Violent Video Games Study "Contains Numerous Flaws"
Researchers take a weak standpoint on games and violence
This guy never played GTA in his life.
A new review of studies into the link between games and violence "strongly suggests" that playing violent games increases aggressive thoughts and behaviour while decreasing empathy. The results hold "regardless of research design, gender, age or culture", apparently. The study's lead researcher, Craig Anderson, doesn't seem up for taking a very strong stance on the subject, however.
The Montral Gazette reports that Anderson notes that his team, “never said it’s a huge effect. But if you look at known risk factors for the development of aggression and violence, some are bigger than media violence and some are smaller." He added that if there are no other risk factors in a child's life and they start playing violent games, they won't suddenly become a school shooter.
He does helpfully point out that games are an easy factor to manage in a child's life. That's in comparison to other things such as, say, abusive parents, social conditions, natural temperament and what's on telly. Another way you might put it is that games are a handy scapegoat.
The review takes in studies covering 130,000 gamers ranging from elementary school age to university level in the U.S., Europe and Japan. The report will be published today in Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association.
Anderson, the aforementioned lead researcher, is the "Distinguished Professor & Director, Center for the Study of Violence" over at Iowa State University in the US. Anderson, you might just recall, has proved 'conclusively' in the past that there is a link between games and violence. Given such conclusive proof, it's a wonder he needed to do any more research on the subject at all. More from Anderson here.
While the researchers' conclusion might not be a particularly strong one on this occasion, there's still been a spot of cold water poured on the study itself. Christopher Ferguson, an associate professor at Texas A&M International University in Laredo, Texas, USA, said in a critique accompanying the study that the analysis “contains numerous flaws.” This, he said, combined with effects that are "generally very low", adds up to the study “overestimating the influence” of violent games on levels of aggression.
The Montral Gazette reports that Anderson notes that his team, “never said it’s a huge effect. But if you look at known risk factors for the development of aggression and violence, some are bigger than media violence and some are smaller." He added that if there are no other risk factors in a child's life and they start playing violent games, they won't suddenly become a school shooter.
He does helpfully point out that games are an easy factor to manage in a child's life. That's in comparison to other things such as, say, abusive parents, social conditions, natural temperament and what's on telly. Another way you might put it is that games are a handy scapegoat.
The review takes in studies covering 130,000 gamers ranging from elementary school age to university level in the U.S., Europe and Japan. The report will be published today in Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association.
Anderson, the aforementioned lead researcher, is the "Distinguished Professor & Director, Center for the Study of Violence" over at Iowa State University in the US. Anderson, you might just recall, has proved 'conclusively' in the past that there is a link between games and violence. Given such conclusive proof, it's a wonder he needed to do any more research on the subject at all. More from Anderson here.
While the researchers' conclusion might not be a particularly strong one on this occasion, there's still been a spot of cold water poured on the study itself. Christopher Ferguson, an associate professor at Texas A&M International University in Laredo, Texas, USA, said in a critique accompanying the study that the analysis “contains numerous flaws.” This, he said, combined with effects that are "generally very low", adds up to the study “overestimating the influence” of violent games on levels of aggression.
Comments
deleted 1 Mar 2010 14:01
1/4
come on ffs, every study is flawed in some way or another, after i have just completed an essay for psychology on this exact subject, and there is vast amount of evidence that violent games can have an effect on a child`s mental health, as so can movies and books, the difference being that immersion in video games is far more real than movies or books, the point should be not if it does or doesn't, but how do we stop kids getting hold of violent games, and yes 90% lay with the parents but lets also look at the other 10%, and before I get shot, there is also a lot of positive evidence towards children playing games, ie sonic, Mario etc. not AVP or Silent Hill. this subject is soooo boring now, gamers defend something they have no evidence to defend with and the rest or society slams it with no evidence, the point should be just dont let the kids play this s**t!
stealth 2 Mar 2010 11:31
2/4
right lets sort this, there is no link whatsoever to any violent behaviour to video agames. If the child is going to grow up as violent becasue of an outside influence then they will and the video games will still be blamed. Violence has been in human nature for millions of years, a hundred years ago we still ahd murders and wars, we didnt have any video games back then. Yes its true video games do show violence and fair enoguh it could influence the child a miniscule amount but not any more than television can. I ahve been playing what people would call violent video games since i was 6 years old, Im now 18 and I havent got a violent disposition. I dont go around shouting and bashing everything against the wall. They need to learn that everyone will react to stress and other emotional imbalances differently, rthis is were the violence actually drevies from. So in short dont blame video games!!1
more comments below our sponsor's message
deleted 2 Mar 2010 20:43
3/4
not sure if you were in reply to me or just the story, but there's lots of evidence of effects on mental health, but yes it relates to Movie and TV too
A child watching TV for more than 4 hours a day aged between 2 and 13 can have a vast difficulty in developing, language skills and reading body language.
the point i was making was we should concentrate on keeping the games out of kids hands rather than prove it harms them, that way it doesn't really matter either way.
another point according to Journal of Educational Psychology: Feldman & Elliott, 1990. a adolescent brain is so until the age of 21! which brings into question is an 18 rating OK?
there's loads of things wrong with both sides of the argument, so lets just play it safe eh! im over 21 so i can play COD:MW2 with my fully developed Brain, which was developed by my spectrum and amiga!
A child watching TV for more than 4 hours a day aged between 2 and 13 can have a vast difficulty in developing, language skills and reading body language.
the point i was making was we should concentrate on keeping the games out of kids hands rather than prove it harms them, that way it doesn't really matter either way.
another point according to Journal of Educational Psychology: Feldman & Elliott, 1990. a adolescent brain is so until the age of 21! which brings into question is an 18 rating OK?
there's loads of things wrong with both sides of the argument, so lets just play it safe eh! im over 21 so i can play COD:MW2 with my fully developed Brain, which was developed by my spectrum and amiga!
WhiteKlaw 1 Apr 2010 07:27
4/4
Haritori just on the question of whether an 18 rating is Ok when the brain is still developing. I just like to say if a 18 year old is able to be serverly and adversly affected by violent media then Human beings are a truly pathetic species indeed I mean come on whether or not the brain has finished developing an 18 year old still has enough maturity to handle it. God we'll make an 18 year old go to war when it suits us but God forbid we should let him think for himself.