Study: Non-violent Games May Enhance Pro-social Behavior
Study: Non-violent Games May Enhance Pro-social Behavior
April 8, 2009
While researchers Douglas Gentile (left) and Craig Anderson have often been critical of violent video games, a new report from the Iowa State University professors indicates that non-violent games may enhance pro-social behavior in chidlren.
As reported by isciences, an Iowa State reasearch team led by Gentile and overseen by Anderson studied school children in Singapore, Japan as well as college students in the United States:
College students... who were randomly assigned to play prosocial games (Chibi Robo and Super Mario Sunshine) behaved more prosocially... in a subsequent task than those who played either neutral (Pure Pinball and Super Monkey Ball Deluxe) or violent video games (Ty2 or Crash Trinsanity). Those who played the violent games engaged in more harmful behaviors...
"Video games are not inherently good or bad," wrote the researchers in the paper. "Video games can have both positive and negative effects.
"Content matters, and games are excellent teachers," they continued. "Violent content in video games can lead people to behave more aggressively. Prosocial content, in contrast, can lead people to behave in a more cooperative and helpful manner."
VG Researcher has more. Read the study abstract here.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/19/10 at 10:21am
Valdearg: Lmao. I was just permabanned from the hannity forums for asking about her article. It was politely worded, and I made sure to imply that I was conservative. Seems to me like Hannity is in full damage control, at the moment.
Valdearg: Lmao. I was just permabanned from the hannity forums for asking about her article. It was politely worded, and I made sure to imply that I was conservative. Seems to me like Hannity is in full damage control, at the moment.
Posted 03/19/10 at 09:59am
Valdearg: CONSERVATIVE blogger Debbie Schlussel out's Sean Hannity's Freedom Concerts as a SCAM! As little as 4% and 7% of the money collected in some years actually went to the benefits of the charity. A MUCH larger percentage was spent on luxuries for Hannity.
Valdearg: CONSERVATIVE blogger Debbie Schlussel out's Sean Hannity's Freedom Concerts as a SCAM! As little as 4% and 7% of the money collected in some years actually went to the benefits of the charity. A MUCH larger percentage was spent on luxuries for Hannity.
Posted 03/19/10 at 07:36am
HarmlessBunny: Aussie election is underway. Apparently it is too close to call. Here is hoping Atkinson is knocked off his perch :)
HarmlessBunny: Aussie election is underway. Apparently it is too close to call. Here is hoping Atkinson is knocked off his perch :)
Posted 03/19/10 at 06:46am
nightwng2000: design by a French TV show by its more broad representation? http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/bizarre&id=7337029
nightwng2000: design by a French TV show by its more broad representation? http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/bizarre&id=7337029
Posted 03/19/10 at 06:45am
nightwng2000: Have the video game psychological studies about administering pain to someone else been proven misleading in their narrow.....
nightwng2000: Have the video game psychological studies about administering pain to someone else been proven misleading in their narrow.....
Posted 03/19/10 at 01:50am
hayabusa75: Flamespeak: Shhh, the Dems might hear you ;)
hayabusa75: Flamespeak: Shhh, the Dems might hear you ;)
Posted 03/18/10 at 09:41pm
ZippyDSMlee: And not taxing the 30-500K bracket so much, sure you make 500K at the end of the year add in life thats minus 200K add in the company you made there's another 200K.
ZippyDSMlee: And not taxing the 30-500K bracket so much, sure you make 500K at the end of the year add in life thats minus 200K add in the company you made there's another 200K.
Posted 03/18/10 at 09:39pm
ZippyDSMlee: Flamespeak: we should be taxing the ultra rich alot more(those that have more than 10 million in wealth),.
ZippyDSMlee: Flamespeak: we should be taxing the ultra rich alot more(those that have more than 10 million in wealth),.
Posted 03/18/10 at 08:04pm
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:44pm
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:05pm
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:04pm
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Posted 03/18/10 at 05:21pm
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
As non-violent as Mario is, how is it prosocial? It's single player. Did they try any MMOs like Animal Crossing?
While we need to take any and all studies with a grain of salt, this one does seem to be more non-biased than most. I still believe many of these "effects" of games, good and bad, are pretty mild and can be self-controlled.
Seems to me the results of this study were predestined. What about games that are social and violent like left 4 dead.
I don't think they mean "social" as in getting along with people, but rather in participation with society. Mario Sunshine's pro-environment message would be a good choice for that -- presumably after playing, the subjects were observed placing their trash in appropriate receptacles on a more consistent basis.
Edit: on further investigation, it seems the level of sociability was determined by getting the subjects to pick out a selection of tangram puzzles for a partner who they were told would try to solve them quickly to earn a gift certificate, then seeing if they gave them the easier or more difficult ones. The pro-social players did trend towards giving the easier puzzles, and there was a greater difference between the pro- and the neutral versus the neutral and the anti-. Very interesting result.
---
The Mammon Philosophy
Gamers like to be rewarded in their games, it makes sense we would like to pass that feeling of accomplishment around! We're all a bunch if hippies at heart!
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Ty 2? Crash Twinsanity? Violent? Really?
Super Mario Sunshine, personal? (can't speak for Chibi Robo)
...no, I'm going to go ahead and say this study is worthless.
Likewise. I've always been a bit of a loner, and have always stuck to single players. I don't do a lot of multi-players, especially competitive game play cause I always get my ass kicked (and I do so well against a computer, too...sigh)
While I do believe games DO have positive effects, and it's only logical to say the opposite is true, this study can go into the games-are-evil-study bin.
Hmmm, it's funny I never feel more social after I play a non-violent game.
Besides, how much fun can you have as mario--pretending to be a mad italian jumping on turtles...
Praetorian
"If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy floating by."
http://www.myspace.com/pree_tawr_ee_uhn
Much confirmation bias I sense in you.
I hate to be a kill-joy about this, but I think this is simply part of their larger agenda to show how large an impact games supposedly have on behavior, and if people would only play nice sweet prosocial games, how everything would be right with youth-today. To view this as a pro-game study would be a serious mistake. Just my opinion.
As with many of these studies (prosocial or aggression) I'd be concerned that the participants are able to guess the hypothesis and just try to give the results the scientists want. Particularly since many of these studies use psychology students, the participants are probably pretty good at guessing the hypotheses.
VG Researcher says that a debriefing screening process was used to weed out participants who may have suspected the nature of the experiments. They also used a range of ages down to the fifth grade. You'd have to be a real psycho to get past that level of scrutiny.
---
The Mammon Philosophy
Not really. I'd guess that a fair amount of students who are trying to "go along" with a study in the first place will also know enough not to admit dubiousness when asked. I'm skeptical by nature, sure, but I have concerns that these "debriefings" work as advertised, although that goes for all psyche research, not just VG studies.
I'm with Avalongod here. To embrace this study ends up putting us in the same boat as Hollywood - "Our media can't make people do bad things! But it makes them do good things all the time!"
More importantly, I'm with several folks who've pointed out that their methodology is... questionable.
Chibi Robo and Mario Sunshine? Well... I know one of them involves earning your keep as a tiny little robot trying to help out around the house, so I guess that's pro-social.
Ty 2 though? Well... more violent than Chibi Robo (I think), but it's not pro-social to try saving your friends and neighbors from an invading force (or is that the plot to Ty 1?)
At any rate... yeah, pro-social, neutral, anti-social are things I'd want to see defined, along with 'pro-social' behavior. I mean... okay, how about Call of Duty? Last I checked, fighting the Nazis was generally considered a good thing to do....
Politics, Religion, and Particle Physics http://dttaboos.wordpress.com
Define "prosocial"
That is to say are all prosocial behaviors passive or non aggressive?
I agree. Is it prosocial to defend someone who is being mugged? Is it prosocial to help someone cheat on a test? What exactly do they mean by prosocial?
If they wanted to study prosocial behavior, perhaps they would have done better to have people play co-op games of varying violence levels. That would be cool.
I still want to see a better study of aggression caused by gaming. I would like to see a study done with people playing various competitive games. Games can include, FPS, RTS, Sports, Party and even non video games like card games. Under card games you can have people play Hearts and Spoons and see how aggression levels change playing those compared to games.
The point is, they are really aiming narrowly without any idea of the broader subject. When doing research like this, you need to start large and slowly narrow the study. Not start with a narrow test group and say you are done.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
Pro-social behaviors are definitely not passive, well at least in terms of being passive instead of being active. As far as prosocial behaviors being non agressive, for the most part they won't be aggressive but this is not to say they can't be somewhat. Many team sports would likely both constitute prosocial behavior and have some degree of aggression. However, it's quite possible that the study's operational definition of pro social is different.
With all these studies it ultimately comes down to Albert Bandura's Social Cognitive theory, which the two figures in the full study illustrate fairly well. Basically kids acquire new behaviors by observing them. The likelihood that these behaviors will be enacted in the future is then affected by the consequences. This actually leads to a rather interesting idea given that prosocial behaviors should generally have positive consequences and violent behaviors should generally have negative consequences. Therefore, the positive effects of video games should generally outweigh the bad.
Janarius here, sorry I didn't include the definition of prosocial behaviours: "...define prosocial behaviors as those intended to help others."
http://vgresearcher.wordpress.com/
It does interest me that they specify children's behaviour. One of the key arguments of the adult gaming crowd is that M-rated games aren't made for children, and this appears to confirm that. But that said, I suspect the effects are more subtle than the report lets on. After watching a violent movie, people feel a little more aggressive; after a few sitcoms, they're relaxed and more cheerful. It's the same with games. You're going to get different reactions out of two people if one of them was just playing CoD4 and the other was on Kirby's Adventure.
The post on VG Researcher also mentions that the results determined prosociability and aggression weren't mutually exclusive -- it's a complicated spectrum. This is one of those cases where I suspect an awful lot of people are going to jerk their knees and end up banging them on the underside of the desk when they should be keeping cool and reading the full report. (And that's on both sides of the debate.)
---
The Mammon Philosophy
Well, this study is coherent with Douglas Gentile's previous studies and talks. Among game critics, he's always been "the voice of the reason" (as he demonstrated it during last year's "Video games and violence" conference). I've already emailed him personally, and he offered me a very kind reply, though we had some disagreements. But at least, he's someone we can discuss with (unlike You Know Which Disbarred Attorney).
Furthermore, I'm quite relieved that video game studies no longer focus on negative effects and "negative games"... although I understand fellow GP readers' concerns.
It is, of course, a matter of degree. Compared with JT almost anyone is going to seem like "the voice of reason". It is worth noting that this research group has accepted grant funding from The National Institute of the Media and the Family in the past (and I think Dr. Gentile is actually on their board). Although this doesn't mean we should necessarily discard anything that they say, I think it could point to an obvious "axe to grind" with which we should be aware (particularly since the same group like to complain that any of their critics are "in bed" with the video game industry).
Huh...not sure why that double posted. Sorry!
Are you kidding me? Mario jumps on turtles to smash them out of their shells, stomps other critters into the ground, hurls fireballs at his enemies, and in general is just one badass of a plumber.
Speaking of which, the goombas look like poo in some of the games. Connection with being a plumber? I think so!
I will not buy securom games. http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message1.jpg and http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message2.jpg
For those of you who still remember, the instruction booklet for the first Super Mario Bros. paints a darker story. The "koopa tribe" magically turned the peaceful inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom into bricks, plants and boulders. So even when you smash bricks, you are harming people!
GameSnooper