- Related Stories
-
Schwarzenegger signs video game bill
October 8, 2005 -
The case against 'Grand Theft Auto'
August 3, 2005
In the study, 13 males played the first-person shooter game "Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror" while in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) system, which measures brain activity. The brain scans of 11 of the subjects exhibited "large observed effects" characteristic of aggressive thoughts. The researchers said the pattern of brain activity can be considered to be caused by virtual violence.
"There is a causal link between playing the first-person shooting game in our experiment and brain-activity pattern that are considered as characteristic for aggressive cognitions and effects," said Rene Weber, assistant professor of communication and telecommunication at MSU. "There is a neurological link, and there is a short-term causal relationship. Violent video games frequently have been criticized for enhancing aggressive reactions such as aggressive cognitions, aggressive effects or aggressive behavior. On a neurobiological level we have shown the link exists."
fMRI monitors the brain and examines how it is stimulated by different types of physical sensation or activity. Sight, sound, touch and other physical sensations show up on an fMRI image. Increased blood flow to a section of the brain indicates increased activity.
game play.
In the study, the researchers tracked brain activity of the subjects as well as took physiological observations of the subject. The data was then analyzed on a frame-by-frame basis with the game.
The 13 subjects, all in Germany, ranged in age from 18 to 26 and played an average of 15 hours of video games a week. At a minimum, the subjects played five hours of video games a week.
The study, and likely others that follow it, are part of an ongoing larger debate about video games. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed a bill placing restrictions on the sale of M-, or mature-, rated games. Other states have passed or are considering similar legislation.
Game publishers and advocates, by contrast, say these laws will be ineffective and could violate the First Amendment and Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Parent groups also have entered the debate, often applauding the restrictions.
Klaus Mathiak of RWTH Aachen University, in Germany, and Ute Ritterfeld of the University of Southern California also participated in the study.
The entire report of the research will appear in the January 2006 edition of Media Psychology.
See more CNET content tagged:
brain, study, violence, video game, Germany
And scientist rarely say stupid things.
When you read something stupid (like this) attributed to a scientist, 99% of the time it's a misquote, information taken out of context or just a plain lie.
For example, in this article:
There is a causal link between playing the first-person shooting game in our experiment and brain-activity pattern that are considered as characteristic for aggressive cognitions and effects.
That means there is a causal effect between playing games and having activity in parts of your brain that's normally used for agressive behavior. But no scientist claimed that this implies aggresive behavior will later be expressed by people exposed to videogames. No scientist would ever claim that seeing a picture a naked woman stimulates parts of your brain used when raping a woman, so seeing pictures of naked girls makes men rape women. THat's the kind of reasoning a scientist doesn't do. But the layperson often does, and that's why it's so easy for publishers to quote scientists out of context and get people to interpret what they want.
I'm sick of seeing supposedly scientific claims in the media, then going to check for the sources, and the original scientific studies either never claimed what the article says or did so in a completely different context.
And it's not that the media is composed of stupid people, either. THey are smart. Smart enough to reap hughe amounts of money by printing what sells, not what it's real.
Are these people idiots, or just desperate liberals?
of a degree in neuroscience. You, it would seem, are an idiot. I
do not resort to ad hominem lightly. First, you decided to so
digress. Second, your own words announce this fact. As the
group most responsible for large scale government intrusion
into the personal lives of it's citizens, conservatives certainly are
not in a position to be pointing fingers at people, whether in the
form of a gun or not, accusing them of being desperate, idiotic,
or domineering. Nor is there any correlation between the desire
to curtail video game sales and being liberal, In fact, if anything,
it is the reverse. The movement to ban violent games, or at least
curtail them, is predominantly a conservative cause. Although
sometimes fronted by pseudo liberal dimwits like Senator
Lieberman or Tipper Gore, the majority of people calling for
such constraints are card-carrrying red state conservatives.
Liberal, BY DEFINITION, means supporting the idea of LIBERTY.
Liberty to sell whatever one wants, and to buy whatever one
wants. Conservative, by contrast, means to want to preserve the
status quo. While these terms are NOT mutually exclusive, by
and large, the vast majority of intrusions into liberty are from
the right, not the left. In fact, conservatives, for the most part,
only seem to resist intrusions into fundamental liberties if it will
cost them money. The only liberty they seem to be willing to
fight to the death for is monetary, the right to make as much
money as possible.
As to the study, it is stupid, bad science, and irrelevant. No one
seriously doubts that engaging in aggressive behaviour
stimulates those areas responsible for that behaviour. The issue
is not whether a causal link exists between viewing violence and
brain activity, but whether this neural activity in response to
virtual behaviour carries over into real life behaviour. The data
here are quite clear, though somewhat complicated. If one looks
at a window immediately following exposure to violence, and
one can assume while neural activity in these areas is still high,
the answer appears to be, yes, there is a causal correalation,
However, this effect is extremely transitory, completely
disappearing within minutes.
So, as far as this story is concerned, the response has to be: "so
what?"
Unless of course his friend lives in some parentless limbo devoid of any nuturing sustanance that comes from a loving and attentive family.
