Commenting period (March 25, 2013 14:37 – May 31, 2013 00:00) is closed
Grand Theft Childhood 4
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
CHAPTER 4
Grand Theft Childhood?
For every problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.
-H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
WE FOUND THE SOMEWHAT SARCASTIC QUOTE ABOVE reprinted in the unlikeliest of places: a federal government report called The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective,' published in 2000 by the FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. The report was written in response to the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, and was derived from detailed analyses of eighteen actual or successfully foiled school shootings.
At the time, politicians, pundits and school officials were calling for draconian actions to stanch the supposedly dramatic increase in school violence. Many of those crying the loudest lay blame for the school shootings on violent video games. At the FBI, cooler heads prevailed:
One response to the pressure for action may be an effort to identify the next shooter by developing a "profile" of the typical school shooter. This may sound like a reasonable preventive measure, but in practice, trying to draw up a catalogue or "checklist" of warning signs to detect a potential school shooter can be shortsighted, even dangerous. Such lists, publicized by the media, can end up unfairly labeling many nonviolent students as potentially dangerous or even lethal. In fact, a great many adolescents who will never commit violent acts will show some of the behaviors or personality traits included on the list. ...
The information presented in this paragraph I didn’t find surprising in the least. People love to place a stereotype on to every type of criminal. However, unlike drug dealers or murderers who have very predictable motives, whether financial or otherwise. An action as unexplainable and horrific as a school shooting can’t be explained as simply. It’s too convenient to say, “lets blame the video games.” To say something like that misses the issue and causes only more harm.
While I am in complete agreement that blaming video games singularly for these tragedies is a mistake, I think it would be a mistake to not look include an obsession (not just casual playing but an actual obsession) with violent video games in a list of possible identifiers of at-risk youth.
(New paragraph for emphasis…)
The reason I say this is that many of the recent mass shooters have had obsessions with violent video games according to people who knew them. Lanza, Holmes, Hui, and the Columbine duo to name just a few.
I hope I’m not stepping on too many toes but I think we should consider obsessions with violent video games in a profile before dismissing them completely
I agree that it should be included as a possible identifier but not necessarily for kids at risk of being school shooters. The issue comes when the psychological state of these obsessive violent video gamers are brought up. Like we’ve said before, this obsession might be just a cause of underlying psychological disorders so I think that rather than trying to add it to a profile of a typical school shooter, it should be more added to a broader list for children with psychological/personality disorders. Their predisposition to mass murder is just an effect of these disorders.
It is incredibly difficult to identify casual relationships between child behavior and actions taken after aging because of the plethora of variables that occur after the events and what little we know about children because of the ethical barriers to experimentation.
For example, a common method that was thought to be useful in predicting asocial psychotic behavior was the dark triad, which refers to 3 behaviors of children that theoretically show a predisposition to violent behavior. They were bedwetting, cruelty to animals, and fire starting. However, modern studies have shown that there is no ability to use these to predict future psychopathic behavior, merely that many serial killers had these issues as children.
It is so difficult to isolate video games and then even specifically violent video games from every other influence that a child experiences. If you value your regulatory bodies as accurate, it means that just as you must be vigilant, you must also avoid over-diagnosing, because that is still inaccuracy, even if it leads into the safer direction. I don’t think there is a need to identify violent video game playing as a negative behavior or associated with adolescent violence.
I definitely agree that it is difficult to link child behavior to future action, but I do think it’s significant to consider that in a child with an underlying disorder, violent behavior could possibly be fostered by their use of violent video games, like what Win was saying. I think that people have a tendency of looking back at extreme violent behavior and linking this with playing violent video games, rather than linking them by disorders or other factors that may or may not have been supplemented by their vulnerability to the influence of violent video games. (Rather than playing violent video games = violent behavior, I think people should think of it more as personality disorder + violent video games = higher likelihood violent behavior.)
This is not to say that all children with disorders like antisocial personality disorder will undoubtedly become mass shooters, but coupled with pre-existing, life-course persistent conduct disorder and apparent signs like lack of remorse, playing violent video games might have some sort of effect, even though minimal, which further brings out violent tendencies. I don’t think that an obsession with violent video games should be used as a sole predictive factor of psycho/sociopathy, but I think it would be wrong to disregard it completely as a possible influence in adolescent violence in children with pre-existing psychological disorders.
86
uranu IlltlU '-IIIIUIIUUU
At this time, there is no research that has identified traits and characteristics that can reliably distinguish school shooters from other students. Many students appear to have traits and characteristics similar to those observed in students who were involved in school shootings."
The FBI report mentions violent video games only in passing and within the context of pathological behaviors and personality types. It drives a metaphorical stake through the heart of the "violent video games cause school shootings" myth.
But school shootings are extremely rare events. Could playing violent video games promote aggressive behavior, increase fear, or desensitize children to violence? If the answer is "yes" or "maybe," then which kids are at greatest risk? Does the amount of time spent playing games matter, or who kids play with? Are there particular types of games that are worse for kids? And what can we do as parents to protect our kids?
Since 2004, we've been researching the answers to questions like these. In this chapter, we'll share findings from our survey of 1,254 middle school students in Pennsylvania and South Carolina. We'll also draw on comments from in-depth focus groups with middle school boys from Massachusetts who play violent video games.
How We Gathered Our Data
We ended chapter 3 with a list of questions you can use to judge the value of any video game violence study. In fairness, we should begin by answering those questions about our own study of middle school kids.
Whom did we study? We conducted detailed, written surveys in the classrooms of seventh and eighth graders in two middle schools in Pennsylvania (664 students) and South Carolina (590 students) during a Language Arts/English period. Nearly all of the participants were twelve to fourteen years old; half were thirteen.
We chose these schools because they gave us a good mix of kidsNortheastern and Southern, boys and girls, white and black, suburban and small city, richer and poorer-to make our results more applicable to Ameri-
Grand Theft Childhood?
87
can teens in general. Just as important, the principals and teachers were enthusiastic about working with us on the research. (Latino and Asian teens were underrepresented among the children we studied. We will include more of them in future research.)
We received approval from our human subjects committee at Massachusetts General Hospital to use "opt-out" consent forms. That meant that we could let parents know how to contact us if they didn't want their child included. Only a handful of parents and/or their children opted out of the survey. This meant our response rate was unusually high; virtually every eligible child who came to school that day took the survey. (School administrators exempted a few classrooms because the children had limited English skills or had disabilities that were serious enough to prevent them from participating.) To make the kids more comfortable and to encourage honest answers, their teachers never saw or touched the surveys.
How did we define "violence" in video games? At first, we planned to use Entertainment Software Rating Board "content descriptors"-the short phrases that appear on the back of the game box, under the letter rating. We developed a scale that rated violence from 0 to 3:
3 (high): "intense violence" or "sexual violence"
2 (moderate): "fantasy violence," "realistic violence" or "violence"
1 (low): other violence-related descriptors (e.g., "mild realistic violence," "cartoon violence")
0: no violence-related descriptors.
Unfortunately, these content descriptors were not designed to be rank ordered, so we weren't sure whether a 3 might be worse than a 2, and if so, by how much. They also didn't tell us anything about the context of violence, such as whether violent behavior is rewarded, which could affect the potential for imitation.
Parents in our focus groups seemed most concerned about games rated M (Mature, for ages seventeen and older). Virtually all games assigned this rating have substantial violent content; some have sexually suggestive content or nudity. Many proposed state and federal policies aim to keep M-rated games out of the hands of children under seventeen. So, to make the clearest and most useful distinction, we focused on children's exposure to Mrated games.
How did we measure exposure to video game violence? We asked participants to "list five games that you played a lot in the past six months." This was a straightforward way to find out which ones had recently spent a lot of time with M-rated games. All survey questions were about "electronic games," which we defined for them as "computer games, video games (Xbox, PlayStation, GameCube, etc.) and handheld games (Game Boy, etc.) ."
Of the 1,254 kids who filled out surveys, 1,126 wrote down at least one game title, and most listed five. Our research assistants spent days combing through the survey forms, entering game titles into a database and matching them with ESRB ratings. (In cases where a child wrote a game series name, and that series had some recent titles with different ratings, we assigned the lower age rating to that child's game.)
Since the kids listed more than five thousand game titles or series, we merged titles from series with similar content and mode of play (e.q., The Sims) into single categories for analysis, ending up with about five hundred unique titles of games or game series. Over half were listed by only one child; 119 were listed by five or more children.
To help their memories, we also gave them a list of several hundred of the most popular games. As a check on the validity of their reporting, that list included some realistic titles of nonexistent games. No one selected a fake game title. All of the titles written down by the participants actually existed. This provides evidence that they were responding honestly.
How did we define "aggression"? What did we use as a measure of aggression? We reviewed existing research to find the best survey questions related to aggressive behaviors and attitudes, and to being a victim of aggression. We also asked about problems at school (such as getting into trouble with a teacher or principal) and delinquent behavior (such as damaging property for fun).
