Gamers rejoice
June 9, 2008 1:28 PM   Subscribe

At last, a study on video games that is grounded in common sense. Two scientists say their results can best be summed up in one word: relax. It's okay for kids to play videogames. What's more, parents can enjoy gaming with their kids. The relationship between videogames and violence is anything but causal. One interesting finding: those middle school boys most likely to bully others are the ones who play no videogames at all.
posted by misha (52 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite
 
Looks like we now have Science to confirm what basically everyone under 30 knows from experience. Rock on!
posted by DoctorFedora at 1:41 PM on June 9, 2008


Holy crap. Fair and balanced reporting of a fair and balanced study?

WHAT ALTERNATE UNIVERSE HAVE I FALLEN INTO
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:42 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


Every game they cite is rated M for 17-year-olds and above. So even if they were unhealthy for kids, it's the parents' fault.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:46 PM on June 9, 2008


The research also concludes that kids who play video games tend to be much more unruly and disruptive. In other words, these games don't make people violent, they make them assholes.
posted by Ragma at 1:51 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


"those middle school boys most likely to bully others are the ones who play no videogames at all."

Really? From the linked article -

"their own research did show links between 12- to 14-year-olds who almost exclusively played rated-M (for mature) games and a much more common schoolyard problem: bullying."
posted by Ragma at 1:54 PM on June 9, 2008


Correlation is not causation. Spitballing here, but I'd be willing to bet that the same kids who are unruly and disruptive are the twelve year olds whose parents don't bother screening the games they play, the movies or TV shows they watch, or how much of anyt of those they do. Video games aren't the issue;' poor parenting is.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:55 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


*bullies Playstation*

Hey, you little microchip driven bitch...I'm gonna fuck you up...
posted by jonmc at 1:59 PM on June 9, 2008


"Video games aren't the issue;' poor parenting is."

I tend to agree with that. But the clear insinuation of the post is that the study concludes people who play violent video games are less likely to be bullies. In fact, the study concludes the opposite.
posted by Ragma at 2:00 PM on June 9, 2008


Re: bullying, it says both of these things:

...their own research did show links between 12- to 14-year-olds who almost exclusively played rated-M (for mature) games and a much more common schoolyard problem: bullying. (This was among both boys and girls who played more than 15 hours a week, which Kutner and Olson note, is not the norm.)

...

But for parents who are contemplating throwing out their son's Wii, wait a minute: The research showed that boys who don't play video games at all were the most likely to engage in bullying and other antisocial behaviors. That may be because video games are such an important part of socializing for that age, Kutner and Olson say, that these boys are, by definition, "abnormal."
posted by cortex at 2:06 PM on June 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


This was among both boys and girls who played more than 15 hours a week, which Kutner and Olson note, is not the norm.

15 hours a week? Those parents will be lucky to have some schoolyard bully knock a bloody sense of reality into those computer geeks.
posted by three blind mice at 2:06 PM on June 9, 2008


"Video games aren't the issue;' poor parenting is."

Hmmm.., I'm thinking it's lack of socialization that's the problem. The more time spent playing (single-player) video games, the less time playing with other kids learning and practicing the ins and outs of social behavior.

Can be an ugly spiral: Because they don't have a lot of practice socializing, they don't have good success at it, so they avoid it for more rewarding activities (e.g., video games), which deprives them of practice socializing... etc.

Same deal with geeks.

(Recovering geek here...)
posted by LordSludge at 2:06 PM on June 9, 2008


Meta?
posted by basicchannel at 2:07 PM on June 9, 2008


If by "new study" you mean "study that came out a couple of months ago".

As for the bullying like, the issue was that the researches found that knowledge of videogames was a "marker of social competency". That is, kids talk about video games and if you can't engage in the schoolyard chat you're more likely to be an "outsider".