Most people just want to blame their problems on other things, like music, video games, and other media. Even though it is "old" to say that it's the parents fault, it most likely is.
To make sure our kids are never violent, we should keep them in a cardboard box until they are 30.
Movies, music, and videogames are supposed to elicit a reaction. That's why we buy and enjoy them. What about all the damage and insanity caused over a futbol game? Do they ban it?
Stop looking for a scapegoat beyond the person responsible for the crime. If a videogame can cause someone to commit murder, maybe there was something wrong before the game came along.
There are a multitude of other reasons murders have been committed. More people have been killed "In the name of God," than as a result of playing a video game. You don't even have to go back to the Holy Wars, just four years.
Society needs to wake up and put the responsibility in the hands of those responsible, the people doing the killing. Do you blame a gun for shooting someone? No. Do you blame the store for selling the gun or the bullets? If so, why? A person can be killed with a piece of rope or a kitchen knife, and it happens, but they continue to be sold.
By that logic, if video games are banned, anything remotely deadly should be banned as well. Makers of games, makers of guns and ammunition, and kitchen knives, and rope, and so on, trust us to be responsible human beings with brains in our heads. For the most part, we are, but there a few bad eggs that abuse it.
lol, Milan, you sound like you have your head on straight, and you're a pretty smart person, I'd like to buy you a beer or some other drink and discuss life with you. lol
case, the data are quite consistent.
The issue is not the conflict of data, but its interpretation. Claiming
that this "study," or any one similar, supports the efforts of those
attempting to restrict violent video games is indicative of someone
who should not be permitted to claim they understand how to read
a scientific journal, or interpret the data
Have the test subjects watch people hand out flowers and gifts and the same 'violent and aggresive' brain activity will be seen in a MRI scan.
In other news, studies show that reading "news" of the blatantly obvious stimulates readers to respond sarcastically and to look elsewhere for actual news.
Lets see what happens in a test with people NOT attracted to violent video games.
That about sums up what we gamers think about this whole issue. I am a 20 year old gamer and have been playing violent video since the advent of doom. I do not own a gun nor plan to own a gun nor do I have any real feelings toward killing someone and then going ahead and blaming it on a game that I played often. God help us if people go and kill other people and then proceed to blame it on GTA3 and get away with only going to a psych ward. Basically I have one main question. Guess who bought those video games for the younger than 17 teens? yea.. the parents.
As others have said, its not surprising that while playing a violent video game your brain reacts similiary to real violence.
The question is there any real link between playing of video games, and actually making someone a violent person.
Which I do not beleive there is, as video games sales have skyrocketed in the last 10-15 years, and crimerates have gone down.
Until then, it seems unremarkable.
Imagining or otherwise simulating an activity has been shown
many times to activate the same regions of the brain that are
active during the real thing. But it has no connection I've heard
of to changing future behavior or thoughts.
The study (as I understand it) says absolutely nothing about
whether playing video games makes you more violent.
Early in a romantic relationship, parts of your brain involved in
addictive behaviors (like drug addiction) are activated. But I
highly doubt being infatuated repeatedly leads to increased use
of addictive substances. (And I haven't of any any research
claiming this either.)
The media frequently fail to interpret findings in science.
Likewise, scientists often fail to communicate important findings
to the public. It's a shame.
BTW, I'm a cognitive scientist familiar with the methodology
used in the study.
His heart is pumping and his leg ?.
Why? His brain and body is not incompetent.
Is that called Stimulation?
Is that called Aggression?
Here comes a free trial offer ? Playboy SA game.
SA ? stands for Satisfaction!?
- But where is the science?
- by October 15, 2005 7:23 AM PDT
- I don't know why anyone even bothered to do this study, much less to publish this article. It was almost as if they tried to do this study with as little scientific credibility (and budget) as possible. First of all did they do any test to see what affects a non violent video game, no they did not. Did they even test various video games of various levels of quality (as "Tactical Ops: Assault on Terror" is supposed to be an average game and it could be angering the players with its less then great game play) no they did not. Also : where the other players paying with the one in the fMRI or was the subject playing alone, what difficulty was the game set to for the players, was it comfortable for them to be in the fMRI and playing and there are many other factors that would also need to be tested to prove anything. It almost seems like you did only the work that could prove that video games caused aggression and excluded any tests that could prove that information wrong.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- Yes, what about Tetris?
- by October 19, 2005 3:47 PM PDT
- Well said, Benoit, there isn't a lot of ruling out done here... a questionnaire based on the 'frustratingness' of the game would perhaps be a start, comparing the scans with the players subjective experience. After all, i've seen a pretty violent response to some entirely non-violent games eg. tetris.
-
-
(31 Comments)details of whether the subjects were regular game players would be useful too.
we'd really have to have access to the study itself before complaining too much though, as has been said already, journalists have their own agendas for messing around with existing data.
The idea that this could affect later behaviour though... is crazy. Simulating violent behaviour on a computer game doesnt make you a violent person in the same way that saturday night karaoke doesn't make you a pop star.
just because the simulated activity invokes the same brain response does not mean that the individual is not aware of the gap between fantasy and reality.
articles like this make me just want to bang my head on the table. i wonder if that too counts as violent activity...