CheerfulAshlee
Member
Do you think games like Animal Crossing can help ppl become nicer?
Would you recommend it to mean ppl?
Would you recommend it to mean ppl?
Can playing games like Animal Crossing make ppl nicer?
- Thread starter CheerfulAshlee
- Start date
It can help calm people or satisfy urges of decorating something. Though I think changing of one's personality alignment is up to that person no matter who plays any games.
I'd still suggest AC though but I won't expect them to change.
I'd still suggest AC though but I won't expect them to change.
I would say that it definitely helps more with stress or if you're in a bad mood and such. At least in my case, I usually play competitive online games but I like to take long hiatuses and just unwind with this game every now and then. It's very calming. 
Unfortunately, as the above poster said it's up to them if they want to change their personality so I doubt the game could do so. No harm in trying though!
Unfortunately, as the above poster said it's up to them if they want to change their personality so I doubt the game could do so. No harm in trying though!
Last edited:
Lol, no. There are plenty of people who destroy others' towns, take people hostage on Club Tortimer, have offensive themes in their town, etc. to prove that people can still be mean in ACNL. There's also a lot more drama in the fandom than one might expect for a game that's supposed to be calm and relaxing.
^ This. I don't think a game can change people's personality.
Last edited:
Shellzilla_515
Senior Member
Most likely but it really depends on that person whether they want to change up their personality or not. It's evidential that you'll still bump into other mean people on Club Tortimer.
Can you link me that so-called proof? lol Are these your mother's words? Or better, Columbine documentaries? If someone has the potential, it's ought to get revealed, for any reason. Be it a bullying incident, unrequited love or even coming across with someone more powerless than them-pets including-.
So yeah, just like how war, fight etc. games can't have such effect on your personality, AC can't make someone a better person. Even for calming effects, I know people that are playing this games as a method to relax, feel calmer and I also know people thar stresses themselves out furtherly with the game for weeks. It's all up to you and your personality to begin with.
FoxFeathers
Senior Member
I use Animal Crossing as a de-stresser. Making designs, organizing items in houses, etc. Drama in general I've learned to just stay out of and the only people who come to my village are friends and we have rules like "No stealing stuff, no wrecking stuff, and any pranks or silliness needs to be very easy to fix."
That sorta stuff.
That sorta stuff.
Hi, so, I've actually studied this in grad school and will be a teaching assistant for a class on how media affect children and young people this fall semester. There's evidence both ways on whether violent video games makes people more violent/accepting of violence. Right now, if I'm remembering correctly, the general consensus is that it's no more likely to make you violent than other forms of more "passive" media, like television (though there are still people looking into this). There have been longitudinal studies (these look at the same people at set intervals over a long period of time) that have found that exposure to violent/aggressive TV shows in early childhood is correlated to increased aggression in adulthood (here's an article from the American Psychological Association on this), and the evidence suggests it's more likely that the exposure to the aggressive media causes the aggression, rather than it being that aggressive children are drawn to the media.
There's also evidence that prosocial media, including video games, can encourage "prosocial" behavior. "Prosocial" covers things like empathy, being kind, cooperative behavior, so sort of the opposite of "antisocial" behavior (aggression, violating societal rules or the rights of others, etc).
Media has also been shown to have an effect on opinions, for instance, in a survey of why people changed their opinions on gay marriage, 34% cited a gay or lesbian character on television, and 29% from movies (can't remember if the questions were mutually exclusive, or if some of those people were in both categories). This is a Wired article that sums up the survey.
I'm not going to get into what is a personality and all that, as I don't have the psych background to talk about stuff like that, my degree is in education not psychology, so what I know is all filtered through that lens.
But all that being said--Animal Crossing, at least in single player mode, promotes prosocial behavior. You're not only asked to do nice things for your villagers, you're incentivized by the game mechanics. You get items for your house or clothing by being nice, you can get villager pictures, you can get fruit, etc. You can still engage in some antisocial behaviors, you can whack your villagers with the net or hammer, you can ignore them, push them, make them fall into pitfalls, etc. But overall, the game encourages you to be nicer. I couldn't find any research that specifically looked at Animal Crossing unfortunately (except one article behind a paywall, that was about using video games in therapy, but I don't know if it was really about AC or just a passing reference).
My guess, based on my understanding of how media affects us, would be that AC has a small effect on the behavior of players that encourages most to be a little nicer. Anyway sorry for the essay. I'll probably have more information on this topic over the next few months as I go through the readings for the class again and refresh my memory.
Jordandelion
Krzzt!
Coming from a mean person, no.
