Do Violent Media Make Viewers 'Comfortably Numb'?

from the and-if-so,-does-it-matter dept

A few people have been sending in the news of a recently published study from two professors who have a long history of publishing anti-video game research. The study looked at how people reacted to staged violence after playing violent and non-violent video games -- and the "headline" version of the results of the study is that violent media makes viewers "comfortably numb" to the pain of others. That's the story being pitched by the professor. Basically, the story is that those who watched violent movies or played violent video games responded to the staged violence slower than those that interacted with non-violent media.

Except... the more you think about it and the more you look at the details the less this seems interesting. The speed with which people respond to a staged violent incident (and for the first part of the video game trials, the researchers admit that many subjects admitted they didn't believe the staged fight seemed real, so they had to make it seem "more real") isn't indicative of very much at all. It certainly says nothing about how long that slowness to respond will last, or if there's any real impact to it. The "violence" people had to respond to hardly seemed particularly critical for fast response time (someone twisted an ankle after a fight about a girl or boy that someone liked). Furthermore, left out of the press release version is the fact that very few of either group of video game players actually helped. 21% of the violent video game players got up to help, but only 25% of the non-violent video game players got up to help.

There was a second experiment as well, that involved participants watching a violent movie -- and, as they walked out, witnessing a woman with her foot and ankle wrapped up drop a pair of crutches, and "struggle" to pick them up. The researchers tout that people who had just watched a violent movie were slower to react and help, but the numbers aren't exactly staggering. Those who had watched a non-violent movie helped in an average of 5.46 seconds. Those who had watched a violent movie helped in an average of 6.89 seconds. Damn slackers. Yes, the vast difference is less than a second and a half... though, the researchers are quick to play up a 26% longer time to help.

While this study makes for a great headline for the anti-violent movie and video game crowd, the details suggest much ado about nothing.

Filed Under: research, violent video games

California Video Game Law, Once Again, Found Unconstitutional

from the try-try-again dept

Some California politicians keep running into a pesky obstacle: The US Constitution. Despite court after court across the country finding bans on sales of violent video games to minors to be unconstitutional, "think of the children" politicians continue to try and implement them. In California, legislators passed such a ban and, predictably, it got tossed out by a court. Led by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state appealed the ban to an appeals court, which -- you guessed it -- has ruled that it's unconstitutional. But the bill's author is undeterred. He wants the state to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court and waste more of the cash-strapped state's resources to find out what we already know, but apparently bears repeating: these video game bans are unconstitutional.

Filed Under: bans, california, constitutional, violent video games

Latest Study On Violent Video Games Shows More Aggressive Behavior

from the but-how-much? dept

We've seen plenty of studies on the impacts of violent video games, whose results were later blown out of proportion in the media. When you looked at the actual details of the studies that were often purported to show a link between violent video games and real world violence, the so-called link almost always disappeared. Instead, what you found was that playing violent video games did make kids more emotional, which is what you would expect. While playing an exciting game, who wouldn't get caught up in the action? That doesn't mean they'd go out and hurt people, though. Some studies showed immediate aggressive behavior immediately after playing, but, again, that's rather reasonable as they probably have increased adrenalin flowing. But that's hardly a sign that they're going to go hurt people, and the effect doesn't last very long. Other studies have shown that kids who play such games get desensitized to images of violence -- which again makes sense, but still doesn't mean that they think violence is acceptable. It just means they're not shocked when they see it.

The latest study may be the most interesting (and, perhaps, controversial), however. It actually tries to account for much of this and tries to measure aggressive behavior of violent video game players months later. The study found that kids who spent more time playing more violent games, did in fact get more aggressive over time, even accounting for how aggressive they were at the beginning of the study. There are some questionable aspects to the study, such as using self-reporting to determine "violent acts," but on the whole this study does appear to be at least marginally more convincing than earlier studies, and, at the very least suggests further areas that should be studied.

Of course, nowhere does it explain why, if the study's findings are true, youth violence has decreased significantly over the same period of time that violent video games have become much more popular. If violent video games really made people consistently more violent, you'd expect to see that increase. And, if that number is not increasing, then you have to wonder if any reported increase in youth violence is even at a level that matters. If there's a marginal increase in aggressive behavior that doesn't lead to any increase in illegal behavior, is that really an issue? Also, when compared with another recent study that shows it's the small percentage of kids who don't play video games who are more likely to actually get in trouble, it makes you wonder if there are some completely independent factors at work here, rather than any direct correlation between violent video games and real world violence.

