Class Psychology book vs. Violent video games!

So I was asked this question on a test (True or False?): 
 
"There is little evidence to suggest that playing violent video games increases violent thoughts and actions". (or something along these lines). 
 
Since I am a gamer, I answered that the question was 'True', since there are random studies that pop up now and again saying that there isn't a link. 
 
Looks like I was wrong, my textbook flat-out says: 

1.    "Playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, emotions, and behaviors." 
2.  "..expressing anger breeds more anger, and practicing violence breeds more violence. Tomorrow's games may have even greater effects." 
3. "Most abused children don't become abusive adults. Most social drinkers don't become alcoholic dependent. And most youths who spend hundreds of hours in those mass murder simulators don't become teen assassins....Although very few will commit slaughter, how many will become desensitized to violence and more open to violent acts?

So I was asked this question on a test (True or False?): 
 
"There is little evidence to suggest that playing violent video games increases violent thoughts and actions". (or something along these lines). 
 
Since I am a gamer, I answered that the question was 'True', since there are random studies that pop up now and again saying that there isn't a link. 
 
Looks like I was wrong, my textbook flat-out says: 

1.    "Playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, emotions, and behaviors." 
2.  "..expressing anger breeds more anger, and practicing violence breeds more violence. Tomorrow's games may have even greater effects." 
3. "Most abused children don't become abusive adults. Most social drinkers don't become alcoholic dependent. And most youths who spend hundreds of hours in those mass murder simulators don't become teen assassins....Although very few will commit slaughter, how many will become desensitized to violence and more open to violent acts?

The book actually uses the term 'murder simulators?' That's fucked up.

This offends me. I mean, like, this actually offends me.

Burn the book.

Video games have changed during my period of life, but my wife, the so-called counselor, says that there are studies that prove that this manifestation is true.
 
I disagree with the studies, of course, because fundamentally, it comes down to the environment of which these games are played. Shitty ass parents and parenting skills are a trade mark of bad decisions upon the youth of today. 
 
When the adults act like children, children respond in kind.... Video games or not.

Psychology is a soft science for a reason.

"Most abused children don't become abusive adults. Most social drinkers don't become alcoholic dependent. And most youths who spend hundreds of hours in those mass murder simulators don't become teen assassins....Although very few will commit slaughter, how many will become desensitized to violence and more open to violent acts?

" Video games have changed during my period of life, but my wife, the so-called counselor, says that there are studies that prove that this manifestation is true.  I disagree with the studies, of course, because fundamentally, it comes down to the environment of which these games are played. Shitty ass parents and parenting skills are a trade mark of bad decisions upon the youth of today.   When the adults act like children, children respond in kind.... Video games or not. "

" Psychology is a soft science for a reason. "

You need to point out to who ever is in charge of assigning books in that course that the text book they are using is wrong, and ask them to change it. If you get enough people to do it they may actually do something about it.

Wow, that's a shitty textbook.
 
None of the Amazon reviews mention this problem. Strange; I would expect at least one person would have noticed and spoken out.

Why is a text-book posing a moral hypothetical such as: "Although very few will commit slaughter, how many will become desensitized to violence and more open to violent acts?"...? It strikes me more as a book trying to promote an agenda. =/

The book says that abused children don't become abusive adults?  That's dead wrong.  Abusive children displace anger onto whomever they can, until it's ingrained in their minds and they become abusive themselves because they think it's what works.  

Well, now I know I got this question wrong....

" @DrPockets000: Actually, it leaves it pretty open, saying that some abused children do become abusive, while others don't (keyword "Most"). Regardless of what the message was, it just seems so stupid for them to compare video games to cigarettes and alcohol. "

I won't believe it unless someone who has played video games all their lives has written it. Everyone else only has a second hand opinion.

Hey, that guy wrote my AP Psych book. I wish I recalled exactly what he wrote about this subject in that book, but it's been a couple years. I do remember the words "murder simulator" being used. I also remember not liking that chapter much.

Sounds like the author has no clue what he was talking about.  Millions of people play video games yet only a handful seem to become violent, and those that do become violent almost always have other issues with them such as a psychological disorder, bullying, or parental abuse.

" Hey, that guy wrote my AP Psych book. I wish I recalled exactly what he wrote about this subject in that book, but it's been a couple years. I do remember the words "murder simulator" being used. I also remember not liking that chapter much. "

 

Skim reading that page you posted, half of those studies seem either outdated or just provide the results, and nothing into the back ground of the subjects. Such as that GTA3 study they provide. And they even state "Drinking".
 
That book seems majorly flawed as do the studies.
My biased opinion is that's probably written by the same people who say it's a waste of time.
 
On a similar note there was a debate about this when I studied Psychology at AS/A level, me and a good friend fought to defend that corner, and found flaws in the studies anyway we could.
It's also great how those books only provide the side of the argument saying that they are increasing violence among society.

Sure it gets ppl more agressive, however the world is full of hostile agressives and they don't need videogames for that. I don't feel anything when I play games, I am devoid of feeling when I kill others in a game, however most ppl feels a bit of agressiveness. However does that agressiveness means they will do anything and pull the trigger or start a fight? No, of course not, no worst than a hostile agressive would. So while they have a point, however for violent acts, there is no direct link between videogames and violence, only agressive feelings. Your teacher might not agree with what I said, however it's true from my research of psychology and how the human mind process conflict.

" Psychology is a soft science for a reason. "

I went and skimmed through the amazon reviews and noticed one that mentioned the author's opinionated nature when it came to global warming, and another where the author just goes on and on in unnecessary detail. I can tell you that from the three psychology textbooks I've run into, I've never had to deal with that sort of thing. It's a shame.

There is actually a fairly recent Harvard Study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice that disproves a lot of these myths surrounding the psychological effects of violent video games. Just google grand theft childhood if you want to check out a quick summary, and read the book if it interests you further, it's pretty interesting.
 
Anyone who has any experience what so ever playing video games can see that violent video games do not create violent people. I have played tons of violent video games in my time, from Manhunt to GTA, Halo to Call of Duty and I am one of the most layed back people I know. A more likely conclusion would be that violent people tend to gravitate towards violent video games. And if they are violent by nature to begin with, isn't giving them this outlet for their aggression far better than allowing them to take it out on someone in real life?

As much as it's a crap book, they don't even bother to qualify how people becoming desensitised to violence = increase in violence, they just say it does like everybody knows that. In fact I remember one study actually saying that the desentisation to violence (not just through video games, but also tv and movies) was beneficial to society, because in extreme situations like fires and car crashes, people didn't collapse into weeping balls of panic.
 
In fact if you get that answer wrong, I would flat out complain.

Wtf this is an actual legit text book? 
God damn whoever wrote it must be related to Jack Thomspon.

At the end of the day, you have to make a concious decision to be violent to attack someone or to pull the trigger. That's a decision, no matter how desensitized someone is, they aren't going to do it. You have to take into account that ppl are agressive because they are scared someone is starting a fight, they feel out of control. When that happens, they start to pretend to be tough or agressive to mask the fear. Agression is based on the need to feel important and a lack of self esteem which can be triggered by fear of not being in control. Agression through arguements can cause violence because you fear of losing face. Or maybe your scared a friend might get hurt, or your scared that someone is going to hurt you, so you fight and create violence. It's all based on fear.

  
However what does videogames has to do with self esteem and the feel of importance? Nothing? That's not the same kind of agression out of fear. You heard this saying from yoda, it's true of psychology, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. However videogame and the feeling of agression has absolutly nothing to do with self esteem or that kind of fear you get when you are trying to control the situation acting macho before it gets into a fight. We all fear situations we can't control, it's a scary feeling to everyone because it's an attack on your perception of the world and your ego which causes conflict. My point is this is a completely different set of agression and it won't lead to violence for videogames. The other psychologist still hasn't figured out my theory yet (honestly I should be a psychologist) so they use false evidence trying to create a pattern that doesn't exist. You either have to be violent already and make a concious decision. There is no link between videogames and violence, it's a different set of agression, it's a concious decision, not because you played a videogame because videogames like movies are only entertainment. Ppl are trying to find something to blame using false evidence as real.

I actually wrote a paper about this in one of my classes and through the internet and other sources I found that the tests that show people being more violent after video games either did not fully understand the results or just made them up.   
 
For example one study had compared two sets of people playing games one violent and one not so violent like a puzzle game (I don't fully remember what games), they stated that those that played the violent game were more inclined to be outwardly aggressive.  However, they gloss over the fact that these aggressive tendencies were right after play and may have very well been caused more due to frustration than the actual violence. 
 
The truth is people see the rise in video games and more youth violence in the media occurring around the same time and say well since this happened at the same time one thing must cause the other.  People also think that by having a child play a violent video game and being rewarded for stuff like head shots the video game therefore is modeling proper behavior; however, this behavior of rewarding violence is not continued in the real world, and if proper steps are taken any potential aggressive behavior is quelled by parents.   

You can make a case either way for all of this BS.  How ever it comes down to the individual.  The avg person wont have probs.  Others who are just mentally unstable, combined with a bad home/social environment may have probs.  As its much harder to decide if a person has/had predisposed issues of aggression, or proper coping skills with life/reality, it becomes too easy to blame it all on something tangible that you can point to, rather then what are more likely causes of intangible mental problems.
 
So it becomes a look at this *holds up a game*, or look at this *holds thin air*  its much easier to make a case if you can produce something to attach sight, touch, taste, sound, or smell to.  Think for yourself, a book, or a degree really doesn't mean shit 75% of the time. 

Aparently porn is desensitizing me to rape. GREAT! Now I'm a murderer AND a rapist.

I'm someone who both takes a pretty big interest in psychology and a very big interest in video games and while I'm not as outraged by this as some I am a little frustrated and the textbook seems to be a little... Off. I have heard from reliable sources that freely expressing anger leads to you having less control over expressing your anger in the future and I believe that if you are taking delight in the visceral aspects of a violent video game then you may be slightly more inclined towards violent behaviour in the future (notice the use of the words inclined, may and slightly). The books suggestion that "Playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, emotions, and behaviors" seems to be missing an operative word, it can increase aggression, that doesn't mean that in all cases it will and in the vast majority of cases I believe it won't. 
 
I also do think that it's just plain ignorant of the textbook to call violent video games murder simulators. The statement that "very few will commit slaughter" as a result of violent video games doesn't even begin to cover the minuscule number of people who actually commit slaughter with violent video games as a factor of their behaviour. I believe that violent video games alone can never push someone into committing significantly violent acts, I believe if someone tries to go on some kind of murder spree after playing GTA then there is something very wrong in the psychology of the person committing those acts, sane people don't commit atrocities because they play violent video games.

I did a quick search on pubmed, link > 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=DetailsSearch&term=video+game+violence 
 
I took a gander at a few of the studies and there doesn't seem to be any consensus on whether or not violence and videogames have a causal relationship. Also bear in mind that there isn't a lot of information on the number of people in these studies here, I might dig into this further at some point but from what I can see there just hasn't been enough research.
 

#1 Rule of University, follow the goddamn lecture material and text book if you want grades. While it's all well and good that you disagree, and I'm sure most of us here would agree with your stance, all of this is irrelevant if you're competing against thousands of other students for career opportunities. Put down the answer they want you to put, then come to the forums to complain about how stupid your prof/textobook is. I once took a Catholic studies course for a writing credit. I'm an atheist. See where I'm getting at? 

" The truth is people see the rise in video games and more youth violence in the media occurring around the same time and say well since this happened at the same time one thing must cause the other. "

" @Boom_goes_the_dynamite said:

" The truth is people see the rise in video games and more youth violence in the media occurring around the same time and say well since this happened at the same time one thing must cause the other. "

Exactly what I was thinking. A more succinct way to put it is that correlation =/= causation. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows just how skeptical you should really be about any study. The truth of the matter is that you can warp results into anything you want. That's why I always like to know everything about the study. The conditions, sample size, ad infinitum.  "

This could be counter-argued with studies and statistics, but I prefer the common sense approach: They're fucking video games. Shooting someone in the head in a video game is nothing like doing it in real life. I remember Jack Thompson saying the Columbine murderers trained on Doom. Frealz? You couldn't even vertically aim in that game.