Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Entertainment Games

Videogames Affirm Violence Among Kids? 66

Posted by simoniker from the back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth dept.
Thanks to Mainichi.co.jp for their report on a new Japanese survey claiming young videogame-playing children are more violent. According to the Ochanomizu University study, "The more elementary school students play video games, the more likely they are to get irritated and want to hit others." However, the story also points out that "Another study on British children also released at the International Simulation and Gaming Association meeting gave different results, finding that those who preferred violent games more were not as aggressive in their actual lifestyles", leading to the inevitable conclusion that there's no definite answer - though that Japanese survey did suggest that "In video games it is common for players to be awarded 'points' for violent actions, and there may be aspects in which violence is taken affirmatively."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Videogames Affirm Violence Among Kids? More

Videogames Affirm Violence Among Kids?

Comments Filter:

  • Denial (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fished ( 574624 ) * <amphigory@@@gmail...com> on Saturday August 30, 2003 @10:43PM (#6836294)
    As an observation, it seems to me that many on Slashdot are in flat-out denial of the effects of playing video games on children. Again and again, Slashdot has posted results showing that video games do predispose kids to violent behavior. Yet, when these stories are posted, they are always accompanied with faint hints that they are not to be believed. In this case, it is only "claimed" that video games dispose kids to violence - not "shown" or "suggested".

    It's time to wake up and smell the gore, folks. You can't divide your personality between unpent aggresion in the electronic world and turn around and be a nice, happy guy the rest of the time. And, in years and years of reading Slashdot, I have yet to see a *single* study that suggested otherwise.

    • Re:Denial (Score:4, Insightful)

      by joFFeman ( 574971 ) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @10:50PM (#6836320) Homepage
      indeed. the argument needs to stop being made that 'violent video games don't influence children', and the arguments for increased, positive parental involvement, and the formation of a society which itself doesn't reward violence need to be made.
      • Here here. I always try and draw a comparison to television and movies, and people always bring up the ratings systems they have. Well, parents and retailers need to respect the great ratings the esrb give games. If its an M game, a 13 year old shouldn't be able to buy it, plain and simple.
      • and the formation of a society which itself doesn't reward violence

        good luck with that. meanwhile, GWB is going to march in and take your oil and it will be portrayed on TV as some sort of Manifest Destiny, with GWB as the One True Hero, for all the sons and daughters of the US to emulate.

        and what is the lesson GWB is teaching to those watching at home? might makes right. and those that don't Believe are persecuted and called traitors and asked to leave the country if we don't like it here.

    • Re:Denial (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Methuseus ( 468642 )
      Ok, I've been playing violent games since I was 6. I'm not and never have been a violent person. I still play violent games, and am a nice, happy guy when I'm not playing games.

      Are you saying that I'm a figment of my imagination? Or do you think I'm lying? Just curious.

      • Re:Denial (Score:4, Informative)

        by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <<ieshan> <at> <gmail.com>> on Saturday August 30, 2003 @11:32PM (#6836452) Homepage Journal
        No, he's saying you're an N of 1.

        In most clinical drug trials, the drug doesn't affect everyone. You happen to be someone who hasn't had a physical reaction to doing something you've been doing for quite some time.

        In fact, since the number of murders in Japan is relatively low, if we use murdering someone as the standard for influence, than videogames probably have little to no effect on this statistic, and you'd be right.

        But we're not. The psychologists who measure violent tendancies after exposure to violent video-games use scales and measurements that probably have little to do with actual life experiences. Fill in the blank questionaires. Analyses of thousands of juveniles for a small statistical trend.

        Claiming that your actions are in no way influenced by your choice entertainment is just as absurd as saying that videogames turn people into mindless killing zombies. The research clearly shows a pattern that videogames affect children much as other violent entertainment does - by desensitizing them to other violent episodes and by predisposing them to aggressive means of solving problems.

        You're not a figment of your imagination, you're an N of 1. Don't assume that the world's scientific findings neccessarily apply to you. In most cases, findings are proven to be statistically significant, not scientific law.
        • since the number of murders in Japan is relatively low

          Interesting fact: They don't count gang violence in that statistic. You know, the Yakuza and such.

          Interesting fact #2: If a man goes berzerk, kills his family and then kills himself, all the dead are chalked up under "suicide".

