Do Violent Games Hinder Development of Empathy?

donniebaseball23 writes "Although there's yet to be a study that conclusively proves a direct causal relationship between video game violence and real-life violence, psychologists are continuing to examine the effect violent media can have on children. A new study in the Journal of Children and Media notes that violent video game exposure can actually hinder a child's moral development. 'Certainly not every child who continues to play violent video games is going to go out and perpetrate a violent act, but the research suggests that children — particularly boys — who are frequently exposed to these violent games are absorbing a sanitized message of "no consequences for violence" from this play behavior,' said Professor Edward T. Vieira Jr."

Comments

"No consequences for violence"

[cheekyjohnson]

I believe that only a few of them would get that message. But even if they did, instead of having parents ban the games for the child, why don't they teach them otherwise and then let them play them?

Re:"No consequences for violence"

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

They're concerned with the varying percentage of kids whose parents won't take the time / know better to talk to them and give context, etc. Ideally, sure, all the world's parents would have a bit of guidance and insight for each of the things their kids see/hear/experience, but we know that's not the case.

I'm usually all-for telling parents to get their shit in order and to do a good job raising their kids, but going on about the ideal situation is to miss some valuable details about what effect these things have on development. We should accept the fact that many, many families lack parental guidance, and the results should be studied and understood.

Re:"No consequences for violence"

[cheekyjohnson]

They're concerned with the varying percentage of kids whose parents won't take the time / know better to talk to them and give context, etc. Ideally, sure, all the world's parents would have a bit of guidance and insight for each of the things their kids see/hear/experience, but we know that's not the case.

I see. However, the number of children who would get such a message from a fictional piece of entertainment are few in number, I think. That number can be thinned even further if they have responsible parents. What you're likely left with is a few children who do get this message, but they are so few in number that they are likely not worth worrying about (well, in the sense that games should be censored or banned for children, anyway).

We should accept the fact that many, many families lack parental guidance, and the results should be studied and understood.

Then those families shouldn't have children.

Re:"No consequences for violence"

[jhoegl]

Perhaps a similar study or "side by side" study should be performed on basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey, and football.

Because, we all know hockey and football are the worst for anger issues, then soccer (if outside the US and Canada).

I will bet it will be higher percentages for physical contact sports. A PR term for "violent sport"

Re:"No consequences for violence"

[vux984]

However, the number of children who would get such a message[...] are few in number I think

Exactly. "You think"!

And that right there is why its worthy of study. Lets actually find out how few in number it is.

Then those families shouldn't have children.

And the only way you get to enforce that is a policy of eugenics, forced abortions, and sterilization.

I may well agree that many people shouldn't have children, but I have no desire whatsoever to live in a society that actually tries to decide who and then enforces it.

Re:"No consequences for violence"

[martyros]

But even if they did, instead of having parents ban the games for the child, why don't they teach them otherwise and then let them play them?

Because we don't learn primarily through word of mouth instruction, but by example and imitation. Our subconscious learns things by inference, not by logical deduction. Inference comes from stories, example, and our behavior. When we act consistently with a belief (such as, "I'm not that interesting to people"), we tend to strengthen that belief.

I've definitely noticed this, for example, in watching movies. In the last year or so a friend of mine has been organizing "movie nights" for our group of friends about twice a month; and since I don't really care much about what kind of movie to see (it's more about hanging out and having a shared experience), and he really likes action flicks, we see a lot of action flicks -- where violence is really the only solution to most problems. I've definitely noticed a change in my gut reaction when I encounter aggressive behavior in real life.

Now, I think you're right, if a child is getting a moderate amount of violence in video games (a few hours a week), and is getting a lot of positive examples in other areas of life -- interaction with parents, friends, coaches, &c -- on the balance the video games won't really have that large of an effect.

But if there aren't many positive influences, it can go into a negative feedback loop. For example, say his parents are mostly absent, so he's a little more aggressive when playing with friends or playing sports. So most kids don't really like being around him, and his coach tells him he can't be on the team. So he ends up with mostly more aggressive friends (whom he doesn't really like either, but at least they put up with him), and not many rewarding things to do in his free time other than play violent video games. And if his aggressive friends are more likely to get him into other kinds of things... you see where this might go.

There's a lot in this example that went wrong of course -- parents who weren't really doing their job, the unlucky lack of an adult to step in and invest in him for the better, or the particular circumstances of the people at school. No one thing would cause all the badness; but it's not hard to see how violent video games could definitely contribute to the problem.

Re:"No consequences for violence"

[dave562]

The imagination is a powerful thing. I've seen kids come out of the movie theater after watching Kung Fu Panda, and they were trying to kung fu fight each other. That was after what... 90 minutes of animated animals fighting each other. I remember when Power Rangers was popular. Kids all over the place were "playing" Power Rangers, punching and hitting and kicking at each other.

Violence is an innate inclination in human beings. Part of becoming cultured and civilized is learning to find other solutions to inter-personal problems that do not involve the quick and dirty inclination to just simply remove the problem.

On one level the issue is the cultural acceptance of certain behaviors. Look at a game like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas that portrays the gang life style. Sure, there are gangsters in any city of any reasonable size. Yet to glorify that behavior to the point where you are allowing children to live it sends the wrong messages. It delivers the message that such behavior is okay. Perhaps it is funny. Dangerous? Nope, it's a video game. You die and come back to life.

During play time, children try on roles. Every second they spend "playing" a socially destructive role is a second wasted where their mind is not focused on making positive contributions to their environment.

Re:"No consequences for violence"

[cheekyjohnson]

And how many children actually become violent in real life because of this? Based on statistical evidence that I've seen, not many at all. The most some studies have been able to do is correlate temporary aggressive thoughts with violent entertainment. But, as far as I know, that was it.

Every second they spend "playing" a socially destructive role is a second wasted where their mind is not focused on making positive contributions to their environment.

The same could be said about just about every hobby.

another useless comment

[demonbug]

Looks like Professor Edward T. Vieira, Jr. is in need of an ass-kicking.

Right after I finish clubbing this baby seal to death in Grand Theft Orca.

A comment on Fark sums this up perfectly

[heypete]

Fark user FloydA: I think if boys play this game, they will grow up to abuse women, in exactly the same way that I played Asteroids when I was young, and I grew up to be a triangle.

(said in regards to the "Capture the Babe" multiplayer level category in Duke Nukem Forever)

Re:A comment on Fark sums this up perfectly

[hedwards]

It's a valid point, you don't see people getting up in arms when it's a female protagonist beating or generally abusing male antagonists. I gave up watching most prime time TV because it was typical for the wives to behave like abusive bitches and for the husbands to more or less cower.

One has to wonder whether it's not as big a problem as is advertised or whether men just have that little value in modern society.

Only games tho.

[dadelbunts]

Yes but only violent videogames. Other forms of media that depict violence such as movies, magazines, books, comics, and songs no. Actual violence no. Videogames yes. THEY ARE THE WORK OF ALAN TURING'S HOMOSEXUAL DEVIL MACHINE.

Design consequences into the game

[elucido]

Such as if you play a game and you play violently, maybe your enemy just attacks you harder, forcing you to be more tactical rather than just trying to rambo your way through the AI.

Also dying in a game should be a bit more painful. You lose all your gear and you start at the first level, thats how it was when I played growing up. They didn't have a "save" feature.

Re:Humans do not exist in a void...

[Skidborg]

The thing is, when you actually go outside with your friends and play swordfight or war, you learn a degree of empathy that you don't get from video games since you won't have anyone left to play with if you insist on actually harming people. With video games, there's an entire internet full of strangers for you to remorselessly frag/spawncamp/teabag so there's no reason to learn how to actually socialize with them or even consider them to be human beings.

The sponsor is always right

[Lead Butthead]

Every sponsor of the study has its own angle on the issue, as such the result of the study is already predestine to prove the sponsor right. It's largely irrelevant what the result is as the result is pegged long before any data is collected or interpreted.

Studies that disproved their sponsors' views have ways of disappearing into unfunded abyss.