Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

[DSD12]

"I think what we're really looking at is not a problem with videogames, but a problem with parenting"
Really? took you forever to figure it out

 

[zfactor]

That is why they are rated M.

Morons.

Ok, let's take a quick look at how big this fails.

"Moral Learning" - never defined.

Kids between 7-15 (no obvious [sub]puberty[/sub] change there.) playing Mature games...

Oh, wait a moment, didn't we already decide that's what they're not supposed to play with that whole rating system that's been there since they were first created?

Long term exposure? Never defined.

Level of violence? Never defined.

"absorbing a sanitized message of 'no consequences for violence' from this play behavior," - meaningless biased unproven drivel

Oh, and you've just poisoned the minds of 166 kids to find out that it can poison kids minds.

Seriously, non-gamers are far more dangerous than gamers, if this study is anything to go by. We at least admit we're biased.

Yeah, a major problem with studies like this is a lack of a standardized way to measure "increase in violent behavior." Of course, it doesn't help that she never defined them... She could at least try to make this believable.

 

[MrGalactus]

Now this I can understand, this info is based on reason and research. I understand that games could reduce sympathy, that makes total sense based on the things I've played treating humans as bullet sponges with ragdoll physics rather than people with names and faces. I think we as an industry should grow up a bit, and stop being so juvenile when it comes to certain things.

 

[mr_rubino]

The Escapist: Your source for objective views on relevant topics by people anyone has heard of.
So if I just say "parents should parent" like we always do for 10 pages on these threads, do I get back-slaps and thumbs-up?

 

[4173]

Where are you getting all that? It looks to me like Viera just ran a survey, and then proposed new research questions (focus on boys, and children from at-risk families) based on the collected data. Then the columnist made a bunch of unsupported claims.

Ok, just focussing on Vieira's words alone, and assuming that he took all possible considerations in hand.

...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, 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."

Research cannot suggest, it can only find potential correlations which can be then tested against the control group (missing) to find causations.
Children is a poor term to use for subjects 7-15 because their level of emotional intelligence required to take in this information varies a great deal due to their emotional growth at differing stages of that process.
Frequent exposure is not defined, and here we come to the central crux. If frequent exposure is harmful, could moderate exposure not be? Also, if you are exposing "children" to "these violent games" (All three words there are subjective), then you are either dealing with potential lying, or potential illegality. In the first case, boys are more likely to exaggerate details to impress than girls due to a number of reasons. (I could cite studies but I'll try for common sense here.) In the second case, you are giving children access to Mature games, which is illegal.
"are absorbing a sanitized message of 'no consequences for violence' from this play behavior," Unfounded, unscientific opinion. This hypothesis was never tested. You would actually have to define a separate study to show this.
Equally, given the lack of control group, this could also be caused by the subject's homelife, school or the test itself.
From the word "concern" onwards, Vieira is hypothesizing without study. Correlating two undefined terms that, in themselves, could produce the reactions that he has been seeing.

Statistically, the results aren't significant in themselves because of the lack of control group.

This looks like a survey. The children already had the games, and already played the games. You don't need a control group for a survey. You take data from a survey and make new research questions.

So all the research suggests is an area worth further examination. And that's all the researcher says, "the data suggests a possible relationship (video games and moral learning). I speculate it may combine negatively with other factors (poor parenting)." The second part is the researcher saying why this possible link is worth investigating.

The next step is to try to separate video game effects from homelife, and age and gender etc. to get a better, more conclusive picture of if video games affect moral learning. And, if that study suggests it, to see how it interacts with homelife.

Look, if this wasn't a survey, then yes there are lots of problems. But I think the most likely case is a researcher conducting a survey and a columnist with a sketchy grasp of scientific methods.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Look, if this wasn't a survey, then yes there are lots of problems. But I think the most likely case is a researcher conducting a survey and a columnist with a sketchy grasp of scientific methods.

True. But is it going to be taken as that? Or is it going to be taken as "GAMES R TEH EBIL!", when Vieira even says that his research suggests that boys who play violent games lose the ability to make moral judgements?

That's very different to "research suggests that boys who play violent games might have more difficulty in making moral judgements"; which is what the statistics he quoted shows.

 

[Laser Priest]

It's amazing what studies can find when you skew them to find exactly what your preconceived notions are and ignore any and all factors outside of what you want to see.

 

[milkkart]

Spoiler: snip

Ok, let's take a quick look at how big this fails.

