Study: Violent games 'public health threat'

Bad parents just want something to blame

wow

Actually no, theres a whole US culture of blaming the kids not the parents anyone but the parents. (I read a very informative article in new scientist) Turns out that some conditions which kids are medicated for are horrifically over proscribed, little Johnny ADHD doesn't really have the disorder he's just a bit naughty and the social consensus du jour is that its the childrens or a behavioral disorders fault. Many academics question whether some 'behavioral' conditions are social constructions. To Brother_Bony unless you have studied the research of this man and looked at references I wouldn't trust it. There are still a few hundred women in the UK who are in Jail because a certain doctor testified in court that 1 cot death in a family is a tragedy, 2 is suspicious and 3 is murder. Later he was discredited and its since been found sudden infant death syndrome is the result of a genetic disorder. In short unless you can defend the research methods with detailed knowledge of its operationalization , validity, and ecological validity, then please dont defend it, because theres every chance its wrong. Also theres no mention of the criteria of these violent acts Finally you have to question whether this is at all relevant given the age ratings that are displayed on games for a damn reason. And that parents who don't stick to them within reason are the ones at fault. Suggesting that they cant be expected to know is stupid as by lore the parent is responsible for a child of that ages actions and theyre well being.

God... why won't they just SHUT THE #@%$ UP ALREADY???

Boy what a corrlation this guys makes. How do you know that losing didn't make more violent. Games have ratings for a reason. They need not blame the industry for bad children. What about things like wrestling and power ranger. Kids like acting that stuff. I know I did. Games have ratings for a reason. Lazy Parents = Violent Children

Jack Thompson said... "Sure blaming everything on parents is easy because there's no scientist taking samples every five minutes in real life to prove you wrong but come on that's a tad bit CRUEL." People are blaming parents because they BOUGHT the games despite the big fat "M" rating slapped on the front of the box. In many cases the cashiers warn parents of this rating and they completely ignore it. I'm sorry, but if you swallow a bottle of clorox because you're too stupid to heed the warning label is not the company's fault--it's your own.

Perhaps the bigger problem here is that children aren't taught right from wrong, and don't know fantasy from reality. Instead they are usually taught that anything they want to do is just a part of "expressing creativity." Of course a 7 year old shouldn't be playing an M-rated game, THAT'S WHY IT"S RATED M. I'm sure if a 7 year old watched a lot of hardcore pornography they'd get a pretty screwed up view of relationships too. If parents paid attention to their kids rather than themselves all the time, a lot of this wouldn't be such an issue. My mom never let me play Mortal Kombat back in the day and I used to think she was stupid. Now I can kinda see why. (And yeah, I love death metal and South Park and the Sopranos and Resident Evil, etc...and I wouldn't hurt a fly.)

They are already regulated. At least i thought an 8 year old couldn't buy a "GTA" on his own. I may be wrong.

eh, like i said, i got into a thing...

I fully agree with you XeroTheory!

soap box is -----> way but yea I agree with you xerotheory

Here we go....... No one is going to say that violent media doesn't affect people in a negative way. and if you do, you're ignorant. Violent games, movies, television, etc. affects you. does it make you more violent? sure, why not. Does it mean you are going to turn off your ps2 and go get your 8mm? no. ever listen to a song or watch a movie that makes you happy? same thing. outside forces affect our MOODS, not necessarily our impulses. I don't disagree with this guy (until those last two paragraphs.) But, the issue he talks about mostly is violence in CHILDREN. Of course, if you show a violent movie to a bunch of 8 year olds before a hockey game, it's going to do something! If you show a movie with lots of gun play to ANYONE then say "ok, now go play paintball!" It is going to cause something to happen. anyway... The current issues in the politics of games mostly involve censoring games or going after the companies that make violent games, not making it harder for underage kids to get games with questionable content (that was a little while ago.) When the "enforcing the M-rated game" issue came up a while ago, even on the comments on this website people were (for the most part) agreeing: Violent media shouldn't be in the hands of children. that's the point of the rating system. But, c'mon, trying to get certain games banned or attempting to censor games is just bull. I think that companies who create violent games should seriously put themselves out there and get in parents' faces and say "Come to our website before you buy/let your child buy this game!" Tell them what its about, what happens, what the rating is, and even footage from the game. Posters here, myself included, always say that its parents' responsibility to control what their child plays. Having an easy way for parents to see the games that their child wants and gain information on them is becoming more and more important as we get farther along the console generations towards photo-realistic graphics and interfaces that allow the player to "act out" their character's actions. The gaming industry and the ESRB need to step up. Hell, we need to step up. We don't want the government messing with our games. Well, they are trying. But we as gamers can help the process by looking at games from others' point of view and trying to understand WHY they are attacking games (not just take a stand and simply claim the other side is wrong, like I see many people who comment on these articles do.) But mostly we can make sure that games are in the hands they are supposed be in. Right now, those who oppose games see us as a big mass of violent people. We can show them that we aren't and that we understand where they are coming from but disagree with it. We can show support for laws that restrict underage access to Mature rated games and show our disgust with laws that would censor games. It isn't the politicians' jobs to deal with games, and it isn't only parents'. It's our responsibility too. Rise up! Speak out! THIS IS SPARTA!!!! (Sorry. I just got a thing going by the time I got to the end and had to finish it out.)

