Goldstein’s article on Violent Videogames

In Goldstein’s article, Goldstein argues that discussions of videogames have been clouded by ambiguous definitions, poorly designed research and confusion of correlation with causality. The following points were what I found interesting/stood out from the article:

-      "The context of violent stories vary along dimensions of realism, involvement, excitement and how violence/conflict begin and end, whether they are presented in an erotic or a humorous context."

-       Variations of violence are seldom studied, lowering the suitable results which can be used for critical analysis.

-       “Meanings of Violence in Video Games” introduces a couple interesting ideas. First Goldstein talks about the Third-Person Effects in Media Research, which is the idea that media affects others, but not oneself. Additionally in this section he proposes the idea that the exaggerated use of violence in video games, film and other media is a product of the American society. I.e. in one the studies it showed non-Americans watched sessions of American television and after surveys it has been shown that they perceived the world as a scarier and meaner world. (…Maybe that’s why we’ve seen an increasing amount of drama shows about war/alien take over - i.e. the cheesy Falling Skies (2011) - to install a sense of patrioticism to those watching the show!)

-       Studying the effects of violent video games usually comprise of 3 research approaches: “correlational studies, experiments, and meta –analysis.”

-       First he goes into correlational studies and addresses right away that there is little causal information that can be pulled from these studies. Any study he mentioned, Goldstein would reinforce the view that “no significant relationship could be concluded”.

-       The more detailed and informative section is when Goldstein talks about the experiments. In one of those studies, a study conducted by Craig Anderson and Karen Dill where they tried to find two video games – Wolfenstein 3D and Myst - similar in everything but violence. Even though the experiment found some interesting things, it was criticized by Goldstein because the games, which were supposed to be similar other than violence, were not.

-       He also takes us through multiple experiments and for each of them presents their failing. Even in the meta-analysis, which is when you take the data from many studies and try to find conclusion with all of the data clumped together.

-       At the end of the article Goldstein concluded that, “the research is too inconsistent and insubstantial to allow any conclusion to be drawn.”

Overall the article is an overload of information and/on experiments about video games and violence, but it makes no conclusions. Goldstein has placed each of these studies in scrutiny of their weaknesses and strengths and according to him it has become clear that we really don't have the one solid piece of evidence that links violent games and violent behavior. 

Response: Video game violence

Just thought I'd throw in a quick response to some of the posts such as The Blame Game, Hannah's post and Adri's response relating to violence in video games, and how they might motivate people to commit violence in the real world. Over the weekend I've been considering the notion of freewill or in a way, agency in the gaming world and I think this might have interesting implications for how we view violence in gaming.

I'll take GTA as an example, since it's the most often cited game which is meant to turn teenage boys into murders. It is very possible to play the game and never kill any prostitutes or steal your money back. All the actions performed by the character are at the instruction of the player, in essence he is their avatar in the virtual world of Vice City (or other locales). You could very well play the game without committing any crimes in the game. You would however not be able to 'finish' the game in the conventional sense.

So I question whether all 'violent' video games are actually inherently violent in the sense that they require the player to commit violent acts or reflect only the desire of the player to use the avatar in the game to complete the tasks required to reaffirm its identity. That is, there is an expectation that Max Payne will get revenge in the game of the same name, not making it happen in the game would be like refusing to read a book because you know from the blurb that the beloved protagonist is really Jack the Ripper. I wont go as far to deny that video games may lead to a normalization of violence, and as such they should be restricted to adults who hopefully have the cognitive ability to keep gaming as fantasy.

FTVMS 328 – Another Response to Violence within Videogames…

Briefly going through the blog I keep seeing this message/similar: “Video games should not be blamed”… on the cause of death/violence/aggression. etc.

Agreed. Human beings, especially young children, learn by observing. The cause of violence and aggression is a result of a mix of situational and biological factors (i.e inherited mental illness causing mental instability). Videogames certainly can’t be blamed, however, neither can we ignore the impact that they – like any other media text- can cause. As the younger generation is exposed to the wide variety of games out there – made more easily by parents buying for them, or through peer pressure – the higher level of exposure of violent or aggressive material at a young age will undoubtly affect their cognition. Sure it sounds silly that a mere videogame can cause a shoot out… (like the GTA one – link ) but compared with a normally healthy child who has not played any violent games – who do you think would develop more violent tendencies?

For those who are interested from a psychological perspective and brief explanation, take a look at the Bandura Case study: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHHdovKHDNU&feature=related

~Adri