American Psychological Association calls for less violence in games

[Scrubking]

According to the APA, recent research indicates that "exposure to violence in video games increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior, and angry feelings among youth. In addition, this exposure reduces helpful behavior and increases physiological arousal in children and adolescents.

The APA is also concerned that youth may not learn the consequences of their actions because in most games the player can get away with violence and is sometimes encouraged to commit violent acts. The research on violent media found that 73 percent of the time, perpetrators in violent scenes do not get reprimanded or punished. (http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=10343&section=feature&email=)

Now let's find out who funded this "research".

[mykevermin]

Well, if you're making the assumption that "intellectual"="liberal"...then I'm going to have to agree with you (as it indicates that "not intellectual" = "not liberal" (or thus, conservative).

Seriously, dude...do you have any concept of what empirical research is and what it entails? The APA isn't going to stand behind some piece of shit study. Of course there is going to be contradictory evidence (and I know exactly the professor the article references that did the longitudinal study at Illinois Urbana Champaign), but THAT'S WHAT RESEARCH DOES! It is irresponsible to stand behind research that you agreed with before you encountered the study and claim that the research that challenges your perspective suffers from "poor methodology."

Goddamn, kid. If you're such a bag of hammers that you retrospectively attach yourself like a parasite to anything that you agree with, then stay away from academic research and go back to the card table with the rest of the infants. The adults are working, ok?

Here's a statement: "Video games have had no effect on me." Do you agree or disagree?

[MaxBiaggi2]

All I know is that when I was in grade school being called a "scrub" wasn't anything to be proud of. :D

[evilmax17]

This isn't surprising. It's naive to say that "videogames don't have ANY EFFECT AT ALL on kids, or anybody for that matter".

The real question is, "Are videogames a special case? Do they affect people MORE than television, movies, or other visual stimuli? What about violent music, talk radio, or other auditory mediums?"

They have "some" effect. But here's the news, EVERYTHING can have an effect on somebody. If video games aren't any more influential than anything else, then either call for ALL media to tone it down or get off of it.

[mykevermin]

This isn't surprising. It's naive to say that "videogames don't have ANY EFFECT AT ALL on kids, or anybody for that matter".

Stop ruining my trick questions dammit! ;)

Games are (relatively) new. The next round of politicians (once these hosers run out their clocks) will be more likely to have been socialized around games, thus making people such as Thomson irrelevant. In the meantime the current batch of old white male fogeys are frightened of those dazzling whizz-bang machines the kids have these days.

I'm thrilled that Leibermann and others allocated $90 million to fund research on the effects of video games. Even though Leibermann, Clinton, and others seem to have made their minds up about games, I applaud that they actually want to see more research into its effects, both good and bad.

Not to mention that I want in on some of that research money once I get my dissertation out of the way! Money to study games! It's not as good as my proposed longitudinal study of social interaction on nude beaches, but I'm more likely to get funded for the games. ;)

[Scrubking]

Allegations of misconduct by U.S. researchers reached record highs last year as the Department of Health and Human Services received 274 complaints -- 50 percent higher than 2003 and the most since 1989 when the federal government established a program to deal with scientific misconduct. (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,68153,00.html)

[mykevermin]

Allegations of misconduct by U.S. researchers reached record highs last year as the Department of Health and Human Services received 274 complaints -- 50 percent higher than 2003 and the most since 1989 when the federal government established a program to deal with scientific misconduct. (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,68153,00.html)

What's yer point? The article cites almost all medical research. I won't dare claim that psychology is clean (I don't need to defend it, as it's not my area anyway), or that *any* discipline is clean. However, there is a cruicial causal link between this article and the APA's press release that simply does not exist. You'll need to find the research the APA cited and prove that it was falsified (a task *far* harder than pointing to methodoligical errors).

To show that you do bring sunshine to me every now and then, kiddo, a quote from your link:

"In 1974, Dr. William Summerlin, a top-ranking Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute researcher, used a marker to make black patches of fur on white mice in an attempt to prove his new skin graft technique was working. "

That fucking RULES. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[dtcarson]

The two quotes in the OP are entirely correct.
* Exposure to violence does increase aggressive thoughts and behaviours.
* Many video games don't show realistic 'consequences'. The violence could be realistic, but the consequences aren't [to pick on GTA as a well known example, what would really happen if you got in a high speed, gunfiring chase with ten cops? You *don't* wake up the next day and walk out of the hospital].

