Study Shows Aggression From Video Games Linked to "Incompetence"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

So, noobs will rage, something we already know and have for a long time.

UNHchabo:

canadamus_prime:
Who keeps paying for all these studies? Seriously?? Also I could've told them that.

Because in scientific study, nothing is ever a given until you can test it. Not even "common sense" stuff.

That still doesn't explain who the hell keeps giving out the grants to perform all these studies.

i can personally attest to getting aggressive from not the violence of a game, but the incompetent and frustrated feeling that comes about from either poor controls or poor execution. i remember kicking a hole in my wall once playing GTA on the PSP because how frustrating it was.

Gaming can make you frustrated. We all get frustrated when we have to do the same section again and again due to dying. But frustration in failing is different to getting angry and attacking others. Most i get is swearing or whatever, but i wouldnt attack some one else because of a game.

Oh yes... people have suffered when I played a bad game... I still remember it. The mile long health bars. The 4 on 1 boss fights. The fucking shielding that you had to wait for before you could shoot! The mandatory slow equipment that meant you couldn't dodge enemy fire! The GODDAMNED auto aim fucking up my accuracy!!! THE HOURS I SPENT GRINDING AWAY AT THE HEALTH ONLY TO FUCKING RUN OUT OF LIFE ON THE LAST BOSS!!! FUCK THIS GAME!!! MUST KILL!!! EXTERMINATE DEVELOPERS!!!! EXTERMINATE!!!! EXTERMINATE!!!!

Nothing pisses you off more than a bug that crashes your game before you save, bad mechanics that create fake difficulty or the game never telling you what it expects of you.

So a frustrating experience can make you feel frustrated? (frustration is often something that leads to aggressive emotions). WOW! That's rocket science level stuff, that.

But do violent games CHANGE people on a fundamental level? Do they make people permanently aggressive?

Of course not. That's ridiculous. People change based on choices they make. Based on ways they want to be. Not because a video game brain washed them into being angry all the time.

I find it really funny to see this article here, not so much because it's not relevant... but because I posted the same thing a day earlier in the game section of the forum. :p

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.846763-New-studies-with-a-twist-on-the-subject-of-violent-behavior-and-video-games

I can attest to this. For instance, I never feel all that aggressive or angry in MGR: Revengeance (which is all about violence and action) unless I'm failing repeatedly at something, such as when trying to earn a No Damage S-Rank against Monsoon in Very Hard or Revengeance difficulty(his smoke grenades are super cheaty in terms of avoidable damage). I also had a similar experience recently in HAWKEN. Most of the time the game is fun and I'm having a lighthearted blast at all the high speed mech destruction. It wasn't until a continuing series of losing Siege matches in which my team couldn't seem to figure out how to capture the Anti Air cannon that I started getting angry and slinging expletives. Naturally, I don't play Siege anymore. Missile Assault is much more fun(think the AA capturing part of Siege, but with 3 AA points instead of 1. Turns into a hilarious game of musical chairs or hot potato on the Bunker map).

dyre:

chikusho:
Wanna know something else that causes increased feelings of violence and aggression? Sports!
Out of all the studies performed on video games and aggression, I've yet to see a comparison to physical exertion and competition in sports, which I think is a far more relevant analogy to make than just making references to violent content.
Sports can turn people rabid, as is regularly seen in sports-related riots across the globe.
Yet, I see no politicians lobbying for protecting our children from phys.ed. :/

Why would you expect to see a comparison of sports and aggression in a study about video games and aggression??

Because.. as I said in my post.. it would make sense that the interactive nature of video games is responsible for any change in behavior rather than the imagery. Just like sports..?

Holy shit a study that actually makes sense.

Now please do a study on fucking awful game/menu design and the effects it has on people vs. well designed games.

Then please mail the results to every goddamn indie developer in existence because fucking christ these people need to get a clue.

After that study do one on the business practices of the games industry and the effects it has on gamers. Don't bother informing companies about it afterward though, this one is just for our satisfaction. They are a lost cause anyway.

chikusho:

dyre:

chikusho:
Wanna know something else that causes increased feelings of violence and aggression? Sports!
Out of all the studies performed on video games and aggression, I've yet to see a comparison to physical exertion and competition in sports, which I think is a far more relevant analogy to make than just making references to violent content.
Sports can turn people rabid, as is regularly seen in sports-related riots across the globe.
Yet, I see no politicians lobbying for protecting our children from phys.ed. :/

Why would you expect to see a comparison of sports and aggression in a study about video games and aggression??

Because.. as I said in my post.. it would make sense that the interactive nature of video games is responsible for any change in behavior rather than the imagery. Just like sports..?

The two are too unrelated to be lumped into the same study. Video games are about as similar to sports as they are to chess. There are of course separate studies about sports and aggression, but those don't touch on video games.

dyre:

chikusho:

dyre:

Why would you expect to see a comparison of sports and aggression in a study about video games and aggression??

Because.. as I said in my post.. it would make sense that the interactive nature of video games is responsible for any change in behavior rather than the imagery. Just like sports..?

The two are too unrelated to be lumped into the same study. Video games are about as similar to sports as they are to chess. There are of course separate studies about sports and aggression, but those don't touch on video games.

In what way are they too unrelated? Can you perhaps provide a study where they came to this conclusion?

chikusho:

dyre:

chikusho:

Because.. as I said in my post.. it would make sense that the interactive nature of video games is responsible for any change in behavior rather than the imagery. Just like sports..?

The two are too unrelated to be lumped into the same study. Video games are about as similar to sports as they are to chess. There are of course separate studies about sports and aggression, but those don't touch on video games.

In what way are they too unrelated? Can you perhaps provide a study where they came to this conclusion?

Err, they're unrelated in that they're two separate things. It's like comparing philosophy and archaeology and claiming that the two are related simply because they are college majors. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that they ARE related.

dyre:

chikusho:

dyre:

The two are too unrelated to be lumped into the same study. Video games are about as similar to sports as they are to chess. There are of course separate studies about sports and aggression, but those don't touch on video games.

In what way are they too unrelated? Can you perhaps provide a study where they came to this conclusion?

Err, they're unrelated in that they're two separate things. It's like comparing philosophy and archaeology and claiming that the two are related simply because they are college majors. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that they ARE related.

Just because they are different doesn't mean that there aren't similarities.
Like, for instance, if the cause of increased aggression when playing, say, a competitive video game, is the same response you get when you play, say, a competitive sport. Then the increased aggression could be attributed to the confrontative nature of competition rather than just vilifying the content, and the medium of games as a whole.

And, this is why I want to see a comparison of sports and aggression in a study about video games and aggression. The connection might be there, and until it's tested, it's hard to know for sure.

Also, since archaeology is the study of past human life, philosophy is very much connected to the field.

chikusho:

dyre:

chikusho:

In what way are they too unrelated? Can you perhaps provide a study where they came to this conclusion?

Err, they're unrelated in that they're two separate things. It's like comparing philosophy and archaeology and claiming that the two are related simply because they are college majors. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that they ARE related.

Just because they are different doesn't mean that there aren't similarities.
Like, for instance, if the cause of increased aggression when playing, say, a competitive video game, is the same response you get when you play, say, a competitive sport. Then the increased aggression could be attributed to the confrontative nature of competition rather than just vilifying the content, and the medium of games as a whole.

And, this is why I want to see a comparison of sports and aggression in a study about video games and aggression. The connection might be there, and until it's tested, it's hard to know for sure.

Also, since archaeology is the study of past human life, philosophy is very much connected to the field.

I see what you're saying, but that's not a good way to isolate the variables because comparing video games alongside sports adds too many new variables. It's better to do a study where everything is the same except for exactly one factor. I would argue that this study pretty much does exactly that. It shows that "video game related aggression" is merely from frustration and not from anything related to the content of the video game itself.

As someone who's taken some philosophy classes and talked to some archaeology majors, I'd have to say philosophy is not very applicable to archaeology.

dyre:

chikusho:

dyre:

The two are too unrelated to be lumped into the same study. Video games are about as similar to sports as they are to chess. There are of course separate studies about sports and aggression, but those don't touch on video games.

In what way are they too unrelated? Can you perhaps provide a study where they came to this conclusion?

Err, they're unrelated in that they're two separate things. It's like comparing philosophy and archaeology and claiming that the two are related simply because they are college majors. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that they ARE related.

Allow me to step in here. I used to play Football when I was 13. My team placed 3rd in British Columbia, and we won the pre-season tournament, so I can say we were a very competitive team. I have also been a keen gamer since that wonderful day I got a Nintendo at he age of 6.

