Violence and Death: Perspectives of Emotional “Immunity”

In the past few months, media outlets have overflowed with updates concerning the novel coronavirus outbreak. As the virus attacks the world and impacts the futures of every individual, ethical concerns about the disease and its treatment have been brought to light. In particular, there have been many concerns surrounding the training and exacerbation of healthcare providers and the impact it has on patient treatment. On April 21, Laura A. Stockdale presented her study in regard to social learning theory, a theory stating how we learn from models in the world around us. In specific, in her paper “Emotionally anesthetized: media violence induces neural changes during emotional face processing” focused on understanding the relations between emotional face processing and exposure to violent media. Based on the findings and discussion of this article, I became interested to see if the same affects could be seen in doctors in global pandemics. In these scenarios, with health systems overflowing due to the infection rates of the disease, I was curious to see if the prolonged, continuous exposure to grave illness and death impacted emotional face processing and depressive behavior in healthcare providers and its impact on their delivery of empathetic patient care.

In her study, Stockdale hypothesized that media violence exposure would cause increased aggression and decreased social behavior, thus implying that media violence leads to desensitization to facial recognition and emotional processing. Participants were either shown a violent or nonviolent film clip and then asked to complete a gender discrimination stop-signal task using emotional faces. Using scalp electroencephalography (EEG), Stockdale et al. found changes in event-related potentials (ERPs) following exposure to violent media. They saw a decrease in amplitude in P300 when processing violent images, suggesting that repeated exposure to violence decreased neuronal emotional processing. They also observed a bilateral decrease in N170 ERPs, which suggested changes in holistic facial detection. Altogether, the results of the study illuminated increased aggressive behavior and ‘emotional anesthetization’ or “a reduction in cognitive resources allocated to processing emotional face expressions” (Stockdale 2015) after short-term exposure to film violence.

With the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, we have witnessed the horrors and heroic efforts of healthcare workers across the globe. With shortage of PPE, exposure to the contagious virus, and fear of their own lives as well as the morbidity of their patients, many HCW have expressed the exhaustion of overworking, characterizing it as a “burnout”. In the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases journal, “Long-term psychological and occupational effects of providing hospital healthcare during SARS outbreak”, Robert Maunder and his colleagues studied the long-term impact of hectic work conditions and work-related trauma on HCWs during the 2003 SARS outbreak. HCWs were given 2 surveys questioning at-work stress and its impact on their personal and work lives. The results of the studied showed that regardless of the resiliency of many HCWs, “significant emotional distress was present in 18-57%” (Maunder et al. 2006), due to economic depression, job stress, isolation, fear of contagion, increased death rates, and prolonged exposure to the gravely ill. Many HCWs documented traumatic experiences working in pandemic conditions. The findings further showed records of burnout, variance of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, depression, and maladaptive coping that ultimately lead to decreased face-to-face patient contact, decreased work hours and increased smoking, drinking, and maladaptive behavior following the SARS outbreak.

Based on the findings in Stockdale’s study, I believe it is important to notice the correlation in behavioral observations following exposure to violent media and real-life tragedy. In both studies, exposure to “detrimental” scenarios resulted to emotional “numbing” and aggressive/depressive moods. While both studies differ greatly in the type of scenarios presented (real and media-based), I believe that the parameters of this study would be useful and interesting when applied to HCWs following the COVID-19 pandemic. I believe through Stockdale’s methods of EEG, could detect similar decreases in N170/P300 ARP amplitudes which could simulate similar behavioral differences and facial recognition delays. These findings would further demonstrate the heavy impact of these amplitude deficits on patient care and continued empathy when treating patients during the trying times of global outbreaks.

I find both studies to be crucial in understanding behavior and social learning/absorption surrounding day-to-day scenarios. Based on the current state of the world, I believe it is important to experiment and observe the neural changes in healthcare workers due to prolonged exposure to depressive scenes and the ‘emotional anesthetization’ that occurs with increasing infection and death rates. In order to ensure preparedness for future outbreaks and proper training for physicians, it is important to observe these neural changes and manners to decrease them in the future to provide the best quality of care for patients and healthy mental states for healthcare professionals.  

