Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

[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"

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

the fact that the moral compass is defined by the video games...is really sad on the parenting part, if the video games are having more effect on their "moral standing" than the parent is, you need to haul ass and be a better parent.

and that last line, sums up most of what needs to be said to all news media outlets.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Study should find that more parents should give a damn about parenting, not the effect of games.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

First, an obligatory comment about how useless this is without seeing the actual article: from the description here, this sounds like a completely contrived study designed (consciously or no) to support a preconceived idea of how children are affected by games. No actual measures are described and it smacks of pop psychology.

Children are very plastic in some ways, but they're also much more sophisticated than we often give them credit for. Typically, moral learning (and almost any other learning) is contextualized even in kids. It's worth noting that contextual leading almost always bleeds over somewhat, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is an effect, but it's likely a pretty small one. Kids pick up on the difference between games and reality extremely quickly and contextualize learning and behaviour very naturally (this is how brains work, it isn't something the kid needs to make a conscious effort to do, just as you don't need to constantly tell yourself that real life isn't GTA4).

Also, let's be honest here: "Communication Professor" does not inspire the most robust level of confidence.

Addendum: This is hardly any parent's fault. Morality isn't some magic little set of switches in the brain that just get set to one setting and can never be changed. Parents can't really indoctrinate their kids such that further moral development is impossible, so good parenting doesn't make kids "immune" to this somehow. Hell, even though you can contextualize it perhaps even better than kids (which is still a matter of active debate), you are affected by playing violent games absolutely guaranteed.

It's also pretty ludicrous to blame parents for buying inappropriate games for kids when the rating system is so wonky (and awkwardly conservative for a lot of American parents, which lumps acceptable M games in with things kids shouldn't play), the sales protection is relatively easy to bypass, and some marketing departments are going out of their way to make their target audience ambiguous (I'm looking at you Dead Space 2). Sadly, I'm not really sure how you manage to fix this. Movies have it easy because it's a small enough time investment and prerequisite level of experience that it's not uncommon for parents to go to movies with their kids, but that's just not a model games can really use.

 

[LogicNProportion]

*Everything everyone else has said*

+

Metal Gear Solid

--------------

That series alone debunks this entire study.

 

[alandavidson]

Parents need to, ohmygawd, parent.

Read the rating, why it's rated what it is, and make an informed decision on whether or not a game is appropriate for your child.

 

[McNinja]

I've played violent videogames for the past ten years. I am actually quite empathetic, although sympathy is a whole 'nother bag of chips.

 

[XT inc]

I don't see the problem here, we've been in a culture of violence as long as I have known. Growing up heroes were always the knights, the cops, the cowboys, the soldiers etc. What did they do to be so great? They blew the bad guys away, be it by gun or sword, or magic whatever.

The heroes where never portrayed as the humanitarians, no one ever wanted to pretend they were doing paperwork for a charitable organization to increase funding. No. They wanted to be the hero who killed the bad guys and saved the good guys.

Be it tv, comics, books, cartoons or games it's not the medias fault that is how people are raised, this is just the current platform to get media across. Sure the visual aspect has gotten a lot more gory and violent, but the concepts the same only now its better expressed. What kids used to do in their imagination is now done on screen.

 

[EGtodd09]

I know a guy who played Grand Theft Auto as a young child, about when he was 5 or 6 and throughout the rest of his childhood. He's now 15 and definitely desensitized. The only thing stopping him from stabbing someone is the law.

 

[Stinking Kevin]

The best that any study like this can ever do is to show a correlation between kids who claim to have played video game "X" and kids who answered "Y" to a survey question regarding compassion. Any claim of causality between the two is an act of faith, not science.

My niece has been watching "R" movies and "M" games with her dad since she was four or five years old. I think this may have given her a more sophisticated skepticism toward mass media, but it certainly hasn't made her any less loving or gentle a person. Probably because she watched them with her dad -- an intelligent man who truly loves his daughter.

My point is that it's not ever anyone else's place to tell a parent how to be a parent. I don't plan to play Bulletstorm with my own three-year-old, but every parent is different and each child is unique. As long a parent is listening to his kid, he doesn't need to listen to the ESRB or the MPAA, or to self-righteous forum posters like some of you, and he certainly doesn't need to listen to studies like this one.

Maybe the real danger is in allowing ourselves to think along the lines of studies like this, which presume to be able to scientifically quantify concepts such as art and love, violence and compassion, by grouping together arbitrary bits of data from 166 individual people.

Ignoring a person's individuality is a sure way to drive him to ignore the individuality in others, isn't it? No matter what sort of video games he plays.