Have you looked into the research? Or did you just decide to post a reply belittling me without any evidence yourself? But don't take it from me. Here's a bunch of proof you were clearly too lazy to research.
The American Psychological Association's Task Force did some research back in 2015 looking at studies from 2005 and 2013 into the topic and found that "There is a link between violent video games and higher levels of aggression in players..." "However, there isn't enough evidence to prove that playing violent video games raises the risk of criminal behavior or violence..." Although they do go on to say in their report that "The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive [thoughts and emotion] and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy and sensitivity to aggression, Link
A 2010 study made by Patrick M. Markey and Charlotte N. Markey found that video games only lead to aggression in children with specific personalities.They said "Instead, it appears that it is crucial to consider various personality traits of the person playing the VVG (game) when predicting whether or not the VVG (game) will have adverse effects." They do, however, agree that violent video games can have negative effects on specific individuals. Link
A study done in April 2016 also found that potentially repeatedly playing violent video games could lead to emotional desensitisation with regard to future video game-play experiences. In other words, playing violent video games can desensitise you to other types of violence media. Link
I'm not saying at all that everybody who plays a violent video game is going to become violent. Or that everybody who plays a non violent video game will be non violent. Yes, our biology decides a lot of who we are but so does our environment and experiences. And there have been clear links found between violent videos game and peoples desensitisation or acceptance of violence. I don't think we can blame video games for violent crimes or acts committed by individuals. But after looking at the research in depth I do think types of personalities are drawn to certain types of games and that continuous exposure to violent media can have negative effects on specific types of individuals.
So going back to my original post, yes I believe Animal Crossing encourages players to be nice the same the same way Call of Duty encourages players to shoot other people. Does this mean that people will be nicer? Maybe, maybe not. But I believe that it can positively affect specific types of people, the same way certain games can negatively effect certain types of people too.
Last edited:
Firstly, thanks for taking your time to write these paragraphs stiney. I'm writing this to both. I need to point out one thing before starting to explain myself furtherly though. I, by no means was serious about refuting the person, going into a serious discussion or stating my knowledge on the issue or whatever. However, since I am being actually taken seriously by two people, guess it's time to make a proper statement.
There's a big difference between these two concepts: 'Being more accepting of violence' and 'Being more violent'. For first, there's no doubt at all. I can say that even for myself; we all are creatures that have extreme psychological adaptability. So it's not surprising for us to learning to feel indifferent about horrible things with enough exposure of them.
For latter, it's impossible to show evidence on how unlikely for a child to become violent, if it wasn't for games. I've read on the issue, hence I have my own stance on issue. Not "too lazy to research" like the other pal's baseless assumption. What we're discussing is already a topic that's highly controversial not only among regular people but also psychologists and sociologists, has no "proof" or anything absolute. Just because it has researches done with 5 in favour 2 in opposition results doesn't mean it's proven. It's being studying on universities, so are Freud's theories like Electra and Oedipus complex. Which has objectors from his own collegues. These are not things we can research, test and get absolute results. We can get two in favour per one objector, doesn't mean anything. Plus, we are talking as if it wasn't us who killed eachother for various reasons -sometimes just for fun-, declared wars over selfish desires and all, even before games were a thing. Violence is in the nature of human, some has more than others. And this potential is always ready to come out. It's what I think.
The reason why I wrote that "belittling" paragraph was merely because of the use of "proof" word. There's no proof there's research(es) my friend, Hsn97. I've never said there's no researches done for that, there are results thats in favour of each side, with 'games has effect' in majority. And I wouldn't compare it to effect of media on other societal issues. I do think people can get effected of real world violence (documentaries, news, anything), speeches on real world issues and such. But any sane person would play games when being aware of it's a game and doesn't necessarily reflect reality or things there applies to their world (by sane I don't mean grown people, just not mentally impaired people) and I don't believe they have subconscious effect either. I don't believe anything that doesn't cause an emotional trauma can effect someone that's not already prone to violence. @Hsn97 I'm neither interested in pseudo-intellectual paragraphs with links, witnesses, cronological information that you probably have just found with a few google searches -I can do that myself, and have done- nor actually getting into a debate. Don't call something a "proof" unless it's absolute because there can be always objectors.
There's a big difference between these two concepts: 'Being more accepting of violence' and 'Being more violent'. For first, there's no doubt at all. I can say that even for myself; we all are creatures that have extreme psychological adaptability. So it's not surprising for us to learning to feel indifferent about horrible things with enough exposure of them.