Works Cited

Maunder, Robert G, et al. “Long-Term Psychological and Occupational Effects of Providing Hospital Healthcare during SARS Outbreak.” Emerging Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dec. 2006, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291360/.

Stockdale, Laura A., et al. “Emotionally Anesthetized: Media Violence Induces Neural Changes during Emotional Face Processing.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, vol. 10, no. 10, Sept. 2015, pp. 1373–1382., doi:10.1093/scan/nsv025.

Are Video Games Responsible for Violent Behavior?

     With the increased availability and use of technology, it is nearly impossible to not be exposed to violence in the media. Violent media, especially video games, are often blamed by many as the cause of violent behaviors despite there being a lack of substantial evidence for these claims. In the 2018 New York Times article, “The Real Problem With Video Games,”  Seth Schiesel points out the use of these broad claims by politicians that often overlook the actual problem with video games. Schiesel goes on to say that it is the toxic behavior and verbal abuse that individuals use on these violent video game platforms that should be blamed for the violent behaviors exhibited in society. Racism, homophobia, misogyny, and other toxic behaviors are often exhibited through the interaction of players, with many individuals reporting verbal harassment and abuse by their fellow game-playing “peers”. Schiesel raises the important question: is it the lack of empathy and inappropriate social behavior used while playing video games that is responsible for damaging emotional and psychological effects that are manifested as violent behaviors?

 In the research article, “Cool, callous and in control: superior inhibitory control in frequent players of video games with violent content,” Laura Stockdale and colleagues addressed the question: Do violent video games have long-term effects on emotional processing and cognitive control? University students were surveyed on their frequency of playing violent video games. 32 individuals who identified themselves as playing violent video games frequently (30+ hours per week, and 2 out of 3 video games played weekly were violent) and 32 individuals who identified themselves as playing violent video games infrequently (>5 hours per week and 2 out the 3 video games played weekly were non-violent) participated in study. Participants were then given a questionnaire to measure empathy. They were then given the stop-signal task (SST), where they were shown faces with either fearful or happy expressions and were asked on certain trials, called go trials, to indicate whether they believed the face was male or female. On stop trials, participants would see a visual stimulus indicating they are to withhold their responses. EEG data was collected during the entire task, looking specifically at the P100, N170, and the N200/P300 complex because they are implicated in emotional face processing and inhibition.

            Stockdale and colleagues found that participants who frequently played violent video games had significantly smaller P100 and N170 amplitudes when viewing faces than their infrequent violent video game playing counterparts. These findings implicate that individuals exposed to violent media often are less empathetic than their infrequently exposed counterparts. Stockdale and colleagues also found that participants who frequently played violent video games had a significantly smaller N200/P300 amplitude than participants who infrequently played video games. This suggests that individuals who frequently view violent media require less recruitment of cognitive resources to successfully inhibit responses. This evidence is interesting as it supports the claims that chronic exposure to violent media may desensitize individuals while also demonstrating that individuals who are exposed to violent media frequently may be better at inhibiting unwanted thoughts and behaviors.

            Based on this research, Seth Schiesel may be correct in questioning the true way in which violent behaviors are caused by video games. Gamers seem to have a greater ability to exercise self-control over their actions, making it hard to confidently claim that violent video games cause violent behavior. However, online video game platforms offer players a platform with little to no repercussions for what they say. There is a sense of anonymity, which may lead to the use of abusive and hateful speech. There often needs to be a lack of empathy to participate in such toxic behaviors. Does this lack of empathy actually have implications in violent behavior? Is there a relationship between online harassment and violent tendencies? Further research would need to be conducted to explore these ideas, but I think it is an interesting perspective, nonetheless.