The study says games have more effect than movies or books because they're a lot more 'immersive' and 'active', which is also true. And a movie takes 2 hours, a book, maybe 4, but people play games for dozens or hundreds of hours. And in a movie or book, sometimes there's consequences, sometimes there's not, but usually there's other stuff in the book as well, whereas in many games, I could continue to play the 'Kill all the cops ' level as much as I wanted.

After reading that article, I find absolutely nothing wrong or anything to disagree with about it, except for this: "Third, the APA wants to see the industry "develop and disseminate a content-based rating system that accurately reflects the content of the video games and interactive media"" The ESRB does exist, and I think does a pretty good job of describing the content; the only changes to it I would make would be to make it more 'visible' to the parents [maybe even a six month program where a printout or brochure detailing the ESRB is given out with every game purchase], and if a state wanted to enact a 'card for M-games' law, I'd support it.

The core issue of 'parents being involved with their kids, and knowing what their kids are watching' is an important one, and I don't think there's a 'legislative' method to help that.

Here's the issue:

""Parents perceive age ratings as a guide but not as a definite prohibition," said Jurgen Freund, Modulum chief executive. [Which is fine, that's what it is.]

"Some may have not liked the content but they did not prohibit the game." [WHy would a parent not prohibit something he didn't like? Is this more of this 'let the child learn on his own, do what he wants, claptrap? I'm a parent, and while I want my child to explore and learn, there are certain things I will prohibit from my household or prohibit him from viewing or playing until I deem him ready.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4118270.stm

[MrFriday18]

When I was like 7 i remeber getting Duke Nukem for PS1 and my parents have never had a problem with me playing violent video games. My parents have never tried to push me away from buying a game thats has a Mature rating. I think if the kid is fucked up in the head they are just fucked up and they would be fucked up and be volent if they played violent videogames are not. It's the parent responsibility for that kid not to be fucked up and bring him to a doctor.

[dtcarson]

Now let's find out who funded this "research".

"Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide"

Ronald F. Levant is the 2005 President of the American Psychological Association. He also serves as Professor at the Center for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern University (http://www.nova.edu/), in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Levant pioneered the new psychology of men. He developed theory and conducted research programs on fathering and masculinity ideology in multicultural perspective.
Levant served as president of the Massachusetts Psychological Association, president of APA Division 43 (Family Psychology), two-term member and two-term chair of the APA Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice, two-term member of the APA Council of Representatives, and Member-at-Large of the APA Board of Directors. Levant is a member of Divisions 18 (Psychologists in Public Service), 35 (Society for the Psychology of Women), 44 (Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues), and 45 (Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues). He is a Fellow of Divisions 1 (Society for General Psychology),12 (Society of Clinical Psychology),17 (Society of Counseling Psychology), 27 (Society for Community Research and Action: Division of Community Psychology), 29 (Psychotherapy), 31 (State, Provincial, and Territorial Psychological Association Affairs), 37 (Child, Youth, and Family Services), 39 (Psychoanalysis), 42 (Psychologists in Independent Practice), 43 (Family Psychology), 49 (Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy), and 51 (Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity).

And while I can find nothing on the actual "APA", a similar group, Assn for the Advancement of Psychology, in 1998, gave 63% of their political contributions to Democrats.

He doesn't sound 'conservative' to me, and psychology as a industry tends to lean left.

[mykevermin]

""Parents perceive age ratings as a guide but not as a definite prohibition," said Jurgen Freund, Modulum chief executive. [Which is fine, that's what it is.]

"Some may have not liked the content but they did not prohibit the game." [WHy would a parent not prohibit something he didn't like? Is this more of this 'let the child learn on his own, do what he wants, claptrap? I'm a parent, and while I want my child to explore and learn, there are certain things I will prohibit from my household or prohibit him from viewing or playing until I deem him ready.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4118270.stm

Some parents overestimate their children's maturity level, or what they can handle culturally. I don't have a definite percentage at the moment, but there is a "preference bias" that comes from a parent's affinity for their own children. Likewise, the exact opposite can be true (a parent can be overprotective of their children to an absurd degree). However, these attitudes generally fall along gender lines (John Hagan's power-control theory asserts that these control/freedom preferences are a major cause of gender discrepancies in early delinquency).

