Another interesting study from a super fast google session: (Thomas N. Robinson, MD, MPH; Marta L. Wilde, MA; Lisa C. Navracruz, MD; K. Farish Haydel; Ann Varady, MS) has an intervention group (4th grade) that gets taken off violent video games for six months. One year later their aggressive behaviors had dropped based on anonymous student peer reviews and double-blind playground observations.
Some questions:
A) What sort of "violent video games" are these fourth graders playing? Not all violence is created equal, and there's a huge difference between Super Mario Bros. and Street Fighter IV and Grand Theft Auto, all of which possess elements of violence.
What behavior replaced the time spent playing video games? Were they instead reading a book, were they watching equally violent television, were they sitting in the corner staring at the wall?
C) What definition of "aggressive" are we using, here? Being overly enthusiastic in play, taking things from people forcefully, hitting them...?
I think when we discuss this issue, it's important to consider that not all age groups are the same. I absolutely believe that giving Gears of War to a nine year old is going to be unhealthy as all fuck. I think giving that game to a seventeen year old is going to be quite different. I don't think anybody here skeptical about the links between violence and gaming is saying that all games are appropriate for all ages.
Those are all valid concerns, and they get at a lot of roadblocks that developmental psychology has had to overcome over the years.
A & Turns out the first study I pulled from google probably isn't the best example. The manipulation was actually a six month training session and then a seven-hour-per-week "budget" of media use, and the researchers didn't bother to measure the amount of violent media the kids were taking in.
The intervention was based on Bandura's social cognitive theory, and has been previously described. It consisted of eighteen 30- to 50-minute classroom lessons taught by the regular third- and fourth-grade classroom teachers (trained by the research staff) as part of the standard curriculum in the intervention school. The majority of lessons were taught during the first 2 months. Early lessons included self-monitoring and reporting of television, videotape, and video game use to motivate children to want to reduce the time they spent in these activities. These lessons were followed by a TV Turnoff during which children were challenged to watch no television or videotapes and play no video games for 10 days. After the turnoff, children were encouraged to follow a 7 hour per week television, videotape, and video game budget. To help with budgeting, each household also received an electronic television time manager (TV Allowance, Miami, Fla). Additional lessons taught children to become "intelligent viewers" by using their viewing and video game time more selectively. Several final lessons enlisted children as advocates for reducing media use. Parent newsletters were designed to motivate parents to help their children stay within their budgets, and suggested strategies for limiting television, videotape, and video game use for the entire family. We allowed parents to decide whether to include computer use in their child's budget. The intervention targeted media use alone and did not address aggressive behavior.
Again, I'd cite a more respectable article if I had access to my search engines. Right now I'm going off one page clippings from Google Books and the hodgepodge of results Google Scholar manage to cough up, but from what I can find there's been a hundred variations on this study and it's always found some sort of connection between violent media and aggression. Without my University access all I can do is assume that a few of these studies controlled for your specific concerns.
C) In these playground studies, aggression is measured by impartial observers recording aggressive acts categorized into physical and verbal behaviors that then gets compared to a second observation to validate interrater reliability. This study doesn't specify what physical and verbal behaviors were used, but when I learned about the studies a few years ago it was taught to me as pushing, shoving, bullying, teasing, etc.
I think the Grand Theft Childhood people have the best point so far: no correlation between violent video games and crime.
I haven't read this book, but I'm now I'm interested. There might not be a link specifically between violent video games and crime, but I'm fairly confident a link has been found between media violence and incarceration measures in more general terms.
As a factor in individuals with pre-existing disorders/circumstances, sure, that research is really fascinating. The point is that most successful games are violent, as are most movies, TV, and even literature. It's like drawing a link between alcohol and violent crime- it might be involved, but the vast majority of drinkers are not criminals.
EDIT: I'm all for posting/linking to any of the research we can dig up on aggression in this context. I think what I'm most interested to see is the breadt and variety of what's been done so far, and the direction people are taking. The media has a way of making research seem more presumptuous and polarizing than it usually is. I never thought I'd say it, but I miss my uni search engines right now.
Based on that description, it sounds like it was less a case of "let's take away violent games" and more a case of "let's enroll these kids in a comprehensive program designed to make them consider the effects of violent media on their own behavior, and as part of that we will take away violent games."
What would've been nice to see is two groups going through the exact same program, being taught to self-monitor, being taught to self-analyze, only one group actually has the games taken away and one doesn't.
edit: But this does highlight one of the chief problems I have with so many of these studies - they generally suck ass at isolating actual violent video games as a cause. Or they do, but then they measure adrenaline as a proxy for aggression, or something. Basically, most such studies are fatally flawed, and the results get misinterpreted by those with an agenda. (And I am not implying that you, Talka, have an agenda.)
A) Short term studies don't matter, as they don't address the issue. The long term studies also correlate strongly with so many other parenting issues and class issues that it becomes impossible to sort out what is what.
C) The correlations are weaker than child abuse, weaker than the neighborhood you grow up in, weaker than the school you go to.. etc. etc. At what point do we get to say: an honest reading of the data shows very inconclusive results?
While I get what you're saying, correlation is a more complicated issue than you're giving it credit for. For instance, based on meta-analyses of hundreds of studies:
Correlation between smoking and lung cancer? .4
Correlation between condom use and HIV? -.2
The correlation between media violence and aggression? .3
That's not to say that media violence necessarily causes more aggression than barebacking causes HIV. It's just to hint at the complexities of correlational data while I dig up some more studies.
edit: But this does highlight one of the chief problems I have with so many of these studies - they generally suck ass at isolating actual violent video games as a cause. Or they do, but then they measure adrenaline as a proxy for aggression, or something. Basically, most such studies are fatally flawed, and the results get misinterpreted by those with an agenda. (And I am not implying that you, Talka, have an agenda.)
That's totally fair. Fortunately this thread's given me the itch to go back through all the studies I read and find the good ones, so I'll be back once I've boned up on the material again.
But for reference I went into this literature with just as much skepticism as you did. The few studies I'd read were suggestive but imperfect, and I figured that if I just went through the literature I'd be able to toss all of it aside as flawed. But somewhere along the way the literature convinced me. No study can be perfectly designed to isolate video games as a definitive cause of violence later in life the way you seem to imply it can. But a body of literature, if it contains enough well-constructed evidence (and I came to believe this field ultimately did possess some solid studies), can make a fairly conclusive claim that video media is a serious and non-trivial risk factor for violence later in life.
I've got to turn in for the night since it's 2:00 am over here, but I'll try to come back tomorrow with some real studies (after I force my way into my university's library webpage somehow).
I don't really have any studies to back up this assertion, but violent media isn't exactly a new thing. In fact it's a pretty old method of entertainment, dating back at least several decades. Wouldn't such a long and storied amount of exposure to violent media have a cumulative and (more importantly) statistically proven affect on our society in areas like violent crime? Wouldn't school shootings or cases of extreme violence amongst young people be a lot more frequent then they are?
Of course this would require such things to be reported, and another assertion I would make but can't back up is that we have been a large degree more diligent as a whole of reporting such things in the past 20 years as we have in the decades prior to that.
It's like drawing a link between alcohol and violent crime- it might be involved, but the vast majority of drinkers are not criminals.
That actually reminds me of an analogy a professor used a few years ago.
Compare the media-violence/aggression correlation with the smoking/lung-cancer correlation.
1) You can smoke and not get lung cancer.
2) Not everyone that gets lung cancer smokes.
3) The vast majority of smokers will not get lung cancer.
Does that mean we should dismiss the link between smoking and lung cancer? If the literature is persuasive enough, we can still make a claim that the link is real.
edit: But this does highlight one of the chief problems I have with so many of these studies - they generally suck ass at isolating actual violent video games as a cause. Or they do, but then they measure adrenaline as a proxy for aggression, or something. Basically, most such studies are fatally flawed, and the results get misinterpreted by those with an agenda. (And I am not implying that you, Talka, have an agenda.)
That's totally fair. Fortunately this thread's given me the itch to go back through all the studies I read and find the good ones, so I'll be back once I've boned up on the material again.
But for reference I went into this literature with just as much skepticism as you did. The few studies I'd read were suggestive but imperfect, and I figured that if I just went through the literature I'd be able to toss all of it aside as flawed. But somewhere along the way the literature convinced me. No study can be perfectly designed to isolate video games as a definitive cause of violence later in life the way you seem to imply it can. But a body of literature, if it contains enough well-constructed evidence (and I came to believe this field ultimately did possess some solid studies), can make a fairly conclusive claim that video media is a serious and non-trivial risk factor for violence later in life.
I've got to turn in for the night since it's 2:00 am over here, but I'll try to come back tomorrow with some real studies (after I force my way into my university's library webpage somehow).
I've gone through a fair amount of literature myself. My opinions are, roughly:
- Violent media in general has an effect on kids.
- Exposure to violent media largely desensitizes people to violent media of the same type - eg, playing violent games will desensitize a person to violent games, but not to violent films, or real violence.
- Exposure to violent media can have strong negative effects on children too young to properly appreciate what's going on.
So basically, I think we should keep little kids from seeing violent films and playing GTA, and that we should allow them to be gradually introduced to such things as they obtain the maturity to properly deal with it.
Nothing terribly radical, in other words. I feel pretty much the same way regarding sex.
So basically, I think we should keep little kids from seeing violent films and playing GTA, and that we should allow them to be gradually introduced to such things as they obtain the maturity to properly deal with it.
Well, yeah, but what issue can't be solved with realistic and responsible parenting? That's no fun at all.
If violent videogames lead to an increase in aggression over some measurable time span, who cares?
As others have said, that doesn't actually mean anything. There's still a huge leap between that and "violent videogames lead to an increase in crime." And in the absence of that, I don't see what the big deal is.
Correlation between smoking and lung cancer? .4
Correlation between condom use and HIV? -.2
The correlation between media violence and aggression? .3
No one cares about aggression. Sugar causes aggression and playground incidents. The question in front of us is long term psychological damage with measurable effects on society, not a tiny blip that can be attributed to the normal psychological process of coming to grips with powerful images.
Not to be argumentative, you're fielding everything nicely here, but it seems like you're only proving that this kind of statistical analysis *doesn't* track particularly well with reality. Especially when childhood development is infinitely more complex than the relationship between smoking and cancer.
If violent videogames lead to an increase in aggression over some measurable time span, who cares?
Well, I'm still going to contest your second point that there's no link between violent video games (violent media) and incarceration measures.
But to address this question: I care! Wouldn't the world be a nicer place if the jackass in the apartment across from mine wouldn't openly berate me for bringing friends into my place? Or if the drivers in my home state were calmer and safer? Or if spouses treated each other with verbal (and physical!) deference?
It's a more philosophical point, but why not less aggression? How is that not a good thing?
I'm not saying we should abolish video games to make people nice, but if childhood abuse of violent video games can be shown to have later consequences for aggression (if not violent crime), then how is that not significant?
Someone implied that the notion that video games affect behavior was a dead idea that science discredited and no one took seriously anymore. I was just pointing out the wrongness of such a claim, that in fact most studies show at least something there, and raise more questions than answers. All of the posts here asking "what games did they play?" "what behavior was aggressive?" "what was the control?" etc. are exactly what I meant.