Losing a sports game is exactly as frustrating as losing a video game. Replace faulty mechanics with biased or half-assed refereeing, and replace lazy AI design with actual cheating and there you go. At least when a video game cheats, you personally don't sustain injury. As a wide receiver, it was my job to get past the Flanker to be open for the ball. This is often achieved by dexterity, which I am capable of, but since I actually started playinmg as an Offensive Lineman, I found it much more satisfying to go over or through said Flanker. Eventually, he grabbed my face mask and twisted, resulting in a pinched nerve, and 3 weeks off the field for me. Neither I, nor any of my friends have EVER done violence to each other over a video game, even when somebody DID cheat just to Troll you for a round.

Later in life, we moved and I was put into Rugby. (This turned out to be my dad lying to me about there being a football program because Rugby is cheaper and more "prestigious" in the community we moved to.) This was when I fist beat up another human being. During the scrum at practice, I was punched in the short-ribs by a MEMBER OF MY OWN TEAM. When I asked him what his problem with me was, he said I shouldn't take it personally, and that that was how Rugby is played. I calmly asked the Coach if this was 1) True and 2) allowed in the rules. It is ABSOLUTELY true, and it is 100% AGAINST THE RULES. So needless to say, the dumb-ass was quite surprised when I rounded on him, dropped him and Punched his face a few times. EVERY rugby player in the world, as well as most professional Soccer players, are cheap, cowardly, weak Humans, who have to get their shots in after the Buzzer - Like pressing the Cheap Shot button in Fight Night 3 right at bell, so you don't get penalized for kneeing your opponent's Balls. These sports, which feature NO LEGAL CONTACT BETWEEN players, are in fact the MOST rife with violence, including punches, deliberate kicks with cleats on and biting each other.

You will probably never see an MLG event where one player physically hits a member of another team during a match.

Whereas in 2 separate sports, I have been Legally assaulted. These sports have such a skewed viewpoint that it took me 2 meetings with the Surrey Rugby League to prove to them that not only was I within my rights to bring legal action against the League, but I was correct in defending myself from future assaults by demonstrating to the aforementioned Idiot that I was more than capable of doing him sever injury, but had the discretion not to.

Don't even TRY to bring up Hockey Fights: those are agreed upon and gentemanly bouts of Fisticuffs, and PERMITTED in the rules of the game.

SilverStuddedSquirre:

Allow me to step in here. I used to play Football when I was 13. My team placed 3rd in British Columbia, and we won the pre-season tournament, so I can say we were a very competitive team. I have also been a keen gamer since that wonderful day I got a Nintendo at he age of 6.

Losing a sports game is exactly as frustrating as losing a video game. Replace faulty mechanics with biased or half-assed refereeing, and replace lazy AI design with actual cheating and there you go. At least when a video game cheats, you personally don't sustain injury. As a wide receiver, it was my job to get past the Flanker to be open for the ball. This is often achieved by dexterity, which I am capable of, but since I actually started playinmg as an Offensive Lineman, I found it much more satisfying to go over or through said Flanker. Eventually, he grabbed my face mask and twisted, resulting in a pinched nerve, and 3 weeks off the field for me. Neither I, nor any of my friends have EVER done violence to each other over a video game, even when somebody DID cheat just to Troll you for a round.

Later in life, we moved and I was put into Rugby. (This turned out to be my dad lying to me about there being a football program because Rugby is cheaper and more "prestigious" in the community we moved to.) This was when I fist beat up another human being. During the scrum at practice, I was punched in the short-ribs by a MEMBER OF MY OWN TEAM. When I asked him what his problem with me was, he said I shouldn't take it personally, and that that was how Rugby is played. I calmly asked the Coach if this was 1) True and 2) allowed in the rules. It is ABSOLUTELY true, and it is 100% AGAINST THE RULES. So needless to say, the dumb-ass was quite surprised when I rounded on him, dropped him and Punched his face a few times. EVERY rugby player in the world, as well as most professional Soccer players, are cheap, cowardly, weak Humans, who have to get their shots in after the Buzzer - Like pressing the Cheap Shot button in Fight Night 3 right at bell, so you don't get penalized for kneeing your opponent's Balls. These sports, which feature NO LEGAL CONTACT BETWEEN players, are in fact the MOST rife with violence, including punches, deliberate kicks with cleats on and biting each other.

You will probably never see an MLG event where one player physically hits a member of another team during a match.

Whereas in 2 separate sports, I have been Legally assaulted. These sports have such a skewed viewpoint that it took me 2 meetings with the Surrey Rugby League to prove to them that not only was I within my rights to bring legal action against the League, but I was correct in defending myself from future assaults by demonstrating to the aforementioned Idiot that I was more than capable of doing him sever injury, but had the discretion not to.

