Researcher reveals Video Games aren't to blame

[ThumbBot]

A study by University of Southern California sociologist Karen Sternheimer, who has been researching the topic of video game violence since 1999, said blaming video games for youth violence fails to take into account other major factors.

No. Shit.

"A symphony of events controls violence," said Sternheimer, who began her research after some experts blamed the video game "Doom" for the gun rampage at Columbine High School in Colorado in which two students killed 13 people and then themselves.

"It was a tragic and, very fortunately, rare event and it was discouraging to see that the conversation often started and stopped at video games."

Read more about the paper on Reuters, the paper itself will be published in the American Sociological Association's Contexts magazine, but will also hopefully get some more coverage elsewhere.





Posted by James Spafford

[Tantrum]

RIPOSTE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6410061.stm

You are weak, old man. Indeed you are no man, old, err, no-man. For a true man has balls marked by the multi headed beast of The One True A/V Brand! And, err, logically, I guess I have made the start of this paragraph invalid.

[Rodi]

Some 'experts' said that Doom was responsible? What was their expertise exactly? It wasn't video games, it wasn't sociology, it certainly wasn't psychology, but it might have been sticking to the first populist thing they found and not looking any further.

[vimes]

I think that it's a bit easy to say it's certain that video-games are not a cause of violence in behaviors: if we can be proud that video-games have a positive psychological impact on people [as it's been stated by some], then we must consider the possibility that video-games do have an harmful effect on the psyche.Moreover, as it's stated in the linked article, violent behaviors find their roots in many things, and this might include video-games.

I also find quite disappointing when people put video-games too eagerly on the same level as literature or movies, stating that because the latters have been prove to have no impact except in how the violence is performed, then, there is no way video-games can have a bigger impact. But videogame is a different medium, the point is interactivity : violence is triggered by the player, in settings that more than often present violence as the only meaningful way to solve problems...

I guess no any study could give a definite answer to this problem, but I'd rather keep wondering about it than think that video-games aren't a part of this.

[miffy495]

I've always been of the mind that while videogames don't create violent people they do (along with other forms of media) give said violent people some new ideas as to how to cause harm. Still, the harm would be caused either way. I'm not one to dismiss the idea of game-related violence as a result, but I'm also not sure I'll ever declare there to be a causal link.

[Rodi]

Vimes; you imply that there is a more direct way in which the interactivity forms a violent state of mind in the player, right? But I think the aggression stays within the confines of the game: whatever is generated is immediately released through the very interactivity that spawned it. I think the most that could be said of games then is that they train a person to become accustomed to an active role in violence; not just as a onlooker as with movies, but as a participant. Much in the same way people in the army get trained in this way; guns and shooting become that much more a part of their mindset.

However; it doesn't change fundamental psychological features in a person, I should think. You aren't afraid of a soldier suddenly becoming a psychopath, and neither should you fear a gamer (though there could be said something for the soldier's training also incorporating a level of responsability -though there could also be said something for the level of abstraction of a video game creating more of a distance between player and violence). If they however, already WERE psychopaths, then they will be more comfortable with the guns they wield and the violence they inflict. But I think even that is up for argument.

Sorry for this diatribe

[elmuerte]

Too bad the news article didn't really go into the done research (e.g. the setup and collecting of information) and the conclusion was also quite short. But given the research spanned 6 years I guess it does have more meaning than most of the other research on this subject that has been published in the past years. Hopefully this research also reaches others, like those German EU reps that want stricter regulations concerning interactive entertainment.

Anyway, I like it that the conclusion fits my view on these kinds of researches (e.g. there are too many factors and it's very difficult/impossible to isolate a single one).

I don't think you can but video game players and soldiers on the same level, or even close to it. Soldiers (and other violence controlling jobs) get a much more explicit training, they are thought exactly how to do these things. Gamers might be more likely to kill a person when they have too, and probably have less mental objections after it. But they lack the technical knowledge. I think... I have never seen a soldier bunny hopping or performing rocket jumps. Also there are no respawns or health pickups in real life.
I do think interactive entertainment can cause problems for people that have a hard time differentiating real life from virtual life. But those people could have the same problem with movies. But they have mental issues in the first place.

[vimes]

Rodi:

Sorry for this diatribe

No, no, such post helps getting a better understanding of badly handled topics like this one.

Rodi:

Vimes; you imply that there is a more direct way in which the interactivity forms a violent state of mind in the player, right?
[...]
I think the most that could be said of games then is that they train a person to become accustomed to an active role in violence; [...] guns and shooting become that much more a part of their mindset.