Filed Under: research, violent video games

Governator Wasting More CA Taxpayer Money On Unconstitutional Violent Video Game Ban

from the terminate-this-wasteful-spending dept

At last count, at least 10 states had passed laws banning the sale or rental of violent video games to children, and every single one of them has been thrown out as unconstitutional. At this point, any state that passes such a law is knowingly throwing away taxpayer money to defend the law in court -- and, for the most part they're doing it to pander to the electorate, so they can talk about how they "protected the children" despite more and more evidence that violent video games aren't a threat to kids.

Perhaps the most bizarre of all of these state laws is the one in California, where our governor starred in numerous violent films. Yet, Schwarzenegger has been at the forefront of supporting this law. After a lower court followed all those other states in throwing out the law as unconstitutional, the Schwarzenegger administration quickly appealed, and the new case is set to begin this week, with most noting that it's unlikely that California will somehow buck the trend and get the law approved. Instead, we get a waste of taxpayer money (in a state that's going bankrupt) so that an action hero of a ton of violent films can claim he's "protecting the children" from viewing a little show violence.

Filed Under: bans, california, constitutional, violent video games

Congress Follows States' Lead In Trying To Ban Stores From Selling Violent Video Games To Kids

from the let's-see-how-far-this-one-gets dept

At least 10 states have tried to ban the sale of violent video games to kids, and in each and every case, the laws have been found to be unconstitutional. Yet that doesn't stop state governments from trying... and apparently the politicians at the federal level (election year!) want in on the action too. They're proposing a bill that doesn't exactly ban the sale (which is probably how they hope to get around the Constitution questions) but which requires stores to ask for an ID as well as to post details about the ESRB ratings. This seems like yet another "protect the children" political move by politicians up for re-election. But, it's becoming increasingly clear that these types of laws aren't necessary, no matter what constitutional questions they may raise. Beyond the absolute lack of evidence concerning problems from kids playing violent video games, it appears that the industry has taken care of the problem by itself. Self-regulation by stores has resulted in a significant decrease in underage kids being able to buy mature video games. But don't let facts get in the way of those pushing for these types of laws. They're applauding the new bill, just as they demonstrate that they don't even understand what they're campaigning against.

Filed Under: age limits, congress, violent video games

EU Tells Videogame Industry To Protect Children; Doesn't Explain From What

from the disconnect dept

Just as even more research is coming out showing the lack of any evidence that playing violent video games leads to violent activities, it appears that EU politicians have decided that they don't care about the facts, but will simply go with the false fears that the video games are dangerous. The EU has now warned the industry that it needs to come up with a way to keep the games out of the hands of kids, within the next two years. At least that's better than just coming out with a new law, but it does seem misguided (especially given the evidence). Besides, what's wrong with parents determining what's okay for their kids to play?

Filed Under: eu, europe, protect the children, violent video games

Turns Out It's The Kids Who Don't Play Video Games Who Are Most At Risk

from the well,-look-at-that dept

Time and time again we see headlines blaring out about how dangerous violent video games are, with politicians insisting they need to do something to "protect the children." However, every time you look closely at the research, you discover there's no real evidence that violent video games lead to violent behavior. At best, the research appears to show that violent video games makes kids emotional and excited (which... er... is what they're supposed to do) and that might lead to very slightly more aggressive behavior for a very short time. And, of course, the most damning evidence against the claim that violent video games leads to more violence is that violent crimes keep dropping as violent video games get more popular. Video gaming site Kotaku is highlighting a video interview of two Harvard professors who have written a book called Grand Theft Childhood that reviews plenty of the previously done research, as well as contributes additional research. Most of their findings support exactly what we've noticed. The previous studies don't really show an impact. But, the most interesting point is made towards the end of the video interview. In looking at boys who are more "at risk" of getting into trouble, it's the ones who don't play video games at all who show a statistically significant greater likelihood of getting into trouble, suggesting that playing video games is part of a boy's normal social setting. To be fair, the study also found that kids who played almost exclusively violent or mature video games for very long periods of time were also more at risk -- though, with no evidence of causality.

Filed Under: harvard, research, violent video games

The Constitution Still Doesn't Let States Stop Kids From Buying Video Games

from the for-those-who-weren't-paying-attention-the-first-dozen-times dept

Again? State after state after state has passed laws that ban the sale of certain video games to children, and time after time after time those laws are struck down as unconstitutional. Not a single one has passed muster, and yet court time and taxpayer money is wasted over and over again on these same issues, with at least 10 states having gone through the same process with the same results. States cannot ban the sale of video games to children. It's a violation of the First Amendment. This does not mean that stores themselves can't make such a policy, just as movie theaters have voluntarily (not based on a law) agreed not to let kids see movies of certain ratings. But to pass a law is unconstitutional. A lower court in Minnesota made that clear in 2006 -- but it didn't stop the politicians from appealing... and losing. Yes, a federal appeals court has agreed with the lower court that banning the sale of video games is not constitutional. While the lower court had noted:

"There is a paucity of evidence linking the availability of video games with any harm to Minnesota's children at all.... It is impossible to determine from the data presented whether violent video games cause violence, or whether violent individuals are attracted to violent video games."

The appeals court was a little less direct:

"Whatever our intuitive (dare we say commonsense) feelings regarding the effect of violent video games, precedent requires undeniable proof that such violence causes psychological dysfunction...."

Despite claims to the contrary by some activists, there still is no evidence linking violent video games to violent behavior. In fact, as has been pointed out repeatedly, violent crime has continued to drop as violent video games have become more and more popular. At most, studies have shown that violent video games make people emotional, but that doesn't lead to increased violent activity outside of the game itself. Of course, that won't stop grandstand politicians from pushing for such violent video game bans, despite the knowledge that they're clearly wasting taxpayer money every time they do so.

Filed Under: constitution, first amendment, minnesota, video games, violent video games

Do First Person Shooter Gamers Enjoy Getting Killed?

from the anti-video-gamers-will-love-this-one dept

It's no secret that there are ongoing arguments between those people who believe video games incite violence and those who believe it doesn't (or even those who believe it acts as a release valve). Despite claims to the contrary, there's little real evidence linking violent video games to violent acts. At most, it's been shown that playing such games makes people emotional (as it should) -- not that it leads to actual violent acts. A recent study may probably get folks on both sides of the debate claiming it supports their position. Apparently, when people are playing first-person shooters, they actually enjoy getting killed in the game. Well, perhaps "enjoy" is the wrong word. It sounds like it's more a sense of relief. Basically, the study found that in the process of trying to "kill" others in the game, it does increase stress level for the players (similar to what studies have found), and getting killed yourself, takes away that stress, providing some "relief." For those who don't believe violent video games leads to violence, this could be used to support that claim -- showing that while people are playing, they're still rather stressed out at the idea of killing even virtual characters. Of course, those who dislike violent video games will probably now claim that it promotes suicide as well.

Filed Under: first person shooters, violent video games

Studying Violent Video Games Causes Unnecessary Extrapolations! News At Eleven!

from the sigh dept

It's hard to go more than a few weeks without seeing yet another article claiming some kind of "dangerous" impact from people playing violent video games. Of course, almost every study that suggests this is true has been debunked. What the studies actually tend to show is that while playing violent video games your brain acts emotional and may get desensitized to the violence being witnessed -- but that makes total sense. You should actually be surprised if playing a game didn't get you emotionally invested in the game and seeing the same thing over and over again didn't shock you as much as the first time. What none of the studies actually shows, however, is that playing these games later leads to violent activity. In fact, the ongoing decrease in violence just as these games have become increasingly popular certainly hints that they're not a major cause of violent activity (this is further supported by a study showing that violent movies seem to decrease incidents of violence). However, that doesn't stop researchers and the press from extrapolating their findings out to conclude that violent video games must lead to violence, despite the lack of proof.

The latest is some new research out of Taiwan, found via the Raw Feed, suggesting that playing violent video games decreases the flow of blood to your brain. There could be any number of biological reasons for this, but it doesn't stop the researchers from claiming that those playing these violent video games may "risk damaging brain function and affect their learning and emotional control." Again, that sounds like quite an extrapolation from just looking at the rate of blood flow to the brain -- and luckily people are already questioning the results of the study.

Filed Under: brains, research, violent video games