To make it easier to compare our results to those of other studies, we adapted or used questions from validated surveys designed for children or teens, including the Olweus BullyNictim Ouestionnaire.? the Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors survey,' the Youth Risk Behavior Survey," and other public-domain questionnaires compiled by the Centers for Disease Control."
How did we justify the relationship of this measure to real-world aggression or violence? We asked kids about real-world behavior and expe-
How did we measure exposure to video game violence? We asked participants to "list five games that you played a lot in the past six months." This was a straightforward way to find out which ones had recently spent a lot of time with M-rated games. All survey questions were about "electronic games," which we defined for them as "computer games, video games (Xbox, PlayStation, GameCube, etc.) and handheld games (Game Boy, etc.) ."
Of the 1,254 kids who filled out surveys, 1,126 wrote down at least one game title, and most listed five. Our research assistants spent days combing through the survey forms, entering game titles into a database and matching them with ESRB ratings. (In cases where a child wrote a game series name, and that series had some recent titles with different ratings, we assigned the lower age rating to that child's game.)
Since the kids listed more than five thousand game titles or series, we merged titles from series with similar content and mode of play (e.g., The Sims) into single categories for analysis, ending up with about five hundred unique titles of games or game series. Over half were listed by only one child; 119 were listed by five or more children.
To help their memories, we also gave them a list of several hundred of the most popular games. As a check on the validity of their reporting, that list included some realistic titles of nonexistent games. No one selected a fake game title. All of the titles written down by the participants actually existed. This provides evidence that they were responding honestly.
How did we define "aggression"? What did we use as a measure of aggression? We reviewed existing research to find the best survey questions related to aggressive behaviors and attitudes, and to being a victim of aggression. We also asked about problems at school (such as getting into trouble with a teacher or principal) and delinquent behavior (such as damaging property for fun).
To make it easier to compare our results to those of other studies, we adapted or used questions from validated surveys designed for children or teens, including the Olweus Bullv/Victirn Ouestionnaire.' the Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors survey.' the Youth Risk Behavior Survev,' and other public-domain questionnaires compiled by the Centers for Disease Control.'
How did we justify the relationship of this measure to real-world aggression or violence? We asked kids about real-world behavior and expe-
Grand Theft Childhood?
89
riences. We didn't ask about violent crime; we didn't expect that to be common among kids going to regular public schools, and we didn't want to ask kids to incriminate themselves.
How meaningful are the results? The differences between groups were large enough to make our results statistically significant. But were they of practical significance? As you'll see, in some cases, kids who regularly played M-rated games were two or three times more likely than others to have certain problems or experiences.
However, a cross-sectional study design can't prove cause and effect; it can only show correlations. In other words, a one-time survey can't tell us if, for example, playing M-rated games actually encouraged or triggered aggressive behaviors. It could be that kids who got into fights or suspended from school were more attracted to violent games, or that some third factor influenced both the violent game play and the aggressive behaviors.
Because of these limitations, we focused on identifying unusual patterns of play that could be markers of increased risk for aggression, or for other behavioral or emotional problems.
What's Normal?
To understand which children might have problems with video games, we first need to know what typical game play looks like. A few studies have looked at how much time children and teens spend with video games. In 2005, the Kaiser Family Foundation surveyed over two thousand kids in grades three to twelve.' On average, young teens spent seventeen minutes per day on computer games, thirty-two minutes on console games, and twenty minutes on handheld games.
The chart below shows some of the most common and striking game play habits of the boys and girls in our survey. Just seventeen children out of 1,254 had never played video or computer games; sixty-three others had not played during the six months prior to the survey. (Those eighty students were left out of our analyses.)
It's clear that typical video game play for seventh- and eighth-grade boys is very different from the norm for girls. When we asked children how many days per week they usually spent playing electronic games,
|
--- |
|
|
|
GAME PLAY HABITS |
BOYS |
GIRLS |
|
Plays less than an hour per week |
8% |
32% |
|
Plays 6 or more hours per week |
45% |
14% |
|
Plays 15 or more hours per week |
13% |
2% |
|
Plays 1 day per week |
9% |
23% |
|
Plays 6 or 7 days per week |
33% |
11% |
|
Usually plays games only on weekends |
37% |
43% |
|
Plays games on at least 2 of these: computer, console, |
|
|
|
handheld device |
84% |
73% |
|
Often/always plays alone |
63% |
46% |
|
Often/always plays with multiple friends in the same room |
33% |
13% |
|
Often/always plays games with friends over the Internet |
11% |
12% |
|
Often/always plays games with strangers (people |
|
|
|
they'd never met in person) over the Internet |
10% |
5% |
|
|
|
|
the most common response for girls was one day per week; for boys, it was six or seven days per week.
Half the girls and three-quarters of the boys said they often or always played video games at home. It was also common for boys in particular to play at a friend or relative's house.
Video games seem to have a more central role in the social lives of boys than of girls: although most boys played games alone at times, most also routinely played with one or more friends. Just 18 percent of boys and 12 percent of girls said they always played alone.
How Manv Kids Are Plaving Violent Games?
When we began planning our research studies, our son was in his last year of middle school. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City had recently come out. Our son mentioned that he was getting a little tired of hearing the boys at school, including the younger ones, brag about how they just got the game or talk excitedly about getting it soon. We thought he was exagger-
Grand Theft Childhood?
91
ating; after all, some of these kids were just eleven or twelve years old. This was a game rated M, for ages seventeen and up. How could so many of them be playing that game? We figured that maybe a few kids with older brothers at home would see it.
When our survey results came back, we learned that our son had been, if anything, understating the situation.
Games Thirteen-Year-Olds Play
Monthly and annual sales figures for video and computer games are tracked by corporations such as the NPD Group and are easy to find
Isn’t there an inherent problem by using the M rating as a basis for much of this research. Games are rated by the ESRB, a body of individuals. And while the ESRB (in my opinion) does a decent job rating games, their objectivity is still subjective in nature. It is almost impossible to rate games perfectly and many T games are much much more violent than some M rated games. The M rating is not always linked to violence. It can be purely language based, it could be because of a sexual scene, etc. Now the list they provide is a decent one, but using the M rating as a basis for how aggressive children are is not very scientific.
I agree with Alec that there is a flaw in using strictly the ESRB M rating to judge what games are violent, or what games are inappropriate for kids to be playing, but I’m not sure how else the study could be performed. I suppose if the organization that ran the study were to look into every game, and categorize each one themselves, they could get a better judgement for what they want and it could be more scientific. While their list of M-games is mostly violent, they are also very different types of games.
I agree that using the M rating as a basis for aggression is not necessarily the best way to go about this. There are some games with lower ratings that have subliminal messages of violence hidden behind cute, whimsical worlds that may be significantly more influential than direct displays of violence.
Yeah, using the M rating to determine violence is not ideal, but look at the actual games reported: GTA, HALO, etc.
These ARE violent games. The reliance on the ratings may result in some incredibly violent T games being missed, or some less extreme M games being caught in the net, but a lot of these kids (especially the boys) actually are playing violent shooters.
Yes but how can we determine what makes kids more likely to express violent behavior when you compare a game like Medal of Honor and Halo. Honestly the two are not that different, with Halo having a bit more blood but the actions of the player are very identical.
The researchers do make an interesting distinction that I don’t think the ESRB takes into account. In paragraph 27, they mention that the lack of context for the violence was a clear shortcoming of the ESRB rating system.
While the ESRB might not have these kinds of descriptions, a few other ratings boards try to include a bit more in these regards. I know that the PEGI rating system has a specific symbol that tells consumers that the video game contains acts of discrimination, along with violence, language, etc. The PEGI site says the symbol specifically means, “Game contains depictions of, or material which may encourage, discrimination.”
