Fact-Check: Do Video Games Lead to Violence?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

We’ve likely all heard the arguments about video games and their role in violence. The grand_theft_auto__vice_city_by_homel001-d4al0zlquestion of whether or not video games have a part in aggression is an ongoing and complicated debate.

It’s not a new question either.  It’s been studied by psychologists, not to mention scholars from other disciplines, for decades.  Dr. Albert Bandura, along with countless other researchers, showed us that being exposed to aggressive behavior, even at a young age, results in imitation (Bandura, Ross and Ross, 1961).

A more recent study by Hollingdale and Greitemeyer (2014), compared aggression levels in response to a violent video game (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare) and in response to a neutral video game (LittleBigPlanet 2), both played online and offline. Participants in the online group played against human components, whereas the offline group played against computers, each for 30 minutes. They predicted that playing a more violent video game would increase aggression, and (surprise!) they were right. Not only do violent video games increase aggression, according to Hollingdale and Greitemeyer, but there is also no difference based on whether the game is played online or offline Call of Duty increased levels of aggression regardless of where it was played (online or offline). The authors also noted that there may have been other factors, such as the competitiveness of each game, which may have attributed to the increased aggression levels.

In addition to violence and competitiveness, there are other factors.  For example, games can be frustrating, which may increase aggression.  Plus, from a research perspective, how we define violence is also a complicating factor.  Do we only consider games like first person shooters or Grand Theft Auto to be violent, or are games like Mario Kart or Super Smash Bros included?

To make matters even more complicated, if video games lead to increase violence, then why do violent crimes decrease when new game comes out as noted by Ward (2011)? Ward argues that people playing violent video games are inside playing the game, not out and about causing trouble.  Ward calls this  “voluntary incapacitation” and noted that in areas where gaming is more popular, the violent crime rate goes down, which is the opposite of what people might expect (Ward, 2011). In fact, Ward’s (2011) results showed that there were reductions in arson, car theft, and robbery at the time of a new release for a game. This voluntary incapacitation most affects youth (ages 15-25) and draws them away from criminal or violent activity.

Taking all this into consideration, it would appear that playing violent video games does increase aggression. But, the relationship is much more complicated when you take into account are the other factors that attribute to the aggression. In saying so, I would have loved to write a piece that included definite answers, but the truth is, I don’t know and I’m not sure that we’ll ever know.

By Katie Bright
Katie is majoring in Psychology and Human Development. A senior, she plans on graduating in Spring of 2015 and taking some time off school before returning to earn a Masters degree.

 

Fact Check: Do women use gossip as a form of aggression more often than men?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

indexWe have likely all heard people say that men typically express their aggression physically while women express their aggression indirectly using gossip. Gossip, or talking about people without their knowledge, is something that surrounds us every day. It starts in the hallways of middle school, follows us through college, and is present in our workplaces; it is nearly impossible to escape. That said, gossip isn’t always bad, as researchers often talk about “positive gossip.” Positive gossip helps individuals understand peer groups, learn who to trust, and build social connections by sharing personal information. It can sometimes, however, become a tool for aggression.

But do women gossip more often than men? To answer that question, we’ll turn first to a 2014 study conducted by Dr. Francis McAndrew, who investigated the distinct way women express aggression. McAndrew found that gossip was used in an effort to eliminate, damper, or constrict the social network of others. McAndrew also discovered that women were more likely to gossip about other women rather than men and he argued this was because women are seen as more direct competition.

Another study that looked for a concrete difference in aggression between males and females was a 2006 study by Dr. Nicole Hess and Dr. Edward Hagen exposed men and women to the same aggression-evoking stimulus. Specifically, participants were told that their group members had reported that they had not done any of the required work on a group project. Hess and Hagen found that women, in response to this provocation, had a stronger desire than men to aggress indirectly through gossip. One other interesting aspect of this study is that they controlled for social norms and approval and still concluded, “Young adult women reported a significantly stronger desire than men to retaliate with gossip against a reputational attack, even after controlling for social norms and approval” (p. 242).

Anger and aggression can be expressed in many different ways. The studies presented here don’t suggest that women are more angry, temperamental, or aggressive than men. However, they do seem to confirm the idea that compared to men, women use gossip more frequently as a form of aggression.

By Gretchen Klefstad
Gretchen is a a sophomore majoring in Psychology and minoring in Public Administration. She plans on graduating in May 2017 and continuing on to graduate school.

Fact-Check: Did the NRA support gun control when the Black Panthers advocated that minorities arm themselves?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Yes, but it’s complicated.

UCLA law professor, Adam Winkler, explains in a 2011 article for The Atlantic that the National Rifle Association, or the NRA, has been in existence since 1871 and was originally created to be an organization that would provide marksmanship programs. Through most of the NRA’s history it supported, or at least, condoned gun control initiatives including the 1968 Gun Control Act, which expanded the government’s ability to prohibit criminals and those with mental impairments from owning firearms. It wasn’t until 1977, when Harlon Carter took leadership that the organization began its more strict 2nd Amendment Rights agenda.

The reference to the Black Panther Party probably refers to the Mulford Act enacted in 1967 under Ronald Reagan during his period as Governor of California. This act effectively restricted citizens from carrying guns in public and created one of the countries most strict gun control regulations. This was a direct reaction to the Black Panther Movement’s rise in California and in the 1960s, the NRA would not yet have been a hard-line advocate for gun ownership rights. In the 1980s Reagan changed his opinion on the subject. He would begin to actively encourage 2nd amendment rights to keep citizens safe from the despotism that could be enacted by government, just what African Americans had been hoping to achieve in the 1960’s when he had instead endorsed the Mulford Act. The post 1977 NRA endorsed their first presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, after both had switched to a more strict 2nd amendment rights defense.

So, to a certain extent the statement is true; The NRA was supportive of gun control in the 1960s during the Black Panther Movement. But by the late 1970s the organization’s goals had changed and both groups would advocate minimum restrictions on gun ownership.

By Katie Ledvina
Katie is a senior at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay with majors in Psychology, Public Administration, and Political Science and minors in Human Development and Global Studies. Following graduation Katie plans to begin work in administration or research for a public or nonprofit human service provider in the field of public health.

Resources/For more information:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/when-the-nra-promoted-gun_b_992043.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/2/

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/NRA-took-hard-right-after-leadership-coup-3741640.php

Fact-Check: More Deaths from Gun Violence than from War?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

True (but with one caveat).

This picture, put out by the Obama administration, has been floating around the internet for awhile now.  The fact, though, did not originate with the Obama administration but with Mark Sheilds, a PBS commentator back in 2012.  The statement has actually been fact-checked before by PolitiFact.com, a project of the Tampa Bay Times, which compiled a list of total deaths from all American Wars, as well as deaths by gunfire from 1968 to 2011. Their sources include the Congressional Research Service, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI (you can read that article here).

The conclusion: the statement is true but with one caveat. Approximately 1.2 million deaths have occurred in all American wars, as opposed to 1.4 million gun deaths. The one caveat is that the data includes suicides and accidental gun deaths which some may not consider “gun violence.”  This is noteworthy because the original statement from Mark Sheilds used the term “gun fire” rather than “gun violence.”  That language was changed for this picture and it’s fair to say that it makes the statement less honest.

Fact-Check: Does Domestic Violence Against Women Increase on Football Sundays?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Yes, it does. But there is a bit more to it.

All the Rage has actually covered something similar before with our piece on the Inciting World of Sports. The domestic violence claim has taken a lot of different forms (“Domestic violence triples on Super Bowl Sunday,” “More women are victims of violence on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year”).

So how much of this is actually true? Three separate studies debunked the fact that violence against women is at an all-time high on football Sundays.  In fact, according to recent research in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, summer holidays like the 4th of July have a domestic violence rate three times higher than days with televised professional football games.

However, research seems to suggest that while domestic violence rates may not be at their highest on game day, there does seem to be an increase. In the same study, researchers suggested that intimate partner violence does increase on certain football Sundays as opposed to those Sundays with no football game. This phenomenon was also noted in a 2006 study published in the book Handbook of Sports and Media with their findings that on days after an NFL football game, domestic violence rates increased. In a 2011 study, researchers David Card and Gordon Dahl take their findings a bit further. They found that domestic violence rates do indeed increase after a football game, but only on days when the favored team (i.e., the team expected to win) suffers an unexpected loss. Looking at 6 cities with NFL football teams (Carolina Panthers, Detroit Lions, New England Patriots, Denver Broncos, Kansas City Chiefs, and Tennessee Titans), they found that there was about a 10% increase in male domestic violence against woman on game days with an upset.

By Lisa Gehrke
Lisa is a senior Psychology and Human Development major at the University of Wisconsin- Green Bay.  She will be graduating in May and hope to attend graduate school to obtain a Ph.D in Clinical Psychology.