In a new study sure to be widely misreported around the web, a research from Stockholm University have looked into the effect of kids playing violent videogames.
The paper, published in Acta Paediatrica (and available here), used 19 boys aged between 12 and 15 and told them to play one violent, and one non-violent game for 2 hours before bed. Measurements of their heartbeat and movement were measured whilst they played, and during the following night of sleep.
To investigate how playing a violent/nonviolent television game during the evening affects sympathetic and parasympathetic reactions during and after playing as well as sleep quality during the night after playing.
To keep things fair, the two games had to both be as similar as possible, apart from the violence.
- Violent game involves – and rewards – direct physical violence against another person, and nonviolent game involves no violence.
- No differences between games concerning frustrating elements, other stressors, attraction and difficulty.
- The main character should be shown on the screen and controlled by a remote control by the player (‘third-person game’).
- Both games must be conducted in the same manner.
The non-violent game chosen was Ignition Entertainment’s Animaniacs. But what is the violent equivalent? Rockstar’s Manhunt of course!
Reading the report, I assumed it would simply show that when a 12 to 15 year old is playing the 18+ rated murder simulator, they would be much more on edge and so would have disrupted sleep. But it turns out, one of the biggest differences was simply the difficulty between the two games, with 10 of the boys reporting the violent game was more challenging. Something you would expect as the target audience is much older.
The results also indicated negligible or no correlation between stress, measured using heart rate variability (HRV) and;
- Playing violent games
- Time since start of playing violent games
- Emotional impact from playing violent game
- Distance to the monitor and sound levels
- Previous gaming experience
However, the actual heart-rate of the player was significantly higher when playing the violent game. With both games the boy took longer to go to bed, and in the case of the violent game, it was harder to fall asleep. Something echoed in the morning when it is noted that it was much easier to wake up after playing the nonviolent game.
What about when the boys were actually asleep? Again, there were a few noticeable differences, primarily with the very low frequency (VLF) cycle your heart goes through during the night. Interestingly, one explanation is actually that the player is being appalled by the violence.
There was also a higher activity of the VLF component during violent (compared to nonviolent) gaming [...] One tentative hypothesis is that the high VLF activity during violent playing may be a reflection of parasympathetic activity evoked by disgust rather than by an urge to fight, which would rather have resulted in signs of arousal like increased heart rate.
Regarding the actual quality of the sleep, the report points out it’s very hard to judge based on the findings, but do say that it suggests that neither game disturbed sleep.
The lack of sleep disturbance after violent gaming is also evident from the similar ratings of sleep quality and state on awakening for the two conditions.
The conclusion of the report calls for more research into the subject, and points out that their chosen (and rarely used) method of observing the HRV is a very useful approach. They also reaffirm that there was no measurable difference in quality of sleep for either game.
Violent gaming between 8 and 10 pm induces different autonomic responses compared to nonviolent gaming – both during playing as well as during the following night – suggesting different emotional responses and possibly different needs of recovery. Subjectively perceived sleep quality was not influenced after a single gaming experience.
So there you have it, violent games clearly have a different impact on the gamer, but not on the quality of their sleep. Saying that, if you want to make getting out of bed easier on a Monday morning, don’t play Manhunt.
Via: GP
It’s interesting with all this talk about not letting kids play 18+ games that they use it in this study. Aren’t they afraid that these kids, in the future, will now go on a killing spree thanks to the exposure to Manhunt? *irony*
I think a better term is desensitisation.
Kids these days (Myself included) witness all sorts of brutal behaviour in the media. Which includes TV and movies.
Things you would never have seen years ago.
The problem is the personality and upbringing of these people that determines how likely they are to think it’s OK to stab someone in the eye because they gave them a ‘funny look’.
I’m probably being a little skeptical, but isn’t Animaniacs going to be considerably less challenging than Manhunt 2?
I thought they said “no difference in challenges”. Meh, I don’t think this is very accurate.
1. They probably should have used a broader audience. I say targeting 12-18 year olds.
2. Actually researched and found out which games would hold the same amount of challenge.
3. Have a control group of some sort.
Also, it seems the people didn’t bother to look into other reasons why their sleep cycle could’ve been disrupted. They needed to look into the background of students.
In fact, I would make two studies: a video game study in “low-risk” families and “high-risk” ones.
I wonder how long it will take for the Dail Mail to “misinterpret” this? Headline will probably read “Videogames Destroying your Childrens Sleep, FACT!”
Very usefull post.
Thanks.
P.S. I like your writing style.