Do Violent Media Make Viewers 'Comfortably Numb'?
from the and-if-so,-does-it-matter dept
A few people have been sending in the news of a recently published study from two professors who have a long history of publishing anti-video game research. The study looked at how people reacted to staged violence after playing violent and non-violent video games -- and the "headline" version of the results of the study is that violent media makes viewers "comfortably numb" to the pain of others. That's the story being pitched by the professor. Basically, the story is that those who watched violent movies or played violent video games responded to the staged violence slower than those that interacted with non-violent media.Except... the more you think about it and the more you look at the details the less this seems interesting. The speed with which people respond to a staged violent incident (and for the first part of the video game trials, the researchers admit that many subjects admitted they didn't believe the staged fight seemed real, so they had to make it seem "more real") isn't indicative of very much at all. It certainly says nothing about how long that slowness to respond will last, or if there's any real impact to it. The "violence" people had to respond to hardly seemed particularly critical for fast response time (someone twisted an ankle after a fight about a girl or boy that someone liked). Furthermore, left out of the press release version is the fact that very few of either group of video game players actually helped. 21% of the violent video game players got up to help, but only 25% of the non-violent video game players got up to help.
There was a second experiment as well, that involved participants watching a violent movie -- and, as they walked out, witnessing a woman with her foot and ankle wrapped up drop a pair of crutches, and "struggle" to pick them up. The researchers tout that people who had just watched a violent movie were slower to react and help, but the numbers aren't exactly staggering. Those who had watched a non-violent movie helped in an average of 5.46 seconds. Those who had watched a violent movie helped in an average of 6.89 seconds. Damn slackers. Yes, the vast difference is less than a second and a half... though, the researchers are quick to play up a 26% longer time to help.
While this study makes for a great headline for the anti-violent movie and video game crowd, the details suggest much ado about nothing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: research, violent video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Comfortably Numb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Still sounds weird... but shouldn't it be wierd???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From wiktionary:
media (plural medias)
1. Formats for presenting information.
Collage is a form of mixed-media artwork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comfortably Dumb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comfortably Dumb
Media is plural, therefore "Do" is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Numb
The question is whether they like the horror movies BECAUSE they care little about others, or whether the movies make them increasingly uncaring about others, and by how much.
To say it has zero impact would be the same as saying that an inspirational movie doesn't inspire anybody, which is ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so dumb, but still comfortable.
Actually, media is the plural of medium, so the use of "Do" in this case is correct. If it were a question of a single medium, then it would require the use of "Does", but this is not the case in this instance.
Is this an interesting datum point? No, it isn't. Is it a chance to act elitist? Yes, it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so dumb, but still comfortable.
*Salutes*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so dumb, but still comfortable.
Given your explanation, violent media is referring to a (singular) medium so examples would be "CNN shoots man in face" or "Television set kidnaps adorable puppy"...
But the article is referring to multiple violent games and movies n' stuff... So "Does" is correct, is it not?
"Me fail english. That's unpossible!" ~Ralphie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not so dumb, but still comfortable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so dumb, but still comfortable.
Good to know I'm not the only one who caught on to this. Makes me feel just a *tiny* bit less nerdy.
Teeny, tiny, itty-bitty bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not seeing a test of true correlation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This study is WAY off.
I would like to see the percentages of people who don't watch anything. Given the world today, a person is less likely to help than before, violence included or not.
I would like to point out to these idiots who research the data in that many people who watch violence and/or play violent video games still represents a significantly small percentage of those who actually do commit violent acts.
How can any damn researcher ignore this fact? What next, sex increases because people just watched a show featuring two couples in bed? Or how about the increase in beer consumption based on those just watching an ad?
Researchers who study violence are completely ignoring the base of such studies, and by doing this, instantly invalidate their work.
I just wonder if our tax money funded this bullshit report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me...
If they're so hellbent on painting gamers in a negative light, a more valuable study might be to measure the percentage of people who actually help between people in the same age groups who do and do not play video games at all. But, I'm going to bet even money that yields statisically insignificant variance as well. All in all, another waste of effort and time, and another blank for the anti-gaming legislators to put in their guns: all bang, no bullet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it does depend on the nature of the non-violent movie. Was it inspirational? Was it funny? Would an inspirational story cause people to help quicker than a crude comedy?
This "study" is a sham.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I've just spent 2 hours playing a deathmatch, where everything that moves is a target, I'm not going to be very trusting or helpful. Quick to react, maybe, but that's it. But if I've just spent 2 hours playing on a team against Gears of War 2's horde, the necessity of teamwork during that time will make me (comparatively) more trusting and helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Admittedly, I also locked up (I was 15 at the time) and wasn't any use to anyone. But there were several other people that were more than happy to help and who also got to the victim before me.
I watch violent videos all of the time, play violent video games, and see bloody movies. It doesn't mean I'm going out to kill anyone. But I will say that I'm less apt to throw up or freeze when someone is in trouble. I don't necessarily *want* to see the carnage, but I don't want to lock up when someone needs my help, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The story discusses a "Concept being conveyed on a particular medium" (Publishing/writing) and not "the act of production itself" (Drafting, Editing, Proofing, Printing, pressing) the usage of "Media" seems ill-used.
I've never heard of a violent zombie newspaper, that eats brains. But Maybe there are some out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they just had a feeling it was bullshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan is right
First you need a commonality for the group you are studying. i.e. People of the same age, gender, race, geographic location, employment status, criminal record, etc.
Then you split the group into two sets, the control group and experimental group. You introduce a specific violent film to the experimental group, and a specific non-violent film to the control group.
Then you have to hope that your group doesn't figure out what they are being studied, or that can affect your results. After you're all done with the research, people can take the statistical results and try to infer things from it.
Even then you can get false positives! Did the violent movie viewers fail to help because they were "comfortably numb" or because they were afraid for their own safety after watching a scary movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accuracy
Basically you have your first group A, then you split A into A1 and A2. You introduce B, and study A1B and A2B.
Then you come up with another group C, and process through to get C1B and C2B.
C1B and C2B should be about the same as A1B and A2B or else the deciding factor in the study wasn't B, it was A, or something else.
Repeat and repeat and repeat, and the more times the study is repeated, the more credible it is.
You can't take one set of 320 and 162 people and accurately assess the behavior of 300 million people from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's akin to "Do Google make users 'hungry'"?
Now, in this real bad, yet valid example, where 'comfortably numb', is originally being used as an adverb. So to make it less complex, it's replaced with a vanilla adjective.
The problem, again, is the word "Google", which can be used as a noun, adjective, proper noun, or a verb. Understanding these transitive qualities of the word, it should fit perfectly in this example- much like the word "Media" should fit perfectly. Both words are too general and have multiple transitive qualities which are not determined in it's context. So either sentence structure is unable to highlight correct usage (via context), or more easily, the word DO needs should be changed tense to properly identify the correct transitive usage of "Media".
You know this is right, Mike. You stubborn person, you.
In fact, many fixed it:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=1306046826
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad science? but true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, any research into the topic will reveal quite a pile of research damning videogames. Actually paying attention during this research will prompt you to notice that either Anderson or Bushman are involved in pretty much every "videogames are bad" study published in the last twenty years.
Slight academic bias there, maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violent Video Games
I think such desensitization is merely part of life, whether from a video game or otherwise - and now that I have it out of my system, I am totally non-violent, so such lack of feeling is more a phase than a change in character.
Of course, that is pure inductive reasoning, and so invalid, but I suspect a deductive study would give the same results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]