While the ESRB is subjective, I think it wouldn’t be too hard to update the system with some additional pointers to the context of the actions taken. From the researchers standpoint, I would guess that they could take some average of every ratings board that has rated the game, but this is only a few steps away from having the researchers simply classify each game for themselves.
|
Game Popularity: Frequency (0/0) of Games Among the Five |
||||
|
Played Most Often by Boys in the Previous Six Months |
||||
|
GAME |
TITLE AND ESRB |
# OF BOYS |
ESRB CONTENT |
|
|
RANK |
GAME/SERIES |
LISTING ONE |
DESCRIPTORS |
|
|
RATING |
OR MORE IN |
|
|
|
|
THAT SERIES |
|
|
||
|
._- |
-- |
- |
||
|
1 |
Grand Theft Auto (M) |
242 (44%) |
Blood and Gore, Intense |
|
|
Violence, Strong Language, |
||||
|
Strong Sexual Content, |
||||
|
Use of Drugs |
||||
|
2 |
Madden A'FL (football) (E) |
189 (34%) |
No Descriptors |
|
|
3 |
Halo (1.1) |
154 (28%) |
Blood and Gore, Violence |
|
|
4 |
NBA (E) |
111 (20%) |
No Descriptors |
|
|
-- |
|
--- |
||
|
5 |
Tony Hawk (skateboard) (T) 90 (16%) |
Blood, Crude Humor, |
||
|
Language, Suggestive |
||||
|
Themes, Use of Alcohol, |
||||
|
Violence |
|
|||
|
6 |
NCAA (E) |
85 (16%) |
No Descriptors |
|
|
-- |
||||
|
7 |
Need for Speed (racing) |
76 (14%) |
Mild Language, Suggestive |
|
|
(E or T) |
|
Themes |
|
|
|
-- |
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
ESPN (sports) (E) |
56 (10%) |
No Descriptors |
|
|
9 |
Medal of Honor (T) |
40 (7%) |
Violence |
|
|
10 |
The Lord of the Rings (T) |
28 (5%) |
Violence |
|
|
b9'{6N 9vi"lsrl1 ~noffiA 29m.sJ 'to {()\O) ,{3n91Jp911 :'{ti16WqOQ 9ffi6;) |
||||
|
2rl1noM xi2 81JOivS1Q srlt ni 2hjJ '{d n9tlO 120M |
||||
|
W!3TYlO) USl23 |
2J51W "l0 \\ |
USl23 UVLA 3JTIT |
3t1lAa |
|
|
251OTqISl:>230 |
3YlO JYlIT2!J |
231S132\3MP.J |
II YlA.Sl |
|
|
Yll 3S10M 510 |
JI1ITAA |
|
||
|
231S132 TABT |
|
|
||
|
- |
|
|||
|
Isux32 .iornulf 3bu1J |
(~~E) \'\'1 |
(T) ~\'\'Ii(' 'll\\' |
I |
|
|
3Jll310iV ,29m9f1T |
|
|
|
|
|
-- |
|
|
|
|
|
se |
92ll9:1nI ,310.;) bns boola |
(~O~) ~11 |
(M) ol~l\ 1\':)I\\' hll1n0 |
|
|
uag1, |
.sgsirgns.I gno1:12 .oonoloiv |
|
|
|
|
,:lfl3:1noJ Isuxsd }!n01:t2 |
|
|
|
|
|
8gU1Glo 32U |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
--- |
|
||
|
210:lqiDa9G oV1 |
(~EI) E\' |
(3) G'\'l!\lo'l;'il \)i'l;~w" ,';)('\\,1(. |
£ |
|
|
bliM ,13id:>aiM :>imoJ |
(~~1) ee |
aernsg l'«:)0:l,{\ |
1> |
|
|
soneloiv |
|
(3) (anoiishrrnie) |
|
|
|
10 210:tqiD29G 0V1 |
(~II)!>a (3) (beftioeqanu) aernsg \)i,~W, |
|
||
|
saneloiv f100:t1SJ bliM |
|
|
|
|
|
210:tqi1J29G oVi |
(<)'\' II) Ea |
(3) 'l'l;t~\i\\)(' |
a |
|
|
,10lTIlIH 9bul] .boold |
(<)'\'OI) I(! |
(T) (brsodsnola) s\m~\:\ '{,IIO\' |
\' |
|
|
9vi1e9ggJJ2 .sgsugns.I |
|
|
|
|
|
I. |
,10riOJIA 10 9aU ,29m3dT |
|
|
|
|
9:>fl9[oiV |
|
|
|
|
|
esrnerif 9vde98gu2 ,2:Ji1,{J |
(~OI) ee |
(3) ~\)ihl\O\l'l'il 'lJ~~Cl 'l1!mCl |
8 |
|
|
soneloiv flOODS] bliM |
(~OI) E(! |
(3) (gniost) h~1\ o·I'\'~W, |
e |
|
|
arotqhoaetl oVi |
(~8) cP |
(3) 'I;'l~o,';\,_ |
01 |
|
ratect ~s no rated
-1Uq'l:O egs '{d aernsg gnillea-qoi 10 tail OIl ai 919f{j ,\{[st£nuj101rrU .9I1ifIlO rsrlw ruods ,{It)91ib nerblirb )[8S 01 b99fI 9W \{r!w a'fsrfT .revslq 10 192£[b (rneoreq 8e) berail abol rsrlr 29Ui:t ernsg reorn ,'{9VW2 1UO nl .'(slq ,(9[b 919W eernsg b9tS1-M 9m02 ju8 .w. bersr 919W rneoreq os. ;3: b91£1 919W
.rsluqoq ,(19m91tx9 b91£1-M 9ClO j2£91 is bevslq 8bi)[ Ioorba elbbirn 929r!t 10 tlsrl reornla
OIl 2SW 919rlT .ahig to rneoreq es. bns avod to Inemeq 80 :"jol s" ernsg b91s1-M bevslq ablo-1£9'{-9VI9Wl vnsrn 2£ ruods ;qUO'Ig sgs '{d 93Cl919'fiib
Grand Theft Childhood?
93
games as did fourteen-year-olds. Ten percent of children played predominantly M-rated games (at least half of the games they listed were rated M).
The intensely violent, satirical Grand Theft Auto series was number one among boys and number two among girls; 44 percent of boys and 20 percent of girls routinely played one or more GTA games. The top five M-rated game series (based on the number of children who had at least one game in that series on their five-most-played list) were: Grand Theft Auto (listed by 359 children), Halo (185), Def Jam (52), True Crime (37) and Driver (34).* The average (mean) number of M-rated games played was similar in Pennsylvania and South Carolina.
Since we only asked about "five games played a lot," many more children had probably played a popular M-rated game at least once or twice. The Kaiser Family Foundation's 2005 media survey asked kids if they had ever played a Grand Theft Auto game; three-quarters (77 percent) of boys in grades seven to twelve said that they had,"
Are children who regularly play Mature-rated games different from children who don't? We compared children who had at least one M-rated title on their list of five games they played a lot to children who listed only games rated E or T.
As a group, children who played M-rated games spent more time with games. They were significantly more likely to play almost every day and to play fifteen or more hours a week. They were also more likely to play with several friends or to play with an older sibling. Teens who had a game console and computer in their bedroom were also more likely to play M-rated games.
Now that we have a glimpse at what typical video game play looks like, what patterns of play are less typical and may require watching by parents? First, most young adolescents who play M-rated games also play less-violent games. Playing M-rated games almost exclusively at that age is unusual enough to be a potential warning sign.
Also, boys were much more likely than girls to have played at least
* Note that because a few children skipped the survey question about gender, these totals are a little different than the numbers in the game popularity charts.
Portrait of the "M-Rated Game" Player
PLAYED AT LEAST ONE M·RATED GAME "A LOT"
NO M-RATED GAMES ON THEIR "PLAYED A LOT" LIST
Plays 15 or more hours per week Plays 6 or 7 days per week
Often/always plays with multiple friends in the same room
11%
3%***
33%
14%***
32%
16%***
Often/always plays with an older sibling
22%
Often/always plays games with friends over
the Internet 14%
Often/always plays games with strangers over
the Internet 11 %
11%**
4%***
•• STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICAJ\T DIFFERENCES AT THE P<.OI LEVEL. ••• STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFEREl'iCES AT THE P<.OOI LEVEL.
one M-rated game "a lot in the past six months." They were also far more likely to play fifteen or more hours per week. This significant gender difference indicates that parents might keep an eye on girls who are frequent players of violent games.
I thought that this sentence was interesting and unexpected. I expected the data to show that boys played more hours of video games and played more M-rated games. I did NOT expect the authors to warn parents to “keep an eye on” girls whose play habits correlated more with their male peers. The authors explain the gaming habits of male subjects (playing 6-7 days a week, playing M games like GTA and HALO, playing with friends) by claiming that video games were a core part of the social experience of young teen boys. Yet, if a girl exhibits these same behaviors, she should be watched as at risk for violence? My initial reaction was quite negative. It seems that the researchers are not so much concerned with identifying violent tendencies here as they are identifying deviation from gender norms. Why, when a girl exhibits these behaviors, is it not considered a core element of HER socialization? By their logic, a girl spending time with male friends playing video games the same way her male friends play is not fitting in with her male friends, she’s a social outlier because she doesn’t match statistically typical “girl” behavior. The author seems to be conflating “signs your daughter is boyish” with “signs your daughter could be dangerously violent.”
It seems like a vicious cycle to take data that shows that video game play (at least frequent, long-term play) is a predominately “male” activity and use that data to encourage parents to discourage girls from adopting the habit/hobby. It’s like saying “Studies show that a higher percentage of boys than girls receive passing grades in 8th grade math. Parents, you should keep an eye on your daughter if she does well in math.”
