Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

[zerobudgetgamer]

Here is a study (a study, not a divine decree of universal truth) that suggest that: Children who are already in bad environment and have a big exposure to violent video games (or indeed any violent media) may find a number of violent acts acceptable. Therefore it is probably a bad idea to ignore age ratings on games.

And this apparently pisses a lot of you off. That the media you proclaim as you own, is held in the same regard as TV, movies and books. It seems to me that the study is saying that video games are just as influential as any other thing. Not more. Not less. Just as much as every other goddamn thing.

As for those attacking the science. It seems that lot of you have got your hermeneutics, mixed up with your natural science. I?m no scientist, but I do have some experience in doing behavioral studies with children. The thing is, there are no ultimate answers in this kind of thing. Only tendencies. You then look at those tendencies and try to figure out why they are there. Then you most likely discover new tendencies, and so on and so forth. Point is, from what I have seen, this study seems legit, if a little vague. But that?s behavioral science for you. Also, I?m going to take a safe guess and say that these people probably know more about doing these kinds of things, than most people on this forum.(No need to show me your resume, I said most)

Here is an idea. If you are so pissed at the science and so sure that violent video games, have absolutely no effect on kids, then how about funding you own study.

And for those of you that played violent video games and grew up the most empathic/sympatric/ level headed guys. Good for you. No seriously kudos. But is it really so unthinkable that things could have turned out otherwise. I consider myself to be in the same group (those that turned out okay), but I also am very aware of the dangers of escapism.

Some of you guys seriously need to stop acting like fucking victims. Especially in cases like here, when nobody is attacking you. Perhaps the reason that videogames have become the big bad child corrupting scapegoat, is that it is the one community that flies into a rage every time somebody even hints at it?

The main issue why the gaming community flies into a rage at each and every one of these studies is because they're used as ammunition for anti-gaming lobbyists trying to impose restrictions on the industry. And the problem is they always, ALWAYS take the study out of context. You said it yourself, this study is about children who are already in bad environments. You can stop it right there. Almost every violent outburst "spawned" by video games was caused by children living in negative environments, usually for most of their lives. But politicians and lawyers are trying to use these outbursts, and these studies, to say that ANY child, REGARDLESS of their background, living/school environment, etc., CAN and WILL snap into a violent rage, SOLELY because they play violent video games (outside of their age range).

Now, the reason why we "act like fucking victims" is because if we don't speak up at the ludicrous nature of some of these studies, others will try to use them as undisputed fact, once again twisting the context of the study to suit their means and try to impose restrictions that need not be placed. These children are playing violent video games that in all likelihood are rated M, and as such were not designed with the intent of being played by younger gamers. Now, any gamer knows that there's always a chance that a kid will get his hands on a game that's rated higher than their age, but that should not fall on the industry. If a child sneaks in to an R-rated movie without parental consent, should we blame the creators of the movie? No. We may blame the theater itself for not keeping better track of things, but ultimately it falls on the parents who neglected to keep an eye on their kids.

The issue is this: When studies like this crop up, they are used to impose restrictions on the industry itself, the people who make the games, not the people who sell them. I have never been opposed to having GameStop require an ID to purchase an M-rated game, or to just flat-out refuse to sell them to minors. This is a simple procedure to help keep kids from gaining access to games above their age rating without their parents' consent. If a parent wants their kid to play an M-rated game, then there's nothing really stopping them, same as if they want their kid to see an R-rated film. But when a kid gains access to a game that may be too violent for them, and they do change because of it, parents never want to take responsibility, and thus turn to studies like this to try to vindicate themselves, to place the blame elsewhere so that, god forbid, someone calls them out on their own parenting skills.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

Eh, you don't need scientific studies to tell you that the more violent media you consume, the less it's going to affect you eventually.

 

[Speakercone]

These guys really suck as science. One variable, how can you mess that up? You only see the effects of games. But no, you have the violent games, their ages, and genders. 50% boys, 50% girls. All the same age. So simple, yet they can't do it right. I can't accept this study, as they violated the scientific method so badly that it needs rape counseling.

