Researcher Links Violent Video Games To Moral Maturity Development

[Andy Chalk]

Researcher Links Violent Video Games To Moral Maturity Development

A Canadian researcher says there is a "significant negative relationship" between playing violent video games and the development of sociomoral maturity in young teenagers.

A new report from Brock University in Canada claims that playing violent video games can have a negative impact on the development of moral reasoning and maturity in teens. Researcher Mirjana Bajovic examined 109 grade eight students from seven elementary schools in the country and found, based on their Sociomoral Reflection Measure scores, that those who played violent video games for three or more hours per day exhibited significantly lower sociomoral maturity levels than those who played for just an hour.

Both the content of the games and the time spent playing them contribute to the delayed development, according to Bajovic, as there was no correlation with the amount of time spent playing non-violent games. That would appear to run contrary to earlier research suggesting that it was the amount of time spent playing games, without "getting involved in different positive social experiences in real life," that led to delayed emotional development in some teens.

I'm not an academic by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think we necessarily need to consider this a devastating blow struck by moral panic aficonados. For one thing, a sample size of 100 is pretty tiny as these things go, and I think it's also fair to say that you're going to find wildly varying rates of "sociomoral maturity" in any group of 13-year-olds, regardless of what they do in their spare time. That's not to suggest that young teens should be sinking four or five hours a day into Call of Duty or Killzone, but I don't think this necessarily counts as conclusive.

Bajovic acknowledged that keeping teens from playing violent video games is "not realistic," but said that parents need to stay aware of what their kids are playing and for how long, and also recommended that they be encouraged to take part in activities with "different perspectives and positive role-taking opportunities," like charity work and extracurricular activities. That much, I can't argue with at all.

Source: Science Daily [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140204101716.htm]


Permalink

 

[weirdee]

somebody needs to be handing pamphlets out to these guys before they conduct largely meaningless studies, or i have to start getting into the paid meaningless studies business

you could probably hand these kids like say, rutabegas, and then claim that rutabegas cause immoral behavior

 

[FalloutJack]

These are not factual studies that prove anything, just another in a long line of people trying to look important by trying to hook together a bunch of numbers that look important when they're not. Games do not make people DO anything. They do not transform us into anything. Any reaction that a video game seems to get from an individual is already there and has no say in the matter as to how it's expressed. Stop doing your research backwards.

 

[mattttherman3]

Maybe people should just follow the damn ratings on the box and we won't have these problems.

 

[Dreadman75]

I'll tell you what makes me angry and want to punch something. This whole never-ending back and forth between people who say videogames do or don't cause violent behavior.

This should be common sense: Well-adjusted, psychologically stable people aren't influenced by videogames. The people that commit violent acts that were later connected to videogames already had other significant mental issues beforehand and should have been given psychological help a long time ago.

That's the problem, no one wants to take responsibility for not noticing or not doing anything to help these people before they lost it completely, so they find a convenient scapegoat: videogames.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Maybe people should just follow the damn ratings on the box and we won't have these problems.

But that would mean taking responsibility for their own childrearing mistakes.

And we can't have that, because that would mean its their fault that 'little darling angel' is an uncontrollable hellion.

 

[Lawyer105]

I am not a scientist, nor a statistician, nor a researcher.... but even I can see the flaw in this research (apart from the obvious sample size etc. etc.). They've got no adequate baseline comparison.

Maybe it's just me, but anybody who's putting 4-5 hours a day into an isolationist-type thing (whether it's violent games, non-violent games or knitting) is going to be less socially mature/capable than somebody who doesn't. Duh.

At best you could use this study to support the whole "moderation is better than obsession" thingy, but apart from that, it's only real use is toilet paper.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

Unfortunately, no matter how small sample size or other factors at work, the fact remains that there is one more "conclusive" statement against gaming which will undoubtedly be quoted into oblivion.

 

[Gorrath]

As far as I can tell, the author of the study isn't saying games make kids DO anything. Before anyone freaks out, this study measured self-reported responses from children about their game-playing habits and did a correlation study to what they scored on a standard moral reasoning test. The author is making no claims of causation, nor is this a useless study. While there is no reason to believe that violent videogames make people act violently, studying correlations between our habits and our behaviors is not a waste of time.

