A little over a week ago, the Wall Street Journal published an article about the potential benefits of video games. They reported that research conducted by different universities and scientists shows that, “…gaming improves creativity, decision-making and perception,” with benefits including improved hand-eye coordination in surgeons and vision changes that boost night driving ability.
The Data
Studies showed that, “People who played action-based video and computer games made decisions 25% faster than others without sacrificing accuracy…” Another study showed similar results, finding that most adept gamers can make choices and act on them four times faster than most people. The University of Rochester also found: “…practiced game players can pay attention to more than six things at once without getting confused, compared with the four that someone can normally keep in mind…” The article emphasizes that all of these studies were conducted independently of the video game developers and publishers.
In addition to a gamer’s ability to make quick decisions and multi-task (that’s not a surprise), studies also showed the playing action-based video games increased creativity. According to the article:
“A three-year study of 491 middle school students found that the more children played computer games the higher their scores on a standardized test of creativity—regardless of race, gender, or the kind of game played. The researchers ranked students on a widely used measure called the Torrance Test of Creativity…”
This was in contrast to the use of cell phones, computers, and the Internet for other non-gaming purposes, which did not show any effects on creativity.
Other Studies
Studies like this go against what people typically pay attention to when it comes to gaming and psychology. We’re all too aware of public concern for how violent video games affect brain development. In October of last year, I reported on statements made by Baroness Susan Greenfield, a Professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Lincoln College, wherein she commented on an article published in September 2010 by the cognitive scientist Daphne Bavelier calledChildren, Wired: For Better and for Worse. Greenfield said that there’s “evidence showing there’s a change in violence, distraction and addiction in children, linked to the pervasion of technology.” Greenfield also accused doctors that went against her claims as being like the people who denied that smoking causes cancer.
In December, I also reported on a presentation by Dr. Yang Wang, a radiologist at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, given at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. At the presentation, Dr. Wang discussed a study where they had divided men aged 18-29 into two groups. The first group would play a violent shooting game at home for a week, and then did not play at all for the second week. The second group did not play any games at all through the two weeks. MRIs were taken of both groups at the beginning, middle, and end of the study. According to the LA Times:
“The analyses showed that at one week, the game players had less activation in parts of the brain associated with cognitive function and emotional control than they had at baseline, and than the control group. Activation increased again after the second week, when the men didn’t play the game.”
Dr. Wang confirmed that, “These findings indicate that violent video game play has a long-term effect on brain functioning.”
Paul Adachi, of Brock University also conducted a study where he found that there was no correlation between aggressive behavior and violence in video games. He suggested that there were other confounding variables involved in the effects of violent games and aggressive behavior.
Computational analyst Joshua Lewis at the University of California in San Diego, who has studied 2,000 computer game players, stated that he believed many of these studies on the effects of violent games on the brain was a waste of attention. He states, “Not enough attention has been paid to the unique and interesting features that videogames have outside of the violence.”
Publicized Incidents
So why do people focus so much on the effects of violent video games and psychology? Instances of people blaming behavior on video games goes back to at least 1997 when a boy stabbed his friend to death. The victim’s mother filed a lawsuit against Midway Games, because she believed that her son’s friend did it due to an obsession with Midway’s game Mortal Kombat.
Just two years later, in 1999, the actions of two shooters involved in the Columbine High School massacre were blamed on their alleged addiction to Doom.
In addition to those two, there have been at least 23 other incidents where video games were pointed to as catalysts. The most recent was in April 2011, when a 24-year-old man opened fire in a Netherlands shopping mall, killing 6 people and wounding 17 others before committing suicide. In less than 24 hours, people believed that his addiction to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was to blame.
Confirmation Bias Sucks
I think the reality is, however, that most people use games as a means of escapism, which is true for most entertainment. You’re there to do or see something that you don’t have access to in your regular, day-to-day life. How a piece of media affects you has more to do with who you are as a person – your history, experiences, mental stability, etc, than it does with the piece of media itself. So if a kid who plays violent video games and then goes to his school with a gun, maybe he had issues with anger, depression, bullying, and isolation that compelled him to play violent video games as a means of expression anger and frustration, of venting. And then, maybe, the video games just aren’t enough. At that point, do we want to blame the video game? Do we want to fund a handful of doctors and researchers to prove that the media is the problem, because some people can’t handle the fact that sometimes, people have serious psychological issues that need to be addressed, and kicking them under the rug with tags of “weird, addicted, obsessed, outcast” isn’t going to do them, or society, any favors? That’s politics getting in the way of actual science.
