Congressman Wants Health Warnings On Video Games

An anonymous reader writes "California Rep. Joe Baca has proposed a bill which would mandate placing health warning labels on any video game rated T (13+) or higher by the ESRB. The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009 would require a cigarette pack-like label that reads, 'WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.'"

Comments

No

[fiercedeity]

"Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior" Except that it hasn't been.

Except this is exactly wrong...

[DocJohn]

Psychologists have shown that, in fact, there is virtually no connection between playing violent video games and increased violence, so the Congressman from California has it exactly wrong:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/05/17/the-link-between-video-games-and-violence/

I'm all for research supporting reasoned legislation, but in this case, it is ignorance and misconceptions supporting "feel good" government nannies.

--
Yes, the answer is no.

Kids were violent before they played the game

[Jabbrwokk]

Thanks for the link. From your article:

Surprise, surprise! People who may already exhibit signs of anger or aggression may be drawn to such games. The games don't cause the anger or aggression. Such people may also be at greater risk for showing increased anger or aggression.

That's from a psychologist. Why can't the lawmakers figure it out?

Re:Hmm...

[bobdehnhardt]

I think that's the crux of the matter. The comparison the cigarette labels is misleading. In that case, there has been an incontrovertible link between smoking and various diseases - even the tobacco industry now admits this. The link between violent video games and violent behavior is far more tenuous, supported somewhat by some anecdotal evidence, and strongly disputed by many behavioral scientists. I've got no problem with the label per se, IF it's accurate.

Appropriate

[Dice]

Joe Baca

The word "Baka" (romanization) in Japanese means "Idiot".

Re:face. palm.

[Martin Blank]

Joe Baca is generally a problem. He was influential in getting new regulations passed to make it easier for lower-income families to get loans, and now his district is one of the highest, if not the highest, foreclosure rates in the nation. He has steered PAC money to his sons' election attempts when the use of that money explicitly conflicted with the guidelines for their use. His election to head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was a public one when the Caucus is supposed to hold private votes. When Rep. Loretta Sanchez -- also a Democrat, Hispanic, and from the same state -- pointed this out and called for a new, secret ballot, he called her a whore.

Even for a Washington politician, Baca is quite capable of some low deeds.

Re:2nd warning label following the initial

[Bigbutt]

Actually the roadrunner and coyote cartoons of even the 70's were censored from what I remember in the late 60's. I was watching them with my kids in the early 80's (I'm almost 52) and surprised when some of the scenes I remember were trimmed out.

[John]

The APA

[Loundry]

Actually the results of studies linking video games and aggression have been posted on Slashdot (you can find a lot of studies wit Google). Also I'm not biased, I clearly said it pointed both ways and I obviously mentioned that there is a chance that a child that is too young will imitate what is seen on any media. Also, I speak from personal experience (both with knowledge of psychology/statistics and my own observations). One thing I have noticed is that the "aggression" in video games is caused by loosing. When football fans show violence, it's not because violent media has a direct play in it, it's because the ref made a bad call, or some player made a dumb move.

I took your advice and googled it, and the first hit which came up was from the American Psychological Association:

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

I want to counter what you wrote with what the APA says.

You wrote: "Experiments have pointed both ways"

The APA says:

Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.

Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).

You wrote: "many dolts firmly believe that correlation implies causation"

The APA says:

Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.

Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.

You wrote: "the 'aggression' in video games is caused by loosing"

The APA says:

Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.

Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.

You wrote: "this link has been established with biased experiments and insufficient data" And then you also wrote: "I'm not biased". In other words, you're completely objective, but anyone who disagrees with you is biased?

I'm completely willing to accept that there are studies which refute a theory that you hate. But you need to pony up those studies and explain to me why the APA disagrees with you so strongly. It seems to me that you are in the weaker position, especially given these psychological facts:

1. Humans ape behavior that they see other humans perform (modeling).

2. Humans will perform a behavior more often if they are rewarded for it.

3. Violent video games ever more closely approximate humans performing violence on humans and reward players