
No evidence to support link between violent video games and behaviour - acdanger
https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2018/research/no-evidence-to-link-violence-and-video-games/
======
EngineerBetter
As someone who has taught martial arts to/trained with a fair few military
folks, as well as a gamer and one-time indie game developer, I've always
thought the link is minimal and not causal.

Convincing the average human to do violence to another takes a _lot_ of
effort. Real violence is nothing like games, and has a viscerality that games
cannot prepare one for. I would question whether anyone that conflates the two
has ever had to inflict injury on another human.

If games made people violent, the military would send people copies of GTA V.
Yes, the American army have their own game, but that's a recruitment tool and
not a violence-desensitiser.

~~~
arca_vorago
As a combat vet I would even go the opposite direction, having a cathartic
release in virtual form can often _lower_ desire for violence levels.
Sometimes I just need to launch chivalry and chop some heads off ya know what
I mean?

Games like insurgency and arma actually really helped me with my now under
control PTSD, my theory is that I was doing CBT immersion therapy on myself.

"I would question whether anyone that conflates the two has ever had to
inflict injury on another human."

Indeed. If you don't mind me asking, what martial art(s) do you train in?

~~~
zrb05292
You are probably aware but in case not I’ve read in the past where researchers
used special video games as a therapy for PTSD. Something about how the brain
isn’t able to tell the difference between real danger and virtual danger so
it’s a sort of safe immersive therapy (I’m explaining very poorly).
[http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2011.0003](http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2011.0003)

------
randomdrake
Study: No priming in video games

Citation: Dr. David Zendle, Dr. Paul Cairns, Dr. Daniel Kudenko, No Priming in
Video Games, Computers in Human Behavior (2017).

Link:
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.021)

DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.021

Abstract: Video games depict a variety of different concepts. Models of
learning in games like the GLM (General Learning Model) and GAM (General
Aggression Model) predict that exposing players to these in-game concepts can
lead to important changes in player behaviour.

Priming effects are thought to be key to determining these changes in
behaviour. However, recent research has suggested problems with the priming
effects that have previously been observed in the video game literature.
Indeed, widespread methodological issues with this body of research make it
unclear whether priming effects occur at all in video games.

Two experiments (total N = 532) investigated whether priming effects still
occurred in video games when known confounds in the literature were accounted
for. Priming was observed in neither study. However, in both studies a novel
negative priming effect was observed instead, in which exposure to a specific
concept inhibited players’ reactions to things that were related to that
concept.

These studies support previous research which indicates there may be serious
confounding in the video game literature. They also suggest that the priming-
related effects of video games may be overestimated. Finally, they highlight
the potential existence of negative priming as an effect of video game play.

Highlights:

• Priming is not seen when differences in gameplay between conditions are
controlled.

• Popular models of learning in games (GAM, GLM) are challenged.

• Negative priming inconsistently observed: Playing a game sometimes inhibits
reactions to in-game concepts.

~~~
jerf
This really does stick a big stake in the recent priming theories that claim
to be able to pick up on very subtle primings [1]. Video games are basically
shouting at triggers we all agree are quite primal and almost certainly
involving all sorts of parts of the brain, including our very oldest ones, but
this staggeringly enormous signal doesn't produce results, and if anything,
anti-primes the brain. But we're supposed to believe we can flash up a racial
slur for (literally!) imperceptible fractions of a second and our brain makes
complicated cognitive decisions based on that, and we have lab tests that can
pick that up?

It is not impossible. But the window for it to be true is made rather narrow
if visceral video games aren't capable of "priming"; the window for it to be
relevant to the world smaller yet.

It lends yet more credence to the idea that the way the priming papers got
published in the first place is in much the same way ESP papers can be peer
reviewed and get published... our standard for statistical significance in
publishing is too low.

[1]: I contrast this with certain ones that we know work, and the field of
marketing considers "engineering" rather than science.

------
quantumofmalice
NB, if you are prone to just reading the headline (which I am often guilty
of):

 _“We also only tested these theories on adults, so more work is needed to
understand whether a different effect is evident in children players.”_

------
mpweiher
Just like every other study. And then there are the statistical trends: as
video games trended up, violence has trended down.

