Phew!: Waggle doesn't produce murderers
by Chris Greenhough 
{ Nov 17th 2008 at 10:00PM }
There is a popular viewpoint pushed by those who campaign against the likes of Manhunt 2, and it runs a little like this: motion-controlled on-screen violence is more likely to corrupt players than that which is played through pressing buttons. Senators have used this argument in the past, as have journalists, but they're both wrong. Gloriously, wonderfully wrong. Who says so? Science says so, that's who.
A new study from the labs of Villanova University has revealed that swinging a Wiimote and pressing a button generated the same amount of "hostility and aggressive thoughts in" 118 college students (68 female, 50 male). The participants played either Manhunt 2 or Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2008, with each individual having their levels of "psychoticism" tested before and after play. Nobody completely flipped out, and whether flailing with a controller or pressing a button, levels of hostility remained even -- and thus another anti-gaming myth crumbled.
Gallery: Manhunt2
[Via Game|Life]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
drywall @ Nov 17th 2008 10:30PM
Crumbled? The myth will be stronger than the proof (until something newer comes along, that is). In my humble opinion, thinking that something like scientific proof will stop illogical people that blame long existing problems like violence on new things... um... well, let's just say these people won't just put the pitchforks and torches down and walk away calmly.
Kindred @ Nov 17th 2008 10:48PM
Wow, talk about a useless study. The participants played the game for twenty minutes. I'm not sure that anyone was worried about the effects of twenty minutes of video gaming on college students. The suggestion that this is science is laughable.
I'm pretty sure what people are worried about is that a continual involvement with violent video games might lead to psychopathy. This study has not addressed this concern at all.
guttertalk @ Nov 17th 2008 11:13PM
Did you read the entire article?
I agree that 20 minutes doesn't seem nearly long enough, so I'm curious if they justified the length of play.
I'd have to question the use of assessing the impact through questionnaires as well.
Kindred @ Nov 17th 2008 11:28PM
Yes, I read it. They discuss the shortcomings but offer no justification for it. What's more looking at other studies done into the effects of video games on behaviour have even shorter playing times. I don't recall ever having sat down to play ten minutes of any game, which is the methodology used in one of these studies.
Unless they look at the long term effects on aggression of a video gaming lifestyle we really can't trust these studies to tell us anything.
If you think otherwise, smoking does not cause lung cancer. We took 118 college students and tested them for lung cancer. We then gave them a cigarette with a sheet of paper on how to smoke it and came back 20 minutes later. We found that only those who had lung cancer before they smoked the cigarette had lung cancer afterwards.
KingKRule @ Nov 17th 2008 10:49PM
I understand that this is a boon for us pro-gaming people, but honestly we cant simply rely on what science tells us. I mean its silly to say "Hell if Science says it, it must be true". We have to look at this study as accurate to those 118 college students but is it necessarily accurate for an entire race? Is it accurate for a younger audience? Is it accurate for a mental disturbed man? I dont know. Im just saying we cant simply close the book cause science does one test.
CalcProgrammer1 @ Nov 17th 2008 11:31PM
If half the world can use a 2000 year old book as their "proof" for their beliefs, at least we have SOME research. It's better than nothing, it was studied in a scientific manner. I do admit, you can't really put a numerical value on how angry a person is (well, you can in games, but in reality, you can't, there's no sensor that can measure human emotion, and relying on what people think isn't good because different people will think differently).
Ah well, better than nothing, and no matter what, for 99% of people out there, games have no effect. Those who are weak minded and low on intelligence may go crazy and kill people and be blamed on games, but for most people, gaming doesn't lead to problems.
KingKRule @ Nov 18th 2008 9:59AM
Its that damn 1% that ruins it for all of us. I say we not allow them to play games, ever! ha oh well. Ill be interested to see what happens with MadWorld. Hopefully it wont be another Manhunt 2.
RowdyReptile @ Nov 18th 2008 8:42AM
I for one, disagree. I was enjoying my rented copy of Godfather: The Blackhand Edition but the hand motions required and force-feedback offered when strangling someone with a garrote felt far more realistic and intense than if I'd performed the same action with buttons. I didn't like the feeling.
It's not to say I'd become a violent psychopath by playing it, but I can definitely see how hours and hours (and years) of playing games like that would desensitize you, and the waggle was a key difference for me.
Timerider @ Nov 18th 2008 11:15AM
I agree that a button starting a canned animation is sometimes better. Like ripping off zombie heads in Dead Rising.
Timerider @ Nov 18th 2008 11:11AM
I love that pic. Lollipop killer!
seth @ Nov 18th 2008 2:36PM
Think biggest problem with this study is that they measured thoughts, not behavior. No one would really predict a difference in the level of aggressive thoughts or feelings b/n a waggle and no-waggle game. The major difference b/n these two games, afterall, is in the behavior. So you would really need to look at behavior as your outcome variable.
As for the people arguing that for 99% of people games have no effect - I would disagree. In our studies we find effects for a good proportion of people. But the effect isn't a big effect. Violent games don't turn people into murderers. Rather they make them more likely to argue with others and maybe, at the most extreme hit someone else. So yes, for 99.99999% of the population, violent games do not make them into murderers. But it does increase the level of "normal" aggression. And although it's more normal, it still can damage interpersonal relationships. Which I don't think anyone really wants.
seth @ Nov 18th 2008 2:40PM
Also, to calcprogrammer1 - You might be interested to know that the same theory that predicts increases in aggression also predicts (and tests have confirmed) that violent passages from the bible (in the actual study they used bible passages, but any violent narrative would do the same) can increase aggressive behavior as well.