As for me, the most convincing long-term study I read was a longitudinal study that found specfically TV shows watched by children in which the protagonist solved problems using violence did in fact correlate to increased use of violence in everyday behavior in adulthood, after accounting for all sorts of other variables. Shows that just had random violence but weren't marked by the hero punching people out, while they still showed desensitization, did not lead to behavior changes. Considering the overwhelming prevalence of the hero using violence in video games, I'd be interested in a similar study there.
Alright, I'm serious about leaving for the night, but one more piece of evidence before I turn in:
(Huesmann, Moise, Podolski, & Eron, 2000). If somebody can find the real, full article it'd be super awesome for this thread since it looks like we need a discussion on methods. That's a respectable article (going by the number of times it gets cited), and it links (controlled) repeated exposure to violent media with habitual aggression and violent offenses later in life.
If violent videogames lead to an increase in aggression over some measurable time span, who cares?
Well, I'm still going to contest your second point that there's no link between violent video games (violent media) and incarceration measures.
But to address this question: I care! Wouldn't the world be a nicer place if the jackass in the apartment across from mine wouldn't openly berate me for bringing friends into my place? Or if the drivers in my home state were calmer and safer? Or if spouses treated each other with verbal (and physical!) deference?
It's a more philosophical point, but why not less aggression? How is that not a good thing?
I'm not saying we should abolish video games to make people nice, but if childhood abuse of violent video games can be shown to have later consequences for aggression (if not violent crime), then how is that not significant?
I totally agree. It's not just about crime - you can be a total fucko without breaking the law. I'd rather not live in a society of total fuckos.
You'd have to do a lot more then curtail playing violent video games for that dream to come to life. Things normal society regards as morally reprehensible at the very least, would need to become common practice.
Edit: That might also be a rather O/T discussion that I don't know if we, the collective whole of this thread, want to get into.
I agree that kids shouldn't be watching/playing violent media, until they are mature enough to understand.
The only problem I have with the anti-video-game politicians is that a: they don't bother to research their point, and instead just start comparing games to drugs and porn or claiming that games turn every kid who touches them into murderers. And b: The government (at least in the US) should not interfere with art. Governmental control over video games shouldn't happen at all. What we need is a self-policing industry(which is happening), and smarter parents.
1) Yes, GTA4 did pretty much suck. Hands-down most overrated game in history.
2) The thing that really bothered me about San Andreas is that it was always GTA, like beating up hookers and stealing cars and shooitng people and cops and thug life and so on. But find out there's a hidden, clothing-on, BJ simulation, and suddenly Hill-rod is coming off the top rope. I usually don't judge the puritannical morale too harshly, but that was surreal.
3) We need to use the same ratings system that the MPAA use. Parents fopr the most part don't get it. It's a video game. So what if it says M. Most of them don't recognize that M as anything other than part of the box art, and even if they do recognize it, they're like, "yeah, but he is kind of mature." I'm certain if the box said "R" on it using the same graphic the MPAA uses, many more parents would recognize exactly what the rating system is trying to tell them.
1) Yes, GTA4 did pretty much suck. Hands-down most overrated game in history.
2) The thing that really bothered me about San Andreas is that it was always GTA, like beating up hookers and stealing cars and shooitng people and cops and thug life and so on. But find out there's a hidden, clothing-on, BJ simulation, and suddenly Hill-rod is coming off the top rope. I usually don't judge the puritannical morale too harshly, but that was surreal.
3) We need to use the same ratings system that the MPAA use. Parents fopr the most part don't get it. It's a video game. So what if it says M. Most of them don't recognize that M as anything other than part of the box art, and even if they do recognize it, they're like, "yeah, but he is kind of mature." I'm certain if the box said "R" on it using the same graphic the MPAA uses, many more parents would recognize exactly what the rating system is trying to tell them.
I like it, makes it so that they have something to compare it to.
What's funny to me, is that I had more fun in Saint's Row II, because it was still over the top. GTA4, the game were you stay home and not hang out with your IRL friends, because you have to go hang out with your VG friends. Yeah, I played that game, its called life.
also, the kid in the video, I'm not gonna give him a hard time. I've shot my AR-15 alot and it still makes my sinuses hurt on some days. Something like a .22 has no recoil, but a .223 even though it is reduced due to the AR system, still kicks. It's definitely not like call of duty. Also, he had probably never seen a gun IRL, and it does have some emotional stuff attached. (Nice rifle, BTW)
3) We need to use the same ratings system that the MPAA use. Parents fopr the most part don't get it. It's a video game. So what if it says M. Most of them don't recognize that M as anything other than part of the box art, and even if they do recognize it, they're like, "yeah, but he is kind of mature." I'm certain if the box said "R" on it using the same graphic the MPAA uses, many more parents would recognize exactly what the rating system is trying to tell them.
I'm growing to believe the "I don't know any better!" thing is a cop-out. I find it hard to believe that any sentient being alive in America right now is not aware that some video games perhaps contain mature content. Nobody out there really believes that video games are all like Pac-Man, and if there are such people, they're probably too fucking dumb to figure out how to get the penis into the vagina, anyway.
So those parents who buy their 10 year old GTA4? Yeah, maybe they don't know that particular game is full of sex and violence. Mostly, though, they just don't care. They're the same folks who bring their little kid to see American Psycho because they can't find a sitter. Educating them won't help. Giving them a convenient ratings system won't help. Because they're lazy fuckos who don't want their kids to interfere with their ability to shut off their brains and do whatever shit they want to do.
Nobody out there really believes that video games are all like Pac-Man, and if there are such people, they're probably too fucking dumb to figure out how to get the penis into the vagina, anyway.
