New Book Cites Research on Video Games, Kids & Aggression

March 26, 2007 -
Dr. Craig Anderson of Iowa State University has a new book out, Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy.

It's pictured at left, with Manhunt on the cover.

According to an ISU press release, the book, co-authored by ISU prof Douglas Gentile and PhD candidate Katherine Buckley is the first work to link research and public policy in the video game violence debate.

Later this week Anderson and Gentile will present their research at a meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development in Boston.

Among their findings:

Cartoonish game violence (Captain Bumper, Otto Matic) raised aggression levels in the same way as more graphic T-rated games like Street Fighter and Future Cop. Said Gentile:
Even the children's violent video games - which are more cartoonish and often show no blood - had the same size effect on children and college students as the much more graphic games have on college students. What seems to matter is whether the players are practicing intentional harm to another character in the game. That's what increases immediate aggression - more than how graphic or gory the game is.

The researchers also found that among 189 high school students surveyed, those who had more exposure to violent games tended to hold more pro-violent attitudes, had more hostile personalities, were less forgiving, believed violence to be more typical, and behaved more aggressively in their everyday lives. Anderson said:
We were surprised to find that exposure to violent video games was a better predictor of the students' own violent behavior than their gender or their beliefs about violence... We were also somewhat surprised that there was no apparent difference in the video game violence effect between boys and girls or adolescents with already aggressive attitudes.

A third study detailed in the book looked at 430 children in grades three through five. Results showed that kids who played more violent games early in the school year saw the world in a more aggressive way and became more aggressive - both verbally and physically - later in the school year. 

Comments

Hi all, this is Harsha. I gone through this website and found some interesting information about Video games. we have a site
secrets and tips , which provides a great info about WOW games.

A lack of a weapon will not prevent a sociopath from committing a crime. You don't need a gun to inflict violence on the world. There are much more effective ways of killing and creating fear. Anyone with time and the motivation can wreak havoc on the world around them with stuff you can buy at walmart.

@jonc2006

If you ban guns, then the only people that will have guns will be criminals. Kind of a "catch-22."

I think its interesting to note how the article uses the words "violent" and "aggressive". It's very carefully worded if you look closely. The article never uses the word "violent" to describe the actual actions of the kids. It uses the word "aggressive". It uses "violent" to describe the games themselves. In this way the article can remain true without saying that violent video games do not actually make kids more violent. It only presents a truth: that violent video games encourage kids to be more pro-active. The problem is that it presents that truth with the implication that violent games cause violence, but it can't actually say that because the research won't back it up.

It's also interesting that the article does not describe the fraction of kids who exhibited particular behaviors. It only gives the size of the control group. The statement "The researchers also found that among 189 high school students surveyed, those who had more exposure to violent games tended to hold more pro-violent attitudes" is too vague to present any facts, because for it to be true only 2 of those kids need to have actually exhibited the behavior.

Its just more political spin-doctoring designed to convince people that the entertainment industry is evil.

I played violent games all throughout my youth and I am probably the dullest, most boring person on the planet. I still play violent video games but I am very well adjusted and consider myself a pacifist. I dread military service and get very uncomfortable around real violence. This is probably a weakness in me, but I think its mostly because I never got into any fights as a kid. I am the exact opposite of what Jack Thompson says I should be.

As for being raised in warzones, yes I think that can affect a person. But playing violent games every waking minute is not the same as being raised in a warzone. Any remotely logical person who is well-adjusted enough to know the difference between fantasy and reality should recognize that video-game violence has absolutely nothing to do with real violence.

if guns didnt exist then they would use knifes or whatever is next in line.

i dont see the need to fear people like thompson. politicians and parent groups have always targeted main stream pop culture as the cause of youth issues and they fail every time, they simply just do not "get it" like we do. the last few months have given proof to that. we dont need to fight them, they are basically doing it for us. every failed attempt they produce only continues to destroy their credibility and position of powers. this sort of thing has been going on for years and video games are not the only victim. music, tv, film, books, radio (howard stern), all have been targets. im almost certain this will all blow over soon when another form of entertainment is created. if thompson and friends are truely are people to fear and are a threat to us, they would not have such a losing streak.

Just a thought but maybe to prevent sociopaths they should prevent them from getting guns.

That's a issue. I think a lot of us can agree it certainly has its effects and I for one would admit to that. But they're, those of political prowess, and the researchers who back them up, go for an unplausable extreme, and manipulate what they can to gain the results they want.