Later, I was actually impressed that they at least acknowledged all outliers in their analysis. They warn parents to watch out if their son DOESN’T play games, just like they warn them to watch their gamer daughters. Still though, I can’t shake this feeling that it’s unfair to place a stigma on girls who buck the trend and play/socialize more like their male peers or on boys who play/socialize like their female classmates…
Thoughts?
I certainly understand your opinion, but would caution you against taking it too personally. As much as I dislike putting people into certain groups and drawing stereotypes I feel as if that’s a necessary part of surveys and statistics. I feel as if the logic is pretty intact. Drawing from my own childhood, myself and all of my friends played video games. When we hung out we all got together and played video games. To this day, few if any of the girls I have met in my lifetime have ever recalled getting together with other girls and playing video games. What the study suggested is simply to “keep an eye” on these outliers, not that they’re guaranteed to do bad things. Being different isn’t a bad thing, nor is that what’s being suggested, and keeping an eye out never hurt anybody.
I agree with this opinion. I was also struck by this sentence because it seems confusing and not backed up by their own evidence. The studies showed that boys seemed to be playing video games with greater frequency than girls. Simply because girls tended to play one video game “a lot” (whatever that means) does not mean that there is a disproportionate risk of girls becoming more violent because of video games. In fact, I would like to see statistics on girl versus boy violent game play in relation to violence since girls are generally less violent than boys.
Boys who never play video games are extremely unusual. Since game play is often a social activity for boys, this could be a marker of social problems that bear looking into. Contrary to parents' fears, M-rated game use was linked to playing with friends and was not associated with more time spent in solitary play Many children have game consoles or computers in their bedrooms, and this is linked to greater amounts of play in general and more M-rated game play in particular.
Finally, we found that children who played M-rated games were twice as likely to play often or always with an older brother or sister. Given this correlation, if you have older teens or young adult children who are often at home, it might be wise to ask them to be careful about exposing younger siblings to mature content.
Grand Theft Childhood?
95
Do Violent Games Lead to Behavior Problems?
We asked boys in our focus groups whether the shooting, fighting and blood in the games they played might affect their behavior. Most said no; a few were concerned.
Eric: "Yeah, definitely. 'Cause you might not want to fight a lot, and then when you play one of these games, you might want to fight more, so you might get in trouble a lot more."
Researcher: "Has that ever happened to you?"
Eric: "No, not really."
Researcher: "Has anybody you know gotten into trouble because they playa lot of violent games?"
Eric: "No, not really."
Researcher: "But you just figure it's logical, or ... ?"
Eric: "Yeah, it could happen."
When pressed, not one boy could point to anyone they knew whose behavior was noticeably influenced by violent games. The same held true for the parents we spoke with. While some expressed concerns or repeated stories they'd read and heard, not one said that they actually knew someone who'd been affected. Perhaps the urban legends and histrionic news reports of video game players suddenly going on realworld shooting rampages had caused them to focus on the wrong behaviors. Or perhaps the effects are more subtle.
When I read this, I wondered about the first people to address their concerns about video games and juvenile violence. It seems to me that the first logical thought when thinking about violent video games and children would be that there “should be” a correlation, but though I don’t doubt that there may very well be some effects, it seems that they are minimal, and perhaps, this is one of the cases when the actual truth about video game violence and its effects on children seems stranger than what we “logically” think it should be, especially when considering the decreasing rate of juvenile violence.
We noted earlier that violent crime has steadily decreased since the mid-1990s, over a period when video games-including violent onesbecame increasingly available to children. But the pattern is different for less visible aggressive acts. For reasons not yet understood, arrests for simple assault (actual or attempted attack, without a weapon) increased by 106 percent for boys and 290 percent for girls between 1980 and 2004.~
BUllying at school also seems to be increasing in the United States, alrhouzh it's hard to tell how much because of changes in how survey
questions were worded. In 2005, about 28 percent of students aged twelve to eighteen said they'd been bullied at school (from being made fun of or excluded to being pushed, tripped or spat on) at least once in the past six months. About 9 percent had been physically bullied in some way; a quarter of that group said they'd sustained cuts or bruises, chipped teeth, or worse. Young teens were most likely to be victimized.' ?
The focus on school shootings had diverted attention from these everyday problems young people face. Studies conducted in twenty-five countries found broad variation in rates of bullying, but surprisingly similar problems were associated with it. Young teens who are bullies or victims are at greater risk for a range of problems involving emotional adjustment, peer relationships, and physical health. They are also more likely to carry weapons. Worse, these problems can persist into adulthood. Bullying is no longer seen as a trivial and temporary predicament of childhood, but as a public health problem. I)
I had to stop when this topic came up, because I think it’s more important than what it’s usually credited for. And I think if there were emotional consequences in children playing violent video games, this is where they would show up. As the writers keep saying, obviously more research must be done; however, in the end I still agree with what’s been said previously—it only seems dangerous when combined with a lot of other risk factors.
Michael, the entire time I’ve been reading the GTC book, I have been thinking about this issue as well. As the author said, their focus on school shootings in this context has diverted attention away from the easiest example of aggression and violence in school: bullying. Like your statement, I too believe that if there was any effect of violent video games on children it would be in bullying. An interesting topic to look into would be if violent video games are seen to have an effect on aggression, what is the tipping point at which it turns from bullying to sever violent acts? Is it a predisposition to violence, or past exposure to bullying? Violent video games could effect both or neither of these topics.
I think this is a very interesting idea for further study, also taking into account how kids might bully one another because they have different preferences for video games. It has become quite clear that certain video games are more socially acceptable than others so could someones proclivity towards CoD or FIFA make them more prone to belittle and bully their peers who prefer more esoteric and unique video games?
Like Jake, I also think that bullying deserves much more attention, considering it is a much more prevalent and likely occurrence than school shootings. I feel that there’s this overemphasis and focus on these school shootings because of it’s rarity, but in effect, we disregard the daily issues with violence that children face (gangs, bullying, etc.). It seems that a lot of research is devoted to the one in a million chance of a school shooting rather than the higher chance of getting into a fight or being bullied.
Could violent video games have a role in encouraging bullying, or other aggressive or delinquent behaviors? To answer this question, we need to know if there's any real-world relationship between those behaviors and children's exposure to violent video games.
Along with questions about video game play, our middle school survey asked children how many times they'd been involved in any of a dozen undesirable behaviors or situations during the past twelve months: from beating up someone, to getting in trouble at school or with police, to being victimized. We divided the group into kids who'd been involved at least once in the past year and kids who had not been involved. In line with previous research," we set a higher bar for bullying; to be counted, it had to occur at least two or three times a month over the last couple of months.
We then compared children who had any M-rated games on their "played a lot in the past six months" list to children who listed only E- or T-rated games, to see if these two groups were equally likely to be involved with problem behaviors. They were not.
Girls who played M-rated games were significantly more likely to be involved in seven of the twelve problem behaviors. For boys, six of the twelve problem behaviors were significantly more likely among M-game players.
Grand Theft Childhood?
97
Brace yourself for a bit of mathematics here. In the end, it will be worth it. The next two tables and the statistical analysis contain a wealth
of information.