~~~
limbicsystem
No. In fact quite the opposite. A good meta-analysis
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20192553/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20192553/)
suggests a statistically significant link. The US military spends a lot of
money to desensitize recruits to violent killing. In the limit, would we
really be surprised if a hyperrealistic video game had at least some of the
same effect as basic training?

~~~
dragonwriter
> In the limit, would we really be surprised if a hyperrealistic video game
> had at least some of the same effect as basic training?

Given that basic training doesn't involve hyperrealistic lethal
violence...yeah, I'd be surprised if the two had similar effects.

~~~
13of40
What year were you in Basic Training? I recall one morning (in 1995) we had to
go out on a field and stab dummies in the gut with bayonets while screaming
"What makes the grass grow greener?!!?!? Blood! Blood! Blood makes the grass
grow greener!!" right after hearing a motivational speech by a drill sergeant
about a squad of GIs in the Korean War who went nuts and cut up a whole
platoon of Chinese after they ran out of ammo. I'm pretty sure that fits with
what the GP was talking about. On the whole, it wasn't very hyperrealistic,
but I think that's splitting hairs - if you don't have a real rocket launcher
handy, you can still do some very good training with a piece of pipe and your
imagination, or if you don't have grenades you can still train throwing rocks
at a "crazy ivan"[1]. (And there's a reason they're called "crazy ivans" if
you think about it.)

[1][http://slideplayer.com/slide/1678667/7/images/65/USMC+Qualif...](http://slideplayer.com/slide/1678667/7/images/65/USMC+Qualification+Targets+1913-2013+Current+Rifle+Targets-+1980%E2%80%99s+to+Present.jpg)

~~~
dragonwriter
> What year were you in Basic Training?

I wasn't, though I did do Army ROTC Basic Camp in 1994 before deciding not to
contract; around the same time, I spent a lot of time talking to people who
went through Army or Marine basic between about 1991 and 1994.

> On the whole, it wasn't very hyperrealistic, but I think that's splitting
> hairs

It's not splitting hairs if you are trying to use it as a comparator to
something that is hyperrealistic is the dimensions basic training is not in
order to predict that the psychological effects should be the same.

> if you don't have a real rocket launcher handy, you can still do some very
> good training with a piece of pipe and your imagination

Sure, but the issue being discussed isn't “can basic training be effective as
training without being hyperrealistic” but “does basic training provide a
reasonable basis for setting expectations for the psychological effects of
hyperrealistic video games”.

------
at-fates-hands
The interesting thing is the article makes no mention of the increase in
SWATTING incidents that is currently on the rise. The recent case where cops
killed an unarmed man because of an in-game bet between two players is a prime
example of when this type of behavior gets out of control and ends badly for
an innocent man.

It would be far too simplistic to say violent video games are causing gamer's
to lose their cool and SWAT one another, but it's probably something worth
looking into since they are on the rise in several communities and most of the
prime suspects have been gamers.

~~~
verylittlemeat
I would say the prime targets have been video game streamers. They get swatted
because the people calling the cops wanna see the reaction on camera / want to
entertain their friends and other viewers.

Swatting is just part of the trolling "continuum" that can be traced back to
less evil forms like ordering unwanted pizzas to someone's house.

------
mjw1007
The type of game I think it would be most valuable to test is the realistic
driver's-point-of-view car-racing game.

The risk of someone effectively training themself to drive more dangerously
seems much more direct than the "priming aggressive thoughts" stuff.

~~~
jstanley
Do you think actual racing drivers make bad drivers?

If not, why would you think video game racers are likely to make bad drivers?

Personally, I would expect faster reactions and improved machine control to
both be correlated with superior driving ability (by whatever metric you
choose to measure it).

