Another Video Game Violence Study

[Derf]

I know this has been discussed here quite passionately. Here's a link to an interesting new study that finds no real correlation between violent video games and real-life violence.

[AndyC]

To tell you the truth, with political agendas on one side of the debate, and lots of money being made on the other, I don't really trust any study on this, whichever side it supports.

[odinn7]

Yeah, video games do not cause viol...hold on, the other guy in this office is p**sing me off...now, where's the auto?...hmm...forget it, this butcher knife will work...there, that's better. Ok, were was I? Oh yeah, video games do not cause violence.

Actually, AndyC has a point. I have stated before that I don't believe movies and games cause this but no study is going to be able to prove one way or the other.

[Derf]

I lost faith in studies like this a long time ago; I just thought it was interesting that one like this, which goes against "conventional wisdom," is making its way out. I haven't seen it in any major media release, and I don't think I'm likely to, but it's always nice to have a counter to the "studies show that..." lines that occasionally come up. As an English teacher, I have to have my students do research papers, and they will invariably turn up only the "studies" that back up what the press has already decided we should all believe. I just like to have things like this to show that "conventional wisdom" is not always conventional or wise or even the best explanation we might have for some behaviors.

[ulthar]

odinn7 wrote:

> no study is going to be
> able to prove one way or the other.
>

That's the real problem with social research in general.  You cannot reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis because you cannot say a given person would have or would not have committed an act in the absence of the influence.

Whew.  Sorry about that last sentence.  The real crux is the difference between 'correlation' and 'cause.'  Cigarettes do not CAUSE lung cancer (not all who smoke get lung cancer, therefore it cannot be causal), but there is a strong positive correlation.  Our pop media has done its best to destroy the significant differences between these terms.

There's a Chemistry Prof. at Chapel Hill who hated 'clinical' research, because the experiments could never be repeated; once you kill off a population of mice, for example, that's it.  Therefore, there is no real statistics, no reproducibility and (in his view) no science.

Take a kid who shoots up a school, then claims video games made him do it.  Who can say?  Study a group of kids who play games and another who don't?  All that can tell you is about the TENDENCY of THOSE TWO populations; but nothing about the CAUSE of an individual behavior.

Back to the lung cancer example:  if a smoker develops lung cancer, you cannot say the smoking caused it, since there is NO WAY to say that individual would not have developed lung cancer without smoking.

In short, the basic foundation of this kind of research is flawed at the scientific method level.  They can call such a 'study' science, but it just isn't.  True, long polysyllabic terms help sell it, but there's a far cry from 'hard science' to 'soft science.'

And now, I invite you to think of the millions of dollars spent on social research.  :)

[AndyC]

Far too many different factors contribute to whether children grow up to be well adjusted that it is impossible to say to what extent any one thing affects them. I would list video games as one of a list of influences, rather than as a direct cause. All of the various influences together tip the scale toward positive or negative.

If anyone wanted to prove exactly what effect video games do have, they'd need to conduct a controlled experiment that would be virtually impossible. At minimum, they'd need two groups of infants, of a similar mix of temperament. All would receive identical upbringings, with one group playing video games and the other not. You might even want a third group to test the difference between violent and non-violent games. The experiment could be even larger if you want to examine the effect of different amounts of game playing as well, say a couple of hours a week vs. several hours a day. The experiment would, of course, last anywhere from 15 to 20 years. Even if it could be done, there would be obvious moral and ethical issues.

Short of doing that, nobody's ever going to come up with hard scientific evidence. Even then, experiments can be set up to favour one conclusion or another, depending on who is paying for them.

[ulthar]

AndyC wrote:

> Far too many different factors contribute to whether children
> grow up to be well adjusted that it is impossible to say to
> what extent any one thing affects them.

I would go further and say that many of those other factors DETERMINE how much of an effect influences like video games will have.  In technical-speak, I am saying that I believe the influences are not independent.

For example, perhaps kids with strong, involved families are less likely to be influenced by a given amount of game playing.  I guess it's like saying there are social equivalents to disease immunity, and I don't think we have even begun to understand or quantify these types of relationships.

[AndyC]

ulthar wrote:
> For example, perhaps kids with strong, involved families are
> less likely to be influenced by a given amount of game playing.
>  I guess it's like saying there are social equivalents to
> disease immunity, and I don't think we have even begun to
> understand or quantify these types of relationships.

I agree completely. Besides providing children with good examples, strong values and social skills, a family can teach healthy enjoyment of games and other forms of entertainment in moderation. For example, my wife and I have discussed television at considerable length in preparing for our first child (who should be along any time now). Besides just what programming we consider appropriate for a given age or what kind of time limits we want to set, we've talked about how we want TV to be used in our family. We think viewing should be a shared social activity more than a solitary one. It should also be something to do when the kids aren't doing other things, and not the first thing they do when they come home. They should have other interests that come first. Above all, we really want to avoid using TV as a babysitter, and just plunking the kids in front of it whenever we want to get rid of them. Some of this will, of course, mean changes in our own long-established viewing habits, but we think it's worth making the effort. How we use things like TV or video games should make a difference in the influence they have.

[BeyondTheGrave]

I agree with Andy C and Ulthar too. When I was younger, I watched alot ot Tv and movies with my grandmother or my mother. They never put me in front of it and say here stay here while I do this and used as a babysitter like so many parents do now. They used to watch it  and enjoy it with me. I still remember sitting with my grandmother while we watched X-files ,Buffy or Alien Nation. My mother used to play video games with me too. We used to play Double Dragon, Streets of  Rage NARC and teenage mutant ninja turtles. It seems now that parents wanted everything regulated like movies and video games so they don't have worry about themselves.


-------------------------------------------------
Most of all I hate dancing then work, exercise, people,stupid people



Post Edited (08-15-05 22:41)

[dean]

Study, shmudy [well I was trying to make some kind of sarcastic comment here but oh well.]

I also agree to an extent with ulthar and AndyC [though I cannot be too sure about some of the particulars since I haven't put enough thought to it at the moment].  

Studies can be swayed to the side of whoever is funding it quite easily.  One of my tutors in a previous class, a professor at my Uni, one day went on about how the government tries to bribe their way into getting you on their side, and that if you accept their favours, you would feel obligated to reciprocate by lending a 'professionals' opinion in on a particular debate.

Basically, if these studies are being done by people who need/rely on/use government funding, and the government has a strong stance on an issue, like, for example, violence in video games having a negative influence, then there is more of a chance for the study to be swayed in their direction.  I'm certainly not saying it would happen all the time, but the risk is more so than a neutral-based study.

Therefore these studies are flawed on many accounts, like the excellent example ulthar brought up using the example of smoking.  Perhaps there should be a study in the effects of the employer in the results of studies.

Anyway, of my personal opinion, video games can certainly have a negative influence on somebody, whether it be violent or what not, but this is not necessarily any more of an influence than other forms of media/social contact.

I mentioned previously in another post my speeding in my car subconsciously due to playing Need For Speed Underground before hand.  One can argue that this was because of the fact that I played that video game before hand.  

On the flipside however, one can also argue that the speeding itself wasn't a direct effect of the video game, since I display trends of speeding in that same area at the same time of night without the effect of video games, it was just more noticable/pronounced because of the fact that I had played a racing game before hand.  That is, this was a previously occuring affliction [the speeding that is] without the influence of video games, so were they really the cause?

Contradictions and problems like this make it hard for me to judge the validity of a particular argument on any topic really.

[AndyC]

It's not really that you can attribute any one act to something like this, and I think that's what some people miss. Video games don't make people do things, but I think they (and other influences) might have a cumulative effect on attitudes or temperament over years. I imagine that the more competing influences there are, the less the effect is. Kids who spend hours playing violent video games by themselves on a regular basis (and we all know kids like that) have a double disadvantage, in that they are immersing themselves in it, and they are losing out on proper social interaction.

As with fried foods, candy, booze or anything else, the problem might be more one of excess. All these things can be enjoyed in moderation. Healthy gaming, as part of a full and balanced set of interests, should be what parents strive to promote.

[dean]

>>>All these things can be enjoyed in moderation. Healthy gaming, as part of a full and balanced set of interests, should be what parents strive to promote

I totally agree and I guess that's why there's a problem.  Like the post about the guy who died after playing too much Starcraft, or the newspaper report I read a while back about some medical-type center for internet addicts in China somewhere.

I mean, I know and have known a few people who just do nothing more than play games all day, or at the least, want to play games instead of doing something a bit more constructive.  Eg, Kids who just bug their parents all the time by just playing games and getting all angry when they can't.  That seems to be a concern, but instead of the games being the problem, I think it's the way those who are trying to ban violent games are going about it that's wrong.

Now I'm all for playing video games, I love em, and I'm sure I used to be a bit like those people I just described, but when I see a friend playing World Of Warcraft all the time, whilst complaining about not having much money because he has no proper job, one has to worry slightly about the effect you just described, AndyC, on those who do 'spend hours playing violent video games by themselves on a regular basis'.

So what is proposed? A study on the effects of violent games on people and the possible banning of said game?  Bah I say!  Anyway, I've rambled on too much and will probably look at this later and say to myself, 'what were you thinking you idiot??'  

Phew...

[Derf]

I just came across this article that says pretty much what you guys say here. I know, I know, we all already knew this stuff, but it's always fun to read that someone else is finally getting it as well.