Problem Behaviors and M-Rated Game Preferences: Girls
|
BLEM AREA |
TYPE OF |
OVERALL |
PERCENTAGE |
PERCENTAGE |
|
|
BEHAViOR |
PERCENTAGE OF |
OF |
OF ~ON- |
||
|
PREVIOUS 12 |
GIRLS INVOLVED |
M-GAMERS |
M-GAMERS |
||
|
MONTHS |
IN BEHAVIOR |
|
|
|
|
|
Been in a physical fight |
20.9% |
40% |
14%** |
||
|
I;RESSION |
Hit or beat up someone |
34.5% |
49% |
29%** |
|
|
D BULLYING |
Took part in bullying |
|
|
|
|
|
another student t |
4.4% |
6% |
4% |
|
|
|
Damaged property just |
|
|
|
|
|
|
for fun |
7.9% |
15% |
5%** |
||
|
:L1NQUENT |
Got into trouble with |
|
|
|
|
|
:HAVIORS |
the police |
1.8% |
2% |
2% |
|
|
Stole something from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
from a store |
9.8% |
14% |
8% |
|
|
|
Got poor grades on a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
report card |
23.7% |
37% |
20%** |
||
|
Skipped classes or school |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:HOOL |
without an excuse |
10.8% |
20% |
7%** |
|
|
~OBLEMS |
Got into trouble with |
|
|
|
|
|
teacher or principal |
35.5% |
49% |
31%** |
||
|
Got suspended from school |
8.4% |
16% |
5%** |
||
|
Been threatened or injured |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: ICTlM IZATlON |
with a weapon |
9.0% |
14% |
7%* |
|
|
Been bullied at school t |
6.9% |
8% |
6% |
|
|
|
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICA:-JT DIFFEREKCE WITHIN GENDER BETWEEN M-GAMERS AND NON-M-GAME |
|
||||
|
:T THE P< .05 LEVEL. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE WITHIN GENDER BETWEEN M-GAMERS AND NON-M-GA~E |
|
||||
|
'T THE P<.Ol LEVEL. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
THIS IlULLYING OCCURRED AT SCHOOL AT LEAST TWO TO THREE TIMES PER MONTH OVER THE PA |
|
||||
|
'EW MONTHS; OLWEUS BULLY/VICTIM QUESTION:-.1AIRE DEFIKlTlONS. |
|
|
|
||
Problem Behaviors and M-Rated Game Preferences: Boys
|
ROBLEM AREA |
TYPE OF |
OVERJ\LL |
PERCENTAGE |
PERCENTAl |
|
BEHAVIOR |
PERCENTAGE OF |
OF |
OF NON- |
|
|
PREVIOUS 12 |
BOYS INVOLVED |
M-GAMERS |
M-GAMER |
|
|
MONTHS |
IN BEHAVIOR |
|
|
|
|
Been in a physical fight |
44.4% |
51% |
28'frl*~ |
|
|
.GGRESSION |
Hit or beat up someone |
53.2% |
60% |
39%*>1 |
|
.ND BULLYING |
Took part in bullying |
|
|
|
|
another student t |
9.2% |
10% |
8% |
|
|
Damaged property just |
|
|
|
|
|
for fun |
18.6% |
23% |
10%** |
|
|
IELlNQUENT |
Got into trouble with |
|
|
|
|
IEHAVIORS |
the police |
4.9% |
6% |
2(fr· |
|
Stole something from |
|
|
|
|
|
from a store |
10.5% |
13% |
6%* |
|
|
Got poor grades on a |
|
|
|
|
|
report card |
31.6% |
35% |
23%** |
|
|
Skipped classes or school |
|
|
|
|
|
CHOOL |
without an excuse |
11.2% |
13% |
8% |
|
ROBLEMS |
Got into trouble with |
|
|
|
|
teacher or principal |
52.9% |
60% |
39%** |
|
|
Got suspended from school |
20.1% |
22% |
15lff |
|
|
Been threatened or injured |
|
|
|
|
|
JCTIMIZATION |
with a weapon |
12.6% |
15% |
6%*" |
|
Been bullied at school t |
10.2% |
8% |
15%* |
|
|
STATISTICALLY SIGJ\IFICANT DIFFERE)lCE WITHIN GENDER BETWEEN M·GAYIERS AND :-lON·M·GA:>IEI |
||||
|
'THE P<.05 LEVEL. |
|
|
|
|
|
STATISTICALLY SIG:\IFICANT DIFFERENCE WITHIN GENDER BETWEEN M·GAMERS AND :-lON·M·GAMEJ |
||||
|
r THE P<.OI LEVEL. |
|
|
|
|
|
l'HIS BULLYING OCCURRED AT SCHOOL AT LEAST TWO TO THREE TI~IES PER ::V1O)lTH OVER THE I'A~ |
||||
|
,W MONTHS; OLWEUS BULLY/VICTIM QUESTION:\AIRE DEFINITIOI\S. |
|
|
||
What These Data Mean
Let's take a look at the first chart for a minute. Among all the girls we surveyed who played video games, 20.9 percent said that they'd been in
Grand Theft Childhood?
99
at least one physical fight during the previous year. Among those girls who included at least one M-rated game on their "most played" list (Mgamers), 40 percent reported being in a fight. This compares with 14 percent of those girls who played games, but who didn't include any Mrated games on their list (non-M-gamers). This difference between Mgamers and non-M-gamers is statistically significant at the p<.Ollevel; the odds of a difference that big occurring by chance is less than one in one hundred.
Among boys, 51 percent of the M-gamers and 28 percent of the nonM-gamers reported getting into a fight during the past year. This difference is also statistically significant at the p<.Ollevel.
We found significant relationships between M-rated game play and a broad range of aggressive or problem behaviors among middle school students. In fact, M-gamers were more likely to be involved with every one of these problems than non-M-gamers-with one exception (see below). Some of these associations, especially for less-common issues such as getting into trouble with police, were only trends; a few others were only significant at the p<.05 level (i.e., odds of one in twenty that those results occurred by chance). We'd need to repeat this study with more kids to see if those trends might turn out to be significant associations. What's more, in most cases the odds of engaging in these behaviors at least once during the previous year increased with the relative "dose" ofM-rated game exposure: the more M games on children's lists, the greater the relationship.
Again, playing M-rated games may not be the cause of such problems as lower grades in school; it may be that children doing poorly in school are attracted to these games so that they can be successful at something. There may be other factors influencing both.
Problems Among Boys
Compared to other boys who regularly played video games, boys reporting frequent play of at least one .\i-rated title (M-gamers) were much more likely to get into physical fights, to hit or beat up someone, to damage property for fun, or to steal something from a store. They were also much more likely to report poor school grades, to get into trouble with a
teacher or principal and to report being threatened or injured with a weapon such as a gun, knife or club. The odds of boys' involvement in all of these behaviors increased with each additional M-rated title on their "frequently played" game list.
Bullying
The picture was different for boys' involvement in bullying. While the differences between the two groups of boys were not statistically significant at the p<.Ollevel, being the victim of a bully was the only measure on which M-gamer boys were less likely to have a problem. They were also less likely to be victims with each additional M-rated title played. Although boys who listed one or more M-rated games were not significantly more likely to report bullying others at school, they were significantly more likely to be bullies with exposure to more M-rated titles.
Why were the boys who played M-rated games less likely to be victims of bullying? We know that children who play M-rated games are more likely to play in groups. It may be that the teenagers who play Mrated games have better social skills and therefore have a broader repertoire of responses to bullies. It may also be that these teens have more friends, so they're less likely to be picked on. At this point, we simply don't know. It's an area worth exploring to see if this difference holds up.
This is an interesting take on why kids who play video games are less statistically likely to be picked on. Generally, given the types of characteristics given to gamers, we would assume that boys who played a lot of M-Rated video games may be the victims of bullying or may lack the social skills necessary to counter bullying. However, the data suggests that rather the boys who do play video games are less likely to be picked on because video games provide a catalyst for social interaction. I never played serious video games in a group, but for the gamers out there who did, how true is this? Did you find that your friendships with people were dependent upon playing a video game? And if this is the case, what was the overall quality of the friendship?? I would assume that gaming becomes a part of the friendship overtime, not the defining feature. Is this a correct assumption?
It’s interesting that you bring that up because I have always had the impression that the kids that are publicized for playing violent video games and are found to be picked on are often the exceptions. I feel that we have had an image in our minds that these wildly graphic games are correlated with emo kids who have no friends, seek solace in these games to relieve the stress/pain/whatever it is when in reality may different kinds of people play these violent games on a regular basis. I’m not a gamer per say but whenever I would talk to my gamer friends they made it seem interesting enough that I would talk about it with them. They made it interesting enough to me that I didn’t care that I didn’t play the games they were talking about. It didn’t make me want to go out and buy the game myself but I would play it if given the opportunity. I doubt that the friendships made as a result of these games is more about the games, rather it gives them something to be passionate about and thus to talk about in social situations.
It really is dependent on how a friendship starts. I have had friendships that started out through the playing of a game and nothing more. Would that friendship have died early on if somehow we couldn’t play the game together any more? Most likely. Over time though those friendships have transferred from ones made through a game to true real life friendships that I cherish. So yes friendships can be dependent upon an activity of any sorts really. The same way people make friends through sports, drinking, and other things.
I don’t think that video games are always a social helper. I know that personally, I made and kept many friendships through games, but they certainly weren’t the only reason we were friends. It was just a common activity that we liked. On the other hand, I certainly remember getting made fun of for playing certain games, and I remember other kids who were picked on as well. I think many games are still taboo in main groups, especially in grade school. To me, this goes along with the general idea that most non-gamers don’t really understand how games work. What I find most interesting about my own history, however, is that the people who had the most animosity towards gamers were actually other gamers, who just played different games. It seemed like while some games were becoming socially acceptable for everyone, others were still seen as “weird” or different. I think the biggest issue at play here, which is brought up in the article, is whether or not the kids are playing games alone, or in groups.
I can relate to being able to handle bullies because of video games, not necessarily M rated games, but online games. Although there is no physical aspect of online bullying, the internet is full of trolls that toy with your emotions and help build your tolerance for bullshit. I feel like the people who win the playground/bully arguments are the ones with the strongest personality. It doesn’t surprise me that M rated games give a sense of empowerment and confidence to deal with these situations. Sometime along the lines of, yes, I am mature because I play M games.
My friendships aren’t dependent on video games, but a lot of my friends play games. It serves as a common interest, like books or movies, as well as a group activity.
