Comments on: Shock! Scientists say video games feed male need to dominate

Stanford researchers declare that video game playing stimulates parts of the male brain that delight in stomping on others.

[jwoolmanq]

I'm female and a scientist and nearly old as dirt, but have been interested in video games for a long time. For me, they're also more of an art form, which is why I like cheaters (special codes and devices to give infinite lives or continues, for instance) -- so I can see the rest of the piece of art without the skills and time required to seriously work through a game.

The Stanford data just confirms something that we already know: some gamers, usually male, do especially like stomping etc. at least virtually, and the value of the study is that it shows there are some physiological responses at work that can be at least partially measured. It would be interesting to look at gamers in general (different genders and ages) to see how preferences in games relate to preferred behavioral patterns in real life and if there are any other physiological responses that might explain different preferences. Different pleasure buttons are being pushed by different game actions, and it must be very individual depending on many factors. Why am I easily entranced by action puzzlers like Tetris or the old Lolo and Bugs Bunny Crazy Castle series on the NES and pseudoviolent platformers like Super Mario Brothers or Sonic but can't stand fighting games and war/other mayhem simulations?

Certainly parents have often seen that their young boys (not so often their girls) get overexcited even just watching other kids play certain types of games. For instance, one gamer told me that his 5-year-old son would uncharacteristically push his little sister around after playing Mortal Kombat (!) at a neighbor's. I've heard similar things from other parents about fighting games (including much more extreme behavior going on for much longer periods). It seems to be more of a problem than with "real" rough play, maybe because the games lack the pain feedback/reality check. Something biochemical has to be going on that affects boys more than girls, even if it's just that girls are able to "wind down" faster (better feedback mechanisms? or is it the maturity gap seen in other things?). Why are some boys more affected than others?

Images seem to be a powerful agent, since similar behavior can result from viewing fighting on tv especially if it's in more kid-absorbable form (Power Rangers, cartoons). But I've also heard parents say that it makes a big difference when the parents watch or play the game along with the young kids. Direct parental involvement and reminders of house rules keep the biochemistry in check, so to speak; otherwise, things just escalate. No big surprises there, of course.

Every time someone makes a connection between violence in games or tv/movies and something in the real world, folks are tempted to rail against "censorship", assuming that the next step is for the government to ban something. But understanding our responses to images and games is not only interesting in itself from a scientific viewpoint, it also helps us make some rational personal decisions. For instance, it helps parents to know how kids react and how to modify those reactions when needed to avoid trips to the emergency room or the therapist (for parent or child...).

Sometimes the connections are different than we might assume. One study suggested that at a certain age, kids are very attracted to rapid shifts in scenes - and although violent cartoons certainly had that attraction, the violence wasn't the necessary factor; anything that made the same rapid shifts was attractive.

We're surrounded by so many images today, it would be foolish to think that they didn't have an effect on us - and that includes game images. I wouldn't assume that violent games and shows actually cause violent behavior (although they could be one of many triggers for some disturbed individuals). But our game preferences do tell us something important about ourselves. I used to explain my non-recommendation of fighting games for young children (MK is one of the milder ones) by asking "Would you have your children play a game that simulated rape?" and of course before long, rape was included as a "finishing move" in some of those games.... Sigh. But especially as the graphics in games have become more and more realistic - we're just kidding ourselves if we think all this is not a real issue that has to be addressed among gamers themselves. Is it really so healthy to enjoy simulating murder and mass destruction? (Ancient Romans might have asked themselves the same questions about the Coliseum games.) Are there alternative stress relievers? At what point should we worry about the kinds of games that attract us? Do they do stuff to us biochemically that might not be the wisest for us at certain times in our lives? How can we push the same "fun buttons" without making a game out of murder and increasingly realistic mayhem?

[broe91]

I like how they don't talk about, if the tests are boys, or fully grown men

nor do they say if they are males who play videogames regularly, never, or moderately

[jaschofield]

You might also like to look at this article where the neuroscientist Susan Greenfield argues that social network sites and computer games are neurologically damaging.

http://www.mybrain.co.uk/public/extra_article_7.php