Think of the boy who cried wolf (although for the record, not my story as I love wolves). He continued to cry wolf when there was no danger, but eventually, the people stopped listening and it came back and got him when a real wolf came. These people (anti-gamers) cry out that there is a danger of violence, and right now people who are uneducated on the subject are listening and getting worked up. But eventually, the real wolf will come, in this case, us. Because many of us are old enough to have some kind of power, or vote. And we don't have to side with them, which hurts their political goals. And then there's the next generation, etc.

But in all honesty, I think we as gamers should take more initiative yourselves, and not let others fight for us. We should take the initiative to educate and debunk what the "anti-gamers" are saying and the grounds they base their, whatever, on. We all know that they're just bullshitting us, but there are others who don't and we need to start getting the word out to those people, not just within our own gaming community.

@ laputaquelepario

I personally doubt that videogaming can actually change you in anything other then you already are...
---- I'm not crazy, just ask the pink elephant...

@Picho I realized what you meant right after I posted lol.

The findings (for me, at least) have a point.

Take war-infested countries, for example. Children in parts of the middle east and Africa (where there's always 37 wars going on which nobody in first-world countries ever know about) are born and raised with powerful, semi-automatic firearms, live amongst rubble and debris, and are as accustomed to hearing the sounds of air-raid sirens and the blasts of mortar shells as we are used to hearing birds singing in the trees.

How that will *not* transform anyone from a reasonable person who welcomes dialogue as a recourse to diffusing conflict into one who opts to blow holes into somebody's head is beyond me, and certainly beyond those unfortunate souls who have to live through such hell on earth.

As is normally the case, there is never one factor that can be singled out as the definitive cause of teenage violence; a combination of genetics, parental rearing and environmental factors all contribute, but I certainly agree with the wuthor(s) that being exposed to violence, firearms and war, simulated or real, will definitely affect you, one way or another.

The same goes for videogames, movies, and yes, even literature (Mein Kampf,anyone?).

I'm not saying that playing violent games turns you into a homicidal maniac, but I seriously doubt it will turn you into the next mother Theresa, either.

I was just bringing up how stupid the world is, and how quickly humanity will jump to conclutions.

In this day, if something like that was to go on the air, Those people (and everyone in a thirty foot radius) would lose thier job so quickly thier heads will spin, just simply cause someone paniced which resulted in thier death.

lols Picho, I'm just saying the difference in attitudes is interesting, once upon a time the only thing we had to fear was fear itsself, now it's HOLY SHIT THE TERRORISTS MAY STRIKE AT ANY MOMENT YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR MY PARTY OR ELSE THE TERRORISTS WILL STRIKE BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE OTHER PARTY AND THE OTHER PARTY LOVES THEM!

Fremen, do you remember the radio broadcast about aliens invading the earth that caused mass panic?

As far as behavoir modification goes, I'm more worried about the effect our gov't has over people. Look at how people are these days about terrorists, if you tell them that they have to kill their dogs in order to stay safe from terrorists they would do it in a second.

Hey I think I just thought up a nifty April Fools joke for GW. I should call him.

Here is just another thought. Did he ever take into account the act of anonymity? By which I mean with the sound test did the people have the fear of actually facing the "people" they were sound blasting? It doesn't look like it. And this brings into account another flaw. That these people didn't have to worry about repricution.

Think about it, with all the comments floating around on the internet how many are being made by people who, in broad day light, would never say what they type? It is the ability to act without fearing about what might be done to you. So these people could be asses in private, while if they carried this "agression" in public they would not act like that.

"Its the ancient “Chicken or the egg” paradox… "

The egg came first, since fish, dinosaurs, and lizards could lay eggs before chickens existed.
@ Oscar
"Why on earth are you people so convinced that children who sit in their basements all day pretending to kill people through realistic games could never, not ever, not possibly become anti-social or violent? It’s sad, the denial. It really is. "

Unlike in life, to negitives make a positive. Thus your two nots cancel each other out.

And no, most of the time they dont become anti-social. They start off that way.

Most violent behavior is in response of lack of sexual ability to preform, not through video games. This behavoir is even found in animals. There are those sorts of animals that are highly sexualy powerful, and those who are lesser. The lesser need to fight the greater in order to continue to spred thier seed. In humans, who normaly lack even the most basic of instincts, this is only view on one half of the spectrum.

