Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

[Andy Chalk]

Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

A study conducted by communications professor Edward T. Vieira of Simmons College says long-term exposure to violent videogames can reduce the development of empathy and sympathy in young children.

Described as the first study to ever look at how violent videogames affect the development of "moral learning" on children aged 7-15, Vieira's survey found that frequent exposure to game violence has an impact on a child's perception that some kinds of violence are acceptable and that children who play a lot of violent games are more likely to find all types of violence acceptable - in other words, that children do run the risk of becoming desensitized to violence through exposure to games.

"Certainly not every child who continues to play violent videogames 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," Vieira said. "The concern arises when children are taking in this message and there is a convergence of other negative environmental factors at the same time, such as poor parental communication and unhealthy peer relationships."

The study examined 166 children, 66 percent boys and 34 percent girls, and also found that "many" of the children aged 7-12 reported playing M-rated games despite their being rated for gamers 17 and older. 71 percent of the games reported in the study contained "at least some mild violence," while 25 percent of the games contained "intense violence, blood and gore." The results also indicated that gamers who reported playing a variety of games consistently stuck with similar kinds of games.

At least two Bulletstorm [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101160-New-Study-Most-Teenagers-are-Unaffected-by-Violent-Gaming], I think what we're really looking at is not a problem with videogames, but a problem with parenting.

Source: Yahoo! News [http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110404/pl_usnw/DC76717_1]


Permalink

 

[Mettking]

That last line really needs to be taken to heart. That sums up most of my arguments right there.

 

[Irridium]

This is why you don't buy your children these violent games. Your last sentence hit the nail square on the head.

 

[Eri]

I think what we're really looking at is not a problem with videogames, but a problem with parenting.

And truer words were never spoken again.

 

[HapexIndustries]

I'm confused... how did the kids play violent videogames in the study if they're not old enough to play violent videogames? I guess I should read the study.

 

[ryai458]

7-12 year olds shouldn't play GTA anyway.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

Wait, was there a control group of kids? I didn't see that mentioned.

 

[Brainst0rm]

Hey, a legitimate study! Look at that.

I would hope that gamer parents are even more aware than average ones that you need to control what young children are exposed to, especially in an interactive medium like ours.

 

[Woodsey]

This is why you don't buy your children these violent games. Your last sentence hit the nail square on the head.

Agreed, although how were they testing how much they condoned violent acts? Were they just asking them? Showing them examples from films? Pictures of victims?

At least this guy is reasonable about the same thing coming from other media.

 

[gphjr14]

The argument really holds no merit given that the study group is below the recommended age by the ERSB or respective game ratings. Companies put everything from "drug use" to "gambling" on the back of cases. If parents are too lazy/incompetent to read the back and properly assess whether they want their child to be exposed to that content really have no grounds to ***** when their underage child emulates what they see on TV or in a game.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I've always been curious what you do with the kids that you "corrupted" from the studies.

more on topic, I find it funny how few of these studies include other things like TV, movies, books, hell, the NEWS. But meh, this one was done well, though I think its (hopefully) obvious that you should take the last sentence to heart about parenting. What with the news of the guy who let his baby die by suffocation in pillows.

 

[Exterminas]

I bet if you give children
[Insert-Stuff-That-Is-Not-Intented-For-Children-Because-It-Might-Harm-Them-And-Has-An-Age-Restriction-For-That-Very-Reason]
It might harm them too.

Science sometimes is just a joke.

 

[The Random One]

And yet, when a parent says he's playing Call of Duty with his 7-year-old son he gets major pops. Whatever, dudes.

 

[gigastar]

Who needs morals when you have nice, reliable logic.

Then again i still dont see why no one outside the gamers camp has pointed the fingers at the parents who are complaining about all this in the first place.

One law i will have to pass when i take over the world, parents will always be held responsible for the actions of thier wretched spawn until said spawn is also a full adult.

 

[Callate]

I don't really have a problem with this. Very young children shouldn't be playing M-rated games. Does anyone (aside from perhaps some of those children themselves) think that they should?

 

[Bags159]

That last line really needs to be taken to heart. That sums up most of my arguments right there.

I came in to bring this point up... what parent is letting their seven year old play super violent video games? When I was that young my dad would let me play Age of Empires ROR, but we were only allowed to play games where everyone was allies or a saved game he had already all but won(I was allowed to build stuff and attack houses / granaries / walls / animals).

Get good at parenting, parents.