Kids 'Unaffected By Game Violence' Says Study

Via Game|Life, an article in the Syndey Morning Herald discusses a new study indicating most children are unaffected by videogame violence. Though the study did indicate that children already predisposed to violence or neurotic behavior were over-stimulated by these games, most children showed no difference in behavior as a result of game play. "The study monitored the behavior of children from 10 schools in eastern and southern metropolitan Melbourne before and after playing the violent video game Quake II for 20 minutes, Swinburne's Professor Grant Devilly said. Prof Devilly said only children predisposed to aggression and more reactive to their environments changed their behavior after playing and of those only some showed more aggression."

Comments

Can I get a ...

[Pyrrhic Diarrhea]

...collective "No Shit" on this one? How many times have we seen this same claim? Enough already.

From the "Well, DUH" department...

[MeanderingMind]

It's just like half of slashdot has been saying this whole time, games like GTA, violent movies like 300 and other media with similar content only increase aggression in those predisposed to it. While that is in and off itself a cause for concern, and parental monitoring, the games themselves are not the root of the problem.

Re:there might be a difference

[Lockejaw]

TFA also says it was only a single 20-minute session of gaming. Unless there's something really serious in the game, 20 minutes really isn't enough to matter. Show me results after playing for at least an hour every day for a week or two.

Re:there might be a difference

[Spudtrooper]

The only thing dumber than claiming that video games cause violence is claiming that only realistic video games cause violence.

What's the score so far?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

This isn't the first research done on this subject. I wonder what the score is so far? The only thing I know is that no study so far has resulting in the "video game violence does affect children/people".

No effect: a couple
Inconclusive: also a few
Has effect: 0

Only part of the issue...

[7Prime]

Although, this is interesting, and there is some merit to the study, it only studies one part of the issue, natural tendancies as apposed to cultural ones. As someone else said, "Quake 2 is a far cry from today's GTA games", and I echo this. For its time Quake 2 was pretty violent, but culturally, it has become pretty much fully accepted and with no particular concern. What's probably more of a problem, however, is children who are constantly being asked to push the envilope of cultural acceptability of violence. I have no problem with going against cultural norms, as a whole, but children who are expected to accept violent entertainment at the edge of the cultural norm, may act very differently than ones that are expected to accept violent entertainment which has become culturally acceptable.

The bottom line is that eventually our culture comes to terms with some form of devient behavior. It's not that we morally condone it, but we become able to rationally assess it, without it becoming a sick fascination. The concern isn't so much that the violent imagery, itself, is a problem, so much as that our cravings for greater and greater violent imagery can pose a problem. We should look at this topic rationally and without reservation, there are no "duh's" or "no shit's" here. It's a valid concern. While I admit that most people, in their habbits, are healthy in their entertainment, I've also witnessed teenagers who play games specifically for the blood... which is sad, and a bit disconcerting. Violence can be used to portray strong messages, but in of itself (just like any type of stimuli) has no merrit.

I think this study is very good because it explore the natural disposition factor to violence in entertainment, and I'm sure that this is exactly WHY they chose Quake 2 to use, instead of the latest extremely violent games. That'll probably come next.

Re:Only part of the issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

Studies take a good bit of time to research, organize, fund, deploy and then do the analysis. For my "Masters" thesis in Communications I looked into a "small" portion of the connection between media, agression and violence in youth (I targeted 10 to 12 year old boys). The research that is already out there is staggering. It runs the gambit between both extremes and everything in between. It is not uncommon for someone to take research that was already done and redo the data to get different results to support their own position (you can make just about any stat say anything you want if you propose it the right way). After doing all the background work it took time to organize. In the U.S. you have to get a review board for a rubber stamp approval of the whole process before you can go any further, and that can take weeks/months depending on the "touchie/feelie" aspect of the study. Long gone are the days of having a test subject grade a paper and give an unknown/unseen (ie not real) person a shock based on how they did. Wathcing someone flip a switch or turn a dial thinking they are shocking someone speaks VOLUMES (about personality, society and receiving orders just to name a few).

From my initial concept to starting the study took a YEAR! It then took all of a semester to run the tests and another semester to field the data. When it was all said and done my study showed no reach change in behaviour from pre-recorded norms for the youth. I saw about as much agressive behaviour in 10 to 12 year old boys from watching a "yellow sponge" cartoon, watching "professional" (cough) wrestling, playing a shooter, or playing flag football (I had to get signed wavers for the football, flag football?!) for 30 minutes. I had my control group walk for 30 minutes (around a track -- I had to get waivers for this one too!?!). Now, that was only 30 minutes but I did have numerous sessions. College studies, by in large, just don't have the time or funding to do these indepth studies that take decades to pan out. My study looked about 150 youth (including control) with four 30 minutes sessions. Drop in scantron questionaires, watching video of the youth, scoring, etc, etc... it took a LONG time. I was told in no uncertain terms I would not be able to finish my research before my masters would be complete... and they were right. I passed my research onto another person who was a Junior when I started my Masters (she was in on it from the ground floor) and she finsihed the project when she received her Masters.

The BIG sticking point is what do you call aggression and how is it measured. It hitting a "BoBo Doll" aggressive? It blowing a whistle loudly aggressive? Is asking a youth to give their "frustration level" a number from 1 to 10 measuring aggression? Is asking a youth to ask a "pretty girl" out for pizza and then asking them what their "frustration level" a measure of aggression?! Is watching a youth's blood pressure or heart rate rise a measurement? Have them watch a "pretty girl" at the beach and take more measurement?! Pupil dilation? Skin temperature? The list goes on and on and on. You can't meausure "aggression" easily, period. What triggers a child's "agressive" response can be just as hard to pin down. Calling one youths mother something colorful will get responses from laughter, to name calling, to tit for tat, to a punch in the mouth. They could all be emotional responses or just learned behavior but only a few could be definately call "agression" every time. Perception.

Now that you have agression defined and measured (hah ha)... define violence? Define condoned violence? Uncondoned? Condonded violence in boys may not be so for girls and vice versa. We consider a youth charging down the field and knocking the $#@! out of another player in football condonded violence. When the other boy gets up and shurgs it off he is tough. One boy slugging another boy in the hall for "no apparent reason" maybe a bullie if the other boy does not fight back he is a "wimp or coward".

Re:Only part of the issue...

[7Prime]

Mod parent up. Damn, that was great. It's too bad you posted AC, because your score fell to zero, and so many people won't notice this insightful post.

I couldn't agree more with everything you're saying. I'm just sick and tired of people making up their minds before any results come in. When this thread first started, it was full of "no shit" and "duh" comments, which just really pissed me off, because science is a very very complicated thing that takes some serious and critical thinking.

I'm also sick and tired of the black & white responses that the press and the public are looking for. I've heard people go as far in making flippent comments as to say, "I've been playing violent games since I was 9, and I've never killed anyone, so they must be okay." This is simply rediculous, but it's the same attitude I see in the public every day. Psychology is all a series of grey areas, there are no such thing as hard and fast rules. Of course playing a violent video game won't turn average joe into a gun-toting psychopath, but there's a legitimate question as to whether it might make average joe just slightly more aggressive or irratable in some way that makes other's lives just that much more unpleasant. When you look at a society, little things like this can have major cultural consequences, so it's important to discuss openly, and not jump to conclusions. And I'm not suggesting that it DOES, but we have to be open to the possibility that it might, and be prepared to discuss what to do about it, if it is indeed the case.

Our culture wants everything in black & white terms: good and evil, right and wrong, guilty and innocent. In this day, you're either a crimina or you're an angel. It's all a huge "Us and Them" game, a way of separating ourselves from everyone we don't understand. These studies are important because they tell a lot about how we learn and grow as a society. To ignore the finer points just because they don't help us to stroke our ego, by being "the good guys", is to do violence to the very idea of personal and societal growth.