Since as humans most of us lack the basic understanding of why we do things, we attempt to find scapegoats to justify why this is that. Such as greek myths where Apollo drove a cart holding the sun or som jazz like that. At that time we didnt Understand what was going on with it. Then we found out that its the earth that circles the sun, and the sun is a big ball of fire.

Heck, we use to think we could heal people by bleeding them to death.

If anything, Video games give us the ability to release our violence in a less destructive way. Researches look at this and think that the reverse is created. In other words most researches think that instead of allowing us to release, they give us more tendencies to do violent behaviour.

But since violence has existed even beyond the years of man, the only things that can truely be justified as violence creaters are, Sexual failures, Verbal communication break down and most importantly Stupid people. (Mind you that this list in not intierly all conclusive, and there are some other things that ill put in.)

@ Picho

Holy Darwin batman, the egg because of the Dinosaurs?

Never thought about it like that, but it makes sense!

And since everything essentialy evolved from one celled organisms I conclude:

"There is no egg".
---- I'm not crazy, just ask the pink elephant...

@ Oscar K.

I can see the difference. What I cannot see is the negative effects.

You mentioned above that the person who spends his entire life in his parents' basement will develop antisocial tendencies. What your naive argument completely ignores is that your future antisocial deviant is already spending all of his time in his parents' basement. There would obviously have to be some sort of pre-existing mental disorder that would drive them to avoid social contact like that, rather than seek people to game with in the real world.

All of the research has shown that violent crime rates among youth have been dropping for the last 20 years. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I feel safe in claiming that violent content in the actual games have been going up for the last 20 years, as core audiences get older and demand mature games to suit their more grown-up tastes.

Show me more causative studies that show a rise in violent youth crime paired with violence in media, and I'd be more incline to believe you. But for now, the numbers just don't back up your claims.

@ Snakestream and Tills

I wasn't saying frustration makes people kill people. I was just pointing out that whoever conducted this study failed to take into account other factors that would make someone seem more aggressive like frustration at the game. Whatever aggression these people saw (if any) in this study wasn't because of the violent nature of the game, but the frustration. If the only thing that makes gamers even remotely aggressive is frustration or compettition, then this study is on even shakier ground.

@Tills

In this paper “college” did mean university right? In my country it means high school. So they studied children vs adults?

Presumably. Here in the USA college and University tend to get used interchangeably.

@Tills

"Interesting how you specified children and teenagers. Any reasoning behind this? Is everyone over 20 immune to behavioral modification?"

Actually i'd say its a pretty fair distiction to make. While adults are not immune to behavioral modification, they are less influenced by it. As we age how minds continue to develop. At a younger ages are minds are not completly developed and because of that we tend to be more easily influence by the world around us. I mean, it's kinda like how learning a foreign language is easier at a young age then it is when you are older, or the notion that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. The less devleoped our minds are the easier it is for us to learn new things, to an extent atleast. The amount of influence the world has on us is greater when we are children then when we are adults... i'm not sure when exactly, but i think it's not until we become adults can it be said that our minds have fully developed.

@Oscar K.

The question isn't "is there a difference?" it's "How big of a difference is there?". when it comes to making children more aggressive how much more effective are the video games compared to movies? Are they FAR more effective?, Minimally more effective? Or are they just as effective? Merely identifying a difference between two forms of media is not enough to make a distiction, you have to PROVE that one is FAR more effective then another before you starting saying that one media is worse than the others.

So far, studies have failed to show that video games are much more effective than all other forms of media when ti comes to increased agression. I notice three distict flaws in these studies...

first their is how the studies are conducted. The studies often time don't prove what the critics claim they are saying, they aren't really accurate in showing how the games will cause a person to be more violent in the real world. This is what we have with the noise blast test, they never really explain how blowing a noise a few millisecond sooner prove that kids will be more violent in real life. A similar noise blast study was also done aginast the HOLY bible, and the results were similar to that of the study done for video games? Now, if we think video games are bad due to noise blast studies, then logically we MUST also say the holy bible is bad because of similar studies(seeing as their is no way we can logically reject one study and still except the other)... but ofcourse i refute the results of both studies as not being accurate proof of causeing violence... maybe riling poeple up a bit, but not making them violent.

