 |
|
|
| |
Research: 'Prosocial' Games Have Strong Correlation With Good Behavior
by Kris Graft
|
|
| |
|
June 18, 2009
|
| |
Video games are often portrayed by media and legislators as influencers of bad behavior. But every now and then, research emerges that shows video games aren't so demonic.
New research in the June 2009 issue of the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin concludes that nonviolent, "prosocial" video games can make children "more likely to help -- not hurt -- other people."
University of Michigan professor of communications and psychology and report co-author Brad Bushman said in a video release, "Parents ask me, 'Are video games good or bad?' But I think that's the wrong question to ask, because video games are a tool. And like any tool, they can be used for good or ill."
The report, conducted by a consortium of researchers from the U.S., Japan, Singapore, and Malaysia, described prosocial games as ones that "involve characters who help and support each other in nonviolent ways."
One phase of the research studied 727 Singapore children with an average age of 13. These participants listed their favorite games and how often the characters in those games "helped, hurt or killed other characters." Along with those questions, the study also asked the children themselves how likely they were to perform good deeds, such as sharing and cooperating, or in some cases, reacting aggressively to situations.
The study found a "strong correlation between playing prosocial games and helping others." But it also found a strong correlation between violent gaming and negative behavior.
A second Japanese survey of 2,000 kids also found a correlation between nonviolent gaming and positive behavior, albeit over a period of a few months.
A third study using U.S. college students with a mean age of 19 had the participants play either a prosocial, violent, or neutral game. Students then assigned puzzles to a randomly selected partner. If that partner could solve the puzzle, the partner would earn $10. The catch was the person choosing the puzzles could pick easy puzzles or hard puzzles, essentially deciding how easy or difficult it would be for the partner to earn the money.
The research found that "Those who played a prosocial game were considerably more helpful than others, assigning more easy puzzles to their partners. And those who had played violent games were significantly more likely to assign the hardest puzzles."
"Taken together, these findings make it clear that playing video games is not in itself good or bad for children," Bushman said. "The type of content in the game has a bigger impact than the overall amount of time spent playing."
|
| |
|
|
Scientifically speaking, researches like this are very unprofessional.
However, I think it is good that more and more people are starting to understand that video games is a much broader medium than it seems at first glance.
Also, I don't think that the study is any less valid just because it recognizes a "correlation" instead of cause and effect. I also am not completely sold on the argument that kids who play violent video games necessarily have an inherent tendency to be more violent (although that might be true in some cases, I don't know). I believe it has more to do with the parent monitoring what their kids play. I think kids will play anything that they find entertaining and that is freely accessible, whether it's collecting stars in Mario 64 or blowing off zombies' heads in Resident Evil. One is appropriate for kids, one is not, and obviously, it's up to the parent to monitor this.
The only plus side to these studies are jobs. Someone had to get paid to research, print, and report these findings.
However, I haven't read the journal article yet, so the authors may have addressed this interpretation in their publication.
As Joshua points out, the main problem is that people who look to such research for answers (i.e. legislators, activists, etc) tend to forget that there are a virtually infinite number of interacting and interrelated factors impacting all of us and everything around us every moment of our existence. In addition, these factors and their interrelationships change over time. Even if we could somehow analyze all factors at any instant, the next moment the interrelationships change in a variety of ways and some of the outcomes may be different or even completely opposite from what they were a moment ago.
The other weakness of such research is the use of surveys. However, this is quite common in a great deal of research due to many, many factors that deal with necessary restrictions on the research methods that are used for any specific study. Surveys are very common in many fields of research because of factors such as being relatively low cost, easily distributed, and easily collated, but they have failings due to issues such as language and cultural variations in meaning, subjective sincerity in answering the questions, etc. Modern research is aware of these weaknesses and has even taken steps to minimize them in some cases (for example, taking much greater care in conveying the intended meaning of questions and answers to individuals of different cultural backgrounds and local language abilities).
I think what's important is that such research is published and can be reanalyzed by others, possibly offering different conclusions depending on different analysis methods used. In other words, I think what's important is for people to think about any issue. Essentially, that's all that this research conclusion is saying: games are a tool like anything else, and any tool can be used for a wide range of intentions. After all, you can kill someone with a pen or pencil by sticking it through someone's eye into their brain, but that's not the intended use of such a tool.
Violent video games are fine for mature minds, but from my experiences with kids including some time as a substitute teacher, I am inclined to believe the thesis of these studies. Violent video games for very young children clearly inspires and encourages violent behavior. My young cousins played Naruto Clash of Ninja at the ages of 3 and 6, and believe they much more violent because they mimic the game' action.
Cartoon Network keeps Naruto in prime time because it's not supposed to be for very young children. If television and the film industry are regulated as they are, I don't see why similar regulations (and the acceptance that mature subject mature directly influence young gamers) shouldn't be here in the gaming industry.
Even if children who already possess violent tendencies are the majority of the children who play violent games, that doesn't mean that the games don't increase their propensity for violence (if your kid is violent and you let them play violent video games, you'd better watch out for a negligence lawsuit). And it also doesn't mean that there is some minority of "nice" children who turn violent from playing video games.
Honestly, I wouldn't like violence as much as I do if I hadn't watched and played violent films and video games. And I have punched a few people in my time.
At any rate, I must correct myself..
"and I believe they are much more violent"*
"game's action"*
"mature subject matter directly influences"*
The research results are interesting, true, but the conclusion reached by the researchers is not supported at all by their experimental design.
The only way I can play the GTA series now is to remind myself that I'm wasting a bunch of worthless scumbag gangbangers.
Also considering the small sample size's of 2000 kids and 161 US college students, is "more likely to" just a standard variation in results. It's like getting 3 hamsters sticking them in a cage with cheese and some sort of leafy green, then when 2 of them eat the cheese saying that hamsters like cheese more than leafy greens... I mean how many of those children playing the violent game, would behave differently after playing the nice game and vice versa, the study is only halfway completed at best and as it stands gives no meaningful information whatsoever.
As odd as it is to be arguing against a study that is effectively "for" video games to some extent, studies like this bug me. I'd argue that video game's, like every form of media, are cathartic, they allow the expression of latent or emergent emotion. If they "make" a person violent, then the potential for being so existed already, if they "make" a person kind, then the potential for that existed already also. The argument for young children might be different, as they're at such a formative state in their lives and haven't got those societal values that are ingrained in older children->adults. But that's what parents are for, to provide a moral compass, and to determine what material their child should, or should not be playing.
The video game industry seems to still be arguing the old psychology question of "nurture vs nature", when any psychologist worth his salt these days will quite happily inform you that both are crucial to development. A coin has two sides, a metallic disk with a face on one side doesn't make it currency.