This may be a first time that I agree with you, but I have come to admit that the bureaucracy does not matter, and that changing the ESRB will not prevent parents from making poor decisions. We can pass legislation to make sure games are slathered in warnings, like European and Canadian cigarette packets, but that doesn't do a great deal to deter behavior.

[mykevermin]

psychology as a industry tends to lean left.

Given that things have to be treated equally, (that is, a scientist has to approach sexuality as little more than a behavior, as starting with biases (such as heterosexual normativity) would make scientific analyses biased from the get-go), perhaps in that sense it is more "left."

Above all else, and far more than any think tank, these people are social scientists, and have to respect what the data tell them, not what they think.

I'd give you an anecdote of my data not going along with my hypothesis, but perhaps later. We're slaves to the data, not the other way around.

[Scrubking]

"Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide"

Ronald F. Levant is the 2005 President of the American Psychological Association. He also serves as Professor at the Center for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern University (http://www.nova.edu/), in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Levant pioneered the new psychology of men. He developed theory and conducted research programs on fathering and masculinity ideology in multicultural perspective.
Levant served as president of the Massachusetts Psychological Association, president of APA Division 43 (Family Psychology), two-term member and two-term chair of the APA Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice, two-term member of the APA Council of Representatives, and Member-at-Large of the APA Board of Directors. Levant is a member of Divisions 18 (Psychologists in Public Service), 35 (Society for the Psychology of Women), 44 (Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues), and 45 (Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues). He is a Fellow of Divisions 1 (Society for General Psychology),12 (Society of Clinical Psychology),17 (Society of Counseling Psychology), 27 (Society for Community Research and Action: Division of Community Psychology), 29 (Psychotherapy), 31 (State, Provincial, and Territorial Psychological Association Affairs), 37 (Child, Youth, and Family Services), 39 (Psychoanalysis), 42 (Psychologists in Independent Practice), 43 (Family Psychology), 49 (Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy), and 51 (Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity).

And while I can find nothing on the actual "APA", a similar group, Assn for the Advancement of Psychology, in 1998, gave 63% of their political contributions to Democrats.

He doesn't sound 'conservative' to me, and psychology as a industry tends to lean left.

Thanks for looking that up.

[dtcarson]

Absolutely, that article says that exact same thing--I got the feeling from it that many parents think, "Well, your kid may not be able to handle this, but *my* kid sure can." ANd of course all parents think their kids are the best.

I think the ESRB, as a voluntary organization, does a good job, overall; it just needs more publicity, and to be more honest with itself [while there's only one year between M and AO ratings, given the extra content in GTA, perhaps it should have given GTA an AO to begin with.] And ultimately, we are seeing the market self-correct itself, which is a good thing. We already have so many government-pushed warnings and such that it's overkill, and many people have even quit reading them.

Overprotecting can be as harmful as underprotecting, when it goes to extremes, but I have always leaned toward overprotecting rather than underprotecting. There will be plenty of time to play GTA or watch violent movies or listen to curse filled rap music, but you can't go backward and make a child 'innocent' again [and now I'm talking 'child', not 'teenager', I would expect virtually every, say, 15 or 16 year old to have seen at least one R rated movie, and I don't necessarily have a problem with that, as long as parental involvement existed].

[Tromack]

According to the APA, recent research indicates that "exposure to violence in video games increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior, and angry feelings among youth. In addition, this exposure reduces helpful behavior and increases physiological arousal in children and adolescents.

The APA is also concerned that youth may not learn the consequences of their actions because in most games the player can get away with violence and is sometimes encouraged to commit violent acts. The research on violent media found that 73 percent of the time, perpetrators in violent scenes do not get reprimanded or punished. (http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=10343&section=feature&email=)

Now let's find out who funded this "research".


You know, I agree with them. The studies are there. Children should not play violent games. But I don't believe censorship is the solution. Better parenting and very strict enforcement of the rules is the proper route.

[Gregory Kimball]

This thread is getting way too intellectual. I had better dumb it up some.

Oink. Oink. Look, I'm a cow! :bouncy:

[mykevermin]

Absolutely, that article says that exact same thing--I got the feeling from it that many parents think, "Well, your kid may not be able to handle this, but *my* kid sure can." ANd of course all parents think their kids are the best.

There's a hilarious (to people who actually read research for a living, anyway) study that shows that families are becoming far more egalitarian; that Hagan issue of over/underprotection residing along gender lines is blurred (though still exists). Women are moving into the workforce, and some men are moving into the home; this isn't to say that it isn't still "strange," but things are changing. However, the study noted that the most liberal, egalitarian father, the kind who raises son and daughter alike; they almost ALL regress into the overprotective "sitting on the couch cleaning the gun when the boy comes over to pick up the daughter" kind of father the MOMENT the daughter hits puberty. Maybe you aren't laughing as much as I did, but I digress.

I think the ESRB, as a voluntary organization, does a good job, overall; it just needs more publicity, and to be more honest with itself [while there's only one year between M and AO ratings, given the extra content in GTA, perhaps it should have given GTA an AO to begin with.] And ultimately, we are seeing the market self-correct itself, which is a good thing. We already have so many government-pushed warnings and such that it's overkill, and many people have even quit reading them.

One major problem is the spread of content that is "M" makes something like "San Andreas" look like "M++" compared to, oh...Devil May Cry, I suppose. Language and sexuality, all too common in movies, have just begun making their way into mainstream games (although I remember Golgo 13 getting it on in my youth). The ratings system was spurred on by the Mortal Kombat "Oh my god! blood!" controversy, so I think that the ESRB's mechanisms as far different from the MPAA, but people make easy comparisons between the two "oh, PG-13=T" and so on.

Overprotecting can be as harmful as underprotecting, when it goes to extremes, but I have always leaned toward overprotecting rather than underprotecting. There will be plenty of time to play GTA or watch violent movies or listen to curse filled rap music, but you can't go backward and make a child 'innocent' again [and now I'm talking 'child', not 'teenager', I would expect virtually every, say, 15 or 16 year old to have seen at least one R rated movie, and I don't necessarily have a problem with that, as long as parental involvement existed].

My extremely conservative mother took me to see The Crying Game when it was in theaters (I was perhaps 13/14). In her opinion, violence was far worse than seeing titty in movies, so while Rambo was out of the question, other movies ("Coming to America" comes to mind) were not for her. Hell, I'm just grateful that she was involved.

[Scrubking]

You know, I agree with them. The studies are there. Children should not play violent games. But I don't believe censorship is the solution. Better parenting and very strict enforcement of the rules is the proper route.

I don't believe kids should play violent games either, but not because they supposedly make kids more violent.

[Tromack]

I don't believe kids should play violent games either, but not because they supposedly make kids more violent.

But they do. Any form of violent media does. The studies are there.

-Well, at least any form of violent, visua media does.

[dtcarson]

You know, I agree with them. The studies are there. Children should not play violent games. But I don't believe censorship is the solution. Better parenting and very strict enforcement of the rules is the proper route.

But no one, other than perhaps that Thompson guy and Hillary Clinton, is talking censorship, at least governmental censorship. If Rockstar wants to 'censor' themselves and edit out certain things in the game to make it more attractive to a wider audience, that's their right. If WalMart decides to only carry E and T games, that's also their right, and I support their choice, whatever it may be. And those aren't even considered 'censorship', it's voluntarily reacting to the marketplace. Because unlike when government censors speech, there are other outlets/sources to buy those games, or for people to sell their game ideas, etc, whereas we only have one government.

Better parenting, yes. Parents need to realize that they *are* the parents, they're not "equals" with their children, and parents do [or at least, should] know more and have more experience than their children. Children don't get an equal vote, though they should certainly have input.

And the rules, yes--whatever rules the ESRB has, need to be followed strictly, voluntarily, beacuse we don't want it turning into law. And the 'ratings creep' issue does need to be considered; this is applicable to movies and games, but it seems more obvious in games. GTA or Manhunt is not the same thing as Mortal KOmbat, like someone said earlier.

[dtcarson]

But they do. Any form of violent media does. The studies are there.

-Well, at least any form of violent, visua media does.

Any form of violence at all does. Take a kid's first day in daycare--if the other kids are violent, that new kid will bring it home as well. Children model behavior they see/observe, this starts pretty much from birth, and they observe a lot more than one might think.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I want to kill those fuckers! :bomb: ;)

[mykevermin]

I want to kill those fuckers! :bomb: ;)

YEAH! DOWN WITH RESEARCH!

