The Impact of a Video Game on Criminal Thinking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Debate regarding the potential repercussions of engaging with videogames that promote violence and crime has been part of public discourse for decades. The present study seeks to add to the debate by investigating some of the unexplored links between pro-criminal videogames and antisocial cognitive processes . Aim This study examined whether criminal thinking could be manipulated by exposure to common criminal stimuli: a popular North American news show and a popular antisocial videogame (GRAND THEFT AUTO IV). Method Participants ( N = 136) were assigned to one of four conditions (criminal news, non-criminal news, criminal gameplay, noncriminal gameplay) followed by implicit (Implicit Association Test) and explicit (questionnaires) measures of criminal thinking. Results Results indicated that engaging in criminal video gameplay had an immediate effect on implicit measures of criminal thinking, but not on explicit measures of criminal thinking. Implications This study builds on the present literature by examining sources of criminal thinking and the usefulness of virtual crime methodologies and implicit measures for experimental paradigms in this field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it