|
 |
Sponsors: AAFCS Massachusetts Avenue Building Assets Fund Helen LeBaron Hilton Fund, ISU Iowa Association of Family and Consumer Sciences Elva Davies Fund The Ready to Learn Service of Iowa Public Television Iowa State University Extension to 4-H Youth Development Iowa State University Extension to Families. |
"The Impact of Violent Television Programs and Movies" Brad Bushman, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Psychology, Iowa State University Dr. Anderson Addresses Your Questions Gender specifics The studies to date suggest that boys and girls display about the same amount of increase in aggressive behavior after exposure to violent video games. Some people are especially concerned about boys and violent video games for two reasons: (1) Boys are more attracted to violent video games than girls; (2) Boys in general are somewhat more physically aggressive than girls, so any increase in aggressive tendencies is more likely to result in extremely aggressive behavior by boys than by girls. This does not mean that you shouldn't be concerned about girls playing violent video games. *Which gender creates these video games? I don't know of any studies on this, but it appears that most of the non-educational video games are created by men. Why is there a demand? There are probably lots of reasons why video games in general
are so popular for children. One is that the fast paced action
is exciting. Another is the feeling of control that one gets
by successfully meeting the challenges in the games. There are
many reinforcements built into most video games, designed to
keep players interested. These include "cool" sounds
and images, accumulation of points, and the rapid improvement
in skills that are highlighted by the games. Note that all of
these features apply to all video games, not just violent ones.The particular appeal of violent
games may be due to several additional features. First, a lot
of kids like to be moderately scared and surprised. Second, "grossing
out" one's parents or other adults has long been a favorite
pastime for children. Somewhat more troubling is the fact that
violent games are the most heavily advertised. The video game
industry (much like the TV and movie industries) clearly believes
that violence sells the products. They therefore spend much of
their advertising budget marketing violent video games. Relatively
little is spent marketing nonviolent video games. You can verify
this yourself by picking up a couple of computer or video game
magazines and counting the number of advertisement pages devoted
to video games that have some violence in them relative to the
number devoted to nonviolent games. Abuse I don't know of any studies that focused specifically on bullying.
However, repeated exposure to violent video games has been linked
to fighting at school.*Is there a correlation between
violent video games and rape among college age males? *Is there any research on the link between the increase in aggression as a result of violent video games and domestic violence? There aren't any video game studies that have examined the potential link to domestic violence. However, there is some evidence from the TV/movie violence research literature linking exposure to media violence with domestic violence. Comparison with other games There are so many differences between chess and the typical violent video game that they do not belong in the same category. It is highly unlikely that playing chess will have any of the main negative effects that have been found for violent video games. *If your children already own games, rather than replace it with the non- violent ones, how about going outdoors to play ball? Certainly, every child needs to have adequate exercise, and playing group sports can be very beneficial in multiple ways. *What do you think about racing games when cars try to outrun police/ Are they violent? Are they violent for all ages? There are no studies specifically on such racing games. They are "violent" if they involve the player trying to harm others. Personally, I would not want my daughter (age 11) playing games in which the player takes on the role of a criminal. Of course, I wouldn't want her playing violent games regardless of whether the player is a "good" or "bad" character. There are some excellent nonviolent racing games that are suitable for all ages. *Are hunting games considered violent? This is a difficulty question. They might be considered violent.
But, there aren't any directly relevant studies linking such
games to aggressive behavior, and I suspect that if the game
is exclusively about hunting there will probably not be much
of a negative effect on subsequent aggression. Research Studies There is not enough relevant research to say whether different kinds of violent acts within video games causes different kinds of effects on the game player. Similarly, there has not been enough research on different violent video game contexts to really know what different impact they might have on players. For example, many people assume that if the game violence is "good," such as a counter-terrorist killing terrorists in order to save the hostages, then there won't be negative effects on the game player. We know that this is not true, because many of the existing studies of violent video games involve mostly "good guy" violence directed at "bad guys," and that such violent games do increase aggression. *Are there any research studies that examine the effects of video games on the development of the brain in young children? Not yet. Military relevant *Should violent video games of this nature have only military uses? Yes, some modified video games are used by the military for training purposes. In fact, there are several different uses of such games. As noted in my presentation, video games can be excellent teachers. If you believe that our country needs a strong and effective military (as most of us do), then using video games to enhance the training of military personnel seems quite appropriate. Making such video games available to children seems inappropriate to most people. One additional difference between the government usage of such games to help train the military (or police, FBI) and entertainment usage of such games concerns what else is being taught. Police and other government groups training military and law enforcement personnel also extensively train individuals on rules of engagement. They learn when deadly force is considered acceptable and when it is not. They learn about the real consequences of using deadly force, consequences for the target as well as the shooter. In other words, they also get considerable training in avoiding use of deadly force. Children do not get such rigorous training in avoiding use of deadly force when they play violent video games. *Would a military-type airplane fight with no show of blood or gore fall within your definition of violent? And what if they drop bombs and the viewers see death without blood, etc.? Yes, such games are "violent," but there is not any
research on whether such games produce the same negative effects
on players as do the typical first-person shooters. My guess
is that those military flying games that involve a lot of learning
how to fly and relatively little fighting are likely to have
smaller effects than typical first-person shooters. Law pertaining to games *What are your feelings about the warning labels on video games? There is no federal law, agency, or program regulating video game rating systems, sales, or rentals. The rating systems that exist (one for video game arcades, the other for console and computer and internet based video games) are controlled by the video game industry. They have set up their own rating system, including their own code of conduct. This was done to some extent after prodding by the U.S. Senate. There are many positive aspects to this system, but as noted in my presentation there are a number of serious problems, including the ratings themselves (many games with violent content are rated as appropriate for teens and younger), marketing of violent games to children, and frequent failures to enforce the system by retail outlets. The inclusion of content descriptors (e.g., animated violence) as part of the rating is a good feature, one which parents should use to help screen the games their children are allowed to play. However, a better rating system has been devised by the National Institute on Media and the Family. You can check out their ratings of games and their rating system by going to their web site: http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/index.shtmlFinally, note that several local and state governments have been trying to regulate retail outlets in a way that would give parents more control over what video games their children can play. The video game industry, however, has fought such attempts by challenging the research on video game violence and by filing suit in the courts to block the enforcement of such regulations. Family effects No, the few studies of violent video games and pro-social behavior have not included measures of getting along with siblings, parents, or family members in general. Most involve getting along with or helping one's peers. Miscellaneous *Are the "shoot-em-up" Osam bin Laden games therapeutic? Some people have suggested that playing such games is therapeutic. A common belief among many in our society is that a person can relieve aggressive inclinations or urges by symbolically aggressing in some way. The ancient Greeks held this belief as well (see Aristotle's "Poetics"). Freudian scholars revived this belief in modern Western societies. This belief, known among behavioral research scholars as the "catharsis hypothesis," states that aggressive urges can be safely reduced by observing (e.g., in plays, TV shows, movies) or by behaving aggressively is socially approved ways (e.g., playing football, or violent video games). So, we can boil all this down to one key question: Does catharsis work in the domain of aggressive behavior? Research psychologists have extensively studied this issue for many years. A clear answer emerged over thirty years ago, and has been confirmed many times since then. The answer is no. Observing violence (e.g., violent television shows) or behaving aggressively in symbolic ways (e.g., playing violent video games) generally increases later aggressive behavior. It does not reduce it. *What are some of the violent games? Are there websites for the games? Where do you find reviews of violent video games? Rather than name a few violent video games, I prefer parents to examine closely the games their children currently have and game that they are considering purchasing. There are numerous websites devoted to gaming, most of which have a vested interest in downplaying the potential harm of violent games. One website that does not have such a bias, and that provides very good information about video games, is the National Institute on Media and the Family web site. You can check out their ratings of games and their rating system by going to their web site: http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/index.shtml *How does the reason for violence affect violent behaviors? For example, cars hitting people for no reason vs. trying to get out of prison? See the response to the first "Research Studies" question above. *I heard on public radio that we should expect more violent behaviors during wartime. Does violent reality lead to even more video violence, or is fiction the prediction of reality? This is a very complicated question. I do not know of any directly relevant research. Some forms of violence are likely to increase among the general civilian population during wartime. Violent behavior is going be constantly thought about, very often in a somewhat positive way (e.g., what our military is doing to win the war). Of course, there will also be much public discussion of the bad aspects of violence. So, it is hard to predict the overall outcome.*Is it possible to see a layered increase in violence if you look at levels of violence before electronic media, after introduction of radio, the introduction of TV then introduction of computer then introduction of video games, etc.? There are such studies investigating changes in violence rates after the introduction of TV into various communities around the world. Those studies generally show an increase in violence. However, by themselves such studies are hard to interpret because so many other societal factors may also have changed simultaneously. Therefore, such studies have to be interpreted with caution, and in the context of other types of media violence research. *How do you deal with 1st amendment issues? I think this would pertain to the internet games. Many people are squeamish about the possibility of censorship. As you might guess, constitutional lawyers differ greatly on how much "protection" the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affords manufacturers and distributors of violent video games. We know from the pornography issue that not all media are immune to some forms of legal restrictions. That is, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that children can be "protected" from pornography by laws restricting their access to it. Some have argued that laws or ordinances that require parental permission for their minor children to purchase, rent, or play (in an arcade) violent video games does not constitute censorship, but instead merely helps parents provide the kind of oversight regarding their children's upbringing that the vast majority of people believe parents should provide. The access via the internet issue is a potentially more difficult version of this same problem. The simple-sounding solution is for parents to take their parental responsibility for decisions regarding their children's media diet at least as seriously as they take responsibility for their children's food diet. It isn't always easy, though. *What happened with the Columbine shooting incident was the video game company found liable? Is there any lawsuit in progress? I do not know of any lawsuits against video game companies or retailers arising from the Columbine shootings. There was a lawsuit from the Paducah, Kentucky shootings. The last I heard of it was that a court had dismissed the suit. Just as in the history of lawsuits against the tobacco companies, I believe that we will see more lawsuits when more shootings occur that appear to be linked with violent video games, and when the causal link between video game violence and real world aggression is even more firmly established and is more widely known among the general population. The difficulty in such lawsuits is that it is very hard to know or prove that a particular act of violence was caused in part by exposure to a particular violent video game. *Sometimes violence is made to appear humorous. How do you suggest separating the two and how do you help children recognize the violence and not take part in it? Younger children in particular are likely to have a very difficult time recognizing that humorously violence is bad for them. Parents can attempt to explain it to them. They can also simply screen them from violent media, at least to some extent. Practice in role-playing may help children understand that such violence is not funny to the victim, but I don't know of any research on this issue. *Has any research been done to
study the impact of virtual reality violence To date there has been only one such study. It found that the violent virtual reality game increased aggressive cognitions. Has any research been done regarding violent lyrics in music? There is some research on this topic, including several studies that I am in the process of writing up for publication. The basic findings look very similar to the results of studies of other kinds of entertainment media. *How are the cognitive processes
of children different between video games These questions have not been sufficiently researched. There are theoretical reasons to expect that the active participation required to play a video game is likely to increase the negative effects of media violence. |
|
