To me, playing games online seemed to mostly be about being called faggot, nigger, etc. So I stopped playing online. I guess my emotional response is... disgust?
Your online gaming culture makes me very glad I am not american, we do have idiots but they are easily avoided and are the minority
It's the internet community commrade. Give a persona annomity and an audience and well the results are obvious when their tenagers who have mommy and daddy issues.
Wait, I'm confused. I thought my love of gaming was supposed to make me want to kill my friends?
(snark)