[dtcarson]

More fuel for debate...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1742488,00.html

"SHOOT-’EM-UP video games increase aggressive behaviour in children and adolescents in the short and long term, according to an analysis of 20 years of research."

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-08-19T231333Z_01_HO983627_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-AGGRESSION.XML

"One study showed that children who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes and then took a mood assessment test rated themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing."

[mykevermin]

More fuel for debate...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1742488,00.html

"SHOOT-’EM-UP video games increase aggressive behaviour in children and adolescents in the short and long term, according to an analysis of 20 years of research."

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-08-19T231333Z_01_HO983627_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-AGGRESSION.XML

"One study showed that children who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes and then took a mood assessment test rated themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing."

I can totally buy an argument that says some types lead to greater aggression than others.

I wonder if there's a causal relationship between games with poor/slow control and increased aggression (the "I broke my fucking controller" type of games).

Truthfully, I don't know if I'm serious or joking.

[dtcarson]

Heh, that's a good point. I know I threw more than one controller at the wall, back in the day. I've tried to get better at that, 'cause now that i'm buying my own stuff, I find that controllers ain't cheap.
But yes, there's the aggressiveness born of watching/playing an aggressive game, then there's the aggressiveness born of frustration. That is not limited to games, though; we've all engaged in some 'percussive maintenance' on computers or lawnmowers or whatever. The hope is that that aggressiveness is at least temporary [everyone has a bad day and gets mad sometimes], but I don't know.

[GreenMonkey]

The video games making kids more violent thing is a myth. Someone posted a link, can't find it now, showing how violence among youths has pretty much gone down consistently since video games came into society.

Statistically, it's wrong.

[zionoverfire]

We really need to stop giving people Dr. degrees in psych. Perhaps then people will learn to treat them as the sad pathetic biology major dropouts they really are.

[Ikohn4ever]

We really need to stop giving people Dr. degrees in psych. Perhaps then people will learn to treat them as the sad pathetic biology major dropouts they really are.

Several things

as a psych major I take offense to that and not because I am doing nothing with that degree now :)

another thing I think video games can lead to violent tendicies that is why it is up to the parent to know the rating system and their child to know if they can handle the game. I cant say this enough that videogames/tv is not a babysitter and parents have to be more active in what their kids are doing.

I am impressed with this high level of discussion

and to dumb this down a lil after lookin at the bomb smile :bomb: I really think it should explode, but thats prob just the violent side of me from all those video games. wanting to blow things up

[mykevermin]

I am impressed with this high level of discussion

Would that include *this* little nugget?

The video games making kids more violent thing is a myth. Someone posted a link, can't find it now, showing how violence among youths has pretty much gone down consistently since video games came into society.

Statistically, it's wrong.

This would be the "I'm isolating one bit of data one person posted one time from all the other data and research that exists and calling it my undeniable truth, even if I'm probably ignoring a disgustingly high number of potential spurious effects, none of which have to do with video games" argument.

Really, given the level of discussion here, did you think that your remark was appropriate (or correct) at all? You did attempt to disguise it as meaningful by arbitrarily placing the word "statistic" in there, but here's a piece of advice for you:

Don't fuck with a quantoid.

*OOOOHHHH, SNAP!*

[GreenMonkey]

This would be the "I'm isolating one bit of data one person posted one time from all the other data and research that exists and calling it my undeniable truth, even if I'm probably ignoring a disgustingly high number of potential spurious effects, none of which have to do with video games" argument.


Hmm

Isolating one bit of statistical research and ignoring a bunch more...

Hmmm...

Sounds kinda like what the APA did. :D

[dtcarson]

20 years of research, like that referenced in the articles I posted, != "one bit of statistical research."

And to be complete and honest, I will even pull this quote from my own article:
"Nicoll said in an interview that "only a handful" of the studies she and colleagues examined found no connection between violence and violent video games." So some of the studies did find no connection; but only a small minority of them. Very rarely will you get 100% consistent and equivalent results among different studies.

Here's another good one, that breaks down the 'myths' about video game violence, in relatively plain English.
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

"Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. "
"Repeated media violence exposure increases aggression across the lifespan because of several related factors. 1. It creates more positive attitudes, beliefs, and expectations regarding use of aggressive solutions. 2. It creates aggressive behavioral scripts and makes them more cognitively accessible. 3. It decreases the accessibility of nonviolent scripts. 4. It decreases the normal negative emotional reactions to conflict, aggression, and violence."

