Avatar Race Affects White Video Game Players

[yeah_so_no]

I read about this study and wondered what some of y'all thought of it.

Playing As Black: Avatar Race Affects White Video Game Players [http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/raceavatar.htm]

The gist of the results of the study is that white players become more aggressive and have stronger negative biases against black people AFTER they play a violent game with a black avatar.

I find these results rather depressing, and the cynical part of me sees this being used as an excuse not to have more black playable characters.

 

[Zhukov]

Huh.

I shall now dismiss this study as biased quackery because I do not like the results, despite knowing nothing more than the average layman about psychology or the reliability of the methods used in this study.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Oh no, people assign negative stereotypes to things different from themselves. If only we didn't know this by looking at all of human history. I don't know why people try to argue this point. To make themselves seem 'progressive' by claiming to have no bias against anyone at any time, I guess? If I think 'violent criminal', generally the image that pops into my head is of a black or latino gang member. On the other hand, being in law enforcement means that the majority of violent offenders that I deal with actually are black (or latino) males. If white males (or females) committed more of the crimes while I was around, maybe I'd associate them more with crime. But as it is...eh.

I would be more interested in the study if a second round of testing was done with minorities and then compare the results from those to the white students. (Even though 'white' doesn't actually imply majority, considering I'm technically 'white' but as a hispanic I'm a minority.)

Also confused as to why they used primarily female students, but whatever.

 

[EternallyBored]

I do wonder about the methodology here, the flaw I've seen in most of these kinds of studies (for video games and other visual media) is that they like to conveniently gloss over the fact that the negative associations and aggression levels tend to drop to normal levels for that person fairly quickly after they stop playing.

The method for these tests in measuring aggression is also really hard to extrapolate. In this case, that hot sauce test, it doesn't really tell us much about increased aggression, beyond what one would expect from a slight adrenaline rush, the increased aggression exists due to the stimulating imagery, and quickly drops back to normal levels after the aggression test is administered. It's that flawed methodology that produces the majority of the "video games cause violence" studies.

That's not to say there's no merit here, despite what people love to claim about how media can't possibly ever effect us (often an overreaction to counter the video games cause violence hysteria) the media we consume can effect us. Whether it's confidence and self-esteem levels in minority groups who are underrepresented or stereotyped in media, or the perpetuating of confirmation bias towards negative or positive stereotypes. If gamers are playing a lot of racial stereotypes, then it is very likely that those stereotypes can influence their thinking in subtle or unconscious ways.

Doesn't change the fact that this study amounts to an exploratory first step at best, I would have to read the actual published paper, but this sounds like a fairly informal non-comprehensive study meant to test a hypothesis, with more serious in-depth study to follow if they can wrangle the funding from their university. Personally, I hate the methods behind testing "aggression" in these kinds of studies. Way too often, the entire thing is predicated on testing aggression right after stimulating the subject, with no form of followup to see if the increased aggression is the new norm, or just a temporary effect from stimulating the person you are testing, and then compounding that by asking them undertake aggressive acts.

Studies like these are often riddled with these kinds of questionable details though, it's compounded by a sensationalist media that exaggerates and draws correlation where there is none, and the inherent difficulty in studying the soft sciences like social construction, and human psychology. Somehow, I have a feeling that further study will reveal the change in behavior to be temporary, or statistically within the margin of error for test subjects, but the media will conveniently forget to follow up on it because the initial hypothesis will be more exciting that the actual truth of the matter, which is that human psychology is complicated, and very hard to pin to any single source.

 

[yeah_so_no]

Also confused as to why they used primarily female students, but whatever.

They did two studies, and used mostly men for one study (60%), and mostly female for the second (65%). I don't see why that would be something to be 'confused' about. It may just have been a matter of what students were available the days they did the different tests.

 

[yeah_so_no]

I do wonder about the methodology here, the flaw I've seen in most of these kinds of studies (for video games and other visual media) is that they like to conveniently gloss over the fact that the negative associations and aggression levels tend to drop to normal levels for that person fairly quickly after they stop playing.

The method for these tests in measuring aggression is also really hard to extrapolate. In this case, that hot sauce test, it doesn't really tell us much about increased aggression, beyond what one would expect from a slight adrenaline rush, the increased aggression exists due to the stimulating imagery, and quickly drops back to normal levels after the aggression test is administered. It's that flawed methodology that produces the majority of the "video games cause violence" studies.

I'm curious as to how you say it's not telling us anything about increased aggression, since it says players who had a black avatar gave 115% more hot sauce than those who played with a white avatar. Yes, even though aggression goes down after a rush, why would there be MORE of a rush from black characters than white? The fact that there is a difference shows this isn't something that can be easily handwaved away - if it were just from adrenaline, after all, the amount of hot sauce given would be the same regardless of avatar race, right? But it wasn't. Something is going on there, on some level.

I do agree that I'd like to see more details of this study - I'd like to know the results of the nonviolent goal tests and see if those had any differences based on race, for starters.

 

[EternallyBored]

I do wonder about the methodology here, the flaw I've seen in most of these kinds of studies (for video games and other visual media) is that they like to conveniently gloss over the fact that the negative associations and aggression levels tend to drop to normal levels for that person fairly quickly after they stop playing.

The method for these tests in measuring aggression is also really hard to extrapolate. In this case, that hot sauce test, it doesn't really tell us much about increased aggression, beyond what one would expect from a slight adrenaline rush, the increased aggression exists due to the stimulating imagery, and quickly drops back to normal levels after the aggression test is administered. It's that flawed methodology that produces the majority of the "video games cause violence" studies.

I'm curious as to how you say it's not telling us anything about increased aggression, since it says players who had a black avatar gave 115% more hot sauce than those who played with a white avatar. Yes, even though aggression goes down after a rush, why would there be MORE of a rush from black characters than white? The fact that there is a difference shows this isn't something that can be easily handwaved away - if it were just from adrenaline, after all, the amount of hot sauce given would be the same regardless of avatar race, right? But it wasn't. Something is going on there, on some level.

I do agree that I'd like to see more details of this study - I'd like to know the results of the nonviolent goal tests and see if those had any differences based on race, for starters.

What I mean is that the test doesn't really tell us about how that aggression plays out in the long term. The article does indeed explicitly state that there is an increase in aggression in the case of black avatars over white avatars, although without the specifics, I cannot tell if that statement is being influenced by the media reporting it, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a media outlet has either blatantly gotten numbers wrong.

Suffice to say, like I said in my first post, there is an interesting hypothesis here, and if they follow up with thorough study, it will be interesting to see if those numbers are the same across different demographics (would Black people experience a similar increase with black avatars, or is it reversed, with White avatars provoking a more negative response, or is there no difference between the two), or with wider pool of subjects to test, their volunteers were likely other college students, which I know have skewed these types of tests in the past. These studies are always interesting in their followups, as methodology is refined, many turn out to be not as solid as first believed, but there's always a chance that even stuff like this can lead to very interesting research. It's a pity that the media usually doesn't follow up on stories like this, so you have to track down the eventual followup studies down on your own initiative.

 

[yeah_so_no]

What I mean is that the test doesn't really tell us about how that aggression plays out in the long term. The article does indeed explicitly state that there is an increase in aggression in the case of black avatars over white avatars, although without the specifics, I cannot tell if that statement is being influenced by the media reporting it, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a media outlet has either blatantly gotten numbers wrong.

Well, the "media outlet" in this case is the press office of the university where the research was done, so I daresay the numbers would be pretty accurate.

 

[Ubiquitous Duck]

Huh.

I shall now dismiss this study as biased quackery because I do not like the results, despite knowing nothing more than the average layman about psychology or the reliability of the methods used in this study.

Please allow me to do the quacking, as it falls within my remit.

OT: Surely this only applies to people who have warped senses of perception anyway? If you adopt a new game (where the lead is a 'black' character) and are just working under the assumption 'oh I'm a black guy, representative of all black people in the world', then surely there is something seriously wrong from the start here?

When I played The Walking Dead: I didn't consider Lee to be a blank slate representative of all black people. His actions were those (partly of my choosing) and represented my version of a fictional character called 'Lee'. This experience didn't change my opinion of black people and the violence in this game had no effect on making me any more inclined towards violence. The violence existed within the context of that game, that world, that character - it doesn't turn the person into that character.

Methinks this article is a pile of manure (coincidentally, I rode past a sign that said 'free manure' on it yesterday.. ahh... memories...).

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

The first study used 126 students, the second used 141. So between two studies the total number of test subjects did not exceed 270. This isn't enough of a subject base on which to build a solid theory - and while we're on the subject there was no mention of control groups that began the test with the camera pointed away from the players so that they couldn't tell which colour their avatars were.

Besides, all of this is academic. We all know that it's the videogames themselves that cause the violence, not the avatar in the videogame. C'mon people, we're alone here. We can admit it amongst ourselves. Whisper with me: It's the games.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I could almost believe that study, given how much crap exists solely to make me (a white heterosexual male) feel guilty and spited for shit I haven't done. But looking at the set up, there's a lot of room for error. So I'm just going to let it be.

 

[Raikas]

What I mean is that the test doesn't really tell us about how that aggression plays out in the long term.

Does it matter in this context? This study doesn't appear to purport to talk about long-term changes to behaviour, but rather the immediate reaction to the colour of the avatar, so why would they want to expand the study along those lines?

 

[Kopikatsu]

Also confused as to why they used primarily female students, but whatever.

They did two studies, and used mostly men for one study (60%), and mostly female for the second (65%). I don't see why that would be something to be 'confused' about. It may just have been a matter of what students were available the days they did the different tests.

My point was more along the lines of 'Why did they make a divide along gender lines as opposed to race in a study that focuses on race to begin with'.

 

[yeah_so_no]

Also confused as to why they used primarily female students, but whatever.

They did two studies, and used mostly men for one study (60%), and mostly female for the second (65%). I don't see why that would be something to be 'confused' about. It may just have been a matter of what students were available the days they did the different tests.

My point was more along the lines of 'Why did they make a divide along gender lines as opposed to race in a study that focuses on race to begin with'.

I don't really think they did; it seemed like they were more noting that was what the gender breakdown ended up being. I'm sure there's more info in the actual paper, which the article said would be published soon.

 

[TAGM]

What I mean is that the test doesn't really tell us about how that aggression plays out in the long term.

Does it matter in this context? This study doesn't appear to purport to talk about long-term changes to behaviour, but rather the immediate reaction to the colour of the avatar, so why would they want to expand the study along those lines?

Mainly because as it stands, what use do the results have?
I mean, if the effect of the aggression increase only lasts for, say, 15 minutes, unless you're sitting in the same general area as the player - and if you are that usually suggests a prior connection to the person in question that would most likely effect the chances of aggression towards you - It's not really going to have a chance to affect you. By the time Influenced McAgressive comes into contact with you, their 15 minute spurt of aggression is probably either up or almost up.
Now, if the aggression lasts for something more like 5 hours, we're getting into higher probabilities of you being affected by it. But we don't know how long it lasts, so ultimately we can't glean exactly how worried or not we should be about this.
So in terms of proving the experiment wrong, it doesn't really matter. But in terms of proving the experiment useful for anything other then making more experiments based on it, it kind of does.

 

[yeah_so_no]

What I mean is that the test doesn't really tell us about how that aggression plays out in the long term.

Does it matter in this context? This study doesn't appear to purport to talk about long-term changes to behaviour, but rather the immediate reaction to the colour of the avatar, so why would they want to expand the study along those lines?

Mainly because as it stands, what use do the results have?
I mean, if the effect of the aggression increase only lasts for, say, 15 minutes, unless you're sitting in the same general area as the player - and if you are that usually suggests a prior connection to the person in question that would most likely effect the chances of aggression towards you - It's not really going to have a chance to affect you. By the time Influenced McAgressive comes into contact with you, their 15 minute spurt of aggression is probably either up or almost up.
Now, if the aggression lasts for something more like 5 hours, we're getting into higher probabilities of you being affected by it. But we don't know how long it lasts, so ultimately we can't glean exactly how worried or not we should be about this.
So in terms of proving the experiment wrong, it doesn't really matter. But in terms of proving the experiment useful for anything other then making more experiments based on it, it kind of does.

Well, by that standard, adrenaline rushes have nothing to do with aggression. Or anger, because hey, "heat of the moment" doesn't last THAT long. Only, y'know, that's not really how it works. Even those short-term bursts matter, because they say something overall about tendencies.

 

[TAGM]

Mainly because as it stands, what use do the results have?
I mean, if the effect of the aggression increase only lasts for, say, 15 minutes, unless you're sitting in the same general area as the player - and if you are that usually suggests a prior connection to the person in question that would most likely effect the chances of aggression towards you - It's not really going to have a chance to affect you. By the time Influenced McAgressive comes into contact with you, their 15 minute spurt of aggression is probably either up or almost up.
Now, if the aggression lasts for something more like 5 hours, we're getting into higher probabilities of you being affected by it. But we don't know how long it lasts, so ultimately we can't glean exactly how worried or not we should be about this.
So in terms of proving the experiment wrong, it doesn't really matter. But in terms of proving the experiment useful for anything other then making more experiments based on it, it kind of does.

Well, by that standard, adrenaline rushes have nothing to do with aggression. Or anger, because hey, "heat of the moment" doesn't last THAT long. Only, y'know, that's not really how it works. Even those short-term bursts matter, because they say something overall about tendencies.

Well of course they do. They say something about our tendencies when effected by adrenaline, at the very least. I never said that they don't - the effect is still interesting. But at the very least, a bit more information about how long this aggression lasts would be nice - not vital, but at least interesting.
Which is why I say it "kind of" matters - it's an important point, but even with that aside, the experiment still has a point or two to make besides.

 

[EternallyBored]

What I mean is that the test doesn't really tell us about how that aggression plays out in the long term. The article does indeed explicitly state that there is an increase in aggression in the case of black avatars over white avatars, although without the specifics, I cannot tell if that statement is being influenced by the media reporting it, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a media outlet has either blatantly gotten numbers wrong.

Well, the "media outlet" in this case is the press office of the university where the research was done, so I daresay the numbers would be pretty accurate.

Ah no, University press offices are kind of famous for exagerrating numbers, creating correlation, or even straight up making things up that a study never says. They make mistakes, or sometimes do it on purpose, because if the university can attract mainstream media attention, it can net them funding or donations from interested parties, attract students interested in the research they do, and influence grant applications if they are applying for government funds.

University papers do this because they can get away with it while the actual academic paper remains truthful, it allows them an out if they get caught in their sensationalism, while they will generally present a much more balanced view compared to what happens when the mainstream media picks something up, it's still pretty much the university paper's job to hype the hell out of their research.

 

[Gorrath]

The first study used 126 students, the second used 141. So between two studies the total number of test subjects did not exceed 270. This isn't enough of a subject base on which to build a solid theory - and while we're on the subject there was no mention of control groups that began the test with the camera pointed away from the players so that they couldn't tell which colour their avatars were.

Besides, all of this is academic. We all know that it's the videogames themselves that cause the violence, not the avatar in the videogame. C'mon people, we're alone here. We can admit it amongst ourselves. Whisper with me: It's the games.

Please note that the sample sizes are perfectly acceptable for the scope of this study. One does not build a theory based on a single or even a pair of experiments anyway, so I don't think there's a danger of that. This serves a simply a part of a whole, and people far too often dismiss single studies as meaningless because they don't serve as conclusive proof of anything. We work off of bodies of evidence over lots of experiments, but I see this over and over on The Escapist where someone jumps to the conclusion that the study is flawed because it a) does not have sufficient sample size, or b) the study is proposing a theory that it isn't.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

What happens when I play a violent lizardman?

Damn cold-blooded bipeds. Coming over here, stealing our Skoomba.