Study Reports Videogames and TV Make Kids Unbalanced

[PurplePlatypus]

Unbalanced?
Ok, so it isn?t caused by books or doing homework so it can?t be any sort of social awkwardness or anxiety related with not interacting enough with people as you grow up. So what is it and what spastically about tv or videogames is it that causes whatever it is?

 

[Booze Zombie]

I love vague research like this, it reminds me of the old days of psychology.
"You have mother issues, shut up!"

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Recent study showed that kids that didn't run had a higher chance of being handicapped. Kids that played video games and watched TV had a lower chance of having a physical accident.

 

[minarri]

For the last time people, correlation does not equal causation.

Sure psychological problems and video gaming/TV watching are correlated but that does not necessitate one of the two causing the other. Christ.

 

[joshuaayt]

"Psychological Difficulties"... Huh?

What are we talking here? I need clarification on what flavour rapist monster I'm apparantly going to turn into, thanks to videogames, according to this latest study.

 

[Merkavar]

i call bull crap on that study.

 

[smeghead25]

Ugh. Ok, so what if the kids' predisposition to unbalanaced behaviour is the reason they play videogames as opposed to going out and doing physical activities? What if their parents couldn't be assed playing with them or taking them to meet other children when they were young and as a result the kids had to find their own way to entertain themselves and they didn't learn to socialise as well as most other kids? That explains the 'unbalanced' behaviour AND why they play videogames more than the other kids.

And it also just goes to show how much these sorts of experiments are open to interpretation and bias.

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

The smell pseudo-science and ambiguous bias is thick in the air of this so called "study". The details are stretched so thin its cellophane, not to mention the utter lack of proper procedure to ensure accurate results.

 

[smeghead25]

Yeah, saw this article on CNN. Not too impressed, to be quite honest.

It's the typical correlation-causation issue that I'm sure many have hammered over and over enough already. Seriously, what evidence suggests that things aren't the other way around?

Everyone here is bashing the study for its use of the word "unbalanced", but no aspect of the study that was quoted in the article uses the word. The word "unbalanced " is never used in the linked article.

We gamers are of course going to defend games against the encroach of people who don't understand them, but come on. Everyone's saying that the study's "psychological issues" are bogus and that "psychological issues" may draw more kids to screens. That's fine; that might be true. But I can't see it being the only reason, not with so many people being studied. They can't all be emotionally disturbed or whatever. I see no problem with this study. It may actually have some truth to it for once.

To address antipunt's causation argument, and to echo Zetona's "so what" regarding same:

Okay, maybe it is the case that video games just seem to draw people with psychological issues... Seems to me that's still a reason to limit their time. Bars don't create alcoholics, they just enable them--but we still keep alcoholics AWAY from bars for that reason. If these kids with these issues are turning to video games, it's likely because some aspect of the video game ties intimately into their issues.

But, that said, the study seems to be well-conducted. Yes, there are a bajillion variables out there, but ANY responsible study will do its best to isolate one at a time. And those who disagree with the finding will simply say, "Well, what about all the other possible variables?" That's like saying, "Sure, the pool of gas could have caused the fire, but what about all the other things around that are also flammable?" Doesn't change the fact that evidence points to the former being a more immediate danger than the latter.

Exactly what I was thinking. Good to see someone not immediately jumping on the "rigged study" bandwagon just because it says there may be a problem caused by videogames/TV/computer/whatever. As you've said, the facts indicate there is a problem somewhere, and it needs addressing, simply ignoring it because it says something negative about video games and modern media isn't going to help that.

If a study isn't going to consider the other possiblities then it's not worth undertaking. Because then you just end up with opinion supported by some of the available facts. Using the flammable things analogy, if there's a some gun powder there as well as gas then which one's to blame? If there's two possible causes of unbalanced behaviour then they should be looking at both of them rather than just one of them and drawing conclusions off that. Yes the gas could have started the fire, but an irresponsible parent with a cigarette butt could have done so as well.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Im not inbalenced and if anyone say that i swear i will cut them >={

*facepalm*

OT: Heard this shit before. It's not getting any better.

 

[junkmanuk]

I don't think it takes a genius to see how children can become withdrawn and anti-social through interacting purely with games.