For latter, it's impossible to show evidence on how unlikely for a child to become violent, if it wasn't for games. I've read on the issue, hence I have my own stance on issue. Not "too lazy to research" like the other pal's baseless assumption. What we're discussing is already a topic that's highly controversial not only among regular people but also psychologists and sociologists, has no "proof" or anything absolute. Just because it has researches done with 5 in favour 2 in opposition results doesn't mean it's proven. It's being studying on universities, so are Freud's theories like Electra and Oedipus complex. Which has objectors from his own collegues. These are not things we can research, test and get absolute results. We can get two in favour per one objector, doesn't mean anything. Plus, we are talking as if it wasn't us who killed eachother for various reasons -sometimes just for fun-, declared wars over selfish desires and all, even before games were a thing. Violence is in the nature of human, some has more than others. And this potential is always ready to come out. It's what I think.
The reason why I wrote that "belittling" paragraph was merely because of the use of "proof" word. There's no proof there's research(es) my friend, Hsn97. I've never said there's no researches done for that, there are results thats in favour of each side, with 'games has effect' in majority. And I wouldn't compare it to effect of media on other societal issues. I do think people can get effected of real world violence (documentaries, news, anything), speeches on real world issues and such. But any sane person would play games when being aware of it's a game and doesn't necessarily reflect reality or things there applies to their world (by sane I don't mean grown people, just not mentally impaired people) and I don't believe they have subconscious effect either. I don't believe anything that doesn't cause an emotional trauma can effect someone that's not already prone to violence. @Hsn97 I'm neither interested in pseudo-intellectual paragraphs with links, witnesses, cronological information that you probably have just found with a few google searches -I can do that myself, and have done- nor actually getting into a debate. Don't call something a "proof" unless it's absolute because there can be always objectors.
Just like what stiney said, there are work and evidence on both ways. I wouldn't call anything a proof for both sides when the situation is that. You can claim to have proof on a historical event, geological location of a continent or causes of a chemical reaction. Not children psychology. Your point is not proven, and I and many are in opposition of it. That's the last paragraph I'll write on the issue.
Last edited:
While you're correct that we can't prove anything (in the scientific sense of the word, where proof means "beyond all doubt"), we can amass lots of evidence that leads to theories. And right now, the evidence is that media psychologically affects people--kids and adults, of sound mind. We're not always very good at predicting how or figuring out why. That doesn't mean psychological research is useless, or that none of it can be trusted.
For any individual child, no, we can't say "this child wouldn't have become violent if only they hadn't played violent games!" because we don't have access to a parallel world in which they didn't have access to those games so that we can compare their behaviors (not to mention you'd never get that study past the ethics review). But we can look at large samples of people and compare the differences in their lives, and when the sample size is large enough, it allows us to extrapolate to the population at large. And if a significant amount of people within that sample are exposed to more violent media as kids, and then grow up to be violent themselves, while a significant amount of people within the sample are not exposed to the violent media, and then grow up to not be violent, you can start to make general predictions. And, in general, being exposed to violent media as a kid makes it more likely you will be violent as an adult. The increase in risk may not be high, but it's pretty well accepted at this point. The research I was referencing was more about whether games are more likely to increase that risk (the theory was that since you're the one "pulling the trigger" it felt more real so you'd be more likely to do it), and that doesn't hold up. Watching Saving Private Ryan or playing Call of Duty: WWII are going to have similar effects.
One of the ways we learn and then get better at doing something is by doing it. Practice really is important. AC encourages you to practice being kind to your villagers, so I do think it's likely that there's a chance that AC can make people a little kinder or more empathetic.
You say you don't believe that anything except trauma can cause someone to be violent, but also that the violence always has potential to come out. What are you basing either (conflicting) position on? Why would a documentary be different than a game? What led you to those conclusions? I know you've said you're not going to answer, and I'm not expecting one, but I'd gently suggest you think about what proof you are basing your opinions on, since it seems so important to you.
For any individual child, no, we can't say "this child wouldn't have become violent if only they hadn't played violent games!" because we don't have access to a parallel world in which they didn't have access to those games so that we can compare their behaviors (not to mention you'd never get that study past the ethics review). But we can look at large samples of people and compare the differences in their lives, and when the sample size is large enough, it allows us to extrapolate to the population at large. And if a significant amount of people within that sample are exposed to more violent media as kids, and then grow up to be violent themselves, while a significant amount of people within the sample are not exposed to the violent media, and then grow up to not be violent, you can start to make general predictions. And, in general, being exposed to violent media as a kid makes it more likely you will be violent as an adult. The increase in risk may not be high, but it's pretty well accepted at this point. The research I was referencing was more about whether games are more likely to increase that risk (the theory was that since you're the one "pulling the trigger" it felt more real so you'd be more likely to do it), and that doesn't hold up. Watching Saving Private Ryan or playing Call of Duty: WWII are going to have similar effects.
