Violent Video Games -- Do They Harm Our Youth?

[Midtowner]

Grand Theft Auto IV was recently released. According to press releases, it was solely responsible for $400 million in sales in its first week out. If you're not familiar with the Grand Theft Auto franchise, it's essentially the classic cops 'n robbers storyline with a little twist -- you're the robber.

Of course, besides just stealing, you kill -- a lot -- prostitutes, police officers, random civilians. You get around (as the title suggests) by stealing cars.

The game features graphic violence and general mayhem, strong language, etc.

Some object to titles such as this because of the perceived effect they may have on the children playing them. Some studies suggest that young people who play these games are more prone to violence than those who don't -- others dispute that claim as being baseless or based upon "junk science."

What are your views OKC? Are our children doomed?

[lpecan]

Not that my opinion should really matter, I tend to view such studies as junk science and pandering to conservatives. They seem to show correlation rather than causality in the few that I've seen. An admittedly strawman argument that seems rather persuasive to me is that fantasy games, books etc. do not cloud the grasp of reality among those who participate, yet we suggest that GTA users will shape their moral compass on the basis of a video game.

I think many ppeople's views on the matter are colored by the fear that, if true, we do the world great harm. But that does not on its own show causation.

[OKCCrime]

I tend to view such studies as junk science and pandering to conservatives. They seem to show correlation rather than causality in the few that I've seen.

The review that I mention above discusses correlational, experimental, longitudinal and meta-analytic studies. It would be hard to call all of these studies junk science or pure pandering.

[dismayed]

The review that I mention above discusses correlational, experimental, longitudinal and meta-analytic studies. It would be hard to call all of these studies junk science or pure pandering.

It's a decent article, they definitely got the video game history correct. The thing is, I don't think people realize the huge numbers of people born in the last 20 years that have been massively and constantly exposed to violent video games. The video game industry is now *far larger* than Hollywood. If things were as bad as some researchers claim, violence rates would be skyrocketing beyond belief, but they're not.

One problem I see with this study is the experimental data that was gathered was based on, in part, criteria evaluating a subject's violent *thoughts* after playing a game. Personally I think this is total crap. Have I played a game and felt an adrenaline rush afterwards and had images of that game linger in my mind? Sure. Would I ever act on that in any way, either verbal or physically? No, I wouldn't, and I don't know anyone who would. Other data seems fairly convincing, but again if you think about the sheer number of people who play violent video games then teen violence should be skyrocketing because the data shows an across-the-board increase in all risk categories. It just doesn't pass the stink test in my opinion. I'd like to see the collected data and statistical methods used and review it further. I get so tired of people with business or quasi-science degrees running around thinking they know what they are doing when it comes to math and science when clearly they don't. I don't know that this is the case here, but I mean look at the data, it just doesn't add up.

There are first-person-shooter contests held all over this country, one of the largest is QuakeCon in Dallas. If you were to go and conduct a few interviews at a place like this I am almost positive you would find that almost all of these people are computer geeks and non-violent to the extreme.

As far as the larger issue goes, sure it makes sense to keep games with more violent content out of the hands of little kids. I don't really think there is much of a problem with older kids.

We have a rating system in place for all video games, and retailers will not sell games of a certain rating to anyone under 17. As far as the media goes, every single TV, cable box, satellite box, DVR, etc. sold since the mid-1990s has come with a V-chip or other parental rights management software installed in them. If people are so concerned about these issues instead of forcing their will on everyone else they need to take responsibility themselves and learn how to enable these features. The same goes for software -- it's easy to lock others out from being able to install software on a computer if you know what you are doing. We need to stop writing laws for the lowest common denominator in our society... it does nothing but bring us all down to that level.

[OKCCrime]

There are first-person-shooter contests held all over this country, one of the largest is QuakeCon in Dallas. If you were to go and conduct a few interviews at a place like this I am almost positive you would find that almost all of these people are computer geeks and non-violent to the extreme.

Computer geeks can be violent too.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Computer geeks can be violent too.

More cops illegally beat, maim, or kill than geeks. I'd bet by an order of magnitude.

So I'll blame their blue shirts.

[dismayed]

Computer geeks can be violent too.

"Computer geek robs liquor store!"

"Computer geek in hostage stand-off with police!"

"Computer geek involved in cross-town car chase!"

"Computer geek assaults innocent man!"


Yes after all we see these types of headlines every day. I'm being tongue in cheek. Sure there is some element in every crowd that has its violent riff raff. My point was that I can almost guarantee you that 0.000000000000000000000001% is about the size of that crowd in these computer gaming circles. That being the case, my conclusion is that the risk prediction for these groups would seem to be somewhat flawed.

[OKCCrime]

Have I played a game and felt an adrenaline rush afterwards and had images of that game linger in my mind? Sure. Would I ever act on that in any way, either verbal or physically? No, I wouldn't, and I don't know anyone who would.

The individuals most at risk (and the topic of discussion in the thread) are children. Adults may be able to better separate in-game learning, and real-world learning because most adults try and logically think through their actions in advance. Children tend to just act and those actions are based on their past experiences. It is not unreasonable to believe that past actions learned in a video game would influence real world behaviors, especially for younger children. As you argue, the evidence is flawed, but why take the risk when there are so many non-violent entrainment options for children?

[dismayed]

The individuals most at risk (and the topic of discussion in the thread) are children. Adults may be able to better separate in-game learning, and real-world learning because most adults try and logically think through their actions in advance. Children tend to just act and those actions are based on their past experiences. It is not unreasonable to believe that past actions learned in a video game would influence real world behaviors, especially for younger children. As you argue, the evidence is flawed, but why take the risk when there are so many non-violent entrainment options for children?

Why take the risk of teaching a kid how to hunt when he might feel the thrill of killing a living animal and go on a murderous rampage later in life? Why not lock away all the guns? Why take the risk of teaching a kid how to swim or boat or canoe when he runs such a greater risk of drowning when out on the water? Why take the risk of letting a kid ride a bike or a skateboard when their risk factor of injury and death is so much greater, why not keep those things away from them? Why take the risk of letting a kid play physical contact sports when their aggressiveness might increase and the risk of them breaking their back or otherwise injuring themselves increases probably by double?

My point is that life is one big set of risks. Some handle it better than others. Some are dumb and take things more to the extreme than others. It's all one big series of trade-offs. With each risk there is some reward of some kind, even with video games. How about we all take the article and topic for what it is and we all control all of our own kids the way that works best for us and call everything good.

[mecarr]

It probably makes people a little more prone to violence. By the way, OKC Metro may not be the most appropriate forum for this conversation. I'd consider relocating it to "current events" or "faith & values"

[OKCCrime]

Yes - here is a review worth reading.

Gentile, D.A., & Anderson, C.A. (2006). Violent Video Games: Effects on Youth and Public Policy Implications. Chapter in N. Dowd, D. G. Singer, & R. F. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of Children, Culture, and Violence (pp. 225-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


"The apparent lack of parental concern about media violence is particularly perplexing given the clear research on the negative effects of such violence and the strong critique of such violence by pediatricians. The most recent comprehensive review of the literature on media violence effects— coauthored by eight leading media violence researchers—documents the “unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts” (Anderson et al., 2003, p. 81). In a 2004 survey of pediatricians, over 98% believe that the media affect childhood aggression (Gentile et al., 2004). Somehow, this message has failed to be delivered successfully to the average American parent.
Although there is a large and impressive body of research on the effects of violent television and film on aggressive behavior, there is less research on the effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior. The research that does exist, however, suggests an equally strong connection to negative effects on children."

[Karried]

This has been a concern of mine since I had children. I was incredibly diligent with my first son, he went to a small sheltered Christian pre-school and then to a small Christian private school for years. We sheltered him very much until about age 10 or so and then slowly started letting him watch things that we hadn't before and playing games that we hadn't allowed before.

We transitioned with no problems and so far, he's still the mellow, easy going kid he always was.

One thing to keep in mind is the spacing of your children. Mine are five years apart so it's really hard not to let the youngest one do things the older one does. He was raised a little differently, public schools etc, etc.. saw and played games I never would have let my first. Still, he's a great kid too, smart, easy going, mellow... I got really incredibly lucky with these boys.. knock on wood, they are such good kids.

Some of my friends didn't let their kids watch anything, no video games, controlled every aspect, constant church.... so very sad to me that once these kids got one iota of freedom, they revolted, rebelled, and went crazy.. pot smoking, swearing, getting horrible grades.. on and on. I honestly cannot even believe how far they have turned from how they were raised.

So, long story short, everything in moderation.. don't make things so unattainable that it is all the kids want to have (since they can't)... don't forbid everything, don't over control.. pick your battles, etc etc. Teach them right from wrong through example ... they'll take that over what they see on a video game.

And yeah, we have Grand Theft Auto IV.

[soonerguru]

Of course our children are doomed -- but not because of Grand Theft Auto. Seriously, I played that once for three hours and then when I got behind the wheel of a real-life automobile, I was looking for wary pedestrians to run down.

[Karried]

tee hee, I do that without playing the game.. if I see one more mom not using her turn signal in our school parking lot, I'm opening a can of whoop *&( !

Thank God, my kids are too young to drive yet!

[Midtowner]

I read the original Anderson study. It was actually junk science. At the time, Anderson was a professor at Iowa State University. The methodology used was to allow individuals to play violent video games, then present them with hypothetical situations and gauge the violence of their responses. On two levels, the study looked flawed -- first, the test was only administered on college students at ISU taking intro to psychology classes, so you have a poor sample there. Second, the test only measured violence in response to hypothetical situations -- i.e., situations not unlike those which the subjects had just been exposed to in the violent video games they had been playing prior to the questioning. That crap study is still the only experimental study mentioned in the article.

I wasn't too impressed with the correlational studies or longitudinal studies either. The article fails to discuss those flaws or any counterarguments (as a good article generally would).

What I see here is someone who had a conclusion and then went out looking for experiments to prove his hypothesis correct.

Here's a correlational stat for you: The sales of violent video games are at record levels. Since the early 90's when we first saw true video game violence, i.e. Double Dragon or Mortal Kombat, we have seen two figures with inversely proportional relationships -- while the number of violent video games sold over the years has skyrocketed, the rate of violence has decreased rapidly. In fact, if you want to look at murder rates since 1992, we're currently at nearly half that rate.

Video games are now more widespread and realistic than ever and yet every year, the crime rate, i.e., the violence rate has decreased. How can that be true if these video games are supposed to spur violent behavior?

[Architect2010]

I'm actually playing that game now on my PS3. I'm 17 days from being 16, so I think I'm a good candidate for this conversation.

I think all this media about violent games causing evil little children to have extreme temper tantrums, lol, has been blown way out of control. If you are worried about your kid playing video games and then going to kill some prostitutes, then you need to do something with your child because obviously something is wrong with them. FYI it is a 17+ game but kids still get a hold of it...why? Adults...salespersons, other kids parents, older siblings, and parents themselves. It really is ridiculous. This game has no affect on me or my friends but I suppose thats because we know whats right and whats stupid and we know that killing someone because you did it on a game = mental problems.

Thats my opinion, I'm just defending this game which is actually probably the best game I have ever played. I think it just comes down to...Is your kid sane enough to notice the difference between reality and virtual reality. And even if they can't, they really shouldn't be playing this game anyways unless the parent knows exactly what game they are giving their child.

[OKCCrime]

the study looked flawed -- first, the test was only administered on college students at ISU taking intro to psychology classes - so you have a poor sample there.

Yeah, sure, not a relevant population at all - college students never play violent video games in real life - never play counter-strike all night in dorm LAN parties - never make college selection based the number of warcraft players, or ever go on to commit violent acts in school.

the test only measured violence in response to hypothetical situations

A little thing known as ethics gets in the way of experimentally studying violence in actual situations. I guess that is something that Dr. Anderson understands and is reflected in his 'junk science'.

What I see here is someone who had a conclusion and then went out looking for experiments to prove his hypothesis correct.

You weren't wearing rose-colored glasses by chance were you when you read the article?

Video games are now more widespread and realistic than ever and yet every year, the crime rate, i.e., the violence rate has decreased. How can that be true if these video games are supposed to spur violent behavior?

Violent crimes have decreased because
1) US population is aging (baby boomers are getting older and older people commit fewer crimes)
2) there has been efforts to stiffen sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders
3) there has been increased police enforcement and effectiveness (just watch CSI sometime- they always catch the bad guy)
NOT because of the increase in video game sales

BTW, How can you criticize correlational approaches and then turn around and bite from the serpent's apple?

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

I actually think that romantic comedies do much more harm on society that any violent video games. There is probably no doubt in most players minds that these games and movies like them are pure fantasy. However, there are lot of people who watch romantic comedies as if they are some sort of attainable reality. Then they live their life every day thinking that they will not only end up in this perfect relationship, but that it will happen in an amusing way in a beautiful setting. Then it's these people who actually go crazy and then drive the rest of us crazy. At which point all of these people need games like GTA, so they don't actually go out and kill prostitutes to resolve the anger and depression caused by John Cusacks and Hugh Grant movies.

LMAO

*shakes tiny internet fists of rage against John Cusack*

Where have I heard that argument before? Oh yeah -- pedophiles claiming child porn relieves their sexual desires. At least we now know that kind of argument is a load of horse hockey. If anything, violent games will tend to increase the chance that you will result to violence in say for example, parking lots.

Comparing a mother that interacts and plays with her children to pedophiles? Smoooooth. Nice strawman. You lose 10 logic points.

[OKCCrime]

Comparing a mother that interacts and plays with her children to pedophiles?

