Researcher Links Media and Violence

[Evil mr dave]

"...an increase in the overall view that the world is more scary and hostile than it really is."

6 months back an old man was murdered just down the street from my old high school for the money in his wallet, a few weeks ago a man murdered and dismembered a colledge student in Quebec and last week 3 armoured car guards were shot dead durring a robery in alberta, solely looking at examples from my country (Canada) I can say that the world is just as dangerous as I think it is.

Sorry, on topic:

Yes, violent media does have an effect on children, but that is not exclusive to video games; for a 7-10 year old watch one of the saw movies is gonna fuck them up a hell of a lot more then playing Halo or COD ever could. It all comes down to this: children should be exposed to age appropriate material. You see that big letter M written on the front of the game box (the one with 17+ right next to it) that means that 12 year olds should not be playing it. Here in my country ive been "carded" (asked for id when buying a game to prove that im over 18) and im 6'7'' with a full mustache. The only (and I mean only way) that kids can get violent or sexualized material is because the parents let them, and that is the problem.

 

[Li Mu]

You know guys, he is completely right.

Between 262-261 BC, during the Kalinga War (between the Maurya Empire under Ashoka the Great and the state of Kalinga) over 100,000 people were killed (some estimates hit 1 million).

As we all know, the Maurya Empire were avid Xbox gamers. Clearly there is a link between gaming and this epic battle.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Same bullshit, different guy. Why stop at kids? Driving, working and relationships are stressful and have led to people being violent. We dont start to ban those. You have always have people that are stressed or quick tempered. Or even those that have had bad childhoods, bullied or plain abused who will react differently to certain media than those of children brought up in a normal happy environment.

Kids shouldnt be playing 18 cert games, same as how we dont allow them to watch 18 cert movies, so saying a child watching or playing an 18 cert games is bad and effects them is stupid. Might as well say a child drinking or smoking is bad eventhough they are not legally allowed to drink and smoke in the first place.

 

[WaysideMaze]

Well I certainly want to strangle him.
Because we all know that no kid HAS EVER been naturally aggressive.

In no other area of my daily life do I hear the term "I want to strangle him" - not even as a joke. Not in art galleries, not at work, not even at boxing clubs do I notice such a desensitisation to violence as I do in the gaming community. You could argue that the internet provides the anonymity to express such savage and animalistic sentiments, but also among real-life gamers have I noticed a tendency to be more violent in their attitudes.

I've heard people use that phrase or similar in other areas of my daily life. When at work, when out socialising etc. And not just from gamers.

But personal experience is hardly the same as a scientific study.

 

[The Great JT]

Note how he said "media," not exclusively "video games." On the minus side, video games are a part of this. But on the plus side, they're not the number-one culprit. You can find just as much violence cracking open Macbeth, watching a summer blockbuster or turning on FOX News.

 

[Farther than stars]

As a psychology student, as an empiricist, and as someone who has actually read many of these studies, I've really come to detest my fellow gamers. It annoys me that people make sweeping grandiose statements about how media consumption obviously cannot have any affect on someone at any level, despite repeated evidence to the contrary that they refuse to read. It annoys me when people use the same, tired, "common sense" arguments which have been refuted by empirical evidence. It annoys me when I'm forced to remember that, no matter what is done to demonstrate this connection between media and aggression, there will always be these mocking and condescending articles in every gaming magazine saying just how stupid we are. But most of all, I hate that people will call into question the integrity of researchers whose research they know nothing about and will never bother to actually read, simply because they have nothing but an ad hominem to add to the discussion. It hasn't happened yet in this thread as of the time of writing this post, but it's early in the day. I see it happen in every thread, so I'm sure it won't take more than a day to have one happen in this one.

Now this is something to get behind - well - apart from the reprimanding other gamers part. "Detest" is a strong word and as a psychology student you surely must be able to see that all those who blindly denounce empirical research only do so out a sense of self-preservation. So cut them a little slack is all I'm saying.
Anyway, I have to say that although the Escapist has been discreditingly biased on this issue, this particular article by Andy Chalk seems a lot more open-minded and journalistically neutral about things.

P.S. If you'd consider using a paragraph or two... you know, you being a course-work-writing student and all.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Or we could inform parents about it and let them moderate their children's intake of it.

It was sarcasm.

Curse you, internet!

 

[Brian Pitts]

The question is, what does he define as "media". There are many different definitions of the word.

Is he using it as all media? Or "The Media"? Or just everything that is on the radio, billboards, commercials, news, video games, music, and the like? Because lumping all forms of "media" into one broad spectrum is not a good way to prove ones point.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

Or we could inform parents about it and let them moderate their children's intake of it.

It was sarcasm.

Curse you, internet!

No, not the Internet, Poe's law. And that should be me cursing, not you.

 

[Farther than stars]

Yet another study where the conclusions were drawn up before the criteria.

And it sounds like you just drew up your conclusions about the study before even reading it. How is that any less presumptuous? Also, remember the lesson of Karl Popper about trying to disprove your own ideas being the best way to discover the truth.

 

[Erttheking]

Wouldn't surprise me if there is some truth to what he's saying.

We could just skip this discussion if parents would actually think about giving their 8 year old child a copy of Black Ops or Condemned, but no...

You know, video games have been around for...what is it 30 years? I'm pretty sure violence existed before then. I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't start WWII because a Jew beat him at Halo. Godwin's law I know, but still my point stands.

But that's irrelevant to the point he made. He didn't say all violence was or is caused by video games. Read the article again for proof.

I know I know, but people who think that video games cause violence seem to act like a good deal of modern violence is caused by video games as opposed to people just being naturally aggressive.

Fair enough.

This is starting to be reminiscent of the story of the boy who cried wolf. We've had so many people come and say video games are the cause of every evil in the world, that when one legit guy comes along and suggests that it could have effects on a developing mind, we are all way to quick to dismiss it.

More or less, his data could be accurate and it could not be, but frankly I've heard this so many times before I just don't care anymore.

 

[Dastardly]

"Although media is just one of many influences in our children's lives, it is a powerful and pervasive force and it's one that we can do something about, from parenting, to professional practice, to the making of policies and laws," he said. "We hope that by presenting a series of chapters that provide a summary of research evidence to date, readers will be able to judge for themselves."

And with this statement, I find I can be on this guy's side. Notice, folks, he's not targeting video games. He's targeting "media." He's also not dumping it entirely on media, but he's recognizing that from TV/movies to commercials to games to print ads, to even the impact it has through our interactions with others who consume it, "the media" is omnipresent in our society.

And while that doesn't mean omnipotent, presence itself provides a lot of power. The kids that sit next to your child in school don't run your household, but ask any parent whether or not those kids seem to have an influence...

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I can understand where he's coming from, but most gamers(and yes I am stereotyping) are intelligent human beings, and more to the point, Iron-willed; desesitisation and aggressive behaviour only occurs within those who embrace the concept or to those who are very impressionable/willing to follow anyone's orders.

If anything, I became more violent(as in, I don't fight, but shout more) due to my parents's stubborn, racist views or/and because my friends are more stubborn and willing to stand up for themselves than me.

Violent media can only desensitise you to violence; aggression, fear etc. are more secondary effects, and like I said before, are traits only employed(by being exposed to violent media) by impressionable children.

EDIT: Also, the world is a scary place; people die every second, crime occurs unbelievably frequently, and everything is governed by chance. Add the fact that you are pretty much by yourself/alone in the entire universe, well, you are well within your rights to be afraid.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Or we could inform parents about it and let them moderate their children's intake of it.

It was sarcasm.

Curse you, internet!

No, not the Internet, Poe's law. And that should be me cursing, not you.

Good ol' Poe's law -- making it hard to tell if people are insane or satirical since... a while, lol.

 

[The Random One]

Where is the control group?

 

[VoodooPuppeteer]

One aspect of this that he may well have overlooked is the possibility that he's got the link the wrong way around... If he claims that violent media is likely to bring out violence in children with stronger tendencies towards that kind of behaviour, what's to say that it's not the child's 'natural' violent tendencies drawing them towards more violent media. For example - if a child with a temper buys a game such as CoD would it be claimed that the game provoked the violence or that the violence provoked their purchasing of the game as an outlet for the aggression?

 

[natster43]

I agree with his correlation. Media in all forms including video games does effect people at least a little bit. They are not the only thing to effect people and it would be hard to prove how much is caused just by media, but it still is a factor in desensitizing and causing aggression in people.
The only part I do not agree with is the "makes the world seem scarier" part. He lives in Australia, a place where everything is actively trying to kill you in horrible ways. I think he may be just a bit biased in the regards of how scary our world is. That was a joke.

 

[LordFish]

And it sounds like you just drew up your conclusions about the study before even reading it. How is that any less presumptuous? Also, remember the lesson of Karl Popper about trying to disprove your own ideas being the best way to discover the truth.

Presuming I didn't read the study then chastising me for being presumptuous; Oh the irony.

 

[LostProxy]

As a psychology student, as an empiricist, and as someone who has actually read many of these studies, I've really come to detest my fellow gamers. It annoys me that people make sweeping grandiose statements about how media consumption obviously cannot have any affect on someone at any level, despite repeated evidence to the contrary that they refuse to read. It annoys me when people use the same, tired, "common sense" arguments which have been refuted by empirical evidence. It annoys me when I'm forced to remember that, no matter what is done to demonstrate this connection between media and aggression, there will always be these mocking and condescending articles in every gaming magazine saying just how stupid we are. But most of all, I hate that people will call into question the integrity of researchers whose research they know nothing about and will never bother to actually read, simply because they have nothing but an ad hominem to add to the discussion. It hasn't happened yet in this thread as of the time of writing this post, but it's early in the day. I see it happen in every thread, so I'm sure it won't take more than a day to have one happen in this one.

Thank you! I fall with you on this one. As a fellow student of science most of what I (or should I say we) do is based on research and evidence presented to us. It's quite groan inducing when you see the masses jump on an idea as false or heretical because it goes against what they believe in or have personally experienced. If you believe so strongly they are wrong you should read the research, cross examine their sources, and make an educated statement. Not make knee jerk reactions with little to back them up beyond "this is what I saw." Am I saying he is right? Not at all! But not because I think he is wrong but because I haven't had a chance to look at his work and make an informed opinion.

Second, the guy never said violent video games caused violence. What he said was violent media causes a change in the subjects brain similar to those who actually witnessed violence. That is not good for a persons developing mind by any stretch of the imagination. Multiply that by the years someone would be exposed to Media and I can see why this is still being researched. When something could rationally cause a problem on a psychological level you check it out. Not ignore it because a bunch of gamer kids are crying fowl.