second common flaw in some studies is corralation studies versus Causation studies. In order to say video games CAUSE violence you must prove causation. However, many studies such as the surveys only prove a corralation, bascially saying that violent poeple and violent video games are often found together. The problem with Corralation studies is you have a chicken and the egg kind of scenerio; did the kids become violent because they played violent video games, or did they play violent video games because they are violent. Hell. in a corralation study, its even possible for the two not to have any real relation (for instance, the corralation between increas in violent games and the decrease in crime activity, is one that i think does not have an actual relationship and is more of coincidence... though i would still think if games cause A LOT of violence in poeple, the crime rates wouldn't be going down). Though from those corralation studies, and knowing how MILLIONS of poeple play violenet video games, the cvast majority of which are non-violent... i think the most sencible conclusion is that the poeple of those studies were violent poeple who decided to play violent video games because they were something they were ALREADY into... Most violent video game playerss are NOT violent poeple, but MOST violent poeple play violent video games; or something close to that... violent poeple love to play and watch stuff that are violent, it makes perfect sence.

The final common flaw in these studies that i see is that they do not compare themselves well to other forms of media. The studies will be exclusively done towards vidoe games, but the same study is not done against violent movies, TV, music, or ANYTHING that might also potentially increase violence. Without comparison studies, we can not possibly say games are WORSE... we can say they are bad, but not nessasarily worse then anything that has allready been out there.


There is also another difference i think you should take into consideration between video games and movies; REALISM. What i understand by just being exposed to all sorts of media is that our minds react more to things when they are more realistic; the easier it is for us subconciously tell the difference between reaility and fiction the less effect those things we experience will effect us, and the less we are effected by something, the less influence it will have on our minds in the long run. Lets look at 3D realism, live action movie realism, and real life situations. Comparing real life to live action movies. Poeple can watch a live action movie and watch poepole get shot and killed and be only somewaht phased, but you put those poeple in a real life situtation where poeple are being shot and killed, they will be scared shitless and completely horrified but what they see even when they know they are not being targeted. Comparing 3D realism and live action realism, we get a similar feeling. Video games have a lot to them that does not feel real. the graphics for one thing, no matter how good they get, were made using code in a computer and thus fail to ever truely match up to reallife. Secondly, the POV the player has while playing a game is an unreal one, we do not see the world from a third person view, and when it comes to First person games, those two are not like realitity ssince in rela life we can look around, look at ourselves, see our whole bodies, not just our two front arms that never seem to leave our direct line of sight. Hell, another thing common with many violent games is a weak story build up which makes you not really "feel" for the characters; the same feeling that movies use to really get you to "feel" for the poeple and pull you more into the film. While Video games may be interative, i find them to be a rather detached experience compared to movies. In live action movies, we have live actors with very high end realistic special effects. Live action films come VERY close to feeling like the real thing, like we are almsot actually watching these things happen in real life. The degree of realism is how movies pull the viewer into the film and making the feel part of the experience, and it's all reflected in how it effects our minds. I myself for instance, can play a video game where i tear poeple limd from limb using nothing but a rusty daggar and i will barely flitch... in contrast however, you will NEVER see me anywhere near a showing of one of the SAW movies... those movies have a way of scaring the hell out of me. The realism difference is what plays the role here, my mind can easily distinguish between the images generated by a computer, but has a great deal of trouble with images of actual poeple in very realistic, though fictional, violence. Just ask yourself... what kind of media causing you to be the most emotional, a live action film, a realistic 3D game/film, or an animated film... i've noticed that i tend to be most emotionally moved from live action movies myself (though a good animated film can still give a fair amount of emotion)... i'd say because of how much more realistic it is, that live action movies and such tend to have a stronger effect on our minds.

One last thing i would want to hear from you is your opinion of SPORTS, such as Football, boxing, and hunting. In football kids are physically trained to be stronger and faster, and they are taught how to use a great deal of physcail force to knock down other humans; also remeber this is something teenagers are actually encouraged to do, and that disipline as to how that muscle is NOT supposed to be used is not exactly common in training. Boxing, is a sport where you are actually taught how to fight, you are trained to be physically very strong, and taught exactly how to throw a punch... these poeple than use that training and beat the crap out of other players. The their is Hunting, where the person is taught how to point, aim and shoot a gun at a LIVING creature with aim of actually KILLING their target... and some poeple teach their teens this kind of stuff... What is your opinion on such violent activities that are commonly excepted in today's society?