Never ever assume that. Before all others, the most basic instinct of any species of animal on this planet (human included) is to breed. Intelligence rarely, if ever, factors into it.
I'm growing to believe the "I don't know any better!" thing is a cop-out. I find it hard to believe that any sentient being alive in America right now is not aware that some video games perhaps contain mature content. Nobody out there really believes that video games are all like Pac-Man, and if there are such people, they're probably too fucking dumb to figure out how to get the penis into the vagina, anyway.
So those parents who buy their 10 year old GTA4? Yeah, maybe they don't know that particular game is full of sex and violence. Mostly, though, they just don't care. They're the same folks who bring their little kid to see American Psycho because they can't find a sitter. Educating them won't help. Giving them a convenient ratings system won't help. Because they're lazy fuckos who don't want their kids to interfere with their ability to shut off their brains and do whatever shit they want to do.
I disagree. The video game ratings system only ever existed within a context most parents have no concept of. There are still many who have very strong paradigms about video games (similarly, animation) that they are 100% for kids and anyone who would make one with adult content is a demon. Just look at how the country reacted to an M game when they found out it had clothed simulated oral sex hidden in it. Want to talk about R movies with comparable content? There's an underlying assupmtion that these things are for kids. And no "M" on the box gets the message across. Sure, a lot of parents don't care if their kids play GTA or go to R movies. But I think a significant number would make reasonable efforts to keep them out of R movies but have no conept that such experiences exist in video games.
I'm growing to believe the "I don't know any better!" thing is a cop-out. I find it hard to believe that any sentient being alive in America right now is not aware that some video games perhaps contain mature content. Nobody out there really believes that video games are all like Pac-Man, and if there are such people, they're probably too fucking dumb to figure out how to get the penis into the vagina, anyway.
So those parents who buy their 10 year old GTA4? Yeah, maybe they don't know that particular game is full of sex and violence. Mostly, though, they just don't care. They're the same folks who bring their little kid to see American Psycho because they can't find a sitter. Educating them won't help. Giving them a convenient ratings system won't help. Because they're lazy fuckos who don't want their kids to interfere with their ability to shut off their brains and do whatever shit they want to do.
I disagree. The video game ratings system only ever existed within a context most parents have no concept of. There are still many who have very strong paradigms about video games (similarly, animation) that they are 100% for kids and anyone who would make one with adult content is a demon. Just look at how the country reacted to an M game when they found out it had clothed simulated oral sex hidden in it. Want to talk about R movies with comparable content? There's an underlying assupmtion that these things are for kids. And no "M" on the box gets the message across. Sure, a lot of parents don't care if their kids play GTA or go to R movies. But I think a significant number would make reasonable efforts to keep them out of R movies but have no conept that such experiences exist in video games.
This is ultimately still the fault of parents, and adults in general, who are too lazy and irresponsible to do their own homework in order to (gasp!) parent their children. Thus said people jump on videogames as the latest scapegoat in What Must Be Corrupting and Ruining Our Youth As We Know It (tm).
The rating system wouldn't be a problem if they could be assed to take five minutes and examine what the game, or at the very least ESRB rating, is about.
Or I mean, if violence etc is such a big issue shouldn't they notice the boxart and accompanying screenshots which must advertise the contents of a game's violent aspects?
MPAA ratings aren't going to do jack on people who don't care to notice the staggeringly obvious beforehand.
This is ultimately still the fault of parents, and adults in general, who are too lazy and irresponsible to do their own homework in order to (gasp!) parent their children. Thus said people jump on videogames as the latest scapegoat in What Must Be Corrupting and Ruining Our Youth As We Know It (tm).
The rating system wouldn't be a problem if they could be assed to take five minutes and examine what the game, or at the very least ESRB rating, is about.
Wasn't there somewhere in this thread about common sense? I know the above should be like turbo limed. But, ulltimately it is always the fault of the parents.
"We need to set limits and expectations. We need to replace that video game with a book and make sure that homework gets done. We need to say to our daughters, Don’t ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth, because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for your goals. We need to tell our sons, Those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in our house, we find glory in achievement, self-respect, and hard work.
We need to realize that we are our children’s first and best teachers. When we are selfish or inconsiderate, when we mistreat our wives or girlfriends, when we cut corners or fail to control our tempers, our children learn from that—and it’s no surprise when we see those behaviors in our schools or on our streets. "
I'm growing to believe the "I don't know any better!" thing is a cop-out. I find it hard to believe that any sentient being alive in America right now is not aware that some video games perhaps contain mature content. Nobody out there really believes that video games are all like Pac-Man, and if there are such people, they're probably too fucking dumb to figure out how to get the penis into the vagina, anyway.
So those parents who buy their 10 year old GTA4? Yeah, maybe they don't know that particular game is full of sex and violence. Mostly, though, they just don't care. They're the same folks who bring their little kid to see American Psycho because they can't find a sitter. Educating them won't help. Giving them a convenient ratings system won't help. Because they're lazy fuckos who don't want their kids to interfere with their ability to shut off their brains and do whatever shit they want to do.
I disagree. The video game ratings system only ever existed within a context most parents have no concept of. There are still many who have very strong paradigms about video games (similarly, animation) that they are 100% for kids and anyone who would make one with adult content is a demon. Just look at how the country reacted to an M game when they found out it had clothed simulated oral sex hidden in it. Want to talk about R movies with comparable content? There's an underlying assupmtion that these things are for kids. And no "M" on the box gets the message across. Sure, a lot of parents don't care if their kids play GTA or go to R movies. But I think a significant number would make reasonable efforts to keep them out of R movies but have no conept that such experiences exist in video games.
So you're saying that there exist parents who would be shocked - shocked! - to discover that there exists such a thing as a video game with objectionable content within it?