~~~
mjw1007
I don't know whether racing drivers are bad drivers when on the normal
streets. It wouldn't particularly surprise me if they were.

The kind of game that I think is most likely to cause problems isn't the one
that's simulating Formula-1 style racing or rally driving. I saw a game once
(I don't know what it was called, but I expect it's a whole genre) where the
players were choosing normal-people cars and racing through normal-people
streets, with an emphasis on realism.

That's when I thought « If the people complaining about video games damaging
people's brains were serious, they should be concerned about this much more
than pretend warfare. ».

~~~
druidgreeneyes
There are a couple that come to mind that satisfy that criteria; Midnight Club
and its sequels, or the (admittedly not at all focussed on realism) Burnout
series, both are/were fairly mainstream during their time and featured racing
through fictional city streets. So did the Need For Speed: Wanted games, I
believe. I assume there are plenty of others that I just didn't play or don't
remember (Grid, perhaps?); there's never been a shortage of games that feature
driving environments and ways that would be suicidal in real life, even if you
ignore the obvious absurdity of games like F-Zero or Extreme-G (Or Mario Kart
:))

Anecdata: I'll admit to having the experience of, after playing Burnout:
Revenge for many hours, continuing to view streets and traffic on my way to
work through the lens of traffic-checking and drifting for extra points/boost.
I hasten to add that I never felt the urge to -act- on that view; so much of
driving is subconscious and/or automatic that I suspect we have something of a
built-in buffer working in favor of normalcy here. But it was pretty surreal.

------
yters
Why is there so much money in advertising if media doesn't condition people?

Violent media establishes the first part of James 1:14-15 descent into sin and
death:

14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own
lust.

15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it
is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Sure, we have self control. But, you combine media priming + chemically
reduced inhibition, and you get violence, rape, etc. That's why the Taliban
would get all drugged up before facing almost certain death attacking a US
base in Afghanistan. Perhaps also why these mass killers in the US have mental
conditions, which reduced their natural inhibition against acting out their
fantasies.

~~~
jdietrich
>Why is there so much money in advertising if media doesn't condition people?

Advertising can have _no direct persuasive effects whatsoever_ and still be
cost-effective.

Imagine that a new bank opens, promising exceptionally high interest rates on
savings accounts because of their much lower operating costs. Their branches
are converted shipping containers on vacant lots, furnished with cheap patio
furniture. Their staff are dressed in jeans and t-shirts. They don't have a
website, just a Facebook page. No sane person would deposit their money with
such a bank. Why? Because this bank has made no long-term commitment. You have
no reason to believe that they won't just run off with your money.

Until relatively recently, bank branches were usually lavishly furnished stone
buildings with marble flooring, exotic wood panelling and opulent chandeliers.
The immense cost of their furnishing acted as a costly signal that's difficult
to fake - we spent all of this money on our bank branch, so you can believe
that we're not a fly-by-night operation. Even to a perfectly rational
customer, it's a strong Bayesian signal. Engagement rings serve a similar
purpose - they're pointless and expensive, which is exactly why they're a
meaningful symbol.

Expensive advertising has the same signalling value as opulent bank branches
and engagement rings. If a company has saturated the TV with their commercials
and sponsored a football stadium, they have a lot to lose if their reputation
is damaged by scandal. They've spent a huge amount of money to make themselves
a household name, so they have a strong incentive to ensure that they deliver
a quality product. When you're in the supermarket, it's perfectly logical to
buy the brands that you recognise.

