Less Crime in U.S. Thanks to Videogames

[TheEarthSheep]

I like how people keep having one-sided arguments here about whether video games cause violent behavior or no.

I mean seriously people, it's like you keep trying to convince everyone here that they don't, when EVERYONE HERE ALREADY THINKS THAT.

I'm just saying. If you want to have a legitimate, intellectual debate, at least take it somewhere where at least one person has a different opinion from you.

 

[Baradiel]

Now, normally this would be fine and dandy as an article, and I'd have no problem with it.

However, I read that report earlier today, and you're right. Video gaming is the ninth theory on the list, alongside Obama being elected, abortion being legalised in some places (therefore reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, which through many reasons would theoretically lower crime rates) and a reduction in petrol poisoning.

I'm not even sure why I've taken issue with this article. Its a sound theory (got nothing to do: antisocial behaviour. Videogames? Something to do = less antisocial behaviour) and I would consider it pretty solid.

However, this article seems to be touting an example of correlation not causation.

Oh, and statistics can be easily manipulated.

...

Seriously, I don't know what irked me about this article. I agree with it!

 

[Phenakist]

Lets watch the media shove this under the carpet...

Speaking from personal experience a few years back, yeah, of course they help, good for venting, especialy for young teenagers, say the ones getting bullied day in day out...

 

[Formica Archonis]

Conservatives and hate-mongerers like Jack Thompson [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/tag/jack+thompson] always point to videogames as the root of all violence and evil in this world.

Yeah, like that fascist right-wing Republican-loving video-game-banning Leland Yee [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee].

Scaring parents for easy votes is a bipartisan initiative.

 

[Jumplion]

Heh, that Critical Miss comic comes to mind...

Scientist 1: Video games are linked to an increase violent behaviours!

Gamers: ARG HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT IT'S CORRELATION NOT CAUSE AND YOU'RE ALSO FAT!

Scientist 2: Video games are linked to a decrease in violent behaviours!

Gamers: HOORAY FINALLY SOME RESPECT LOOK AT ALL THIS SCIENCE!

You mean this one [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/8903-Critical-Miss-Gamer-Science], which I am ever so grateful that it was made. Perfectly illustrates the incredibly biased tendencies of gamers who like to think that they aren't biased.

Mr. Tito, I already commented on your last, and to be perfectly honest, horrendously biased article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.286870-Psychology-Study-Blames-Games-for-Aggressive-Behavior#11320063] on how, well, horrendously biased it was. I don't want to have to do that again. So instead, I'm just going to quote another guy;

Is this a news article or a blog post? I'm thinking the latter, since it opens with vitriolic rambling & then proceeds to do what every anti-gamer gets bashed for: latching onto one study that suggests a correlation under certain circumstances using incomplete data, & proclaims it to prove the insurmountable truth.

Also, you appear to have misread the concluding paragraph, as:

Based on this paper, the people who think that regulating videogames may help society and decrease crime might actually make murder more prevalent by limiting the supply of games to our youth. Think about the delicious irony there.

appears to be derived from the closing paragraph:

Our findings also suggest unique challenges to game regulations. Because GAM
proposes that the individual playing violent video games is developing, accidentally, a biased
hermeneutic towards people wherein they believe they are in danger, then the decrease in
violent outcomes that we observe in our study ? the incapacitation effect from time use ? may
be masking the long-run harm to society if these violent behaviors are developing within
gamers. This suggests that regulation aimed at reducing violent imagery and content in games
could in the long-run reduce the aggression capital stock among gamers, but potentially also
cause crime to increase in the short-run if the marginal player is being drawn out of violent
activities. This may be too costly a tradeoff, and may not pass any cost-benefit test. But
another possibility is that individuals who play games could be regularly taught to recognize
these errors in their framing of situations, which theoretically would reduce the aggressive
capital and thus reduce any negative outcome that is determined by the amount of aggression
the person has built up, without losing the short-run gains from crime reduction.

In said paragraph, they are hypothesizing that violent videogame exposure over a prolonged period, if not countered through educational or other means, could lead to an increase in violent crime in the long term. But banning games to counter this long term increase would have the effect of increasing violent crime in the short term, as those with violent tendencies would no longer have an alternate time sink to channel their aggression through. There point is not "lol noobs gaming doesn't do no harm to me dawg" but that there is no net cost benefit, & potentially a net loss, to society in its attempts to reduce violent crime rates if games were to be banned.

I'll cut this short and say, please stop with this crap. To be completely frank, it's degrading to journalism as a whole. It's one of the reasons why nobody can ever take video game journalism seriously.

 

[carpenter20m]

The argument isn't that gaming takes away your time, it's that gaming gives you something to do on your free time that will pretty much never deteriroate into comiting a crime.
Think of it this way: For every screaming douchebag that gets an odd sexually frustrated high from murdering people on Black Ops, is one less screaming douchebagon the streets where he could actually do some harm to someone.

The way I read the article, it says that the "other" studies don't factor in the incapacitation factor: the fact that those screaming douchebags don't have time to commit the crime since they're too busy playing video games.

Besides, think about it. Even if you are right, the elimination of murderous douchebags also means the elimination of legitimate human relationships. I know, I am taking this to the extreme, but so is the douchebag example. Games shouldn't be regarded as that, not at all. They have their own merits, their own advantages and, yes, their own disadvantages: whoever thinks that it's a good thing that people waste 10 hours a day raiding a dungeon they had raided the day before, is mistaken.

There are negative aspects in games: we should embrace them and try to change them, instead of trying to make them look like they're good for us.

 

[Jamash]

Unfortunately, this isn't as good as it seems.

Video games were only 1 out of 10 possible reasons why crime rates in the US are down.

The real reason could be due to less crimes being reported, a change in the way crime figures are collected and analysed, or one of the other 9 speculated reasons on the list.

This article could just as easily be titled "Less Crime in U.S. Thanks To Bad Crack", "Less Crime in U.S. Thanks To Abortions" or "Less Crime in U.S. Thanks To Obama".

EDIT: If it is actually true that there is less violent crime in the U.S. because of videogames, does that mean a lot of gamers are actually violent criminals at heart, and perhaps videogames do attract and appeal to violent people?

"Videogames don't cause violence and there is no connection between simulated violence and real life violence... by the way did you hear that if gamers weren't inside playing games they'd be out committing violent crimes, causing the national crime figures to skyrocket"?

 

[Baresark]

This is ridiculous. If you give someone something to do, they certainly will most likely not go and murder the next guy who comes along. But, I would never attribute video games to lesser crime rates. There are way too many factors to assume that video games has any effect on this number at all.

Correlation =/= causation....

In the summer time, crime rates spike, as do the frequency with which people eat ice cream, so the natural assumption must be that eating ice cream makes people more likely to murder someone?

While I respect the analysis of time use, just because it's not murdering doesn't mean it would have any effect on it. Besides, when I plan all my murders, they are never in the hours that I would be playing video games.

All joking aside, the media won't pick this up because it fits neither conservative, nor liberal ideals.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

"A study released last month suggested videogames were keeping young people off the streets and therefore away from crime"

In other news: World of Warcraft's citizens afraid of going outside after dark. 1200% rise in number of Gangsters in Azeroth.

Seriously though, people have been murdered IRL because of thefts of swords in MMO's etc.
And then there was the kid who murdered his dad and claimed he was Cloud Strife.

But yeah, games are indeed a much better time waster than shanking old ladies in the street because you are bored.

 

[Karma168]

Video games are the modern equivalent of a punching bag, when you're pissed go spend an hour beating the crap out of it so you don't hurt somebody. Good to see a mainstream media outlet finally showing the benefits of games rather than demonising them.

 

[Staskala]

Maybe the escapist should have done its homework and actually read the study?
First of all, the authors are Scott Cunningham, Benjamin Engelstätter and Michael Robert Ward. Three different authors from three different institutions. Don't just arbitrarily reduce it to one.

Second of all, I like how you left out the end of the conclusion:
"(...)regulation aimed at reducing violent imagery and content in games could in the long-run reduce the aggression capital stock among gamers, but potentially also cause crime to increase in the short run if the marginal player is being drawn out of violent activities"
"(...)individuals who play games could be regularly taught to recognize the errors in their framing of situations, which theoretically would reduce the aggressive capital(...)"

So yeah, the study is less about "gamers aren't aggressive psychopaths" and more about "leave those maniacs to their games or they'll become a harm to society. Alternatively, just put them into therapy."

Surely just like you want the media to see gamers.

 

[thenamelessloser]

So, wait the key to lowering violence is to make video games MORE addictive? Did I read that article right?

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Correlation does not mean causation, saying you have an Economist to argue your side is like going down the street asking for someone to agree with you to prove a point. For every economist there is an equal and opposite economist. Do not let your unfounded insecurities in enjoying games to scrap the bottom of the barrel to find other people's justifications to prove what you want to prove.

