New study suggests playing video games not linked to physical aggression

[Jonn]

This is an example of positive desensitisation.
Obviously, it can work in a negative way, also.

Systematic Desensitization​

F. Dudley McGlynn, in Encyclopedia of Psychotherapy, 2002

VI. Summary​

Systematic desensitization is a venerable behavior therapy for fear and anxiety. Usually it entails remaining deeply relaxed while visualizing a series of increasingly fearsome scenes in which the patient confronts targeted events or situations. There are many theories about how systematic desensitization reduces fear

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/desensitization

 

[Hypnalis]

Gamers have known that shooters and other simulations of that kind don't cause aggression since they were invented. They're like team sports - only people who are already crazy have trouble distinguishing between games and reality.

Gaming back in the days of "LAN parties" was a very social activity.
What's worsened since then is the reduction in RL contact due to near-universal network connectivity.

OTOH social media looks like being a major source of actual harm in the medium term.

 

[Luca]

I have heard a lot of conflicting information on this topic, and I'm not a gamer myself, but I'm most inclined here to agree with @Misery because of her depth of knowledge in this field.

I also really doubt that video games are having anywhere near as much of an impact on people with violent or antisocial tendencies, as the recent trend in sensationalizing and romanticizing serial killers and true crime (often in graphic detail) might be.
My girlfriend occasionally listens to true crime podcasts, and the handful of times that I have overheard them, I have had some of the most insane and vivid nightmares I've ever had in my life. I can only imagine what that might do to the brain of someone who has tendencies towards that stuff or is overly desensitized to it.

One absolutely terrifying nightmare I had about being trapped in a building full of rotting dead bodies (that actually involved necromancy, of all things) was more than enough for me to be like "Please don't watch true crime stuff in front of me anymore."
I'm now doing everything I possibly can to unsee that nightmare but it's going to be a long process.

 

[Slime_Punk]

More than likely, aggression stems from a host of other things in life (trauma, learned behavior, disorders) and if anything, games probably play a very small roll. I watch true crime nearly everyday, listen almost exclusively to what could be described as 'violent music' (usually with varying dark themes) and if I had enough time / drive to do so, I'd probably play a lot of classic-ish / indie games involving a wide range of violent themes (although I really don't game much at all anymore) and I've never been aggressive in my life toward anyone.

(Actually, my favorite way of playing games [on that rare occasion when I do] is avoiding the story completely and just doing every bad thing you can imagine, just to see how the AI responds. No good or bad guy is spared, sometimes not even myself!)

I know a lot of people who enjoy the same stuff (and 'worse') and it just doesn't seem to impact them like that at all. But, I wouldn't doubt that people with psychopathic tendencies or other problems could be negatively influenced or inspired by violent music, games and more, so I think that might be the connection that most people make when something goes horribly wrong; really violent people probably do get corrupted by all of the things I mentioned, and that's a difficult problem to contend with. Because what affects me in a certain way won't affect you (this applies to whoever is reading this) in the same way, and the human condition is very complicated.

Somewhat-related: I remember seeing a post on r/MorbidReality where everyone got together and talked about how they appreciated what they had in life, and that the experiences we were all reading about were so considerably rare. I think this is typically the common outcome for a lot of people, it's just to peek into the darkness and then say, "Wow, I'm so lucky that I get to live this life".

 

[Jonn]

Gamers have known that shooters and other simulations of that kind don't cause aggression since they were invented.

There is no apparent definitive answer to this question since other studies suggest violent gaming IS a FACTOR in increasing violence in real life.

Studies support a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior​

Researchers have reported experimental evidence linking violent video games to more aggressive behavior, particularly as it relates to children who are at more sensitive stages in their socialization. These effects have been found to be particularly profound in the case of child-initiated virtual violence.

• In their book, Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents, Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley provide an in depth analysis of three recent studies they conducted comparing the effects of interactive (video games) versus passive (television and movies) media violence on aggression and violence.
  • In one study, 161 9- to 12-year olds and 354 college students were randomly assigned to play either a violent or nonviolent video game. The participants subsequently played another computer game in which they set punishment levels to be delivered to another person participating in the study (they were not actually administered). Information was also gathered on each participant’s recent history of violent behavior; habitual video game, television, and move habits, and several other control variables. The authors reported three main findings: 1) participants who played one of violent video games would choose to punish their opponents with significantly more high-noise blasts than those who played the nonviolent games; 2) habitual exposure to violent media was associated with higher levels of recent violent behavior; and 3) interactive forms of media violence were more strongly related to violent behavior than exposure to non-interactive media violence.
  • The second study was a cross-sectional correlational study of media habits, aggression-related individual difference variables, and aggressive behaviors of an adolescent population. High school students (N=189) completed surveys about their violent TV, movie, and video game exposure, attitudes towards violence, and perceived norms about violent behavior and personality traits. After statistically controlling for sex, total screen time and aggressive beliefs and attitudes, the authors found that playing violent video games predicted heightened physically aggressive behavior and violent behavior in the real world in a long-term context.
  • In a third study, Anderson et al. conducted a longitudinal study of elementary school students to examine if violent video game exposure resulted in increases in aggressive behavior over time. Surveys were given to 430 third, fourth, and fifth graders, their peers, and their teachers at two times during a school year. The survey assessed both media habits and their attitudes about violence. Results indicated that children who played more violent video games early in a school year changed to see the world in a more aggressive way and also changed to become more verbally and physically aggressive later in the school year. Changes in attitude were noticed by both peers and teachers.

I suggest ppl keep an open mind.

 

[Luca]

More than likely, aggression stems from a host of other things in life (trauma, learned behavior, disorders) and if anything, games probably play a very small roll. I watch true crime nearly everyday, listen almost exclusively to what could be described as 'violent music' (usually with varying dark themes) and if I had enough time / drive to do so, I'd probably play a lot of classic-ish / indie games involving a wide range of violent themes (although I really don't game much at all anymore) and I've never been aggressive in my life toward anyone.

(Actually, my favorite way of playing games [on that rare occasion when I do] is avoiding the story completely and just doing every bad thing you can imagine, just to see how the AI responds. No good or bad guy is spared, sometimes not even myself!)

I know a lot of people who enjoy the same stuff (and 'worse') and it just doesn't seem to impact them like that at all. But, I wouldn't doubt that people with psychopathic tendencies or other problems could be negatively influenced or inspired by violent music, games and more, so I think that might be the connection that most people make when something goes horribly wrong; really violent people probably do get corrupted by all of the things I mentioned, and that's a difficult problem to contend with. Because what affects me in a certain way won't affect you (this applies to whoever is reading this) in the same way, and the human condition is very complicated.

Somewhat-related: I remember seeing a post on r/MorbidReality where everyone got together and talked about how they appreciated what they had in life, and that the experiences we were all reading about were so considerably rare. I think this is typically the common outcome for a lot of people, it's just to peek into the darkness and then say, "Wow, I'm so lucky that I get to live this life".

Yeah, I was talking about people who already have violent or sociopathic tendencies, not people like my girlfriend who just casually consume true crime.
A lot of my irl friends like to play games like Grand Theft Auto and just go on a killing spree, and while it makes me uncomfortable to watch, I know they don't actually have violent tendencies in real life.

Edited to add that I'm one of the people who has had the "considerably rare" horrific life experiences, in early childhood, so violence and gore are touchy subjects for me as is.

 

[Jonn]

I like to believe that ultimately how video games may or may not effect young people is entirely something to be considered on an individual basis. I do recall in the late 90s when some tried to pass laws to censor software games on a number of levels. And how the industry fought back and won.

That may have nothing to do with the actuality.
Call me cynical, but I don't trust the integrity of big business, nor do I have great faith in the courage of individuals against the coercive influences of powerful entities.

Once again, I suggest ppl maintain a skeptical mindset.

Regarding individual tendencies, this has to always be considered.

 

[Jonn]

Obviously I'm usually angry and hostile because I'm playing video games like Animal Crossing, Story of Seasons, and Disney Dreamlight Valley. Sarcasm. Obviously.

But then again, games where I escape into another world is likely a sign how I really don't enjoy living in this world.

I suspect most studies involve younger children who are developing their sense of identity.
During that time, they can be heavily influenced.
"Give me the boy until age 7, and I will show you the man", sort of thing.

Much of our early life involves social and parental indoctrination, and there are cultures that successfully train very young children to hate other "tribes" to the point of desiring genocide.

Young children haven't the ability of in-depth logical thinking due to the lack of development of the pre-frontal cortex.
BTW, There are specific tests to determine the level they have achieved, which shows the progression of reasoning capabilities. This is common knowledge, of course.

 

[Jonn]

Makes perfect sense. Violent video games are a safe outlet for people who feel violent urges.

It can be cathartic, but it can also be detrimental in terms of antisocial behaviour in younger children, imo.

People who see "linked" and immediately assume A caused B have already reached their conclusion. Linked could be a coincidence, a correlation to a third factor, or causality going in either direction.

Agreed, hence my suggestion ppl maintain a skeptical mindset.
Life is much more complicated than many ppl think or want to believe.

The other thing I would like to consider is the development of sociopathy through violent imagery affecting young minds.
Also, consider the realistic imagery that is achievable these days which may be another factor.

I have also come across studies suggesting the "simple" act of imagining something can produce emotional AND physical responses that are comparable to real-life experiences.
The example I am referring to involves sports, but another erotic example of the brain interpreting digital/imaginary which elicits emotional/physical responses...well, I will leave that to your imagination.

 

[Jonn]

"Keep an open mind" isn't helpful, because if it's used at all, it's 100% certain to work both ways.
IRL there's either positive replicated evidence or there isn't. Saying e.g. "we couldn't disprove X" is actually a lie.

Well, many ppl don't consider psychology/psychiatry a "hard science" where there are always definitive findings.
Studies may be more aligned with "indicators".
I don't see psychology as a "pseudo-science", btw.

 

[Hypnalis]

Psychology isn't a problem as such.
But there are serious problems with the quality of the work that has been done in the past, and is being done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Too much of it is "built on sand", which makes it very difficult to know which studies can be trusted.
And widespread politicization of the science makes it even worse.

 

[Misery]

Psychology isn't a problem as such.
But there are serious problems with the quality of the work that has been done in the past, and is being done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Too much of it is "built on sand", which makes it very difficult to know which studies can be trusted.
And widespread politicization of the science makes it even worse.

Yeah, pretty much.

Also, to add to this, one thing that comes to mind for me is the idea of bias, or lack of knowledge about topics that connect to a specialty of the ones running the experiments.

For instance, someone doing these tests and all this stuff, maybe they're very good at psychology or you know, the science stuff... but if they have no REAL knowledge of video games (which absolutely includes first hand experience), and everything surrounding them, to me it renders the results totally worthless. They're good at asking the questions. But they have no bloody idea what questions to ask (and they dont realize this). So to speak. And it's not just a matter of knowledge, but also experience, and I'm going to take a guess and say that those running these tests have pretty much none of that... call it a hunch.

The whole reason I'm so confident on what I make of the whole thing is due to the sheer amount of experience and knowledge I have related to the subject matter. I've been doing this for decades, I've spent A LOT of time with competitive games (fighting games mostly), and a lot of time observing and interacting with others who are a part of the hobby. On top of that, I have experience from the other side of the fence, AKA the developer side. I've been able to witness both the best and the worst of player behavior... often in person... and have enough knowledge of the design elements behind the games involved to know what specifically is most likely to act as the point of influence that starts the anger train. As well as understanding the hidden psychological manipulation techniques employed by the nastier publishers, and that absolutely is an element here too (after all, aggravated players absolutely generate more attention towards the product).

But... those running these tests and making these papers probably have none of that, and likely arent even considering that these things may be involved. Despite that it is absolutely all linked to the main subject.

And of course, while many people of a scientific inclination have a tendency to declare themselves as purely objective/logical and free of bias, well... yeah, that's not how any of that works. Any sort of dislike, resentment, or disdain that could be dictated towards the hobby or those who are a part of it, influences ALL of this, whether they're aware of it or not, and no matter how strong they believe their self control to be. The effects of those things are rather similar to the reasons for why the old opinion of "it's ruining our kids" was so common way back when. Parents didn't understand any of it, and what they saw, they often hated. And they did not at all bother to learn more about it. As many kids who grew up during the arcade, or NES/SNES eras likely remember. A similar phenomenon to the weird D&D mess that happened a long while ago as well... parents were freaking out and thinking that D&D would bring their kids into horrible Satanic cults, that sort of thing, because oh no, there are demon monsters in it... and they never bothered to look into it enough to realize that it's the players AGAINST the demons and monsters in the games. And so they would try to dictate things related to what their kids were into, without having any understanding of those things.

Also yes, the politicalization of things like this doesnt help. Some people are just so quick to give... ahem... "results" if those results provide them with some sort of benefit. Not that they'll admit that, of course.

Honestly, I could ramble for pages and pages about this, but I'll spare you all that.

My girlfriend occasionally listens to true crime podcasts, and the handful of times that I have overheard them, I have had some of the most insane and vivid nightmares I've ever had in my life.

For what it's worth, I can sympathize with you on this one, though for me it's not the same source. It's that stupid shouting rectangle in the living room, which is ALWAYS turned up to a high volume. The media being what it is, it's always one scary thing after another scary thing, and even if it's very clearly exaggerated or inaccurate, it still has an effect on me immediately, as much as I hate to admit it. It can cause an immediate anxiety spiral. Scary thumbnails in Youtube videos can have the same effect, but at least there I can curate the feed to the point where they outright stop showing up. I cant do that with the TV.

Unfortunately, my father & stepmother are 100% addicted to the horrid thing, so it aint shutting off unless they arent here.

I've actually had the idea to get noise-cancelling headphones that I can use when I'm not in the basement, just to block that nonsense out.

Certainly better than taking a golfclub to the TV. I cant describe how much I hate that thing.

 

[Judge]

That may have nothing to do with the actuality.
Call me cynical, but I don't trust the integrity of big business, nor do I have great faith in the courage of individuals against the coercive influences of powerful entities.

Once again, I suggest ppl maintain a skeptical mindset.

Regarding individual tendencies, this has to always be considered.

I think you misunderstood my post.

This being the "actuality". In terms of the industry it was the same issue that it always is for any publicly-traded corporation. The intent to perpetuate quarterly profits to maintain equity and pacify shareholders. There is no "integrity" factor for them in this instance. Only the bottom line of a balance sheet. With equal indifference for customers and employees. It's not an opinion for me. More of a direct observation having been on the inside of the marketing dept. of a corporate name and video game titles many of you know.

Separate to such considerations, I myself believe that it ultimately depends on an individual as to how they process such things as to whether or not they (video games) are truly toxic to them and others.

However we still exist in a legal climate that allows people the choice of using products to destroy themselves and take others down with them. Not so much with a consideration of personal freedom, but rather corporations lobbying to maintain their right to sell anything and everything, regardless of their dangers to the welfare of the general public.

"Always the dollars. Always the dollars." - Joe Pesci, "Casino"

 

[Au Naturel]

Well, many ppl don't consider psychology/psychiatry a "hard science" where there are always definitive findings.
Studies may be more aligned with "indicators".
I don't see psychology as a "pseudo-science", btw.

Some day, psychology may grow up to be a science. It is at best, a collection of different philosophical schools of thought. But... philosophy is important too.

 

[Au Naturel]

the old opinion of "it's ruining our kids"

Let me tell you about the comic book controversy of the 1930s, '40s, and '50s. Every single thing said about video games today has been said about comic books. It became so prominent that the industry created the Comic Code Authority to avoid outright censorship by the Federal Government. Which would have been entirely unconstitutional, but at the time, they would have created an exception "for the good of the children."

 

[Forest Cat]

The effects of those things are rather similar to the reasons for why the old opinion of "it's ruining our kids" was so common way back when. Parents didn't understand any of it, and what they saw, they often hated. And they did not at all bother to learn more about it

I don't think it was about parents hating things, I think it was just that the parents saw that certain things were not good for their kids. For example, when I was a kid my dad and others peoples dads would chase us kids outside if they saw us playing video games. And it makes sense, they saw us kids sitting on our butts indoors doing nothing. There were plenty of things that needed to get done, we should be doing those things and they also wanted us to be outside, not sitting still inside all the time, it wasn't healthy or good for us. And they didn't need to learn more about it, they saw what we were doing, or not doing, and they didn't need to know more.

 

[Au Naturel]

I don't think it was about parents hating things, I think it was just that the parents saw that certain things were not good for their kids. For example, when I was a kid my dad and others peoples dads would chase us kids outside if they saw us playing video games. And it makes sense, they saw us kids sitting on our butts indoors doing nothing. There were plenty of things that needed to get done, we should be doing those things and they also wanted us to be outside, not sitting still inside all the time, it wasn't healthy or good for us. And they didn't need to learn more about it, they saw what we were doing, or not doing, and they didn't need to know more.

What is "good" for you isn't a static thing. It evolves with cultural change and technology. Most parents define "good" as how they were raised. People have been griping about the kids all going to heck at least since the dawn of writing. It is a generational thing.

 

[Misery]

What is "good" for you isn't a static thing. It evolves with cultural change and technology. Most parents define "good" as how they were raised. People have been griping about the kids all going to heck at least since the dawn of writing. It is a generational thing.

Yeah, pretty much that.

Just for fun, my own experience with that:

I knew someone as a kid, who was into games as I was. But, he actually spent the majority of his time doing athletic things... way too much energy, that kid. Good at sports (and if I recall correctly, after high school he went in the military... or at least I remember him talking a lot about planning to do so... really freaking tough, that kid, and very protective of others... I bet he did well). And of course he had homework and such like the rest of us.

Gaming for him was like, maybe an hour in a day. And not every day. But his parents still haaaaaaaated it. Yet, if he'd sat and stared blankly at the TV, THAT was fine. Because the parents understood the TV unit in its default state. Just not when said box had been converted into an interactive form via a console. The fact that he even managed to HAVE one is kinda baffling, now that I think about it, considering how much his parents despised the thing.

For me, well... As a kid, I was never into sports or anything, but boy did I have an awful lot of lower-body / leg strength, due to the sheer amount of hiking I did. I didnt do football and was never the rowdy sort, but I know every inch of every forest in the region, and every road in the neighborhood. Even to this very day, I'm not passive... I need to get up and Do Things. If I dont leave the house often enough, I'll go mad. Even indoors, I dont sit still well. So, even as VERY into games as I have always been... yeah. It aint exactly an enormous amount of time per day.

However, as a kid, my parents didnt care for it much, though they didnt have that absolute loathing that my friend's parents had (particularly as my affinity towards tech in general started to show itself more and more). They would complain about me gaming sometimes... despite, again, I never did long sessions and needed to get the heck up a lot to not go crazy... and despite all the hiking and whatnot. Notably though, TV, as in just watching it, was 100% fine with them. If for some reason I wanted to watch like 2 movies in a row (though I didnt) that'd be totally okay.

And the ACTUAL difference between the two activities? One is actually interactive and requires, you know, thinking. The other... watching TV... is not interactive. Yet that one was okay. Because they grasped it. It was something they did as well. And I've heard variations of pretty much this from all sorts of people who I've met who were/are into the hobby.

Even to this very day, many people who for some reason loathe video games, will be 100% just fine with TV and movies (and phones, come to think of it... often they are REALLY into their phones), and there's a decent chance they spend an awful lot of time doing those things.

That's what I'd been getting at. For plenty... not all, of course, but plenty... It was never about sitting zombified in front of a console (particularly when it was totally fine to do the same with the TV in a non-interactive state) when other things were doable. Because even if you also did do those other things, yeah, it didnt matter. The parents hadnt grown up with games themselves, so it wasnt good to them, because it wasnt involved in THEIR childhood.

 

[Jonn]

and if anything, games probably play a very small roll.

I believe it is a factor.
Not sure it is a small one after the years of psychological abuse directed at me and many others when I played multiplay FPS.

BTW, Back then, one of the worst insults you could make was calling someone "autistic".

I refuse to play multiplayer games because of the endemic hacking these days.
Not because I can't handle it.
"Me (emotionally) strong like bull now".
I simply refuse to get involved with the immature nonsense these days.

 

[Bolletje]

Gaming back in the days of "LAN parties" was a very social activity.

I have such fond memories of LAN parties. I really miss those days.

Being a life long gamer I have always found the idea that video games cause violence absurd.