          It makes you wonder what Japan's murder rate actually is. If someone is attacked and dies a few days later, is that not counted as murder also?
          • While those are good points, they weren't at all the point of the post, which was that the researchers don't use an arbitrary measurement that applies only to himself or to an overly broad audience, and instead use more subtle measures of violence. :)
      • No offense, but after having taught for over ten years in theraputic and other special needs classrooms, my experience tells me when someone makes a claim, like "I'm not a violent person," or, "I'm very patient and understanding," quite often that person is the last person who has an objective view of the situation.

    • Re:Denial (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pompousjerk ( 210156 )
      So why are they allowed to play? Why are they allowed into 'R' rated movies?

      More importantly, do violient games make violent kids or do violent kids play violent games? A correlation does not prove cause and effect (although I haven't read the article yet to look at how the study was done... I'll save my conclusions for later...)
    • FWIW, the reason the word 'claimed' was used in this story was that the article references two studies - one which suggests violence and games are related, and the other suggesting that games don't predispose violent behavior. In other words, it's not completely crystal-clear.
      • it's not completely crystal-clear. ...except for the fact that the one that says it is not clear is the one done by a group closely involved with gaming. It's like the study a while back that said Windows had a lower TCO than Linux -- but the study was funded by MS.
    • I fully agree about the denial here on /. In this case, I notice the "rebuttal" is a study done by a group who is directly involved in games. Remember the study a few months or a year or so ago that stated the total cost of ownership was higher for Linux than Microsoft systems? Everyone here jumped all over it, pointing out the study was funded by MS (either directly or indirectly, I don't recall).

      So I guess it's okay to attack a pro-MS study that was funded by MS, but not take time to point out that th
      • It's simple, I doubt the motives that drive the groups who say that games lead to violent behaviour. It always seem that those who are pushing this theory have religious backgrounds or religious backers. Which, naturally, brings forth concerns of whether this is being pushed only because video games are competing for youth attention with religion. This may or may not be a conscious reason.

        Second, we do not understand the causes of violent behaviour very well and it seems that many of the anti-violent g
    • No doubt.

      No one ever wants to argue that children don't learn how to behave by what they observe.

      If we had a post that stated research shows that children who watch Dad beat the shit out of Mom grow up to become wife-beaters themselves, no one would quibble. We know that kids raised in abusive households are at higher risk of becoming abusive.

      If we had a post that stated research shows that children with alcoholic parents are more likely to drink as teenagers, no one would quibble.

      But as soon as an

      • Re:Denial (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Danse ( 1026 )
        The only problem is that there is a very distinct difference between real life violence and video game violence. A lot of people grow up playing violent games and have no problem at all. Indeed the vast majority of gamers are pretty well adjusted. But because some small fraction of people can't tell reality from fantasy, they try to tar the whole industry. Face it, if these kids are so messed up that they think that the things you do in video games can be done in reality, then they're going to do someth
        • The only problem is that there is a very distinct difference between real life violence and video game violence

          Not as much as I wish there were. I've pointed this out before, in similar topics. Look at athletes: they train over and over and over to train their reflexes so they don't have to think -- so they react without thinking. When they perform actions over and over and over, they enforce the neuron pathways (yes, you can get more technical, but I'm abridging). The more often a 1st baseman practi
          • The way to test your "video games reinforce the neuron paths" hypothesis is to take two groups of children to a firing range. One group should be hardcore fps players, the other, ideally, should not play video games or interact with guns at all. If such an experiment showed that playing Quake increased your ability to use a firearm, I'd be more likely to agree with you. As it is, sounds like idle conjecture to me, because AFAIK, playing Quake is nothing like shooting a gun.

            • Exactly. What he's talking about are muscle reflexes. That has nothing at all to do with aggressiveness or behavior, even if the person was actually learning to fire a real weapon in a game. As it stands, games give no advantage to real weapon use, aside from possibly better hand-eye coordination. Nor do games involve the kind of anger, rage, or other emotions that are generally associated with violence. So either a kid can't tell fantasy from reality and will laughingly blow his friend's head off in r

            • As I point out, the muscular ability is only ONE component. While the kids are using controllers, it may or may not increase their ability to use firearms.

              You missed my other point -- that it also creates an instinctive reaction to use violence instead of other methods to resolve confrontations. The conditioning doesn't just effect muscles and relfexes, but the way we react mentally and what kind of mental impulses we have when we see and react to a situation.

              And I have to admit, if it weren't for a dec
        • Oh, god. There's nothing like the willfully unthinking to frustrate hell out of one.

