 |
 |
|
If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these Think Services sites:
 Game Career Guide (for student game developers.)
 Indie Games (for independent game players/developers.)
 Finger Gaming (news, reviews, and analysis on iPhone and iPod Touch games.)
 GamerBytes (for the latest console digital download news.)
 Worlds In Motion (discussing the business of online worlds.)
 Game Set Watch (the Group's alt.game weblog.) |
|
|
|
| |
Research: No Significant Relationship Between Violent Games, School Shootings
by Eric Caoili
|
|
| |
|
January 23, 2009
|
| |
In his recently published research, Texas A&M International University assistant professor Christopher Ferguson says that "no significant relationship between violent video game exposure and school shooting incidents" has been found in existing scientific literature so far.
Titled "The School Shooting/Violent Video Game Link: Causal Relationship or Moral Panic?", the report was published in the latest Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling.
"The wealth of evidence, from social science research on video games, to governmental reports and legal cases, to real world data on crime, fails to establish a link between violent video games and violent crimes, including school shootings," says Ferguson, in a report viewed by Gamasutra and originally discussed by GamePolitics.
He continues, "The link has not merely been unproven; I argue that the wealth of available data simply weighs against any causal relationship."
Ferguson specifically references 2007's Virginia Tech massacre and Utah Trolley Stop mall shooting, as well as the Northern Illinois University shooting in 2008 in his research. He notes that no evidence tying the perpetrators of those incidents to violent video games was found, despite media speculation and dubious research findings claiming otherwise.
"It has been observed that a small group of researchers have been most vocal in promoting the anti-game message, oftentimes ignoring research from other researchers, or failing to disclose problems with their own research," says Ferguson.
"As some researchers have staked their professional reputation on anti-game activism, it may be difficult for these researchers to maintain scientific objectivity regarding the subject of their study."
He adds, "Similarly, it may be argued that granting agencies are more likely to provide grant money when a potential problem is identified, rather than for studying a topic with the possibility that the outcome may reveal that there is nothing to worry about.
The TAMIU assistant professor of Psychology admits that it is possible that school shooters could represent a particular "at risk" subgroup of individuals who might be affected by violent video games, but most research conducted so far has only studied children or adults not considered "at risk."
Even if future research supported that theory, however, he says, "Violent video games, then, could be arguably synonymous to peanut butter: a perfectly harmless indulgence for the vast majority, but potentially harmful to a tiny minority."
|
| |
|
|
Games can influence behavior. That's why they're restricted through a rating system. It's tiresome seeing this back-and-forth: if media couldn't influence behavior, advertising wouldn't be a huge business.
Huh? How do we know no one has attacked this side of the issue like you have? Like any issue there are always two sides as you so clearly pointed out and I am sure others will jump to try to discredit it until the tides eventually turn.
In any new medium there is always some censorship 'crusaders' trying to discredit it on shameful moral grounds. Attempted censorship happened with books, with cartoons, with comic books and it is now happening to video games. I for one applaud any individuals who expose the would be censors as misguided.
Point of example: A really old Hercules movie shows him putting his hand into a sphere of fire and holding it there for a good 30-40 seconds... I know that fire hurts and would not put my hand in fire because I know it would hurt... in other words I'm not predisposed to putting my hand in fire.
It would take allot of either:
Ignorance (what is this thing you call “fire”),
Innocence (ooooh pretty *reaches hand toward the fire*) or
Malevolence (hmmm what can I burn with this *laughs manically*) to do otherwise.
I’m not willing to give in to the idea of passing blame for one’s actions.
How long will America allow this moron to (shamelessly) cash in on the anxiety and fear of suburban parents?
It's a shame people claim video games are the source of all the problems when they'd discover the real issues lie in the person's mental health, childhood, and upbringing. At this point, ANY violent media can be used as a catalyst and supporting factor in their violent outrages.
I think legislators who vote to cut funding for education should carry their own health warnings: "Warning, this politician is deemed harmful to the future well-being of youth due to his or her vote to cut funding for education!"
"Fact-based"? Studies that claim their is a casual effect between violent games (or other media) and actual actions are not fact-based. That is why such researchers have been discredited by their academic peers when their studies have been reviewed. The same is true for the related topic of subliminal advertising. Psychological studies have proven that subliminal methods do not influence behavior. Does that mean that no one acted in a way suggested by subliminal messages? Not at all. Of course some random people would randomly behave in such a way. However, the results mean that there is no casual effect and that any correlation is not statistically significant (purely random, in other words, and not predicatable).
Claiming that media influences people is like claiming that any experience influences people. We're influenced by everything, of course, from other people to media, the environment, and even reading (and posting) messages on forums like this one. Did reading Jeff's message cause me to post here? Yes, in a way, but only because of my choice to make time to do so and because of my personal experiences prior to this point that encourage me to share some factual knowledge about this topic with other people. The key point is that it was my choice; Jeff's message did not and could not force me to post. Media of any type cannot force anyone to do anything; it's not a cause-effect phenomenon.
(Why doesn't Gamasutra have an edit post function? It's kind of odd for a high-tech forum not to have one.)
Games probably do influence behaviour, you're correct on that. For example, there's a great deal of anecdotal evidence that Rock Band and Guitar Hero are getting kids more interested in playing real instruments. So you're right on that front.
But that's not necessarily why a rating system exists. More likely there is a rating system for video games because we live in a hierarchical society that ranks people according to age, and decides to control people at either extreme (young or elderly) in a variety of ways. It's not really fact based. I've met plenty of perfectly rational 12 year olds and plenty of irrational 40 year olds. Ratings systems for games exist because of social biases and our belief that parents should be able to control children.