Are video games really ruining men?

Default_picture
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Rob Savillo

Steven takes apart the hypothesis, argued by psychologists Philip Zimbardo and Nikita Duncan in their "The Demise of Guys" op-ed on CNN's website, that video games and porn are short-circuiting the fragile minds of young men everywhere. Now excuse me while I go play Demon's Souls and churn some butter.


See, mom? Video games can be...uh...educational.
 

As I recently read the mainstream media reports on video games’ biggest cultural event, the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), a snapshot of video game culture comes to the attention of millions across the country. Sometimes that image is of booth babes, gun fetishes, and expensive newfangled gadgets. It’s not always kind and not always the image that we want friends and family unfamiliar with our hobby to see.

Yet for every hyper violent Gears of War sequel, a whimsical and imaginative game like Rayman exists. And for every "girl wood" reference or report of game addictions, we have charitable organizations like Child’s Play. It’s when video games are painted in broad strokes using uncommon examples that I feel unfairly represented by the mainstream media.

One such report recently appeared on CNN by psychologists Philip Zimbardo and Nikita Duncan. The authors explain how arousal addictions encouraged by the nature of video games and pornography are helping rewire a generation of young men’s brains.

 

Zimbardo and Duncan claim that young men are choosing the instant gratification of video games and pornography over more crucial tasks like schoolwork and relationships. They compare them to an experiment with lab rats, who when given the freedom to artificially stimulate pleasure sensors or eat choose to starve themselves in the pursuit of constant pleasure. Zimbardo and Duncan explain that this addiction is not like drugs and alcohol that require an increasing potency to reach the same high.

According to the study, arousal addictions rely on novelty, suggesting that "sameness is soon habituated; newness heightens excitement."

The article suggests that the consequences of this addiction could be dramatic, creating a generation of young men who are unwilling to take risks and navigate the complexities of real-life relationships, school, and employment.

But while video games can have addictive qualities and certainly draw players into a virtual world (and thereby take them out of the real one), the examples Zimbardo and Duncan provide could be seen as extreme cases and more likely as anomalies in the data, such as the case of a South Korean man going into cardiac arrest after playing StarCraft for 50 straight hours.


50 hours of Starcraft proves the adage "too much of a good thing."


It would seem more likely that millions of young men play StarCraft or massively multiplayer online games like World of Warcraft every day and that very few would play for 50 straight hours. The stories of heart attack would seem even less common. It is probably safe to say that doing anything nonstop and exceeding 10 hours is detrimental to your mind and body.

"We have discovered our holy obligation for imaginative play, keeping in mind [that] games are only destructive and obsessive when we allow them to become that way."

The authors also cite suspected mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik as preparing his mind and body to kill 77 people by playing World of Warcraft and Call of Duty. And while even the army has been known to use first-person shooters as a kind of virtual-killing simulation, the amount of daily players in games like Call of Duty can number in the millions. Yet these same people turn off the game and do not recreate that same horrific violence in the real world.

Few deny that video games have the potential to become addicting or even to heighten or draw out exsiting aggressive tendencies; however, in the examples Zimbardo and Duncan give, people either abuse the normal limits of play, such as extended marathon gaming sessions, or gaming was purposefully used to increase aggression (i.e., military simulations and the case of Breivik).

The constant among these examples is that the violence or obsessive nature was present before video games were introduced -- they were not the result of playing video games. All Zimbardo and Duncan achieve is simply calling attention to the symptoms of an underlying problem, much like applying a band-aid to a cancerous limb.

The authors go so far as to sensationally accuse video games of turning a generation of young men into risk averse, lazy addicts by using examples of mass murderers and obsessed, heart attack victims.

 
1 2 Nextarrow
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (11)
Dscn0568_-_copy
July 16, 2012

Hey Steven,

Would you want to include this article in this month's Bitmob Writing Challenge?

http://bitmob.com/articles/bitmob-writing-challenge-extra-credit

Default_picture
July 16, 2012

You bet!

Jayhenningsen
July 17, 2012

While I don't agree with the study as well, nor do I begrudge you your beliefs, I think that responding to the study by saying that humanity needs to express itself creatively through video games because it was created in the image of God is just substituting one straw argument for another. I'd be more interested in theories that could apply to everyone and not just people who share your beliefs.

Default_picture
July 17, 2012



Ahh, I see what you mean. I do also believe the study falls short in myriad of other ways, mainly in the outrageous examples they provide.

1. They use the case of a South Korean man dying after playing 50 straight hours of Star Craft. HOW is this an example?? On average, how many of the millions of gamers are playing for 50 hour stretches??

-The mere use of such an anomaly in their data as an example kind of deflates their argument, don't you think?

2. They also use the case of Breivik and the notion he used World of Warcraft as a means of preparing himself to murder dozens of people.

Again, this is an anomaly, how many of the WOW players have gone out and killed dozens of people?

How are they allowed to use these ridiculous examples to support their argument?

3. I think we could also say, aren't people more likely to do something they enjoy ie play video games, rather than something that is hard and unfulfilling ie school?

We can all agree people are naturally creative, I believe the source is a creative creator. But the fact remains, games are only destructive when we allow them to become that way.

So ultimately, the problem doesn't lie within video games, it lies within people.

Default_picture
July 17, 2012

It depends on what you mean by "ruin." 

Do violent games cause the average male player to act violently in real life? Most of the research indicates they do not. My personal opinion is until the research proves it beyond any doubt, designers, developers and publishers should act responsibly and accordingly.

A much better question is: do hardcore game designers, developers and publishers encourage and reward players for hyper aggresive, sociopathic and sadistic behavior in player vs. player games? The answer is yes... they absolutely do. And can spending hundreds to thousands of hours in environments where victory or "success" is directly associated with hyper aggression, sociopathic, sadistic and spiteful behavior negatively influence how some players (male and female)  behave, communicate and interact with people in real life? Of course it can and it does. To claim otherwise is completely irresponsible because it ingores reality and common sense. 

So the larger question is why do many hardcore designers, developers and publishers believe this design philosophy is ethically or morally acceptable? Why do they believe its their "artistic" right to ignore the potential consequences of, and responsiblity for their own behavior? The reality is this question is at the heart of most of AAA gaming's biggest problems.

Default_picture
July 17, 2012

Yes! See, this is what I want to read, actual critique of game DESIGN and CONCEPTS as to how games rewire our brains. Not, this guy killed someone after playing games nonsense. I think it's another case of smart people trying to talk about games without actually being familiar with them.

Default_picture
July 18, 2012

I respect Zimbardo's work, despite his controversies over the years.  That said, it feels like Zimbardo and Duncan taylored this article for the newsdesk.  The lack of statistics throughout the article is a major problem.  One can assume their latest book contains the studies used to draw these conclusions, but putting that stuff behind a paywall only serves to make their argument feel weaker or like a cash-grab(which I don't believe it is).  The resulting message becomes hard to critique or support because you just have to take Zimbardo's & Duncan's word on everything.

I don't mind the use of extreme examples but they should have explicitly stated they're outliers.  I do mind the juxtoposition of porn and video games in the headline, however.  I don't doubt they achieve similar effects on teen boys' minds, but it bothers me to see them share a title as if they are intrinsically linked.  Especially when the book they wrote with the same title contains a much less accusatory subtitle.

I liked your critique of their article and agree on most points(especially education). I will say I don't believe removal of video games is the desired outcome of the study, though.  Reversing the trend of stimulation addiction, which seems like a reasonable goal, doesn't have to be done by banning video games.  Stronger parenting, more fun education, or a change in video games' primary themes could achieve the same solution and not limit expression.

Default_picture
July 18, 2012

 

These two "psychologists" have, in penning this article, engaged in a betrayal of the principles that guide their field. They have taken a very small and predjudiced sample and stated causation between two things where only a weak correlation has been shown in very few studies. And those studies, when subject to serious scrutiny, were shown to have been flawed, often not accounting for the consumption of other violent media, family history of physical violence or problems managing anger, etc. Put bluntly, this is a hack job meant to encourage page views. I'll take it apart, piece by piece.
 
"Increasingly, researchers say yes" - Which researchers are those? Would you care to perhaps name the researchers, their studies, and the respected peer-reviewed journals in which they were published? No? Then you don't have a point.
 
"Stories about this degeneration are rampant" - TWO examples are provided. Two people out of the millions who play video games with no ill side-effects whatsoever. I know there are other people who've damaged personal relationships due to an addictive personality that manifested itself in video games, but they used an inflamatory word like "rampant" and then provided two examples. I'd expect at least a dozen different cases in which serious health problems or murderous rampages occurred. Also, neither of these two examples involve American boys, teenagers, or young men. They didn't even bother to pull out the Columbine reference. *eye roll*
 
"Research into this area goes back a half-century" - Fifty years. That's the blink of an eye. You'll notice the research they point to doesn't have a thing to do with media consumption. It has to do with rats pleasuring themselves until they starve to death, the implication being that boys, teenaged males and young men have no more complex a thought process than a lab rat. They then jump back to human addiction, without explaining at all what the link between the rats lab behavior and "this new kind of human addiative arousal" is supposed to be. They're hoping you'll make the connection on your own without them having to make one at all.
 
CDC Study about porn users - this study does not appear to refer to age as a factor. Also, I cannot find this study anywhere, outside of a Men's Health article that makes reference to it. This makes me think the study wasn't about pornography use, but these facts about pornography were buried somewhere in a study about something else. I can't even locate the study on the CDC website. Where is this study, one of the only references in the article?
 
The Annual Review of Public Health study - this oft-referred-to study discusses exposure to all violent media, not just video games. In the abstract itself it refers to the fact that no longitudinal studies have been performed on the subject. This study is six years old. Why not refer to a more recent study? Perhaps because a literature review performed in 2010 by the Australian Government Attorney-General's Department (http://bit.ly/ObopuZ) found that
 
The most significant effect size was found for VVG exposure and aggressive behaviour: r = 0.24 (small-moderate). When corrected for gender and prior aggression however, the effect is reduced to r = 0.15 (small)...controlling for other risk factors (such as depression or family violence) reduces the effects to near zero.
 
The review also finds that reserarchers have a tough time deciding on an accepted definition of video game violence, and what entails "aggression". What's more is that hypothetical situations posed to players of violent video games in which they choose the "aggressive" response doesn't mean that they would behave aggresively if the situation presented itself in real life, and it doesn't mean that they will commit more real-world violence. Study after study shows that real-world violence in the Western world continues to decline, as does teen sexual activity. By the way, the teen sexual activity is according to a CDC study - one that you can actually find with a simple Google search. http://1.usa.gov/Obomze
 
"Young men...are being digitally rewired" - first of all, this sentence is stupid. Humans aren't digital. I know what they meant. They're trying to be cute. Science isn't cute. Also, you can't make broad claims like this without some research to back it up. I mean, you can. But you forfeit the right to call yourself a scientist.
 
"Guys are also totally out of sync in romantic relationships" - when has this NOT been true? Seriously. This is a wholly subjective statement. Here's the thing: they could have easily pointed to any number of interview studies that show that women feel they're not "in sync" with their male partners in any number of aspects of their romantic relationships. But I can almost GUARANTEE you that all of those studies would show that an overwhelming number of women feel that way about their men. And I bet if you asked the men, they'd feel the same way about their female partners. And I bet the studies would yield similar results, regardless of the decade you took them in. Most male/female couples aren't in sync. It ain't cause of porn, or video games, or TV. It's evolutionary biology. It's about 60 million years of male primates wanting to impregnate as many mates as possible contending with a few millenia of societally imposed monogamy. And it's not that I think monogamy is a bad thing. I'm happily married myself. It just is what it is. Marriage is hard and takes work and communication and compromise. Choosing to work on your relationships is what makes them successful. You aren't going to have a lot of friends if you choose to play video games or watch porn instead of hanging out with people and talking to your girlfriend. But that's not the fault of the games or the porn.
 
"We are in a national, and perhaps global, Guy Disaster Mode" - the inanity of this wholly unsubstantiated claim aside, can I propose that what it means to be a guy is just, ya know, changing, and some people in the Old Guard are just confused and frightened about it?
 
Like I said at the beginning of all this, if you took a social science class in college, you know that this article isn't academic or scientific. This is punditry disguised as science, the authors are more concerned with getting attention than advancing the discussion, and CNN are so desperate to regain even a fraction of the market share they've lost to MSNBC and Fox News, that they'll publish anything they think will draw audiences to their website.
/end rantThese two "psychologists" have, in penning this article, engaged in a betrayal of the principles that guide their field. They have taken a very small and predjudiced sample and stated causation between two things where only a weak correlation has been shown in very few studies. And those studies, when subject to serious scrutiny, were shown to have been flawed, often not accounting for the consumption of other violent media, family history of physical violence or problems managing anger, etc. Put bluntly, this is a hack job meant to encourage page views. I'll take it apart, piece by piece.
"Increasingly, researchers say yes" - Which researchers are those? Would you care to perhaps name the researchers, their studies, and the respected peer-reviewed journals in which they were published? No? Then you don't have a point.
"Stories about this degeneration are rampant" - TWO examples are provided. Two people out of the millions who play video games with no ill side-effects whatsoever. I know there are other people who've damaged personal relationships due to an addictive personality that manifested itself in video games, but they used an inflamatory word like "rampant" and then provided two examples. I'd expect at least a dozen different cases in which serious health problems or murderous rampages occurred. Also, neither of these two examples involve American boys, teenagers, or young men. They didn't even bother to pull out the Columbine reference. *eye roll*
"Research into this area goes back a half-century" - Fifty years. That's the blink of an eye. You'll notice the research they point to doesn't have a thing to do with media consumption. It has to do with rats pleasuring themselves until they starve to death, the implication being that boys, teenaged males and young men have no more complex a thought process than a lab rat. They then jump back to human addiction, without explaining at all what the link between the rats lab behavior and "this new kind of human addiative arousal" is supposed to be. They're hoping you'll make the connection on your own without them having to make one at all.
CDC Study about porn users - this study does not appear to refer to age as a factor. Also, I cannot find this study anywhere, outside of a Men's Health article that makes reference to it. This makes me think the study wasn't about pornography use, but these facts about pornography were buried somewhere in a study about something else. I can't even locate the study on the CDC website. Where is this study, one of the only references in the article?
The Annual Review of Public Health study - this oft-referred-to study discusses exposure to all violent media, not just video games. In the abstract itself it refers to the fact that no longitudinal studies have been performed on the subject. This study is six years old. Why not refer to a more recent study? Perhaps because a literature review performed in 2010 by the Australian Government Attorney-General's Department (http://bit.ly/ObopuZ) found that
The most significant effect size was found for VVG exposure and aggressive behaviour: r = 0.24 (small-moderate). When corrected for gender and prior aggression however, the effect is reduced to r = 0.15 (small)...controlling for other risk factors (such as depression or family violence) reduces the effects to near zero.
The review also finds that reserarchers have a tough time deciding on an accepted definition of video game violence, and what entails "aggression". What's more is that hypothetical situations posed to players of violent video games in which they choose the "aggressive" response doesn't mean that they would behave aggresively if the situation presented itself in real life, and it doesn't mean that they will commit more real-world violence. Study after study shows that real-world violence in the Western world continues to decline, as does teen sexual activity. By the way, the teen sexual activity is according to a CDC study - one that you can actually find with a simple Google search. http://1.usa.gov/Obomze
"Young men...are being digitally rewired" - first of all, this sentence is stupid. Humans aren't digital. I know what they meant. They're trying to be cute. Science isn't cute. Also, you can't make broad claims like this without some research to back it up. I mean, you can. But you forfeit the right to call yourself a scientist.
"Guys are also totally out of sync in romantic relationships" - when has this NOT been true? Seriously. This is a wholly subjective statement. Here's the thing: they could have easily pointed to any number of interview studies that show that women feel they're not "in sync" with their male partners in any number of aspects of their romantic relationships. But I can almost GUARANTEE you that all of those studies would show that an overwhelming number of women feel that way about their men. And I bet if you asked the men, they'd feel the same way about their female partners. And I bet the studies would yield similar results, regardless of the decade you took them in. Most male/female couples aren't in sync. It ain't cause of porn, or video games, or TV. It's evolutionary biology. It's about 60 million years of male primates wanting to impregnate as many mates as possible contending with a few millenia of societally imposed monogamy. Oy.
"We are in a national, and perhaps global, Guy Disaster Mode" - the inanity of this wholly unsubstantiated claim aside, can I propose that what it means to be a guy is just, ya know, changing, and some people in the Old Guard are just confused and frightened about it?
Like I said at the beginning of all this, if you took a social science class in college, you know that this article isn't academic or scientific. This is punditry disguised as science, the authors are more concerned with getting attention than advancing the discussion, and CNN are so desperate to regain even a fraction of the market share they've lost to MSNBC and Fox News, that they'll publish anything they think will draw audiences to their website.
/end rant
Default_picture
July 19, 2012

"TWO examples are provided. Two people out of the millions who play video games with no ill side-effects whatsoever."

I agree and this is the biggest problem I have with all game related research. There are tens of millions of players in the existing audience and hundreds of millions in the possible audience. For this reason alone, researchers should not conduct studies on small numbers of test subjects. For example: a researcher can't study on how the "average core player" views and responds to difficulty and challenge unless they test a large enough cross section of average players to capture the full range of traits, preferences and skills within this subsegment of the audience. So if the average core player is approximately 37 years old and 20 percent of the players are female, researchers can't study a small number of 16 to 23 year old male test subjects. If they do, any conclusions drawn in the process will be inaccurate and irrelevant as it applies to the average players. If the objective is to understand how the average player views and responds to difficulty and challenge, you need to study a large, representative cross section of average players.

So while the industry without question is ethically and morally obligated to identify and study the full range of potential negative or harmful effects of games, it is the responsiblity of the researchers to ensure the studies are unbaised, accurate and relevant. Because game designers, developers and publishers can't use the research to accurately determine risks or probability of potential effects when the studies are limitied to a microscopic, possibly non-representative percent of the audience.

Default_picture
July 18, 2012

I realize now I probably should have just written another post. I'll transfer this to a new one now.

Default_picture
July 19, 2012

Well said, I always take issue with these blind attacks on video games.  They are very prevalent in society and you would be surprised who plays them.  I for example, have been a life long gamer, they are my favorite thing to do.  At the same time, I am a succesful grad student and am currently interning at the UN in Geneva.  Is that a sign of a lazy, risk adverse slob. 

I have found, many succesful people are gamers.  I wish so called "experts" could realize video games are simply a hobby / past time, something people do because it is fun, they find relaxation there and so.  As you said, cases where you see extreme abuse of video games likely points to previous problems..... just saying

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.