EDIT: Actually, there were even more variables. Home life, schoolwork, teachers, skill in different subjects, TV shows, bullies, exposure to the news, political affiliations of their parents, and oh so many more. The scientific method didn't need rape counseling, as the rape was so violent it's in a coma.

Good, I'm not the only one who thought that. More to the point, they seem to be making qualitative statements about their study. I hypothesize that somebody paid these people to get these results.

 

[timeadept]

I'm confused... how did the kids play violent videogames in the study if they're not old enough to play violent videogames? I guess I should read the study.

Sorry if you've been quoted already but, a survey was taken, i didn't realize exactly what that meant until then end. but now i see it like he got kids to come in, take the list of questions about which games they played, how long, ect. then gave them a test to measure the amount of empathy they're capable of.

More to the point, many of the kids were playing Mature rated games which they are not old enough to purchase on their own, but many parents seem to have no problem buying the games for their kids, no matter what the rating is.

So yeah the children in the study were only brought in and observed for a short period of time, there was no formal testing. Which is understandable and the article says so it's self that it would be unethical to test something potentially harmful on humans, just to find out if it really is harmful.

 

[Direwolf750]

Everyone seems to view morals as a fixed concept. Morals are subjective to society. Saying that exposure to violent video games prevents moral learning doesn't really have a concrete definition.

 

[timeadept]

Spoiler: -snip-

Here is a study (a study, not a divine decree of universal truth) that suggest that: Children who are already in bad environment and have a big exposure to violent video games (or indeed any violent media) may find a number of violent acts acceptable. Therefore it is probably a bad idea to ignore age ratings on games.

And this apparently pisses a lot of you off. That the media you proclaim as you own, is held in the same regard as TV, movies and books. It seems to me that the study is saying that video games are just as influential as any other thing. Not more. Not less. Just as much as every other goddamn thing.

As for those attacking the science. It seems that lot of you have got your hermeneutics, mixed up with your natural science. I?m no scientist, but I do have some experience in doing behavioral studies with children. The thing is, there are no ultimate answers in this kind of thing. Only tendencies. You then look at those tendencies and try to figure out why they are there. Then you most likely discover new tendencies, and so on and so forth. Point is, from what I have seen, this study seems legit, if a little vague. But that?s behavioral science for you. Also, I?m going to take a safe guess and say that these people probably know more about doing these kinds of things, than most people on this forum.(No need to show me your resume, I said most)

Here is an idea. If you are so pissed at the science and so sure that violent video games, have absolutely no effect on kids, then how about funding you own study.

And for those of you that played violent video games and grew up the most empathic/sympatric/ level headed guys. Good for you. No seriously kudos. But is it really so unthinkable that things could have turned out otherwise. I consider myself to be in the same group (those that turned out okay), but I also am very aware of the dangers of escapism.

Some of you guys seriously need to stop acting like fucking victims. Especially in cases like here, when nobody is attacking you. Perhaps the reason that videogames have become the big bad child corrupting scapegoat, is that it is the one community that flies into a rage every time somebody even hints at it?

The main issue why the gaming community flies into a rage at each and every one of these studies is because they're used as ammunition for anti-gaming lobbyists trying to impose restrictions on the industry. And the problem is they always, ALWAYS take the study out of context. You said it yourself, this study is about children who are already in bad environments. You can stop it right there. Almost every violent outburst "spawned" by video games was caused by children living in negative environments, usually for most of their lives. But politicians and lawyers are trying to use these outbursts, and these studies, to say that ANY child, REGARDLESS of their background, living/school environment, etc., CAN and WILL snap into a violent rage, SOLELY because they play violent video games (outside of their age range).

Now, the reason why we "act like fucking victims" is because if we don't speak up at the ludicrous nature of some of these studies, others will try to use them as undisputed fact, once again twisting the context of the study to suit their means and try to impose restrictions that need not be placed. These children are playing violent video games that in all likelihood are rated M, and as such were not designed with the intent of being played by younger gamers. Now, any gamer knows that there's always a chance that a kid will get his hands on a game that's rated higher than their age, but that should not fall on the industry. If a child sneaks in to an R-rated movie without parental consent, should we blame the creators of the movie? No. We may blame the theater itself for not keeping better track of things, but ultimately it falls on the parents who neglected to keep an eye on their kids.

