Congressman Introduces Video Game Warning Label Legislation

Gamasutra reports that Congressman Joe Baca (D-CA) has introduced legislation that would require video games with a rating of T or higher to have a warning label that alerts buyers to the dangers of simulated violence. The warning would read: "Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), who introduced similar legislation in 2009, co-sponsored the bill, and said, "Just as we warn smokers of the health consequences of tobacco, we should warn parents — and children — about the growing scientific evidence demonstrating a relationship between violent video games and violent behavior. As a parent and grandparent, I think it is important people know everything they can about the extremely violent nature of some of these games.”"

Comments

Citation Needed

[drmacinyasha]

Can we get some citation on the whole "linked to aggressive behavior" bit? Last I heard... The opposite was shown.

Re:Citation Needed

[myurr]

Especially as this is going to be the thin end of the wedge. By putting a warning label on it and getting the population to accept that, it then legitimises their complaints and fears about computer games leading to restrictions and bans in the future.

Re:Citation Needed

[cheekyjohnson]

However, they have been shown to cause aggressive behavior in children and young teens (who are still learning what is socially acceptable behavior).

Even a child's mind is not that fragile (let alone a teenager's). Given the number of children and teenagers that play violent video games, the amount of them that are violent and possess minds that are that fragile appears to be abysmally small and not worth worrying about.

Re:Citation Needed

[somersault]

Did you know that knives have been linked to murder? Next time you have a steak, you should perhaps just let your kids eat with their hands.

Re:Citation Needed

[Kilrah_il]

A quick search shows many articles on the subject. While I didn't read all of the, a quick look showed that many are observational, prompting the famous "causation != correlation" argument, but some are intervetional and show a causative link between video games and aggressive behavior.
On /. there have been a few articles on the subject, many showing positive correlation, but some didn't show a connection. As someone wrote before me, given so much evidence, can we still cry vehemently against the "weak science" regarding video games and violence? Aren't we better than other groups that do not let evidence stand in the way of a good argument?

Re:Citation Needed

[dogmatixpsych]

There has not been an "opposite" shown. That would mean that video games decrease violent behavior. A recent meta-analysis of literature showed that there was not a link between video games and aggressive behavior (Ferguson. The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatric Quarterly (2007)) - that does not mean that video games lead to a decrease in aggression. I have to add though that this study has some questionable methodology - I'm not saying it is bad necessarily, there were just some corrections done by the researcher that are worth questioning; i.e., studies show a link between violent video games and aggression until "bias" is corrected for.

If we go back a bit, there was one study that showed a decrease in aggression following viewing violent media (Feshbach, S., & Singer, R.D. (1971). Television and Aggression, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco) but I haven't seen any replications of that experiment and one study will not counteract the findings of so many other studies. If we have 50 studies that show a link and 1 that shows the opposite, I'd give more weight to the 50 than the 1 (although the 1 could be correct).

If you want to look at some other studies we find there is a link between aggressive attitudes (but maybe not behaviors) and video games: Wei. Effects of playing violent videogames on Chinese adolescents' pro-violence attitudes, attitudes toward others, and aggressive behavior. CyberPsychology & Behavior (2007)

However, this is the most important thing. It has been reliably demonstrated (e.g., Cantor. Media violence. Journal of adolescent health (2000)) for a lot of years that exposure to media violence is associated with increases in "antisocial behavior, ranging from the trivial (imitative violence directed against toys) to the serious (criminal violence), with many consequential outcomes in between (acceptance of violence as a solution to problems, increased feelings of hostility, and the apparent delivery of painful stimulation to another person)." (Cantor, 2000). This goes above and beyond what is explained by kids who are inherently more aggressive seeking out more aggressive entertainment ("there is strong evidence that the relationship between violence viewing and antisocial behavior is bidirectional"). This type of research has been going on for 40 years now (it really started with Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiment). While none of these studies are perfect, there is much more evidence to suggest that exposure to violence via media (t.v., movies, and even games) can lead to an increase in aggressive thoughts and behaviors in children.

Is it worth putting a warning label on games? No, but just because the whole video game violence and aggression thing isn't popular on Slashdot, doesn't make it untrue. Anyway, as a whole there is more evidence suggesting a link between increased aggression and viewing real or simulated violence than there is against it.

Priorities

[MrDoh!]

Huge unemployment, wars still raging in Iraq/Afghanistan, debt at crippling levels, and people losing their homes at huge levels, great to see the important stuff like video games is being addressed.

But...

Every time a politician brings this up, it just shows how out of touch (old?) they are. Hopefully this won't be too much of a problem in not too many years as people who grew up gaming end up in positions of power and see that it's just a pastime. Golfing/Tennis/few rounds at the bar. It's just so not worth spending any time over, and shows they probably shouldn't be holding any positions where their opinions matter if this is the best they can come up with on something todo.

Re:Priorities

[Supurcell]

For real. It'll be a golden age once my generation takes power. At least until the generation after mine shows up with all the things I don't like.

Re:Priorities

[Seumas]

Good luck with that.

The group of people that think video games are not just for children or that geeks are cool is a very limited one and the impression that it is a generally accepted feeling is an inaccuracy merely reinforced by our own ranks. Kind of like if you spend all your time swinging, you might start to think that swinging is something far more accepted by society than it really is, because -- of course -- you're around a subset that is into it all the time.

I remember a very specific incident with a girl who is a good friend of mine. In response to some ridiculously geeky tangent I went on, I snickered that "I'm such a geek . . ." and her response was to sincerely try and convince me that I wasn't a geek the same way a friend might respond to you if you had called yourself a loser or an asshole.

Then you have video games. While most gamers are adults and the average age of gamers is around 35 years old, most adults are not gamers. If you're an adult - especially once you're out of your 20s, you are bordering on being a pathetic curiosity to the rest of the grown-ups around you, who see you as less responsible and less mature merely for what you spend your recreational time doing.

One might suggest that it merely indicates the age of such prejudice, misunderstanding, and judgement is a lot younger than the "old folks" we would associate the attitude with, but if you are an adult and have been playing games online any time, recently, you've probably experienced comments from very young people, too. I was astonished when I was playing Black Ops with a couple buddies a few weeks ago and when some teenagers asked us how old we were (between 30 and 40), they couldn't believe it. They thought we must be a bunch of losers, because they couldn't imagine that anyone would sit around playing video games when they're an adult. I actually heard that repeated from kids to older players (not just ourselves) too many times to count over a period of about a month that we got together and played regularly.

It was mirrored by a conversation/poll/discussion I saw more than once online . . . in video game websites. Places you would expect the attitude to be more rational. Instead, I've seen questions and forum discussions by what are clearly younger people asking "How old do you think you will be when you stop playing video games?". Probably more than half of the responses are typically things like "as soon as I turn eighteen and get out of the house" or "probably when I have a kid" or "when I get married" or "when I'm thirty". Kind of absurd that there seems to be a huge population of young people who love video games, but only see it as something children do and not something they'll keep doing. Imagine if you spent your childhood reading a lot of great books or maybe hiking and you said "I'll probably stop reading books and going on hikes when I'm 23". What the fuck?

Anyway, the attitude may change. It's not going to be in our life time.

Re:Let's broaden that scope a little.

[dmbasso]

Hell T.V. and movies glamorize violence as much if not more than video games do.

But Heaven T.V. is so boring!

Re:Wake up call to Congressmen

[arbiter1]

Just another waste of time for congress and tax payer $$$$$

I propose another warning

[Totenglocke]

I propose we put a warning before every comment on the news (print, online, or televised)by a politician that says "Warning: Being a politician has been linked to severe defects in reasoning ability and to rampant paranoia of all things invented after 1950. All statements should be assumed false until verified by independent sources".

Re:I propose another warning

[GameboyRMH]

This, in conjunction with the NASCAR rule (politicians must wear a suit with their corporate sponsors' logos on it)

Shares?

[Stooshie]

Does he have shares in a games company? Having warning labels will only increase sales.

Growing Evidence??

[ultral0rd]

Could someone please supply this "growing" evidence.. From my understanding and following of this specific discussion there seems to be less and less evidence that Violent Games are in any way linked to aggressive behavior. Except that aggressive people play video games.. But then again, so do normal placid people.. This is like saying Murders driver cars, thus we need to put a warning labels on all cars informing people that driving a car might cause you to become a murdered.. The pre-disposition was already there, it had nothing to do with the car or the game. The problem is the person >

Warning

[ensignyu]

Excessive warning labels may lead to a distrust of warning labels.

Re:relationship between violent video games and...

[Volguus Zildrohar]

Everything except pay for it!

Fox News?

[Sockatume]

I saw a study recently that showed Fox News viewers held significantly more incorrect beliefs about recent news than viewers of other channels, and that this effect scaled with the amount of viewing. Very neatly showed a causal effect. If it had been about a food additive and brain damage, we'd already have people screaming about a ban. Perhaps there should be a mandate that Fox carry a disclaimer at every ad break: "Studies show that watching Fox News results in you believing things that aren't true." The research is just as solid and incontrovertable as the research on violent video games.

You know I'm fine with this

[bjorniac]

I'm totally OK with this. Just so long as they post the same notice on the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran/Insert religious script here. After all, so many wars/acts of terrorism have been done based on the words in these books (or their interpretations).

Also all sports games. Fights break out, even at little league games. So we'd better put warnings there.

Or we could grow up and stop using such cowardly words as 'linked' - anyone can 'link' any two random things without any evidence. For cigarettes there were causal studies and medical evidence of the effects before the warning labels went on. We should hold everything to the same standards - either anecdotal crap will suffice and we can 'link' any two things we choose, or we can have research done by psychologists/sociologist and actually prove things before we do this crap.