Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

November 12, 2010 -

A new Rasmussen poll of Americans on the subject of violent videogames found that 54 percent of those polled believed that violent games lead to more violence in society.

The latest survey of 1,000 adults took place on November 8-9 and that 54 percent number held steady from a similar poll conducted in April of this year. In response to the question “How concerned are you about the level of violence in many video games today?” 69 percent indicated they were at least somewhat concerned, while 48 percent were “very concerned.”

29 percent were not concerned and 13 percent were not at all concerned.

65 percent of those polled, when asked “Should states be allowed to prohibit the sale or rental of violent video games to minors?” answered in the affirmative, while 25 percent answered no.

When posed the question about who is more responsible for limiting access to violent games, parents, game publishers or the government, only five percent chose the government, with the majority (71 percent) selecting parents. 21 percent thought the producers of videogames should be responsible.

Additionally:

Far more women than men favor state laws prohibiting the sale of violent games to minors. Adults with children at home are more likely to feel the responsibility of restricting such content falls primarily to the parent, while more adults who do not have children think video game makers should take responsibility.

A similar poll conducted by Gallup for the First Amendment Center also showed respondents selecting parents overwhelmingly, when it came to selecting who should screen the intake of violent games by kids.

Much like the Gallup poll, the Rasmussen poll shows that the public (apparently) is reasonably okay with states governing violent game intake, while putting the onus on parents, over the government, for screening out violent content… seems diametrically opposed.


Pic from Cheezburger.com

Comments

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

"Adults with children at home are more likely to feel the responsibility of restricting such content falls primarily to the parent, while more adults who do not have children think video game makers should take responsibility."

I'm not sure about that... I, and I think almost all of the people I see commenting on articles around the web who, like me, do not have children are certain that it is the parents' responsibility more than the government's. Sorry to revert to stereotype, but I think that assertion may be driven by the number of older respondents (including those whose children now have children of their own).

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

I wonder how much of the gender gap in those results is due to the asymetric exposure to games we got a generation ago.  Far more males then females grew up with games.....  so while a male in his 40s might have a good exposure, a female would be less likely to.... so we run into the standard generational problem but with a strange offset by gender.

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

I won't say "weird" results as they're perfectly predictable -- "contradictory" is more accurate.

It's all in the phrasing of the question.  Ask if states should be allowed to ban the sale of violent video games to minors and that sounds like common sense; ask if the government has a responsibility to keep minors from playing violent video games and that sounds like nanny-state overreach -- even though they mean exactly the same thing.

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

Seems to me that indicates exactly how bad people are at being proper parents.  I think the first question indicates that the government should protect children when they're out of the home.  The second question is more about implying government control inside the home.

People get all fired up when you talk about how they raise their kids inside their home.  But once the kids are outside playing or going to school or whatever, suddenly it's the government's responsibility to essentially be their parent?  No, that is the stupid part IMO.  That's called sheltering your kids and not preparing them to interact with the rest of the world when they eventually have to leave the house, and you're a bad parent.

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

That's an interesting point and a perfectly valid reading of the questions.  That's the trouble -- it's hard to tell what any given respondent would infer from the wording.

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

Damn it I love the image used for this one.

And aren't most polls considered bullshit anyways? :/

-------

GamePolitics, it's time for a mobile version of the site, don't you think?

-------

"WARNING GUARANTEE: This post contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress."

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

Depends on what you mean by "most polls" and who is doing the considering.

If, when you say "most polls", you include unscientific polling sources like websites where anyone can vote, then yeah, it's fair to say that most polls ARE bullshit.

But if you limit it to scientific polls, well, that's sort of a different story.

There are a few major, respected polling agencies in the US.  They use random sampling and significant sample sizes; if their studies are performed correctly then they're generally a fair reflection of public opinion.  But they have their biases too -- Zogby tends to be way off-base in my observation, and Rasmussen tends to skew toward a more conservative bias than most of the others.  (That's probably not really relevant in this particular poll; as we've discussed on GP ad nauseam, this isn't really a liberal-versus-conservative issue; regulating the sale of violent video games has proponents and opponents on both sides of that artificial divide.)

And a lot of it is in how you ask a question.  Simple questions produce the most reliable results: "Who are you going to vote for?" questions tend to be pretty reliable (though in a close race, can only reliably tell you that the race is close, not necessarily call the winner).

More complex or abstract questions don't draw results that are as clear or reliable, and the phrasing of a question is very important.  As I noted in my earlier reply, the contradictory results of this poll are actually pretty predictable; people will give different opinions on the same issue depending on how it's phrased.  Frame it as a states' rights issue and people will support it; call it government responsibility and they won't.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which video game platform are you most thankful for?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenThe story you just linked to? The story you asked if anyone had seen? Yes, THAT obnoxiousness. I've heard it parroted for nearly two years now.11/27/2014 - 7:57pm
ZippyDSMleeAndrew Eisen: That shes an ex con man?11/27/2014 - 7:54pm
Andrew EisenI've heard the same obnoxious horse poo for years. It's nothing new.11/27/2014 - 7:45pm
ZippyDSMleeAlso anyone see this? http://guardianlv.com/2014/11/anita-sarkeesian-unmasked-feminist-icon-or-con-artist/11/27/2014 - 7:28pm
ZippyDSMleeEvil within is a badly designed game.11/27/2014 - 7:28pm
Andrew EisenSure but you said "widens," hence my confusion. Looking into it, yep, there's a tweak to completely re-frame the image, adding more info at the top and bottom. You apparently need a fairly beefy rig to keep it running smooth when you do that though.11/27/2014 - 6:48pm
Matthew Wilsonthere is vertical fov, not just horizontal fov11/27/2014 - 6:38pm
Andrew EisenWell, you can widen it to 3:1 or even 10:1 but I don't know why you'd want to. From what I understand it's the missing visual info at the top and bottom that some object to, not that there isn't enough on either side.11/27/2014 - 6:36pm
Matthew WilsonI think it widenss the fov, so you get to see more.11/27/2014 - 6:31pm
Andrew EisenI don't see how as doing so would not add any visual information to the top or bottom of the screen.11/27/2014 - 6:04pm
Matthew Wilsonfrom what I read, getting rid of the black bars and stretching it out made for a better play experience.11/27/2014 - 5:59pm
Andrew EisenFrom what I hear, there's a ton of "look up and shoot at the guys above you" stuff in the game that the wider frame doesn't accommodate such actions well.11/27/2014 - 5:55pm
Andrew EisenHaving a game run in scope is not necessarily a bad thing but like any aspect ratio, you have to compose your shots correctly.11/27/2014 - 5:55pm
Neo_DrKefkaThe Evil Within was pretty bad and to make it worse the way the screen size made it hard for you to see even on a big screen it really hurt the game. Being Artistic is great but when you focus on art rather than what sells you run the risk of that happen11/27/2014 - 5:33pm
Matthew WilsonI kinda hope this is not true. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/11/nintendo_might_not_be_making_more_gamecube_controller_adapters_at_the_moment11/27/2014 - 1:34pm
Matthew WilsonI saw that. I wish people would stop preording, but sadly that will never happen.11/27/2014 - 1:26pm
Papa MidnightUbisoft has cancelled the Season Pass for Assassin's Creed: Unity (http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2ni2ac/ubisoft_cancel_season_pass_for_ac_unity/)11/27/2014 - 1:08pm
NeenekoBut now I can use the christmas discount justification too,11/27/2014 - 11:46am
NeenekoI am also sorely temped by Civ:BE, mostly because I have a demo coming up and I know my productivity will tank.11/27/2014 - 11:45am
MaskedPixelanteThe Evil Within is only a month old, right? And it's already 66% off...11/27/2014 - 10:29am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician