Play GTA3, end up drinking and smoking?

[Newby]

http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/04/11/1920203.shtml

I swear it wasn't the videogames!

[iago]

Hah, I read that. 

I think they are mixing up cause/effect, though.  I suspect that people who enjoy video games also enjoy drinking/smoking.  I don't think one leads from the other. 

[GameSnake]

The best quote of the original article is this:

The study suggests that although those with a violent upbringing may become more physiologically aroused by media violence exposure, all youth appear to be at risk for potentially negative outcomes.

Exactly, so whats the point of this study?

[iago]

The best quote of the original article is this:

The study suggests that although those with a violent upbringing may become more physiologically aroused by media violence exposure, all youth appear to be at risk for potentially negative outcomes.

Exactly, so whats the point of this study?

From the quote, it sounds like the point of the study was to determine the negative outcomes of violent video games to all youth.  Unless I'm missing something?

[Sidoh]

How do you miss the point in that quote, GameSnake?

On a more on topic note, I think these kind of beliefs are nonsense.

[iago]

On a more on topic note, I think these kind of beliefs are nonsense.

Have any proof?  Or is that just opinion?

[Sidoh]

Have any proof?  Or is that just opinion?

On a more on topic note, I think these kind of beliefs are nonsense.

It is an opinion, but I feel its a justified, logical opinion.  Firstly, if someone has a personality which is prone to taking on a violent nature, chances are something is going to turn them into a "bad person," regardless of the existance of violent video games.  Secondly, it seems to me that people place blame on violence contained in video games because they fail to recognize the possibility of the person in reference being a "bad person" to begin with.  If a person confesses changes within themselves and puts the blame on violent games, it seems to me it's a unreasonable, vindictive statement.

I'm always open to change, if the studies say otherwise, though. ;)

[iago]

Have any proof?  Or is that just opinion?

On a more on topic note, I think these kind of beliefs are nonsense.

It is an opinion, but I feel its a justified, logical opinion.  Firstly, if someone has a personality which is prone to taking on a violent nature, chances are something is going to turn them into a "bad person," regardless of the existance of violent video games.  Secondly, it seems to me that people place blame on violence contained in video games because they fail to recognize the possibility of the person in reference being a "bad person" to begin with.  If a person confesses changes within themselves and puts the blame on violent games, it seems to me it's a unreasonable, vindictive statement.

I'm always open to change, if the studies say otherwise, though. ;)

What if somebody is a bad person, but they had never considered the possibility of murder before.  Then they see some violent video games or movies and realize that, hey! I can kill people too!  Then they go out and kill people. 

Yes, they were already mentally unstable.  But the violence in video games/movies was the catalyst that made them kill somebody.   

Does that mean that violence should be avoided?  It seems to me that if it prevents just a single instance of the case I presented, then the potential benefits of outlawing violence instantly outweighs the potential drawbacks (less fun games?). 

One human life is more important than kids having fun with violent games. 

[Sidoh]

What if somebody is a bad person, but they had never considered the possibility of murder before.  Then they see some violent video games or movies and realize that, hey! I can kill people too!  Then they go out and kill people. 

Yes, they were already mentally unstable.  But the violence in video games/movies was the catalyst that made them kill somebody.   

Like I said, even without the existance of violence in games, they will discover it elsewhere.  If not in the news, than gossip amongst classmates, co-workers, TV, movies, friends or family.

Does that mean that violence should be avoided?  It seems to me that if it prevents just a single instance of the case I presented, then the potential benefits of outlawing violence instantly outweighs the potential drawbacks (less fun games?). 

If a person is mentally instable enough to vindicate murder through means of playing a violent video game, they'll almost certainly come to the same conclusion when they watch a violent movie, TV show or hear about the details of another murder (the list continues, obviously).

One human life is more important than kids having fun with violent games. 

I completely agree, but I don't think abolishing violent video games is going to help prevent one single murderous crime.

[MyndFyre]

I managed to find the citation:
Brady, S.S. & Matthews, K.A.  (in press).  Effects of media violence on health-related outcomes among young men.  Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

It's in press, so it'll be a few months before actual publication.  I'm going to be keeping my eye on it, because the study sounds interesting.

On a more on topic note, I think these kind of beliefs are nonsense.

The methodology of the study seems pretty sound.  I'll be able to provide a more detailed analysis once I can get my hands on the article, but there are some key features that I'd like to highlight.

Brady and Matthews had a group of 100 male undergraduates aged 18 to 21 play either Grand Theft Auto III or The Simpsons: Hit and Run. In the Simpsons game, players took the role of Homer Simpson and their task was to deliver daughter Lisa's science project to school before it could be marked late. In Grand Theft Auto III, players took the role of a criminal, and were instructed by the Mafia to beat up a drug dealer with a baseball bat.

The first primary factor to note is that the study was an actual experiment, not a post-hoc study, and so if the only distinction (besides any deviation caused by normal differences) is caused only by the difference in game selected by the experimentors.  What this means is that given random assignment (which I would assume was built into the study, but won't take for sure until I see the method) of participants to the study and to each condition (i.e., each person had the same chance of being selected for either condition in the study), so the groups will generally have nonsignificant differences.  It's also worthwhile to point out that, if they did the study would be worthless, but it also wouldn't be published without having been verified that they weren't significant.

Playing the violent game boosted young men's blood pressures, and appeared to have more of an effect on those who came from more violent homes or communities, the researchers report in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

This is what we call a "mediating" variable.  When analyzing the covariance of two variables, there are often tertiary variables that affect the relationship of the two we're interested in; mediating variables strengthen the relationship, while moderating variables reduce it.  Statistical tests can be done to determine whether this is the case (piecewise regression is one such test), and what the strength of the mediating/moderating effect is, and whether the relationship is still significant having removed the mediator/moderator.  (This is why I say stats are cool, to anyone who still doesn't believe me).  And actually, it looks like that's exactly how they tested it.

They were also more likely to have permissive attitudes toward alcohol and marijuana use.

This is something I really want to see the study for.  I'd have difficulty accepting this result unless it was pre-tested as well, although I imagine the publishers would too.  But still, this finding is framed much differently than "They are more likely to drink alcohol and use marijuana."

Actually, this is how the study made the examination:

During the survey, participants completed a 13-item questionnaire to indicate their association with deviant peers,34 both for current (alpha=.83) and high school (alpha=.84) friends. The 2 scores (r=0.65; P<.001) were summed to create an overall composite for association with deviant peers (mean [SD], 35.6 [14.0]).  Low scores indicated that few of a participant's friends had ever engaged in any deviant behavior (eg, smoking cigarettes, hitting other people, cheating on tests).

So that's how the test made the pretest.

I haven't read the whole thing, but it seems the study was done very well.

[Sidoh]

It does seem like an interesting study; I'd be interested in reading the published findings.

However, they still fail to recognize the same results are completely possible from violence in movies, TV, news and simple conversation.  It's my belief that violence is an unavoidable constituent of life.  By abolishing one aspect of violence, they accomplish nothing (in my opinion).  It will still arise in the lives of these insecure individuals; it is a direct inevitability.

[TeHFoOoL]

I don't know, it seems like violence needs something to stimulate it. GTA is a pretty hardcorely naughty game, so it probably has a better chance of provoking someone to go kill someone than another violent instance, such as a less mild game ( even though the chances of a murder happening are <1%. )

[iago]

It does seem like an interesting study; I'd be interested in reading the published findings.

However, they still fail to recognize the same results are completely possible from violence in movies, TV, news and simple conversation.  It's my belief that violence is an unavoidable constituent of life.  By abolishing one aspect of violence, they accomplish nothing (in my opinion).  It will still arise in the lives of these insecure individuals; it is a direct inevitability.

That's not always true.  In the tv/conversation you're hearing about or seeing murder, not taking part in it.  But when you click your mouse and execute somebody, you're actively taking part in the virtual murder.  I think that, from the mindset of the person, that's an important fact. 

(Note: that's different than my previous post, I'm talking about a normal(ish) person now, not somebody on the  verge of being crazy.  Don't get them mixed up. )

[rabbit]

I play GTA yet I'm a pacifist.  Coincidence?  I think not.

[iago]

I play GTA yet I'm a pacifist.  Coincidence?  I think not.

A single person is statistically insignificant.