Don't even TRY to bring up Hockey Fights: those are agreed upon and gentemanly bouts of Fisticuffs, and PERMITTED in the rules of the game.

Hey, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying sports aren't a source of frustration and aggression; in fact, I think real life shows that there's a lot more measurable aggression from sports (often leading to actual riots) than there is in video games (in which the aggression at most manifests as some nasty voice chat).

However, I don't think the two things are similar enough to compare side by side in the same scientific study. When you compare a control group to an experimental group, you want the two groups to be identical as much as possible except for the one factor that you are studying. You'll notice that in the study that when comparing two groups they even played the same game; one group played Half Life 2, and another group played a modded version of Half Life 2 that took out the guns and made the bad guys evaporate instead of die. In other tests, they gave two groups Half Life 2, but with one group going through a tutorial first and the other group being thrown right in (to simulate frustration).

Putting sports side-by-side with video games in the same study creates too many other variables (for example, the medium of interaction. One cannot shove another player in Call of Duty, but merely yell at him through voice chat) so it would be difficult to compare the two. Not impossible, but I don't see why researchers should bother going through the trouble when there are plenty of studies specifically related to sports and violence.

Not exactly related, but here's an interesting study that tries to isolate whether aggression comes from violent content or competition (rather than frustration that the new Oxford study concentrates on), using sports video games.
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/Classes/Readings/Anderson%202009.pdf

By the way, as a general note, not to you specifically, I think people need to understand the nature of scientific studies vs how they are portrayed by the media. If you read a scientific study, they'll say something like "there seems to be a statistical significant correlation between violent video games and aggression, however further studies are needed to isolate whether violence specifically is the cause or causes x, y, and z." Usually these guys are pretty humble and don't try to pretend to know everything. And then the media will go "researchers at the University of ABC claim to have PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that violent video games cause school shootings!!!" And then no one will bother reading the actual study and immediately dismiss the researchers as a bunch of idiots. The ignorant disrespect for scientific research here is annoying and although the media is partly to blame, people should try to avoid knee-jerk reactions until they have a better understanding of the research itself.

Ah, perhaps I did misinterpretation your point. These would be better contrasted in similar, yet separate studies, with a parallel thesis, you are correct. You are doubly correct about Media latching onto "seems to show a Correlation" as actually proof.

I have been studying the violent video games issue for a non-scientific term paper and reading through the actually published scholarly studies, this 'finding' is less likely than the conclusion that violent video games cause real world violence.

I have become sick of reading scholarly articles and empirical research so the actual study here might not say video games are specifically linked to incompetence but assuming it does that is far less likely than the alleged link between virtual/real violence.

The main argument being made scholarly is that it is unethical/impossible to measure aggression. Violence is intentional harm being inflicted on the self or others and aggression is sort of believed to be the brain waves or patterns that cause people to do things like harm themselves or others, aggression is the force, violence is the act. That is the scientific issue because all studies have to define what aggression is in a manner they can test, not in the actual terms of what aggression is, so they often measure things like how hard does a person blow into a tube and just say that the harder they blow, the more aggressive they are. And from there studies go on to claim that because these people blew harder after playing a violent game they are therefore more aggressive and therefore more likely to commit violence, which gets translated by the news to mean "VIDEO GAMES CAUSE VIOLENCE." There are like 4 assumptions in that line of thinking that cannot be eliminated scientifically, either because its unethical to measure violence directly, we cannot control for other external factors, and we cannot confirm causation.

Given all of these flaws in the violence studies, why would anyone study a possible explanation that does not even make the rational sense of monkey-see, monkey-do. The belief that commiting violent acts in games could lead to violent acts in reality at least follows the psychological explanation for how people learn, with the main problem being the difference between fiction and reality. What possible rationality is there for the aggression these studies report finding being caused by violent video games being a link to incompetence? The violence and aggression are linked by definition, aggression leads to violence. Aggression does not lead to incompetence, unless your job is to be a manager and your aggression led to you murdering everyone and therefore having no one to manage.

This study seems to add another wrench into an issue the worlds top minds still do not fully understand. And on top of that, the wrench, while technically possible, doesn't even follow a rational path.

Also, what about nonviolent video games, what aspect does violence have to do with incompetence, being stuck on a puzzle in Portal also increases the aggression response and would seem like a more logical testing place since the aggression response from violence makes some sense that it could lead to violence and aggression in reality, not being incompetent.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here