The issue is this: When studies like this crop up, they are used to impose restrictions on the industry itself, the people who make the games, not the people who sell them. I have never been opposed to having GameStop require an ID to purchase an M-rated game, or to just flat-out refuse to sell them to minors. This is a simple procedure to help keep kids from gaining access to games above their age rating without their parents' consent. If a parent wants their kid to play an M-rated game, then there's nothing really stopping them, same as if they want their kid to see an R-rated film. But when a kid gains access to a game that may be too violent for them, and they do change because of it, parents never want to take responsibility, and thus turn to studies like this to try to vindicate themselves, to place the blame elsewhere so that, god forbid, someone calls them out on their own parenting skills.

I'm sorry if i missed something but your point is essentially that people are justified as acting the victim when a study like this comes along because if we don't then it will be taken as fact and abused, ultimately to our misfortune. correct?

I expected another inflammatory "study" about how "bad" video games are when i started reading this, but i got to the end and it seems legitimate. In which case we are lashing out against legitimate studies because... we don't like the results? we don't like the implications? The thing is, i think that thous implications simply do not exist in this case. The study simply reported it's results and did not overextend the conclusion and make claims about trends outside of its scope.

After reading this, the logical conclusion is that the rating system is legitimate and should be taken seriously. Which should not be surprising to any of us and ultimately means that no change is necessary.

And so my point is that people are overreacting by acting like victims. Yes, this study could still be taken out of context and abused. The "same" thing happened before in a very extreme example with Adolf Hitler and his "arian supremacy" when he bastardized Charles Darwin's theory of evolution which is summed up by the statement "survival of the fittest".

However i see it as morally wrong, to ignore any fact, even if could be taken out of context and abused for personal gain. In fact i see it just as wrong as is the action of abusing and deliberately misinterpreting scientific fact. (i'm not saying this one study is enough to base fact off of, actually many legitimate studies have to be preformed before the results can be considered fact. But the point still stands that we cannot ignore this study simply because it could be abused.)

 

[timeadept]

Everyone seems to view morals as a fixed concept. Morals are subjective to society. Saying that exposure to violent video games prevents moral learning doesn't really have a concrete definition.

I don't see your point, morals are subjective within a society, however we all live in extremely similar societies and our morals are relatively constant within them. One simply has to look at the society that the speaker is from and then they know the context within which the morals are being violated. In this case we all hold very similar views of violence, namely that it should only be used in self defense and even then only as a last resort. Yes there is variance within our societies, and members of our societies, but the norm, in reference to morals is what was being considered in this study, and so variance is irrelevant.

*edit* oh yeah, also a fixed view of morals is not an un-useful view for most people. We rarely travel outside of our society and so rarely need to consider the fact that others have different morals that are arguably no more wrong or right than ours are. It's completely understandable and in fact expected that people view morals as constants, especially within their own society. After all, I expect that it is the stability within society it's self that encouraged this idea.

 

[LostintheWick]

Hey, a legitimate study! Look at that.

I would hope that gamer parents are even more aware than average ones that you need to control what young children are exposed to, especially in an interactive medium like ours.

Not legit. They had too many variables.

It seems like common sense though. I don't think we need a study to prove it, but it is nice to see some more information. More studies will need to be made and hopefully with impartial funding.

Gamers need to keep calm and not be defensive when these kinds of studies come out b/c a study is not an attack (even if we don't like the results).

If anything, this just supports the rating system that is already in place. If parents and retailers can't follow it, that doesn't mean the game industry or it's properly aged gamers are at fault.

 

[LostintheWick]

Everyone seems to view morals as a fixed concept. Morals are subjective to society. Saying that exposure to violent video games prevents moral learning doesn't really have a concrete definition.