          There are innumerable examples of children believing in fantasty just as strongly -- and often contrary to -- reality. Santa Claus is fucking real to most kids.

          The reality is that violent environments influence children's behaviour toward becoming more violent. Your fantasy is that there's a complete disconnect between environment and learning.

          Try joining us here in the real world some day. Pop out some pups of your o

          • Let's see, I was raised with Wiley Coyote, Bugs Bunny, and Tom and Jerry cartoons. Can't argue that those aren't violent. Additionally I played a ton of video games. My parents were firm believers in corporal punishment too. So, with that environment, you're claiming that I should have believed that it was ok to shove firecrackers down the cat's throat so that his eyes will pop out and his head will turn black and spikey. Guess what? Regardless of what I was watching and playing all those years, I kne

            • Good god.

              I have a buddy who survived a parachute failure. Does that mean that parachutes are unnecessary for those people who choose to throw themselves out of airplanes?

              There are excellent studies in which children are randomly assigned to a non-violent or violent environment (movies, videogame, cartoons, whatever). Inevitably those children who were in the violent environment behave more aggressively in their play activities.

              I am going to quit responding to you now. The facts are well-researched and

              • I have a buddy who survived a parachute failure. Does that mean that parachutes are unnecessary for those people who choose to throw themselves out of airplanes?

                It might, if, like I said, the vast majority of people survived jumping out of planes without parachutes. We're talking about millions of people here, and you're saying that because a relative handful go berserk, it's somehow the fault of these games or the media or whatever the bad influence of the week is. I'm saying that the fact that the ov

    • Re:Denial (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) *
      I've posted on this issue before. Basically my point is not that videogmaes are or are not violent. It is that there are a lot of other things that go on in western society that seem much more violent but yet aren't considered violent because they are older forms of entertainment.

      This issue of violence gets to a deeper issue. What is a violent videogame? Would you consider Madden 2002 to be a violent game? How about NHL 2K3? In all likelihood, Madden 2002 would not be considered "violent." Why? Because

      • Just wanted to post a big Amen! to the parent post. Great job. Give the guy a hand moderators!

    • I remember playing a kung-fu game on the Commodore 64 with a friend of mine and his younger brother. Every time his brother lost the game against me he used to try to hit me hard. And in the real world he could win from me because he was a lot stronger than me.

    • Re:Denial (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Stargoat ( 658863 )
      Nonsense. Pure and utter nonsense.

      This study of Japanese children by a Japanese woman, Ms. Nobuko Ihori. They asked children questions about violence. The children who played the most (the top five percent or higher? It doesn't say) respond to the study in such a manner that it has been interpreted that these children who play the most video games are the most violent.

      But wait, this doesn't make sense? The difference in verbal agressiveness was not clear?

      So, children who play the most amount of v

    • How about instead of blaming videogames, can we hold parents responsible for once? Leaving your kid in front of a tv for hours on end is bad parenting. Not keeping an eye on what your kids are doing is bad parenting. Letting your kid play an M rated game is like taking them to see an R rated movie. Who buys the videogames, the kids or the parents? We have parents using the TV and videogames as a babysitter, and when the kid does something wrong, who gets the blame? Don't buy a copy of Halo for young c
  • Is it that the more they play videogames, the more they become violent....

    Or is it, the more violent they are, the more they play videogames? (Possibly to take out some of that violence, without having to actually hurt anything in real life?)

    Personally, I think it's the second option.

    • Re:Cause or effect? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FFFish ( 7567 )
      Oh, lordy. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Quantumprof.

      The researchers grab a random sample of kids and randomly divide them in two groups. One group is assigned non-violent games, the other violent games. They do not assign the violent kids to the violent games. That would be stupid: it would invalidate the study.

      The kids play the games and are then engaged in group play. The researchers observe the interactions between the kids. They observe the kids who had been playing violent games -- and
      • In the latest survey, 771 elementary school children from the suburbs of Kanto district were questioned over how long they spent playing computer games. The games included both strongly violent and normal ones. Results of the study were announced at a meeting of the International Simulation and Gaming Association in Kisarazu, Chiba Prefecture, on Aug. 29.

        Students who played games the longest tended to affirm violence the most when asked such questions as, "Do you get irritated?" and "Do you sometimes unexp
      • The researchers grab a random sample of kids and...[snip]

        My question is, how old are "kids"?
      • Personally, I take exception to the interpretation of the results. Because it's video games, they're called "aggressive," where if it was a study of traditional sports it would probably be called "competitive" or something similar.

        It's all just a bunch of loaded words signifying more about the biases of the researchers (or reporters) than objective study.
    • Oh yeah, my brother just became obsessed with Tetris, and then he tried to kill me. Yeah, right. Which games lead to violence? Not all, I would certainly think! I mean, someone saying that they are imitaing a certain game when they hurt someone intentionally is a different target of blame versus that of all games. Blaming games at large is a bunch of BS. Nethack is a very violent game. (It isn't animated, though) But, you can eat people after you kill them and all sorts of stuff! And I don't think I know an

  • The context... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PaleZer0 ( 632282 )
    I really think its the context of the violence that needs to be looked at. I for one feel that a game like Wind Waker, or the more gorey Eternal Darkness aren't bad, even though they are quite violent in their own right. I think a 10 year old (if the gore doesn't "damage" them) can play a good violent game in which the violence is a stance against "evil" and come out a better person. Violence in games can help instill morals into youngsters in my opinion. If a video game child is getting beat on, and th

  • Correlation != Causation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Saturday August 30, 2003 @11:10PM (#6836378) Homepage Journal
    Something tells me that these kids have issues, and thus see the violence as a way to express themselves, instead of holding it in.

    So the cause of the violence is likely something else, because a healthy child would not be influenced because the child knows how to deal with his anger productivly.

    So instead of barring videogames, they might try understanding what haunts their children.
    • Maybe those of us who work (or, in my case, worked) with kids in treatment have already gone down that road and have the experience that tells us that, while some violent kids (or those in need of other help) are drawn to violent games, that there is also a negative effect on kids playing those games.

    • Yes, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Fished ( 574624 ) * <amphigory@@@gmail...com> on Sunday August 31, 2003 @12:18AM (#6836587)
      Let's put it this way: you have two choices:
      1. Excessively violent games make kid's violent, so should be banned.
      2. Excessively violent kids play excessively violent games, so those who play such games obsessively should be watched.
      Somehow, I suspect you would not be comfortable with either conclusion.

      Let me put it to you another way: I have four kids under six. Recently, they discovered Tom and Jerry. Since they discovered Tom and Jerry, I've noticed a distinctive change in their play - they've become more aggressive, they've started smacking each other with blunt objects and laughing, etc. Now, there are two possibilities: either Tom and Jerry unmasked latent violent issues already present in my kids, or Tom and Jerry caused them to be violent.

      Either way, the cause is "Tom and Jerry" and the solution is to turn off the damn TV. The hell of it is, in my belief system, everyone has violent tendencies to be unmasked. (This belief would also tend to be confirmed by most psychological findings I've seen.) They may be close to the surface, on the surface, or deeply buried, but they're there. Whether this is because we're all neurotic or because we're all victims of sin I'll leave up to you. In either case, anything that brings that latent violence closer to the surface is potentially a bad thing. And, like it or not, violent TV and games seem to unmask latent violence.

      Is Tom and Jerry or Grand Theft Auto really too much to give up so my two year old doesn't smack my five year old with a broom? I don't think so. Is Lord of the Rings too much to give up? Hell yes. The difference is that, in one case, violence is put out in a very unrealistic way - no consequences, no real victims. In the other, violence is associated with suffering. In one case, we have art, and in the other we have a kind of macabre, violent masturbation trying to ride on the coat-tails of art. It's like the difference between a great nude photograph and porn - one revels in the beauty of the human body, the other just seeks to possess it.

      And, No, I don't have any problem making that judgment. If you do, maybe your palate has been burned off by constant exposure to the esthetic equivalent of MD20/20, and you should try to clear it a bit?

      • Huzzah. Good parenting praise to you!
      • If it wasn't Tom and Jerry at age 4, it will be youth soccer practice at age 8. Trying to insulate your kids so they'll never ever show violent tendencies is a losing, naive battle.

        Is Tom and Jerry or Grand Theft Auto really too much to give up so my two year old doesn't smack my five year old with a broom? I don't think so.

        Should your four year old kid be playing GTA? Of course not. No one is arguing that GTA is inappropriate for kids, so stop trying to trump up your point by trotting out bad examples

        • Both GTA and LOTR are equally valid works of art that utilize violence to tell a story. You just don't like GTA.

