I have long been skeptical of the direct causation link some professionals pronounce exists between increased violence and playing violent video games (or video games with violence in them). If something smells like a scapegoat, it usually is (think of the Internet in “Internet addiction”).
So it wasn’t surprising for me to read that more and more researchers are questioning these links, and suggesting that while there may be a link, it is a complex and nuanced one. It’s not one that easily fits into a 30-second sound bite.
I highly recommend the recently published, Grand Theft Childhood (by psychologist Lawrence Kutner and sociologist Cheryl K. Olson) for anyone who wants to understand this link more in-depth. Some of the book’s findings (as related in a Psychiatric Times October 2007 article):
It is uncommon for girls to be frequent, heavy players of video games, especially violent games. One third of girls in our survey played electronic games for less than an hour per week on average.
By contrast, it was unusual for boys to rarely or never play video games; just 8% of boys played for less than an hour per week. (Since game play is often a social activity for boys, nonparticipation could be a marker of social difficulties. These boys were also more likely than others to report problems such as getting into fights or trouble with teachers.)
Finally, boys and girls who exclusively play games alone are atypical.
In our survey of young adolescents, we found significant correlations between routine play of M-rated games and greater self-reported involvement in physical fights, with a stronger association for girls.
It is likely that aggressive or hostile youths may be drawn to violent games. There is limited but suggestive evidence that persons with trait anger or aggression may be affected differently by violent games.
In one study, players tended to be less angry after playing a violent game, but this was not true for subjects who scored high on trait anger and aggression. Thus, another possible marker of unhealthy video game use may be increased anger after a round of play.
It must be emphasized that correlational studies, including ours, cannot show whether video games cause particular behaviors. Far too frequently, this important distinction between correlation and causation is overlooked.
Surprise, surprise! People who may already exhibit signs of anger or aggression may be drawn to such games. The games don’t cause the anger or aggression. Such people may also be at greater risk for showing increased anger or aggression.
What the research does show, in a nutshell, then is this:
- Teens who are already angry or aggressive likely should be limited in their playing of violent video games
- Teens should not play M-rated games
- Girls especially should not play M-rated games
- Video game is an important social development interaction for boys. Parents should keep this in mind when taking such time away from them in punishment.
- And of course, all things in moderation. Playing a video game for 6 or 8 hours straight is unhealthy behavior at any age.
Read the news article: Questioning the Link Between Video Games and Violence
Read the Psychiatric Times article: Children and Video Games: How Much Do We Know?
66 comments
I’m a guy who is kind of conflicted about video game violence. I like violent games, but I do seem to have a moral issue with some of the violence such as sniping innocent people in the head for example. I still play then but I can’t help but feel messed up a bit.
Anyway I thought this article was one of the most fair on the subject. I agree that everything is okay in moderation and parents do need to understand the social aspect of gamers for a lot the kids today. A lot of their friends are online. So to take away VG as a punishment needs to be done fairly.
But kids do need to escape the bedroom and play outdoors too.
Good read cheers!!!
I’m writing a persuasive speech on this topic and i fully agree that video games dont make children violent to those in the real world, yes people get caught up in games and yell angrily i do too, bu still if one cannot define that line between fantasy and reality then they should not play video games, I am however against those that are to young or immature playing mature video games, the 7 year old next to me plays GTA (grand theft auto) and even he can define that line. Is it right that he plays that game and his mother allows it? no not at all he is still far to immature, but having the ability to define between real and fake is a great skill for him to have right now
I have finally found someone who agrees with me. Thank you. It is true that people relate violence to video games as a scapegoat. To me, I believe video game actually enhance my vocabulary to an extent and makes me focus more in activities I do. Although, I believe any teenager can play a rated M game. Recent studies actually show teens that are younger than 17 actually buy the most rated M games. Sales are more directed to the teens for these games. Also I believe girls can play whatever games they want to. What’s the reason girls cannot play rated M games? These games can relate to reality, but does not show if they will act the same way they do in games. In GTA4, my friend shoots police men and has fake police men chase after him. But he doesn’t do that in real life. I don’t think video games should be connected to violence and reality.
I understand that people like violent games because it is exciting. I think there is a link between a violent person and the game because the person cannot distinguish real violence from fantasy violence. There is a fine line between the two. Now, because I am not rich, I play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Defiance on a Nintendo DSi. Because of the software limit, the game is not as violent as the console games, but this doesn’t mean that it is kid friendly. It is still rated T-rated. I am 14, but my mental track is of an older person than my age. I go to a private school in southeast Texas. My mind is a little more advanced than my peers in public school, that is so because I was raised as an only child until the age of four. Though I was socially awkward until seventh grade, I played a few violent games. It was a source of thinking about others than myself. I started to loosen up by halfway of seventh grade. I started playing more intense games then. Since I understand the risk of the games, I limit myself from playing too long. So I guess that is all I have to say.
I keep hearing video games behind the cause of most if not all violence experienced in the world from the news reportings. The last time I read a book, which in my memory were created LONG before any video game in history, mention such things as murder, pedophilia, incest, and much more and to top it off, in a much more graphical description then just seeing blood splatter for a split second. Now onto the subject of books and people maybe wanting to convey an argument on that. Shakespeare who wrote Macbeth between 1603 and 1607. Didn’t that story/play speak of death? Killing of a family member for performing incest? Yet that is ok and it is still a very recommended book by english teachers in North America. I am terribly sorry but if anyone wants ideas on where violence comes from they should maybe start looking at books as well as action or horror movies along side of video games because everything is violent in a certain way.
I don’t understand how you make the logical leap from the descriptive statement “Girls rarely play violent games” to the normative statement “Girls shouldn’t play violent games.”
Perhaps there exists, somewhere, some research indicating that girls are affected more negatively than boys…but if you’re not going to discuss any such evidence in the article, then your conclusion doesn’t follow, and your female readers are right to declare it a pile of sexist crap.