Problems Among Girls
Many of these relationships between problem behaviors and M-rated game play were even stronger among girls. This probably reflects the fact that M-rated games were played by a minority of girls but the majority of boys. M-gamer girls were significantly more likely to have hit someone or been in a fight, damaged property for fun, gotten poor grades, skipped school, been in trouble with a teacher or principal, and been suspended from school.
Now that we know a relationship exists between violent video games and some problem behaviors, the next step is to find out what's behind that relationship. We can make logical guesses, but we can't be sure from our research whether violent game play led to these behaviors or vice versa;
Grand Theft Childhood?
101
whether each aggravates the other; or if a third (or fourth or fifth) factor partially or completely explains the relationship. To know more, we'd need to conduct a larger study that follows a group of children over time.
It's also important to note that the problems we studied are common among teens. For example, over half of boys and one third of girls in our sample had hit or beaten up someone at least once during the previous year. This doesn't mean they are bad kids or are likely to be violent adults.
Aggressive Behavior and Time Spent on Games
We noted that the more M-rated games on children's "most played" lists, the more likely they were to be involved in problem behaviors. But what about the effects of time spent playing video games in general? (Since playing M games is correlated with more time spent playing games, this gets a bit complicated.)
TIME SPENT PLAYING ANY VIDEO GAMES
PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN CLASSIFIED AS BULLIES
< 1 hour/week
1.4% 4.1%
1-2 hours/week 3-5 hours/week
7.7% 11.7%
6-8 hours/week
9-11 hours/week 12-14 hours/week 15+ hours/week
12.1% 8.0%
10.5%
o days/week
1 day/week
2 days/week
3 days/week 4-5 days/week 6-7 days/week
2.8% 1.0% 5.0%
7.0% 7.4%
11.6%
We found that girls who played games nearly every day, regardless of game content, were significantly more likely to report bullying others. They were also more likely to report physical fights or trouble with teachers. Among girls, a pattern of very frequent game play appears to be a marker of higher risk for aggressive behavior. For boys, only one problem behavior-hitting or beating up someone-was significantly linked to near-daily game play, regardless of M-rated game play.
However, as days per week of play went up, both girls and boys were significantly more likely to be bullies. Girls who played games nearly every day were significantly more likely to be bullies than other girls (12 percent vs. 3 percent), and more likely to be victims of bullying (17 percent vs. 6 percent).
Although boys and girls who play electronic games a lot (in hours per week and days per week) are significantly more likely to bully others, it's important to note that most children who play these games are not bullies. Just 10.5 percent of children who played fifteen hours or more per week, and 11.6 percent of children who played nearly every day, admitted to bullying someone at school more than once or twice in the past couple of months. And of course, not all bullies or victims play violent games.
We need to look more closely at how the relatively small percentage of heavy game users who are bullies may differ from the majority of heavy game users who are not bullies. For example, there may be differences in the types of games they play, their family relationships, school failure, etc., that would help us better identify children at risk for problems from heavy game use. A larger study is needed to sort this out.
One unexpected finding: boys who didn't regularly play video games (i.e., not at all, or zero days during a typical week) were more likely than even boys who played M-rated games to get into fights, steal from a store, or have problems at school. There were too few boys in this category for us to delve into it further.
Since game play is the norm for boys, nonplayers are by definition abnormal. Girls who didn't play games were not noticeably different from others in terms of problem behaviors (a bit better behaved in some categories); this makes sense, since gaming is not as central to girls' daily life and social relationships.
We found that girls who played games nearly every day, regardless of game content, were significantly more likely to report bullying others. They were also more likely to report physical fights or trouble with teachers. Among girls, a pattern of very frequent game play appears to be a marker of higher risk for aggressive behavior. For boys, only one problem behavior-hitting or beating up someone-was significantly linked to near-daily game play, regardless of M-rated game play.
However, as days per week of play went up, both girls and boys were significantly more likely to be bullies. Girls who played games nearly every day were significantly more likely to be bullies than other girls (12 percent vs. 3 percent), and more likely to be victims of bullying (17 percent vs. 6 percent).
Although boys and girls who play electronic games a lot (in hours per week and days per week) are significantly more likely to bully others, it's important to note that most children who play these games are not bullies. Just 10.5 percent of children who played fifteen hours or more per week, and 11.6 percent of children who played nearly every day, admitted to buJlying someone at school more than once or twice in the past couple of months. And of course, not all bullies or victims play violent games.
We need to look more closely at how the relatively small percentage of heavy game users who are bullies may differ from the majority of heavy game users who are not bullies. For example, there may be differences in the types of games they play, their family relationships, school failure, etc., that would help us better identify children at risk for problems from heavy game use. A larger study is needed to sort this out.
One unexpected finding: boys who didn't regularly play video games (i.e., not at all, or zero days during a typical week) were more likely than even boys who played M-rated games to get into fights, steal from a store, or have problems at school. There were too few boys in this category for us to delve into it further.
That the fact that nongamers were more likely to bully surprised the researchers seems to indicate that they came into the experiment expecting gamers to be more violent. For the most part, the authors seem remarkably even-handed in their assessment and they don’t draw conclusions that are overly-ambitious based on the data. However, there are a few exceptions.
The fact that nongamer boys and frequent M-game playing girls are more likely to be bullies and bullied can be explained by the fact that they are the smallest groups in the study AND are bucking the trend most divided along gender lines. As we’ve discussed before in class, gamer girls are often excluded or ridiculed by boys and may not fit in with girls. Speaking from personal experience, 12 to 14-year-olds don’t really need a reason to tear each other down, but issues related to gender identity and perceived societal norms are perennial favorites. Any deviation from perceived norms is met with hostility, which includes bullying of the outlier and can spark an overreaction that causes the outlier engage in bullying.
Any other thoughts/alternate explanations for these stats? I don’t mean to harp on the gender question, but considering that’s what we’re moving into on the syllabus, that’s where my mind is right now…
I’m glad someone finally brought this up. I doubt it’s a surprise to anyone that females in gaming is often a topic of conflict from the female perspective. From what I can tell it just seems that from a young age when children are socialized to act a certain way, taught to enjoy certain things and like certain things, very specific attitudes are adopted as a result from a very young age, for example: boy are taught that it is okay to be aggressive as long as it is kept under control. It seems fairly easy to take that aggressive behavior to any game geared towards younger kids. As they grow up they can play more and more violent games which reinforces their attitudes and then it becomes a thing that boys do. Much like playing with soldiers or playing football, whenever a girl tries to invade that space that boys have designated as their own they feel threatened and retaliate by ridiculing the girl.
I thought it was interesting that the researchers were surprised that girls enjoy violent games. Especially since contemporary representations of women in the media have become more violent. There are so many reality shows that pretty much involve around women fighting other women. I see the inclusion of female characters in violent games as a positive. I think it shows girls that can work in a cooperative environment with other gamers and defeat villians as women. It was good to see that some of the young boys in the study enjoyed playing with female characters as well. It showed them that females could also be strong and powerful.
Since game play is the norm for boys, nonplayers are by definition abnormal. Girls who didn't play games were not noticeably different from others in terms of problem behaviors (a bit better behaved in some categories); this makes sense, since gaming is not as central to girls' daily life and social relationships.
Grand Theft Childhood?
103
Are Aggressive Kids More likely to Play Violent Games?
From the moment they are born (and, according to some researchers, perhaps even earlier), children have behavioral styles that persist throughout childhood into adulthood." Some babies are pretty easy to manage and are quick to figure out ways to calm themselves. Others are easily overwhelmed, overreact to new or noisy situations and need more time to be soothed.
As infants grow into toddlers, traits such as shyness and aggressiveness become more apparent. This means that the behavioral effects of watching a scary movie on a shy three-year-old or seven-year-old might be quite different from the effect on a preschooler who is already showing aggressive tendencies or a first-grader who is known for her daring behavior.
Media researchers have tried to take traits into account, particularly in laboratory studies of aggression. Some studies have found greater effects of violent content in video games among subjects high in trait hostility; others did not.> An Australian study that tried to reconcile these differences found that a player's emotional state before starting to playa violent game (Quake II) influenced how he or she felt afterward. The researchers looked at subjects' responses to a questionnaire about traits to see if they could find a difference between those who felt angry after play and those who didn't. The angry-after-play group had higher trait anger and aggression."
We might also see inconsistent effects between studies because they leave out other important factors that influence aggression. Feelings of closeness to parents and connectedness to school, for example, are known to buffer the effects of exposure to real-life violence on violent behavior." Children's temperament and behavioral styles will also influence how they are treated and affected by peers, parents and school.