          I wouldn't particularly say that GTA is not "art" of a sort. But it is certainly not what I consider to be "good art" - nor do I think many with very finely developed sensibilities would consider GTA to be good art. The thing is that I'm willing to sacrifice something - i.e. exposing my kids to violence - for good art. But why should I sacrifice anything to perpetuate bad art? Why should I

    • I'm going to have to agree with you here, although I'm going to go a bit further.

      While it can be argued that video games *may* incite violence in kids, you have to look at the big picture first. Those in the United States and abroad, over the last decade or so, have been embracing violence (and sex) as a major part of their culture. Combine that with a growing lack of responsibility among people (especially in the USA) and you've got a problem.

      Don't believe me? Look at movies. Look at television. Look at
  • words and art do not create feelings which do not exist -- they reveal feelings which already exist. there are reasons why kids are growing more and more violent, but these reasons have nothing to do with which video games they are playing -- if they did not have violent feelings already they would not be playing violent video games. they choose the art which suits their feelings, not the other way around.

    humans are a violent species -- we're wired for physical violence from head to toes. one would think t

    • humans are a violent species -- we're wired for physical violence from head to toes. one would think that we would rather kids excercise their violence through video games than through other people.

      You know, you seem to have absorbed the pop psychology attitude that all represion is bad. Therefore, you assume that the way to get kids to be less violent is to give them an "outlet" - i.e. video games. Unfortunately, the facts aren't with you. The exercise of violence begets more violence, the restraint

  • You know it seems as if we humans would like to blame everything else for our lack of basic parenting skills. Why can't these people face it that the are failing as parents? No before you all go TROLL on me I understand that these days both parents must work, they are stressed out, they didn't ask for it blah blah blah. You know there is a way to prevent having kids-condoms, or abstinence. There are cons to procreation.

  • Even if these studies are true or false, the real problem lies with the solutions

    What I mean by that is some idiot lawmaker will jump the gun and introduce legislation effectively banning games.

    Games are ESRB rated for a reason, and that is to help PARENTS decide if if a game is right for a child.

    So the problem is with the parents who don't keep track of their kids habits, and next thing they know, their kid will be shooting up some school because they didn't get enough attention because their parents

  • Violence and Media (Score:3, Interesting)

    by neostorm ( 462848 ) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @02:05AM (#6836866)
    Something that everyone is forgetting whenever this topic comes up is that human beings are violent creatures. Not everyone, some more than others, but human beings have an inherent violence within them. We start wars, we rape, we kill... It's an orgy of violence on this planet! (!!!) And that's just reality I'm talking about.

    Look, seriously, if I ever have children, they're probably not going to be sleeping with hookers and running people over in showers of blood until they're quite a bit older. However, kids that are more prone to violence will get their violence from books, comics, television (No!), video games (Liar!), or the school playground. Don't you remember that loving voice of your mother when she'd scream "Stop that rough-housing! or "Don't throw that at her!"

    We could eliminate every violent medium on this planet, and it would not eliminate violence, because the violence starts with *us*. We're the ones who put the violence in there in the first place, so we're where the solutions have to start.

    • We could eliminate every violent medium on this planet, and it would not eliminate violence, because the violence starts with *us*. We're the ones who put the violence in there in the first place, so we're where the solutions have to start.

      I agree completely.

      This suggests, however, that the solution to the problem of violent children isn't as simple as replacing guns with walkie talkies [spielbergfilms.com]. What you're suggesting is that the solution is downright elusive. To find it, one may even need patience

        1. Personally I believe there is no solution to the problem. What we are facing when we examine violence in children is part of the foundation supporting human nature itself.
        I pity you, it makes me sad

        What really sets humanity aside from other animals is our communication. A channel of understanding between 2 people can remove fear any need for violence.

  • I glanced through the other comments and didn't see this brought up directly. I did see a lot of people claiming that we could no longer deny that videogames caused violence in children.

    However, the study only showed a correlation between the levels of violence a child expressed and the amount of videogames s/he played. That does not, however, mean that videogames neccesarily caused the violent behaviour. In fact, given that they said the level of violence and videogame playing was independent of the type

  • Points to reward violent behaviour (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @08:29AM (#6837863) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, right, because there are not such system [fbi.gov] in real life, huh?

    When will they do a study on the effect of playing cowboys and indians or cops and robbers on the behaviour of children?

    Remeber those violent games, played by small children in the streets? The object of the game being to shoot and kill members of an ethnic minority or social class! I mean, every kid who played that must have turned into a violent psychopath gunning down everyone in sight...huh?

Slashdot Top Deals

The wages of sin are unreported.

Close