ISU study proves conclusively that violent video game play makes more aggressive kids

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2010/mar/vvgeffects

ISU study proves conclusively that violent video game play makes more aggressive kids

AMES, Iowa -- Iowa State University Distinguished Professor of Psychology Craig Anderson has made much of his life's work studying how violent video game play affects youth behavior. And he says a new study he led, analyzing 130 research reports on more than 130,000 subjects worldwide, proves conclusively that exposure to violent video games makes more aggressive, less caring kids -- regardless of their age, sex or culture.

The study was published today in the March 2010 issue of the Psychological Bulletin, an American Psychological Association journal. It reports that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive thoughts and behavior, and decreased empathy and prosocial behavior in youths.

"We can now say with utmost confidence that regardless of research method -- that is experimental, correlational, or longitudinal -- and regardless of the cultures tested in this study , you get the same effects," said Anderson, who is also director of Iowa State's Center for the Study of Violence. "And the effects are that exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior in both short-term and long-term contexts. Such exposure also increases aggressive thinking and aggressive affect, and decreases prosocial behavior."

The study was conducted by a team of eight researchers, including ISU psychology graduate students Edward Swing and Muniba Saleem; and Brad Bushman, a former Iowa State psychology professor who now is on the faculty at the University of Michigan. Also on the team were the top video game researchers from Japan - Akiko Shibuya from Keio University and Nobuko Ihori from Ochanomizu University - and Hannah Rothstein, a noted scholar on meta-analytic review from the City University of New York.

Meta-analytic procedure used in research

The team used meta-analytic procedures -- the statistical methods used to analyze and combine results from previous, related literature -- to test the effects of violent video game play on the behaviors, thoughts and feelings of the individuals, ranging from elementary school-aged children to college undergraduates.

The research also included new longitudinal data which provided further confirmation that playing violent video games is a causal risk factor for long-term harmful outcomes.

"These are not huge effects -- not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang," said Anderson. "But these effects are also not trivial in size. It is one risk factor for future aggression and other sort of negative outcomes. And it's a risk factor that's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least, easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence, such as poverty or one's genetic structure."

The analysis found that violent video game effects are significant in both Eastern and Western cultures, in males and females, and in all age groups. Although there are good theoretical reasons to expect the long-term harmful effects to be higher in younger, pre-teen youths, there was only weak evidence of such age effects

Time to refocus the public policy debate

The researchers conclude that the study has important implications for public policy debates, including development and testing of potential intervention strategies designed to reduce the harmful effects of playing violent video games.

"From a public policy standpoint, it's time to get off the question of, 'Are there real and serious effects?' That's been answered and answered repeatedly," Anderson said. "It's now time to move on to a more constructive question like, 'How do we make it easier for parents -- within the limits of culture, society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?'"

But Anderson knows it will take time for the creation and implementation of effective new policies. And until then, there is plenty parents can do to protect their kids at home.

"Just like your child's diet and the foods you have available for them to eat in the house, you should be able to control the content of the video games they have available to play in your home," he said. "And you should be able to explain to them why certain kinds of games are not allowed in the house -- conveying your own values. You should convey the message that one should always be looking for more constructive solutions to disagreements and conflict."

Anderson says the new study may be his last meta-analysis on violent video games because of its definitive findings. Largely because of his extensive work on violent video game effects, Anderson was chosen as one of the three 2010 American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientist Lecturers. He will give a lecture at October's New England Psychological Association (NEPA) meeting in Colchester, Vt.

-30-

[HeresyLives]

1. They said that about TV, & before that, pool halls.

But if they want real violence, they should check out the Bible.

It makes EVERYbody aggressive.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Are you saying that TV does not affect viewers' behavior?

(Don't break it to the advertisers...)

[HeresyLives]

22. LOL no more than anything else does.

[AlecBGreen]

9. lol

yeah, every time I read my Bible Im filled with bloodlust. HULK MAAAAAAD!

[lazarus]

3. do they explain

why Japan has much more violent video games and other media, but a much lower rate of violent crime?

[Occulus]

5. Someone in the comments at the WaPo link I gave in my post below

asked the exact same question.

Everyone I have ever associated myself with, as well as Yours Truly, has played very, very violent video games: the Doom series, Crysis, Bioshock, Devil May Cry, Dead Space, F.E.A.R., Silent Hill, and many, many, many others. Thoughts of violence occur, but I've never known anyone who has played these games to act on them.

I call bullshit on this study and note that its author is posing with his book on the subject at the WaPo link, in both paperback and coffe-table edition.

I wonder what the folks over at Penny Arcade have to say about this....

[Indenturedebtor]

6. They aren't attempting to explain all violent behavior in America

There are many factors, but it's fairly well indisputable that watching violence, much less simulating it, leads to more violent thoughts. If watching violent tv or playing violent games didn't affect us emotionally and mentally we wouldn't bother with it.

I doubt that if you asked this researcher what he thought the biggest cause for our violence problem is he would say "Video games and TV." He might even point out that our violent society is likely the result of broken homes, broken dreams, and broken communities.

Kids under 18 should be able to look at boobies but shouldn't be simulating murder all day long.

[lazarus]

7. I disagree

Violent video games don't necessarily lead to more violent thoughts. As post #4 points out, violence amongst teens has dropped whilst the popularity of violent video games has increased.

If violent video games aren't that big a problem, why is he doing this paper? What does it mean? Is it just a ploy to sell his book?

[Occulus]

4. Rebuttal

Long Time Video Game Critic Claims Conclusive Evidence That Violent Video Games Cause Aggression; Conclusive Except That It Isn't...

from the except-for-the-details dept

Well, the back and forth over the impact of violent video games continues. Every so often someone comes out with a research paper, claiming that violent video games are dangerous for kids, but the details never seem to support those exaggerated claims. Studies have shown that kids playing violent video games have more aggressive thoughts while playing the games (uh, duh!) and that they can become desensitized to the violent images on the screen (but not necessarily desensitized to actual violence). Then there are studies that show that kids who play violent video games tend to be emotional about those video games (again, duh). But none of that suggests the video games actually lead to increased violence or any increased risk of violence. They just suggest that kids get into video games. And, for all the claims of violent video games increasing youth violence, it seems rather damning that as violent video games have increased in popularity, incidents of youth violence have dropped. Other studies have actually suggested on-screen violence may actually decrease real violence, by acting as an outlet...

snip

Of course, reality is a bit more fuzzy. The same journal that is publishing Anderson's new paper is also publishing a commentary from other researchers who disagree (DU edit: the poll at the bottom of that article has its own bias) and suggest that Anderson has a pretty bad selection bias problem. But the biggest problem -- as we noted above, is that all of these "violent video games are bad" studies seem to show incredibly weak effects that don't appear to be significant in any meaningful way. As the commentary shows:

Psychology, too often, has lost its ability to put the weak (if any) effects found for VVGs on aggression into a proper perspective. In doing so, it does more to misinform than inform public debates on this issue.

Meanwhile, just last year, two Harvard Medical School professors also went through a whole bunch of different studies on violent video games and came to the exact opposite conclusions as Anderson did. It found little actual evidence to support Anderson's claims, and found significant problems with research suggesting there was a serious link between violent video games and actual violence. Among that report's findings:

* In the last 10 years, video games studies have been overwhelmingly popular compared to studies on other media.
* Less than half of studies (41%) used well validated aggression measures.
* Poorly standardized and unreliable measures of aggression tended to produce the highest effects, possibly because their unstandardized format allows researchers to pick and choose from a range of possible outcomes.

Much more at the link above. One important note is that this is a study of studies; it's a 'metastudy'. What's really telling is the photo that accompanies the full article at iastate.edu.

[gulfcoastliberal]

10. +1 - Yeap, TV is much worse. Unrec'd. nt

[Johonny]

11. thanks

[snot]

8. The US Military uses video games to train soldiers bec. it works. Among other things,

it helps them overcome the natural hesitation to kill.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. That's why pilots use flight simulators to train new pilots.

It works out the natural tendency to fly planes into buildings.

:crazy:

[Occulus]

15. Only if there is empathy with the characters on the screen

Otherwise, it's just hand-eye coordination and target practice.

Does my killing every Litter Sister I see in Bioshock 2 make me a monster? Why, no. I saved them all in the first game, and got a lame-ass "good ending" movie for my trouble. This time, I have to guard them as they suck the blood out of corpses (they call them "Angels") and then drink it, while I defend them from genetically-mutated insane Splicers, and I'm not that patient. I want my ADAM, and I want it now.

PS- the Little Sisters are about seven years old and I don't care about them. Not a bit.

"Daddy! DADDY! NO!! N----" *scream* *jingle jingle as the ADAM goes in my wallet*

:D

[Posteritatis]

20. And let's not get started on the atrocities the average Spore player commits!

A friend of mine actually got this big panic-filled lecture from a Concerned About Video Games type because she blew up a planet in Spore. Apparently that means you're more likely to commit murder IRL.

[Occulus]

24. Oh, I regularly fuck up planets in Spore

The Followers of Spode are fucked once I get the Heat Ray. I burn their planets to a crisp without hesitation or provocation.

The Followers of Spode deserve to burn. Always. I hate them; they always declare war on me no matter what I do. I try to be Mother Theresa with them, and they still (foolishly) try to make war with me.

DIE, you fuckers. Just fucking DIE.

Then I terraform their dead planets and claim them as my own. I've made some very nice level-3 purple spice planets that way, with the spice storage module and an Uber Turret on every one, and I always end up a very very wealthy Captain for my trouble. I think I'm at 22 million Sporebucks and climbing using that strategy...

[qazplm]

17. the military uses video games to train soldiers because

1. its cheap, cheaper than actual bullets, or tanks or planes or what have you
2. young adults today grew up on video games so it's a media they understand and enjoy, which is a pretty good media for conducting training

It's about money and getting attention, not because video games overcome the natural hesitation to kill.

[Occulus]

26. They need to do better

"America's Army" feels fake. There's no "there" there.

Mirror's Edge is more fun. And that's saying something.

[Codeine]

30. Really?

I've been playing video games since the old Atari consoles and my first TRS-80 and I still would hesitate to kill.

Something tells me you're full of shit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. I like how they work "conclusive" and "meta-analysis" into the same article.

For those who don't know- a meta-analysis contains no original research. It takes the data and statistics from other studies and reworks it into conclusions that the original research articles never claimed or supported.

There was a meta-analysis a few years ago that came to the conclusion that vitamins are bad for you and cause cancer.

Meta-analyses may be useful in some situations to spot trends that went unnoticed in small, single studies. But they're far from conclusive.

[meeshrox]

21. Learn another interesting fact from you...

thanks...hadn't heard of meta-analyses yet...

[realisticphish]

23. yeah

I started laughing when I read that. That doesn't make this nonsense, but there is no way anyone can consider a meta-analysis a definitive ANYTHING

[Igel]

14. The problem is that ultimately it's not science that he's after.

It's politics.

Since his study's bigger and better, it should strongly influence, if not determine, policy. Now, you can make an argument for this--but that argument isn't usually won or lost, people just assume that there can be only one correct answer.

Some researchers change their views over time when their research doesn't pan out very well. Some keep on plugging away because they believe they're right and just need to do one more bigger, more sophisticated study to get evidence that supports their claims and proves them true. I suspect--without claiming--that he's in the latter camp.

Advocacy science.

[Posteritatis]

16. Translation: ISU researcher claims study conclusively proves.. (nt)

[Iggo]

18. That's what I got: "Researcher concludes..." (n/t)

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. I Wonder why the military uses video games for recruitment...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/war-games-armys-teen-arsenal

[Occulus]

25. I tried "America's Army" and it did nothing for me.

I'm a gamer of many, many years. Since the Atari 2600, in fact.

Crysis was more fun, for all that it was tough as nails. Farcry 2 is right out. That game is impossible. It's way, way harder (and more fun, and more tactically challenging, and more visually appealing, and more interesting) than America's Army.

If the Army put out a game like Bioshock, with that sort of depth and storytelling, I'd be interested. "America's Army" is too.... plastic and contrived for my taste.

Team Fortress 2 is way more fun.

[Orrex]

27. When I play Tetris I get an overwhelming urge to stack masonry.

[opiate69]

28. lol!! You, my friend, just won the interweb!

:rofl: :rofl:

[Codeine]

29. This is not a study.

This is somebody looking at a bunch of other studies and cherry-picking his preferred data.