I see that the Supreme Court is going to hear a case where the lower court overturned a California ban on sales of rated “M” games to minors. According to the article, legislators pointed to “studies showing children who repeatedly watch on-screen games can become more aggressive, antisocial, and less able to distinguish the consequences of violence in real life.”
What studies are they referring to? Also, I thought it was impossible to show causality.
Thanks,
Rob
As far as I understand it, none.
First, we don’t have any kind of model that could possibly accurately predict the type of violent behavior these people are so terrified of.
Secondly, I can’t recall of any study that, even with a flawed model, can claim what the bill writers are saying they claim.
Reminds of one study I’ve seen (mis)quoted around by these “BAN THE VIDEO GAMES - THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” types. They claimed it showed how devastating video games were to the psyche. How did the study demonstrate this? It showed that a group of people who had just played violent video games took, on average, an extra second or two to help out a stranger on the street who (IIRC) dropped something.
What the hell does that mean? Not even the people who did the study really knew.
Another tidbit in the study was that although on average the time to help the stranger increased in the group playing the violent video games, technically, more of THEM helped. The control group took a tiny amount of time less to help, but less of them helped! I say “technically” because (again IIRC) the difference in numbers was not statistically significant. Still, maybe we should lobby the government to mandate the playing of violent video games to the masses. We might turn into a more helpful society.
Hmm, I don’t see the study. I feel stupid, can’t find the link.
But it sounds like it’s a study of… studies. I’d like to see if each study that was analyzed was scrutinized as well.
California lawmakers only passed this law last month and already the Supreme Court is hearing a case on it?
Rob
I believe the California courts so far have found the evidence for links between video games and violent behavior to be unpersuasive. From the reading I have done on this subject I agree with them.
Seems it has been around for 4.5 years.
These are the same silly, baseless, hollow arguments being made by “won’t-somebody-think-of-the-children” types against video games that they made against “Gangsta Rap,” heavy metal, “shock jocks,” porn, rock n’ roll, and the blues. They’re just looking for a scapegoat and target the first thing they don’t understand. Jack Thompson has had his panties so bunched up about such things he’s actually gotten himself disbarred.
I vaguely recall hearing that rather then being baseless, the arguments were actually at least partially based on a study by a Dr. Anderson and published in a March 2010 edition of the American Psychological Association’s “Psychological Bulletin”. Not sure where exactly I read that though.
Anderson did no studies himself. He studied other studies and I’m sure almost all of them (including Anderson’s earlier studies) fall under the “debunked” list that Whack-a-Mole linked to.
Plus, proving once again that game researchers have no idea what they’re studying, the cover of his book features a game that was released nearly a decade ago on a system that has been obsolete for six years now.
The “children” that may have been exposed (who, by the way, never existed as the FTC has found game retailers enforce game ratings better than theater owners enforce movie ratings) to it are all adults now.
If it wasn’t enforced, who had standing?
The folks with standing are the merchants and video game makers.
The law seeks to ban the sale of certain games to minors. As soon as the law was signed the merchants had to abide by this law so they have standing to sue to overturn the law. They are affected right away.
IIRC it is common for a judge in such cases to issue an injunction that suspends the law while it is being adjudicated. The reasoning being is it could cause harm while the process plays itself out. Imagine a bunch of merchants going out of business (just a hypothetical) because sales drop. Dose not help them if 5 years later the court tosses the law out; you’re still out of business.
So, the law is not enforced because a judge said to not enforce it. Also, I presume after losing the first court case the status of the law is it is no longer enforceable. The presumption being the law lost and unless a higher court reverses it the lower court’s ruling is the one in effect.
Just saw something the other day. CNN was going on about a homeless man in IIRC New York City who stopped a mugging of a woman, got himself stabbed by the mugger, then tried to chase the mugger before falling over on the pavement. This was caught on survellience video. For over the next hour, several passerbys went right by him, or saw him, stood around, one even photographed him with his phone, without checking on him or calling for help.
The News reaction: “Why were people so desensitized to violence to even help a stranger?” They even had on some guy (didn’t memorize name) claiming it was violent media’s fault.
My reaction: “Wow, people in New York City see a homeless guy lying on the sidewalk and don’t ‘notice’ him? Where’s the story?” How were they to know he wasn’t just drunk and passed out? How many do they see every day?
I know I’ve seen a few on the streets in big cities sitting on a corner or sprawled out, and I didn’t want to get too close.
