Videogames Affirm Violence Among Kids?

Thanks to Mainichi.co.jp for their report on a new Japanese survey claiming young videogame-playing children are more violent. According to the Ochanomizu University study, "The more elementary school students play video games, the more likely they are to get irritated and want to hit others." However, the story also points out that "Another study on British children also released at the International Simulation and Gaming Association meeting gave different results, finding that those who preferred violent games more were not as aggressive in their actual lifestyles", leading to the inevitable conclusion that there's no definite answer - though that Japanese survey did suggest that "In video games it is common for players to be awarded 'points' for violent actions, and there may be aspects in which violence is taken affirmatively."

Comments

Denial

[Fished]

As an observation, it seems to me that many on Slashdot are in flat-out denial of the effects of playing video games on children. Again and again, Slashdot has posted results showing that video games do predispose kids to violent behavior. Yet, when these stories are posted, they are always accompanied with faint hints that they are not to be believed. In this case, it is only "claimed" that video games dispose kids to violence - not "shown" or "suggested".

It's time to wake up and smell the gore, folks. You can't divide your personality between unpent aggresion in the electronic world and turn around and be a nice, happy guy the rest of the time. And, in years and years of reading Slashdot, I have yet to see a *single* study that suggested otherwise.

Re:Denial

[joFFeman]

indeed. the argument needs to stop being made that 'violent video games don't influence children', and the arguments for increased, positive parental involvement, and the formation of a society which itself doesn't reward violence need to be made.

Re:Denial

[pompousjerk]

So why are they allowed to play? Why are they allowed into 'R' rated movies?

More importantly, do violient games make violent kids or do violent kids play violent games? A correlation does not prove cause and effect (although I haven't read the article yet to look at how the study was done... I'll save my conclusions for later...)

Re:Denial

[Danse]

The only problem is that there is a very distinct difference between real life violence and video game violence. A lot of people grow up playing violent games and have no problem at all. Indeed the vast majority of gamers are pretty well adjusted. But because some small fraction of people can't tell reality from fantasy, they try to tar the whole industry. Face it, if these kids are so messed up that they think that the things you do in video games can be done in reality, then they're going to do something stupid anyway. Maybe they'll get it from a movie, or a book, or a comic book, who knows. But it's not the medium that is the problem, it's the kids and the way they're raised, and possibly a medical condition as well.

Re:Denial

[bigbigbison]

I've posted on this issue before. Basically my point is not that videogmaes are or are not violent. It is that there are a lot of other things that go on in western society that seem much more violent but yet aren't considered violent because they are older forms of entertainment.

This issue of violence gets to a deeper issue. What is a violent videogame? Would you consider Madden 2002 to be a violent game? How about NHL 2K3? In all likelihood, Madden 2002 would not be considered "violent." Why? Because it is "just football." In American society (and probably in much of western society as well, although I am no expert on international culture), sports are naturalized. We consider them harmless. Even more than that, we encourage children to participate in them saying that they will be moral builders and the like. However, let us stop a moment and think about what actually happens during a contact, "masculine" sport like football (both kinds), basketball or hockey. How do players hype themselves up for the game, how to they refer to their opponents? "Let's kill 'em! Let's rip their heads off! Let's destroy them!"

So here we have an activity that involves actual real violence, hitting one another and face to face trash talking and yet we do not seem concerned that this will lead to other acts of violence? But we have these mediated, virtual enactments and we are concerned? Real violence does not cause more violence, but virtual violence does? The worst injury I have ever heard of at a LAN party is carpal tunnel! How often do fights break out at LAN parties? How often do they break out at sporting events? Remind me again which one of these causes violence?

This is not to suggest that sports are bad. Not at all. It is to show a point. Sports are considered part of our society. They have been since ancient times. So the thought that these may cause violence does not even occur to most people. However, these damn kids and their videogames. Now that is another story. Videogames are a new medium and they are a new entrant into our culture. Hence the moral panic surrounding them. Remember what rap was supposed to do to our kids? Remember what heavy metal was supposed to do? Remember rock and roll? There have been moral panics about technology dating all the way back to the popularization of the printing press. What is going on here is nothing different and as such we should try to see through the moralistic, "what about the children!?!" hype and see that the real issues here are not "do videogames make people violent?" but "Who decides what 'violent' is?" and "Why is that considered violent when there are so many other things in society that aren't?"

I will feel safe in admitting that videogmaes MIGHT make SOME kids POSSIBLY more violent when the media and anti-videogame zealots admit that physically agressive sports MIGHT make SOME kids POSSIBLY more violent. After all, I don't know about anyone else, but when I was in high school it wasn't the gamers that were beating up other kids it was the athletes.

Re:Denial

[Stargoat]

Nonsense. Pure and utter nonsense.

This study of Japanese children by a Japanese woman, Ms. Nobuko Ihori. They asked children questions about violence. The children who played the most (the top five percent or higher? It doesn't say) respond to the study in such a manner that it has been interpreted that these children who play the most video games are the most violent.

But wait, this doesn't make sense? The difference in verbal agressiveness was not clear?

So, children who play the most amount of video games are likely to be the most agressive physically, but they won't swear at you any more than the next person?

Nonsense. I can think of several different, and equally valid interpretations of the data:

1. The children that were most likely to respond honestly were the children who spent the most amount of time playing video games.
2. Or the children who spent the most amount of time playing video games are the ones who concentrate best, and thus are the most likely to be irriated at interruptions.
3. Or, children who have been allowed to play several hours of video games a day have their family completely cowed, and have been known to use violence to get their way previously.
4. Or, perhaps the children who play the most video games are the ones (for a variety of reasons) who are most osterized at school, and they are the ones most likely to be violent.

This is a case of Ms. Nobuko Ihori jumping to conclusions when getting some research. She needs to come up with different conclusions, test those out against the idea of children playing videos games, and then come back to us. Instead, the little grad student wanted to make a name for herself and published a study condemning video game violence.

Re:Cause or effect?

[FFFish]

Oh, lordy. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Quantumprof.

The researchers grab a random sample of kids and randomly divide them in two groups. One group is assigned non-violent games, the other violent games. They do not assign the violent kids to the violent games. That would be stupid: it would invalidate the study.

The kids play the games and are then engaged in group play. The researchers observe the interactions between the kids. They observe the kids who had been playing violent games -- and remember, these were just kids at random -- tend to be more physically aggressive.

Study after study is showing this. And the results fit in perfectly with what we already know about kids: they learn by observing and doing.

Why on earth would you wish to pretend otherwise?

Points to reward violent behaviour

[Scrameustache]

Yeah, right, because there are not such system in real life, huh?

When will they do a study on the effect of playing cowboys and indians or cops and robbers on the behaviour of children?

Remeber those violent games, played by small children in the streets? The object of the game being to shoot and kill members of an ethnic minority or social class! I mean, every kid who played that must have turned into a violent psychopath gunning down everyone in sight...huh?