General advertising works _because_ it's a total waste of money.

~~~
yters
Perhaps a factor, but the standard take on advertising is that it conditions
people to like certain products. Successful advertising tells a story the
viewer wants to be a part of. Video games are the modern pinnacle of
interactive story telling, so their conditioning effect should be even
stronger than standard advertising.

------
gisenberg
I wonder if the same holds true for virtual reality. Does violence in VR
result in an increase in violent behavior?

I think the medium and experience is different enough - is anyone aware of
research in this area?

------
otakucode
The idea of a link between violence in games and behavior is an interesting
one that only gets more interesting the further you look into it. How did the
idea ever get as far as it has? Consider the situation:

'Violence' in videogames bears no resemblance to actual violence. Not in
visual appearance, sound, consequence, destructive potential, irreversibility,
nothing. Other than using the word 'violence' to describe what occurs in a
game, there isn't another similarity. On top of that, the idea that the author
of a medium can remote-control the behavior of the audience is typically
relegated to the insane ramblings of schizo-affective disorders. It suggests a
total disassociation from reality.

Does re-using some terminology really have such a tremendous ability to trick,
mislead, and concern people? Just because we call a collection of pixels a
"person" or "character", and because humans are good at telling stories... we
jump to the conclusion that these figments must feel pain, wish not to die,
etc?

Then you have the mirror neurons. They do fire when seeing even crude
depictions of human beings on a screen -- after extensive training of the
viewer. We know from encounters with pre-literate tribes and other un-exposed
peoples that interpretation of images is a skill which must be learned. And
the brain is not stupid. It knows when it is processing an image and
interpreting it versus perceiving it directly. But, perceiving and
understanding the fictional situations depicted actually does include
stimulation of some similar parts of the brain. Some, not all, and not at an
extremity of degree necessary to ever cause any sort of damage. Enough that
some studies will get to say "oh look, amygdala activity" and radically
conjecture that to lead to rampant murder or whatnot.

Overall, I think we should hang in every school and public place a print of
'The Treachery of Images'. That's the painting with the pipe that says 'This
is not a pipe' in French under it. Perhaps if enough people stare at it long
enough they will realize just how amazingly stupid they've been for so long
attributing so much weight to just... images.

------
ghostbrainalpha
I've been thinking a lot about misogyny in video games.

I'm currently 80 hours into "Zelda Breath of the Wild". It's a beautiful game,
and the heart of the story is basically a typical "save the princess" dynamic.

But I've killed hundreds of dragons and other beasts in order to save Zelda...
with the full expectation that my character (link) will be getting laid at the
end of the game. Princess Zelda has no agency in my ideal game. And worse....
I don't want her to.

If I found out the end of the game resulted in me requesting a relationship
from Zelda and it only _potentially_ happening, I would be so beyond upset.
But shouldn't Zelda have a choice? I would like to be a person who was at
least OK with her having one.

Is this game conditioning me to be rapist? Or at least the type of man who
thinks he should receive sexual reciprocation for purchasing dinner & drinks
on a date?

Maybe I'm just overly invested in this game's story line. But games do contain
meaningful experiences that you can remember for a lifetime. I think it's good
to think about how those stories effect you.

We know video games aren't turning kids into mindless zombies, but the
narratives in this games can become part of the lenses we see the world by.
Some video games may even make you think differently not just about the outer
world, but how you see own your place in it.

EDIT: I've got a lot of good responses here. The consensus is that these
thoughts say more about me, than the video game, which I think is a fair
assessment.

I'm a 'sort-of-bad' person who would like to 'become-a-better' person, and I
also really love video games. So I think about the evolution of my moral
character in the context of the games I play.

Maybe I think too much about it like you guys are saying, but don't put me in
the camp of blaming video games for societies problems. I'm just saying video
games are fun, but they can also get in your head and be more than that. They
can open up dialogues and make you think about things in new ways.

~~~
Retric
I think that expectation says more about you than the video game.

~~~
colanderman
Agreed. If Nintendo wants to imply that the protagonist of a Zelda game is
sexually rewarded for completing the quest, they're explicit about it [1].

[1] [http://www.cracked.com/article_21462_6-bizarrely-sexual-
east...](http://www.cracked.com/article_21462_6-bizarrely-sexual-easter-eggs-
lurking-in-kids-video-games.html), scroll to #1 (last)