I don't see your point, morals are subjective within a society, however we all live in extremely similar societies and our morals are relatively constant within them. One simply has to look at the society that the speaker is from and then they know the context within which the morals are being violated. In this case we all hold very similar views of violence, namely that it should only be used in self defense and even then only as a last resort. Yes there is variance within our societies, and members of our societies, but the norm, in reference to morals is what was being considered in this study, and so variance is irrelevant.

*edit* oh yeah, also a fixed view of morals is not an un-useful view for most people. We rarely travel outside of our society and so rarely need to consider the fact that others have different morals that are arguably no more wrong or right than ours are. It's completely understandable and in fact expected that people view morals as constants, especially within their own society. After all, I expect that it is the stability within society it's self that encouraged this idea.

I agree with you. I'd also like to add that most of us have a good idea on what they mean when they refer to "moral learning". It's true; we can debate the idea conceptually. But let's get real for a moment.

Human beings have a tendency to follow a sort of "golden rule" (there are ALWAYS exceptions). Do on to others as you would have done to you. It's how all of us relatively selfish animals manage to somehow sustain any sort of structure in our society. Morals that support love towards your neighbor are a good thing to have.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

I don't know. Sounds more like anecdotal evidence to me.

 

[Ris]

To those critising the study, have you actually read it? Because I can't find it anywhere online, all I see is press releases. Press releases aren't going to include detail on methods used, full variables, control groups etc.

I just felt it needed pointing out before you slam the paper. I mean, the guy has a PHD; I'm willing to bet that he knows how to write a scientific paper by this point in his academic career.

 

[ConvincingJohn]

But politicians and lawyers are trying to use these outbursts, and these studies, to say that ANY child, REGARDLESS of their background, living/school environment, etc., CAN and WILL snap into a violent rage, SOLELY because they play violent video games (outside of their age range).

And a lot of other stuff

Yeah, but that was not what this study was saying. It was actually saying the opposite. (well..yeah..kinda). I have no problem with people calling bullshit on a bogus study, but in my mind this just wasn?t the case here. I seemed like solid research. (All though I will add, that since the method in the study is mostly undescribed , this probably has more to do with it fitting into my worldview, than anything else. As said, hermeneutics can be a *****, since it is all more or less subjective)

Hard as it is to admit it, I am pretty sure that the reason I red the article in the first place, was I hopes of reading a piece of moralizing bullshit, that declared gaming some kind of spiritual back hole. That way I could have felt some righteous indignation and scoffed at the ignorant masses condemning something they know nothing about( thus making myself feel like the victim, I am aware of the hypocrisy). Instead I found a reasonable man making some reasonable theories. I was pleasantly surprised. Then I saw some people attacking the man, that (the way I see it) more or less defended their medium. A some in ways that where less than enlightened. This time my surprise was not so pleasant.

So I wrote a post. I tried to keep it somewhat level headed, but I was at the time actually pretty upset and that shines through. Luckily someone wrote a well thought out reply, and I am currently reevaluating my motives for writing that post. Which (funny enough) proves the point I was trying to make. ? You won?t change the mind of people attacking you point of view, but shouting at them( no matter how right you may be). Polite and sound argumentation works a lot better ?.

All that being said a largely agree with you. Parents have the main responsibility when it comes to their upbringing. But just to keep the debate going I?m going to ask this question: Does that mean that videogame companies(or movie makers or whatever) has no responsibility at all?

 

[Innegativeion]

Kid asks to buy an M rated game. "An zombie shooting game? sounds fun! go ahead, honey."

Kid asks to go see an R rated movie. "Under NO circumstances!"

Parents of the world, please, take a good hard long objective look at your stance on adult media.

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

OK, to keep the level of Quoting to a minimum, this goes out to ConvincingJohn and timeadept.

I never once said the study wasn't valid. On the contrary, I do believe that playing violent games, especially at a young age, can cause surprising and at times drastic effects on people. I have seen several studies that are just as legitimate as this one, and I agree wholeheartedly that the ratings system is doing its job, provided people actually pay attention to it.