That was a bit of a rant, because even though I agree that the effects of video games on the brain is a fascinating field of study, too many scientists go in thinking, “Video games increase aggression or negatively affect cognitive functions, let’s see how” (that’s called confirmation bias). And maybe they go into that because (a) they’re getting paid by a corporation that wants to use that data to further their agendas, (b) it’s a cultural “hot topic” and will guarantee them and their institute media attention, or (c) they’re trying to get funding or maintain their tenure, so they pick up a quick “X negatively affects Y, just like your mom always said” piece.
Does that mean I think 8 year olds should be playing Modern Warfare? No. You have to take into account brain development. That’s why video games and movies have ratings. Because if you let your six-year-old watch all seven SAW movies, it’s going to mess them up, because (s)he’s still having trouble grasping the fact that television and reality are two different things. You might be able to tell it’s not really a human suffering, but a kid whose brain is just beginning to realize that the whole world doesn’t share the exact same experiences it does, isn’t going to know that the man on the screen isn’t actually getting his head crushed by blocks of ice in real life.
So I guess what I’m saying is that I agree with the statement that Joshua Lewis made, about how there a number of other things you can look at in video games, like how they can affect learning, reasoning, memory, visual processing, abstract thought, perceptual organization, processing speed, and dozens of other things. But instead people are just trying to make a point, to prove something. All for naught, really, because no matter how damaging video games may prove to be, they are now officially protected by the First Amendment.
My favorite quote regarding media, especially violent media, comes from Rob Schrab’s foreward in the JTHM Director’s Cut:
“There’s a little monster inside all of us, a little wolf-faced monkey that needs to be satiated. As people, we mustn’t ignore that monster. If we do, we cheat ourselves. We deny an emotion, a feeling.
Think of someone who pissed you off. Some yutz who cut you off in traffic; a prick-ass Kinko’s employee who took three hours to copy your resume; the big bully who spit in your face when you were eight. Now, in your head, relive that moment. This time, however, don’t just stand there and take it. This time you’ve got a knife. Pull it out from behind your back and watch the status flip-flop. Suddenly, Mr. Kinko isn’t so cocky. The playground bully is crying for his mother. Smell their fear. Then, kill them. Kill them like you see in the movies. Make it as horrible as possible. Release that monster and stab that knife deep into their face.
As humans, we are taught to forget that we are animals. Animals kill to survive and it’s just as natural for us. To deny nature is to deny life. Now that you’ve committed murder in your dream world, relax. Take a deep breath, give your monster a high-five and put him away. You’ve just used an evil fantasy to keep you civilized and sane.
Some may call this irresponsible advice, they kid themselves that their monster doesn’t exist. And when a person lies to themselves, there is less chance for spiritual growth. More than likely, their monster will step out of the Dreamworld and into the Realworld. That’s how a society gets messy. Lots of neglected, hungry monsters.”
He then goes on to say that violent media, in this case Jhonen Vasquez’s comic JTHM, “gives our monster something to chew on. It’s pain-food that wears its teeth down.” I think that’s a pretty apt metaphor. The number of times a video game has taken away the sting of a painful incident is innumerable for me. For some of us, it helps keep us sane, it helps make us friends, it helps us learn new things, it helps us get rid of pain, anxiety, depression, anger, if only for a few hours. And yeah, maybe a small percentage of people who play video games end up going on a violent rampage. But that is true of any and every population. Every group of a certain size will have a number of people that do messed up things, that’s reality. And yet nobody is running MRIs to investigate the effects of reading the Twilight Saga, or watching episodes of The Real Housewives of Orange County, or listening to dubstep, because they’re not easy scapegoats. Perceived subcultures and “fringe” interests are easy scapegoats, and the people sitting in positions of power, writing checks to institutions and proposing legislation, are still under the impression that gaming, especially playing FPSs and such, is a fringe interest.
I think you hit the nail on the head that the most sensationalist stories generally follow the easiest scapegoat. Why take into account hundreds of variables when you can easily blame that which is familar to you? These studies are hilarious. On the one hand praised by gamers when the findings go their way, they dismissed by the same hand when they don’t agree. Same goes for the public, just saying.
Your point the prevalent sentiment that video game violence is catalyst for violence is fallacious–and its effect on any distinguishing, physical changes in the brain has not been verified–is right on.