Which, to my mind, if a pretty big goddamn change. My high-school hallway discussions of Ultima V or swapping "Bard's Tale" maps were a lot of things, but a "marker of social competency" was not one of them.
I think the major thing that distinguished "Grand Theft Childhood" from other video game "research" is that these guys did actual research with interviews as opposed to just stating their opinions as fact.
posted by GuyZero at 2:08 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


Just because parking kids in front of video games for 2-3 hours a day won't turn them into a serial killer, doesn't mean it'ss okay for them to spend so much time playing them. There are still plenty of reasons to limit or eliminate video game playing for young children, including health and school performance.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:08 PM on June 9, 2008


So:

- among the group of 12-14 year olds who play (an above-the-average) 15+ hours a week of video games, those who mostly play M games are mroe likely to engage in bullying than those who don't mostly play M games, but

- those who didn't play video games at all were more likely yet to engage in bullying.

Seeing actual numbers on this stuff, and where those various camps fall, would be more interesting than trying to parse the summaries above, but it's clear that misha's post text accurately restates that portion of the article.
posted by cortex at 2:09 PM on June 9, 2008


I understand the confusion; it seemed the distinction about bullying was a gender-based one, which is why I put "boys" in the post. Basically, the study suggests that middle-school girls and boys who played mostly M games engaged in bullying, but boys who didn't play any videogames did, too.
posted by misha at 2:19 PM on June 9, 2008


"Seeing actual numbers on this stuff"

I think that's were the problem lies.....

From Wikipedia -

"The surveys also found correlations (statistically significant relationships) between violent game play and some common childhood problems. Boys who played any Mature-rated game a lot had twice the risk of certain aggressive behaviors (e.g., getting into fights, beating up someone, damaging property for fun) or school problems (e.g., getting in trouble with a teacher, getting poor grades), at least once during the past year, compared to boys who played games with lower age ratings. Among girls, the risk of problems was three to four times higher for those who played violent games vs. those who played other games.

Interestingly, boys who didn’t play any video games during a typical week also had a higher risk for problems; however, there were not enough boys in this group to find statistically significant differences."


So they can stand by solid stats for the "violent games fuels bullying" link. But the "no gaming fuels bullying" link is on shaky statistical ground.

It just seems really weird to me that a study proporting to break the myth of violent video games would conclude "boys who played any Mature-rated game a lot had twice the risk of certain aggressive behaviors ".
posted by Ragma at 2:20 PM on June 9, 2008


Meta?

Bully is, believe it or not, not actually about bullying. Well, it is in part, but your character isn't actually the one doing the bullying. The pre-release anti-hype for it by the Jack Thompsons of the world was probably the most ridiculous episode in the history of anti-video game crusading, since it turned out to be a completely innocuous game with a funny, charming story.
posted by DecemberBoy at 2:21 PM on June 9, 2008


Based on my R of TFA, the kids who didn't play video games but bullied lacked socialization, and it's that lack of socialization that may be responsible for their bullying. But for the kids who were as socialized as other kids (to the extent that they consume the same media), those who played M games were more likely to bully.

But the other notable point is that this study was of middle-school-aged children, between 12 and 14. I'm not sure if the findings can be extended down to children as young as 6 or 7.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:22 PM on June 9, 2008


Just so long as theres no sex.
posted by Artw at 2:26 PM on June 9, 2008


New study confirms studies that studies that validate preconceived ideas are more likely to be accepted then those that don't.

Anyway, I don't personally think video games cause violence, but it's a little obvious when a study comes out saying as much and everyone proclaims "Finally a sane study, one grounded in common sense, etc"
posted by delmoi at 2:43 PM on June 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


Yeah, this is anecdotal, but over the weekend my boys and I were at Electronics Boutique, picking up some Mario/Pokemon/etc titles for the new Wii my 9 year old received for his birthday. There were two 10-12 year old boys in there with their dad, and the boys wanted to get Turok and Vikings for Xbox 360. Turok rating: extreme violence and realistic blood. Viking rating: extreme violence, realistic blood, and mature language. The EB manager pointed this out to the dad, and so they decided to put Vikings back; letting the boys play a game with mature language would just be bad parenting, right? My impression: the boys had bully written all over them, and probably hear all the mature language imaginable on Xbox Live.

PS Props to the EB manager for quite vocally mocking the dad about being OK with extreme violence and blood, but not mature language.
posted by Brocktoon at 2:44 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


So it seems there is some mild correlation between violent behavior and videogame violence. Did the videogames create the violence? Are violent kids more attracted to M games? Do these middle school kids have bad parents who let them play violent M rated games? Does this study answer any questions?
posted by caddis at 2:45 PM on June 9, 2008


This is a relief. I remember being kind of worried the other day because I play a lot of video games, and I started to think "Shit! I'm probably going to go nuts and shoot somebody because of how often I play video games! But I don't own a gun! Am I going to have to go buy a gun, now, just in case?!" So thanks. I was really worried I was going to have to go buy a gun.
posted by shmegegge at 2:56 PM on June 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


hey, shmegegge, you wanna buy a gun?
posted by jonmc at 2:59 PM on June 9, 2008


Whenever this subject comes up, my first instinct is to point out that I played bloody, violent games when I was twelve, but I guess objectively, the worst things around twelve years ago (no I'm not confused, twelve years ago I was twelve) were probably Doom II and some of the later Mortal Kombats, and I wasn't allowed to play Mortal Kombat. I don't even think GoldenEye was out yet twelve years ago, though I could be wrong, and that was one of the most realistically violent games I played for a long time. I don't think I got into Unreal Tournament until I was 14 or 15.

But my memory isn't exactly stellar, so don't quote me.
posted by Caduceus at 3:09 PM on June 9, 2008


The point of that ramble, which got left out, was to note that the graphical depictions of violence and gore have gotten far more realistic since I was a kid. And, you know, to thank my parents for not letting me play Mortal Kombat back in the day, because my experience since was that they were never decent games in the first place.
posted by Caduceus at 3:13 PM on June 9, 2008


The point of that ramble, which got left out, was to note that the graphical depictions of violence and gore have gotten far more realistic since I was a kid.

Soon enough they're going to run into problems with that. Sort of like the uncanny valley problem, but here, getting it exactly right is worse than getting it very close to right, rather than better. Many people aren't going to want to see too-realistic violence, an Ogrish.com in their videogames. TF2, and I think the next Battlefield game, have already switched their over-the-top violence to a self-consciously cartoonish somewhat "Roadrunner" style, which is really more appropriate than a realistic style to the sort of game where you shoot an RPG or blow up a pipebomb at your feet in order to jump 30 feet in the air.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 4:18 PM on June 9, 2008


Roleplaying requires empathy. And empathic people are rarely brutal or cruel.
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:27 PM on June 9, 2008


The good part is that if videogames do get banned and they start raiding houses for illegal games, I will be prepared as I've been playing these 'murder-simulators' and 'cop-killer training programs' for the last 20 years and am a (latent) volatile and highly trained sociopath.

They best send the hardest motherfucker around to get me too because I've got a Nintendo Wii nunchuck and a copy of Ninja Gaiden II.
posted by slimepuppy at 4:31 PM on June 9, 2008


Well, no. Roleplaying requires theory of mind, sometimes called cognitive empathy. You can easily inhabit someone else's head in order to predict their next move in order to kill them. Being able to place oneself in another's shoes (cognitive empathy, theory of mind) and caring about what it feels like there (emotional empathy, sympathy) are two different skills. This is part of why autism is nothing like sociopathy.

Also, from what I read, this completely leaves out the role of social class. Are the kids without access to videogames the poorest kids in the neighborhood? Could this have to do with why they are more likely to be bullies?
posted by Maias at 4:37 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think it's great that this study confirms what I already assumed to be true before reading it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:42 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's nice to see studies on loaded subjects that seem to "get" that correlation does not imply causation. It would be nice it it was easy to determine what impact violent video games have on kids, but it's not something that I foresee an answer to anytime soon.