I'll say it again, it's not the study that's the problem, it's the people who take said study out of context. A politician could look at this study, see the phrase "Violent video games can hinder children's development of empathy/sympathy", and then completely ignore the bulk of the study, but use the study all the same to try to say that Video Games are inherently bad. We have people like this in America, if not other countries as well, and it's used not just by politicians and lawyers trying to prove their cases in court, but they're used by parents the world over to try to "excuse" themselves when their child begins acting out or commit violent/criminal acts.

True gamers understand the power of our chosen media. I, for one, have known for over half a decade now that video games can cause the things so many claim, but it's a one-in-a-million thing. For a person to commit a crime or violent act because of a video game, they typically have to A. be in a negative/abusive living environment, usually for most or all of their life, and B. play the game at a level that even most gamers would see as excessive. For instance, a few years back a teenager tried stealing a car, was caught by a police officer and brought to the station. There, he stole the gun from the officer, shot him dead, proceeded to exit the station, killing another cop and wounding a third, then stealing a cop car. This person had been in dozens of abusive families over his lifetime, and before committing this crime he had clocked well over 200+ hours on GTA: San Andreas during the month prior. And yet if you look up any news blurb about this account, it will go into paragraph after paragraph over the aftermath, the scene itself, and how he played GTA, but will only have maybe a single sentence saying he had lived a shitty life.

Now, I'll end this by responding to John's question. No, I don't believe game companies are completely blameless. The industry is definitely trying to push their own content, see what they can get away with. It almost seems like some of them are blatantly trying to piss people off. But the ratings system is there for a reason. You don't see the movie ratings going into intense detail over what all is in their movies (well, if you ignore the commercials). When you see the R-Rating, you inherently know that your 6-12 year old child should probably be left home when you go see it. You don't need to be told that there's going to be gory violence and full-frontal nudity to know you probably don't want to bring your child with.

With video games, all the worst that the game has to offer is right there on the back of the box, PLUS a big, bold letter grade, but still parents let their kids play. If they see what's on the back of the box and still buy it with the express intent of letting their kids play it, then either they're gamers themselves and should have plans to hold their kid's hand as s/he disembowels thirty men on-screen, or they're just not paying attention, at which point the blame should rest solely on their shoulders. If, for whatever reason, the kid manages to sneak a few M-rated games past the parents, then once again, the blame shouldn't lie on the manufacturers, but rather the game store that willingly sold Mature material to a minor.

 

[Trasken]

I guess that explains why I want to be a lawyer....

 

[Coldster]

ummmm...ya well, no 10 year old should be playing something like Bulletstorm or CoD. Of course violent video games are going to disrupt moral learning because they're brains arn't developed enough to fully understand the difference. It's not even the kid's fault though ITS THE PARENTS YOU NEED TO PERSUADE! Jeez, why do they do these stupid studies on things we already know the answer to when they could be spending thier time on something more productive.

 

[Theclassnerd]

All responsibility should be with the parents, you can't really blame a video game for desensitizing your child completely. It's mostly irresponsible parenting, but if you don't blame companies for having an affect on your own children, then that's your personal preference, some do have a problem with video games, others don't, and know who's to blame when fights start at school, and take initiative by reassessing their own parenting methods, reasonable, and responsible parents. Also, it may not be video games and their own ideas of what their children can and cannot play, but others things, such as stress, school, or simply other media outlets providing the violent actions something to keep them going, it may be adding on to video game violence, or is solely to blame.
I myself am not even above the age of 17, but I've been playing violent video games since I was around the age of five. I've never really shown much interest in them until I was about 13 though. I'm fine! (I would hope)

 

[PlaidHatter]

The details about this test seem unclear, and the lack of a good control group also concerns me. The youth of today are desensitized for a lot of reasons, saying that video games are the sole cause is just silly.

Kids growing up in this day and age are exposed to a lot, once could even say that the nightly news desensitizes kids through its reporting of terrorist attacks, major natural disasters, etc. So by their logic, the news is causing as much damage to youth as video games, and there isn't even a rating system governing that!

I don't know if they're saying it *is* the sole cause. It looks like they're just showing that there's a significant correlation, which by no means says that it's the only thing that desensitizes kids.

 

[Direwolf750]

Everyone seems to view morals as a fixed concept. Morals are subjective to society. Saying that exposure to violent video games prevents moral learning doesn't really have a concrete definition.

I don't see your point, morals are subjective within a society, however we all live in extremely similar societies and our morals are relatively constant within them. One simply has to look at the society that the speaker is from and then they know the context within which the morals are being violated. In this case we all hold very similar views of violence, namely that it should only be used in self defense and even then only as a last resort. Yes there is variance within our societies, and members of our societies, but the norm, in reference to morals is what was being considered in this study, and so variance is irrelevant.

*edit* oh yeah, also a fixed view of morals is not an un-useful view for most people. We rarely travel outside of our society and so rarely need to consider the fact that others have different morals that are arguably no more wrong or right than ours are. It's completely understandable and in fact expected that people view morals as constants, especially within their own society. After all, I expect that it is the stability within society it's self that encouraged this idea.

The moment you walk outside your door, you enter a different society. What may be acceptable inside your house is not acceptable outside it. The differences may be small, but they are there, and that makes them different. Now as far as "extremely similar societies", quite simply, no, we don't. Any small group of people has different customs than another group. Any group you label as "weird" or "unusual" or anything else is a society that is different than your own. Now some may call these all part of the same society, and they are just outliers, but the difference is arbitrary.

You pass through many different societies on a daily basis most likely, even on your computer, there are societies on the internet. No, we do not have the same sense of right and wrong. No, we don't all share the same view on violence. And no, society is not stable. Unless you define stable as on a monthly basis. Information, technology, viewpoints, laws, morays all define society, and all are changing at a rapid pace compared to the views of many people.

And once again, touching on the differences in society, touching on a current example, natural disasters. When Hurricane Katrina hit Louisianian, there was rioting, looting, acts of violence. That is a part of the United States society, the American mindset: "looking after myself first and foremost." You may say that it doesn't count, it was a breakdown of society, but that just says that it is an unpleasant part of the society that people don't like to think about.

Now take Japan and the earthquake and tsunami. There is almost no violence, no rioting, no looting, especially compared to the US. It is rather startling how differently their society is compared to others. No, societies do not have fixed viewpoints. Any person's views are not necessarily those reflected by any other in a society, and issuing blank statements such as "moral learning" is irresponsible from a scientific perspective. It is vague, and can be easily turned any way the person using it chooses, because each society has different morals. In addition, exposing children to incredibly violent content in any form is inserting a new teacher of morals. We learn from what we experience, so any violent form of media isn't preventing "moral learning", it is simply teaching them a different set of morals contrary to the morals that the researcher thought were norms.

 

[valleyshrew]

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,"

This is not just mature rated games. Mario has violence without consequence too [http://www.gearfuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/super-mario-comic.jpg]. The ratings tend to be based on whether a game has realistic biology, sexual themes or obscene language. I think realistic biology should result in a lower rating than a game where you can just kill loads of things and they disappear afterwards. I can imagine a kid after playing mario stamping on a dog thinking it would just disappear when it died. Maybe this study will show that the idea of violence as being only with realistic biology needs to be rethought. And let's not begin to talk about whether rescuing a princess is a better narrative for a child than a game about realistic human issues.

Violence in games is no different from sport. Scoring a goal in soccer has consequences that the opponent feels bad, but is anyone going to say let's ban soccer? Games kinda have to have a loser. Maybe playing left 4 dead in co-op is a better social development learning experience for a child than playing Imagine Babyz.

It's a shame to see people advocating for parents to not let their kids play violent games. It's up to the parents to decide for themselves. I started playing Doom when I was about 7. What's immoral about shooting demons? I'm a very empathetic person. It's less harmful to shoot demons than it is to stomp on a goomba. I'd let kids play GTAIV at any age they wanted, that game has very meaningful social commentary that would actually be better for a childs development than Mario. If you actually do some parenting and don't just let them raise themselves, they will not necessarily be disrupted by adult themes in media and can actually understand and appreciate complex issues from a young age.