Gender Bias

"WoW's like Texas.
Once you live there for a while, you always come back. Always" - Lara Crigger

A few weeks ago, I came back home to World of Warcraft. I'm not necessarily proud of this. WoW doesn't even make my top 3 MMOs of all time (Lord of the Rings Online, Neocron, Star Wars Galaxies). But no matter how often I stray, WoW has all the right ingredients to be addictive. Addictive in a good way. The combination of work, rewards, power and society are just right for scratching that particular itch.

WoW is just the latest in an endless rotation of serial addiction. For weeks at a time, occasionally months, I will get into a groove with a game. I'll think about it in the corners of my day. I'll bathe in the anticipatory light of when I will play next, and revel in the reality. This is a good thing.

Which is why I was particularly annoyed to discover a study last week suggesting that this wonderful fugue isn't the result of any predilection of mine towards gaming. It's just because I happen to be male.

Last week, some folks at Stanford University (who are undoubtedly smarter than I am) announced the results of their study on game addiction and gender. They took two groups of subjects, 11 male, and 11 female, and hooked them up to a functional MRI - a device designed to show brain activity in real time by measuring increases in blood flow in the brain . They watched them all play a game.

They didn't pick a real game like Tetris. Instead, here's what they came up with:

The researchers designed a game involving a vertical line (the "wall") in the middle of a computer screen. When the game begins, 10 balls appear to the right of the wall and travel left toward the wall. Each time a ball is clicked, it disappears from the screen. If the balls are kept a certain distance from the wall, the wall moves to the right and the player gains territory, or space, on the screen. If a ball hits the wall before it's clicked, the line moves to the left and the player loses territory on the screen.

Click on things as fast as possible before it gets too insane. I've played this before, I think it's called Missile Command.

They had these 22 folks play this game over and over again in 24 second bursts. They used a functional MRI scanner to track brain activity. And based on this, the findings are presented at Stanford Med's web site. This is not, I feel obligated to point out, what is in the Journal of Psychiatric Research. Somehow I must have let my subscription run out. Either that or my darn neighbor is stealing it off the driveway again.

In the interests of brevity, allow me to Fisk the Stanford article.

"The females 'got' the game, and they moved the wall in the direction you would expect," said Reiss, who is director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Brain Sciences Research. "They appeared motivated to succeed at the game. The males were just a lot more motivated to succeed."

This strikes me as a rather unscientific conclusion to draw. First off, I have a problem generally with small sample size studies. Yes, I understand that a carefully constructed small sample can have huge statistical significance. But even though I understand confidence intervals and Z-scores, I can't get around the fact that we are talking about 22 people here. How were they selected? How many of them play games on a regular basis? I can guarantee you that if I sit a non-gamer down with a "generic" reaction-time and mouse-accuracy game next to one of the Gamers With Jobs crazy-good Team Fortress 2 players, the non-gamer is just along for the ride.

Further, to somehow suggest that motivation in a game is somehow gender based solely because of this observation seems a bit of a stretch.

After analyzing the imaging data for the entire group, the researchers found that the participants showed activation in the brain's mesocorticolimbic center, the region typically associated with reward and addiction. Male brains, however, showed much greater activation, and the amount of activation was correlated with how much territory they gained. (This wasn't the case with women.)

Games are addictive!? Shocking! But the point here isn't that as much as the continued conclusion that males are more stimulated by success - meaning the better someone did at the game, the more excited this particular part of the brain became. On the face of it, this makes sense. They've already stated that in this group the men did better, and after all, if the little bell didn't go off in your head for each level-up, why would you keep playing? So why would it be surprising that these particular women would also show little involvement when you look at the brain scan?

The findings indicate, the researchers said, that successfully acquiring territory in a computer game format is more rewarding for men than for women. And Reiss, for one, isn't surprised. "I think it's fair to say that males tend to be more intrinsically territorial," he said. "It doesn't take a genius to figure out who historically are the conquerors and tyrants of our species"”they're the males."

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is our Fox News moment. We've gone from "we found 11 guys who are good at games" to the tired old saw of "men destroy everything" in one quote. No, I don't have a long list of female torturers and tin pot dictators to rebut with. But I do think that one-liners like this coming from the supposed cognoscenti do nothing to help the world understand the subtlety of human history, to say nothing of the world of videogames.