I've always tried to be careful to ensure my son (mainly, I have a daughter who is less interested) doesn't spend every minute in front of the idiot box. If he was allowed he'd be consumed by it from morning till night.

 

[secretsantaone]

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Dastardly]

It's not that "video games" that draw people with psychological problems. It's that people with problems will find a way to cope. People will ALWAYS attempt to find a way to cope. Coincidentally it happened to be video games and TV here and the study seemed to imediatelly draw the conclusion that video games were the reason.

This is because you're reading this on a video gaming website. No other reason. Both are forms of entertainment that, by and large, require little to no investment from the participant. You sit and are entertained with occasional button clicks.

But to go to your original point--yes, of course, people use a wide variety of things to cope with whatever they need to cope with. Video games are certainly among them--it is, after all, why this website is the ESCAPIST. But you're not looking any deeper into the issue from an understanding of clinical and practical psychology, especially as it pertains to learning:

a) This is illuminating the possibility that screen-as-coping-buddy is a problem at this crucial developmental stage. Rather than developing COPING mechanisms, these children are being herded toward AVOIDANCE mechanisms--which are completely different things. As a result, they are not developing the necessary coping skills, and the lack of these skills manifests as a problem. It isn't the entertainment CAUSING the problem, but it could be FACILITATING the problem.

b) The same effect was not noticed on students who spent large amounts of time reading or studying, even if they weren't being socially active. Reading is a form of entertainment that demands more investment from the participant--you are not GIVEN images and sounds, but rather have to imagine them yourself, make inferences, and otherwise supplement the given materials. This process does help to develop (in some children) important and healthy coping mechanisms--though some literature, like the games/TV, also enables avoidant behaviors.

Like I've said before, they did not take in account any other factor. Was the child experiencing any mental problems? Was the kid socially active? Does he have a good relationship with his parents? Is he bullied? This is just a part of the factors that need to be taken into account before concluding that video games and TV are the reason for a child being "unbalanced". And what the hell does being "unbalanced" mean? The study uses such vague terms it's impossible to deduce what the conclusion really means.

Source?

I could get the same results by making a study about alcoholics and then conclude that alcohol is the reason they're unhappy. Of course, I COULD reach that conclusion but if I take into account other factors, like WHY they're drinking, the study would reach a whole other conclusion. Yes, alcohol is a factor but the REASON they started drinking in the first place would shed light as to why that alcoholic is what he/she is. If a kid is unhappy and uses food as a way to cope with that, is food the reason the kid is unhappy?

And that's all they're saying with this study. Whether it's because the video games "lead to" the psychological problems, or because the video games interrupt a child's ability to be "lead away" from the problems, the TV/video games are now under greater scrutiny for their effect on DEVELOPING minds.

Yes, alcoholics drink for reasons other than alcohol itself. But does that mean it should be okay to continue the drinking, if it's contributing to the cycle? Chicken, egg, it doesn't matter which one started it. One of the best steps to take is recognizing what is enabling the behavior and phasing it out.

Video games and TV are fantastic and great, and I love them. I'm also a grown man in good psychological and intellectual health holding down a steady job and meaningful relationships with the people around me. As a kid, my parents limited my screen time--they didn't forbid it, they just didn't let me park there for hours on end every day.

And your comparation makes no sense. There was no immediate correlation that video games caused mental problems. Sorry, children being "unbalanced". What the study found out was that in the group that they studied, children who played video games and watched TV for more than 2 hours a day seemed to be "unbalanced" or whatever the fuck that means. You didn't disprove anything. Correlation does not imply causation.

No one here has given any indication they believe correlation signifies causation. They're simply saying that this correlation warrants further investigation because of how specifically it seems to revolve around screen entertainment. Taking the knee-jerk reaction against it simply because it speaks less-than-favorably about your chosen entertainment medium doesn't accomplish anything useful.

I like coffee, but that doesn't mean my kids should have it. As adults, many of us like porn. That doesn't mean we should let our KIDS spend hours with it every day. Some things are just not good at certain stages of development, and this might be pointing us toward some interesting facts about how current trends in TV/gaming are affecting the development of our kids.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

This is illuminating the possibility that screen-as-coping-buddy is a problem at this crucial developmental stage. Rather than developing COPING mechanisms, these children are being herded toward AVOIDANCE mechanisms--which are completely different things. As a result, they are not developing the necessary coping skills, and the lack of these skills manifests as a problem. It isn't the entertainment CAUSING the problem, but it could be FACILITATING the problem.

Then resolve the original problem.

The same effect was not noticed on students who spent large amounts of time reading or studying, even if they weren't being socially active. Reading is a form of entertainment that demands more investment from the participant--you are not GIVEN images and sounds, but rather have to imagine them yourself, make inferences, and otherwise supplement the given materials. This process does help to develop (in some children) important and healthy coping mechanisms--though some literature, like the games/TV, also enables avoidant behaviors.

How do you know they weren't being socially active? How do you know they had problems in the first place? Maybe most children use TV and Computers way more often as "coping mechanisms" rather than homework and studying.

Source?

Source for what? The study concluded that children are unbalanced if they do A and B.

Yes, alcoholics drink for reasons other than alcohol itself. But does that mean it should be okay to continue the drinking, if it's contributing to the cycle? Chicken, egg, it doesn't matter which one started it. One of the best steps to take is recognizing what is enabling the behavior and phasing it out.

Or maybe tackling the problem that made them drink in the first place. Resolve that and I'm fairly sure they won't have a reason to drink anymore.

Video games and TV are fantastic and great, and I love them. I'm also a grown man in good psychological and intellectual health holding down a steady job and meaningful relationships with the people around me. As a kid, my parents limited my screen time--they didn't forbid it, they just didn't let me park there for hours on end every day

Good for your parents. But this study is basically finding scapegoats for bad parents. "Your child has problems? No worries, it's because video games and TV increase the risk of that". Your parents payed attention to you and listened to your problems instead of parking you infront of a TV and hope you grow yourself up. Delve into this deeper and you'll see the reason for the "unbalance" isn't because children spend to much time on TV or computers, it's because parents don't pay attention to them. Raise your child and stop using TV and computers as "nanny's".

I like coffee, but that doesn't mean my kids should have it. As adults, many of us like porn. That doesn't mean we should let our KIDS spend hours with it every day. Some things are just not good at certain stages of development, and this might be pointing us toward some interesting facts about how current trends in TV/gaming are affecting the development of our kids.

Maybe TV isn't the reason. Maybe parents for not paying enough attention to their kids. Maybe the fact that most parents today care more about their job than their child. Who knows. Either way, you need to delve deeper into the problem before an actual correlation is found.

 

[Dastardly]

I really think if you read through what I'm saying here, you're going to find we don't really disagree. You're just being a bit reactionary about this perceived targeting of video games.

This is illuminating the possibility that screen-as-coping-buddy is a problem at this crucial developmental stage. Rather than developing COPING mechanisms, these children are being herded toward AVOIDANCE mechanisms--which are completely different things. As a result, they are not developing the necessary coping skills, and the lack of these skills manifests as a problem. It isn't the entertainment CAUSING the problem, but it could be FACILITATING the problem.

Then resolve the original problem.

Yes, of course. And in the meantime, remove the enablers. Just like with an alcoholic, you need to treat the underlying depression... but you also want them to stop drinking in the meantime to allow the treatment to work. Treating a problem like this is uncomfortable as a process, and it is daunting. You want to be sure to remove those things that could be posing direct opposition (or, at best, distraction) from the process.

Or maybe tackling the problem that made them drink in the first place. Resolve that and I'm fairly sure they won't have a reason to drink anymore.

I'm not sure you understand the science and psychology of addiction. Addiction is a behavior that is largely separate from the subject of the addiction. At first, a psychological problem leads a person to try some usually-destructive behavior. This will become the subject of the addiction--smoking, video games, porn, whatever. And at first, they engage in the behavior to avoid the negative stimulus... and that provides them comfort for awhile.

Over time, that dynamic shifts. The mind makes the connection, cuts out the middle man, and now the subject begins to provide the comfort directly, while the conscious mind is completely ignoring the original negative stimulus. The person has conditioned himself to crave the subject, wholly separate from the original reason. That is the very essence of addiction.

Just fixing the underlying problem, while extremely important, isn't going to reverse that conditioning. The battle has to be fought on both fronts simultaneously. Fix the issue, so the issue doesn't pop up again, or simply change subjects (I was addicted to sex, now I'm addicted to crack), and at the same time reverse the conditioning surrounding the subject of the addiction.

But this study is basically finding scapegoats for bad parents. "Your child has problems? No worries, it's because video games and TV increase the risk of that". Your parents payed attention to you and listened to your problems instead of parking you infront of a TV and hope you grow yourself up. Delve into this deeper and you'll see the reason for the "unbalance" isn't because children spend to much time on TV or computers, it's because parents don't pay attention to them. Raise your child and stop using TV and computers as "nanny's".

I disagree. I think this study is doing the exact opposite--it is TELLING parents "Your child has these problems because YOU are letting them sit in front of the screen all day." The original articles even admonish parents to "pull the plug." It is working to encourage accountability in parents--telling them to take ownership over what their children use as entertainment.

What you are saying is true, and parents often use these nannies to keep the kids occupied in another room. This study is reinforcing the idea that this is a bad thing for the kids. The ones finding scapegoats are the psychologists that call everything a "genetic chemical imbalance." These folks are focusing on the things parents can (and should) control.

Maybe TV isn't the reason. Maybe parents for not paying enough attention to their kids. Maybe the fact that most parents today care more about their job than their child. Who knows. Either way, you need to delve deeper into the problem before an actual correlation is found.

Yes. Exactly. And this study is going after those parents. It's letting them know that 'parenting' is more than just 'giving your kids better toys and diversions than the other parents.' It's telling parents that they NEED to be more involved in keeping an eye on what their kids do in their free time. This study is on your side... it just happens to have offended you by appearing to target video games (even though it actually doesn't).

You need to go ahead and read the study, or at least the full article about it. The article itself doesn't cover the methodology they've used to account for the "other variables" that could factor in, and that's important information to have. But so far you've made several accusations about what this study did or didn't do, but you haven't presented any evidence that you've read the study. You've read part of an article about an article about the study, sure, but that's not going to cover the rigorous methods used in performing the study. Go ahead and find a link and read it, you may be surprised.

 

[Beeple]

Lol correlation.
Move along people really nothing to see here. A correlation can be drawn "conclusively" between absolutely any two variables as such it means -very little- if anything at all

 

[Jamieson 90]

I think a better method for the study would have been Overt Observation of the kids whilst also interviewing them and their parents over a long period of time. It would also be good to know what the relationships are like between the kids and their parents.

For example how much time do their parents interact with them? How many hours do their parents work? Where do the kids live? What is their academic work like at school? How old are they and what gender/sex? Is studying kids entering pubity a good idea? Would it not be better to study a bunch of 8-10 year olds instead and thats what made them down and depressed?

Did the reseacher consider the question of why the kids watch TV and play games? All I' am saying is that the study does not seem to consider other possiblities or factors for why the kids might be effected. Another good question is what did they watch? Was it something they normally watch and enjoy or a set program that they might find boring? Could it be that the kids who watched more were simply bored?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Well the fact that it is done on children without it being done on the children before they had said screen time (ie say a year without comp and tv) to a year with screen time. Nor this elaborate on any damage caused at least according to the article it is very vague. Also it does not say whether any of these kids showed any psychological imbalances before hand. I am a bit wary the way that the results were so consistant and general accross all ages groups and sexes. This is does not seem right to me given how the male and female mind and brain develop so different.

 

[TLatshaw]

I'd like to see a study on the psychological effects of "screen time" on adults. If a few hours of TV or games per day is bad, 8 hours of staring at spreadsheets has to be lethal!

That avatar brings back so many memories...

In relation to the thread, what about those hours students spend behind a computer screen nowadays huh?

Fair enough! You can't just dismiss all this inactivity because it's not in our more "formative years."

 

[Bobzer77]

This should definitely give the tabloids something to write about when I suddenly explode and slaughter everyone I know.

Or maybe not, because this study is bullshit.