One of the posters on this board was married to a researcher of how violence in movies and games affected youths. I think it may be Olivesmarch4th?
The upshot was that there is an effect, leading people to be more likely to act with retribution when wronged after having just been immersed in a violent movie or game. But, “retribution” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s believed that the whole purpose of fiction and in particular heroes is to teach children to stand up and counter the difficulties in life, so what we are seeing is in fact the intended purpose of the art. The only case where I can think that being a bit “pumped up” following a good violent movie is if you’re driving and acting a bit hostile. But that’s not all that dangerous and compared to the sorts of life lessons that are being taught, 5-15 minutes of acting a bit excessively macho is hardly the worst thing in the world.
Olives’ husband worked for an anti-video game researcher. She and I recently had a back-and-forth about the researcher and his methods in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=558023&page=3
Start at post 138.
In summary: The researcher is a moron who uses a lab setting to make points about how gamers would react in social situations on the outside.
A slight hijack - a 19 year old was just convicted of first degree murder in Massachusetts for a killing a classmate when he was 16. The jury (quite rightly IMHO) rejected his insanity defense, but unfortunately the prosecutor chose to use his obsession with violent video games and Stephen King books as evidence of his planning the crime. Story here.
Typical. If it was 20 years ago he would have used his Megadeth Cd’s and his leather jacket as “evidence”.
Isn’t there some sort of scientific baseline applied at trials? Can I just claim any wild thing without scientific backing at trial and just leave it up to a bunch of idiots on the jury with “american idol” on the brain to decide?
This is like when tossers use cannabis as an excuse for their crimes, and their representatives actually try defending them on that basis.
“It wasn’t me, your honour, it was the {insert excuse - usually “it was the drugs”, or “it was the video nasty I saw”}”.
Either deny it totally and let them prove it, or hold your hands up and take your licks.
Uh, no.
That is a gross mischaracterization of what I said and what Bushman’s research indicates. You seem to want to paint this issue in broad strokes whereas the people doing actual research on the topic are doing everything possible to systematically address the factors that go into youth violence and aggression. There are studies that show exposure to violent media to be a possible contributing factor to aggressive behavior. Effect sizes are significant but the one retroactive longitudinal study my husband co-authored (comparing normal school-age youth to youth in violence detention centers) found a significant effect size for exposure to violent media at a young age. However, the effect size was smaller for exposure to violent media than it was for exposure to violence in the home or immediate environment and other obvious things that cause kids to be violent. In other words, for kids who are already at-risk, exposure to violent media may be that extra push that leads to violent or aggressive behavior.
Here is the abstract for that study. In the thread cited by** Justin** I provided other links to the aggression lab at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. There is supporting research conducted outside of this lab, a lot of it in other countries, but I am familiar only with the aggression lab so I limit my input to that collection of studies.
I have asked my husband to participate in these discussions, as he was highly skeptical going into the aggression lab. He is a long-time gamer whose perspective toward youth and violent media was radically altered by his work in the lab. He has far greater knowledge than me about this topic. Unfortunately the animosity and anti-scientific bent that has historically cropped up around this subject has really put him off of discussing it outside an academic context. (Also, his research focus as a Ph.D. student is clinical psychology, not social psychology, so this isn’t even his main area of interest.)
I do a lecture in Sociology titled “Statistical Exaggeration in TV Violence.”
One part of my lecture involves the “blame game” as referred to earlier.
Depending on when you grew up, uncontrollable children were caused by:
1930’s: Saturday afternoon matinee’s and serials
1940’s: Comic Books (and the creation of the Comics Code Authority)
1950’s: Rock and Roll
1960’s: Marijuana
1970’s: Chuck Norris and Charles Bronson
1980’s: Beavis and Butthead and Rap Music
1990’s: Professional Wrestling and Video Games
The reason is that there exists a no-win situation in the relationship between parents and schools. Parents, throughout history, have always had responsibility over their children’s behavior, but little training. Therefore, when their children misbehaved, the parents looked for someone to blame other than themselves. In the 1940’s, when FDR created public schools, it was easy to blame them because children then had to spend 8 hours a day in school, and became, in effect, surrogate parents.
However, as anyone familiar with public schools knows, they aren’t meant to discipline children, nor teach them how to behave. Any attempt to do so results in a lawsuit by those same parents against the school. So, for decades, schools have been unable to blame parents and are forced to look for another scapegoat.
But in the end, it’s the parents’ fault if their children are uncontrollable or violent.
Gotta run now, but I think other parts of my lecture are relevant here.