April 16, 2007
PC World serves up a lengthy interview with Doug Gentile, Iowa State Prof and Director of Research for the National Institute on Media and Family.Gentile, co-author of Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy
, told PC World's Matt Peckham:Media violence exposure is just one among many dozens of risk factors for increased aggression... That's one of the things I think people misunderstand about this research, that aggression researchers aren't out to pick on games... violent video games are just one of those (aggression) risk factors. They're not the biggest. They're also not the smallest.
In a discussion of Madden vs. NFL Blitz, Gentile said:
People think more aggressive thoughts and behave more aggressively immediately after playing NFL Blitz or MLB Slugfest compared to equally competitive football and baseball games that don't include the ability to rumble with the other team.
In regard to MMOs, Gentile says more research is needed:
It's a fascinating question no one has looked at. What happens with MMOs? ...often when you're doing things, you go out on a raid, you're with your guild... so you're supporting each other being aggressive. So you're actually getting rewarded by people for your aggressive actions. You know, think about gang behavior.
But... Often when you're going out on a raid, your goal is not to actually go injure the mobs or the other team... your goal is to support your guild members, your goal is to do this pro-social thing helping each other... so it mixes violence and cooperation... So it's a really interesting question where MMOs could make (aggression) worse, or they could actually totally wipe out the effect of the violence.
Comments
@ Jabrwock
About the gang allusion, Gentile may have some points in there. Although, he shouldn't throw that around so callously. Have you heard stories where gamers interrupt am in-game funeral service, harrased newbies or gold farming? Theses activities are considered bad things to MMO players, so gang behaviours are not very far behind.
@monte
about the ratings system, the DSM-IV has basically the same problem. Mental health professionals don't follow its guidelines religiously, but use it as a general guideline. I believe that NIMF is trying to get an impossible rating system. If they have their way, we'll get tooooo many ratings and it won't be simple and useful anymore. Like I said, ratings are general guidelines for parents and parents should create their own personal rules based on their own experience and the ratings given.
About gang behaviour in MMOs, thankfully a majority of gamers are well-intended gamers, so Gentile is probably interested in studying those that don't behave right. And MMOs are structured so that high-level players must cooperate with each others in order to advance or enjoy the game. "Play alone, get looted alone."
@Hayabusa75: I agree with you completely. @sidewinder:you're not seeing the whole thing. and Gentile is only making an inference that MMO may have an effect on violence because no research is done on them.@Terminator44: Thanks for reminding for the control group, I always forgot about it.@Mulk: Your personal experience do show something about MMOs, it's all about maintaining social pleasure and social networking, not the individualized violence. To anyone in cultural psychology or anthropology: compare the number of gamers between the U.S. and Korea.
Second: Did he just compare the Mafia with MMORPGs, the 'kiddy playground'* of gaming?
Third: "But… Often when you’re going out on a raid, your goal is not to actually go injure the mobs"
So when you head towards a mob with the intention of killing said mob for the purpose of looting said mob's corpse, your goal isn't to injure said mob?
Ye-e-e-ah....
---
*IE: Non-violent.
I so would like to see how the college athletes stack up against the FPS groups on aggression. I used to fence, both sabre and foil. That most certianly builds up aggression (touche - point!). And isn't that really a game based version of how to kill someone? In the day, that's why you went to fencing school, to defend yourself - or pick a fight.
How can "violence" be considered objectively if it can only be defined by subjective interpretation of a narrative? Why is "aggression" defined as a negative we are "at risk" for? Isn't aggression also a natural human response to competition, crucial to our survival and propagation?
I have an alternate definition: Aggression is the self-preserving, self-promoting, competitive emotion that prompts someone to claim, "I'm not picking on games" while promoting his new book that's devoted to picking on games.
What about PvP guilds vs PvE guilds? I mean if we want to go there, wouldn't PvP have a different mindset then the planning involved in PvE?
Though that aside, I have to agree that this is fairly stupid. 'Gang' is such an easy word to throw around. You can call just about any gathering of people a gang if you want it to look bad: Sports gangs, book reading gangs, the Young Men's Christian Gang... See? Easy as pie! Makes the word sort of meaningless when you think about it.