I remain skeptical. Ten years ago, I would've bought it. But right now, the parent of a sixteen year old child was likely in his early twenties when the ZOMG VIOLENT GAMES thing started coming out. They were young enough to be familiar with the games, if not actively playing them, and young enough to at least notice the crusade going on. The parent of a ten year old was likely still in highschool at that time.
These people know better, unless they were raised by particularly media-unsavvy wolves. They grew up with this shit. You may as well claim that Baby Boomers have no idea that sometimes songs contain lyrics with unsubtle allusions to sex and drugs.
My wife grew up on video games, just like me, but still had almost no clue that things like GTA or Prototype existed. She rarely watches the games I play, but freaked out seeing those two, and couldn't understand that games are made like that for adults. Im' telling you, a one-inch banner across the top of every game that clearly says "this video game is rated R by the video game association of America" would have a dramatic effect on parents.
So we're now assuming there is a subset of parents who would be put off by the letter "R" on the box instead of "M - 17+", but who are not put off by the fact that the name of the game in giant block letters on the cover is Grand Theft Auto where half of the cover is people with guns?
Unfortunately the G-R rating can't just be used for games since it is trademarked by the MPAA. And even they have stupid rules for what determines an R or PG-13 movie, which is why lately so many movies could qualify as R unedited but they are edited down to PG-13 to sell more tickets.
I'm not saying that people aren't stupid, but I'm saying I doubt there is a class of people saying "Well gee, I was going to buy this game with people carrying guns on the cover called "Grand theft auto" for my kid that's clearly rated M, but now that it's rated R?! Now I see
Khavall on
0
AntimatterDevo Was RightGates of SteelRegistered Userregular
Parents taking responsibility for their super-special-snowflakes who can do no wrong? That's crazy talk!
Both of you, get out now!
j/k. I actually saw a dad buy his kid a game at Wal-Mart, the kid said "GTA4" and the dad didn't know any better.
I really liked that the clerk took the dad aside for second and said "Do you know what this game is about?"
Then the kid had to pick a new game. So props to you, mr. wal-mart employee, for helping to do your part.
Besides kid don't worry about it, GTA4 sucked.
I've seen this happen at a gamestop. The parent bought the game anyway.
The same employee, in an earlier incident, was arguing with another employee about ratings. The other dude was saying, "it's all zeros and ones man, it's not real. what's the big deal about selling to kids?"
Antimatter on
0
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
Parents taking responsibility for their super-special-snowflakes who can do no wrong? That's crazy talk!
Both of you, get out now!
j/k. I actually saw a dad buy his kid a game at Wal-Mart, the kid said "GTA4" and the dad didn't know any better.
I really liked that the clerk took the dad aside for second and said "Do you know what this game is about?"
Then the kid had to pick a new game. So props to you, mr. wal-mart employee, for helping to do your part.
Besides kid don't worry about it, GTA4 sucked.
I've seen this happen at a gamestop. The parent bought the game anyway.
The same employee, in an earlier incident, was arguing with another employee about ratings. The other dude was saying, "it's all zeros and ones man, it's not real. what's the big deal about selling to kids?"
I've had to do this several times while working at Blockbuster. On the times it worked and the parent reconsidered their idea, I felt good.
And I felt really good when I told the Mother/Son combo that the Adam and Eve "Pirates" movie had nothing to do with Jack Sparrow and probably wasn't a good idea for either of them to watch (to be fair, they both had no clue). They edited a XXX movie down to an R rating and somehow we rented it out.
The problem is going from "brain looks aggressive-slash-competitive" to "games cause violent behavior!" doesn't fucking work. An fMRI can't tell you if a kid is going to shoot up a school because he played a lot of TF2, but statistical studies can tell you that school shooters don't seem to be any more involved with violent games than and other violent media (I've got a study on that one that's a few years old [2003? I think], I'll dig it up too).
While I can only speak to violent media in general and not to video games in particular (although again I think violent video games will ultimately behave much like any other violent media medium)... children who are exposed to violent media in their youth see statistically significant increases in various concrete measures of violence when you look through their high school detention records, court records, and their self-report surveys in their middle ages. And you can still get this result even if you control for essentially any possible mitigating factor save whether or not the researchers told parents their hypothesis: that there will be highly suggestive correlational evidence that violent media caused increases in aggression later in life. So if you look at groups of kids from similar backgrounds and with similar natural tendencies for aggression, whose parents have naturally similar parenting styles that differ only in a small researcher manipulation, you can still get results. (I'd link the relevant literature, but I'm abroad and don't have access to my books/papers/search engines. Maybe somebody else whose read these papers will be kind enough to do it for me?).
It's still technically correlation, but it's suggestive enough that it shouldn't be dismissed (by scientists or the public or the media or whatever) as "just another correlation." Admittedly, I doubt any developmental psychologist would outright tell you that violent media definitively causes aggression (I'm kind of taking the hardline stance here to play devil's advocate). But to cast the whole branch of research off as "well, it's not causation so it isn't not true" is misguided and also probably a mischaracterization of where public opinion stands. A lot of the social sciences just don't work by only considering causative evidence. Sometimes you have to settle for the best interpretation of the best available evidence.
Another example that's more short-term: controlling for everything yadda yadda yadda, give one group of kids access to violent media (television in this case) for two weeks. In double-blind playground observations, researchers note a statistically significant increase in aggressive behavior. More pushing, shoving, kicking, punching, etc. I think these sort of results, while not necessarily conclusive of anything, go a step further than "raises interesting questions" and several steps past "well let's discard it because it's just a correlation."
I don't have the time to do a proepr response. Sorry. I'll take you at your word on the research for now.
