Video games make you aggressive - Page 5
Forum Index > General Forum |
actionbastrd
Congo598 Posts
| ||
Makro
France16890 Posts
| ||
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
On April 16 2014 20:53 iFU.pauline wrote: In one study, they switched up the buttons on a controller to make it harder to use (like making you click left to move right) and found that, unsurprisingly, this made players feel less competent and more aggressive, Dumbest shit I ever read please. if your results don't meet your expectation for X reason, of course you are not gonna be happy about it. I think you misunderstand. They told the players the buttons were now switched. It's now a harder game just by nature of design. And therefor making players more aggressive. It's the same concept as taking SMB and turning it into one of those hacked SMB games that are sick harder by level design (even though same engine and physics). Seems a lot of people were just reacting to the sensationist title (did a bad job trying to avoid it), and not actually reading the data. The point that the study was making really, was that they can make you aggressive because of other factors and it almost certainly isn't the games themselves. It was other players, designs, situations you play them in. etc. Ironically, people were getting mad at it because it theatens your competence and lifestyle choice. lol TL;DR the study is actually a good one for defending gamers. | ||
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
I understand you are confused by me opening the possibility of social science being legit, seeing what you normally get. It is something we do in proper science, you know, don't jump to conclusions. (ok, sorry, i'll stop trolling now.) | ||
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On April 19 2014 07:28 Cascade wrote: I understand you are confused by me opening the possibility of social science being legit, seeing what you normally get. It is something we do in proper science, you know, don't jump to conclusions. (ok, sorry, i'll stop trolling now.) I agree with you, a big chunk of the "social sciences"/economics/finance (I have a finance major) is nothing more than pure charlatanism. | ||
MarlieChurphy
United States2063 Posts
On April 18 2014 04:19 Yurie wrote: I find I can play flying/space games with the mouse regardless of up being down or up being up. Quite common those get switched around, even a setting for reversing it in many modern games. It is annoying, but nothing that ruins a game. Yea, first thing I thought of too. Ever try to play 'Descent' with just keyboard controls? On April 18 2014 15:21 Roe wrote: A lot of these common sense things are tested in science because it provides a more valid, reliable way of building theories about phenomena. Just think of gravity for instance, it's pretty obvious that things fall down when you let go of them but maybe we can be more specific about it and see if it's repeatable. Exactly. | ||
Falling
Canada10904 Posts
| ||
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
Malarkey817
United States163 Posts
| ||
Ghostcom
Denmark4776 Posts
This is a very legitimate study, not at all worthy of all the criticism it has received in this thread, and I really wished that more people conducting research would do something of this quality. | ||
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On April 19 2014 14:29 Ghostcom wrote: I really don't understand the overall negative reactions in this thread - did anyone actually read the full article by Przybylski et al (I'm specifically looking at you and your silly one-liner Jumperer)? It is really solid and good quality work as far as I can tell from a quick read through (Mind you, I have been awake for 24 hours, read the article between seeing patients and don't have a background as a psychologist). The methodology seems very thorough, they present their results very humbly and don't extrapolate their findings outside of what their data supports. The conclusion seems very reasonable and well founded. This is a very legitimate study, not at all worthy of all the criticism it has received in this thread, and I really wished that more people conducting research would do something of this quality. It's just knee-jerk reactions from the title of this thread which is totally misleading. People thinks it's just another article which bashes gaming when it in actuality is real research and that the gaming part is just a part of the methodology and not the actual object of the research. I've been following this kind of research since it started in the early 90's and it's incredible fascinating. Some of the more important frameworks that has emerged out of this kind of research which has changed the way athletes train and prepare is the basic Flow model which I've presented earlier in this thread, it had a major impact on sports psychology particularly. Another one was the discovery of just how powerful visualization techniques really were for athletes, some of the sports that they tested this in has been in swimming, golf, tennis, chess and carsports to name a few. One of the most recent important findings is made by Schaffer (2013) where he discovered the seven most important states that a person should be in to achieve a so called performance peak and how to time it and build it up in time for the actual competition. Then we have all the other stuff like how Flow differs between a single person, a group of people and groups of people working together as a network. I try to read about this as much as I possible can and it boggles my mind each time they discover something new. | ||
North2
134 Posts
On April 19 2014 06:58 MarlieChurphy wrote: I think you misunderstand. They told the players the buttons were now switched. It's now a harder game just by nature of design. And therefor making players more aggressive. It's the same concept as taking SMB and turning it into one of those hacked SMB games that are sick harder by level design (even though same engine and physics). Seems a lot of people were just reacting to the sensationist title (did a bad job trying to avoid it), and not actually reading the data. The point that the study was making really, was that they can make you aggressive because of other factors and it almost certainly isn't the games themselves. It was other players, designs, situations you play them in. etc. Ironically, people were getting mad at it because it theatens your competence and lifestyle choice. lol TL;DR the study is actually a good one for defending gamers. Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't defending gamers. Let me start out by giving a different counterpoint that leads me to believe that this research is rather pointless. It only proves that this "aggression fueled by your own incompetence" comes equally out of anything that tests your competence, whether it's violent or not, whether it's a video game or not. To me and many others, this is extremely obvious. Whatever though, that's fine. What's not fine is that this research does nothing to prove that violent games aren't causing aggression by other factors, whatever they may be if it even exists I just can't imagine a scenario where the findings of this research will defend gamers. Case #1: If some Counterstrike player nutcase went off and opened fire in a mall in real life, you can't really say, "Hey, it's not CS's violent nature that caused this. It's because of CS's ability to show how incompetent you are". The research says that it could be the latter, but there's nothing that says it can't be the former also. Case #2: If some Flappy Bird nutcase went off and opened fire in a pet store, you now have a legitimate reason to suspect that it may have been the game's fault thanks to this research. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 19 2014 20:13 North2 wrote: Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't defending gamers. Let me start out by giving a different counterpoint that leads me to believe that this research is rather pointless. It only proves that this "aggression fueled by your own incompetence" comes equally out of anything that tests your competence, whether it's violent or not, whether it's a video game or not. To me and many others, this is extremely obvious. Whatever though, that's fine. What's not fine is that this research does nothing to prove that violent games aren't causing aggression by other factors, whatever they may be if it even exists I just can't imagine a scenario where the findings of this research will defend gamers. Case #1: If some Counterstrike player nutcase went off and opened fire in a mall in real life, you can't really say, "Hey, it's not CS's violent nature that caused this. It's because of CS's ability to show how incompetent you are". The research says that it could be the latter, but there's nothing that says it can't be the former also. Case #2: If some Flappy Bird nutcase went off and opened fire in a pet store, you now have a legitimate reason to suspect that it may have been the game's fault thanks to this research. Hmm, let's see if you're right. Recent studies have examined whether electronic games foster aggression. At present, the extent to which games contribute to aggression and the mechanisms through which such links may exist are hotly debated points. In current research we tested a motivational hypothesis derived from self-determination theory-that gaming would be associated with indicators of human aggression to the degree that the interactive elements of games serve to impede players' fundamental psychological need for competence. Seven studies, using multiple methods to manipulate player competence and a range of approaches for evaluating aggression, indicated that competence-impeding play led to higher levels of aggressive feelings, easier access to aggressive thoughts, and a greater likelihood of enacting aggressive behavior. Results indicated that player perceived competence was positively related to gaming motivation, a factor that was, in turn, negatively associated with player aggression. Overall, this pattern of effects was found to be independent of the presence or absence of violent game contents. We discuss the results in respect to research focused on psychological need frustration and satisfaction and as they regard gaming-related aggression literature. Results indicated that player perceived competence was positively related to gaming motivation, a factor that was, in turn, negatively associated with player aggression. Overall, this pattern of effects was found to be independent of the presence or absence of violent game contents. Nope, you're not. Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the study explored the ideas of the General Aggression Model—that exposure to violent media can snowball into aggressive behavior—and then asked whether the interactive nature of games truly fits the model. From there, the paper posited a lot of game-design questions, with discussions about learning curves, "hardcore" players, and even "rage-quitting" before declaring that "to date, the structural and motivational aspects of gaming have not been explored as a source of player aggression." Thus, the team set out to explore whether difficulty and inaccessibility in games leads to more aggressive behavior than an M rating on the box. To make that point, many of the studies involved hacked and modded versions of games. In one of the seven tests, players joined deathmatch games of Half-Life 2; in one of the versions, players could "maim and dispatch the opponents, leaving them spewing blood," while the other version used non-lethal "tag" attacks to make opponents disappear. Other than that superficial difference, the gameplay was identical, and the difference in resulting aggression was minimal. But everyone was a bit aggressive. In contrast, players who had been introduced to the deathmatch with a customized tutorial came away from their sessions less aggressive. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/study-games-link-to-aggression-comes-from-challenge-not-violence/ | ||
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On April 19 2014 20:13 North2 wrote: Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't defending gamers. Let me start out by giving a different counterpoint that leads me to believe that this research is rather pointless. It only proves that this "aggression fueled by your own incompetence" comes equally out of anything that tests your competence, whether it's violent or not, whether it's a video game or not. To me and many others, this is extremely obvious. Whatever though, that's fine. What's not fine is that this research does nothing to prove that violent games aren't causing aggression by other factors, whatever they may be if it even exists I just can't imagine a scenario where the findings of this research will defend gamers. Case #1: If some Counterstrike player nutcase went off and opened fire in a mall in real life, you can't really say, "Hey, it's not CS's violent nature that caused this. It's because of CS's ability to show how incompetent you are". The research says that it could be the latter, but there's nothing that says it can't be the former also. Case #2: If some Flappy Bird nutcase went off and opened fire in a pet store, you now have a legitimate reason to suspect that it may have been the game's fault thanks to this research. It shows an actual causation compared to simply an correlation where the cause and link of potensial more agressive behavior is directly linked to lowering someone's ability to actually achieve a given task. This study shows that it's the amount of challenge given to the player that directly causes the more agressive behavior, and not just "violent video games". It's very specific and can be tested, just replace game with something else, like golf or chess and you will get the same outcome, the more challenge the more people will become angry. This research helps gaming by showing that one of the factors that triggers agressive behavior can relate to anything competitive. | ||
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
On April 19 2014 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote: Hmmm... Pretty sure there's several millions of people that would disagree with you. Namely victims of aggressive dictators. Pretty sure a lot of Jews would of been happier if Hitler's frustrations were turned into sad poetry or listening to depressing music in a basement rather than aggression on Europe and slaughtering millions. But yeah sometimes it can be. Pretty rarely is aggression the solution though. Depends in the context in which the word aggression is used. In terms of social sciences "In its narrower definitions that are used in social sciences and behavioral sciences, aggression is a response by an individual that delivers something unpleasant to another person." (yay wikipedia) Using that definition it's predominantly deleterious. I'm guessing you are more getting at traits like competiveness, assertiveness etc. which are more positive and related to success. I think aggression using the definition does exist (a lot, in the form of backstabbing, blackballing, sabotage, shifting blame) and makes for increased amount of bad things that contributes nothing to society and just keeps incompitent dicks in charge for longer. Kinda just being a bit pedantic I guess Edit: and yeah the thread title is totally shit, sensationalist and misleading to those that can't think. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
Side note: its cool that this study uses a similar premise as mine :D | ||
| ||