Now, will a bunch of people with preformed opinions about unproven assumptions use correlative studies like these and hold them up as definitive proof of their presuppositions? Yes. Does that mean we should not do the studies? No. This study is one piece of work in a larger body of behavioral studies. It should not be dammned for being a small piece of work, nor held as triumphant by those who think it proves their case.

On both ends of the spectrum, we all need to have a big glass of calm the hell down.

 

[blackrave]

To be honest my problem is not with someone claiming that violent games cause x
My problem is that these people claims that ONLY violent games cause x, while violent movies and books are totally fine
When doing study check other media as well please.

P.S. Also- what exactly were those "violent games" 8th graders played, because by my book "violent" games start from M and those aren't for 8th graders

 

[Dr.Awkward]

Eh, just the usual "Gaming causes violence/immorality, gaming doesn't cause violence/immorality" back-and-forth research I've seen so many times. Some people just need to remember that not every brain is wired up the same way.

...Although, anyone else want to start a petition to rename the university to Brock Samson University just to troll the guy?

 

[Gorrath]

To be honest my problem is not with someone claiming that violent games cause x
My problem is that these people claims that ONLY violent games cause x, while violent movies and books are totally fine
When doing study check other media as well please.

Please note that the study does not make causation claims, it simply looks at correlation.

 

[Clovus]

Causation =/= Correlation

This isn't a perfect study, but they actually seem to address that in the actual paper. You can follow some links and read the full thing. I don't think it's a stretch to see a causual relationship between "playing violent games for 3+ horus a day" and "not developing social/moral skills".

However, the study was definitely way too small, since that's probably all they could handle. There were only a couple of kids who fell into the 3+ hour group and they could have also been affected by any number of things. Reading quickly through bits of it, it doesn't really seem like the researchers involved had a strong bias going in. It sounds like they were interested in the subject and put together the best test they had the ability to administer.

These are not factual studies that prove anything, just another in a long line of people trying to look important by trying to hook together a bunch of numbers that look important when they're not. Games do not make people DO anything. They do not transform us into anything. Any reaction that a video game seems to get from an individual is already there and has no say in the matter as to how it's expressed. Stop doing your research backwards.

But this study in no way seems to be attempting anything like that. I didn't read anywhere in the actual study where it said that games made anyone do anything. It stated that the few kids who played a whole lot of violent games, did a little worse on a test someone made to determine someone's moral maturity, and that might indicate a connection.

How should they do this research? How as it "backwards"?

Do you really think it's a great idea for a 13-year-old to play violent games for 3+ hours per day? That won't turn them into a killer, but I wouldn't be shocked if it had a small impact on their social skills. The main point of the study was just that parents and teachers should be aware of the possible impact.

 

[shiajun]

I am not a scientist, nor a statistician, nor a researcher.... but even I can see the flaw in this research (apart from the obvious sample size etc. etc.). They've got no adequate baseline comparison.

Maybe it's just me, but anybody who's putting 4-5 hours a day into an isolationist-type thing (whether it's violent games, non-violent games or knitting) is going to be less socially mature/capable than somebody who doesn't. Duh.

At best you could use this study to support the whole "moderation is better than obsession" thingy, but apart from that, it's only real use is toilet paper.

My exact criticism. Their "control" group isn't really a control for the type of content but for time of exposure. It is mentioned that other types of games didn't seem to factor. I don't know the time they played those, but if it's not there it's an iffy setup. How about a kid who spends 5 hours watching violent movies if you want to say it's video games and not media in general? Of course, the big problem here: the time these kids should be exposed to these games should be zero if good parenting was at work. Since it's apparently not (because they're letting their kid get sucked into gaming for 5 hours a day) then maybe social immaturity has other variables hovering over there.

 

[blackrave]

Please note that the study does not make causation claims, it simply looks at correlation.

I wasn't talking about this study only
I meant it in a general sense

Also- is there a study that takes into consideration also violent movies, series and book? Because that could be interesting to read.

 

[Gorrath]

Causation =/= Correlation

This isn't a perfect study, but they actually seem to address that in the actual paper. You can follow some links and read the full thing. I don't think it's a stretch to see a causual relationship between "playing violent games for 3+ horus a day" and "not developing social/moral skills".

However, the study was definitely way too small, since that's probably all they could handle. There were only a couple of kids who fell into the 3+ hour group and they could have also been affected by any number of things. Reading quickly through bits of it, it doesn't really seem like the researchers involved had a strong bias going in. It sounds like they were interested in the subject and put together the best test they had the ability to administer.

These are not factual studies that prove anything, just another in a long line of people trying to look important by trying to hook together a bunch of numbers that look important when they're not. Games do not make people DO anything. They do not transform us into anything. Any reaction that a video game seems to get from an individual is already there and has no say in the matter as to how it's expressed. Stop doing your research backwards.

But this study in no way seems to be attempting anything like that. I didn't read anywhere in the actual study where it said that games made anyone do anything. It stated that the few kids who played a whole lot of violent games, did a little worse on a test someone made to determine someone's moral maturity, and that might indicate a connection.

How should they do this research? How as it "backwards"?

Do you really think it's a great idea for a 13-year-old to play violent games for 3+ hours per day? That won't turn them into a killer, but I wouldn't be shocked if it had a small impact on their social skills. The main point of the study was just that parents and teachers should be aware of the possible impact.

Glad to see at least one other person read the freaking study before talking about what claims it makes.We can't sit here screaming bloody murder about people claiming causation if we can't even be arsed to check and see if that's what they are actually claiming.

 

[Gorrath]

Please note that the study does not make causation claims, it simply looks at correlation.

I wasn't talking about this study only
I meant it in a general sense

Also- is there a study that takes into consideration also violent movies, series and book? Because that could be interesting to read.

Thanks for clarifying, your use of the phrase "these people" gave me the impression you were discussing the study at hand. There are studies that have measured similar correlative relationships with other media, but this study was not intended as a comprehensive study on such relationships with all media. I do not personally know of a study that measures correlation of time spent on all violent media and moral reasoning scores, but it would be nice to have one.

 

[Clovus]

I'll tell you what makes me angry and want to punch something. This whole never-ending back and forth between people who say videogames do or don't cause violent behavior.

This should be common sense: Well-adjusted, psychologically stable people aren't influenced by videogames.

But this study was about 13-year-olds. Also, this study had nothing to do with violent behavior.

Do you think your angry response and disinterest in reading was caused by a childhood filled with Doom and Carmageddon, or was that just irony?

 

[Lawyer105]

snip

Causation and correlation are largely irrelevant. This study is flawed at the most basic level. It has no adequate control group.

It looks at one angle only and draws a correlation without validating the correlation against a control. I'd contend (as I have above) that anybody spending a large amount of time in alone-time pursuits is likely to be somewhat less socially mature/adept than people with more balanced day-planners.

As such, their "correlation" basically comes across like this "We looked at the sky and noticed that birds were flying when the wind blew. We therefore conclude that there is a correlation between the wind speed and the number of birds in flight."

 

[Clovus]

I am not a scientist, nor a statistician, nor a researcher.... but even I can see the flaw in this research (apart from the obvious sample size etc. etc.). They've got no adequate baseline comparison.

Maybe it's just me, but anybody who's putting 4-5 hours a day into an isolationist-type thing (whether it's violent games, non-violent games or knitting) is going to be less socially mature/capable than somebody who doesn't. Duh.

At best you could use this study to support the whole "moderation is better than obsession" thingy, but apart from that, it's only real use is toilet paper.

My exact criticism. Their "control" group isn't really a control for the type of content but for time of exposure. It is mentioned that other types of games didn't seem to factor. I don't know the time they played those, but if it's not there it's an iffy setup. How about a kid who spends 5 hours watching violent movies if you want to say it's video games and not media in general? Of course, the big problem here: the time these kids should be exposed to these games should be zero if good parenting was at work. Since it's apparently not (because they're letting their kid get sucked into gaming for 5 hours a day) then maybe social immaturity has other variables hovering over there.

I wonder if the problem is that it is harder to find kids who spend that much time watching videogame-like violent movies or television. GTA was one of the games played by these kids. That series has some pretty crazy levels of violence/gore. I can imagine parents who just can't seem to understand that video games have mature content, but how many parents are letting Little Johnny sit there watching Human Centipede or Saving Private Ryan all day long?

Sure, kids watch violent cartoons, but I don't think many watch realistic depictions of humans being killed that much. I don't think they even want to - it would get boring. But the interactive nature (ie, fun) of games can get a kid to replay the same violent scenes for hours every day.