Anderson does conclude by stating certain things are missing from the current research:
"One especially large gap is the lack of longitudinal studies testing the link between habitual violent video game exposure and later aggression, while controlling for earlier levels of aggression and other risk factors. Indeed, of the four major types of empirical studies mentioned earlier, this is the only type missing. There are such studies focusing on television violence but none on video games.....Finally, more research is needed to: (a) refine emerging general models of human aggression; (b) delineate the processes underlying short and long term media violence effects; (c) broaden these models to encompass aggression at the level of subcultures and nations."

[mykevermin]

Well the lack of longitudinal research is probably due to the fact that "video games," while they have been around for 30 years or so, have only become part of the mainstream American child's homelife in the past 20 or so. I'd also guess that, at first, social scientists didn't want to take it very seriously (since there is always a push to study "serious" things, for want of a better phrase).

Longitudinal studies would probably need to examine people from early childhood through adolescence, which is problematic because it is long (and thus extremely expensive), invasive (the pain in the ass of finding willing parents and constant yearly IRB re-approval), and basically puts your career on hold as a researcher (you can't be working on other publications, books, etc. while doing this, in a field - academia - that places such emphasis on your "productivity" as you work maniacally to attain tenure).

Longitudinal research, although useful, is totally fucking unappealing. That's the major factor. I'd totally love to get my hands on some of the money set aside for this kind of research in the CAMRA act (search thomas.loc.gov for the text of it), however.

I'd love to do a Wolfgang "Delinquency in a Birth Cohort" kinda study, but with video games.

I think that MMORPGs are rife with potential for research as well, due to the inherently social aspect of them. I made a post somewhere else about my thoughts on possible research topics that could be made on *one* kind of game. I'll go search for it later.

[kev]

The video games making kids more violent thing is a myth. Someone posted a link, can't find it now, showing how violence among youths has pretty much gone down consistently since video games came into society.

Statistically, it's wrong.

This study focused on reported violent crime. If you want to argue that the only people in society that are violent are those that are arrested for violent crimes then go right ahead. Shoot, you'd probably get a spot on The Daily Show so you can join John Stewart's "The US culture is perfect because violent crime is down!" parade.

However, if you'd like to experience reality, volunteer some time with local kids. I am a middle school teacher and directly see the results the media have on these kids. It is not hard to pick out the ones who play games versus those who don't once you spend some time with them. That alone proves to me there is a direct link. Their reactions are consistently more violent (Oh man, the black plague was tight!) and they have virtually no sympathy for anyone (Oh man, the black plague was tight!).

To those who say "I played Duke Nukem and I'm fine!" well congrats to you. Plenty of people have been heroine addicts and turned out fine, should we then encourage America's youth to use it? Of course some people can hande addictions or violent content but many can't. Don't be so selfish as to say "if its ok for me it should be allowed."

[mykevermin]

Heroine:
http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/8970000/8977714.jpg

Heroin:
http://www.drug-rehab.com/images/heroin_pic.jpg

[Ikohn4ever]

Heroine:
http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/8970000/8977714.jpg

Heroin:
http://www.drug-rehab.com/images/heroin_pic.jpg


there both really bad for u and large doses of either could prove fatal

[Scrubking]

This study focused on reported violent crime. If you want to argue that the only people in society that are violent are those that are arrested for violent crimes then go right ahead. Shoot, you'd probably get a spot on The Daily Show so you can join John Stewart's "The US culture is perfect because violent crime is down!" parade.

However, if you'd like to experience reality, volunteer some time with local kids. I am a middle school teacher and directly see the results the media have on these kids. It is not hard to pick out the ones who play games versus those who don't once you spend some time with them. That alone proves to me there is a direct link. Their reactions are consistently more violent (Oh man, the black plague was tight!) and they have virtually no sympathy for anyone (Oh man, the black plague was tight!).

To those who say "I played Duke Nukem and I'm fine!" well congrats to you. Plenty of people have been heroine addicts and turned out fine, should we then encourage America's youth to use it? Of course some people can hande addictions or violent content but many can't. Don't be so selfish as to say "if its ok for me it should be allowed."

I have volunteeered with kids and the aggressive, anti-social behavior they exibited had nothing to do with videogames. It was because they:

1. Came from a broken home
2. Were abused
3. were neglected

Also the example you give is the exact reason why these "stuides" are wrong. Saying that the black plague was tight does not mean that someone is more violent or aggressive. I'm sure that what these scientists take to mean as aggression or violence is ridiculous and so we get studies like these. "Little jimmy kicked a ball after playing videogames today - he must want to kill somone!!!"

And to say that someone can be "fine" while doing drugs is ridiculous. The fact is that for these studies to be true, gamers in general would have to be a violent, aggressive mob of people that always got in trouble and that is simply not true. Last time I checked videogame or LAN parties weren't erupting in fistfights and bloodshed.

[dtcarson]

Not sure what studies you read, but none of the ones i read ever said that violent video games were the only, or the main, cause of violence/aggressiveness.
And there's a difference between 'violence' and 'aggressiveness'. Videogames may not help make every kid into a Columbine shooter, but there is in general a increased level of aggressiveness among people who play a lot of violent videogames. Not everyone, there's always exceptions of course, but overall. One need look only at, oh, pretty much any video game chat room or message board for evidence of 'aggressiveness'. Youths who play Doom or whatever don't necessarily get into brawling riots or commit beatings, hence the violent crime stats. They do, however, tend to be more aggressive in less 'illegal' ways. Of course, many of these kids are also from the 'if you didn't get caught, or if it's not illegal, it's okay' school of thought, which doesn't help [again, evidenced in part by this very message board.]

[mykevermin]

I have volunteeered with kids and the aggressive, anti-social behavior they exibited had nothing to do with videogames. It was because they:

1. Came from a broken home
2. Were abused
3. were neglected

Not all "aggressive" or "anti-social" children belong in non-custodial care. Typically, the worst cases do, and while your points may be true for extreme cases, they alone are insufficient causal explanations. All people are capable of aggression; consider people who are "mellow" versus those who have "short fuses," to use the vernacular. They are both capable of being prosocial, legally behaving people, but their reaction to circumstances and sources of strain are remarkably different.

You seem to assume that what is labeled as "aggressive" behavior is (1) constant, (2) present at all times, (3) is manfest solely in physically destructive behavior, and (4) inherently "criminal" activity.

You are simply dead wrong on all accounts. Since you clearly can not even grasp the basic permutations of "aggressive," I recommend that you not criticize research until you take a 100-level psychology or sociology course. Seriously.

Lastly, your volunteering experience, while laudable, will not by itself serve as a refutation of data. Just because you got a toy in your cereal box does not mean that every cereal box has a toy in it.

Also the example you give is the exact reason why these "stuides" are wrong. Saying that the black plague was tight does not mean that someone is more violent or aggressive. I'm sure that what these scientists take to mean as aggression or violence is ridiculous and so we get studies like these. "Little jimmy kicked a ball after playing videogames today - he must want to kill somone!!!"

To show approval for certain activities is a excellent psychological indicator of antisocial tendencies. We expect "prosocial" individuals to exhibit pride towards a well behaved society, and have many social bonds with family and friends, and likely be invested in the community, church, athletics, 4-H club, and things of that sort. On the other hand, isolated, uncommitted, entropic interests and activites are damned good at predicting antisocial behavior (which, again, doesn't always end up in a school shooting, and can lead to more common forms, such as drug abuse, spousal abuse, the inability to maintain longterm employment, etc.) Antisocial people aren't blowing up buildings, but they do beat their children, start drinking first thing in the morning, kick the dog, throw dishes around the house, and other behaviors that have various degrees of legal responsibility.

And to say that someone can be "fine" while doing drugs is ridiculous.

In a society that recognizes "functioning alcoholics," I find your generalization entirely untrue.

The fact is that for these studies to be true, gamers in general would have to be a violent, aggressive mob of people that always got in trouble and that is simply not true. Last time I checked videogame or LAN parties weren't erupting in fistfights and bloodshed.

Again, SOC 101 or PSYCH 101.

Have you heard the "You stole my fucking cloudsong!" guy? (not to mention every last bit of racist, sexist, homophobic, disgustingly aggressive talk on XBL?

[Apossum]

The APA better stop researching this stuff before I rip its head off with the spinal cord still attached. :bomb:

Myke, you got a pm :-)