 |
|
|
| |
Disputed Study Claims 'Conclusive Evidence' Of Game/Violence Link
by David Jenkins [PC, Console/PC, Mobile Console, Serious]
|
|
| |
|
November 4, 2008
|
| |
A new study led by Iowa State University has concluded that violent video games do have a negative effect on children, with test cases examined in both the U.S. and Japan.
Although previous studies have proven inconclusive or negative in terms of the harmful effects of video games on children, the new study claims to be unambiguous in its findings. The research, published in the journal Pediatrics, is a combination of three separate studies: two from Japan and one from the U.S.
In particular, the study looked at the effect of violent games over time, with findings showing increased physical aggression continuing for months afterwards in some children. The study also showed little variation in results between Japanese and American children, despite the reduced levels of crime and violence in Japanese society.
Speaking to the Washington Post, lead author Craig A. Anderson commented: “When you find consistent effects across two very different cultures, you're looking at a pretty powerful phenomenon. One can no longer claim this is somehow a uniquely American phenomenon. This is a general phenomenon that occurs across cultures."
"We now have conclusive evidence that playing violent video games has harmful effects on children and adolescents," added Anderson.
The U.S. study examined 364 children aged between 9 to 12 in Minnesota and found an increased likelihood of physical aggressiveness up to five or six months after playing violent games. The Japanese research studied 1,200 children aged 12 to 18.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is now in the process of revising its recommendations on media violence, as a result of the study. A new statement is expected in four to six months, but the academy already recommends limiting screen time -- including television, computers, and video games -- to one to two hours a day.
[UPDATE: Website GamePolitics has pointed out a letter to Pediatrics by Christopher Ferguson, a researcher at Texas A&M International University, which notes:
"The authors fail to control for relevant 'third' variables that could easily explain the weak correlations that they find. Family violence exposure for instance, peer group influences, certainly genetic influences on aggressive behavior are just a few relevant variables that ought either be controlled or at minimum acknowledged as alternate causal agents for a (very small) link between video games and aggression."
In addition, the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) has issued a statement on the survey, which has president Hal Halpin commenting as follows:
"For the better part of the past decade we -- game consumers, makers, sellers and creators -- have been waiting for the results of an unbiased, longitudinal and comprehensive study to be done which will inform us about the potential harmful effects of entertainment products on our children. Unfortunately, with the report published in the latest issue of Pediatrics, we remain wanting.
One of the ways in which our stance is likely very different from others in the discussion on the subject is that the ECA would encourage more and better research on the matter.
The problem has been, and apparently continues to be, that the agenda of the researchers supersedes our want and need for inclusiveness of all media... not just games -- for the overtly sensationalistic spin that will inevitably be employed -- to the exclusion of music and movies. We remain optimistic that longitudinal research that is truly comprehensive, objective, and inclusive will be performed and shared, but sadly that day has not yet come."]
|
| |
|
|
But, games are a practice, they're active. It's a common argument but it's important. There's no doubt kids should not be playing these games, studies need to show at what age this stops effecting people (not necessarily kids). I definitely think past a certain age it can be a way to satisfy curiosity, something that dreams may otherwise try to fill in.
Monkey see, monkey do.
And some years later, when Saint Seiya arrived, I used to watch children fight around simulating their kicks and punches. So, TV, anime and music do influence people, not only children. The question should be "how much" and not "whether".
I agree with Patricia, too. No parent would let his son watch a R-16 movie with him, so why they let them watch while they play or even play with them such games?
First of all, the parent I'm talking about is a hardcore gamer and games with his son more than any other parent I know of. He is very responsible in regulating his sons gaming. I agree that it's parents responsibility to monitor what their children play, but my example does not allow the "blame the parents" trump card to be used.
Second, the game mentioned is rated T (Teen)...so there is no "ultra violent" content in it.
Third, the game is a downloadable demo...the retail copy is not for sale yet. Demos are downloadable on XBox live for free.
I personally believe that they're just out to find a scapegoat. Everyone likes to blame other people rather than themselves, so why not take the easy way out and blame tragic events on something so that it can be further regulated by the authorities?
I'd even suspect this Iowa study to be biased with an agenda, because you know as soon as there is a "legitimate scientific research study" that links violence to video games, then you have the slippery slope that awaits pushing the industry down. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.
Besides, as I've read on other sites reporting the story (which may or may not be true) that the conclusions drawn come from interviewing the children themselves, not from noticing first hand anything that actually links subconscious violent behavior to be stemming from the enjoyment of video games. The old "On a scale from one to five, one being not at all, five being strongly desirable" model, if I'm not mistaken. If that is the case... how incredibly scientific!
The bottom line is, Art in any form (Music, Paintings etc) is meant to inspire, teach and basically expand or entertain the mind in someway. Video games also do this, or try to.
However knowing right from wrong should be a given outside of any media. Despite my exposure to books and movies I never actually used any of those things in a real fight. I just punched the crap out of the kid until they gave up. ;)
Viola.
;)
** Correlation does not mean causation. **
When A and B do correlate, A may be cause of B, B may be cause of A, or there may exists C which is a common cause of A and B. (This corresponds to C. Ferguson's "relevant 'third' variables".)
In those articles linked it is very little written about how the study was run. Who was in control to determin how much time individual tested children spent with the violent games? If it was left in their own hands, it is very likely playing the violent games a lot only manifested an inner inclination for violence which was already present before starting the study.
Unless more detail about how exactly was the experiment performed are available, I think there is no way to draw any reliable conclusions from it.
I was looking for similar studies and found this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/03/10/violentTV_030310.html#skip300x250
and
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20061226/ruberg_01.shtml
Did they use a control group? Who were they? What effects did they observe? Did all the children play the same games? How often? And so on, and so on, and so on.
Would love to see the full study. If anyone finds a link, will they post it?
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2005-2009/08ASGISYNK.pdf