Reiss said this research also suggests that males have neural circuitry that makes them more liable than women to feel rewarded by a computer game with a territorial component and then more motivated to continue game-playing behavior. Based on this, he said, it makes sense that males are more prone to getting hooked on video games than females. "Most of the computer games that are really popular with males are territory- and aggression-type games," he said.

I have a feeling he started out trying to say "well, for this game ..." in an effort to not paint with a ginormous brush, but by the time he was done talking he'd put his foot back in his mouth.

What the heck is a "territory- and aggression-type game?" As far as I can see, this includes essentially any game that is not a form of puzzle solving solitaire, and even then I think I could survive a bar-stool argument. Freecell? All about claiming the stacks. The Sims? More stuff, bigger house. Every real time strategy game. Ever first-person shooter. Every arcade game in which you must press a button to keep the game alive can be considered "aggressive."

I can come up with a few exceptions. Phoenix Wright. Myst. Deduction and exploration games. But even Endless Ocean is ultimately about exposing more of the map - gaining more territory.

I'm not so naive as to suggest that there are not differences between men and women. I defy any parent of a matched-set to think that gender is not genetic. I'm also not going to suggest that games aren't often violent, aggressive, and hyper-stimulating in the same way as a high-energy action movie. But the way the results are presented here, and which will most assuredly be trotted out onto Fox News for years to come, are insulting. We know from sampling a much, much larger group of people that almost 40% of gamers are women. Through the sound bites summarizing Reiss' study, the general public will be led to believe that this 40% are not only "bad gamers," but somehow an anomaly.

Gamers, game developers and game journalists (myself included) are all complicit in this. Just as we fail to take our passion seriously enough to defend it, we also fail to debunk the very stereotypes this study is reinforcing.

Millions of women play games of all kinds. Let their experience of gaming - not that of 11 study participants playing lo-res Missile Command - speak for itself.

Comments

I think a properly designed test would have had:

(a) a more stratified sample set, with a properly mixed level of gaming experience/interest
(b) a selection of games with different kinds of input and reward, timing vs movement vs turn-based puzzle and territory centric rewards vs data-centric rewards (e.g. low time, high score) vs (to be stereotypical) social type rewards (making a character appear happier, maybe?).
(c) more insightful correlations between specific moments in the game (e.g. presentation of situation, input stage, win/loss stage) and brain activations

I think then you might be able to generalise beyond the confines of the test. As it stands, it just appears to be drawing hasty and headline-grabby conclusions to get more research funding.

I heard about the study also, and was surprised by the low sample state (dégoutant). Thank you for pointing out my dislike, and for further enlightenment.

On a side note, not too sure if I want to start up a new thread about this, but is it possible to have some of the articles put into audio? It would be some great listening when there are no new conference calls and I have to leave, like right now.

Great article thanks.

Smells like bad science, Batman. Also: Anyone who argues men are more likely to get addicted to video games than women should probably look up PopCap. I'm sure the makers of Bejeweled and Zuma would be able to offer a different perspective on the demographics involved in video game addiction.

Sounds to me like someone set out to "prove" a specific point, and they contrived a situation that seemingly allows them to draw the conclusion they want.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is our Fox News moment. We've gone from "we found 11 guys who are good at games" to the tired old saw of "men destroy everything" in one quote.

Awesome.

Now, how do I make this post bigger so I can gain more forum territory? Also, this needs to be more AGGRESSIVE!!!!!!!!

DudleySmith wrote:

I think a properly designed test would have had:

(a) a more stratified sample set, with a properly mixed level of gaming experience/interest
(b) a selection of games with different kinds of input and reward, timing vs movement vs turn-based puzzle and territory centric rewards vs data-centric rewards (e.g. low time, high score) vs (to be stereotypical) social type rewards (making a character appear happier, maybe?).
(c) more insightful correlations between specific moments in the game (e.g. presentation of situation, input stage, win/loss stage) and brain activations

I think then you might be able to generalise beyond the confines of the test. As it stands, it just appears to be drawing hasty and headline-grabby conclusions to get more research funding.

What he said. I also appreciate your judicious use of the word Cognoscenti. Hacks came to mind as I read the quotes.

rabbit wrote:

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is our Fox News moment. We've gone from "we found 11 guys who are good at games" to the tired old saw of "men destroy everything" in one quote.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to stop you right there. "Men are territorial", even "Men have been conquerors and tyrants" is hardly "Men destroy everything". I think you'd be hard pressed to dispute either of the actual statements. If you want to take up arms against what was said, I'd pick the phrases "I think it's fair to say" and "It doesn't take a genius to figure out" as someone in a position of authority commenting on something that he admittedly doesn't really know about.

I think the only really objectionable part was the "men are territorial and get neurally stimulated by virtually gaining territory" -> "men get addicted to video games more easily". That's taking a very specific point and extrapolating it way out of context.

Chump:

I think that's fair. My issue is as much with tone, causality and connection as it is with statements of fact. Connecting this little simulation to "aggression-type games" (whatever that means) and then to the genetic makeup of men just walks the reader down a path conclusion I find distasteful.

Julian Murdoch: Conqueror and Tyrant

Did Kat actually say something... nice-like about Texas? Or did I just read that wrong?

I don't think the study concludes anything that you can't see on this board. I don't see (a lot of) women signing up here left and right so they can jump into a game of CoD4, for example.

Mmmmm, sounds like some psychologist are suffering from physics envy. I suggest Rabbit Thomas Kuhn's book "The structure of Scientific Revolutions" to help him resolve this matter.

Grumpicus wrote:

Did Kat actually say something... nice-like about Texas? Or did I just read that wrong?

At best, it was neutral. I guess it all depends on how you feel about WoW.

I think the conclusion of aggression is short sited. I personally think all acts performed by a human being, gaming included, are driven by a competitive ego.

Games are addictive because they makes us (me at least, I'll just say me for the rest of it) feel better than other people. It builds confidence, it makes me feel superior, it makes me feel successful.

THAT'S addictive. Success is addictive.

Dun Dun DUUUUUUUNNNNN!!!!!

You know how many games I keep playing that just kick my ass all day? NONE!

So, you're telling me that men are more egotistical than women? Let me sit down first.

This is like trying to prove that sex is addictive because people love to procreate.

Eh. Not quite Mr. Wizard.

This came from Stanford? Sad.

KaterinLHC wrote:

Anyone who argues men are more likely to get addicted to video games than women should probably look up PopCap. I'm sure the makers of Bejeweled and Zuma would be able to offer a different perspective on the demographics involved in video game addiction.

popcap, or the rabid female fans of The Sims. I have numerous girlfriends that aren't hardcore "gamers" but they are nuts about The Sims, or WoW.

It sounds like these guys were just trying to come up with something that would look good on the news.

Regarding gaming addiction, apparently they've never seen my wife and her friend play Animal Crossing. It sounds like a terribly designed study that doesn't do anything for science.

. Somehow I must have let my prescription run out. Either that or my darn neighbor is stealing it off the driveway again.

So, uh...you have your prescriptions delivered to your driveway? Couldn't your kid(s) get them? Or was it subscription that you meant?

COPY EDITOR STRIKES AGAIN!!!

edit: all meant in good humor, of course!

Chiggie Von Richthofen wrote:

You know how many games I keep playing that just kick my ass all day? NONE!

What? You don't play Battletoads?

Battletoads is one reason I love gaming in the Internet age. For years I thought it was just me who was abused by that game.

literarygamer wrote:

This came from Stanford? Sad.

Very close, but I'm sorry. The judges are telling me the correct is Stamford. I repeat, Stamford.

rabbit wrote:

In the interests of brevity, allow me to Fisk the Stamford article.

Uh... it *IS* Stanford.

As a holder of a BA in Psychology, I find such a casual "lay" (as in "person") dismissal of this study a bit baffling. Just because you don't agree with the findings doesn't mean it isn't a valid study.

a few points:

-this is a news article SUMMARY of a study. I haven't seen it, but you'd need to look at the actual paper itself in order to determine methodology and data. I'm assuming it must have been statistically significant enough to be published, but I admit I have no idea if the online JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH is peer-reviewed or not.

-The author if the study is "Allan Reiss [...] the Howard C. Robbins Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences." I'm, again, assuming this guy knows how to do a research project... being hired by a major university and all.

-The MRI data clearly shows a gender difference of some sort.

While I'm inclined to believe proper experimental procedures were used here, I also admit that the conclusions reached (that this is about "territoriality") might be a bit of a stretch. Still, without seeing the actual study, it's hard to say.

This is obviously one of those "sexy" stories that are done on university campuses designed to get coverage on your evening news and a blurb on the front page of USA Today... whether THAT practices is what they should be spending their time on, well, that's another issue entirely.