Children with high trait hostility and aggression seem to be drawn to more violent activities, whether those be contact sports such as football or wrestling, more aggressive schoolyard play or more violent media.' ? We don't yet know how these activities might affect aggressive kids differently. For some, playing football or a violent video game might reinforce and worsen their aggressive behavior; for others, these activities
This paragraph brings up a valid point. It makes sense that a kid with high trait aggression would be drawn to more violent activities, but it doesn’t seem bothersome if that activity is athletic. At first glance I think we wouldn’t think anything of a kid playing football to release aggression, but would have concern over a kid who turned to media. Sports and video games to me are parallel in what they achieve for kids. I used soccer to relieve stress and “escape” from whatever was bothering me, in the same way that the kids the researchers used video games to escape stress. I think this negative distinction between playing sports vs. playing video games again boils down to this incorrect perception of a kid isolating themselves to play video games. Athletics I think appear as a more natural and acceptable way for kids to take out aggression. I don’t know if this is fair.
This research seems to conclude what we have discussed in class already. Some kids are born with a predisposition toward violent behavior. Video games do not encourage most children to become violent or more aggressive. It seems like there is a double standard when it comes to video game violence and real violence. An overly aggressive teen who plays football can actually hurt someone when they tackle them on the football field. Who are gamers hurting when they shoot some aliens in Halo?
might be socially acceptable ways to work through and get rid of hostile feelings.
Attitudes Toward Violence
Another charge often made against violence in video games and other media is that it may desensitize children to real violence. The fear is that constant exposure to gory virtual violence, without seeing the consequences that would accompany such violence in real life, could make children less sensitive to suffering caused by violence and reduce their empathy for its victims. They might fail to help people in distress. Thirteen-year-old Alex put it this way:
If you watch lots of violent movies, you can get it into your head that violence isn't a very bad thing, because you see it all the time, and your sense of it is kind of dulled. So when you see someone in a movie get their arm cut off or something, then you don't, like, cry for an hour, 'cause you've seen it before. If you've never seen a movie like that, you'd probably be really sad, but after [you've seen] ten ....
Desensitization is not always a bad thing. For example, it's used in psychotherapy all the time to help people overcome phobias and disturbing thoughts. Jeanne Funk, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Toledo, adds, "It's also something that occurs on a daily basis; it helps us manage life stresses. If we didn't get desensitized to tragedies, we couldn't function."
Funk became concerned that violent media could subtly desensitize children: "Over time, we could develop a group of kids who won't care about other people. Playing violent video games could be one risk factor."
A related concern is that violent video games could make physical aggression a more appealing or first-choice solution for personal conflicts. Constantly practicing aggressive behavior through video games might add to the risk.
I thought this statement was particularly interesting. It goes back to our previous discussion of desensitization. I think there is a distinction that should be made between being desensitized to real-life violence vs. video game/media violence. If we aren’t disturbed by violence in games and movies, does that necessarily mean that we wouldn’t cringe or be bothered at the sight of actual violence? Should we be bothered by all violence, even in the media? Does this say anything about our society and generation today that we can stomach more gore and violence in the media?
Picture a twelve-year-old playing a first-person shooter game, fighting soldiers, aliens or zombies. The player advances through a dim cor-
Grand Theft Childhood?
105
ridor where enemies may lurk around a corner, pop out from alcoves or come up from behind. To stay "alive," the player must be hypervigilant for attacks and be ready with an almost automatic aggressive response. Researchers such as Funk are concerned that constant repetition of these behaviors in violent games could lead to the development of "aggressive scripts": automatic responses to certain types of situations. At question is whether the conditioned response of pressing a button in a game will generalize to reacting violently in the real world.
In theory, a nonthreatening real-life event, such as an accidental bump in a school hallway, could be seen as a threat and trigger a scripted aggressive reaction. A child who has been desensitized to violence by seeing it over and over in video games or movies might find it harder to suppress an automatic aggressive response."
To investigate these concerns, Funk conducted a series of studies with more than three hundred children in elementary and high school. For example, in one study, children filled out surveys to check their attitudes toward violence, level of empathy and exposure to violence in real life. Funk also asked how many hours per week children played video games, watched television and movies and used the Internet, and their favored type of content for each. She concluded that exposure to video game and movie violence was associated with stronger proviolence attitudes, but only video game violence was linked to lower empathy,"
Funk would like to see more longitudinal studies that look at how factors including age, gender, personality and intelligence may interact with exposure to violent media. "My guess is that kids who already have problems with aggression are at higher risk for being affected by violent video games, such as bullies or bully victims," she notes.
Our own survey included a set of eight questions designed to explore children's beliefs about aggression (e.g., "If people do something to make me really mad, they deserve to be beaten up") and whether they consider alternatives to fighting (e.g., "I try to talk out a problem instead of fighting"). We found that boys who regularly played at least one M-rated game had significantly lower belief in the use of nonviolent strategies and significantly more positive perceptions of aggression. This was also true for girls who played M-rated games. Again, we can't say that M-rated games created these attitudes, nor do we know the real-world significance of this.
I want to know how they would plan to follow up this survey exactly. They know very well that the survey in and of itself is not a very good indicator of the way these kids may react in the real world and as they mentioned at the end of the paragraph, this attitude cannot be attributed directly to video games. I’m only bring this up because I feel like a lot of the studies done on this subject are observations and opinions but they have yet to find a concrete way of determining the effect of gaming on kids, violent or otherwise so why don’t they focus on finding a more effective way of figuring out the exact correlation instead of simply opinions?
Michael jellinek, MD, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and the chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, sees little evidence of children being desensitized by violent media. "I've seen kids who were exposed to domestic violence learn to numb themselves or to dissociate. I've seen kids in gangs learn to minimize it. Most kids, when they see someone injured on the field or when they come into the emergency room, there's a whole different tone-very realistic-to how they feel about that than when someone's hurt in a video game."
Violent Video Games and Feeling Safe
Marcy told the other parents in her focus group that her concerns went well beyond the contents and immediate effects of violent video games. "I think it also creates for children-and they may not admit it-a real sense of terror, an underlying sense that life is just violent; that awful things happen all the time to people."
Could violence in games or on TV make children feel less safe and see the world as a scarier place? A quarter of the children we surveyed (24 percent of boys and 26 percent of girls) reported being afraid of getting hurt by someone at school at least once in the previous month. One in three girls and almost one in four boys didn't feel safe walking alone in their neighborhood at night. However, we didn't find any significant link between game play and perceived danger.
Boys in several of our focus groups were more concerned about violence on television news than about gore in video games. For some, TV news violence could make video game violence more upsetting.
Ryan: "I don't really think video games will influence kids as much as, like, the news. That can influence kids, and that's real."
Shawn: "Yeah."
Researcher: "How do you think kids who watch a lot of news might feel different about the world?"
Ryan: "Like, I don't like to watch the news."
Grand Theft Childhood?
107
Shawn: "I don't either."
Ryan: "I'll tell my dad to shut it off, if I'm in the same room, or I'll just leave."
Researcher: "But how does that make you feel, when you watch the news?"
Ryan: "Well, I play video games, and I go, 'Oh, that stuff won't happen.' And if I see it happen on the news, it kind of freaks me out, 'cause, like, Ijust ... "
Researcher: "Like, 'Oh, but it's not a fantasy after all'?"
Ryan: "Yeah."
Shawn: "It's scary, 'cause you don't feel safe."
Parents don't generally think about news as harmful to children or that children even watch news programs. But surveys show that children and teens watch TV news regularly; sometimes, they just happen to be in the room when an adult turns the news on.2U A child who sees a lot of violence on television, whether it's Law and Order reruns or news programs, is more likely to see the world as a scary place with lurking dangers far out of proportion to reality." But realistic depictions of violence, such as those on the news, are thought to be more likely to scare or desensitize children. As one child told us, "In video games, you know it's fake."
I thought this section of the article was incredibly interesting and true. I thought it was true just based on my own experiences. I can remember the news always being on in the morning while I was getting ready for school and at night while I was doing homework. With that much exposure to actual, occurring, real world violence the world really does begin to seem like a violent and scary place. It seems like an incredibly valid point to consider that this could be something we should turn our attention to, rather than continue to blame video games for increased violence.
I can remember as a child being more upset over how confused violent news stories would make me because I could never understand WHY someone committed the act of violence. In childhood movies at least motives were provided to explain the evil or violent acts. As I grew older I simply accepted that some people are crazy or unstable and violent acts occur. This inability to understand WHY violence happens in our world not only creates fear of the violence, but also fear of the unknown. Bound up within this fear of the unknown we find some of the attacks on new media for conditions of broader society. And perhaps my acceptance of the fact that there are crazy people who do unexplainable and unthinkable acts is to some extent desensitization.
I don’t remember ever being scared or upset of news stories but I can say that some of the most profound moments I have experienced have been through news stories. I remember watching the television after 9/11 and not understanding necessarily why something like that would take place. My brother, whom is five years older than me, always recounts a story to me that he found very profound. He has said to me several times that he can remember exactly when he found out what death was. It wasn’t when he was playing a violent video game, watching cartoons, or reading comics. It was when he was watching the OJ Simpson trial. He asked my parents while watching the coverage, after my father spoke on his obvious guilt, why they couldn’t just ask the victims whether or not he did it. My parents had to explain that wasn’t how it worked, and then he finally understood. The news is scary thing, because it is very dramatic and it is real.
Are we suggesting that news programs have a negative effect on childhood behavior? Large-scale ubiquitous media events notwithstanding (these tend to have some kind of effect on most people regardless of age), it would seem contradictory to move towards making news media a scapegoat for violent behavior, given that news media presents the “real world consequences” of violence.
This topic pushes me towards wondering whether it’s better to have everyone have experience with violence because they would “know the consequences” or no one, such that everyone is isolated from violence.
I don’t think the focus is on how news effects childhood behavior, but rather how it shapes a child’s view of the world. I definitely wouldn’t say the news leads to children becoming violent or use it as a scapegoat, because I don’t think that’s fair at all. I can just see and relate to how the news can shape someones view of the world. If every time the news comes on there is a story about real world violence, you start to think that that’s a pretty normal occurrence and you become almost habituated to expect something violent to have occurred today. I think when I was little I definitely got that impression from the news.
While it is true that violence is prevalent in the media, it is prevalent in a passive way. When we watched the World Trade Center Collapse on 9/11, or the Aurora Movie Theatre shooting, or even the local news, we are on the sidelines being exposed to someone else’s violent behavior. I think the reason people fixate on a video game’s violence is because it takes the spectator and gives him/her agency over the violence they are watching on screen. This doesn’t necessarily mean that this violence is any worse than the violence we watch on TV (because it is possible that they are both as equally horrible… and because there is no study to suggest otherwise), but I think that agency a video game gives to the player over a violent act really makes everyone else uncomfortable.
I definitely agree with this. My parents always turned on NBC Nightly News during dinner time even when my siblings and I were fairly young. I remember watching news reports of 9/11 as a 9 year old, unable to understand the atrocities that had occurred. I think that exposure to violence on the news is extremely common for children of all ages. However, I would argue that the news might have the ability to produce irrational fear in a child but I highly doubt that it could make a child more prone to violence. I think that this would be an interesting study.
So for all the things that desensitized me as a child (WWE, video games, film, TV, etc.) I believe the news was definitely at the forefront. You see a huge amount of violent images on the news daily and I do think that the way our media acts desensitizes kids. Couldn’t in a way this desensitization lead to real-world violence, like we see in many other forms of media influence when certain attributes are already present?
Absolutely. especially considering how many of the children polled in the study recognize how death in video games is not real no matter how “realistic” the game is. news and media coverage, on the other hand, portrays real acts of violence and death that have ramifications on the real world. If all anyone ever sees or hears about when they turn on the news is another shooting, or another terrorist attack, or another tragedy, then as a natural countermeasure to all of that pain and sorrow, people have to learn to become hardened against such news. again, this might not be as big a deal in a household where parents are attentive to their children and are present to give context to such horrible situations, but in an inattentive household or amongst children who show other risk factors, this desensitization to the horrors of the real world can have a lasting, and problematic psychological impact.
My gut reaction to this is that it either explains or is related to the phenomenon of “copy-cat crime.” On some level, exposure to any violent act combined with already present criminal tendencies is a sign of trouble. Whether or not real life news has a greater or differing effect than fantasized violence can be up for debate and it’d be interesting to see a more concise answer.
If you’ve ever left a movie theater and thought to yourself, “Something shown in that movie might be cool to do,” you’ve felt this phenomenon. Now combine this with a very skewed definition of “cool” and sociopathic behavior and problems start to arise.
I immediately thought of 9/11 when those kids were saying the news is scary. I remember watching my parents glued to the television set. There was something about the repetition of traumatizing images that was frightening to me as child. The terrorist attacks were so mediated that when I think about 9/11 I associate it with the news coverage of the event.
Given that older children and teens believe that news represents reality and that TV news programs increasingly show graphic or sensationalized violence, there is a real risk of harrn.F Parents can help by keeping track of their kids' exposure to TV news and helping them put it into context-for example, stories get on the news because they are rare, and that events on the news, whether it's losing your house to a tornado or winning the lottery, are not likely to happen to them.
I can say out of experience that the news did perhaps scare me a little as a child, but like many of you have made reference, I only sometimes watched 30-min nightly news. While even this news can be filled with nonsense, I think that our age of constant news updates is even worse. Even as a young adult, the news can scare me. I feel like any time I see a 24-hr news station or website, they are claiming some “breaking news” about something awful. While I understand that there simply isn’t 24 hours of news in a day, I can easily see how this idea could scare kids very much. Like the end of the article says, I think all forms of media need to be studied together.
Although probably the topic of a different discussion, the nature of the 24 hour news cycle and reporting of “breaking news” has led to overwhelming media coverage of tragedies and horrible acts as soon as they happen. What’s more, a disproportionate amount of that coverage is spent on the perpetrator(s) of those attacks rather than the victims. Granted, immediately following a tragedy the victims/victims’ families would like a moment of peace, but even so, after the terrible Newtown shooting, more people knew about Lanza than the names of the victims. This issue was started by news stations and websites who plastered Lanza’s face all over the country and the internet, thereby offering a corrupted form of veneration, and possibly propagating more horrible acts like this in the future by sick people who crave recognition and media attention for their actions, no matter how horrible or perverse. Thus, the sensationalist and attention-grabbing nature of modern media only lends to further desensitize, if not incite, children to real, actual violence (given an unstable home and other previous risk factors) over and above whatever video games can do. Through the TV we are exposed to real evil, not just pixelated versions of it
Research on television coverage of war shows that children of different ages are upset by different aspects, with younger ones more bothered by the visual images and teens by the complex issues, such as morality and justice, that are raised by news events."
Violent Games and Criminal Violence
Is there any evidence for a link between violent crime and video game play? So far, there's not much to go on. But we may get some hints from the decades of research on violent television.
Joanne Savage, PhD, of American University's School of Public Affairs reviewed the research on how television violence is related to criminal violence." When we go beyond laboratory measures of aggression and playfighting among children and look at real-world crime-the outcome we worry about most-there are surprisingly few studies. There are even fewer studies that look specifically at violent media content (rather than assuming that more media use means more exposure to violence) and give enough detail about their methods to judge whether they make sense.
We mentioned in class the concern of desensitization to violence through exposure and repeated exposure, but this paragraph formally raises the concern of the quantity of violence in terms of televised violence. Should we be more concerned about individuals’ witnessing one extreme violent act to which one expects a reaction of shock or horror, or many more subtle instances of violence to which reactions are normalized? Personally, the latter concerns me more.
For example, one study she cites compared audience sizes for violent television shows in different U.S. media markets to local violent crime rates. It found a significant relationship, but not in the expected direction. It turned out that the more viewing of violent programs, the lower the violent crime rate.
Studies of violent criminals that looked back at their earlier media use (retrospective studies) didn't rule out the possibility that violent children preferred violent media, or the studies found that lots of TV watching in childhood only made a difference when kids also were exposed to violence at home.
Longitudinal studies of childhood TV watching and adult aggression had various problems, such as not actually measuring children's exposure to violent TV, using measures of adult aggression that focused more on obnoxious behaviors than on violent crime, or finding no effect when controlling for children's initial level of aggressiveness.
Savage concludes: "Because legislators and other policymakers make frequent calls to reduce media violence, this line of research, spanning over forty years now, is still relevant and topical and bears further scrutiny. At this point it must be said, however, that there is little evidence in favor of media violence as a means of remedying our violent crime problem."
She does note, and we agree, that lack of good evidence so far doesn't mean there's nothing to find. The key is to focus more specifically on which children in which situations are at greatest risk from which types of media violence. We need large long-term studies that (1) have good measures of violent behavior and of violent media exposure, (2) have a well-matched con-
I think that this paragraph really sums up the direction that studies on violence in the media and their related effects on violent behaviors should be going in the future. Claims are made again and again that violent video games in turn make children violent. However, this claim is less often made for television and movies. As the article stated earlier, it might even be true that exposure to violence in the news might have an opposite effect: making children have irrational fears about every day life. I think that if researchers begin looking at violent behaviors in children who use/ don’t use certain forms of media, they will begin to get more concrete results on whether these medias cause violence and if not, where these violent tendencies are coming from.
I agree with Abby that this is the direction studies on violence in the media and their effects on behaviors should be going. I think in this entire debate over whether video games make people violent there is value in looking at video games effects on people, but that it shouldn’t be focused solely on video games. Our media environment should be looked at and that embodies numerous forms of media and portrayals of violence. It’s too simple to blame video games.
Grand Theft Childhood?
109
trol group of kids who don't use violent media, and (3) take other important influences into consideration, including child factors (such as violent behavior and trait aggressiveness at the start of the study), parent factors (such as their supervision, abuse, and neglect of the child) and environmental factors (such as poverty, schooling and access to other activities).
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments