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
So I really doubt that Jack Thompson, Joe Lieberman, or any other critic would use Anderson's study and not see how it could implicate religion.
I just love how JT once claimed that Bushman is a credible researcher and also claimed that Bushman said there is a "causal" link between video games and violent behavior (even though there isn't). Now Bushman says religion is linked to violent behavior. Will JT still claim Bushman is a credible researcher?
More people have been killed "in the name of God" than for any other reason in history (this is still true even if you are only counting since video games were invented). Does that mean there's a causal link between believing in God and violent behavior?
Ban school sports and religion, then come talk about banning violent video games.
Oh... making laws against football and religion aren't so popular, are they? Not many soccer-mom votes in those topics... hmm.
(Not to mention that any law banning any kind of religion would be just as un-constitutional as banning video games).
Hmm.
"Violent Video Game Effects On Children and Adolescents"
How about something more marketable like:
"Games Eat Babies"
"Death, Destruction, and Video Games"
"Murdering for Fun"
"Virtual Armageddon"
I mean, THOSE titles will sell some books! With a title like VVGEOCAA (I refuse to type out the entire thing a second time) they won't even break even.
The problem is not games, it's obsessive behaviour and societies 'trust no-one' attitude. You can point fingers at Video Games, Heavy Metal, Punk Rock, Comic books, and all of these had 'evidence', but the one constant with all the people who commited crimes was that they were compulsive obsessives with a grudge against 'humanity'.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/4046521/detail.html
"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're not saying that. We're saying that if they do, the games aren't responsible, they had a screw loose to begin with. If the games were responsible, then every 3rd household in the US would have a family member with violent tendencies...
Or are you one of those people who actually believe that "Catcher in the Rye" caused Lennon's murder?
'Although playing a violent video game on an occasional basis is unlikely to produce any long-term harmful consequences, repeated exposure to violent entertainment media of any type is an important risk factor for later aggressiveness. '
In other words, anyone going after laws based on this guys research had better be prepared to either go for ALL media or face the 14th for descimination.
Once again, it seems to me that the problem here is those 'new fangled' computer games. Everyone admits that these media forms all have an impact of some kind, though no-one can agree what exactly, and yet are quite willing to single out computer games as a scapegoat for it.
Like every other study he's done, when the differences was measured in milliseconds?
Hardly "significant"...
I say, once again, where the control? Are controls something that are considered too 'inconvenient' for including into research?
Frankly I have massive concerns as to Dr Andersons impartiality in the matter, he has shown time and time again to want to find these results, and, like cold fusion, you can always find the results you want.
Anderson has consistently found increases in short term aggression with differently populations (age, gender, etc). While Anderson and his GAM model have led the way trying to connect video games to violence the evidence continues to show short term increases. As others have pointed out there are many additional factors that muddy the results in the longterm.
Research Quest - the gaming librarian
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/28/violent-games-dont-cause-youth-violen...
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/19/researcher-finds-scant-evidence-linki...
Focusing on peer pressure, kids not playing video games may lead to some social exclusion, especially when the very popular are playing the very violent VG which could lead non-aggressive kids to taking more violent video games in order to associate themselves to (role model-type) popular kids. Of course, unless these kids can assert themselves and resist peer pressure, then we're fine. But that's all theory and no empirical evidence...
@Beardogg-X
Can you tell me who exactly these researchers are that debunked Anderson's claims?
Or is that jack? I can't help but laugh at it either way. Craig can't get honest work in research anymore, so instead he cranks out book deals.
Sad, but not at all suprising
I agree completely.. I didn't get beaten up when I was eight merely because of violent video games. I got beaten up because people think it's okay to harrass and pummel geeks and nerds. To say it's the fault of a video game will not stop somebody else from lying out on a cold field for several hours like I did, and to think it will merely mocks the cause of violence control in public education.
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~caa/
I hold anything this man says, especially in a book where he is not subject to at least some peer oversight, in high skepticism.
Now, it is interesting, but vague. Aggression? Like a spectator at a football game? Also, if I remember correctly, most young school shooters are NOT aggressive. They are calm and collected, right?
I'm not sure what aggression means, but I'm sure most people who already believe media can cause violence won't stop to think, "Wait, aggression is NOT the same as violence." I'm sure that will help well books, Craig. Now, perhaps he explains what he means by aggression in the book, so I won't call it out until I've read it, or heard more. But, my skepticism remains high.
~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~
Does the third study actually compare the increased level of violence to other kids who did not play violent games or just to the violent videogame players themselves?
And why would games be the only reason that the students got more agressive?
Maybe school life in general (with the jocks, populars, nerds etc.) was pising them of.
Being aggressive does NOT mean being violent.
It seems you can't. You also can't explain how correlation=causation. Which is why your studies are consistently thrown out by the courts when they are presented in game bill cases.
And like Doggyspew mentioned, people who are not agressive by nature are less likely to play violent games, wich means that the "exposure" (another nicely loaded term I might add) to violent videogames will ALWAYS be bigger for the rest of the gamers.
I'ts the ancient "Chicken or the egg" paradox...
...
Even so, what does agressive mean then ? More hostile towards others, or plain dangerous towards others. Being more agressive then the others does not mean you commit violent crimes.