As a holder of a BA in Psychology, I find such a casual "lay" (as in "person") dismissal of this study a bit baffling.

As a holder of a BA in English, I find your criticism of this professional piece baffling.

Seriously, though, let's not deify scientists and assume just because they have long strings of adjectives near their name that they are infallible, unbiased or imperturbable. Julian isn't approaching this from an uninformed position, and his questions seem legitimate.

As a college dropout, I find both of your arguments BORING.

Come on, you laughed.

Excellent article, Rabbit. I love it when you Fisk us.

Sephirotic wrote:
. Somehow I must have let my prescription run out. Either that or my darn neighbor is stealing it off the driveway again.

So, uh...you have your prescriptions delivered to your driveway? Couldn't your kid(s) get them? Or was it subscription that you meant?

COPY EDITOR STRIKES AGAIN!!!

He probably does. Julian lives way out in the country and I like to imagine that his driveway is 15 miles long.

Chiggie Von Richthofen wrote:

As a college dropout, I find both of your arguments BORING.

Come on, you laughed.

I did.

SommerMatt wrote:

Uh... it *IS* Stanford.

I think you missed the typo joke.

"The card says Moops."

SommerMatt - while a "news" story, it's actually the one written by the Stanford Med website, so I think it's fair to say it's about as official as one gets without going into the actual journal.

I agree, the study was most likely conducted using commonly accepted research methods. But a problem I have with a lot of experimental psychology is the application of small studies to the universe of human experience. If a social scientist was going to do a survey to explore the role of gender in videogames across the population of American adults, he'd have to use normal sampling math. So, for instance, a 100 million population (a random number that sounds plausible to me for sampling American adults) would require surveying 400 people (I remember, vaguely, from my stats classes that the rule of thumb for this was 100 million/95% Confidence/5% Interval/400 people). Yet time and again I see studies like this one, where the principles of medical research (that is, statistical significance) are applied to the principles of social sciences research (behavior).

Hey, I know these people are way, way smarter at all this than I will ever be. But I see it.

My objection was the extrapolation of the results, not the results themselves. I'm not questioning whether they observed what they observed. I'm questioning the spin of these observations. Whether "official" or not, I assume the quotes from the primary investigator of the study are in fact accurate quotes.

SommerMatt wrote:

Uh... it *IS* Stanford.

As a holder of a BA in Psychology, I find such a casual "lay" (as in "person") dismissal of this study a bit baffling. Just because you don't agree with the findings doesn't mean it isn't a valid study.

Look, here's the problem: you don't know the history of psychology. I do.

Elysium wrote:
As a holder of a BA in Psychology, I find such a casual "lay" (as in "person") dismissal of this study a bit baffling.

As a holder of a BA in English, I find your criticism of this professional piece baffling.

IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2029/2261479158_96d58af5bf_o.png)
"I drive a Dodge Stratus!!"

the researchers found that the participants showed activation in the brain's mesocorticolimbic center, the region typically associated with reward and addiction.

Talk about cherry-picking! I mean why not just leave the word reward out since the researcher just glosses over it.

Hmm, lets use some googlefu on the mesocorticolimbic center:

Well except I can't because all 10 pages of google regarding mesocorticolimbic center are different sites reposting/reporting the Stanford findings. Maybe we should just accept the fact that its obviously true to everyone else. Resistance is futile and all that jazz.

I do believe the sample was so small because the analysis per-person must be extremely time- and equipment- consuming.

SommerMatt wrote:

Uh... it *IS* Stanford.

As a holder of a BA in Psychology, I find such a casual "lay" (as in "person") dismissal of this study a bit baffling. Just because you don't agree with the findings doesn't mean it isn't a valid study.

As a holder of a Computer Science degree with an emphasis in Applied Statistics and as someone who has studied this subject in great detail I find your inability to understand the simple principles of scale and relevence baffling and your insistence that we all should just shut up and take it because of the source disturbing.

The study methodology itself as it's described in that article has problems. There have been many of these studies done in the last several years and the structure of the study breaks several established structural best practices. For a breakdown of the issues with a similar study announced last April and spread from Hell to Breakfast in the mainstream media see here. That article is written to help parents take a look at these sorts of articles with a grain of salt, but the base issues are described there. Oh, and before you try to get me on my credentials, it was written with the review of my son's psychologist, his psychiatrist, and a good friend of mine who just happens to be a neuropsychologist who is specializing in statistical research.