Researchers have found that when a player performs an immoral action in a video game, their moral sensitivity increases outside of the video game.
"Rather than leading players to become less moral," Grizzard says, "this research suggests that violent video-game play may actually lead to increased moral sensitivity. This may, as it does in real life, provoke players to engage in voluntary behavior that benefits others."
Grizzard points out that several recent studies, including this one, have found that committing immoral behaviors in a video game elicits feelings of guilt in players who commit them.
The current study found such guilt can lead players to be more sensitive to the moral issues they violated during game play. Other studies have established that in real life scenarios, guilt evoked by immoral behavior in the "real-world" elicits pro-social behaviors in most people.
Studies like this need to get more mainstream coverage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @11:13PM
Just finished Postal 2 Apocalypse Weekend last night. Take that, Paradise!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:23AM
We accept your confession, you can let go of your guilty feelings now.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Horse With Stripes on Monday June 30 2014, @11:16PM
Or ... committing immoral acts in a video game made them feel "guilt", they were aware of the "guilt", realized that their actions were "wrong" in the game and lied on their little questionnaire. Rather than becoming "more sensitive to the moral issues they violated during game play" they became more aware that they should lie about how it made them feel (because they really enjoyed it).
Now, before I get bombarded by negative comments, I do not believe that playing video games can make someone immoral or make them more violent, etc. I think they can desensitize some people to the violence, but that doesn't make them a worse person or a "bad actor" in society; it just means they are not bothered as much as others are by all the violence that takes place in the world on a daily basis.
I do believe the benefits of playing video games, such as increased response times & reflexes, faster decision making, ability to discern explicit details, heightened level of awareness to their situation and surroundings, acceptance of non-traditional environments, "worlds" & characters, etc. far outweigh any negative effects except for those who go overboard and just sit on a couch all day playing video games (which is pretty much the same for all other variations of couch potatoes).
The gamers tested in this little experiment may just have been more aware of what was going on and acted in a manner to protect their chosen form of entertainment from more negative assertions by those who claim to be "protecting the children" in the name of science.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:13AM
I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect, in fact most studies have found just the opposite, that the games provide a relief, and the tendency toward violence is actually reduced in real life.
And perhaps that is saying the exact same thing as this study is saying.
The mainstream press is fond of reporting that violent perps all played first person shooter video games, no doubt that info is fed to them by the police upon seaching seized computers.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:31AM
Desensitize does not mean "increases the propensity to". It means "is less sensitive towards" as in "not bothered by it as much". In the context of my original comment "not bothered as much by all the violence that takes place in the world on a daily basis."
I am not saying gamers are more likely to commit violent acts, just that they are not bothered as much as others are by all the violence that is reported in the news and online every single day. Desensitize, I don't think it means what you think it means, nor what you think I think it means.
(Score: 2) by hybristic on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:06AM
But if you are "less sensitive to" the guilt why would you feel a need to be dishonest? You would see your actions as relatively acceptable and to a degree normal, therefore you wouldn't need to lie at all to conform to social norms. If you feel a need to lie, then you probably do have guilt at some level. Either you know the action was wrong and people will ostracize you for it so you lie about it, or you legitimately feel guilty about the actions themselves. I think in both cases you would become more aware of morality and work to make more moral decisions IRL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:43AM
Just because you are less emotionally affected does not mean that you cannot understand the way violence will be viewed by society as a whole, or by the individuals testing you. Addressing another point you brought up, knowing that people will ostracize you does not make an action immoral.
(Score: 2) by hybristic on Tuesday July 01 2014, @06:23AM
Fair point. I was saying that since you know it's immoral in the game, you would then make moral decisions in real life to compensate or hide your immoral behavior which would still require more awareness of morality. So whether it's because you are actually more moral or just pretending, it likely still leads to more morality in the end.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:53AM
Because of peer pressure and the need for us gamers to throw off the moral police? Time and time again we have seen how relatively easy it is to skew these things to get any result you like, now I'm not saying that happened here but all of us gamers have heard enough of the "ZOFG games make reefer madness!" kinda bullshit that...yeah I could easily see myself lying if for no other reason so my second favorite pastime wouldn't have another witchhunt. Everybody forget Nighttrap already?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by hybristic on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:30AM
Which is a fair point. But if you are lying on a survey, would you not also preform moral actions to avoid the same witch hunt? Therefore you are more morally aware because you have to be, and seemingly a more moral person overall?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:49AM
Because "pot makes you teh gay!" is about the level of thinking of these fucktards so no rational discussion is possible? again do you not remember Nighttrap? Did you EVAR play that game? 1970s horror films on OTA television had more T&A and gore than Nighttrap but because it was a game? No citation needed, it automatically is worse than I Spit On Your Grave.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by hybristic on Thursday July 03 2014, @10:05AM
I actually did have to look that up, a bit before my time if I'm to be honest. It makes sense the more I think about it. I still think that the study might have some validity, but I understand the point your making.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday July 03 2014, @07:14PM
Go look up a 'let's play' for Nighttrap as I REALLY don't think you realize the level of tameness here. The original DOOM had 1000 times more blood and an OTA commercial for beer had more T&A yet they had congressional hearings over this game where the talk of making fricking video games be treated like booze and cigarettes was seriously discussed!
If the person you are having a conversation on music says flatout that "anything with a beat stronger than Perry Como is satanic and should be banned" do you REALLY think a rational conversation could be had there? The latest stats says the average gamer is between 35-50 which puts them squarely in the Nighttrap age bracket and I have no doubt that anybody that remembers Nighttrap and was asked questions about video games and morality? Would think as I did and go "uh oh, looking for another Nighttrap/hot coffee/something to talk banning" and lied their asses off. I know I would.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by hybristic on Friday July 04 2014, @01:49AM
after looking into it, I see your point. I am not suggesting I wouldn't lie either, just trying to find a logical way to validate this study. But yeah, I could see how this would make people think this study would later be used to support banning shit for no reason. Things have been banned left and right with no real reasoning, don't fuel the fire.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday July 04 2014, @11:31AM
What was sad is that if you applied the MPAA standards of the time to Nighttrap? It was doubtful you'd get a PG rating as it was THAT tame. I think there is one case of somebody saying shit in the whole game and a less than 3 second scene where you see a body in the meatlocker being drained but because of the lighting you can't even see any blood. I have seen early 1960s Hammer Horror that had more gore than NT and those are considered so tame they used to show them on Saturday afternoons here uncut!
So I would argue that any polls on the subject are gonna be seriously skewed by those that know what these polls are often used for. Time and time again we have seen actual studies show video games don't affect anybody anymore than watching a movie or reading a book does yet we still have calls for banning because "ZOMG its a game and only little childrens play games (average gamer = 35) so they are corrupting the childrens!". If I was given the poll in TFA? I'd have lied my pale white behind off as I have seen where these polls lead and I love gaming too much to risk trashing it over being honest with some pollster.
Oh and may you and yours have a happy fourth of July.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:20AM
Less sensitive to the violence, not the guilt. They could easily be dishonest for the exact reason I stated in my original post.
Not all "immoral" acts in video games involve violence.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:28AM
I can see it to a degree but i doubt it works for most people. I would guess that a video game exposes people to feelings and emotions that they don't typically experience because the act is "wrong" or illegal. After experiencing it they can decide if the act truly was as bad as people have said it was or not. I have no doubt that some people felt enjoyment where others felt guilt.
I strongly disagree on virtual violence desensitizing people. Familiarizes, yes, but not desensitizes. A video game will never blunt the feelings/emotions you have when seeing someone die in a gruesome way. Only real horror can blunt real horror. Even then it can have the opposite effect and sharpens their awareness of it. They jump at shadows. People are weird and awesome : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:37AM
I dunno. Video games help with treating PTSD by letting the patient experience similar events such that they aren't as sensitive to them. [marketplace.org] The example at the link is of a solider who was traumatized by an IED explosion re-enacting the same events until they are no longer as affected.
Seems like a really fine line at most.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @09:05AM
Is there any evidence that the effect is just getting desensitized? After all, the re-experience might force the brain to actually re-evaluate the memory of the event by being constantly reminded, and that re-evaluation may be the cause of being less affected (basically the same mechanism as in psychoanalysis).
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:37AM
"I think they can desensitize some people to the violence"
Violence is not necessarily immoral anyway. If you're shooting "aliens" or "monsters" or some other designated bad guys it fits well within normally accepted human morality. Violence against women, children and puppies on the other hand...
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday July 01 2014, @08:05AM
I notice how you left men of that list. I have said it before and I'll say it again, you can be as vicious as you want...as long as the person you slaughter has a penis. Can you imagine the stink if you got achievements for slaughtering women in creative ways like you do in some shooters?
I just got done playing Far Cry 3 (got in on the Steam sale as a gift) and one thing I noticed is that they made DAMN sure to stay FAR away from anything to do with rape when it came to the two females, yet with one of the males not only is one of the bad guys making repeated jokes about raping one of the male characters they actually play a flashback that heavily insinuates he DESERVES it for being a douchebag! Can you imagine if they would have said "oh she was a bitch so she deserved to be raped"?
This is why I always defend the companies "discriminating" against women by not putting female characters as playables in their shooters, because I've noticed that if you were to even do HALF of what happens to a typical male character to a female? The game would be banned quicker than you can say hot coffee. This isn't even getting into MP where the first YouTube vid of some guy teabagging a female corpse or slamming into her body from behind would have every feminist group calling for bans, but if you did the same shit that happens to the male characters in these games to a woman the stink would be unbearable.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:23AM
Very true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:09AM
Re: "increased response times & reflexes, faster decision making, ability to discern explicit details, heightened level of awareness to their situation and surroundings, acceptance of non-traditional environments, "worlds" & characters, etc"
Seems like you're implying that someone who is really good at guitar hero can play a real guitar. Just because someone is good at something in a computer game doesn't mean it translates to anything else.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:18AM
No, they can't necessarily play a real guitar. But they certainly get faster and more accurate at responding to the visual cues on the screen.
I was directing that comment at FPS games where the player has to be very aware of everything around them in the game, determine friend or foe in the blink in an eye and act accordingly. It doesn't have to translate directly to something in real life for it to be beneficial. Overall awareness, response times, hand/eye coordination, etc can apply to many things in real life.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday June 30 2014, @11:30PM
I'm not only calling bullshit, I'm pretty sure I saw it come out of the bull and splatter on the ground. I've played video games since the Space Invader days. The only time a video game has bled into my real life is when I'm by a small airport, see a small plane, and think "UAV! Switch to Stinger!".
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:22AM
Just because you think it doesn't mean you actually want to do it. It pops into your head because its familiar, its what you've found fun in video games. If you did have a Stinger Missle, would you actually want to shoot it, or would you just joke about it?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:08PM
Oh, that's fine then, thanks for clearing that up. Obviously all we need ever do now, instead of doing these silly psychological studies with multiple subjects, is just ask Snotnose what he'd do.
Oh, no, wait, you're not everyone else on the entire planet. My mistake.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @11:51PM
"Studies like this need to get more mainstream coverage."
Riiiiight. U-hum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @11:53PM
"Studies like this that confirm my biases need to get more mainstream coverage."
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:39AM
Welcome to real life. Whose bias would you rather support? All studies are biased. That doesn't necessarily make them false.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lhsi on Tuesday July 01 2014, @09:11AM
I didn't add that line, the editor did. Although your comment relates to the finding of a study I submitted a while ago:
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/04/28/214204 [soylentnews.org]
"Inconclusive Evidence Makes People More Biased"