One of the ways we learn and then get better at doing something is by doing it. Practice really is important. AC encourages you to practice being kind to your villagers, so I do think it's likely that there's a chance that AC can make people a little kinder or more empathetic.
You say you don't believe that anything except trauma can cause someone to be violent, but also that the violence always has potential to come out. What are you basing either (conflicting) position on? Why would a documentary be different than a game? What led you to those conclusions? I know you've said you're not going to answer, and I'm not expecting one, but I'd gently suggest you think about what proof you are basing your opinions on, since it seems so important to you.
ILikeFroakies
Senior Member
I personally think the game can calm people down but I doubt it could change someones personality completely
Eh it's not "so important" to me. I enjoy expressing my opinions though. I answered your questions rn without going too further with things you wrote because cbf anymore, I already type too long. You have your opinions, I have mine.
And I don't need proofs to base my opinions on, you know, opinions. I create them using my mind and logic filter on the information I receive. Hope you enjoyed this bit I shared
These are not conflicting at all, but I do admit the mistake here might be mine with the language barrier. Better wording would be 'I don't believe that anything except trauma can cause someone to be violent unless they have the potential', but isn't it what I've been saying since my first post? Violence is in our nature yes, some of us are more instinct, impulse -or whatever you'd call that primitive incentive-driven than others. These some is what I call prone to violence or has potential to be violent. If something such as games can trigger it, anything else even things you wouldn't expect can trigger it. I wouldn't deny if you say playing violent games can be riskier than watering your flowers in this regard, but I would say games' risk can be equal to something so simple such as driving.
I actually can't believe you just asked me that lol Why would a game would feel more real than news or a documentary? Even if it's based on real life events, it's hard to take them seriously. Plus I said what I said to reply your unnecessary addition about gay marriage. It wasn't necessarily in-topic and it's very selective too. I wouldn't consider carrying a knife just because I saw someone getting killed in a Romanian suburb, I carry a pepper spray after I see rape statistics though. If there was an ongoing conflict in a country, if people see war everyday in news and educate themselves by watching documentaries and reading on causes and effects of that specific conflict even the most reluctant would consider joining to military -or escaping for some, still depends on the person you see- for a moment. You compared apples with oranges by comparing getting effected by a poll about current world issues, changing opinions and getting effected by games, becoming violent. A WWII documentary still wouldn't make you violent, would trigger if you have what it takes in you just the same with games.
And I don't need proofs to base my opinions on, you know, opinions. I create them using my mind and logic filter on the information I receive. Hope you enjoyed this bit I shared
I used gay marriage as an example because it's a popular and well-documented phenomenon that shows that media affect how people think and behave. I could easily have pointed to the decades of research establishing Sesame Street and their associated properties (games and books and apps) as having a positive effect on children's academic success.
Empathy is a big current world issue, or at least it's getting a lot of press in the US how we need more kindness and empathy, so it's actually not that different from gay marriage.
No, you don't need proof for your opinions, but you are dismissing scientific evidence without support, and claiming it isn't scientific enough, which I found puzzling. And I was curious what information you were using to base your opinions on.
Clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree, though, the important part is we have fun playing AC.
Empathy is a big current world issue, or at least it's getting a lot of press in the US how we need more kindness and empathy, so it's actually not that different from gay marriage.
No, you don't need proof for your opinions, but you are dismissing scientific evidence without support, and claiming it isn't scientific enough, which I found puzzling. And I was curious what information you were using to base your opinions on.
Clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree, though, the important part is we have fun playing AC.
You didn't express your views that way princess, you stated they are a fact. If you are trying to push something down people's throats as a fact, of course someone would ask you to show proof, don't be so surprised. Ah and, who said I was dismissing scientifical evidence because it's not scientifical enough stiney? Lol. We both agreed there's evidence in both ways right? Seriously, what you are doing is only making noise in two people's conversation. I pointed out why researches on psychology can't be trusted all the time and calling them "proof" wouldn't be correct, which you also agreed. Until now, thought you understood me on this point at least /shrug. I don't need to educate you, you've probably read on both sides' researches more than me and have your own opinions for both. The links you sent has made zero impact in this discussion, since it's not like I haven't seen them or similar before. You guys came up to me with links of researches and I told you what's the opposition view on it and what flaws I see. Do I need to write an academic thesis myself on these links to be more "scientific" for you?
But yeah, wish this could have stayed at banter. I had no intentions on discussing this in a pixel animal forum. Enjoy the game ppl
Jordandelion
Krzzt!
Similar threads