References

Schiesel, S. (2018, March 13). The Real Problem With Video Games. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/opinion/video-games-toxic-  violence.html

Stockdale, L., Morrison, R. G., Palumbo, R., Garbarino, J., & Silton, R. L. (2017). Cool, callous and in control: superior inhibitory control in frequent players of video games with violent content. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(12), 1869–1880. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx115

Sexist Video Games and Decreased Empathy

On April 21^st, Laura Stockdale presented her work titled “Emotionally anesthetized: media violence induces neural changes during emotional face processing”. Researchers in this study focused on evaluating the emotional response following subjection to violent media. Participants were exposed to ten minutes of violent or nonviolent film and then completed the necessary assessments. Subjects were asked to complete a facial recognition task that required them to determine the gender of presented faces that held either a neutral or angry expression. However, the participants that were subjected to the violent media demonstrated slower reaction times when asked to determine the gender of the faces. Researchers were able to conclude there was “a reduction in cognitive resources allocated to processing emotional face expressions” (Stockdale, 2015). In an additional study, participants were selected based upon the frequency of videogame playing. After completing a similar stop signal task, researchers were able to conclude that frequent videogame players demonstrated a general decrease in empathy. These specific findings supported previous research which demonstrated that exposure to violent media leads to desensitization and hostile behavior. 

After reading this journal, I became interested to see how these affects influenced responses to gender violence. I was curious to see if this modified behavior was consistent when judging victims of both genders or if results would be skewed in one direction or another. I came across an article titled, “Sexist video games decrease empathy for female violence victims” by Ohio State University. This study wanted to assess the relationship between violent video games and the objectification of women. 

154 high school volunteers were selected and were placed in three different experimental groups. One group was exposed to a violent and sexist game, one played a violent but not sexist game, and the final group played a game that did not possess either of these qualities. After playing, subjects were presented with a picture of a girl that endured violence. They were asked to rate their feelings of “how sympathetic, compassionate, and tender they felt toward the girl in the photo” (Ohio State University, 2016). 

Results from this experiment focused on the responses from the male participants. Females did not demonstrate any influential differences between the three types of video games. Males who played the sexist and violent games showed a reduction in empathetic responses towards the picture of the abused girl. Researchers correlated this finding with general responses received from the participants that played these games that stated they identified as their characters on a deeper level when they were playing. Interestingly, the male participants that played the violent video game that did not include sexist content did not show any signs of reduced empathetic responses towards the girl.  

I found this study to be quite important. Our class study signified the potential general dangers that were present after violent media exposure. Both articles presented concluded the decrease level of empathy. However, this study highlighted the potential sexists’ effects that could result from such exposure. A crucial contribution made by this study directs its attention to self-identifying behavior of the participants to the violent media characters. Findings like this suggest that individuals that play these games experience long lasting effects that are beginning to influence their daily perspectives. Discovering this demonstrates how exposure to such content can produce emotional alterations that could potentially damage relationships or cause individuals to neglect any victims they come into contact with. Parents should be more aware of studies like these so that they can make educated decisions about the types of games that their children want to play. 

Sexist Video Games 

Ohio State University (2016, April 13). Sexist video games decrease empathy for female violence

            Victims. Science Daily.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160413151057.htm

Violent Media and Emotional Face Processing:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hdluh1vfs2cphhz/AADh1d3KFXR-ZhKBCLY9-dSba/(04.21.20)%20-%20Laura%20Stockdale?dl=0&preview=Stockdale_etal_2015_SCAN.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

Video Evidence vs DNA Testing Evidence in the Court Room

      Dr. Yael Granot's study brought awareness to the danger that is group bias when viewing video evidence in the courtroom. Video evidence can often be misinterpreted or misunderstood but for some reason, video evidence is or was held to a higher standard in the courtroom leading large amounts of people to believe they understood the mechanism of action, when in fact this might not be the case. From a distance, seeing the sequences of events in crime on video might seem like the best method to determine punishment, but for this reason, people are often judged wrongly and given punishments for crimes that they did not commit. The visual system is highly regarded as vital to legal decision making, however, Dr. Granot hypothesizes that bias emerges when people view evidence and bias tend to increase with an increased fixation on a certain target. In addition, fixation on one person or one item can prevent a person from seeing vital details in the video. She tested this by showing a video to participants of a police officer arresting another individual. While tracing their eye movements and recording their ideal punishment to be given, she found that the more time people spent looking at the police officer, the harsher their ideal punishments were.

