Submited by Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
We’ve known for years that exposure to violence makes humans more likely to commit violence themselves. TV violence is especially pernicious and can have effects lasting decades. Now that applies to participatory virtual violence as well.
Mark Bradford, a 46-year-old resident of Plymouth, England attacked a 13-year-old boy who had just “killed” his virtual fighter in the wildly successful computer game, Call of Duty:Black Ops. The two were playing the game over the Internet when Bradford’s character was shot during a battle scene. The enraged father of two promptly raced over to the boy’s nearby home and grabbed the young man by the throat using both hands. The child’s mother fought him off and called police.
Bradford bravely claims he was motivated because the child also called him a name after the virtual fatal shot was taken. “It wasn’t malice. I just grabbed him. I’ve seen him since and apologized. The injuries weren’t that bad but I do regret it,” Bradford told the Court. Seems virtual violence leads to real lying ,too. The Court was not impressed and scheduled a sentencing hearing this month.
The child’s mother is not buying either. “It’s pathetic that a grown man would attack a defenseless child like this. If you can’t handle losing to a child then you shouldn’t be playing games.” Amen
The case raises the question about whether games glorifying virtual violence and mayhem are suitable for anyone.
Source: MSNBC
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Otteray Scribe,
I was hoping that instead of looking into the person doing the analysis, you’d look into the analysis, itself. Just because Ms. Olsen publishes lots of opinion pieces, it doesn’t naturally follow that her analysis of research on video games and youth violence deserves to be ignored.
Regarding the research that’s been done on this subject, as Henry Jenkins of MIT puts it:
“This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That’s why the vague term “links” is used here. If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor – when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences — which can contribute to anti-social behavior. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.”
Again, violent video games can be bad for lots of kids with particular personalities and reactions to that kind of stimuli. But there are plenty of children who enjoy them and suffer no ill effects. This is a fact, and an important one.
However, let’s end on a positive note. Like Elaine, I’m sure we can agree that the decrease in youth violence is a wonderful thing. And I think we can agree that the answer to why it’s decreasing is, as it is to most questions of mass psychology and sociology, “We really don’t know.” And, finally, despite our disagreements, I’m positive that we can agree that it’s all incredibly fascinating!
Elain, it’s important to note that I would never argue that violent video games don’t increase violence or aggression in any young people. It’s quite obvious that they do. Just as alcohol makes some people violent and violent movies make some people violent.
But there is no reason, no evidence to suggest that “exposure to violence makes humans more likely to commit violence themselves.” It makes some humans more likely, but lots of things make some humans do some things.
Again, there is a lot of disagreement in this area, because we’re not talking about biology or meteorology or other things that can measured simply and objectively. We’re talking about psychology.
I spent years as a behavioral specialist working with psychologists, and the very, very best one was a small, intensely intelligent woman, who, when asked why a child was doing something, would often smile and say, “I don’t know.” She had theories and possibilities, but she knew that the first step to real knowledge is the humble acceptance of ignorance when it was appropriate. Violent behavior in relation to violent media is just such a situation. We don’t know. Yet. Maybe we will, someday.
And I agree wholeheartedly that the decrease in youth violence is good news. It also flies in the face of claims of a causal relationship between violent video games (more popular than ever) and youth violence (steadily decreasing and dramatically lower than before violent video games).
http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/national-statistics.html
wege
good to see you on here. you always had alot of good links on your blog.
Les, I did some background research on Cheryl K. Olsen. She mostly seems to publish opinion pieces. The links I took you to covered about to forty years of serous research on the subject, some of the studies with twenty year followup.
Sorry, I will take the larger body of literature by the leading behavioral research psychology specialists in the field over a psychiatrist who appears to mostly writes books and articles on such topics as borderline personality disorder and 11β–hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase.
Les,
From one of the articles you provided links to:
NO STRONG LINK SEEN BETWEEN VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION
Andrea Lynn, Humanities Editor
http://news.illinois.edu/news/05/0809videogames.html
Excerpt:
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Results from the first long-term study of online videogame playing may be surprising.
Contrary to popular opinion and most previous research, the new study found that players’ “robust exposure” to a highly violent online game did not cause any substantial real-world aggression.
