Study Finds "Moral Learning" is Disrupted by Violent Games

[Hydro14]

I would truly like to know a bit more about this study. The query has already been raised of how they gained their results. If the reaction of the subjects was measured based by showing them images or films of violence it would suggest that they were desensitized to violence in media, not necessarily violence in general.

Also, based on the words in the article: "frequent exposure to game violence has an impact on a child's perception that some kinds of violence are acceptable" is anyone else reading that this scientist is a total pacifist with an axe to grind?

 

[Frankster]

What if children who lack empathy just want to play games that match their way of thinking? This means it's from the child itself, not the game.

That's an interesting hypothesis actually and worthy of exploring as a followup to this experiment.

Speaking of which can we get a link to the experiment or at the very least its abstract?
LOL at people playing the science card or trying to show off their scientifical knowledge(or lack thereof) by criticizing a study for which we have no details on.

Seriously, it's awesome to report the outcome of experiments, but all we get is the headline grabbing results without even the context or commentary of the researcher who might have come to specific conclusions and explanations of the limitations/strength of the study.

 

[Frankster]

Also, based on the words in the article: "frequent exposure to game violence has an impact on a child's perception that some kinds of violence are acceptable" is anyone else reading that this scientist is a total pacifist with an axe to grind?

See Bandura's doll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment
Young children imitate what they see and their morality is based more on punishment/avoiding punishment then later concepts of morality.
It seems a valid theory to think that a child who frequently sees an act of violence without there being negative repercussions or worst, being glorified, might get the perception that the kind of violence depicted is acceptable.

 

[Zay-el]

I've heard of a very nice, so far hidden, but blooming idea that might fix this problem. It's called PARENTING.

I have no sympathy for anyone decrying violent games, because they allegedly ruin your child. YOU ARE THE PARENT, ACT LIKE IT.

 

[Uszi]

I think that if you're letting your seven year old play violent games -- good lord, that's like, 1st or 2nd graders -- then you're reaping what you fucking sewed.

I imagine that a lot of parents feel pressured by their children to allow them to play "cool" violent games when they are too young. But tough shit -- being a parent involves saying no to your kids, especially because they are often unaware of what's really in their best interests.

I wasn't allowed to play M-Rated games until I was in Highschool, and even then my parents went out of their way to disapprove of my in game actions.

 

[Wolfram23]

Make your kids watch Star Trek The Next Generation instead of playing M rated games. They'll learn a thing or two about morality then, without having to soil your free time with teaching your kids how to be good people...

 

[Alar]

And that's why parents make sure their children understand that the violence in video games is fake, pretend, not real. Real violence is messy, painful, and full of consequences.

Make your kids watch Star Trek The Next Generation instead of playing M rated games. They'll learn a thing or two about morality then, without having to soil your free time with teaching your kids how to be good people...

Can't they do both? Of course, when I was a kid, the only M rated game I ever played was Diablo.

I mean really, Diablo? M rated? Yes, the mutilated corpses were gruesome, but the only thing I can think that made the rating go up (IN AMERICA!!!) was that the succubi were topless. Gasp, poorly pixelated breasts! Whatever shall we do?!

 

[KiraTaureLor]

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

Most of the boys that do play these games, will usually rarely be exposed, or be part of any violence out in the real world, the reason they are desensitized is because they never experience violence in their real lives.

Just a thought.

 

[gphjr14]

The argument really holds no merit given that the study group is below the recommended age by the ERSB or respective game ratings. Companies put everything from "drug use" to "gambling" on the back of cases. If parents are too lazy/incompetent to read the back and properly assess whether they want their child to be exposed to that content really have no grounds to ***** when their underage child emulates what they see on TV or in a game.

Annnnd that's totally besides the point. The study is about the effects of the games, once they've been wrongfully acquired. By your reasoning, we shouldn't examine the effects of alcohol and smoking on kids, either.

