Study links violent video games and physically aggressive behavior

Oh and, nice picture Justin.

Cause and effect: do violent games make kids more aggressive, or do more aggressive kids like violet games?

They always miss the actual story; That games desensitize children to violence. Then again, so do cartoons like GI Joe (YO JOE!). The result isn't so much that kids are more prone to violence, but that they are less likely to avoid it, since they are desensitized. That's my view anyway. By late middle school, kids are getting into fist fights anyway, video games or not (since, you know, TV and movies cause the same desensitization)

In my opinion, kids compared to kids 20 years ago are less violent. In my dad's day it was ok to get in a fist fight, and when the fight was over, that was it.

Nowadays, however, kid's cant fight. They lose their ability to go to school, face criminal charges, and deal with other civil lawsuits (getting sued)

Rather than duke it out in a small scuffle, the anger and resentment build up until a more violent episode occurs. I would rather fight someone than get shot, and I blame cases of EXTREME violence on legislature, not video games. If kid's were allowed to solve their petty battles in the form of an honorable fistfight (let me repeat, there is HONOR in fighting for what you believe in, or standing your ground, or just not letting someone walk all over you) then less kids would get shot and walk away with a bloody nose instead.

I think this is exactly what they should be focusing on. Violence is on the rise and, although it is a part of life, we should not subject our children to it until they are mentally mature enough to handle it. Kids should not play ultra-violent video games no more than they should watch R-Rated movies. But I am not saying anything new here, nor is this study. Wonder when parents will actually give a damn about their kids enough to restrict access to porn/violence/etc. Now adults, on the other hand, have at it! Your brains are already fully developed and are not subject to violent alterations like our children.

Some interesting things - did you know that your brain continues to develop until your 25th birthday? And did you know that children that don't feel love within a few months of their birth are at risk for never fully being capable of being loved/loving others? External factors do, indeed, influence our minds and internal values and capacities for passions and emotions. Just interesting things to take into account. Happy Gears week ;)

USoG: "Cause and effect: do violent games make kids more aggressive, or do more aggressive kids like violet games?"

What an amazing insight! You should definitely share that with the professionals who conducted the study. I'm sure they were too busy getting doctorates and learning stuff to have ever had the time to stop and consider this little intellectual gem of yours.

Forgive the sarcasm, but do you seriously think that the people doing studies like this are not aware of cause and effect challenges or have not taken them into consideration in administering their study and drawing conclusions? Or are you simply so used to giving biased, knee-jerk defenses of gaming that you can't be bothered with rational thought?

Step away from your sacred cow for a second and consider what the American Psychological Association has to say on this subject:

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

Perhaps you'll want to pay particular attention to this point:

"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."

I don't know about you people, but living has desensitized me.

Phinehas,

You're right that correlational studies are very useful, but don't cast aside USoG's observation so quickly. Studies like this are very important in that they establish a relationship between violent video games and violent behavior, but they don't show what that relationship is. Are kids who play violent video games more likely to become violent, or are kids with violent tendiencies more attracted to violent video games? I haven't seen a good study that displays the relationship between these two variables yet. For all we know at this point it may be that kids with violent tendiencies are more attracted to violent video games and are using the games as a healthy output for those feelings. Not saying I believe that, or that I'm going to let my kids play violent video games (I don't, I closely monitor what they are playing) I'm just saying more study needs to be done.

@mo,

I'm curious. What sort of approach to studying this subject would you suggest that is *not* correlational in nature?

According to the study, the survey of Japanese youth was included as part of this study precisely because they represent "more collectivistic cultures with low levels of physical aggression and violence."

Also from the study: "Habitual violent video game play early in the school year predicted later aggression, even after **controlling for gender and previous aggressiveness** in each sample. Those who played a lot of violent video games became relatively more physically aggressive. Multisample structure equation modeling revealed that this longitudinal effect was of a similar magnitude in the United States and Japan for similar-aged youth and was smaller (but still significant) in the sample that included older youth." (Emphasis mine.)