Also, the vast majority of popular video games are not just single player these days. The social aspect of video games, with online play offering a lot of socializing and making new friends, is not covered enough, IMHO. (Maybe because the games that most of today's researchers/journalists have experience with as youngsters are from the single-player era of gaming?)
posted by gemmy at 4:46 PM on June 9, 2008


Are the kids without access to videogames the poorest kids in the neighborhood?

God no. Hell no. The kids who unequivocally have videogames in my practice are in the poorest families. I'd say amongst professionals it's 50/50. Parents in education close to zero. This shit isn't rocket science.
posted by docpops at 4:47 PM on June 9, 2008


Sometimes, when I'm really tired, I still have Doom dreams.

Also, I sometimes still have Nethack dreams.

Haven't killed anyone yet, though this is largely because I've never met a letter "l" that I can try to bump into multiple times to kill eat then eat it so I can teleport around randomly.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:52 PM on June 9, 2008


Also, the vast majority of popular video games are not just single player these days.

Even if they were, every book I've ever read has been single player.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:19 PM on June 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


Roleplaying requires theory of mind, sometimes called cognitive empathy.

Man, good thing no one ever told me that when I was a roleplayer. I'd have had to give the hobby up.

Voyat, a student of Piaget, was invited to Piaget's house for dinner one day. Upon meeting Piaget's children, Voyat devised to do some basic developmental tests on them. Voyat went into the kitchen and came back with two glasses of water. When he asked Piaget's younger child which glass held more water the child replied "I don't know, I don't understand conservation yet."
posted by GuyZero at 5:46 PM on June 9, 2008


...every book I've ever read has been single player.

And I'd argue that books can be socially harmful if overdone -- that is, if one reads books to the exclusion of social interaction. Hence the (outdated) stereotype of the awkward book nerd, which has since been replaced by the computer nerd.
posted by LordSludge at 6:46 PM on June 9, 2008


Bully is, believe it or not, not actually about bullying. Well, it is in part, but your character isn't actually the one doing the bullying.

Well, you can if you want. I've been playing Bully for the last week (and enjoying every second of it). You rapidly reach a point where picking on kids who are weaker than you (the Nerd clique) is no fun. If I'm going to give a wedgie, it's going to be to a Prefect. If I'm going to stuff someone in a locker, it's going to be a Jock. If I'm going to hand out a swirlie, it'll be to a Preppie. If I'm going to throw someone into a trash can, it'll be a Greaser. That's a challenge.
posted by Ritchie at 7:58 PM on June 9, 2008


Roleplaying requires theory of mind...

... and a shitload of Mountain Dew and Clearasil.

been playing since 1981, and proud of it!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:12 PM on June 9, 2008


Whenever this subject comes up, my first instinct is to point out that I played bloody, violent games when I was twelve

Indeed. People seem to forget Death Race and Chiller. Violent videogames have been around for 20+ years, and crime has gone down in those 20+ years. It's all just bullshit.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:20 PM on June 9, 2008


Every single time I read one of these, I remember a letter to the editor from more than 10 years ago - the author noted that despite spending his formative years playing endless games of Risk, as an adult he had no desire to conquor and control Asia.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 8:27 PM on June 9, 2008


And the authors name.... WAS HITLER!
posted by Artw at 9:12 PM on June 9, 2008


Confirmation bias much?

Olson and Kutner did one study (and a pretty weak one at that), wrote a book about it, and somehow that makes them legitimate? Who is this LA Kutner? Who is this CK Olson? There is plenty of peer-reviewed, well-cited research on the subject of connections between media violence and behavior, and none of it is by them. On the other hand, you may check for yourself that, for example, Craig A. Anderson is a prominent researcher in the field whose works are published in respected journals. Here is his web page, and here is a short overview of "violent video games: myths, facts, and unanswered questions."

Be very skeptical of "researchers" who present their work foremost through the popular media.
posted by parudox at 11:04 PM on June 9, 2008


(Of course that kind of goes both ways)
posted by Artw at 11:07 PM on June 9, 2008


There are also scholars in the field who hold the opposite view to anderson on the effect of video games on violence, i.e. that such effects are negligable, such as Henry Jenkins.

Appeals to authority notwithstanding, the overall approach to video games is unclear, with significant disagreement amongst the scientific community as to its effects. Isolating any such effects from peer pressure, parenting, other social activities, especially when trying to do so in a lab is problematic.

There are other more clear studies linking excessive media consumption in general with children's weaker development and education - symptoms more easily measured. Controlling how much time younger kids spend in front of the bright screen, and guiding them towards games that have a more nutritional value when they do play later seems a reasonable idea.
posted by ArkhanJG at 12:41 AM on June 10, 2008


People who "rejoice" when a study validates their notion of "common sense" should rethink what science is supposed to accomplish. (Perhaps they should also beware their own "common sense.")

The degree of head-nodding and groupthink here at MeFi over video games alarms me. No, first-person shooters do not directly convert kids into violent sociopaths. End of story?

I teach kids, and some of the boys I teach spend hours, hours, hours every day in high-intensity simulated killing. Are you telling me that unless they turn into drooling maniacs and actually attempt to kill there is nothing I can say about this?
posted by argybarg at 6:53 AM on June 10, 2008


At last, a study on video games that is grounded in common sense. agrees with my preconceived notions.
posted by rocket88 at 7:19 AM on June 10, 2008


I teach kids, and some of the boys I teach spend hours, hours, hours every day in high-intensity simulated killing. Are you telling me that unless they turn into drooling maniacs and actually attempt to kill there is nothing I can say about this?

I don't know. Have you made relevant observations of effects?

Also, some boys may spend hours every day engaging in simulated warfare (football practice) or spend a few hours each week in sort-of paramilitary exercises (Boy Scouts), so question everything. The Boy Scout troop I ended up in after Cub Scouts pretty unquestionably encouraged violence.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:01 AM on June 10, 2008


Are you telling me that unless they turn into drooling maniacs and actually attempt to kill there is nothing I can say about this?

Yes.
posted by tadellin at 8:50 AM on June 10, 2008


Many people, and I'd venture to say most people here, hold the belief that young minds are adversely affected by the amount and type of TV they watch, or that the images they see in magazines affect their notions of body type ideals. some will even say they're also harmed by the agressive and competitive attitudes of sports.
But question the effects of video games or music lyrics on those young minds, and those same people switch to the other side and vehemently deny that any connection could possibly exist between the continual consumption of risky, violent or misogynistic media and reality.
I see a huge cognitive dissonance at play here.
posted by rocket88 at 9:07 AM on June 10, 2008


/rant

I do hold a bias here, and actually it carries on into TV and movies and media, but that bias isn't that these things have no effect on behavior at all. Rather, it is that too many studies, or perhaps the people who report them, imply that correlation=causality.

Look, I wouldn't let small children watch violent, bloody movies OR play mature videogames. But then again, I wouldn't give alcohol to a 5 year-old, either. Why? Not because I think those things will immediately turn the kids into drugged-up sex-crazed axe murderers, but because I think that exposure to any of the above needs to be age-appropriate and responsible.

Sure, certain kids have more trouble with violent, M-rated games, just as certain people are more likely to become addicts when exposed to alcohol. We can legislate and ban anything we find questionable, or we can try to use some common sense every once in a while. I'm for ANY study that doesn't resort to fear-mongering and sensational claims when it comes to statistical analysis.

/Sorry, end of rant.
posted by misha at 7:28 PM on June 10, 2008


« Older Boss Bitching   |   iPhone 2.0 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments