Research Review Finds No Conclusive Link Between Games and Violence
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
interesting article, i knew there were pretty crazy australian politicians wanting to ban games, but this time actually they didn't rush things with wild conclusions...Logan Westbrook said:Research Review Finds No Conclusive Link Between Games and Violence
Videogames only effect behavior for a very short amount of time, suggests Australian review into violence and gaming.
The idea that playing violent videogames will warp you into a more violent and aggressive person has seemingly been debunked, as a review commissioned by the Australian government, which scoured piles of existing research, found no conclusive proof of that that would happen.
The review is part of the ongoing deliberations about the creation of an R18+ rating for videogames in Australia. The Federal Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor said that there was more evidence to support the idea that violent games had more effect on people in the short term than the long term, although some of the research suggested that even then its influence was relatively minor. O'Connor added a caveat to that statement, however, saying that he didn't think that particular research properly investigated other potential factors, like home life and how aggressive the subject was normally.
O'Connor said that the countries censorship ministers had requested that existing research into the link between violence and videogames be examined and summarized in order to help them make an informed decision. He was keen to see the decision-making process move forward, and wanted to provide those who would be casting their votes with as much "robust" background information as possible.
"Australia needs a consistent classification system," O'Connor said. "That protects young minds from any possible adverse affect, while also ensuring that adults are free to make their own decisions about what they play, within the bounds of the law." These comments are quite a change in tone from former Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, who made it quite clear that he had no problem taking choices away from adults if it meant children weren't exposed to violent games.
Obviously, this review isn't going to magically make everything better, but it will go a long way to countering one of the main arguments about relaxing the restrictions on games in Australia. The next Attorney-General meeting is on December 10th, where the matter will be discussed further. Hopefully this review will help push the Attorney-Generals' collective opinion more allowing games to come out in Australia without having to be sanitized and censored first.
Source: GameSpot [http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6284706.html]
Permalink
or so we will see in the next days....
Wasn't this proven multiple times by multiple studies months and, months and, months ago? Possibly years...
The funny thing is that Kotaku Australia spoke to the Australian Christian Lobby about this, and basically dismissed the whole report.
Urgh.
Simple observation should suffice here, if the general public weren't idiots.
There are a lot more videogames nowadays. More people are playing videogames. There has not been a corresponding rise in violent mass-murders.
Seriously, if videogames really did cause kill-crazy psychotics, or even a general increase in violence, there should be a marked increase in violent acts across the entire populace. There has not been (any more than could be attributed to other things)
See, I just used logic, didn't even need to do the research.
Simple observation should suffice here, if the general public weren't idiots.
There are a lot more videogames nowadays. More people are playing videogames. There has not been a corresponding rise in violent mass-murders.
Seriously, if videogames really did cause kill-crazy psychotics, or even a general increase in violence, there should be a marked increase in violent acts across the entire populace. There has not been (any more than could be attributed to other things)
See, I just used logic, didn't even need to do the research.
It doesn't matter, by next week Fox or some other group of morons will have evidence to say video games turn you into; a rapist, a murderer or a terrorist or a combination of the three
Grammar Nazi!!! (Although I thought so, too... Just that I didn't know the reason why "effect" was wrongly used in the sentence.)Electrogecko said:
OT:
Oh when will the Australian Government ever show any signs of sentience...
let's hope we get a proper rating system, but i doubt it as there's something weird going on with the classification board.
At least things are looking up for a full video game rating system in Australia, although the research was not as conclusive or comprehensive as I would have liked.
I wanted to proclaim the need for an investigation into a link between any kind of "questionable" material and how it might affect a reasonable person in the long run but now... Perhaps it is still too soon.
I wanted to proclaim the need for an investigation into a link between any kind of "questionable" material and how it might affect a reasonable person in the long run but now... Perhaps it is still too soon.
Indeed, I think it's also worth noting that most of our population have migrated since, and of course some were here before anyone else was.Merkavar said:
um, duh? I mean, who didn't know this except those who needed it to be true for their side of the argument?
bah, oh well
haha it's not too bad, at least it wasn't in the title (that has happened before) ...well subtitle isn't much better but d'oh wellll
bah, oh well
lol it's a mistake that shouldn't be made for paid writers cough coughElectrogecko said:
haha it's not too bad, at least it wasn't in the title (that has happened before) ...well subtitle isn't much better but d'oh wellll
I believe that this means... *clears throat* MWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THE MEDIA FALLS AGAIN!!!
OT: Well of course it doesn't. Any reasonably sane person can see that.
OT: Well of course it doesn't. Any reasonably sane person can see that.
I personally think that violent games will only ever cause violence in the player IF the player already has a predisposition to violence in their psychological make-up. The sort of person that violent games have this effect on would have the same reaction to another stimulus at some point in their lives (television, films etc.) but because they get to play violent games at a younger age than they get to watch 18 rated films, the gaming scene is vilified.
And why do they get to play the games at a younger than they get to play the video games? Because, it would seem, parents pay attention to the 18 rating on a film, but are either unaware or not mindful to the ESRB rating on the back of a game box.
And why do they get to play the games at a younger than they get to play the video games? Because, it would seem, parents pay attention to the 18 rating on a film, but are either unaware or not mindful to the ESRB rating on the back of a game box.
I love meta-analysis. Just wish I could find the actual study and data (I'm kind of a psych nerd like that). I don't give a study much merit until I can actually read the whole thing instead of just the small bits and summaries you get from the press. What's the power? How was the data analyzed? Any confidence intervals?
OT: This is good for the gaming community. Australia has always been on the forefront of game censoring (from what little I know of the country). As long as the methodology is sound by which they reach their conclusion, I'm happy.
OT: This is good for the gaming community. Australia has always been on the forefront of game censoring (from what little I know of the country). As long as the methodology is sound by which they reach their conclusion, I'm happy.