      Hearing this, I wondered, what would be the most effective form of evidence that might prevent group bias? I originally thought, testing DNA on murder weapons and other surfaces in the crime scene might help to limit bias, however, in the article "The False Promise of DNA Testing," published by The Atlantic, claims that this is not the case. In this article, a mother named Batie's son Sutton was accused and charged with aggravated assault and kidnapping of a 41-year-old Houston woman. William Thompson, an attorney and criminology professor at the University of California at Irvine told a reporter that " It appeared that Houston police technicians were routinely misinterpreting even the most basic samples. After consulting with Batie, Dr. Thompson took all of Sutton's files and reexamined them to find out the truth. In conclusion, Dr. Thompson found a crucial error in Sutton's chart that the genetic markers that remained from the semen sample found at the crime did not match his. This terrible mistake led a young boy to serve four years out of his 25-year sentence in prison for a crime that he did not commit.

      Furthermore, I completely agree with Dr. Granot that viewing video evidence can lead to substantial bias, therefore wrong legal-decisions, however, DNA testing doesn't seem to be a beneficial alternative as can be seen in the story mentioned above. While I was unable to find the answer to my original question, I was unaware of the unreliability of DNA testing. I understand that this unreliability is due to human error, but this simple mistake frequently ruins the lives of innocent people in the United States.

Sources

Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., Schneider, K. E., & Tyler, T. R. (2014). Supplemental Material for Justice Is Not Blind: Visual Attention Exaggerates Effects of Group Identification on Legal Punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. doi: 10.1037/a0037893.supp

Shaer, M. (2016, May 16). The False Promise of DNA Testing. Retrieved April 17, 2020, from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/

URL (Dr. Granot's Article)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hdluh1vfs2cphhz/AACqNFxKZ0QYojYVsPg3HafLa/(02.25.20)%20-%20Yael%20Granot?dl=0&preview=JusticeisNotBlind.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

URL (New Article)
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/

Neuroscience in the Court Room: Video-Based Evidence

  Dr. Yael Granot's study into understanding how attention intervention between group-based

bias of video evidence raised some qualms about what has been seen as the most reliable

form of evidence in the judicial system for a long time: video-based evidence. At first glance,

one might think that this is a correct assumption. Literally seeing what happened at the scene

of a potential crime was no doubt seen as revolutionary when this technology was first implemented.

However, after several decades of using this kind of evidence as poignant methods of conviction,
perhaps it is not as reliable as one might think. According to Dr. Granot's study, phenomenons such
as punishing out-groups as well as the rare but still present 'black sheep effect' (where ingroup
punishments are harsher than outgroups due to an inclination to maintain higher standards) come
from how people focus on various in-groups and out-groups.

According to the study, a video was shown of a police officer arresting an individual. Those
that were categorized as strongly identifying with police when tasked with giving higher cop
visual attention wished to punish the police officer significantly less than those who weakly
identified with the police officer. During the trial where there was less attention paid to the
police officer and more to the individual being arrested, the two groups were observed to desire
a relatively similar amount of punishment for the police officer. This is believed to indicate that
where one puts one's attention is highly influential to the conclusions that they draw. Although
in legal cases that video evidence is often shown multiple times, this phenomenon can still serve
as an issue if the jurors have an affinity with focusing on one particular part of the video more than
others. Thus biasing their conclusion to a decision based more on visual attention than of blind justice.
Such an important finding could be considered cause for celebration and immediate
implementation into how video-based evidence is processed within the judicial system. However,
the relationship between U.S. courts of justice and neuroscience has not always been a stable
one. Several 'facts' held during the 20th century such as phrenology, lobotomies, and even
eugenics were once points of influence on the judicial system that were then discounted as unsound
science. Individuals such as U.S. District Court Judge and founding member of the MacArthur
Foundation Project on Law and Neuroscience Jed Rakoff finds that the hesitation and skepticism
towards neuroscience can be simply attributed to, "they've been burned before," (Richardson, 2016).
Still, because of the endeavors of neuroscientists around the world, there is a much better understanding
of how human memory works. For example, eye-witness testimony and its various pitfalls that have
been implemented more and more into judicial operations. Individuals like Rakoff believe that the
influence that neuroscience has on public policy changes as well as understanding the forces that
influence human behavior are valuable assets to the U.S. legal system. There is still a gap between
neuroscience and the judicial system. But as more and more sound studies come out reinforcing our
understanding of human behavior, judges around the United States are becoming increasingly more
open to the benefits that these studies can provide to properly exercising justice.

Sources

Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., Schneider, K. E., & Tyler, T. R. (2014). Justice is Not Blind:
Visual Attention Exaggerates Effects of Group Identification
on Legal Punishment. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 143(6), 2196–2208. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037893

Richardson, M. W. (2016, November 3). Neurolaw: Combining Neuroscience and
Criminal Justice. Retrieved April 16, 2020, from 

https://www.brainfacts.org/neuroscience-in-society
/law-economics-and-ethics/2016/neur

olaw-combining-neuroscience-and-criminal-justice-110316

URL of Article: https://www.brainfacts.org/neuroscience-in-society/law-economics-and-ethics/2016/neurolaw-combining-neuroscience-and-criminal-justice-110316

The Source of Anxiety

After hearing Dr. Heller’s talk on their paper, “Transdiagnostic dimensions of anxiety: Neural mechanisms, executive functions, and new directions”, which describes the link between psychological and neurobiological anxiety models, I was left with questions as to why some people experience more anxiety than others. It is proposed that anxious arousal should be thought of as a propensity to experience state fear more often and more easily, but why does this happen to some people and not others? Do people with high anxious arousal have a lower threshold for sympathetic nervous system arousal than a person who is only stimulated if they feel threatened? Or does the system become hyperactive when feeling threatened? 

Fear and anxiety can be distinguished from each other in that the object of fear is ‘real’ or ‘external’ and the origins of anxiety are unclear, but the sense of uncontrollability focused on possible future threats, danger or other upcoming  potentially negative events, whereas in fear, the danger is present and imminent (Steimer). Increased anxiety, as a trait, can be attributed to at least two factors. The first is a genetic predisposition linked to gene expression involved in neurochemical mechanisms underlying anxiety and fear. The second  is environmental factors that can interact with relevant genes during early development and influence the functional properties of biochemical and neural systems used when coping with stress. These can also modulate the learning processes later in life and the capacity to successfully adapt to aversive or threatening situations. Prenatal stress in animals has been shown to cause permanent alterations in brain morphology, anxiety related behavior and coping into adulthood. 

While I couldn’t not find a specific answer to all of my questions, I did find that it is a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influences that can cause some individuals to have a greater fear of unknown or uncontrollable circumstances. The study of genetic predisposition and environmental influences, during early development, in determining vulnerability traits and anxiety prone endophenotypes is becoming a promising research area with respect to a further understanding of anxiety and mood disorders. 

Sharp, Paul B, et al. “Transdiagnostic Dimensions of Anxiety: Neural Mechanisms, Executive Functions, and New Directions.” International Journal of Psychophysiology : Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Nov. 2015, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26156938.

Steimer, Thierry. “The Biology of Fear- and Anxiety-Related Behaviors.” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, Les Laboratoires Servier, Sept. 2002, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181681/.

Is Video Evidence Credible and Reliable?

We live in a time where a large amount of information comes from watching videos and the way we process it. People would rather watch videos rather than read or listen to an article. However, the way one processes and perceives a video can be much different than how someone else may process or perceive it. Currently, there are many new advancements in technology which means that anyone can record and or change a video. There are many debates about video evidence and whether they tell the whole truth. Additionally, courtrooms have even questioned the reliability of video evidence. Credibility can also come into question due to the conditions and context of watching a video that can influence one’s decision. An individual might think that video evidence would be an effective way of getting answers, but in reality this might not be the case. Articles done by Yael Granot, Hutchinson, and Mooreprovided research to unravel the underlying truth to video evidence and whether it can provide both reliability and credibility in courtrooms. Both came across different, yet unique mechanisms related to video evidence and how bias can occur. 