"Moral Learning" - never defined.

Kids between 7-15 (no obvious [sub]puberty[/sub] change there.) playing Mature games...

Oh, wait a moment, didn't we already decide that's what they're not supposed to play with that whole rating system that's been there since they were first created?

Long term exposure? Never defined.

Level of violence? Never defined.

"absorbing a sanitized message of 'no consequences for violence' from this play behavior," - meaningless biased unproven drivel

Oh, and you've just poisoned the minds of 166 kids to find out that it can poison kids minds.

Seriously, non-gamers are far more dangerous than gamers, if this study is anything to go by. We at least admit we're biased.

Here's the problem with your argument:

As far as I can tell, you haven't said anything about the study itself... but rather about the REPORT being made on the study, by none other than the Escapist here. Most of these studies are PAGES and PAGES and PAGES of data. This is a condensed version for those folks who can't be arsed to read the entire twelve thousand word experimental journals, I'm sure.

This is like expecting the WARNING STICKER on your mirror to not only tell you that objects may be larger than they appear... but to also then give you precise measurements of the distance between you and said object.

Sure, I suppose it could be done. In fact, that would be so awesome that I suggest someone does it and makes millions on the newest 'safety features' market.

But again... it's not the same thing to read this ARTICLE... as it is to read the actual full-length report. And unless you did, which I doubt... considering you used word-for-word the sentences of the article... all you serve to do is further obfuscate the truth.

The truth is that we all KNOW that exposure to violence desensitizes us to more violence. Nobody with half a brain would deny that. That's why there are ratings in the first place... which the parents involved in most of these kinds of cases choose to KNOWINGLY ignore. The problem is, and this is why you keep seeing these studies being done over and over again, that nobody has been able to prove it to satisfaction through science. They're trying to determine precisely what it is that happens, and probably what 'desensitized' actually translates to, as well.

We know what does happen... but we don't really know WHAT happens, deep down on a physiological/psychological level. And this is the job of scientists and psychologists... to study this stuff. That's what they do.

Unfortunately, some of them are biased towards the 'cause' of others... which is where you should be really concerned. Instead of taking your aggression out on a man who openly believes that the problem is with parents not knowing what their children should and should not be exposed to... perhaps you should take it out against the ignorant zealots who would DEMAND that all violent exposure turns your children into walking, ticking time-bombs.

No?

the article is not a condensed version of the study report, its a rewrite of the synopsis or maybe the press release based on the study influenced by the editorial policy of the reporting agency or the writer and the desire to grab readers.

the article includes no link to the original study so we can't see the quality of the research done or check the accuracy of the article. most people arent going to bother to do that anyway which is why there really needs to be less emotive copy and more accurate facts. reporting this as the first study of its kind doesn't bode well for the accuracy of the article or if that comes from the people running the study the quality of the research.

because i don't know what the actual content of the courses etc are and im just going by the names this is probably wrong or irrelevant but a very quick look at Vieiras credentials seems to suggest his main expertise lies in marketing and advertising communication. see http://www.simmons.edu/undergraduate/academics/departments/communications/faculty/vieira.php

btw if you want to see an example of a particularly crap study with very similar goals and are in the UK (maybe people in other places can see it too but im not sure) have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri8XZNZUlH8 relevent sections start at about 8:30 and 32:30. for an analysis of the flaws from what was presented of the study in the program and the way it was presented see this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2010/feb/10/games-controversy

 

[4173]

Look, if this wasn't a survey, then yes there are lots of problems. But I think the most likely case is a researcher conducting a survey and a columnist with a sketchy grasp of scientific methods.

True. But is it going to be taken as that? Or is it going to be taken as "GAMES R TEH EBIL!", when Vieira even says that his research suggests that boys who play violent games lose the ability to make moral judgements?

That's very different to "research suggests that boys who play violent games might have more difficulty in making moral judgements"; which is what the statistics he quoted shows.

That is a very, very difficult question with no right answer. What responsibility do researchers have as far as making sure their research isn't misinterpreted by the less than scientific?

Now we are just into rampant speculation. Maybe Vieira isn't used to talking to non-academics. Maybe the interviewer is dumber than normal. Maybe Vieira choose suboptimal words because of human fallibility. Maybe Vieira wanted to create a bit more buzz in an attempt to secure funding for future research. Maybe there was a misquote.

I'm not sure I agree that Vieira said exactly that, but I don't want to quibble on such a fine detail.

