Do violent games cause violence? New survey has some answers
March 1, 2010 by Valerie HelmbreckPosted in: e-commerce, Gadgets, Special Report, User behavior, Video games
Does playing a violent video game really make players more prone to be violent in real life? That’s a question that’s been batted about (no pun intended) for decades, since the first electronic game systems hit the market. The answer?
It’s complicated. There have been thousands of studies in the intervening years that have tried to prove — one way or the other — that playing a good game of shoot ‘em up makes fans of these games more likely to behave violently.
Regardless, the popularity of video games — violent or not — has skyrocketed. Despite the lousy economy, or some might say due to it, sales of U.S. computer and video game software sales grew 22.9% 2008 to $11.7 billion – more than quadrupling industry software sales since 1996.
With all those sales at stake, the industry is doing all it can to keep its image pristine and controversy free.
In pursuit of this polished image, the gaming industry has also labored long and hard to dispute any connection between violent games and things like criminal assault or murder.
And it is a fact that crime has actually gone down in recent decades — something the gaming industry likes to point to whenever their products are linked to unsavory behavior.
But it’s unlikely that even the folks who shill for the industry would claim that playing violent video games (VVGs) actually makes folks less prone to violence.
Or would they?
In the face of a new study from researchers at Iowa State University that playing violent video games increases violent thinking, attitudes and behaviors among players (and does nothing to promote positive social behaviors), the gaming industry is going on the attack.
On the Web site of the Entertainment Software Association, researcher Dorothy E. Salonius-Pasternak is quoted about how electronic games may also have potential benefits for young players that include “providing children with the opportunity to negotiate society rules and roles, allowing children with the opportunity to experiment with aggression in a safe setting without real world consequences.”
Good idea. Even without a lot of academic data to bolster her hypothesis, this argument seems a little cockeyed: Learn about inappropriate behavior by indulging in it without repercussions. What a great idea!
Kind of like the parents who claim they’re teaching their kids to drink responsibly by letting teens and their buddies drink at home under adult supervision.
Sure.
None of these researchers acknowledge that the population most likely to be violent (men younger than 30) has actually shrunk in recent years. Few mention the impact on crime of mandatory sentencing guidelines and the popularity of “three strikes you’re out” laws around the country that have locked up a good number of the violent criminals in our midst.
In the meantime, the Iowa researcher, Craig Anderson and his team, are getting their collective clocks cleaned by others who don’t like their conclusions.
Their research was an analysis of existing studies of 130,000 people from the U.S., Europe and Japan. Their findings were based on players in Western and Eastern cultures, for male and female players and for players of various ages.
They also contradict some earlier studies that the Iowa researchers believe may be tainted by “selection bias” — the way studies were picked for analysis.
The Iowa study notes that while violence in movies and TV shows has long been examined for its potential impact on viewers’ proclivity for violence, video gaming, a much newer phenomenon, has not yet been so fully explored.
In its review of data, the new research found that exposure to violent video games was associated with aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition and aggressive “affect.” The Iowa researchers concluded that VVGs desensitize users and are associated with lack of empathy and a lack of “prosocial” behavior.
What do you think? Take our short survey and let us know if you believe VVGs and actual violence are linked.
For a closer look at the new Iowa study, visit here.
FinanceTechNews.com delivers the latest Finance news once a week to the inboxes of over 150,000 Finance professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to FinanceTechNews!
Tags: Craig Anderson, Iowa State University, study, Video games, violence
March 2nd, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I can�t wait until my professor reads my report on craig anderson because this info gave me exactly what I needed.
but he’ll still be shocked.
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I wonder if Dorothy E. Salonius-Pasternak was ever a researcher on the studies that found tobacco to be harmless?
Sounds like the gaming industry is using the same tactics as big tobacco so I guess the next step will be a gaming industry funded “Violent Gaming Settlement Fund” that the cash strapped States can tap for law enforcement projects or maybe special taxes on the gaming titles deemed violent.
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:27 pm
The argument linking violent video games (VVGs) and violent behavior (VB) seems to be that whatever imagery you allow to pass before your eyes will necessarily alter your psyche to predispose you to believe that the values and mores represented by that imagery is normal and acceptable in real life (IRL). Personally, I believe that one can view (and interact with) violent imagery, but still know that such behavior is unacceptable IRL. I can play Age of Empires III and blast the holy snot out of my CGI opponents with my army of cannons, and still go to work in the morning and be cordial, polite, and diplomatic with my co-workers.
I have no doubt that if someone is already predisposed to VB, then playing VVGs could reinforce that predisposition. But that’s a little different than what this research is trying to sell us.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Parenting, parenting, parenting. Sorry folks, lack of or poor parenting is so far and away a more important factor that debating the impact of VVGs is tantamount to measuring the impact ants in my kitchen have on how often I need to shop for sugar. It is a non-factor. A child that would act violently because he played a VVG would eventually get into some kind of trouble do to some other influence. VVGs are not a stronger influence than parenting, which is the suggestion of these ridiculous studies.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Exposure to violence, especially when separated from real world consequences, definitely desensitizes a person to violence. Even the news has an impact. And haven’t we become somewhat fatigued and disinterested in the earthquake and tsunami victims of Chile because of our recent exposure (over-exposure) to the Haiti, Indonesian and New Orleans catastrophes.
Still doubt? The MILITARY trains using these games. One of the benefits of the training is it reduces the soldier’s natural reluctance to aim and shoot at a person. Purposeful misses were a known problem in WWII and all earlier wars. See: http://davecoop.net/killing.htm
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I think you’ve missed the point and are asking the wrong question(s)
Let’s start with a discussion of physiological effects. From a biological standpoint, the brain reacts to violence the same as it reacts to any game of skill, once the adrenaline starts pumping. Conversely, different areas of the brain are at work based on ethics. Doing something you know is wrong uses your brain in a different way than doing something you know is right. So from a physiological standpoint, a question might be: What is the impact of allowing children, who have developing brains, to do things they know are wrong?
This is a great transition to the psychological effects. For most children, the world and its ethical rules are very simple. If you do something wrong, you’re a “bad guy”. If you do something right, you’re a “good guy”. What about someone who has to make a sacrifice (do a bad thing), to accomplish the greater good? That question and its implications are too deep for younger children to even grasp. Likewise, that starts the “slippery slope” that allows a person to become “ethically lazy” about making moral decisions. It becomes too easy to explain away an unethical or amoral decision.
As the complexity and realism of video games increases, players are subjected to an increasing number of video games with explicit, mature content. Conversely not all “realistic” video games are explicitly mature. Looking at early videogames that basically symbolized the player and opponent as icons, the concepts of violence and ethics were abstract. Newer games put a realistic face to the opponent, and this forces the player to make a decision: “Am I doing the right thing?”
My take, as a both a parent and a gamer, is that just as with television, movies, and any other kind of content, YOU AS A PARENT have to step in and do two things that parents seem to avoid today, and proponents of the “nanny state” seem to want the government to do today by passing some sort of law:
1. Be active in participating in your child’s gaming experiences. Monitor what they play, set limits, explain those limits, and enforce those limits. (You know….. used to be called “parenting”)
2. Understand the issues, and help your child understand the issues. Help your child understand how the issues presented by certain games relate to the limits you set as a parent.
As an example, certain games (the “Grand Theft Auto” series comes to mind) frame the player as a “bad guy”. You get points for doing bad things. My kids know that they are not allowed to play ANY GTA title, period — this limit was set even before the so-called “hot coffee mod” issue with GTA San Andreas hit the media.
My kids know that if a game induces you to hurt innocent people, commit crime, use drugs, or view sexual content, then they are not allowed to play it.
You know how I know my kids respect that limit? I ACTUALLY MONITOR what they play. We keep the video games in a common area of the house, and I WATCH what they are doing, and WE TALK about how their actions in the game relate to real life. (Again… it’s called being a parent)
Going back to a child’s simple psychology, it’s easy to frame everything as “good” or “bad”. Killing bad guys in a video game has zero consequences. One of the challenges is to help them understand how, in the real world, you can’t react to a situation like you would in a game. The example I used is school bullies. Is a school bully a bad guy? That’s a complex question. He/she doesn’t wake up in the morning thinking to themselves that they are a bad guy…. they just have a different point of view, and you have to understand that. The other issue is that you have to help them understand that violence is a part of life, but violence has its limits. YES you are allowed to defend yourself against a school bully, but that bully is a person, and NO you can’t kill them.
There needs to be some kind penalty or cost for proposing any new law, because every idiot thinks they can absolve themselves of responsibility or fix the world with some new law.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:56 pm
I think the problem with a lot of the research is how its abused to facilitate both sides of the argument – the gaming industry wants to distance itself from knee-jerk conservatives too busy looking out for tyhe well-being of the children instead of actively parenting their kids, and opponents love the ammunition.
Unless you are predisposed to violent tendencies due to the environment and way you were raised, I think it’s a big call to state video games are an immediate cause for violence. If you want to start banning stuff, here’s a few other things people interact with that cause more direct violence than any video game ever has – racism, religion, politics and political instability, cars (road rage?), sports and sporting events, war – yet I don’t see huge rafts of research decrying any of these pursuits?
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:30 pm
I don’t believe violent games inherently change the action of the players. It may cause some who are pre-disposed for it to slightly increase the real world output, but at the same time it probably provides an outlet for some who just want to try it but will never extend it into the real world.
Now when it comes to this comment in the article:
“Kind of like the parents who claim they’re teaching their kids to drink responsibly by letting teens and their buddies drink at home under adult supervision.”
Talk about showing some major biases…
First of all it’s not an appropriate comparison. One of the key statements in there is “under adult supervision.” The discussion isn’t about playing violent games under adult supervision vs non-violent games under adult supervision, it is just about violent games, thereby making it an invalid comparison to start with.
Also, that statement I believe ends up undermining the whole argument of the article. Most studies do show that drinking while under adult supervision (and most of my direct experience in this area) show that underage people who learn to drink with adult supervision are dramatically less likely to have drinking problem than those that are forced to drink separately or wait until they are of legal age. It has to do with learning to drink responsibly while having a support structure to guide you vs just binge drinking and needing to fill a desire that has been repressed for far too long psychologically.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:43 pm
[...] a garotada passa o tempo inteiro [18.46GB por dia é muita coisa!] jogando; muito pelo contrário, a violência diminuiu. em lugares como o brasil, onde há um surto [agudo, e não crônico, espera-se] de violência [...]
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:26 am
I find it fascinating how little weight is given to maturity in these studies – or at least in the articles that are written about the studies. Intuitively, someone who is 30+ years of age should be less influenced by violent video games – or movies, or TV then someone who less than 20, and more engaged in the process of learning social skills and developing behaviours. However, age is not a uniquely determining factor in measuring the impact of violent video games.
In general, I believe that VVG’s can influence behaviour, and there is no lack of studies that support this. However, I have to wonder – what additional factors commonly support these influences, to the point that it visibly impacts behaviour?
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:37 am
Next they’ll prove that playing Farmville leads kids to raise livestock and harvest crops in their backyard.
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:11 am
Yes, and futher that playing Farmville leads to growing marijuana in your back yard or in some National Park and takes one down that whole ‘Timothy Leary’ path….lol
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:20 am
thanks, Keep up the Good work
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Even the acronym “VVG” somehow legitimizes this farce. There is no “VVG” — there are Violent Video Games, and there are Non-Violent Video Games, and Ethically-Challenged Video Games, and Video Games With Morals…..
This is the same tactic used in the anti-gun world to label (and therefore attack) certain classes of firearms: “Saturday Night Special” (DEFINE Saturday Night Special) or “Assault Rifle” (DEFINE Assault Rifle).
Just as with so-called gun control, legislation of this nature attempts to define, and therefore cast a wide but ambiguous net about something that DOES EXIST, but a segment of society are uncomfortable about. The reality is that “mature” video games do exist (and actually have existed as far back as the 70′s) and will continue to exist. So do mature movies and TV shows.
The sum of all so-called gun control legislation in aggregate does not seem to be preventing people from freaking out and shooting other people, nor does it seem to be preventing violent crime (just the opposite) — both are stated goals of ALL so-called gun control legislation. Similarly, any legislation around so-called “VVG”s won’t solve the stated problem.
Legitimizing the term “VVG” legitimizes the label of a certain class of video games, and casts them in a negative light.
I want a law against MWPSL – Morons Who Propose Stupid Legislation.
MWPSL, including Global Warming, Carbon Credits, Health care (so-called) reform, gun control, etc., are the biggest threat to society.
Please make all your friends and neighbors aware of the growing MWPSL situation
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
I have studied the litreture for and against such a theory during my BA. Violent children and adult are not the result of violent games but neglectful guardians. There is nothing wrong w/ a little violence in the media ( a reflection of the spectrum of human behaviour) being indulged by “mature and well brought up individuals”. It is wrong to leave the upbringing and “babysitting” of children to violent media and gaming for extended periods of time without providing the understanding that this is “entertainment” not real life.
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
I agree with most the posts here.
This topic comes up every time a new form of entertainment comes up.
When I was a kid we played Cowboys and Indians, where we actually hit each other with weapons. Later came more complex forms of role playing – ie D&D and everyone was freaking out about how this was making people more violent and satanic.
While I believe it is possible to have an unbiased study in theory, it does seem to be rare. I wonder if there is a study that shows how many studies end up proving the opposite of what the organization is funding them to prove. Now that would be interesting
When studying children and the impact of these entertainment/play methods everyone seems to avoid the key question that is being brought up here. What is the home life of the children showing higher trends of violent behavior when compared to the others? What about the genetic factors – are there parents scoring the same way they are?
My gut tells me there is much less parenting going on with kids that have the higher violent tendencies. Heck just looking at the hours played you know there is less RL social interaction with the kids playing the games longer than most people work a full time job. How involved could their parents be in there life?
If you want to do a study about this topic I believe you need an apples to apples comparison. Take kids that do not play VVG. Introduce them to VVG and watch their behavior over time. Personally I would expect them to show a heightened level of violent thoughts (not actions) initially but over time it would drop.
If the thoughts translate into actions then I would study other factors in those children as well.
If someone wants to do a study on behavior they need to include the other environmental factors impacting that child. Exposure to a VVG is just one factor. Personally I see some of these games as therapeutic. It gives people with some curiosity toward the bad things a nondestructive outlet.
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Violent video game are not the sole reasons but can be one of the factors why we have this increasing crime rate. A recent research conducted by psychology experts published that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive thoughts and behavior, and decreased empathy and prosocial behavior in youths. A piece of advice to parents: Please watch over your kids.
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:49 pm
There’s so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?
Dick Cavett
March 5th, 2010 at 1:44 am
[...] Do violent games cause violence? New survey has some answers | FinanceTechNews.com | Top technology … [...]
March 5th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
As someone who constantly sees the BS line that violence sampled does not translate to violent behavior it astounds me that common sense is so removed from what seems very obvious.
I’ve seen kids watch a show that had someone “beating up a bad guy” and then suddenly they are mimicking that behaviour. I’ve seen kids play “Mortal combat” and other games at school where it’s “really awesome” to mimick the fight moves. Until someone gets kicked in the face anyways.
So much media attention to the “Gangsta” and so many people packing weapons. In movies, music, video games and TV everywhere you can tune into people glorified by being violent. But I’m sure that’s all a coincidence that our society is becoming increasingly violent as an accepted way to handle personal disputes.
I wonder how anyone (who does not have something to gain by it) can objectively say that what when we are exposed too violence on a daily basis in society doesn’t become accepted behaviour. Those who aren’t affected by it are just numb to the “shock and awe” effect of it.
You would have to live in a pretty big ivory tower not to see it. And I don’t need someone to spend $50,000 on a study to know what I can see by simply looking around.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Reality Check: I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that unfiltered exposure to violence (be it any form of media, or worse, real life) is a negative influence.
In the situations you describe, where is the parent to help filter?
If you see something violent on TV, it’s easy to say to you child: “Now, you know, that’s not real. If it WAS real, that man would have been hurt badly, or may have even died. You don’t like to get hurt…. it feels bad, right? So you don’t want to do that, because you’ll hurt someone else.”
Even a 2 year old can “cope” under that situation. You help the child build a filter:
- This is not real
- If it was real, bad things could happen
Back to parenting. Content is not inherently evil, but a lack of parenting IS.
March 8th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Let’s ask a few more questions: Why are violent games entertaining? What is it that makes imaginary violence pleasing to someone? Is it possible to think that this kind of appetite is healthy, even for people who can separate reality from imagination?
Psychologists have shown repeatedly the importance of imitation in learning behavior, in both animals and people. If you are around young kids much, it is especially obvious. But the same applies in more subtle ways among adults in the workplace and social settings. Thoughts influence actions.
March 9th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
The vivid art direction occurs to the fore, as Kratos makes his way across the picturesque mountainsides to the city of Olympia, bludgeoning and battering the Army of Olympus creatures like undead soldiers, Centaurs, Harpies & Cyclops. A lot of thought has gone in each move. The attention to detail may be judged by the fact that each teeth of Kratos were separately modelled.
March 27th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Hello, this is one enjoyable post! Thanks for posting this. I was looking for a site that has this kind of info. I just crazy about farmville! Thankful I found this one! I’ll be visiting here again for sure! ^_^