            The article, “In the Eyes of the Law: Perception Versus Reality in Appraisals of Video Evidence,” Yael Granot and her colleagues argued why video evidence is not the best resource to use in courtrooms. The article described that video evidence can be misconstrued by individuals and that it does not provide objective and concrete evidence especially when it is used in cases. According to Dr. Granot, video evidence can be unreliable because people can over-believe videos which can lead to several biases. In addition, she provided facts on why people recall visual experiences better. This is because the optic nerve has more neuronal circuits than the auditory system. Additionally, there are limitations to visual acuity that can move attention away from critical information which can lead to an inaccuracy in evidence and interpretations. Researchers suggested there should be guidelines set in place for biases and that jurors, judges, and lawyers should be educated on how to approach video evidence. In conclusion, there are discrepancies in using video evidence in courtrooms due to one’s lack of awareness, failure to discriminate, and the overbelief of what is being presented. 

            There are many cases that can prove that there are issues with video evidence. The case that stuck out to me was a Texas woman (Atatiana Jefferson) who was fatally shot in her home by a law enforcement officer (Aaron Dean). The call originally came out as a check for well-being. Footage taken from the officer’s body camera show Dean with his handgun out and while approaching a window he sees a woman and shouts, “Put your hands up.”  The officer then shot the woman and noted that he “perceived a threat.” The perceived threat was the woman’s handgun which was found near the window that she was shot by. The body camera showed a still image of the firearm that was in Jefferson’s bedroom, but it was evident that she was not holding it or threatening the officer. Dr. Yael Granot’s research proves that individuals have different interpretations and that one’s attention might be different from another. The still image taken from the officer’s body camera showed Jefferson’s innocence and proved that still images can be more reliable than video evidence. Additionally, Dr. Granot’s article addresses the fact that visual detection of an image can occur in 13 milliseconds or fewer. Jefferson only had a .6 milliseconds from the time the officer gave the command to the time she was shot. She had no time to respond to the officer’s verbal command and there was no time for law enforcement to perceive a threat. The article successfully proved that even though video evidence can resolve courtroom cases it can also create bias due to an individual’s lack of awareness, failure to discriminate, and over believing a video. 

If it were not for the body camera footage, the law enforcement officer would have not gotten charged for murder and he might still be a cop today. Some people believe that law enforcement officers are good, but in reality this may not be the case. When a person sees footage from a law enforcement officer’s perspective then they might support and understand the officer versus the perpetuator. If an individual has a negative perspective on law enforcement, then they more than likely will side with the perpetuator. In relation, this can create bias on how one views law enforcement. In closing, it is important to view all interpretations and to set regulations in order to reduce error from occurring in video evidence. 

            In conclusion, it is important to note that video evidence may not provide reliability and accuracy. Many people think that video evidence cannot be misunderstood, but in reality it can lead to invalid judgements and biases. Additionally, hackers can alter and manipulate police body cameras. They can manipulate the data and wipe certain evidence clear. Even though many people argue that video evidence can protect both law enforcement and citizens, security needs needs to be addressed. Additionally, both articles show that video evidence can be misinterpreted and manipulated. Even though video evidence can create biases, it can also settle many cases in the courtroom. Despite the differences in both articles, they aim to spread awareness and to initiate regulations in using video evidence in courtroom cases.   

Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., Feigenson, N., & Tyler, T. (2018). In the eyes of the law: Perception 

versus reality in appraisals of video evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 

93–104. doi: 10.1037/law0000137

Hutchinson, B., & Moore, M. (2019, October 14). Texas officer who fatally shot woman in her 

home arrested on murder charges. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from https://abcnews.go.com/US/demand-justice-family-texas-woman-fatally-shot-home/story?id=66261203