Who cares what one study says when thousands using the basic proecdures failed. Even still law makers will constantly make video game laws 'casue most are considered having no value to society.

I think it's quite funny that for all these arguements that come out either way on this arguement, I've played violent videogames, read violent books and seen violent movies and have never once acted violently or even had the impulse to act violently toward anyone, except very few exceptions in my life which had justification and weren't pre-empted or followed by video gaming. I also think its quite interesting that of all the videogamers I've ever met in my entire existance, none of which have been violent people despite playing several violent games. So books like this, and the elitist arguements of people like OscarK can float around all they want, in true practice for me and several others, these studies are false representations of the truth, in adults, young adults, adolescents, and even pre-teen and smaller children.

If the videogame drives you to kill, you probably already had your share of problems. Like the inability to discern the difference between reality and fantasy, which is a deep-seated personality problem that simply cannot be birthed by video gaming. As for short term aggression? A lot of things that aren't inherently violent cause that, like driving, or basketball or even sports, if the person in question has a competitive nature, or is already violent. So I'm just about sick of the slanted arguements that video gaming causes these problems, because the worst it can do is expand and compound them.

And in that case, it really all comes down influence and guidance, which is hardly the responsibility of the people that made and marketed said video games (or any other form of artistic expression for that matter), but comes down to the parent or guardian, even therapist, social worker, or etc.

"A lot of things that aren’t inherently violent cause that, like driving, or basketball or even sports, if the person in question has a competitive nature, or is already violent."

This sentence would be correctly stated "basketball or even GOLF".

Sorry it is supposed to say "Showing it is women who are more naturally violent than men ;-p."

Addon

In this paper "college" did mean university right? In my country it means high school. So they studied children vs adults?

"I, for one, never said that like many others here didn’t. Children who sit in their basements all-day playing violent videogames could become anti-social and/or violent. Just like children who sit in their basement all day and watch horror movies or read comic books or watch televised sports or watch FOX news or read the Bible."

Kids watching FOX news all day are probably more likely to be socially maladjusted than kids playing violent video games all day. They *know* the games are fake, but they might actually think that FOX news is real...

Also forgot to mention that, although I get frustrated a lot playing puzzle games like Myst and stuff, it just makes me feel that much better when I crack a particularly tough puzzle. Same when I am up against an insanely good team on BF2142 and I end up dominating.

This has the same basic problem as Anderson's previous studies: Namely, it certainyl shows a link, but defines agression in a way with little real-worl applicability. Forceful and assertive pursuit of one's goals is pretty much a virtue in Amaerican society. When violence is defined as doing intentional harm to others, but abstracted to the point that you aren't talking about physical injury anymore, essentially you're left with competition increases competitive behavior, which economists have argued for years. I realize it's rather difficult to do a control group with long term studies, but this is nowhere near being able to say violent games make kids into violent criminals.

@Oscar K.

Well everything you said in your last post is absolutely right. Say that videogames makes children killers I will say that you are wrong. Just say that videogames make children become more aggressive and I will say doctors and researchers said the same thing about rock n' roll and rap music, comic books, pen-and-paper roleplaying games and movies. The only difference is, like you stated, that videogames are more interactive than movies or comic books but the research back then said the same thing they say now. You must also admit, more people killed because of sports or religion than they did because videogames.

@Oscar K.

What exactly is your point? These are the very same researchers that said violent media produces violent behavior, whether it be a video game or movie. In fact, as I previously stated earlier, the same noise blast study was done on religion and the same results were found. That study on religion involved people READING the Bible (a book) yet the same results were found as playing violent video games.

Who cares if the item in question is interactive (video game) or passive (book), because the results are the same, regardless.

Also, would you claim that we shouldn't care about a Playboy magazine or a pornographic movie? Both of which are considered passive materials (magazine, movie), but we still regulate them. You wouldn't say we should only regulate porn in video games, but give children access to porn everywhere else as long as it isn't interactive would you? In other words, you wouldn't treat them differently, right?

1). Couldn't there be another cause of the aggression than the fact they're playing video games? What if (like Hackangel said) the aggression is linked to the competitiveness or frustration these people are feeling. If u play shooters like Counter Strike or Halo online, and you get killed a lot, aren't you gonna feel frustrated. I play video games a lot, and when i come to a part of the game that i have trouble beating, i feel aggressive because I'm frustrated.
You could play the easiest, most violent video game on the shelves, and it might not affect you, but if you you played an insanely difficult, but cute, non-violent pixies and fairy dust sort of game, it could lead to short term aggression because of your frustration.

and 2). I've been playing soccer for a long time, and to tell you the truth, I feel more aggressive playing soccer or other sports than I do playing video games.

