Violence and Video Games

[Crystal Shards]

People believe too strongly that video games bring out the worst in people, when in fact for some, it is a "vent" for their anger. Just like swimming or playing other sports, or hitting a punching bag.

This has been shown time and time again to be (generally speaking) false. Generally speaking, violent video games make people more susceptible to aggression. It may be the case for a few individuals, but generally speaking those who play violent video games as a release of anger actually get more aggressive as a result. This is especially true with children.

Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review

The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior. Moderator analyses revealed significant research design effects, weak evidence of cultural differences in susceptibility and type of measurement effects, and no evidence of sex differences in susceptibility. Results of various sensitivity analyses revealed these effects to be robust, with little evidence of selection (publication) bias.

Hostile and Hardened? An Experimental Study on (De-)Sensitization to Violence and Suffering Through Playing Video Games

Participants in the high-violence condition showed significantly weaker reactions (desensitization) to aversive stimuli and reacted significantly more strongly (sensitization) to aggressive cues.

Media and Children's Aggression, Fear, and Altruism

Wilson also explores how media exposure affects children's social development. Strong evidence shows that violent television programming contributes to children's aggressive behavior. And a growing body of work indicates that playing violent video games can have the same harmful effect. Yet if children spend time with educational programs and situation comedies targeted to youth, media exposure can have more prosocial effects by increasing children's altruism, cooperation, and even tolerance for others. Wilson also shows that children's susceptibility to media influence can vary according to their gender, their age, how realistic they perceive the media to be, and how much they identify with characters and people on the screen. She concludes with guidelines to help parents enhance the positive effects of the media while minimizing the risks associated with certain types of content.

etc. etc. etc.

Yes, you can find a few studies that say otherwise, but generally speaking, research study after research study shows that violent video games do affect people (especially children) negatively.

Does this mean we need to ban video games? No. It means parents and educators need to do a better job of monitoring children's mental abilities and allow them to play appropriate games for their status. They need to sit down and explain to children what is and is not acceptable in our society and they need to serve as positive role models. They also need to help provide a balance so that children are not overloaded with only one message for things like conflict resolution, appropriate behavior toward women, etc.

[Prince of Ravens]

Banning video games is unconstitutional, for one.

For two, it's not the gun company's fault that people get shot. It's not the gun's fault. It's not the senators who didn't put laws restricting them. It's the idiot-that-shoots-people's fault. Same thing with games (just a lot less extreeme, possibly). It's either the parent/guardian's fault for buying the game, or it's the kid's fault for playing them. Ultimatly it's the parent(s)'s fault.

[Fenrir]

Violent video games...the problem is hardly the jelly-blood of COD, the bigger problem for lil kids would be the people they play with, when i play my PS3 i get on my mic, talk with my friends and we'll curse, this may or may not be a problem for 7 year olds. Many of the kids that play watch violent movies, the same thing it really doesn't make a difference in a kid unless its all he thinks about.

Yes, you can find a few studies that say otherwise, but generally speaking, research study after research study shows that violent video games do affect people (especially children) negatively.

Does this mean we need to ban video games? No. It means parents and educators need to do a better job of monitoring children's mental abilities and allow them to play appropriate games for their status. They need to sit down and explain to children what is and is not acceptable in our society and they need to serve as positive role models. They also need to help provide a balance so that children are not overloaded with only one message for things like conflict resolution, appropriate behavior toward women, etc.

Research run by who? on people of what ages? and do they play all day? or do they play once a week? what is their backround? most research done like this is helpful, but only to one party of gamers, COD, for example, being the biggest game out their means there are tons and tons of different people types playing this game. You cannot judge the general public by one piece of information, not everyone responds the same way, most people i've met are not at all bothered by violence in video games, because they know it is just a game.

as to your other point, parents can allow or cannot allow children to play whatever they want its THEIR kids, it is a totally subjective matter.

[Crystal Shards]

Research run by who? on people of what ages? and do they play all day? or do they play once a week? what is their backround? most research done like this is helpful, but only to one party of gamers, COD, for example, being the biggest game out their means there are tons and tons of different people types playing this game. You cannot judge the general public by one piece of information, not everyone responds the same way, most people i've met are not at all bothered by violence in video games, because they know it is just a game.