Just the idea that this was somehow flawed or illegitimate science based on the facts we know. I don't think that is supported at all, and Vieira seems to be getting blamed for poor reporting.

 

[Saviordd1]

I put 10 bucks on fox using this as "evidence" of course they'll omit the last sentence then claim they didn't see it

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm not sure I agree that Vieira said exactly that, but I don't want to quibble on such a fine detail.

Ok, in my definition I've used two "maybe" words. He's used a direct correlation. That's bad science and bad press. If you can come up with a better way of saying what he did say, then I'm fine with that.

Just the idea that this was somehow flawed or illegitimate science based on the facts we know. I don't think that is supported at all, and Vieira seems to be getting blamed for poor reporting.

Vieira's science works on trying to prove a hypothesis, using either immoral or contentious evidence, with suppositions that haven't been proven. As was pointed out earlier, there's just too many things that could go awry with this type of statistical science that it starts out as flawed.

Let's say, for example, I did a poll here on whether you got into more fights as a child than as an adult.

We've got a representative sample of mostly males who play violent games a lot. I think that's fair to say.

Now, I'll be willing to bet that more people here got into more fights (couldn't make moral judgements) as children (when they didn't have games) than as adults (where they've had long-term exposure to violent games). Would that prove Vieira's study wrong? No. It'd still be a flawed study despite following similar lines to what he did because of bias, background, pride etc.

The reporter is more to blame for sensationalising it, but Vieira's own words damn him before you can look into the science - that starts off flawed because you can't measure moral judgements / you can't detail what one person would find extreme violence and you can't rule out external variables.

That's the real problem. This is a coffee table study; and if it's true, you've just dumped hot coffee into 166 young laps.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Video games haven't desensitized me. Humanity over time has.

 

[The Sane]

I know I can't judge the greater picture of things.. but from my own personal perspective, this is a load of crap. I've been playing 'violent' games for a long time, I'm now 20, and I am one of the most level headed people you can meet.


If you were to grow up on 18+ rated games then maybe it could affect you.. but that would be why they're, you know, rated 18+? All this does is reinforce the need for parents to pay attention, but sadly it will almost certainly be used as fuel for a "think of the children" campaign that just wants draconian restrictions.

 

[spartan231490]

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

And yet, every friend I have who possesses more empathy or sympathy than most, in some cases more than is probably healthy for them, have played violent video games since they were children, and the people I know who don't have much empathy and sympathy don't play video games. Coincidence? "I like god, do not play with dice, and do not believe in coincidence."

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I'm 21, and I've been playing violent videogames for pretty much my entire life, going all the way back to the days when Wolfenstein 3D was one of the more violent games on the market. Honestly, and I noticed this around the fifth grade, it did desensitize me to blood -- but only to the extent that I don't start retching at the sight of it. I certainly recognize the gravity of a major injury, and I'm not exactly one to point and laugh when someone is on the ground bleeding -- far from it, in fact. The desensitization that games gave me is just enough that when I or someone near me is bleeding profusely, I can calmly get the first aid kit and patch the injured party up. That's right, the desensitization from videogames was a positive influence on me, to the point that I seriously considered going to school to be a paramedic. I decided on being a teacher instead, but I'm still good to have in a crisis.

Also, living in a rural area has done a lot more to desensitize me to violence than videogames ever could. Have you ever had to dispose of the parts of a squirrel your cats didn't like? What about a roadkill possum, cat, armadillo, you name it? I had to bury a feral cat just the night before last, and it was a much more brutal scene than anything I've ever seen in a videogame. Let's just say that it was the head that got hit, and leave it at that. My point in all of this is, real life can sometimes be much gorier than videogames; sometimes being desensitized enough that the blood doesn't turn your stomach, but not so desensitized that you no longer recognize the gravity of the situation, can be a very good thing.

 

[4173]

I'm not sure I agree that Vieira said exactly that, but I don't want to quibble on such a fine detail.

Ok, in my definition I've used two "maybe" words. He's used a direct correlation. That's bad science and bad press. If you can come up with a better way of saying what he did say, then I'm fine with that.

Just the idea that this was somehow flawed or illegitimate science based on the facts we know. I don't think that is supported at all, and Vieira seems to be getting blamed for poor reporting.

Vieira's science works on trying to prove a hypothesis, using either immoral or contentious evidence, with suppositions that haven't been proven. As was pointed out earlier, there's just too many things that could go awry with this type of statistical science that it starts out as flawed.

Let's say, for example, I did a poll here on whether you got into more fights as a child than as an adult.

We've got a representative sample of mostly males who play violent games a lot. I think that's fair to say.

Now, I'll be willing to bet that more people here got into more fights (couldn't make moral judgements) as children (when they didn't have games) than as adults (where they've had long-term exposure to violent games). Would that prove Vieira's study wrong? No. It'd still be a flawed study despite following similar lines to what he did because of bias, background, pride etc.

The reporter is more to blame for sensationalising it, but Vieira's own words damn him before you can look into the science - that starts off flawed because you can't measure moral judgements / you can't detail what one person would find extreme violence and you can't rule out external variables.

That's the real problem. This is a coffee table study; and if it's true, you've just dumped hot coffee into 166 young laps.

The kids were already playing the games, I'm not sure what this hot coffee is.

Social scientists have been measuring feelings and thoughts for a long time. It isn't perfect, but there are methods that provide the capability.

If this was a survey, and it looks like it was, Viaier WAS NOT testing a hypothesis. Data was collected relating to a particular topic, and presumably examined with statistical tools. Based on this data, a relationship was hypothesized, violent video games may affect the children. A statement was made explaining why further research on that potential relationship is important (if it exists, it would combine dangerously with poor parenting).

That's the key thing, assuming it was a survey. The research gathered data. The data suggested a relationship. There is nothing to prove with this study. Just because data suggests something does not mean it actually exists, and Viaier doesn't say it exists. Viaier says it MIGHT exist (is suggested).

 

[Something Amyss]

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

One word: Politics.

Well, they don't have a moral compass anymore, so they should fit in well.

 

[emeraldrafael]

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

One word: Politics.

Well, they don't have a moral compass anymore, so they should fit in well.

Would make sense. Makes it reasonable when you consider all the congressmen (and women) who are against video games.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

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.

Quoted for Truth, both of you!

Any parent who let's their kid play GTA is not doing it right.

Personally, If I ever have kids, I'm starting him on old kirby games, maybe A link to the Past, Crono Trigger. You know, the old stuff that has meaning and stuff.

As he gets older, he'll get more advanced material.

 

[742]

so i looked at both the article and the article it was from on yahoo and didnt see links to the study. i wasnt looking too terribly hard, but i would like to know a little more about the methodology, and am curious as to how violent videogames compare to violent film of the same thing(IE no consequences violence or violence with mild consequences ect) how the view of violence was expressed (did they have them fill out a questionaire or have them actually perform violent acts? the two are quite different, and as someone who has been in the sort of negative social situation theyre probably* talking about theres a lot of pressure to induce fear in your peers. saying you would kill someone for a slice of cake is one thing, but actually causing long term harm when theres any other option is another matter entirely). i would especially like to know if all the exposure was self reported or controlled(i was once a kid with poor parental communication and unhealthy peer relationships. were all liars.), and how it compared to a control group of kids in similar negative situations without violent videogames. was there a control group who didnt have any significant exposure to violent media and what the effect on them later at age 18 or 20 or so was (though obviously not immediately available). if the science here is good this looks to be quite an interesting report.

*i never saw the study and this was never defined. there are different levels of "poor parental communication" ranging from "theyre always working and dont hug me enough" to "daddy says he loves me with hitting" and a similar range for peer relationships. im fairly certain(but too lazy to look up and cite sources. yes i know bad, but then im not supporting any particular argument here other than "i havent seen the study would like to know more") that even small variations in those things have a HUGE impact of a childs psychological development(especially as far as "morality" goes) independently of any media exposure. without these things defined this study may as well be saying "violent videogames can cause weight loss in combination with good diet and running a marathon every week.". also part of a parents job when a child is exposed to media that deals with subjects they havent been exposed to yet and have no context for is to explain and provide that, its part of the reason that some people say parenting is not all sunshine and butterflies, or so ive heard(as anyone whos had to explain to their children as a parent or had explained by their parents the whole sex thing and is from a puritanical culture can attest to), and poor parental communication could simply mean "shitty parenting that doesnt do this" along with "unhealthy peer relationships" could simply reinforce the bad or lack of context. possibly making the data of this study(which remember; i havent seen, nor the experimental procedures ect ect because i cant easily find it in anything linked to so im assuming a worst case scenario because it seems like they dont want it to be found) support the idea that "troubled kids are troubled and violent videogames are not an effective miracle cure for this"