Plus a universal ratings system is not going to make parent's pay attention any more than they already are. The parents who care to take time to look at the ratings agree with them. Plus, just as I don't go to Ebert and Roeper for video game reviews, I wouldn't go to GamePro for the lastest movie review. Different media requires 'expert' reviews, and basically, a rating is a specific type of review with a single objective in mind.
One unified rating system isn't going to suddenly make all parents care about media.
And it seems like these researchers are picking on games because that is where a lot of the attention is focused right now. We already have a large body of research on television, newspapers, and radio. Video games are relatively new and thus offer an attractive subject of study for researchers looking to generate new knowledge in the field of effects research.
For example, I don't find GTA: Vice City or Metal Gear Solid 3 very hard, and they very rarely makes me feel aggressive. Rugby 06 nearly made me have a fit the other day, not because rugby is an aggressive game, but because I was having so much trouble making progress on the top difficulty level. Like I said though, as soon as I put down the controller and move on to something else, the aggression goes away.
Frankly, it would surprise me greatly if most people didn't react to games is a manner similar to mine: Some, limited aggression, passing quickly, mostly related to game "context" rather than "content".
I believe our workaholic lifestyles mixed with our need for instant gratification has prevented children from recieving even so much as half of the parenting that they need.
I would have to say that Im the least violent person out of all my friends... And yet nothing makes me feel better than killing as many people as I can in first person shooters or PVP in MMO's. Especially after dealing with real-life people that make me want to pull my hair out. (at school/work)
Also... Ive never met an avid gamer that would leave their house to do anything other than to get more energy drinks or go out to eat somewhere. How is one supposed to be violent when their out of shape and lazy?
Im sick of peoples censorship trying to 'protect' people.... So we should strive for ignorance? We should police our life experiences?
I'll stop now as my opinion should be clear.
And failing at your job in a raid is the one thing you never want to happen. So I guess the fact your in a guild negates the aggressive feeling one feels when fighting in a mmo.
As for the gang, no try army. You have to plan, practice, keep morale up, and keep on top of a massive logistics job.
Not only the Effect of Aggression, but they still don't discern between the various forms of Aggression.
Aggression caused by Frustration?
Aggression caused by the challenge of the game?
Aggression caused by feeling angry at some aspect of the game?
How does Type A and Type B personalities play into each of the causes of Aggression?
There are a great many of these.
Imagine a verbal debate between 2 individuals.
Their personalities will play as much a part as how they deal with the debate itself.
Each individual responds differently to the debate as well as the person they are debating, as well as how the other person responds to the debate.
The same is true of playing games. Heck, even merely watching a movie, whether it's a real movie or the movie of a game.
Just saying they "act aggressively" is misleading as well. And I think some of that is intentional as they don't want to admit they can't be as specific as they should.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
This is just more of the same kind of junk science we see on the news every day. I can tell this guy is trying to contend with that claim, but his conclusions don't match the results.
Not all MMO players consider harassment of noobs or gold farming to be bad things. Many MMO players respected or condoned the in-character raid of that funeral you mention (it took place on a PVP server in a ROLE-PLAYING game). Not all of us understand or necessarily agree with your definition of "well intentioned." Some of us resent that you (or Gentile, or anyone else except maybe the game's publisher) would assume the authority to decide who does or does not "have it right."
I mean no offense to you personally, and I am glad that you share your views here -- I imagine I'd agree with most of your opinions if I knew them in a little more detail. However, there is a huge difference between discussing your opinions in an internet forum and passing them off as grant-funded "science." Whether I agree with Gentile's opinions or not, I resent his misuse of "science" in promoting them as more valid than yours or mine.
What about healers? Are we being aggressive?
I feel so...... aggressive?
I think the only aggressive feelings wow gives me are ones of frustration and loathing of my fellow man for being so damn stupid.
Than i quit wow for a few weeks. Then come back and begin the cycle again.
i don't know about you but every time i heal someone i'm screaming "AAARGH, TAKE THAT HEALING, YOU ALLY!" /sarcasm
At first I thought your comment said "more likely to bunch their baby."
Punching your buddy vs. punching your baby. That would be an even more interesting study!