I really do think that video games differ from other violent media (music and TV-slash-movies, as the two categories tend to split in research) because of interactivity. The 'common sense' interpretation of this is two-fold: first, by making subjects be perpetrators of violence rather than observers they elicit a different emotional response to violence and second, by making participants do violence rather than watch it you assuage some of the urge to actually be violent.
There may also be a strong correlation with video games versus other media in terms of things like poverty level; rich kids have more access to games and rich kids live lives less conducive to violence therefore gamers are generally less violent as a whole,
I don't know if that holds up in studies but I'm also not aware of any robust studies on either effect.
permapensive on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
Ares, just a couple of quick counterpoints, just things to think about.
"Eliciting a different emotional response"
There's quite a few confounding variables and factors there. For example it could just be that they are paying attention to what is going on. Immersion also plays a factor. What if it's not immersive.
In addition the assumption that because it's a different emotional response it will change the level of aggression seems to be based on the idea that emotions are fundamentally different.
In fact emotion is fundamentally similar. We have the same physiological response to an extreme of every emotion but interpret them differently. This is why it is difficult to pin down ones emotions as something you express to another, because you are interpreting the same physiological response and have to understand the contexts you are currently involved in to describe it to someone else.
An example is "love on the shaky bridge" where a couple mistakes the intense physiological response that relates to the fear of being on a shaky bridge as an indication of another emotion, love. They mistake the identical physiological processes. I don't see how the emotion being interpreted differently would change how aggression is modelled based on the interaction. It seems to me it would internalise it more strongly because the physiological response would be more intense due to the immersion, hence the associations with the violence interacted with would be stronger, because memory is strengthened by the intense physiological reaction of emotion.
It's a mistake to believe emotion to be a categorical reality with fundamentally different processes in the individual.
So you see I think that proposition, coming as it does from a common sense point of view, lacks merit as a counter objection because simply having a different emotion is not enough.
And the second seems a bit based on the freudian idea of catharsis, or basically if you do something you free yourself of the urge.
Which has little foundation scientifically since Freudian theory is not commonly respected or practised. It is a very common point of view in the general population though, because freud is goddam everywhere and so it's made it's way into "common sense".
So I don't really think those two points are good reasons left as is. Perhaps if you clarified them with more detail?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
My wife grew up on video games, just like me, but still had almost no clue that things like GTA or Prototype existed. She rarely watches the games I play, but freaked out seeing those two, and couldn't understand that games are made like that for adults. Im' telling you, a one-inch banner across the top of every game that clearly says "this video game is rated R by the video game association of America" would have a dramatic effect on parents.
It is actually surreal how out of touch people are with games and how they've progressed. People like us think it's common knowledge because not only have we grown up with it, our very presence on these boards indicates we're a little more invested than usual in the medium.
I remember how surprised I was when I was researching the ESRB around this time last year. I was trying to understand the moral panic and outrage and everything else that surrounds videogame controversy, and it didn't click until I realized that, if not the majority, a great amount of people still assume that videogames are, by their very nature, designed and marketed towards kids.
Posts
Those are all valid concerns, and they get at a lot of roadblocks that developmental psychology has had to overcome over the years.
A &
Again, I'd cite a more respectable article if I had access to my search engines. Right now I'm going off one page clippings from Google Books and the hodgepodge of results Google Scholar manage to cough up, but from what I can find there's been a hundred variations on this study and it's always found some sort of connection between violent media and aggression. Without my University access all I can do is assume that a few of these studies controlled for your specific concerns.
C) In these playground studies, aggression is measured by impartial observers recording aggressive acts categorized into physical and verbal behaviors that then gets compared to a second observation to validate interrater reliability. This study doesn't specify what physical and verbal behaviors were used, but when I learned about the studies a few years ago it was taught to me as pushing, shoving, bullying, teasing, etc.
EDIT: I'm all for posting/linking to any of the research we can dig up on aggression in this context. I think what I'm most interested to see is the breadt and variety of what's been done so far, and the direction people are taking. The media has a way of making research seem more presumptuous and polarizing than it usually is. I never thought I'd say it, but I miss my uni search engines right now.
What would've been nice to see is two groups going through the exact same program, being taught to self-monitor, being taught to self-analyze, only one group actually has the games taken away and one doesn't.
edit: But this does highlight one of the chief problems I have with so many of these studies - they generally suck ass at isolating actual violent video games as a cause. Or they do, but then they measure adrenaline as a proxy for aggression, or something. Basically, most such studies are fatally flawed, and the results get misinterpreted by those with an agenda. (And I am not implying that you, Talka, have an agenda.)
While I get what you're saying, correlation is a more complicated issue than you're giving it credit for. For instance, based on meta-analyses of hundreds of studies:
Correlation between smoking and lung cancer? .4
Correlation between condom use and HIV? -.2
The correlation between media violence and aggression? .3
That's not to say that media violence necessarily causes more aggression than barebacking causes HIV. It's just to hint at the complexities of correlational data while I dig up some more studies.
That's totally fair. Fortunately this thread's given me the itch to go back through all the studies I read and find the good ones, so I'll be back once I've boned up on the material again.
But for reference I went into this literature with just as much skepticism as you did. The few studies I'd read were suggestive but imperfect, and I figured that if I just went through the literature I'd be able to toss all of it aside as flawed. But somewhere along the way the literature convinced me. No study can be perfectly designed to isolate video games as a definitive cause of violence later in life the way you seem to imply it can. But a body of literature, if it contains enough well-constructed evidence (and I came to believe this field ultimately did possess some solid studies), can make a fairly conclusive claim that video media is a serious and non-trivial risk factor for violence later in life.
I've got to turn in for the night since it's 2:00 am over here, but I'll try to come back tomorrow with some real studies (after I force my way into my university's library webpage somehow).