I was just about to write something like this...eff you, ninja

Yeah, correlation=!causation. It's the first thing you're taught in science class, and it's well worth remembering. For that matter, I have yet to meet an economist who isn't an idiot (that goes for the whole useless profession), so relying on somebody like that isn't going to make the argument any more valid.

But let's look at it this way:
Fact, crime fell since 1991. What else has become popular since then? Cell phones? Internet? Laptops? The same article could have been written using any of these items. Hell, I'd volunteer to be the resident expert.

"We argue that since laboratory experiments have not examined the time use effects of videogames, which incapacitate violent activity by drawing individual gamers into extended gameplay, laboratory studies may be poor predictors of the net effects of violent videogames in society. Consequently, they overstate the importance of videogame induced aggression as a social cost."

And arguing that just because no studies of this nature have been done necessarily invalidates the previous studies is once again a piss-poor line of reasoning. Besides, I wouldn't trust this idiot to know even the basics of how a study is being done.

Look guys, this looks like a nice trend, and I'd love for this to be true. But the sad fact is that gaming isn't the cause here. There are too many other variables in play to make any definite conclusion. And please for the love of the almighty Feynman, don't take economists seriously...

 

[Scars Unseen]

Can't murder; too close to level. Ding! Okay, now I canOOH, Thorium! Let me just pick that up and then I'll go kill tha... oh never mind, gotta raid.

 

[cerebus23]

...Conservatives and hate-mongerers...

I dislike the bias against conservatives there. No offense, but that almost turned me off the article, seeing that I'm kind of conservative myself (usually, though, I call my beliefs "my beliefs" rather than conservative, since I wouldn't join a party that would have me as a member.) Being a conservative doesn't mean you hate videogames. Hell, I don't support any restrictions on them. (Ahem, I'll stop now, before this turns into a rant.)

On topic: I'm glad to see that research is starting to support the other side of the "video games cause violence" thing. I was starting to think the media might have given up on giving us gamers a fair chance. Maybe now, they'll start at least considering that they could be wrong.

Few points to make, one hanging this solely in the door of the conservatives is just bs, since this law came out of california a wholly leftist state.

Second conservative is such a broad term anymore, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives, moderate conservatives, compassionate conservatives, the rep party is almost as bad as the libertarian people. how does that joke go? "get a dozen liberteraians in a room together and get 100 different opinions on everything."

Hell i would consider myself a william f buckley conservative, which now days is closer to some libertarian takes on stuff, than the repub party is on any of it.

Most conservatives i would wager are moderate, they goto church but they are not overly devout, they probably are pro choice in decent numbers, they want smaller government but on the other hand they are not wholly opposed to government social spending.

It is rather fascinating tho in this whole sordid drama the unholy marriage of a bunch of right wing morons rallying around a bill that completely opposed to free speech drawn up by a liberal californian supported and passed by a liberal state. so the extreme left and extreme right are willing to ignore small things like freedom of speech, artistic merit, the numerous reports that directly contradict the studies in the lawsuit, and go out marching in lockstep to spin this every chance they get as game cause violence and our kids must be protected.

Any time you want to see your rights go out the window i would bet 80% of the time when politicians are talking about kids they either want more of your money or they want to strip a few pesky rights you may have had in the past.

or as one of bill clintons main guys put it, "never let a good crisis goto waste", and to expond on that statement he was specifically talking about when some crisis comes up no matter if it is real or made up, you can limit rights, pass sweeping legislation that noone even reads, and you can spend spend spend like a drunken sailor, because when there is a crisis people want government to do something.

Both parties are wholly guilty of exploiting that whole crisis thing.

 

[TheAceTheOne]

...Conservatives and hate-mongerers...

I dislike the bias against conservatives there. No offense, but that almost turned me off the article, seeing that I'm kind of conservative myself (usually, though, I call my beliefs "my beliefs" rather than conservative, since I wouldn't join a party that would have me as a member.) Being a conservative doesn't mean you hate videogames. Hell, I don't support any restrictions on them. (Ahem, I'll stop now, before this turns into a rant.)

On topic: I'm glad to see that research is starting to support the other side of the "video games cause violence" thing. I was starting to think the media might have given up on giving us gamers a fair chance. Maybe now, they'll start at least considering that they could be wrong.

Few points to make, one hanging this solely in the door of the conservatives is just bs, since this law came out of california a wholly leftist state.

Second conservative is such a broad term anymore, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives, moderate conservatives, compassionate conservatives, the rep party is almost as bad as the libertarian people. how does that joke go? "get a dozen liberteraians in a room together and get 100 different opinions on everything."

Hell i would consider myself a william f buckley conservative, which now days is closer to some libertarian takes on stuff, than the repub party is on any of it.

Most conservatives i would wager are moderate, they goto church but they are not overly devout, they probably are pro choice in decent numbers, they want smaller government but on the other hand they are not wholly opposed to government social spending.

It is rather fascinating tho in this whole sordid drama the unholy marriage of a bunch of right wing morons rallying around a bill that completely opposed to free speech drawn up by a liberal californian supported and passed by a liberal state. so the extreme left and extreme right are willing to ignore small things like freedom of speech, artistic merit, the numerous reports that directly contradict the studies in the lawsuit, and go out marching in lockstep to spin this every chance they get as game cause violence and our kids must be protected.

Any time you want to see your rights go out the window i would bet 80% of the time when politicians are talking about kids they either want more of your money or they want to strip a few pesky rights you may have had in the past.

or as one of bill clintons main guys put it, "never let a good crisis goto waste", and to expond on that statement he was specifically talking about when some crisis comes up no matter if it is real or made up, you can limit rights, pass sweeping legislation that noone even reads, and you can spend spend spend like a drunken sailor, because when there is a crisis people want government to do something.

Both parties are wholly guilty of exploiting that whole crisis thing.

Woah. Developed opinion, XD

Like I said, my beliefs don't fall into a particular category. If I had to pick, I'd say "Libertarian, leaning slightly in the direction of conservative." I only commented on the conservatives thing because nobody deserves to have generalizations made about them or their beliefs. Woulda done the same thing if I was left leaning, politically. Props for putting your opinion out there. Perhaps we should take this to the "Religion and Politics" thread if we're intending to continue this discussion. I don't want to end up hijacking this thread, XD

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Okay... so that's cool I guess... people being too busy playing video games is the ninth theory on why crime rates may have dropped. Possibly.

Woo-hoo?

Also,

I wish the findings of this paper were available for the Supreme Court Justices as they debate whether California's law making it a crime to sell M-rated games to minors is constitutional or not. Here's hoping the Justices are doing their homework and reading The Escapist.

What?

How does this even apply? The California law is about keeping mature content out of minors' hands without parental consent; something the game industry, and I hope community, supports. Yes it is already something we self-regulate, like music and movies, but why not give the idea legal teeth? It isn't proposing to "censor" any more than the ESRB already does; in that it doesn't, it just regulates access to minors.

Oh well, sensationalism sells, I suppose. Yes; my click, page view, and post are proof-positive.

 

[Beeple]

...I'm confused...

Somebody did this ages ago, I've known about this correlation for years.
Erm... right well I'll just say the same thing I said back then I guess.

Some of the reasoning is sound, e.g. People are occupied and thus too occupied to commit or think about crime.

Another way of looking at it is that the games allow some people who may be high at risk of commiting crimes to let out their aggression by playing rather than punching somebody in the face.

Also time spent playing games reduces the amount of time spent in 'high-risk' situations (A bunch of teenagers stood out in a group would be an example of high-risk. Basically means the situations a person can be in that increases the chance they will commit crime) sitting in the house playing games is basically a no-risk for violent crime.

So it is entirely possible, and maybe even probable that the increasing popularity of gaming has had a positive influence on crime rates. However at the same time a lot of things have changed over the past 2 decades, not just more people spending more time gaming. You could put any two numbers together and correlate them and it would be possible to back them up, this doesn't make them valid.

Personally I do believe that gaming is more likely to reduce violent crime than increase it but that's not just based on these numbers.


Just as a side note/ minor grievance. Just because there wasn't an experiment doesn't mean it's just theory. It's a correlation so there is evidence to support what they're saying. And in fact the main article mentions a very valid point:

"We argue that since laboratory experiments have not examined the time use effects of videogames, which incapacitate violent activity by drawing individual gamers into extended gameplay, laboratory studies may be poor predictors of the net effects of violent videogames in society."

Basically experiments are often very bad. More often than not they favour reliability (consistent results) over validity (accurate results) and thus even the most perfectly considered and executed experiment should be taken with a grain of salt for many cases. (In reference to social sciences only of course. Objective science e.g Physics, Biology etc. are a whole different ballpark) Due to the level of controls in an experiment they often can't be related to real life situations too.

Excuse the rant but the way experiments are presented as the be all- end all of research in the social sciences is a huge peeve of mine.

But back to the topic at hand... this is old news damnit, why are these people publishing a research paper on something that's already been done, you'd think they'd come across that in their research >.>