But what they're saying doesn't make any sense. the correllation between them is psychological, then how come they're using examples like HIV and ci=ondoms to support their ideas? there isn't even a correllation between HIV and condoms, if you have HIV and don't use a condom, the disease is going to spread to the partner. As for cancer and cigarettes, if you smoke cigarettes, you are probably going to contract lung cancer from all the tar. But I don't see any evidence, any strong numbers to support their point about videogame violence. Apart from a research article from the seventies, the days of psychadelic drugs, and when they thought the death penalty was still A-okay in most parts of the world. I don't see enough evidence to support this thesis.

What shocks me is that reports like this are still considered "news." Hadn't we figured out a long time ago that humans as a whole are impressionable creatures? Yes, if all you do all day is play God of War, you're probably more prone to have violent tendencies (and shave your head) than someone who spends all day watching Barney the Dinosaur. With that said, that applies to all entertainment media. It applies to every moment of every day. Everything you ever do, no matter how mundane or pointless it may seem, has the potential to leave an impression on you somehow. Naturally, the more you engage in an activity, the more likely it is to leave a stronger, longer-lasting impression on you. That's just science, folks. Why are we still wasting time and money trying to prove a correlation between this truth and every single form of entertainment? That's the real question, if you ask me.

its kind of sad to see how far people will reach just to make a point i don't know about you but looking at a report full of ones' own work will not convinece me unless there are mulitiple people within the report with the proper tools and the like to make a judgement

U of M sucks balls anyways.

"...Huesmann presented findings from a variety of scientific papers published over the last 44 years (many of them his own)..." Interesting research technique... Hundreds of polls taken have shown that I am the most awesome person ever (these polls were conducted by myself).

a wise man once said "F*** the kids" (Not michael jackson)

DullBozer "Wouldn't kids with a strong atraction to overly violent games be more likely to have behavior issues to begin with? While others without issues would play the same game without trigering any ill effect and enjoy the game for its gameplay and story, making this "research" completely invalid." If that was the case, the correlation would be smaller. Are you suggesting that MOST test subjects just HAPPENED to fall into that more aggressive to begin with category? FACE IT PEOPLE. Kids are influenced by what they see. Any basic behaviour psychology text book will give you these kind of studies as examples. And they're some of the oldest in this science :D Sure blaming everything on parents is easy because there's no scientist taking samples every five minutes in real life to prove you wrong but come on that's a tad bit CRUEL.

Wouldn't kids with a strong atraction to overly violent games be more likely to have behavior issues to begin with? While others without issues would play the same game without trigering any ill effect and enjoy the game for its gameplay and story, making this "research" completely invalid. Its easy to blame the media, be it games or movies, its harder to blame ourselves, as parents or society as a whole. This is typical human behavior, theres always a way to de-responsibilize and blame external factor rather than contemplate the possibility that WE might have done something wrong. I for one believe we shape our entertainement to our liking, not the other way around. Theres is violence and sex in our media because there is a strong demand for it. There are skinny women in our magazines and on TV because thats what we want to see, they provide what sells whether you agree or not, no one is gonna make money selling images of fat people in speedos. Id rather see unstable people get there fix in a game rather than in real life.

They tried this with comic books, tv, and movies. Video games are being attacked because how popular they have become. This is just a way for the politicians to try to make themselves look good by saying "Oh think of the children." It's all just a bunch of noise and nothing will come of it.