@Allen

I don't know about you, but although I sometimes feel frustrated when playing games, I never go out and cut someone because I feel frustrated. Also, if frustration at failure led to violence, then almost all the sports players out there would be serial killers.

@Snakestream

I agree, its a big step between saying "arghh damnit" and going out and trying to kill someone.

The guy is still using the noise blast study. The one where people played street fighter and had a much louder and longer response (which is not necessarily true).

According to the test, women gave longer and louder scores than men. With women giving average sounds at 6.84 seconds and men at 6.59.

Yet with Violent games to non violent games it was less (wolfenstein 3d at 6.81 to Mysts 6.65). Showing it is women who are more naturally violent than women ;-p. Yet this shmuck claims that this is a dramatic change (with only 16 hundreths of a second compared to the 25 hundreths of a second between male and female).

This guys obviously needs some serous help in being a scientist. I mean not only are his results inconclusive (due to the fact that the difference in sex has more in common with rage than violent or non violent games). He also neglects to inform that his study has not withstood the scrutiny of the court.

@ Oscar K

Interesting how you specified children and teenagers. Any reasoning behind this? Is everyone over 20 immune to behavioral modification?

Also to your first post, yes people sitting in basements all day playing games can turn violent. But their was violence before video games. These research papers try to indicate that games = murderer, no matter what other factors.

"There is a big difference between violent video games and other types of violent media. Video games let the person playing them “do” the killing. You get to be the shooter, you get to fire the gun, you get to decide who gets killed and when. You don’t get to do this in movies or books. You only get to watch. The teenager who watches a violent movie is a passive observer not an integral part of the plot, participating in the virtual violence as it unfolds–making it happen. When you watch a movie you are not in charge of the violence. When you play a violent video game you are in charge of it. Can you not see this fundamental difference? Or don’t you want to? (I already know the answer of course)"

There is a big difference between Dungeon's and Dragons and other types of violent media. Dungeons and Dragons let the person playing them “do” the killing. You get to be the soldier, you get to swing the sword, you get to decide who gets killed and when. You don’t get to do this in movies or books. You only get to watch. The teenager who watches a violent movie is a passive observer not an integral part of the plot, participating in the virtual violence as it unfolds–making it happen. When you watch a movie you are not in charge of the violence. When you play Dungeond and Dragons you are in charge of it. Can you not see this fundamental difference? Or don’t you want to? (I already know the answer of course)

Whoah! Flashback to the eighties!

If someone is unable or unwilling to seperate the nature of a "violent video game" from the nature of the reality that we all inhabit, they were messed in the head to begin with. It's a fair stretch from mum's basement in suburbia to the dark and dingy streets of Manhunt, the cyber-punk world of Deus Ex, hell even the streets of everyones favourite punching bag GTA. No matter how realistic the game, how accurate the bloodspray (which after a point just become boring. Gameplay > Graphics always has, always will) a game only occupies a 21inch square.

Now, with that in mind:

A young boy in a random suburb is outside with his friends, doing the young boys thing of "AAAH I'M A KNIGHT AND I SHALL SLAY THIS DRAGON (next door's boy) WITH MY SWORD OF POWER (foam baseball bat)" Perfectly normal, nothing to see here, move along.

Mid-Teenage boy is inside at his desk playing Counter-Strike. Porbably thinking something like: "AAAH I'M A HOSTAGE RESCUE TEAM AND I SHALL SLAY THE TERRORIST (next door's son) WITH MY ASSAULT RIFLE (mouse)" and lo the respons comes: "Oh My God! A Serial killer in the making! Quick lock him up with teddy bears and Tom Sawyer books before he can do anyone some harm!

The general thing with all of this is: If you go out and murder, beat up somone or engage in some kind of property damage, the fact that you were an avid gamer has about as much relavence as what you ate for breakfast that morning. You had tendencies towards this kind of behaviour before you played, and regardless of the fact you played "violent video games." Perhaps the incessant bullying, absent parents, sexual abuse or anyone of a inumeralble amount of factors have just a slightly more realistic chance of causing such behavior? Then again it is much easier to spin the sad story that video games made me/my child into a killer, because then I don't have to take that nasty thing called responsibilty to heart.

/soapbox

@Oscar K.

"Why on earth are you people so convinced that children who sit in their basements all day pretending to kill people through realistic games could never, not ever, not possibly become anti-social or violent? It’s sad, the denial. It really is."

I, for one, never said that like many others here didn't. Children who sit in their basements all-day playing violent videogames could become anti-social and/or violent. Just like children who sit in their basement all day and watch horror movies or read comic books or watch televised sports or watch FOX news or read the Bible.

"We were surprised to find that exposure to violent video games was a better predictor of the students’ own violent behavior than their gender or their beliefs about violence…"

That's kind of circular for a 'scientific study' isn't it?

I could just as well say that violent behaviour is a better predictor of one's exposure to violent videogames than gender or social disposition.

"Even the children’s violent video games - which are more cartoonish and often show no blood - had the same size effect on children and college students as the much more graphic games have on college students."

And again, that can be just as effective an argument for either side of the debate. Couldn't you easily say that this indicates that you could just as well implicate Mario as Manhunt into a violent crime? Mario involves the protagonist crushing and burning his foes to death after all.

Why can nongaming people comfortably see Mario as what it is - a game, with rules and components - and yet only see Manhunt as its abstracted representation?

This just in...children not adequately raised by parents subject to developing behavioral problems!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/parenting/03/26/childcare.ap/index.html

OK so here's my own input-

Good upbringing + no violent media = Good behavior
Good upbringing + violent media = Still good behavior
Bad upbringing + no violent media = Bad behavior
Bad upbringing + violent media = Compounded bad behavior

The second of those is the most ideal in my opinion. Of course in order for that good upbringing to remain good...the violent media should be consumed under parental supervision and with parental input before the media is consumed.

Seduction of the Innocent 2007

There is a big difference between violent video games and other types of violent media. Video games let the person playing them "do" the killing. You get to be the shooter, you get to fire the gun, you get to decide who gets killed and when. You don't get to do this in movies or books. You only get to watch. The teenager who watches a violent movie is a passive observer not an integral part of the plot, participating in the virtual violence as it unfolds--making it happen. When you watch a movie you are not in charge of the violence. When you play a violent video game you are in charge of it. Can you not see this fundamental difference? Or don't you want to? (I already know the answer of course)

@Yoshiko

I was wondering when someone was going to comment on that one.
As for you being the one who did it. lol.

Since these studies tend to have a goal in mind, they tend to favor research that will agree with the objectives they look toward to. Since I'm not a doctor I can't say for sure that these studies are right or wrong but I'm always left wondering certain things that the researchers seem to leave behind.
Study 1:
1. If the goal of the study is to see the effects of videogames, shouldn't it make more sense to get games that typical teenagers would play? Meaning games that were a comercial success and that were not made over 5 years ago.
2. Did the competition aspect was explored? If certain participants were more inclined to "punish" other players via soundblast, does the possiblity that these participants "punished" opposing players because of the competitive nature of the game as opposed to the violent nature? Did the study try with non-violent but extremely competitive games like racing? Since the study says violent, cartoonish and bloodless games had the same effet as the other more gory (is Future Cop gory? I wouldnt call Street Fighter gory) perhaps the violence was not an issue but perhaps the competitive nature was?
Study 2:
1. What makes this study more signigicant than those that were made about movies, comic books, obscene music or pen-and-paper roleplaying games? Wasnt the same said about every other type of medi in existence? What is the point to prove that this can be said about videogames when it was made about other form of entertainment before? Studies for studies' sake?
Study 3:
There's something that just doesnt make any sense in it. I just cant put it into words.

tell me this how many riots have LAN parties caused worldwide?
Now tell me how many football riots, or soccer riots (either one) have there been?
How much has each riot type on riot costed?

"Games Eat Babies"

I would SO buy this book.

I blame "A Clockwork Orange", "If", rock'n'roll music, Dungeons & Dragons, and freebasing pixie stix for my psychotic episodes. Oh yeah and society.

It makes me happy that professionals and the well educated have such wonderful ideas and my best interests at heart and the funding and time to spend on such vitally important issues.

Now if only they could do something about that pesky Elvis fellow.

"Why on earth are you people so convinced that children who sit in their basements all day pretending to kill people through realistic games could never, not ever, not possibly become anti-social or violent? It’s sad, the denial. It really is."

We aren't denying that if a person sits in their basement and is raised by violence in parental absentia, they will be socially inept, and potentially violent.

We are denying, however, that longer 'noise blasts,' on the order of milliseconds, have any credence in finding out if violent media has a cause and effect on violent tendancies outside a controlled environment. Especially coupled with the fact the honking a horn can easily be seen as a continuance of the game, since a kid knows that the horn will cause only minor discomfort.

The fact that video games, even non-violent ones like NASCAR, can raise aggression levels and overall arousal is not the issue. This is fairly well documented. Any competitive game does this, however. Take football, or even just watching football. It's fairly obvious that any sport raises aggression, if only just temporarily; know colloquially as, "In the heat of the game." And I'm sure we've all seen cases where a player of a sport cannot calm down after the game, or known colloquially, "Can't leave it on the field." So why is sports aggression somehow better (or worse) than fictional characters being controlled in an aggressive manner? I would argue that either can be harmful, but only if certain other criteria are met. For instance lack of a parental figure/coach can cause a person to not separate games from reality, and is more of causal factor of violence.

But as we've seen, some people are just screwed up. So, where again is the 'sad denial?'
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightIt's not bad so far, but I am honestly not sure what to make of it (or where it's going for that matter)07/28/2014 - 9:44pm
Matthew Wilsonis it any good?07/28/2014 - 9:36pm
Papa Midnight"Love Child" on HBO -- anyone else watching this?07/28/2014 - 9:27pm
MaskedPixelanteNah, I'm fine purple monkey dishwasher.07/28/2014 - 4:05pm
Sleaker@MP - I hope you didn't suffer a loss of your mental faculties attempting that.07/28/2014 - 3:48pm
MaskedPixelanteOK, so my brief research looking at GameFAQs forums (protip, don't do that if you wish to keep your sanity intact.), the 3DS doesn't have the power to run anything more powerful than the NES/GBC/GG AND run the 3DS system in the background.07/28/2014 - 11:01am
ZenMatthew, the 3DS already has GBA games in the form of the ambassador tittles. And I an just as curious about them not releasing them on there like they did the NES ones. I do like them on the Wii U as well, but seems weird. And where are the N64 games?07/28/2014 - 10:40am
james_fudgeNo. They already cut the price. Unless they release a new version that has a higher price point.07/28/2014 - 10:19am
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, It most likely is. The question is whether Nintendo wants to do it.07/28/2014 - 10:12am
Matthew WilsonI am sure the 3ds im more then powerful enough to emulate a GBA game.07/28/2014 - 9:54am
Sleaker@IanC - while the processor is effectively the same or very similar, the issue is how they setup the peripheral hardware. It would probably require creating some kind of emulation for the 3DS to handle interfacing with the audio and input methods for GBA07/28/2014 - 9:30am
Sleaker@EZK - hmmm, that makes sense. I could have sworn I had played GB/GBC games on it too though (emud of course)07/28/2014 - 9:23am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, the DS has a built in GBA chipset in the system. That is why it played GBA games. The GBA had a seperate chipset for GB and GBColor games. The DS did not have that GB/GBC chipset and that is why the DS could not play GB and GBC games.07/28/2014 - 7:25am
IanCI dont think Nintendo ever gave reason why GBA games a reason why GBA games aren't on the 3DS eshop. The 3DS uses chips that are backwards compatable with the GBA ob GBA processor, after all.07/28/2014 - 6:46am
Sleakerhmmm that's odd I could play GBA games natively in my original DS.07/28/2014 - 1:39am
Matthew Wilsonbasically "we do not want to put these games on a system more then 10 people own" just joking07/27/2014 - 8:13pm
MaskedPixelanteSomething, something, the 3DS can't properly emulate GBA games and it was a massive struggle to get the ambassador games running properly.07/27/2014 - 8:06pm
Andrew EisenIdeally, you'd be able to play such games on either platform but until that time, I think Nintendo's using the exclusivity in an attempt to further drive Wii U sales.07/27/2014 - 7:21pm
Matthew WilsonI am kind of surprised games like battle network are not out on the 3ds.07/27/2014 - 7:01pm
Andrew EisenWell, Mega Man 1 - 4, X and X2 are already on there and the first Battle Network is due out July 31st.07/27/2014 - 6:16pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician