Another Study Decries Violent Games

FST writes "CNN.com is reporting on a study which found that those 'who play violent video games show increased activity in areas of the brain linked to emotional arousal and decreased responses in regions that govern self-control.' The Reuters article goes on to discuss the study's details, which is fairly typical for these types of inquiries. After playing games, young people were required to do tasks requiring 'processing of emotional stimuli', and concentration. Their brains were monitored for activity, and the findings were presented at a recent meeting of the Radiological Society of North America." The article then gets a little preachy. From the article: "The $13 billion U.S. video game industry, with revenue rivaling Hollywood box office sales, is at the center of a cultural battle over violent content. Lawmakers' various attempts to ban the sale of violent video games to children have been blocked by courts in Louisiana, Illinois, California, Michigan, and Minnesota... Numerous behavioral and cognitive studies have linked exposure to violent media and aggressive behavior." Numerous studies have said just the opposite, too.

Horray for obvious studies...

[Volante3192]

Those who played the violent video game showed more activation in the amygdala, which is involved in emotional arousal, and less activation in the prefrontal portions of the brain associated with control, focus and concentration than the teens who played the nonviolent game.

Kotaku [kotaku.com] echoes my thoughts on this one...

So the teens playing the emotionally rousing combat game were emotionally aroused, and the teens playing the precision racing game were more focused? Amazing. I'm no scientist, but this study seems like it was set up specifically with the goal of finding something wrong with violent games in mind.

Re:You're missing part of the equation

[ShorePiper82]

I would have to agree here in full. I have dated a high school teacher who deals with teenagers on a very regular basis and periodically meets with parents. On one hand we have the students that act up and know they've done something wrong and through some reasoning you can tell they know the difference between right and wrong. The parents tend to inquire about their behavior and independent of their skill as a parent will lay blame with the child (the implication is that these parents have at least some governing influence on the child's life). The parent is not perfect, neither is the child, and both are aware of these subtleties. On the other hand we have students that act up is perfectly fine, they're aware its rude but disregard the action and never really seem to engage a sense of guilt. Their behavior is quite possibly a byproduct of their upbringing. Parents hold themselves infallible and consequently their child inherits this trait of infallibility. Parents will then place blame with course difficulty, teacher's experience, overall curriculum, or invest belief in some mental disorder that may or may not be present; then the masses of these people get pro-active and change the mediating factors that prevent their child from reaching success. The proof lies in the pudding for this one... if anyone is in their mid 20s and remembers block scheduling highschool geometry classes... you probably got some construction paper and crayons and didn't do any real mathematics until AP calc or college.

Increased Emotional Arousal Is Good

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>those who play violent video games show increased activity in areas of the brain linked to emotional arousal

I would be far more concerned about the sociopathic tendencies of people who did not show emotional arousal than I am by anything reported here.