WHAT ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!! GAMES DONT MAKE ME GO CRAZY ITS THESE STUPID REPORTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! *puts fist through wall*

I find it funny how people don't take scientific studies seriously and also apparently don't even read these news properly. claret10 "its stpid i played gta vice city at 12 and i am 16 now and perfectly fine it is up 2 the parents" Sorry lad, that's not an argument when you deal with scientific studies. See, the purpose of studies is to go beyond that. You also forgot to learn punctuation and spelling playing too much GTA. . . Gubitz "just because a kid does a drop kick in his hockey game because he saw it on tv or on a video game doesn't mean that I'm going to go kill someone with a knife because I saw it on Assassin's Creed or shoot someone because I saw it on COD4."" So what you hint towards to is that a drop kick is becoming socially more acceptable because of violent media. Exactly the conclusion of these kind of studies. kenerhai "Video games are not a source of aggretion, cause if that's the case then what about hardcore hip-hop culture and Hip-hop in general?!?!" The study is not suggesting violent media is source of aggression (part of which hip hop entertainment is too). It simply scientifically points out that violent media enforces aggressive behavior in children. "the problem shouldn't be ...but in making sure kids aren't getting or playing violent games!" Why, if games aren't enforcing violent behaviour? Omnipresence "'He said the correlation between the two was nearly as strong as that between smoking and lung cancer' I lol'd like an idiot at that." That must mean... you're an idiot. dg116 "Thus, this is not a study of games as they are today. Because of this alone, the study is invalid and SHOULD NOT BE BELIEVED." That's a good point. It could be speculated that todays more realistic violence would be shocking enough to prevent aggressive behaviour but then again a more violent game of today could enforce more aggressive behaviour. Also, the elements in entertainment are still the same. SOrry bout my english. Am not quite familiar with scientific vocabulary. captainfork "What this study can't show (based on the nature of the study) is if the people that engage in violent TV shows and video games do so because they ALREADY have a tendency towards violence" So MOST of the group that watched movies JUST HAPPENED to have that tendency?? Come on! kTvTv3 "Now concerning this article. The game is like a placebo." No, no, no. You see they never told the test subjects how they expected the violent media to affect them.

What a wonderful study from The Department of Really Obvious Stuff! Frankly I'm more worried about violent TV than violent games or movies. At least movies can be somewhat controlled in the home (i.e., put up where kids can't reach or stopped when it gets too violent) and games are considered something for geeks/immature boys, but EVERYONE watches TV -- I'd wager a guess that violent acts broadcasted on TV are reaching a bigger audience than movies and games combined.

Why doesn't someone conduct a study where two boxers are shown different movies before they fight? Show one of them "The Sound of Music", and the other one, I don't know, "Faces of Death." I bet the one who watches the musical will beat the crap out of the other guy, b/c he's so pissed about about having to sit through that movie!

Young kids who play hockey are violent. MORE AT 11! What a stupid "study".

and about a hundred other studies show otherwise. 1 out of 100 isnt enough to get it done. However.... in this day in age, in only take one to be milked by congress/senate and get change. the pwoer of the people is too easy to change. just throw some "proof" (which this isnt) up and most people will buy it...if not, throw a special up on CNN, then they will : roll eyes : pathetic.

I'm totally going to start calling video games... Electronic Media now...

the sad truth about scientific research is the results usually follow the beliefs of who put up the money to fund it

while I had some issues with anger and being violent growing up it was just the way things were where I lived. Yeah, I should have handled things better at times but damn, it was never the video games, horror films, action movies, etc that caused my behavior.... maybe it was and I just needed the right doctor to tell me! ha ha

@NA3D Nurture, culture, and socialization are too broad of variables to be used in research. Huesmann (the researcher) already presented variables to be tested: watching violent films and aggression (in floor hockey game). Like I said, the findings are the results to a hypothesis. It is not a statement, prediction, or question. You can't refute a research. Oh my God! GameSpot has just unveiled the combined IQ of all GameSpotters: 10. Less time posting, more time in class, for sake of humanity! Jesus Christ, I feel like a Godly intellectual being surrounded by you guys.

NA3D: your last paragraph is perfect. for one no good parent would show their 7,8 or 9 year old child a violent video.

Well, at least it wasn't just blaming games this time >_>

haha, homework and academic achievement? dude, that last one alone proves that this guy is a nut. Homework does not result in academic achievement, good, passionate, teachers with the ability to apply different styles of teaching to different students as needed results in academic achievement. Homework results in students just passing by, and that is why so many people have troubles in college. They are taught how to remember things short term then spit them out instead of actually knowing the information and knowing hot to apply it. He also needs to look at the parenting styles of the parents involved in this study, that will prove to be MUCH more of an affect on how the child acts. You have to look at parental reward and punishment as well as how spoild the children are. I see more aggressive kids because they think they can do anything because they are spoiled so much. BAD PARENTING RESULTS IN BAD PEOPLE who later become bad parents... There is a rare case of that not being true, but more often than not, it is.

As a Michigan Alum, I am hurt by this. He makes some solid points that

What THAT professor wants is boys becoming more girly. Aggressiveness is in males' blood- without it he would not be able to protect anything or anyone including himself. These are our ROOTS. And I personally do not consider them to be bad- unless they go beyond limits. But again, everything without limits, including pacifism, is bad

You can't say that this guy is right or wrong. Scientific and social research are never about right or wrong. A hypothesis is developed, tested, and results are presented. Example: "If watching violent films makes individuals more aggressive, then children whom watch a violent film before playing hockey will be more aggressive." The study simply shows that the subject group commited more penalties. Why are you guys talking about parenting, nurture, culture, and socialization? Re-read the hypothesis. You can't argue against that because it is not a statement, prediction, or question. It is a hypothesis. Physical science is always taught in 9th grade high school and one of the very first things you learn is what a hypothesis is and how to turn a theory into a testable hypothesis. I know we are all past the 9th grade, so either a bunch of you guys never paid attention or the IQ is below average up in this joint.

How does a 30 someting years old study from the 70s relate to 2007?

Besides, games don't lead to violence, they make nerds and geeks. All this can be blamed on Rockstar and their desire to push capital hills buttons. and Manhunt 2 sucked anyway! Nah, its ok Rockstar, we forgive you, keep doin your thing!

On the contrary, games keep me from b*tch-slapping real people.

having read the study (several times, because half the crap made no sense) I think the study has some good points but just because a kid does a drop kick in his hockey game because he saw it on tv or on a video game doesn't mean that I'm going to go kill someone with a knife because I saw it on Assassin's Creed or shoot someone because I saw it on COD4.

If I do give into to rage, it's not going to because of Video games, it's going to be because of sh*t like this.

horse manure!!! So does this also mean that playing puzzle games makes me a pu$$y? I think not. Video games are not a source of aggretion, cause if that's the case then what about hardcore hip-hop culture and Hip-hop in general?!?! Because compared to hip-hops influence, games make people perfectly well adjusted kids! Right? Now, I'm not saying either should be outlawed, but the problem shouldn't be regulating game violence (in games FOR adults!!), but in making sure kids aren't getting or playing violent games! The problem is parents who don't take an active role in their childrens lives!! Parents need to start being parents and stop making the government punish everyone else!! As well, every other form of media needs to be held to the same standards. Why are movies like SAW and Hostile ok, but Manhunt not? Because video games are still looked at as toys for kids! Even when they have ratings on them like M for mature! Someone from the industry needs to step forward and save us, just like Dee Snyder did for the music industry.

At least he's not attacking JUST games, like most people seem to do.

This isn't the first study to show this. Yes, it's true games do encourage aggressive behaviour in children but its not like anything is ever going to be done about it. Smoking is proven to damage health but cigarettes haven't been banned from sale. I personally believe that there is a possibility that photorealistic violence in games is going to have a very serious negative impact on a child and teenager's emotional development. What has to be done though is better information getting to parents. A lot of parents look at videogames as toys that a child can be left alone with. We all know that this should never be the case. Ah, what am I typing this for? Things will never change! lol

im tired of this crap...videogames dont make ppl violent....ppl that they live with that are violent are more likely to do that....i played my share of violent games and im fine.....plus some games u can aftually toggle of the blood and gore..stop wasting ur time hillary...u suck.

Wow, dgg116, an intelligent response posted with clear English? Not the usual half-drunk, half-stoned semi-illiterate blog posts out there. I've not read the study so I would not want to comment directly on Huesmann's conclusions but I totally agree that we do not need a ban on games, nor is one likely forthcoming so long as this is a billion dollar industry based largely in the USA. Politicians like Hillary are paying lip service to more conservative elements of the government and the country. If the US bans violent video games, the sales and manufacture will merely shift overseas where they can be downloaded, politicians know this. For better or worse, many of the most successful sales are in the area of shooters where the violence is at an all time high.

I find these sorts of studies totally without merit. Said study could easily have been manipulated to garnish results that the person conducting said study wanted. I would rather go with more antidotal evidence then rely upon the suppose fairness of a very potentially biased study on the subject matter. With that said, I would agree that the more violent games should not be sold to "children" over the counter. Furthmore, parents need to take a more active role in what their children do for entertainment. The state should not be the one's regulating content of entertainment. The state can and should regulate what entertainment is sold to minors and that is where the state's role ends.

"He said the correlation between the two was nearly as strong as that between smoking and lung cancer, and stronger than the correlations between condom use and sexually transmitted HIV" I lol'd like an idiot at that.

it all goes back to the parents. there are a lot of people out there that seem to think that they can use videogames and tv to babysit their kids and keep them occupied. as long as the kids are quiet they think it's all good. parents need to be actively involved in all aspects of their kids lives or they are just asking for trouble. the ratings system does not work if the parents pay it no mind