Which is why I listed several pieces of research in my post and listed the authors and titles so that you can read the research for yourself and make your own decisions. If you want to find others, that's up to you. Research is by no means conclusive, obviously, but considering there's a large body of varied research that says, yes, it does influence children, and since the research tends list circumstances in which the influence is stronger (rather than make blanket statements), it's safe to say there is at the very least a correlation. I would not argue (nor have I ever argued) that video games CAUSE violence. But to say that what children (especially younger ones) observe and participate in doesn't influence them is, frankly, ignorant.

By the way, research > anecdotes. "People I've met" means absolutely nothing to science.

as to your other point, parents can allow or cannot allow children to play whatever they want its THEIR kids, it is a totally subjective matter.

I don't disagree? Not sure why you felt the need to say this. It wasn't like I was suggesting a law or anything controversial at all: better parenting is better parenting. Making sure kids can distinguish between reality and fiction and that they act responsibly is not (even subjectively) anything most sane people would argue against.

[StinDuh]

The Sale Of M-Rated Games to children under 17 is just like the "you-break-it-you-buy-it" rule. It's more of just something that all companies go by, but there is no legal standing against it. What i find interesting is that companies have no problem selling T-Rated games to children under 13. I bought Fire Emblem Path of Radiance when I was ten. I got no questions from the guy who sold me the game, yet when I(a now 15 year old) go to buy an M-Rated game, the salesman has to say to my mother "this game is rated mature for...." and then name the reasons. Why do we have a this idea that M-Rated games aren't suitable for anyone under seventeen, yet Teen games, which the ESRB defines as games suitable for teenagers 13+, are sold to pretty much anyone without any thought about it. The ESRB was made to stop games like "Custers Revenge" from being sold, and from games like DOOM to be sold to children who are too young to be considered "suitable" to play the game.

Now back to the topic of violence in video games.

Fire Emblem does not make me want to go grab a sword and attack people in a chess like manner. Simple as that.

[Crystal Shards]

Fire Emblem does not make me want to go grab a sword and attack people in a chess like manner. Simple as that.

Um, and no one would argue that it would.

EDIT: Let me expand on that.

This is the cycle that video games goes through:

Research shows that aggressive stuff (e.g. activities, video games, music, whatever) has an effect on children's behavior, usually shortly after being in contact with the medium.

Media gets a hold of it.

Media sensationalizes it. VIDEO GAMES CAUSE VIOLENCE. (Which the research never claimed.) VIDEO GAMES MAKE YOU WANT TO DO WHAT THE GAMES DO IN REAL LIFE. (Which the research never claimed.)

Gamers hear this.

Gamers say FUCK RESEARCH IT'S BIASED.

The truth is that some people are more inclined to violence, that some people are more mature than others, and that mental facilities are a driving force in understanding context. It's okay to blow a guy's head off in a game; it's not okay to do so in real life. Small children tend to have a hard time understanding that it's okay to punch someone in a game but not real life. Immature children tend to have a hard time with that. People already prone to aggression tend to have a problem with that. People who have mental disabilities may have a hard time with that. Research doesn't say that, gee, if you play Fire Emblem, you will want to grab a sword and stab someone. It doesn't say that, gee, if you play Left For Dead, you're going to want to blow people up. It doesn't say that, gee, if you play WWE, you're going to want to do the moves the Undertaker does on other people. But it does say that there is a correlation between the amount of aggression in video games and the way that children behave based on whatever characteristics they're looking at (usually age). Obviously there are other factors involved, but I believe (and this isn't backed up by research that I know of) that it's not only age, it's mental facilities, maturity and the ability to recognize what is real and what isn't.

Which is why I don't argue for banning video games. (That wouldn't solve the problem. History shows us people find ways to hurt other people.) I argue that parents need to make sure that their kids are involved in activities that suit their mental facilities and maturity level and that they understand the difference between what you're allowed to do in a game (or in musical lyrics, or on TV, whatever) and what you're allowed to do in real life, and that real life has consequences.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Fenrir]

By the way, research > anecdotes. "People I've met" means absolutely nothing to science.

I don't disagree? Not sure why you felt the need to say this. It wasn't like I was suggesting a law or anything controversial at all: better parenting is better parenting. Making sure kids can distinguish between reality and fiction and that they act responsibly is not (even subjectively) anything most sane people would argue against.

This is a Science?? whaaaaaaaa?

Fire Emblem does not make me want to go grab a sword and attack people in a chess like manner. Simple as that.

exactly.

Gamers say FUCK RESEARCH IT'S BIASED.

It fuckin is.

Anyhow, young children do not have access to guns, and they will mature. even if they don't really mature, the kids most likely total nerd, he's not just gonna walk out on the street and kill someone, just cause they do that on GTA most people, even if 7 should have an idea of the value of human life.

You implied that you wanted parents to tell their kids, "dont play violent video games, I have this ak-47 laying around the house...do as i say, not as i do."

[Defeatist Elitist]

This is a Science?? whaaaaaaaa?

Psychology. Yeah, it is.

It fuckin is.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. Not really.

Anyhow, young children do not have access to guns, and they will mature. even if they don't really mature, the kids most likely total nerd, he's not just gonna walk out on the street and kill someone, just cause they do that on GTA most people, even if 7 should have an idea of the value of human life.

She never said anything like that would happen.

You implied that you wanted parents to tell their kids, "dont play violent video games, I have this ak-47 laying around the house...do as i say, not as i do."

That's not what she implied at all.

[Dark Sage]

I find it hilarious how most rated M games get the most love from people ages 11-23 (you know, when maturity and responsibility is lacking and there's more testosterone) while many others find the T games more mentally mature. Apparently maturity now means tolerance for gruesome violence and lots of sex.

Not to say all rated M games are like that or Silent Hill wouldn't get so much love from more intellectual people like us. That is how to make a great rated M game (maturity wise, gameplay wise it's a good way to design a horror game).

Edited July 24, 2010 by Dark Sage

[Fenrir]

Psychology. Yeah, it is.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. Not really.

She never said anything like that would happen.

That's not what she implied at all.

Most of video game research is known as opinion or at least somewhat of an opinion based theory, most of science is purely(or is percieved as) fact.

Nothing is Subjective in this "research"?

If nothing like this is going to happen, why is this being disscussed?

Then i misunderstood.

I find it hilarious how most rated M games get the most love from people ages 11-23 (you know, when maturity and responsibility is lacking and there's more testosterone) while many others find the T games more mentally mature. Apparently maturity now means tolerance for gruesome violence and lots of sex.

Not to say all rated M games are like that or Silent Hill wouldn't get so much love from more intellectual people like us. That is how to make a great rated M game (maturity wise, gameplay wise it's a good way to design a horror game).

thats a really good point, and most from 11-23, from 24-29 there is some, and from 30+ almost no one plays M games(well no one plays video games that 30+ anyways...)

[volkethereaper]

I'm of the opinion that everybody's different, and if the research Crystal Shard presents is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it), than the immediate agression caused by video games will be different for each person, and may in fact lead to dangerously violent tendencies in some children. But, be that as it may, there shouldn't be any restrictions on games. Maturity, in this sense anyway, is in the mind, not the body, and age is only one of a host of factors involved. Now, keep in mind, I may not be qualified to comment on this as the highest rated game I've ever played is FE: PoR. Shooters and the like never really apealed to me.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Most of video game research is known as opinion or at least somewhat of an opinion based theory, most of science is purely(or is percieved as) fact.

Then it's not research. Going "Hey, I think video games cause aggression" isn't research. Having people play video games, monitoring them, and finding increased aggression IS research.

Nothing is Subjective in this "research"?

Read it for yourself, no one is stopping you.

If nothing like this is going to happen, why is this being disscussed?

I'm not quite sure I follow you. Why is what being discussed?

[Crystal Shards]

Most of video game research is known as opinion or at least somewhat of an opinion based theory, most of science is purely(or is percieved as) fact.

Then you obviously have absolutely no understanding of research methodology. Anything you say after this fact is going to be ignored as a result of the fact that you think that because some people who like aggressive video games decided to go, "Pffft," to psychological research, it's automatically not scientific.

Psychological research goes through the same vigor as physical sciences. It's subjected to the same scientific method and is analyzed with the same scrutiny, if not more. It's not an "opinion based theory" any more than thermodynamics is an "opinion based theory."

EDIT: Forgot my last quotation mark.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Fenrir]

Then it's not research. Going "Hey, I think video games cause aggression" isn't research. Having people play video games, monitoring them, and finding increased aggression IS research.

I'm not quite sure I follow you. Why is what being discussed?

But, the aggression could be caused from little exercise, you don't know for sure.

Well, if no one is dumb enough to pick up a gun and shoot somebody in the head, why is this an issue?

Then you obviously have absolutely no understanding of research methodology. Anything you say after this fact is going to be ignored as a result of the fact that you think that because some people who like aggressive video games decided to go, "Pffft," to psychological research, it's automatically not scientific.

Psychological research goes through the same vigor as physical sciences. It's subjected to the same scientific method and is analyzed with the same scrutiny, if not more. It's not an "opinion based theory" any more than thermodynamics is an "opinion based theory."

EDIT: Forgot my last quotation mark.

It's not how it works, its more who your researching, what backround these people are from, how much exercise they normally get, all these things make people respond differently.

[Crystal Shards]

But, the aggression could be caused from little exercise, you don't know for sure.

Have you ever even heard of random sampling?

Well, if no one is dumb enough to pick up a gun and shoot somebody in the head, why is this an issue?

Obviously there are people "dumb enough," but that's beside the point. The idea isn't that you directly mimic what is going on in the video games. No one's claiming they take over your brain or something. Have you read the topic at all? Just wondering.

It's not how it works, its more who your researching, what backround these people are from, how much exercise they normally get, all these things make people respond differently.

Again, have you ever even heard of random sampling?

At this point I'm inclined to believe you either have absolutely no idea about research methodology or you're trolling.

[volkethereaper]

For those of us who are uninlightened I think a description of research methodology is in order.

[Fenrir]

Have you ever even heard of random sampling?

Obviously there are people "dumb enough," but that's beside the point. The idea isn't that you directly mimic what is going on in the video games. No one's claiming they take over your brain or something. Have you read the topic at all? Just wondering.

Again, have you ever even heard of random sampling?

At this point I'm inclined to believe you either have absolutely no idea about research methodology or you're trolling.

yes I have heard of random sampling, but this makes everthing even more vauge, because now it applies to no one in general.

Did you just say there are people "dumb enough" or was that a typo? No one, No one you ever meet will tell you that they really really really wish they could go into a video game type setting, one where you can and will die, but its irl.

to avoid a warn or ban, caused by someone with very strange beliefs, i shall no longer post in this topic.

EDIT: @volke, while i know what it is, crystal's view of it could be different, since her view of just about everything else is as well.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Fenrir

[volkethereaper]

Perhaps you do, but I don't. That's why I'm asking. If I remember my good ol' public-school education correctly, than research methodology is such a vague term that simply saying it doesn't detail what you mean. All I want to do is get the gist of the conversation.

[Defeatist Elitist]

For those of us who are uninlightened I think a description of research methodology is in order.

This whole article is probably good, but specifically the Experiments section I linked.

Remember, when in doubt, if you really are completely unsure about something, Wikipedia is always a good place to start. It might not be a good place to finish all the time, but it's definitely an excellent start.

[volkethereaper]

Thanks Dark Elves. I searched wikipedia but it didn't do me much good. Apparently I was looking in the wrong place.

Edited July 24, 2010 by volkethereaper

[Crystal Shards]

yes I have heard of random sampling, but this makes everthing even more vauge, because now it applies to no one in general.

This is how I know you don't know anything about research methodology. Random sampling helps ensure that there's a sample that's representative of the population as a whole. It does the exact opposite of what you just described--instead of making things vague, it gives us a better idea of the typical response of a "normal" person. (This is assuming we're talking about general research, not case studies or anything of that sort.) Which is why you don't see--in either the research or real life--"normal" people grabbing a gun after playing GTA and going out to steal cars. You do, however, see children become more aggressive, depending on the variables being controlled for. It's a pretty simple concept.

This stuff has been researched since before video games were ever around. If you haven't read about the Bobo Doll experiment, I highly suggest you do. It was conducted (with slightly different methodology each time) in 1961, 1963, and 1965 by Albert Bandura, and is a pretty popular experiment to talk about when talking about behavioral psychology (in particular, social learning theory, which video game studies go under as well). I'm sure anything you can find on it will explain not only modeling but aggression. The children in the experimental group not only mimicked the adults' aggressive behavior but also came up with other ways to abuse the doll, other than what was shown to them. Additionally, the results were more profound when there was no intervention or the adult shown in the video was shown being rewarded for his/her behavior. The ones that saw the adult reprimanded for his/her behavior showed less aggression. (Guess what people typically see in video games?) Male children also tended to be more aggressive than female children, especially when shown a model of the same sex as the child (which also has potential links to video games: more males than females play video games, and more often than not the heroes of the more popular video games are male). The ones in the control group did not really attack the doll all that much, if at all. (A problem, admittedly, with this is that the Bobo doll's purpose is to be hit. However, we're looking at differences between the groups.)

Does this mean that whenever a child sees a Bobo doll, he or she will attack the everloving shit out of it, shooting it in the head or grabbing whatever is nearby in order to damage it as much as possible? Does it mean that the child is going to grow up to be a criminal? Does it mean Bobo dolls are evil and should be banned? No, no, and no, but answering these questions wasn't the goal of the study anyway. The goal of the study was to see whether children mimic what they see (especially right after seeing said behavior), and if they do, to what extent the behavior is mimicked. This is the same thing that most video game research deals with. Does it "ignore" biology? Yes, but that's why random sampling is so important. If you utilize random sampling correctly, you'll be able to measure what you want to measure without things like biology or socioeconomic status getting in the way. And again, I can't stress enough that seeing a video game character shoot another character doesn't mean the child will shoot someone. They just might be more likely to show aggressive behavior after playing the video game. Things like how long they play, how realistic the violence is, if the character is rewarded for the behavior, the mental facilities of the child, parental supervision, etc., do come into play. That is no question. But it's generally agreed upon that good parenting (e.g. explaining the difference between video games and reality, monitoring behavior, etc.) goes a long way in negating any possible effects of the violence shown in video games, which has been my point all along.

I'd also like to add that no study is perfect. There are flaws with some of Bandura's methodological choices. But that doesn't invalidate the research's findings. It just goes to show that there is nuance in human behavior. Obviously Bandura realized in 1961 that more research needs to be done, and even researchers now, in 2010, over 40 years later, will say the same. No one knows exactly how much media violence affects children's behavior in general, but it does affect them.

And yeah, there are people who are dumb enough to try out what they see on TV and in video games in real life. As a personal anecdote (which I realize holds no grounds scientifically, but it does illustrate the point here), I remember that in fourth grade someone tried to do one of Stone Cold Steve Austin's moves on me for no reason other than because he saw it done on TV. He didn't hurt me because he was quite a bit smaller than me, but there have been instances recorded where kids have done that kind of stuff. (Most of what you see in the media are the tragic instances of kids jumping off roofs onto friends or something of that nature, which aren't typical.) There are also people disturbed enough to mimic what they see in video games and on television; look at Life Admiral's post on page 2 for a good example. Does this mean these people are typical? Perhaps the first case is relatively normal, but not the second case. That is (generally speaking) why you do research on a topic like this to begin with--to find out what typical responses are.

And no one said anything about wanting to go into a video game setting, nor is it relevant to the topic at hand in any way, shape, or form. And lol at you saying my beliefs are strange because you don't agree with them.

EDIT: Grammar problem.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Charpig]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there violence long before video games existed? Some of the most violent places in the world don't even have video games. Sure, we can ban "violent" video games but it won't stop violence in society. This is coming from a guy who has played violent video games, I haven't just read about them on the news. If people wanna kill each other that comes from the evil in their hearts, not from video games. As Jesus himself taught, man brings up evil out of the evil in his heart, and nothing comes from outside to make a man unclean (Mark 7:14-23). If I see a violent image in a video game, that does not make me unclean or make me say "Oh, I'd like to do that to someone!" But if I want to hurt someone, that would come from the evil in my heart, and that would exist regardless of video games. Violence has existed throughout history because of the evil in men's hearts, not because they played Halo or Grand Theft Auto.

[Fenrir]

I'm just sayin.

52 more minutes and this woulda been a necro i think

[eclipse]

I doubt video games cause violence. It's something that's relatively new that the older generation doesn't completely understand/approve of. Before this, TV was the culprit, and before that, rock 'n roll was blamed for stuff. The cycle is repeating itself.

I hope that violent video games do the opposite - give people who would otherwise be violent an outlet for their aggression.

[BK-201]

I hope that violent video games do the opposite - give people who would otherwise be violent an outlet for their aggression.

In some cases it has the ability to incite violence. Not every aggresive person plays a violent video game as an outlet.