However, it needs to be pointed out that exposure to violent media, including rape jokes, aggressive pornography, violent video games, homophobic slurs, and the like does cause desensitization and acceptance of those things in real life, even if only temporary in some cases. Even in those who believe they are not, studies have shown that immediately after exposure to theses things, not matter the subject’s beliefs before, will cause them to be immediately more desensitized to statements concerning different sorts of violence portrayed in the experiment. The studies behind these generally do not have the ulterior, conspiracy theory, motives you mention.
The evolutionary function behind this is overwhelming connected to other areas of our hard-wired cognitive functions, as we are more accepting of what is familiar. If you have two political candidates run in a race, one is named “Eduardo” and the other is “John”, people are more likely to vote for “John” due to greater exposure to the name.
This is also why political campaigns and advertising agencies focus on short exposure to a product’s name and function, shortly, and repeatedly. We then gain an unconcious bias to that item–unless we have certain cognitive safe guards in place to consistently analyze them.
It is impossible, though, to do that for all we are exposed to.
This is also how many ‘mentalists’ pull off many of their ‘tricks’, but exploiting this basic, human, cognitive function.
The more exposure we have to stimuli, the more we are willing to accept it–an evolutionary trait that made us wary of anything new, so as to carefully approach, or avoid things, that may be dangerous.
This is also why we may find things shocking in another culture, whilst normal in that culture–the people are exposed to it so much they are ‘desensitized’ to it.
In essence, the points you make are valid, but you then make overgeneralisations in saying things we are exposed to have no implicit effect on our perspective. This is not logically consistent. And needs to be pointed out, as things are not simply black and white when it comes to the human brain.
Desensitization occurs regardless of the medium, so it’s not a phenomenon unique to video games, and as far as I know research on desensitization focusing on video games hasn’t been done, primarily people look at movies and TV shows, and sometimes video games as an extension of those mediums. Furthermore, desensitization itself isn’t a “call to action”; being used to gore doesn’t mean you’re going to create some yourself. Additionally, desensitization and reality are two different things — shooting someone in the head in an FPS or watching a woman get raped on TV is NOT THE SAME as seeing the same thing in person. I’m not entirely certain, but I suspect many of these studies haven’t analyzed how actually seeing a dismembered corpse compares to seeing one on a TV screen. We might be more accepting of things we see online or on TV, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to react the same when the act is in front of us.
I didn’t make a generalization on perspective, I made a generalization on actions. I didn’t address how gaming makes people think because that can’t be measured (although some studies have been done on how gaming affects learning, which was I talked about in the first part of the article). But how it changes opinions or world views is much harder to study, it’s highly subjective. But the same is true for books, TV shows, movies, even sports, classes, conversations, experiences in general. So no, I didn’t argue that gaming doesn’t affect perspective or the way people think; I argued that it doesn’t necessarily influence behavior, at least not without additional variables taken into consideration. It’s like the argument that kids will imitate what they see on TV.
Before I respond, it is rare that the author responds to critics of their viewpoints in depth. That should be commended. To preface this: I am also a gamer. However, I don’t deny the effects of violent video games on desensitization, acceptance, and even possibly—but too early to verify if true or not—a source of violent action. I don’t deny it, because I don’t care either way, I like video games.
Since you took the time to respond, I am going to address each point you made. I am also going to point out the heavy confirmation bias in this presentation of studies.
I made clear that my response was not about violence in video games being a call to action. My point was, you did not address how gaming affects the way we think, but it is extremely important to present this issue in light of the fact that thinking affects our actions.
If you don’t know of any research concerning desensitization focusing on video games, a cursory glance of the search results on Google Scholar can fix that. It would be extremely unlikely that this issue would not be studied considering it’s a new area of research and Professors need to publish.
On your point of of video games being an extension of other media—that in no way makes the point that video games do not desensitize people to violence—but actually supports it.
As for your statement that desensitization and reality are two different things, yes, they are. Desensitization happens in response to reality, and simulated reality. The unconcious mind does not distinguish between reality and simulated reality—there was no use for this as an evolutionary feature, considering simulated reality is extremely new in light of how long humans have evolved. Simulated violence is actually worse for desensitization, because this is how the brain works in response to it:
Brain is exposed to simulated violent stimuli—->unconcious brain does not distinguish between it and real life —–> This stimuli is impersonal, and therefore, easier to accept—>That simulated violent stimuli has no direct effect on our physical well-being—->It becomes desensitized to it happening in the real world——->We become more, unconsciously, accepting of it.