In other words, the tired, uniformed argument you and USoG want to raise isn't the least bit relevant, since the subjects of the study are being compared *to themsleves* six to nine months earlier. In other words, the study establishes what the base level of aggressive behavior is for the subject, tracks their exposure to violent video games, and then compares their aggressive behavior afterward to their previous levels of aggression.

So how exactly does your question, "Are kids who play violent video games more likely to become violent, or are kids with violent tendiencies more attracted to violent video games?" challenge the findings of a study conducted in this manner in the slightest?

Look: I love video games too. That's why, after a number of years spent in network administration, I uprooted my family so that I could go back to school to learn video game design, and then uprooted them again to take a game design position here in Austin. But I strongly believe that the industry is not best served by denying science. These are respectable scientific studies conducted by learned and respectable people who care about the truth behind the issues they study. Our PR status in mainstream media is already tenuous enough without handing them the ammunition to label us science-deniers on top of everything else. Instead, how 'bout we all grow up and face reality at bit? There appears to be a link between violent media and aggressive behavior in kids. What should concerned, responsible people who love video games do about it?

Phinehas

Does violent television make kids more aggressive, or do more aggressive kids like violent television?

Of the media that can be violent and potentially consumed by aggressive kids, what’s the weight between them? Are games or television weighted more heavily?

As to your correlation comment, in science (e.g. astronomy) one can accurately measure phenomenon and correlate and draw conclusions, in pseudo-science (e.g. much of psychology) one cannot “measure” (e.g. aggressive tendencies) except through subjective interpretation of intangibles.

It’s not blind faith or love of video games I defending, I’m simply not a fan of opinion about immeasurables being paraded as fact.

Following back to the source, in the same journal there’s a “study” shows that teen pregnancy is linked to sexy TV shows.

Smells like an agenda to me.

Phinehas, you said “What an amazing insight! You should definitely share that with the professionals who conducted the study. I'm sure they were too busy getting doctorates and learning stuff to have ever had the time to stop and consider this little intellectual gem of yours.”

Thanks to WizarDru for linking the peer review we can see that one of the peers asks:

“Where is your analysis on the correlation between aggressive children being predisposed to playing violent games?

Why does the game make the child aggressive? Why isn't it the already aggressive child being drawn to the game?”

So, thanks for your compliment about my amazing insight!

You also said “do you seriously think that the people doing studies like this are not aware of cause and effect challenges or have not taken them into consideration in administering their study and drawing conclusions?”

It appears they are not aware, or have intentionally choosen to ignore them.

The peers appear to have a similar opinion to mine about this “study” from the Institute on Media and the Family.

The group who in 2005 claimed that the video game industry was promoting cannibalism after analyzing stills and video clips from a zombie-themed game titled 'Stubbs the Zombie in Rebel Without a Pulse'.

Wonder what they will say about 'Left 4 Dead'?

USoG said: "Thanks to WizarDru for linking the peer review we can see that one of the peers asks..."

Sorry, but you just don't have your facts straight. You are quoting someone in eMarketing who posted a response on the journal's online "Post-publication Peer Review." *I* could post my thoughts there, as could you. It is also abundantly clear that this particular poster failed to even read the article, since his challenge is irrelevant to what was written.

Real peer reviews by serious scientists who hold doctorates similar to those held by the authors of this study would have been conducted prior to the article's publication. The fact that the article was published indicates that it passed this scientific peer review. That's how scientific journals work.

In the future, you might want to be more careful about where you get the information you plan to gloat about. When the blind are led by the blind, both end up in a ditch.

Wasn't that the reason that WizarDru said that the authors had chosen this particular journal, Pediatrics, precisely because it is a minimum peer-reviewed publication and does not offer real peer-review by serious scientists?

USoG: "Wasn't that the reason that WizarDru said that the authors had chosen this particular journal, Pediatrics, precisely because it is a minimum peer-reviewed publication and does not offer real peer-review by serious scientists?"

WizarDru said a lot of things. Some guy in Nigeria wants to give me a million dollars. Obviously, you are right and I am rich, since we can always trust what people say on the internets.

On the other hand, if you poke around the Pediatrics website, you'll see that they have "Over 3500 expert peer reviewers." Additionally, they have the "[m]ost citations among all peer-reviewed pediatric journals" and are "[a]mong the Top 100 most-cited science journals." In other words, Pediatrics is a reputable scientific journal with a reputable scientific peer review process.

But don't take my word for it. Why don't you write to the journal yourself and ask them about their peer review process and how scientific and comprehensive it is? Or you can just take WizarDru's word for it, in which case, I've got an exciting business proposition for you that will earn you millions. Really. I do.

I'LL KILL YOU!

I agree with Jack. Old news, new survey...

Also the sneaky gnome with his bag full of illegal firearms and high grade narcotics is hard to catch, while he supplies major city's throughout the world.

Young parents just as inexperienced & confused as the kids they're trying to raise don't help either.

That game was amazing. Hmm, future XBLA release please? With more sticks?

I think Battletoads needs to be used in university classes of psychology to demonstrate the simplest of human behavior: the conflict for limited resources.

The two players fighting over one stick is absolutely classic and probably the literal beginning of human society. This is further made interesting by the following facts:

1. Neither player really NEEDS the stick for anything
2. The stick is the dumbest weapon in any game, ever
3. There is a second stick available if the players would just wait a little bit

The fact that none of the above things stop players from beating the crap out of each other because someone "unfairly" nabbed the stick while the other player was busy fighting bad guys I think is a real testament to how the world works.

exactly. i would be very interested to see the incressed aggression results for violent movies and TV shows. and im not even talking about R rated stuff neccessarily, i cant even count how many kids got hurt when i was in elementary school because they were imitating moves they saw on Power Rangers the day before.

its not just the violent video games, its our violent culture. i would think that we in the US would have more cases of violent acts but im sure everywhere else has their fair share as well.

Ace, I understand what you mean. I'm approximately 3/4 German, and I have trouble not shooting the mirror when I see myself in the morning.
I just say to myself "Self, it's just you, you don't need to blow his brains out like a mutated Zombie nazi Cyborg, even if you are a mutated zombie cyborg, you still aren't a nazi, therefore you are OK".
That conversation typically ends up making me late to work.
It got old for the first 3 months, after that I got used to it.

^ Hilarious!

Thats not it. He lost the last game and had to insert the King piece into his rectum. The cross on the top hurts.

No... Ewww... Why?!?

You are deeply disturbed LaughingTarget.

Why else would you look like that when you're winning?

Well they did do a study to compare shoe size and how high the kid scored on an IQ test. It seems the bigger shoe size you wear...the smarter the kid will be. :P

BTW...it was from Pre-K and UP!

that's a great insight. i played football from middle school to my first year of college and everyone is always so amazed now when i tell them that because im so level headed, kind, and patient. you just have to be able to flip that switch on and off.

but in the same vein, if you notice all the constant reports of pro athletes being involved in violence off the field. it could be that they have been desensitized to violence since they have been involved in it for so long.

now like i said, ive been playing football and violent video games for a huge chunk of my life but i guess the fact that my parents kept me from violent games until i was old enough to understand the difference between reality and game. i think the main problem is bad parents giving 7 year old little Johnny GTAIV for his birthday so he'll shut up. it has a rating for a reason.

I wouldn't link athlete's violence to sports. Link that to roid rage.

You sound all smart. Videogames make me not understand your words.

Nah, I'd blame that on the state of the economy instead. The economy is so poor that it's made you depressed, leading you to pick up hookers. Also, you can't really afford them now, so you have no option other than to beat them up and get your money back.