Ok - one more time for OGTS's benefit.

The analogy is between:

a mother relieving her aggressive feelings using violent video games

and

a pedophile relieving his sexual feeling for children using child porn.

The research shows that contrary to the arguments of some pedophiles, the viewing of child porn increases the likelihood of illegal sexual acts rather than decreases it.

I argue that the claim that video games relieve aggressive feelings is similarly incorrect. Years of research points the conclusion that violent media increases aggressive feelings.

If anyone can point to a scientific study that demonstrates that the use of violent video games decreases feelings of aggression, I'll eat my hat.

[lpecan]

2) there has been efforts to stiffen sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders

I would love to see some proof of that. Admittedly, I am a physicist by trade, and not a criminologist, but it seems that a deterrent theory of incarceration has sort of gone by the wayside.

In any case, OKCCrime, you confuse flaws in methodology with reasonable efforts. Just because its not reasonable (or ethical) to measure actual violence by encouraging it, it does not make it any more predictive when the study pretty much assumes what it is trying to prove... Think about it. -->

Study is showing that fantasy violence causes real violence (essentially)

Subject engage in fantasy violence

Subjects given opportunity to engage in fantasy violence again

Subjects engage in such fantasy violency, and conclusion is reality violence is caused by fantasy violence.


Forgive me if I've oversimplified this, but I have read that study before and it doesn't tell me anything.

The only ethical way to do the study would take 20 years, (and I hope they are doing so)


Take a 100 person control group and a 100 person experimental group, making sure to have kids of similar socioeconomic backgrounds, and only let half of them play GTA4 for 5 years.... see where the end up.

The problem is such studies are not really feasible, because you cannot control a g roup that long. Also, studies which look retrospectively at those who play violent video games ignore the HUGE possibility of a single factor (or multiple) which causes the individual to both play violent video games AND be violent. Doesn't that make sense? If I am a violent person, would I not be more likely to play Whack a Cop than My Little Pony?

[OKCCrime]

I would love to see some proof of that. Admittedly, I am a physicist by trade, and not a criminologist, but it seems that a deterrent theory of incarceration has sort of gone by the wayside.

An example of such a law:
Three strikes law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admittedly, there is a debate over the effectiveness of this and similar laws. However, one does not have to believe that such laws decrease crime through deterrence (although they may). It is sufficient that more criminals are being locked up for longer periods of time to reduce crime given that recidivism is something like 60% in the US.

[PennyQuilts]

Some thoughts -

Passively watching television, even violent shows, is NOT the same thing as the interaction that goes on with a video game.

Young children's brains, judgment and moral development vary, depending on developmental stage. The impact of a video game on a 5 year old is not going to be the same as on a 17 year old or a 30 year old. If you are 15 and wouldn't be inspired to be violent that does not mean a 5 year old wouldn't, either.

Kids who are too young to understand that making violent threats and acting tough (even if they are actually kind hearted souls) run a greater risk of attracting violent peers by virture of their accepting attitude toward violence and the things they say. A correlation is that children who are acting like little gangsters are going to be avoided by families who don't want that sort of behavior in their kids - thus increasing the likelihood that hoods of a feather will flock together. Parents who allow a child to act like a thug and think that is cute and harmless are so lacking in basic parenting skills and common sense that video game or not, their children are going to have problems. This matches up with earlier comments about poor parenting, in general.

For whatever reason, some of the most violent families that I work with in my job allow young children to play video games, even violent ones.

Notwithstanding the stats that have been mentioned related to a declining crime rate, I have been working with children in the courts for years and know probation officers who have been doing it for decades. The consensus is that not only are we seeing violent crime at a younger age, the truly horrifying part is the lack of remorse and the mercilessness that comes with it. Younger children's brains are not developed. A 17 year old might rob a liquor store for the money. A 14 year old might beat and torture the victim just for the hell of it and not even "get" that what he/she is doing is horrific. The stats will tell you that there were, say, ten robberies. The stats don't necessarily tell you just how vicious the attacks were. The pure brutality of many of the assaults I've been seeing, even in the past 5 years, makes my blood run cold. Some of the girls are the worst and violent female crime is definitely up.

[Midtowner]

Yeah, sure, not a relevant population at all - college students

Sure they do, but many more population groups do as well. When you do a study which you intend to stand for a general proposition, you have to use a diverse group of people. I don't know ISU's student body statistics, but I'm guessing the sample is about 90% white and middle class and 100% in college. That group doesn't exactly represent America at large.

A little thing known as ethics gets in the way of experimentally studying violence in actual situations. I guess that is something that Dr. Anderson understands and is reflected in his 'junk science'.

One of his later studies attempted that as a correlational study, but as mentioned before, those are generally flawed in that they fail to examine all possible alternatives.

You weren't wearing rose-colored glasses by chance were you when you read the article?

Critical glasses, maybe, but considering the crusade Prof. Anderson has gone on regarding video games, the same can be said for the person who wrote the article.

Violent crimes have decreased because
1) US population is aging (baby boomers are getting older and older people commit fewer crimes)
2) there has been efforts to stiffen sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders
3) there has been increased police enforcement and effectiveness (just watch CSI sometime- they always catch the bad guy)
NOT because of the increase in video game sales

I never argued that. I said that violence has decreased despite record video game sales. The overall argument is that these games create a more violent society. Considering the verifiable fact that crime is down, that argument fails at the outset.

I get to bite from that apple because the data shows no rise in violence exists. Now.. if crime stats spike over the past few weeks due to kids playing GTA IV and then going out to kill hookers, gosh.. I guess I'll be proved wrong. 'Til then, the overall reality doesn't support the argument that these games really have any societal impact whatsoever.

[BDP]

Violent crimes have decreased because
1) US population is aging (baby boomers are getting older and older people commit fewer crimes)
2) there has been efforts to stiffen sentencing, especially for repeat violent offenders
3) there has been increased police enforcement and effectiveness (just watch CSI sometime- they always catch the bad guy)
NOT because of the increase in video game sales

Ahhh, but see that's an associative conclusion, not a scientific one. The problem with referring to studies that try and ascertain the effect of violent media on actual violent acts as "scientific" is that they, too, are simply associative conclusions, not purely scientific ones.

Behavioral studies on humans are inherently problematic because any attempt at using true scientific controls would be cruel when even possible. Think about it, can you find a large enough sample in which you could control all other behavioral stimuli, both environmental and genetic, with the only variable being violent media? Of course not. Even identical twins don't have the exact same life affecting experiences. So, basically, every sample is tainted and every outcome is more or less a product of the design of the test and not a true result. You could isolate the sample and study the change in violent tendency as a result of exposure to violent media over time, but could you do it in any humane way?

So, really you have to look at the empirical data when forming policy. Unfortunately, public policy is formed politically where emotional response to anecdotal evidence is more often the guiding force rather than comprehensive empirical data. It may be easy to look at certain events and say that violent media played a role, however it would be irresponsible to say it was the cause of any violent act, such that if the exposure to violent media was removed that no violent act would have been committed, all other things being constant.

In a society based on liberty and freedom, responsible public policy formation should weigh the effect on personal liberty against the mitigation of risk a proposed policy affords the community. Since it's pretty clear that most violent media is consumed without causing violent acts and that the rate of violent acts can actually have a negative relationship to the rate of consumption of violent media, then it seems that public policy that limits public access to such media is unwarranted and actually irresponsible in the context of trying to maintain a free society.

However, that in no way means that a personal restriction on access to violent media isn't prudent or beneficial to individuals, their families, or communities. At the very least, the opportunity cost of consuming violent media at the expense of other leisure activities may alone be worth efforts to implement such a personal policy. And, really, that's why most find voluntary ratings systems of movies and games and TV as prudent, helpful, and without detrimental impact to personal liberty. It seems that we have actually found a pretty good mix in this country, where education and information partnered with enforcement of violent crime statutes has coincided with fewer violent crimes. Can we say scientifically that any of this has actually caused this decrease? Not with any more certainty than we can claim that violent media is the cause of a significant amount of our violent crimes.

If anything, the popularity of violent media has had a greater effect on the media coverage of violent crimes than it has on the crimes themselves, as we continue to have increases in reporting on violent crime, even in periods when violent crime is actually decreasing.

[OKCCrime]

So, really you have to look at the empirical data when forming policy. Unfortunately, public policy is formed politically where emotional response to anecdotal evidence is more often the guiding force rather than comprehensive empirical data.
...
In a society based on liberty and freedom, responsible public policy formation should weigh the effect on personal liberty against the mitigation of risk a proposed policy affords the community.
...
However, that in no way means that a personal restriction on access to violent media isn't prudent or beneficial to individuals, their families, or communities. At the very least, the opportunity cost of consuming violent media at the expense of other leisure activities may alone be worth efforts to implement such a personal policy. And, really, that's why most find voluntary ratings systems of movies and games and TV as prudent, helpful, and without detrimental impact to personal liberty. It seems that we have actually found a pretty good mix in this country, where education and information partnered with enforcement of violent crime statutes has coincided with fewer violent crimes.

Won't argue with any of that. Policy and science are often estranged.