advertisement

Gamer aggression grows against strangers - Study

By Tom Magrino, GameSpotPosted Oct 1, 2009 4:45 pm PT

University of Missouri research indicates male players experience spike in testosterone when defeating those they don't know, dip when beating friends.

As it turns out, killing a friend in a game can actually be kind of a downer. Such are the findings of a new study out of the University of Missouri in Columbia, led by evolutionary psychologist David Geary. As reported this week by the New Scientist, Geary's study found that male gamers who defeated opponents they did not know experienced a surge in testosterone, but putting bullets in friends caused levels of the hormone to fall off.

This guy? He ain't your buddy.

To conduct his study, Geary put out a call for 42 male students at the University of Missouri. The students, who did not know each other, were divided into 14 groups of three. Each segment was then tasked with practicing Epic Games' top-rated frenetic first-person shooter Unreal Tournament 2004 for six hours over a weeklong period, in order to establish familiarity with teammates.

Teams were then pitted against one another in 30-minute Onslaught matches, a capture-the-flag variant. When matches were completed, Geary and his colleagues found that testosterone levels dramatically rose in members of the winning team, especially those who contributed most significantly. However, in Death Match matches, where each team was pitted against itself, researchers found that the highest-ranked player saw a significant drop-off in testosterone levels.

"In a serious out-group competition, you can kill all your rivals and you're better for it," Geary said of the study's findings. "You can't alienate your in-group partners, because you need them." The study also indicated that multiplayer games trigger the same biological instincts as actual warfare, where heightened testosterone-induced aggression can be beneficial.

295 Comments

  • 24k_Solid_Gold

    Posted Oct 26, 2009 1:46 pm PT

    ...Ya...sure...whatever...

  • BaLLz_ON_FiRE

    Posted Oct 7, 2009 8:44 am PT

    Where were they when I was playing Gears of War and God Of War hum?!
    Suddenly someone woke up and saw the world how it actually is WOW congratz ...

  • TXMostWanted

    Posted Oct 6, 2009 2:44 pm PT

    Either way, I **** talk people when I blow 'em up in Halo. The only thing is, I ACTUALLY get angry when a stranger just wails on me. But I laugh when it's a good friend...so this study makes sense to me

  • aznballer91

    Posted Oct 6, 2009 2:03 pm PT

    Killing ppl you don't know makes you feel so much more superior because you feel that you can take down anyone and not just your friends. En plus, killing friends isn't as humiliating or satisfying than pwning a random noob >:]

  • madman608

    Posted Oct 6, 2009 1:43 pm PT

    Yeah, it's gonna feel a little awesome when you get a triple kill. This shouldn't be surprising.

  • okassar

    Posted Oct 6, 2009 1:35 pm PT

    Of course.

    Back when Gears of War (1) came out,I remember downing people and thrusting around their behind while swing-slapping them with my smoke grenade,eventually sticking the smoke grenade in them and gang them up with my team who stick more smoke grenades in.

    rooooofl,good times,too bad you can do that with GoW2,but I guess you can take someone hostage now and thrust them against the wall

    When I kill my friends in a game,it's just more competition and less humiliation.

  • faithxvoid666

    Posted Oct 6, 2009 10:57 am PT

    @Hyrdrolix

    What you read was an article discussing the research, not the actual research itself. In fact, I couldn't find it, even after looking through several databases that deal in peer reviewed research. So, it might be safe to say that it hasn't even been released in a journal as of yet. This means that nobody can be sure of the method in this experiment, although judging by his previous work and credentials(i.e. being on the Nation Board of Directors in the U.S. Department of Education), you'd have to be pretty gutsy to just write off his work as that of some hack.

    As far as the sample size is concerned, most(and by most I mean well over 75%) studies deal with smaller sample sizes to test initial hypotheses since it's very hard to get a sampling that properly represents all demographics. Contrary to your statement, quasi-experimental designs are, in fact, incredible useful to the scientific community.

  • XXMadManVII

    Posted Oct 6, 2009 10:34 am PT

    Another pointless study.... get this guys... you get excited when your team wins... WOW earth shaking...

  • Hydrolix

    Posted Oct 6, 2009 10:26 am PT

    @thisisreallybor

    I actually read the other article and not just the GS one about it. I get what the purpose of the test was, but without a control group of some kind this just can't be taken as a serious study.

    Now if it is just a prelim to a larger more focused and better designed test that's one thing...as is...it's not worth much for real science.

  • padzstarr458

    Posted Oct 6, 2009 2:52 am PT

    theres nothing better than joining a friends free for all.and stalking them with the nife i love it

  • BigBacon87

    Posted Oct 6, 2009 12:27 am PT

    Suprise?

  • burn6

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 10:00 pm PT

    nice one. i think the ultimate input of this study to gamers, is that games are indeed is a stress buster activity specially the PvP in online games. and i agree, pawning strangers in PvP really lits up my day.

  • YellowJello

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 3:02 pm PT

    uuh, I don't know who they were studying on, but they must not have been very frequent gamers.

  • thisisreallybor

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 12:08 pm PT

    @Hydrolix
    You don't need a control group when you're basis of comparison is not the "normal" people. Control groups are designed to make sure an experiment is compared to the average person, but this study is trying to find out gaming friends vs. gaming foes. Also, 42 collegiate males do not represent an "average" population either. But I agree with the drinking/smoking (no you didn't mention smoking, but that's def. involved) @BanEsteR
    Gamespot. They are conducted by the experimenter, and he makes money by writing excellent articles and establishing himself more as an evolutionary psychologist. More established + better articles = Name and article on gaming website.

  • AIRWALKTDK666

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 12:04 pm PT

    Im the other way round whenvr i kill a mate i just abuse them but when i kill strangers theres just not the same satisfaction, you can't watch their faces.

  • pongley

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 11:42 am PT

    Whenever I kill a mate I'm like, "Fck yeah!" That may be because I don't like my friends though.

  • Hydrolix

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 11:12 am PT

    This is a terribly unscientific study. Where's the control group? 42 people are you kidding? What about other factors? When I'm gaming online I've usually been drinking and don't give a crap...how does that factor into their experiment.

  • BanEsteR

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 10:58 am PT

    who funds these studies really?

  • Targzissian

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 9:09 am PT

    Message of study:
    Don't hurt the people you rely on for your survival and support.
    But it's fine to (virtually) kill strangers, and it feels good too.

  • CardiacKid07

    Posted Oct 5, 2009 8:39 am PT

    That explains some of the trash talking.

Unreal Tournament 2004 Quick Links

Summary | Reviews | News | Previews & Features | Images | Videos | Downloads | Answers | Hints & Cheats | Forum | Check Prices

Check Prices

eBay $149.95 SHOP ›
advertisement

Related Content

Matches based on text similarity.

Related Unions

Unreal Tournament 2004 Boxshot Enlarge the boxshot
Unreal Tournament 2004

Game Stats

Full Game Details »Close
Also on

Games you may like…

Users who looked at content for this game also looked at these games.

See More Similar Games
advertisement