Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

[Raven's Nest]

Hmm a study to investigate whether games rated mature are unsuitable for young children...

*reads study*

"Well thank you very much Lieutenant Obvious, I believe a promotion is in order".

 

[GaryH]

Phew! Good thing violent video games aren't aimed at kids, eh?

 

[JoshGod]

The results also indicated that gamers who reported playing a variety of games consistently stuck with similar kinds of games.

This confuses me, although it may just be me as i'm exhausted. Would someone elaborate please?
OT
As someone who has played God Of war since about 11 years old I can say that I am desensitised more than most people, however I have far greater understanding and appreciation for other people's perspective than most. being less able to emotionally relate to a person and their situation doesn't mean i can't logically do so. Then again I may just be a minority that considers other people perspectives.

 

[4173]

The results also indicated that gamers who reported playing a variety of games consistently stuck with similar kinds of games.

This confuses me, although it may just be me as i'm exhausted. Would someone elaborate please?
OT
As someone who has played God Of war since about 11 years old I can say that I am desensitised more than most people, however I have far greater understanding and appreciation for other people's perspective than most. being less able to emotionally relate to a person and their situation doesn't mean i can't logically do so. Then again I may just be a minority that considers other people perspectives.

I think it means that even among children who played multiple games, they tended to stick to the same genre.

It's a pretty awful sentence though.

 

[Jatyu]

So did anyone actually read this? This was a study, not an exeperiment. You don't need a control group or a double blind for what is essentially a survey. The kids were not exposed to mature games, they were already playing them. And he study does not claim anything except that exposure to violent games increases the risk of being desensitized to violence.

Learn to read people, and don't shout bullshit unless you know what you're talking about.

 

[ZonerZ]

The truth is that we all KNOW that exposure to violence desensitizes us to more violence.
No?

No. Never proven. Never even given ground rules for how to prove such a thing.

Also doesn't excuse the unethical study. Or the failure to double blind. Or the use of subjects without permission. Or the weasel words used. Or the passive aggressive voice you use to denounce me.

If you expose a group of people to a competitive activity and then try and teach them something away from that, of course you're going to have difficulty. It's called adrenaline. Every parent or teaching student knows that. Directly linking a form of one to the causation of the other is bad science, period.

Viera's analysis is subjective twaddle that cannot be proven statistically. Find me the report itself and I'll tear it apart scientifically as well. At the moment, I'm only finding logical flaws with the press release attached to it by the authors.

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.

My thoughts the entire time. There's more to psych studies than sitting behind a one way mirror looking at someone playing a game while kicking a baby. Most of the time, its little more than surveys and naturalistic observation. Anything else needs much more planning/funding/giving a crap about what your results will do for you.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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.

But, I'm just going with the evidence that's presented. Other people have actually done more... media friendly case studies. Here's one:


I'd advise you watch right to the end where they give a 9 year old child a gun to fire.

RIGHT at the end, you'll see his reaction.

I don't think he absorbed a sanitized message. I think he was scared shitless.

 

[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.