In evolutionary terms while we were still in a hunter/gathering stage: Encounter a rabbit, an animal never seen before——->Rabbit turns out to have no direct effect on our physical well-being——>Unconcious minds catalogs it as not dangerous——>We become desensitized to seeing rabbits———>We become more accepting of rabbits.
This works implicitly, as since the unconscious mind does not distinguish between reality and simulated reality (think—dreams), we unconsciously process it without analysis. (If you’ve actually read this far, and respond, include the word “banana” in your response, most people don’t read things that oppose their views and still respond—an indicator of confirmation bias.) Therefore, constant exposure to stimuli desensitizes us, no matter the medium.
To respond to your next point, the idea that studying whether something changes world view being hard to study is extremely hard to accept in light of the fact that multiple studies have done just this—using the method of studies you have cited here. If the studies opposing them too subjective to be considered valid, then so other other studies you mentioned.
I also need to point out two layers of irony in you invoking the confirmation bias. You cite a study with a small sample size that goes against decades of research, then present it as definitive. That is not how science works. This would be like citing the faster-than-light-particle experiment findings as proof that the modern day view of physical laws is wrong—or at least sensationalizing that aspect. When a scientist finds something that goes against decades of research, they go back and try to falsify it. That is what the author of this study is doing when he said he needs a larger sample size—trying to prove his results wrong. It would be better to use terms that make this clear, instead of preventing it as proof. You do present the opposing studies as proof, however, but as implicitly wrong because there is contrary evidence. And this is a common failing in journalists reporting on science (which is why you should never trust any major news source regarding scientific findings), whilst not being trained in scientific analysis.
You also mention the confirmation bias, while presenting a scientific article from the Wall Street Journal. The reason this is ironic is because there was an article recently presented in “The Atlantic” where the author of a study that ‘proved’ liberals are less aware of facts had come out to say they did the study differently and ‘proved’ the opposite. All it really proved is that presented with facts that worded in a way that subtly challenges your view points, you will reject them, valid or not. This is presented here, where gamers are the audience, therefore, they will immediately reject challenging evidence and immediately accept the opposite without concern for objective analysis. This article is entitled, “I Was Wrong, And So Are You” written by the conservative libertarian, author of that study, Daniel B. Klein, for reference.
I’m going to go ahead and tackle some other parts of your article that are contrary to recent findings in psychology. Freud’s theory of venting emotions to release them has been proven false. Studies have shown that when faced with a large disappointment that makes a test subject angry, and they are given the chance to vent by punching something, they are more likely to give the person who made them angry more intense shocks afterwords, as opposed to those not allowed ‘violent release.’ The venting emotions theory is universally known in the academic community to be complete bollocks.
As to your presentation that video games are an outlet for instinctive needs to kill for food; this is not hard wired in humans. This another of Freud’s ideas that collapsed when put under the scrutiny of science. Take the Iroquois where violent crime was unheard of. How do you account for their peaceful culture if aggression is hard wired? However, after their invasion from Europeans, they became extremely violent. I’m going to quote the leading figure on evolutionary psychology on this one, “Men [do not] have an ‘aggression instinct’ in the sense of some pent-up energy that must be released. Rather, men have inherited from their successful ancestors psychological mechanisms.” That is, aggression to stimuli is a learned response, and it was essential to our early survival, but not an implicit ‘instinct’. There other influences for violent reaction to stimuli, and this would assert your point, these are: Abnormal brain structure, genetic mutations, alcohol, testosterone, low serotonin and others. But it is not an inherent instinct. I’ll quote the APA and International Council of Psychologists on this one: “It is scientifically incorrect [to say that] war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature [or that] war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation.” As a side, not all animals kill to eat. Rabbits are not aggressive towards eating grass, though enthusiastic. Humans aren’t required to kill to eat, either.
You then connect ‘venting aggressive emotions’ with ‘distraction and relief’ from depression and other emotions. These are two different things, and the latter is very true, as long it does not go to the point of avoidance of that depression. I know it has been for myself and others.
Lastly, I do not understand how you can say kids do not imitate what they see on television, when it’s been an easily observed and accepted fact that imitation of others in a developing mind is observed in other animals than humans. Kids learn by imitating those around them. Their parents. Their social groups. And, yes, the media they watch. Otherwise, advertisements aimed at them would not be effective, if they did not wish to imitate the happy peers on screen scarfing down a McDonald’s happy meal. The idea that kids imitate their environment—simulated or not, is not even up for debate.