Football Games Cause More Aggression Than Shooters, Say UK Researchers

May 3, 2011 -

Forget about violent video games; according to a group of researchers in England, games with goals such as football are more likely to make participants aggressive than anything encountered in Grand Theft Auto or Call Of Duty. According to research conducted by Dr. Simon Goodson and Sarah Pearson of Huddersfield university, games with goals cause more of an aggressive reaction in participants than killing an animated character because sports is closer to real life. Of course, you have to take into account that Football in England is a culturally more important than video games in general.

Researchers measured the heart rates, respiration and brain activity of 40 male and female participants randomly selected to play violent Xbox 360 game or a football game. They found that when players killed someone in a game it caused little brain activity. But when participant's conceded a goal or foul in the sports game it caused a higher level of brain activity.

Dr. Goodson added that participants generally reacted with more agitation during the football game and that maybe violent games have been misrepresented as the worst thing a gamer can play. Dr. Goodson is presenting his research this week at the British Psychological Society’s annual conference in Glasgow, Scotland.




Re: Football Games Cause More Aggression Than Shooters, Say ...

Next Up: Multiplayer games make people more aggressive than Single player ones, and I'd put money on that, competition warms the blood, and a human is a far more challenging and unpredictable opponent than an AI.

As an aside, I'd like to see a comparison of heart rate and blood pressure etc between someone having a go on a shooting range and someone playing in a Poker game, I think you'd find some interesting results :)

I suppose that's why those who would censor games have to bounce wildly between 'It causes random unpredictable violent behaviour!' and 'It turns them into a stone-cold killer who calmly walks around firing!' without them spotting the Oxymoron.

Re: Football Games Cause More Aggression Than Shooters, Say ...

Sports..... the most dangerous hobby!

I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression!

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.




Re: Football Games Cause More Aggression Than Shooters, Say ...

Glad I never got into sports. With as much video games as I play, I could have been a mass murderer by now.


"Power means nothing without honor and pride." My video game review site.

Atlanta Video Games Examiner for

Re: Football Games Cause More Aggression Than Shooters, Say ...


Agression != violence

This is a common misconception by those who hate games, all that is shown repeatedly is that competitive behaviour causes increased agression, which when engaged in competition is a good thing.

edit: post didn't appear where I intended

Re: Football Games Cause More Aggression Than Shooters, Say ...

>Agression != violence

Which is why I called the link 'slightly dubious' :)


Re: Football Games Cause More Aggression Than Shooters, Say ...

Giving how just the fans act I'm not surprised.

Re: Football Games Cause More Aggression Than Shooters, Say ...

It would be interesting to see this compared to watching actual football if we're going to make the slightly dubious "more brain activity = violent actions" leap, then it might go some way to explaining the whole 'football hooliganism' thing.

One inconsitency I would point out: "They found that when players killed someone in a game it caused little brain activity. But when participant's conceded a goal or foul in the sports game it caused a higher level of brain activity." One is a win conditional, one is a lose conditional. Might be relevant.


Re: Football Games Cause More Aggression Than Shooters, Say ...

I don't think that requires a study. Drop by your local pub whenever a game is on, you'll see plenty of people shouting at the TV. Not that it matters, what's all the fuss about agression anyway?

Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :


Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
MechaCrashUnexpected? Seriously?07/07/2015 - 10:55am
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
MattsworknameThe problem being, right to work states exsist specificly as a counter to Unions, as the last 20 or so years have shown, the unions have been doing this countries economoy NO favors. The right to work states came into being to allow people to work any07/07/2015 - 8:49am

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician