Video game violence and physiological desensitization

“The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” is the title of a very recent article by Nicholas L. Carnagey, Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman.

It can be found here.

The good Dr. Castronova has scathing comments over at Terranova.

Article abstract: Past research shows that violent video game exposure increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, aggressive behaviors, and decreases helpful behaviors. However, no research has experimentally examined violent video game eVects on physiological desensitization, deWned as showing less physiological arousal to violence in the real world after exposure to video game violence in the virtual world. This experiment attempts to Wll this gap. Participants reported their media habits and then played one of eight violent or nonviolent video games for 20min. Next, participants watched a 10-min videotape containing scenes of real-life violence while heart rate (HR) and galvanic skin response (GSR) were monitored. Participants who previously played a violent video game had lower HR and GSR while viewing Wlmed real violence, demonstrating a physiological desensitization to violence. Results are interpreted using an expanded version of the General Aggression Model. Links between desensitization, antisocial, and prosocial behavior are discussed.

Soccer players are excellent game theorists

Turns out that penalty kick behaviour conforms beautifully with game theoretical predictions.

Economist Ignacio Palacios-Huerta of Brown University has studied thousands of penalty kicks. Penalty kicks are theoretically wonderful since they constitute 2-player zero-sum games where players have very few available strategies and where the outcome is decided immediately after the initial action.

Palacios-Huerta found that no strategy is inherently better. And that soccer players (as opposed to the typical lab subjects of behavioural game theory) manage to play truly randomly (the way they ought to if they are following basic game theory assumptions):

…professional players are found to be capable of behaving perfectly randomly. Their sequences neither exhibit negative or positive autocorrelation, and choices do not depend on one’s own previous play, on the opponent’s previous plays or on past outcomes.

According to the author, these results are close to unique, i.e. the observed behaviour (supporting the model) has not been seen in other experimental contexts.

The article is a fascinating example of how games (in our sense) and game theory (in the economist’s sense) may be reciprocally fruitful. Which was the larger point of Edward Castronova’s recent article Castronova, E. (2006). The Research Value of Large Games: Natural Experiments in Norrath and Camelot. Games and Culture, 1(2), 163-186.

The active 1%

Writes Charles Authur of The Guardian:

It’s an emerging rule of thumb that suggests that if you get a group of
100 people online then one will create content, 10 will “interact” with
it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just
view it.

That’s very fine and interesting, of course. But does anyone know of a credible analysis of motivations for contributing? What makes those 1% tick? What incentives do they face which the silent majority do not?

Via Kollaborativ

The Pac-Man strategy guide


Didn’t succeed in wasting your childhood in the arcades? Despair not, but check out KiLLerCloWn’s Pac-Man Guide in HTML or 27-page PDF.

And always remember:

“What you have to learn first is cornering. yes, there are differences in how quickly you corner and every Pac-Man pattern out there relies on you cornering quickly consistently without getting stuck. If you get stuck for as much of 1/10 of a second or less, hardly perceivalble to the eye your timing and pattern will be off, you will have to readjust and in the later levels will in most cases not be able to recover!

One basic rule applies: Corner before you get to the corner. The corners are round and if you only start twisting your joystick when you get to the corner you’ve already taken a wider line. This is almost invisible to the eye but it really makes a difference and you’ll notice whether your cornering has been clean when you reach certain key points in the patterns.”

Via Lifehacker