After an average playtime of 56 hours over the course of a month with “Asheron’s Call 2,” a popular MMRPG, or “massively multi-layer online role-playing game,” researchers found “no strong effects associated with aggression caused by this violent game,” said Dmitri Williams, the lead author of the study.
Players were not statistically different from the non-playing control group in their beliefs on aggression after playing the game than they were before playing, Williams said.
Nor was game play a predictor of aggressive behaviors. Compared with the control group, the players neither increased their argumentative behaviors after game play nor were significantly more likely to argue with their friends and partners.
*****
I’d have to take issue with describing a study that was conducted over the course of one month as “long-term.”
*****
Also excerpted from the article:
The results of the new study, Williams said, support the contention of those who suggest that some violent games do not necessarily lead to increased real-world aggression.
But he and Skoric concede that other types of games and contexts might have negative impacts.
“This game featured fantasy violence, while others featuring outer space or even everyday urban violence may yield different outcomes.”
Williams and Skoric also concede that because their study didn’t concentrate solely on younger teenagers, “we cannot say that teenagers might not experience different effects.”
*****
You wrote:
“And, like I said, violent video games are being played by more kids than ever before, while violence among kids is decreasing.”
Do you have data to support the statement that violence among kids is decreasing? If it’s true, that is definitely good news.
OS,
Catch them when they are young!
I’m going to repeat my last post because it appears to be awaiting moderation. I put three links in, but this time, I’ll just put in two and see if it goes through. If I end up with a double post, my apologies in advance.
—————-
Otteray Scribe,
The opinion piece was from a member of the psychiatric faculty of Harvard Medical School. She led a two-year research project to study teens and video/computer games, funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and reported her findings in her book, “Grand Theft Childhood.”
The studies you’ve cited have to be taken in context with all the studies done on the subject of video game violence and kids. This isn’t like climate change or evolution. There is no consensus and to suggest otherwise is objectively untrue.
http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html
And, like I said, violent video games are being played by more kids than ever before, while violence among kids is decreasing. That has to be taken into consideration before one pretends that there is a scientific certainty that violent video games lead to youth violence.
http://news.illinois.edu/news/05/0809videogames.html
This, from the above article is a truly scientific statement:
“I’m not saying some games don’t lead to aggression, but I am saying the data are not there yet,” Williams said. “Until we have more long-term studies, I don’t think we should make strong predictions about long-term effects, especially given this finding.”
Raff, Ron Drabman told me that he had run several experiments in which he showed preschoolers wrestling on TV. Their violent play behavior increased dramatically compared to an identical group of kids who watched TV programs of people interacting peacefully. He kept replicating the experiment to see if he could get different results. He couldn’t–it was the same every time. It seems that age does not matter if children old enough to be aware of their surroundings. I linked to some of his research in the thread above.
One other thing we do know; the longer behavior is shaped during the formative years, the harder that behavior is to dislodge later in life.
My son had anger issues when he was very young when he played video games to the point that we had to take away the video games for about a year. After that incident we never had a problem. I wonder if age that they start has any impact on the anger issues? Great article Mark!
Wege,
Good point and points.
Everything else in this thread aside, scholarly studies included, given our current global climate, remind me exactly why it’s inappropriate for young men and women to use video games, martial arts or military service to train themselves in the art of violence?
Studies may show that violent entertainment has bad consequences, but the three options I mentioned actually do sharpen reflexes (unlike watching television or movies). Video games obviously do not confer the physical benefits of martial arts or military service, but they do have value for those wishing to improve their reflexes.
If your point is that you wish to reduce violence, fight for economic justice. Without economic justice, violence is inevitable, and it is not unwise to prepare yourself, mentally and physically, to resist violence. Or should we simply cede all authority to rightwing gun nuts if society breaks down due to our oligarchs defunding police and social services?
Les, you linked to an opinion piece in the now-fading-in-credibility NYT.
I linked to a number of scientific studies by, you know, real scientists who work in big universities with lots of real colleagues who also do original research and publish articles in real peer-reviewed journals.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22rs+drabman%22+violence&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C43&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=CA+Anderson&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C43&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
Here are some facts. Violent video games are more popular than ever before. More young people are playing violent video games than ever before.
Here are some more facts. Violence among youth is decreasing and is at its lowest point in years. Violent crime is decreasing and at its lowest point in years.
There is as much evidence that violent video games lead to violence among youth as there was in the 50’s that violent comic books lead to violence among youth (a conclusion borne of many psychological studies of the time).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/opinion/28olson.html
I think we should add to what ever psychological triggers, illnesses,and Sociological issues, another socio-psycho issue that may not cause violence but certainly adds to it. The child who from and early age is placed in front of the universal babysitter. From TV they start to spend endless hours in front of a vid game or computer. They feel neglected and often are. Mom and Dad work long hours and then there’s supper, house work, chores etc. There’s mass child care where they are taught someone elses values or none at all (just watch the TV and be quiet) When the child is with Mom or Dad they have a DVD player in the Mini-van. A personal vid game or MP3 player. There is a disconnect. Not all parents are like this Thank God. But there are too many. Now when that child grows up they have never been actually taught about real life. They may be influenced by violence but mainly they don’t have the emotional tools needed.
Simplistic??? Yes , but its not just seeing the violence They actually do live in that violent me me me world.
Banning (censorship):
Censorship is a complex issue but basically comes down to institutional restrictions versus personal choices.
There were no studies, or at least I wasn’t aware of those that may have been done, when I was raising my children and dealing with the issue of video games. I banned all violent games, movies, and T V programs (including certain cartoons) for my children. I also banned the program “The Flintstones” until my kids reached a point where I was convinced they were able to tell the difference between real and pretend. (Flintstones??? … solid relationships are not built on deceit, no matter what the comedic value)
Common sense dictated that violence, real or imagined, was an issue to be addressed carefully and thoughtfully … the children needed to mature before such thoughtfulness could be expected.
That’s how I did it … that was my personal choice. How my neighbor did it was his.
Back then, the late 70’s, fundamentalist religious groups were trying to ban the book “Tarzan” because Tarzan and Jane were having sex without the benefit of marriage. Fine … in your own home, that’s personal choice. But to make the book unavailable to others … nope … that’s a form of institutional restriction, censorship, that fails to recognize the personal choice of others.
Studies are important because of the knowledge they produce that help others in making personal choices related to products available.
Censorship in this area we are discussing is an institutional restriction on personal choice and has no role in a free society. I banned violent entertainment in my own home but I would never assume I had the right to do so in yours.
No, it’s of course no suitable for everyone. The very fact that this game (CoD: Black Ops) is rated 18 — “suitable only for adults” — in the UK seems to underscore that. But most (democratic, rule of law) countries have a harder time banning things which have only a statistical impact for law abiding adults.
It really comes down to one of those basic unanswerable judgment calls legislators are paid so much for: how dangerous must one thing be to be banned even for adult law-abiding citizens.
And it is a judgment call: the US thinks guns are ok, while the UK even bans the carrying of most blades, the Netherlands think pot for consumption is ok, while US federal courts hand out felony charges for that.
Smoking bans in bars, maximum speed on highways, workspace safety regulations, helmet laws, and so on and so forth. No “right” answers, only balancing of interests…
Jude,
It has been demonstrated there is a direct correlation between violent behavior as well as tolerance for the violent behavior of others to a reasonable scientific certainty (≥.05 level of confidence). Not just in one professional journal article, but in dozens of such articles. I linked to just two such researchers above–there are many more.
Furthermore, as Elaine notes, just because someone is unstable and has a short fuse, does NOT correlate to playing video games. In fact there may be a negative correlation because some violent people may have too short an attention span, and be too action oriented to play games.
Your conflation of the unfortunate attack on your person and the assumption you draw from it is called the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Wege,
Don’t worry about it.
Even people who work on good causes, like you, can snap against you at times.
I snap sometimes too, but I get over it and continue on the path that is better for me and everyone else.
Jude,
Just because some people who have never played violent video become unhinged and snap doesn’t prove that some who do play them are never affected negatively by doing so.
RE: “games glorifying virtual violence”
I agree with the comments above saying that this aspect, that the game glorifies violence, is not the key one. The violent reaction was incited by the attendant insult and contempt.
As Otis Redding sang: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Police, take note.