So, social psychologist Albert Bandura performed a couple of experiments in the 1960s, and he proposed that aggressive behaviour can be learnt. Basically, in experimental group he had kids watch an adult physically and verbally assault a Bobo doll. Kids in control group watched an adult play with other toys while the Bobo doll was left untouched. Then, kids from both groups played with some toys from a different room, until they were no longer allowed (this was done to build up frustration). Instead they were offered to play with toys in a room, where the Bobo doll and some other toys were. The results concluded that kids in experimental group showed more aggressive behaviour towards the Bobo doll. In a different experiment he also concluded that aggressive behaviour can be learnt trough cartoons or movies. [Here’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment) a link to a more detailed explanation.
So my question is, how is it possible that there are apparently no newer and stronger links between violent games/movies and violent behaviour, especially since games/movies are getting more realistic?
In: Other
Banduras study was quite standardised and conducted on young, impressionable children. They were at an age where secondary socialization has just begun so are more prone to imitate these new behaviours. Most parents also teach children at a young age that violence is wrong so violent video games will do little to override something drilled into them from such an early age. This question came up in my psychology class and these were some of the arguments thrown around that I can remember, not sure how accurate they are but they made sense to me.
Oh, there have been so many studies on this. For an overview from the APA’s perspective, see https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games
This is somewhat open to speculation. My personal observation in people that I know who really like violent video games (but are some of the sweetest people I know irl) is that they are clearly aware of the fact that the violence in these games is no more harmful than the competition found in sports. Blood in gore in a game is simply not real, and it does not feel real. Meanwhile, witnessing real and genuine violence, as well as its outcomes (which are rarely depicted in violent games) could accustom a person to further real violence.
There are several aspects to consider here.
The first is that Bandura manipulated the groups in an odd way: that deprivation of toys for frustration is a weird step that may play a particular role in eliciting certain responses.
Secondly, watching an adult, who is an authoritative figure, act aggressively is not the same thing as playing a game on one’s own terms. Would Bandura have gotten similar results if the adults had thrown other toys around the room instead of simply directing their anger at the Bobo dolls?
Thirdly, TV and video games are different from a Bobo doll. They aren’t (primarily) a physical object to punch or kick, they are various types of software played on a console. This lends itself to certain physical actions and helps keep a barrier between the subject matter and what is real life. People that play fantasy video games aren’t presumed to think magic is real anymore than people that read the Lord of the Rings think Ents exist, why do we assume playing a game will make a person think they need to act the same way in real life?
Finally, to really test these barriers between real life and fake toys, a better experiment would have tried to see if the children were more likely to argue, yell, or fight with their peers instead of a Bobo doll. Essentially all this experiment did was show children *one way* they can vent energy and direct it at a safe inanimate object, a Bobo doll. The difficulties of designing an experiment like that illuminate part of the reason why TV and video games are just different: even kids know what fake is, and real attacks are unquestionably unethical.
Latest Answers