Annnnd the studies been done before, obviously since countries have already set ages for which content is appropriate to be exposed to. Also aside from wine most alcohol and smoking has a bad effect on any age group.

 

[punipunipyo]

okok...

first of all, get the hell off Bulletstorm's back!~ I enjoyed that game, it's fun, so STFU!

Second... Kids are NOT supposed to watch/play M-rated games! this is NOT the creator's(developer, artists)fault! it's like telling us "Hey! Hentai anime/game/manga are evil! they will turn our young children in to rapist! Therefor they should get banned!" well... these things are NOT made for kids! they are made for US! damn, shut the hell up already! blame the (retarded) "not ready parents", "money comes before moral" game shops, and stupid "we sell M-for teens games" (AKA"your mom will hate it" ADs from stupid companies that decided that it was funny to make it look like they are selling to kids...)

Third, it's okay to be desensitized, it's better than going insane the first time you see a dead person, leaving a scar for life, right? "violence? no consequences?" this is actually being adjusted in the games now, with the implemented "moral systems", "karma", good/evil meter...etc for more immerse experiences... Choice/Rewards should always go with the model: good people suffers, and have to work harder, bad people finds easy answers to overcome short-term problems, the end, good people will receive grace, will bad, will have to pay their dues...(each situations differs)

Fourth, violent video games don't promote violence! I played Duke Nukem when I was like 14!!! I played countless violence games prior to that one earlier! but in real life, I am a passive; I was Considered as nerd, geek, easy going, and perhaps easy target for bullying! by Chinese FOBS! I was taller than 80% of the people in my school, and yet, other than a few "nerd rage", I have nothing more than grade issues as school problem! (of corse, I haven't played "manhunt", but played mad-world/condammed/bullet storm, DeadSpace1/2 ..and such to the death!)

Fifth, I didn't get more violence, but my literature did suffer dramatically! I notice how much my vocabulary of English had becoming limited, and how my profanities had increased, not just the knowledge (or pile), but the frequency as well! BY A LOT~ it's the mind set, I am now trying to "fix" this issue by playing games such as "dragon age", to experience some thing less "Bulletstorm-y" so next time I speak to a (because I works at an after school) kid, I don't spam "shit", "dick" or "fuck"... (not that it happened...yet...I could soooo get fired for bad word usage...), yeh, this is the only problem i see so far, and I DO hope the future game dev, and script writers can take more creative approach than the shock factors of the word "FUCK" to show character, maybe this is a good topic for "extracreditz" episodes, the episode where they can talk about "language in games"!

 

[Clunks]

I don't really have a problem with this. Very young children shouldn't be playing M-rated games. Does anyone (aside from perhaps some of those children themselves) think that they should?

Me. Because if the next generation don't play M-rated games, how will they know what to do when Skynet takes over.

 

[geizr]

Videogames have ratings for a reason, and, if a seven-year-old is playing Bulletstorm, I think what we're really looking at is not a problem with videogames but a problem with parenting.

Just want to throw my hat of emphasis also on that last sentence, as it is the single most critically important, rational, and mature statement that could ever be made regarding video games and children. Ultimately, a parent has to actually be a parent, not pass the buck.

(Quoted statement was edited for grammar; the commas were misplaced and were creating a run-on sentence.)

 

[Feralbreed]

>"Videogames have ratings for a reason and if a seven-year-old is playing Bulletstorm, I think what we're really looking at is not a problem with videogames, but a problem with parenting."

Fucking thread ended right where it began.


Somewhere out there, there is a seven year old playing GTA. You know it to be true.

 

[A Curious Fellow]

Am I the only one who feels that a study with the term "moral learning" as a set parameter could not possibly be useful and objective? It's an ultimately subjective term, you can't test for it scientifically. No way.

 

[samsonguy920]

No, parents not doing their job leads to desensitizing in children.

Seriously, this is just one more bit of evidence that college actually makes you more STUPID!

 

[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.