More Terrible Journalism Erupts Over New Video Game Sexism Study

There's a new study out that tests whether poor performance in video games leads to a higher rate of sexist comments directed at women.

Here's the long and short of it: The study used Halo 3 to test whether skill and performance impacted frequency of negative comments toward both men and women.

It found that men who performed worse were more likely to make negative comments than men who performed well.

Specifically, these men were more likely to make negative comments toward women than men. It does not say whether these comments were gendered, only that negative comments were made more frequently when playing in the "female-manipulation" group.

"The goal of this study was to examine the moderating effect of performance and skill on the frequency of positive and negative statements towards a female- or male-voiced teammate in an online first-person shooter video game—a metric providing insight into sexism," the study reads. "We found that skill determined the frequency of positive and negative statements spoken towards both male- and female-voiced teammates. In addition, poorer performance (fewer kills and more deaths) resulted in more negative statements specifically in the female-voiced manipulation. We thus argue that our results best support an evolutionary explanation of female-directed aggression. Low-status males that have the most to lose due to a hierarchical reconfiguration are responding to the threat female competitors pose. High-status males with the least to fear were more positive, suggesting they were switching to a supportive, and potentially, mate attraction role."

In other words, as men slip down the ranks of the male hierarchy, they view women as threatening and lash out. I think that's an entirely reasonable conclusion to make, and certainly it's been born elsewhere. A TV show like Mad Men is a glimpse into a traditionally male-dominated world. It shows us how some businessmen reacted to the entrance of professional women into the workforce. In many ways, it's simply a reaction to change---something many people, both men and women, have a hard time grappling with.

On the other hand, I would argue that this one study---with a relatively small sample size of just 189 speaking players and a total of 163 matches---is only a very tiny first step toward any sort of cohesive argument, and far from conclusive. In a second study, we might just as easily find that there's no discrepancy based on gender. (Though I imagine people who perform poorly in video games are generally more likely to make negative comments. I certainly am.)

I would also argue that saying more negative things around women does not necessarily equal sexism unless those things are overtly sexist, which the study does not claim. It may mean that some men feel more comfortable expressing their frustration around women than around men. Perhaps they are more likely to act tough around other men, or---as the study suggests---be more submissive around other men. This doesn't mean they're more or less sexist.

Indeed, it could mean a great many things.

So it's very strange that we see a host of silly articles claiming all sorts of ridiculous things like this:

The headline reads "Science Proves That Men Who Harass Women Online Are Literally Losers."

No, Yahoo News. It does not. Men who harass women, I would argue, are "losers" in my book (as is anyone who harasses anyone, thank you very much) but science, or at least this science, does not prove this. I'm also fairly certain plenty of successful men are sexist as well, unless we are now claiming that sexism at the top of corporate ladders and political structures doesn't exist.

What this specific study suggests is that there's a link between men who slip down the male hierarchy and an increase in aggression toward women. Then again, it's also just one game that some people aren't good at. They might be perfectly fine at many other games and still be aggressive. The study is limited in what it teaches us about human interaction. It's not a bad study, but it's only one and it can only reveal so much.

Here's the AV Club:

"Now, this study doesn’t include demographic data like age or background, and one could argue that people playing Halo 3 don’t exactly make for an accurate sampling of all video game players," they write. "But it certainly does make for a relatively accurate sample of dudes who play games like Halo 3."

Does it, though? Is the AV Club telling us that this one study with fewer than 200 speaking players and fewer than 200 matches played accurately samples "dudes who play games like Halo 3"? I play Halo and games like it. So do lots of nice guys who don't say horrible things to women. You're going to judge us all this blithely?

Also, that headline! No, the study does not prove that sexists are bad at games. That is not what it's saying at all. It's claiming that guys who perform poorly are more likely to act with hostility toward women. You have your cause and effect all screwed up.

Or take this gem from the Washington Post, which reads "Men who harass women online are quite literally losers, new study finds"

"Some male players, however — the ones who were less-skilled at the game, and performing worse relative their peers — made frequent, nasty comments to the female gamers," writes the Washington Post's Caitlin Dewey. "In other words, sexist dudes are literally losers."

I've read the study. Nowhere does it state that men made "frequent, nasty" comments to anyone. But hey, why not just add that to your post because it sounds better? After all, actual journalism including such difficult things as analysis and reading, is so much less fun than screaming about sexism.

"Those who lose at video games are more likely to lash out at female competitors with sexist slurs," Crave Online claims, although once again the study does not state that men make sexist slurs, only that they are more negative as they perform worse.

Other outlets like Boing Boing just blockquote the Washington Post, regurgitating the things that confirm their bias.

And confirmation of bias is what we always do when we discuss these sorts of studies.

"What good is any one study?" asked Kotaku's Stephen Totilo when discussing a study earlier this year that found no relationship between sexism and video game playing. "Depends on what you make of it, and, most likely, how much it conforms to your expectations." Indeed.

The reality is this: Each of these studies gives us a little glimpse at the truth, but only a glimpse. And more often than not, even when taking multiple studies into account, the results are far from clear. They are not "scientific proof" of anything.

So I take issue with these writers claiming that science proves anything here, just as I take issue with politicians who cherry-pick data to show that games lead to school shootings.

On the other hand, I think we should be careful to dismiss these studies as horrible and useless. There's a flipside to every coin. It's important to examine social interaction and how people react under different circumstances. I don't doubt that some men who are particularly aggrieved might react with harassment or hostility toward women. There are actual sexists out there, and there must be reasons for that.

But this study only gives us a glimpse. It's a glimpse at something that I think may even have some truth to it---that men become defensive and may even lash out as their status is threatened. A study of women may find very similar things (though I suspect they would be more likely to lash out at other women than at men. That's just my suspicion, not "science.") That's not the same thing as sexism or misogyny, but it certainly might be able to help predict and explain bad behavior in situations outside of the gaming world.

Still, this study is not conclusive. It may be useful and it may be on to something, but it isn't "proof." It does not justify your terrible, misleading headlines or your lazy, biased journalism.

As a side note, most of the articles I've seen on this matter are from mainstream outlets or non-gaming blogs. I'm not seeing this story (at least not yet) crop up on traditional gaming outlets. It's too early to pass judgment yet, but perhaps this means some game writers are being a bit more careful and sober about how they comment on sexism and video games.

Liana K has some interesting thoughts on the matter as well, focusing on the concept of "aggrieved entitlement" in society. Someone like Sam Healy from Orange is the New Black is a great example of this in action, though the show is mature enough to present even Healy as a multi-dimensional person with a genuine good side tempering some of his worst inclinations.

It's worth a listen:

You can read the study, titled Insights into Sexism: Male Status and Performance Moderates Female-Directed Hostile and Amicable Behaviour, here.

P.S. Notice the screenshots above. More pictures of angry male gamers and dudes in their basement. One could almost make a living just posing for this genre of stock photo. I don't think this is an accurate portrait of the young man as a gamer. At least not in my experience. There are, of course, plenty of angry horrible people in the world and some of them are gamers.