Yes ... and no: I'm just wondering if the accumulation of games that are diverse yet still violent isn't legitimating violence as a righteous act by excluding all other type of action and presenting violent action as the only true mean to solve problems.

Rodi:

But I think the aggression stays within the confines of the game: whatever is generated is immediately released through the very interactivity that spawned it.

I hadn't thought of that and that really makes some sense, but, in a way, that would mean there is no lasting effects in playing video-games. And from my experience, I don't think that's the case: I only have to remember when I played Lumines intensively, it happened a few time that outside the gaming session the game would play inside my head... that raises some questions, doesn't it ? And not just about my sanity.

Rodi:

You aren't afraid of a soldier suddenly becoming a psychopath, and neither should you fear a gamer (though there could be said something for the soldier's training also incorporating a level of responsability -though there could also be said something for the level of abstraction of a video game creating more of a distance between player and violence).

Maybe there's something to dig here ...
Soldiers are trained in simulation before going on the battlefield, which means they are depicted situations in which they will need to use violence. In a sense, it's like playing video-games : they are offered some means[real weapon, similar environment] to put themselves in situation that are not actually there but their imagination and the psychological environement do the rest to make it very real in their mind.

Therefore what could be said is that, if a soldier is rationally trained then in his/her mind, violence will be linked to particular set of situations ... thus rendering it unusable in everyday life. The major screw up of the army would then to make the function of soldier something that bleeds outside war-like situations into personal life.

In turn, video-games don't only provide violence in situations where it is the only meaningful action to take : it seems many designers consider violence as the basic tool to provide the player, in order to make a game sound about right. So in multiple genre (GTA-like, RPG and First Person game [say Thief]) while violence may not be the best way out of a situation, it is however presented as the most efficient interaction.

The question is : as the soldier is safe because through simulation training violence has been restricted in his mind to peculiar conditions, would a gamer be more inclined to integrate violence as a legitimate mean in real life because it was provided to him in simulation (i.e. games) that covers a wide range of environments and situations? That might sound a bit far fetched, and yet, I don't know.

[Redwall]

vimes:

I'm just wondering if the accumulation of games that are diverse yet still violent isn't legitimating violence as a righteous act by excluding all other type of action and presenting violent action as the only true mean to solve problems.

Hell, television and movies are already doing that. Ever seen 24?

[Rodi]

I don't think, Vimes, that video games (even ones with a realistic setting like GTA) offer necessarily more linkage to everyday life to players. But even so; the soldier will understand that he will likely have to use this training in real life soon. The gamer obviously has no such understanding and will only see his game as a game. In that respect, I don't think the two are very much compatible.

It's interesting that mostly in puzzle games, there is often some residu in your mind. I think the great abstraction of these games help this along, though it has also happened to me with very explicit and more complexe games (Diablo and Zelda for instance). I don't know if this phenomenon would make people more dangerous or prone to actually undertake action according to these 'hallucinations', though. It's more like an image that sticks in your mind; and I for one have never experienced any negative emotions like aggressiveness with it.

[miffy495]

God, I'm sure I'm not the only person who's stared at an object wondering how big a Katamari I'd need to roll it up. That's the only time I've had that sort of thing outside of a puzzle game though. Otherwise it's just the standard "close your eyes and see falling tetris/lumines/meteos blocks" stuff.

[Nachimir]

Myself and a bunch of friends have had the very same katamari thing

Also, this young lady.

[Redwall]

Kozy Kitchens?!

[Yufster]

Kozy Kitchens is a brilliant name, ahahahaha....

also:

"Once, my girlfriend happened upon a tree ... kind of like the round, thin trees in [animal crossing], and began to shake it -- one in-game way of receiving money, goods and bees," Weisberg-Roberts said. "When nothing fell from its branches, I think she quickly realized how this must have looked to the other hundred or so people in the park."

ahahahahahaha

This also is awesome:

"I've been using the computer for so long, and command-Z works for undo in all the software programs," Hoffman said. "So whenever I find something in my life that I want to undo, I reach for the command-Z keys and I find it weird that it doesn't work."

In meetings at work, I always get so bored that I want to alt-tab to something else. And yeah, I sometimes think about ctrl-z'ing stuff in real life...

[DanJW]

Hey, I think I was reading about that couple in Computer Arts magazine the other day! They have a great husband & wife design agency called Kozyndan. Their work is becoming quite sought-after for magazines and advertising, and they are well known in Japan.

They also tend to include themselves in their work somewhere and have a bizzare sense of humour. For instance:

[DanJW]

They evidently have a thing for rabbits in particular. Here's my favourite of their work that I've seen so far. I'm off to browse their gallery some more