Of course this would require such things to be reported, and another assertion I would make but can't back up is that we have been a large degree more diligent as a whole of reporting such things in the past 20 years as we have in the decades prior to that.
I never finish anyth
That actually reminds me of an analogy a professor used a few years ago.
Compare the media-violence/aggression correlation with the smoking/lung-cancer correlation.
1) You can smoke and not get lung cancer.
2) Not everyone that gets lung cancer smokes.
3) The vast majority of smokers will not get lung cancer.
Does that mean we should dismiss the link between smoking and lung cancer? If the literature is persuasive enough, we can still make a claim that the link is real.
I've gone through a fair amount of literature myself. My opinions are, roughly:
- Violent media in general has an effect on kids.
- Exposure to violent media largely desensitizes people to violent media of the same type - eg, playing violent games will desensitize a person to violent games, but not to violent films, or real violence.
- Exposure to violent media can have strong negative effects on children too young to properly appreciate what's going on.
So basically, I think we should keep little kids from seeing violent films and playing GTA, and that we should allow them to be gradually introduced to such things as they obtain the maturity to properly deal with it.
Nothing terribly radical, in other words. I feel pretty much the same way regarding sex.
Well, yeah, but what issue can't be solved with realistic and responsible parenting? That's no fun at all.
As others have said, that doesn't actually mean anything. There's still a huge leap between that and "violent videogames lead to an increase in crime." And in the absence of that, I don't see what the big deal is.
No one cares about aggression. Sugar causes aggression and playground incidents. The question in front of us is long term psychological damage with measurable effects on society, not a tiny blip that can be attributed to the normal psychological process of coming to grips with powerful images.
Not to be argumentative, you're fielding everything nicely here, but it seems like you're only proving that this kind of statistical analysis *doesn't* track particularly well with reality. Especially when childhood development is infinitely more complex than the relationship between smoking and cancer.
Well, I'm still going to contest your second point that there's no link between violent video games (violent media) and incarceration measures.
But to address this question: I care! Wouldn't the world be a nicer place if the jackass in the apartment across from mine wouldn't openly berate me for bringing friends into my place? Or if the drivers in my home state were calmer and safer? Or if spouses treated each other with verbal (and physical!) deference?
It's a more philosophical point, but why not less aggression? How is that not a good thing?
I'm not saying we should abolish video games to make people nice, but if childhood abuse of violent video games can be shown to have later consequences for aggression (if not violent crime), then how is that not significant?
As for me, the most convincing long-term study I read was a longitudinal study that found specfically TV shows watched by children in which the protagonist solved problems using violence did in fact correlate to increased use of violence in everyday behavior in adulthood, after accounting for all sorts of other variables. Shows that just had random violence but weren't marked by the hero punching people out, while they still showed desensitization, did not lead to behavior changes. Considering the overwhelming prevalence of the hero using violence in video games, I'd be interested in a similar study there.
(Huesmann, Moise, Podolski, & Eron, 2000). If somebody can find the real, full article it'd be super awesome for this thread since it looks like we need a discussion on methods. That's a respectable article (going by the number of times it gets cited), and it links (controlled) repeated exposure to violent media with habitual aggression and violent offenses later in life.
I totally agree. It's not just about crime - you can be a total fucko without breaking the law. I'd rather not live in a society of total fuckos.
Edit: That might also be a rather O/T discussion that I don't know if we, the collective whole of this thread, want to get into.
I never finish anyth
The only problem I have with the anti-video-game politicians is that a: they don't bother to research their point, and instead just start comparing games to drugs and porn or claiming that games turn every kid who touches them into murderers. And b: The government (at least in the US) should not interfere with art. Governmental control over video games shouldn't happen at all. What we need is a self-policing industry(which is happening), and smarter parents.
Parents taking responsibility for their super-special-snowflakes who can do no wrong? That's crazy talk!
Both of you, get out now!
j/k. I actually saw a dad buy his kid a game at Wal-Mart, the kid said "GTA4" and the dad didn't know any better.
I really liked that the clerk took the dad aside for second and said "Do you know what this game is about?"
Then the kid had to pick a new game. So props to you, mr. wal-mart employee, for helping to do your part.
1) Yes, GTA4 did pretty much suck. Hands-down most overrated game in history.
2) The thing that really bothered me about San Andreas is that it was always GTA, like beating up hookers and stealing cars and shooitng people and cops and thug life and so on. But find out there's a hidden, clothing-on, BJ simulation, and suddenly Hill-rod is coming off the top rope. I usually don't judge the puritannical morale too harshly, but that was surreal.
3) We need to use the same ratings system that the MPAA use. Parents fopr the most part don't get it. It's a video game. So what if it says M. Most of them don't recognize that M as anything other than part of the box art, and even if they do recognize it, they're like, "yeah, but he is kind of mature." I'm certain if the box said "R" on it using the same graphic the MPAA uses, many more parents would recognize exactly what the rating system is trying to tell them.
I like it, makes it so that they have something to compare it to.
What's funny to me, is that I had more fun in Saint's Row II, because it was still over the top. GTA4, the game were you stay home and not hang out with your IRL friends, because you have to go hang out with your VG friends. Yeah, I played that game, its called life.
also, the kid in the video, I'm not gonna give him a hard time. I've shot my AR-15 alot and it still makes my sinuses hurt on some days. Something like a .22 has no recoil, but a .223 even though it is reduced due to the AR system, still kicks. It's definitely not like call of duty. Also, he had probably never seen a gun IRL, and it does have some emotional stuff attached. (Nice rifle, BTW)
I'm growing to believe the "I don't know any better!" thing is a cop-out. I find it hard to believe that any sentient being alive in America right now is not aware that some video games perhaps contain mature content. Nobody out there really believes that video games are all like Pac-Man, and if there are such people, they're probably too fucking dumb to figure out how to get the penis into the vagina, anyway.
So those parents who buy their 10 year old GTA4? Yeah, maybe they don't know that particular game is full of sex and violence. Mostly, though, they just don't care. They're the same folks who bring their little kid to see American Psycho because they can't find a sitter. Educating them won't help. Giving them a convenient ratings system won't help. Because they're lazy fuckos who don't want their kids to interfere with their ability to shut off their brains and do whatever shit they want to do.
I've done that and been bitched out the parent for trying to tell them how to raise his or her kid, so I've given up.
I get yelled at by parents for telling them how to raise their kids, and that's essentially my job. You'll always have to deal with the crazies.
Never ever assume that. Before all others, the most basic instinct of any species of animal on this planet (human included) is to breed. Intelligence rarely, if ever, factors into it.
I never finish anyth
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
This is ultimately still the fault of parents, and adults in general, who are too lazy and irresponsible to do their own homework in order to (gasp!) parent their children. Thus said people jump on videogames as the latest scapegoat in What Must Be Corrupting and Ruining Our Youth As We Know It (tm).
The rating system wouldn't be a problem if they could be assed to take five minutes and examine what the game, or at the very least ESRB rating, is about.
MPAA ratings aren't going to do jack on people who don't care to notice the staggeringly obvious beforehand.
Wasn't there somewhere in this thread about common sense? I know the above should be like turbo limed. But, ulltimately it is always the fault of the parents.
So you're saying that there exist parents who would be shocked - shocked! - to discover that there exists such a thing as a video game with objectionable content within it?
I remain skeptical. Ten years ago, I would've bought it. But right now, the parent of a sixteen year old child was likely in his early twenties when the ZOMG VIOLENT GAMES thing started coming out. They were young enough to be familiar with the games, if not actively playing them, and young enough to at least notice the crusade going on. The parent of a ten year old was likely still in highschool at that time.
These people know better, unless they were raised by particularly media-unsavvy wolves. They grew up with this shit. You may as well claim that Baby Boomers have no idea that sometimes songs contain lyrics with unsubtle allusions to sex and drugs.
Unfortunately the G-R rating can't just be used for games since it is trademarked by the MPAA. And even they have stupid rules for what determines an R or PG-13 movie, which is why lately so many movies could qualify as R unedited but they are edited down to PG-13 to sell more tickets.
I've seen this happen at a gamestop. The parent bought the game anyway.
The same employee, in an earlier incident, was arguing with another employee about ratings. The other dude was saying, "it's all zeros and ones man, it's not real. what's the big deal about selling to kids?"
And I felt really good when I told the Mother/Son combo that the Adam and Eve "Pirates" movie had nothing to do with Jack Sparrow and probably wasn't a good idea for either of them to watch (to be fair, they both had no clue). They edited a XXX movie down to an R rating and somehow we rented it out.
I don't have the time to do a proepr response. Sorry. I'll take you at your word on the research for now.
I really do think that video games differ from other violent media (music and TV-slash-movies, as the two categories tend to split in research) because of interactivity. The 'common sense' interpretation of this is two-fold: first, by making subjects be perpetrators of violence rather than observers they elicit a different emotional response to violence and second, by making participants do violence rather than watch it you assuage some of the urge to actually be violent.
There may also be a strong correlation with video games versus other media in terms of things like poverty level; rich kids have more access to games and rich kids live lives less conducive to violence therefore gamers are generally less violent as a whole,
I don't know if that holds up in studies but I'm also not aware of any robust studies on either effect.
"Eliciting a different emotional response"
There's quite a few confounding variables and factors there. For example it could just be that they are paying attention to what is going on. Immersion also plays a factor. What if it's not immersive.
In addition the assumption that because it's a different emotional response it will change the level of aggression seems to be based on the idea that emotions are fundamentally different.
In fact emotion is fundamentally similar. We have the same physiological response to an extreme of every emotion but interpret them differently. This is why it is difficult to pin down ones emotions as something you express to another, because you are interpreting the same physiological response and have to understand the contexts you are currently involved in to describe it to someone else.
An example is "love on the shaky bridge" where a couple mistakes the intense physiological response that relates to the fear of being on a shaky bridge as an indication of another emotion, love. They mistake the identical physiological processes. I don't see how the emotion being interpreted differently would change how aggression is modelled based on the interaction. It seems to me it would internalise it more strongly because the physiological response would be more intense due to the immersion, hence the associations with the violence interacted with would be stronger, because memory is strengthened by the intense physiological reaction of emotion.
It's a mistake to believe emotion to be a categorical reality with fundamentally different processes in the individual.
So you see I think that proposition, coming as it does from a common sense point of view, lacks merit as a counter objection because simply having a different emotion is not enough.
And the second seems a bit based on the freudian idea of catharsis, or basically if you do something you free yourself of the urge.
Which has little foundation scientifically since Freudian theory is not commonly respected or practised. It is a very common point of view in the general population though, because freud is goddam everywhere and so it's made it's way into "common sense".
So I don't really think those two points are good reasons left as is. Perhaps if you clarified them with more detail?
It is actually surreal how out of touch people are with games and how they've progressed. People like us think it's common knowledge because not only have we grown up with it, our very presence on these boards indicates we're a little more invested than usual in the medium.
I remember how surprised I was when I was researching the ESRB around this time last year. I was trying to understand the moral panic and outrage and everything else that surrounds videogame controversy, and it didn't click until I realized that, if not the majority, a great amount of people still assume that videogames are, by their very nature, designed and marketed towards kids.
On the black screen