Can I get a WHOOPWHOOP? Thought Police in the house y'all.
If thinking bad things is a crime, everyone in the world belongs in jail. It is possible to have violent thoughts without acting on them.
The only thing I disagreed with was his call for a universal rating system for TV, movies and games. It's not the responsibility of the entertainment industry to have to come up with something like that just because some parents are too dumb to sort the individual ones out, or too lazy to try to understand each one.
I have no problems with a universal ratings system across all entertainment media. Of the existing systems, I think the ESRB rating is by far the most clear and useful, but the MPAA ratings are probably the best known. Whatever form a new, universal system may take, it is essential that it be clear, specific, and objective and the process by which a rating is assigned must be completely transparent.
What has never been well examined was what exactly this means. Are they more excitable? Are they more likely to punch their buddy? Do they need a minute to calm down? How long are the effects? How pronounced? Are they equivalent to watching violence on TV, or reading about it?
"it mixes violence and cooperation… So it’s a really interesting question where MMOs could make (aggression) worse, or they could actually totally wipe out the effect of the violence."
I love how he alluded to the gang mentality. As if gang members do stuff like take first aid training so they can heal up their buds. ;)
Seriously though, how do you differentiate between the effect? Are there any MMOs where you are completely on your own, and there is no ability for players to play in a supportive role?
So GTA makes kids into killing machines and WoW and Everquest makes them into co-ordinated killing machines?
Oh no, it's not that we don't consider video games to be a risk factor, it's that we notice that your attention to video games is FAR greater then any attention they pay to other forms of media such as movies. For instance, the harsh critism of the ESRB. Constantly NIMF is on their tails about how they need to improve the system and that it doesn't work and crap like that. However, the MPAA either suffers from similar problems or is actually far worse off. Thing is, when consider all the factors, the ESRB is probably working much harder has a system than the MPAA, yet ESRB gains all the critism, while the MPAA gets practically nothing.
“People think more aggressive thoughts and behave more aggressively immediately after playing NFL Blitz or MLB Slugfest compared to equally competitive football and baseball games that don’t include the ability to rumble with the other team.”
Question... what about the PLAYERS of actual football games? do they not cause similiar if not worse effects? they may actually want to do a study on that... esspecially since that in training for football you actually increase your physical strength and learn to use it against others, unlike video games which physically doesn't help you much at all and gives you no real world experience when it comes to violence... not to mention the fact that, unlike video games, stuff like playing football and other such aggressive sports is not only considered to be very exceptable to everyday person, but also praised...
really, if a study is done on football players that yield similar results as the video games, then it would just prove that NIMF are targeting games and being hypocrites in what they consider to be exceptable and what's not. Cause really, if they use those studies to be angery about football video games, then they should be equally as mad about football in real life... can't except one set of studies and ingore the other if they yield similar results... you got either except both, or reject both (i tend to reject them, seeing the flaws in them, partically in not being actual proof of what they claim)
I get most angry not when i get killed by a horde, but when alliance don't join my TM raid 0.o
y'know, giving this one some thought, i think guilds have more in relation to team sports than they do to gang behavior. Gangs are all about agression and nothing but, the game plan there is cause as much as hell you want and that's it. from my experience with guildes, guildes are more about support and cooperation. During a raid, a guild doesn't just charge on in like a gang would, planning and preperation is taken, and like on a sports team, each member has their roles in a raid. Some are high offence, some are tanks, some provide healing, and some others provide additional support. Heavy teamwork is often needed to succed in a raid, something that gangs don't have. Not to mention that good guilds tend to support their members in many positive ways outside of raids and such
This goes back to the whole "NIMF is targeting games" and such. When it comes to drawing conclusions and wording their results, they seem to blow things out of proportion and make things seem FAR worse then they actually are. Comparing guilds to gangs for instance seems like a clear why to try and say that guilds are nothing but bad and have nothing possitive to offer and that we should be clearly against them, however, Guilds do have far more positives to them and are more complex than gangs are and probably have more in common with a sports team. But ofcourse, comparing it to sports would put a more positive spin on the issue so that comparison is ignored for the more extreme overblow comparison.