My college-aged son got an X-box for Christmas and we played "Medal of Honor" on it. The game is awesome, with movie-quality graphics and highly detailed and historically accurate uniforms and equipment. I don't really play video games anymore, but this one had me on the edge of my seat.

The violence in this game is intense and even though I know it won't turn my son or me into rabid killers, I can't help but wonder what kind of effect it would have on younger kids, kids like John Lee Malvo for example.

Any thoughts on this?

Panzer Out



   

Do violent video games make kids violent?

As much as spoons make you fat.  

Video games are like the internet, its a way for bored to people to pass the time.

Yes, they do.



[url]http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp784772.html[/url]

This study was so convoluted and they massaged the numbers so much that the results on such a small sample can be made to say anything.  Like since you own an AR type rifle you are more likely to go to the mall and start shooting people.

The study skews on male aggressivness - a necessary trait for being male.

They left out if any of the participants ever owned a cap gun.

The study is BOGUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I play GTA3 alot, and yeah I do sometimes think what it would be like to jack a car. I even sorta planned out the step-by-step procedure from opening the door to yanking the driver out o ingress, and even practiced it on my sis.

But I haven't done any carjackings yet.

When I'm practicing shooting I am training to kill, but I haven't even killed a lamb yet.

So yes the simulations do put these things on our minds, but we do know between right and wrong.

Are you argueing that they have absolutely *no effect* on kids?

I'm sure we'd be happy to review any studies that show they don't.  Got cites?

One of the main ways kids learn is by imitating the actions/behaviors of others.  That can be good or bad, depending...

An extreme example is this one, where a 13 year old killed a 6 year old imitating wrestling tactics he'd seen on TV:

[url]http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/1326[/url]

It worked for me [;)]

When put in context by attentive parents, why would they?  When parents are hands-off and allow their children to become lost in fantasy worlds (remember Dungeons & Dragons and the evil it supposedly caused?), then of course there will be consequences.  Point being, it doesn't CAUSE anything, but I feel it may at least have a connection.  But let's us here not play the "blame something else for personal actions" game.

I'm kind of in the middle on this one, and I certainly think it depends on the age of the kid.  
When I was buying Vice City, I saw a parent putting down a deposit on the game with their 8 year old kid.  I almost pointed out the content to the parents, but then I noticed by their behavior that they obviously hated each other and the kid, and just wanted to shut little Johnny up.  Now, is the game going to make the little prick steal a car, or is the fact that his parents suck going to make him a serial killer?  The problem with all of these "studies" on video game violence is that they don't take into account that most parents these days shouldn't even be breathing, let alone having kids.

I don't really think a game like Medal of Honor is a bad thing, but games like Vice City or Grand Theft Auto are games where you play the bad guy.  You steal cars from innocent people, you kill innocent people, you kill police and military, you buy and sell drugs, pick up hookers...you name it.  For someone who has had the time to develop a sense of right and wrong, I don't see a problem with this (although many of my girlfriend's friends think its horrible, lol).  But when you take an 8 year old kid and give them a game like this, I think you're asking for trouble.  But, like I said, the type of parent that would do something like that is likely go cause far worse damage in other ways.
For all you parents out there, know who your kids are playing with.  Most parents have no idea what's going on at their kid's friend's houses.  If they always play at one kid's house, and are never at yours, chances are something bad is going on over there.  Either that or the other parents just buy better snacks than you do.

Yes, they do, [b]ESPECIALLY[/b] for children.  They desensitize us to the effect of our actions--pulling the trigger is a plus in the score box, not a dead person at your feet.  There's a psychologist, LTC Grossman, who trains military and law enforcement on the magnitude of killing, who is very outspoken on this subject.  For example, there's a case study where a kid who had never fired a pistol before (but played thousands of hours of video games) stole a pistol, went into a school and started shooting; he fired 8 shots for 8 hits--4 of them head shots, one neck, and 3 upper torso. How does a kid who has never fired a pistol make a 100% hit ratio, let alone overcome the natural desire against taking human life?

LTC Grossman says it better than I can:

[url]http://www.matha.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de/~kreuzer/lasek2/trained_to_kill.htm[/url]

In another article, which I can't recall, he made the comment that alot of shootings that occur during robberies (non-self defense) are accidental; the goblin says frequently, "I didn't mean to shoot him; the gun just went off."  Grossman believes that video games have trained them to shoot at a target, and their muscle memory just takes over.  So, in reality, they didn't mean to shoot them, but their bodies betrayed them with a conditioned response; target in front of sights=squeeze trigger.

Adults aren't so impressionable (we're too hardheaded by the time we reach our mid-twenties)as teenagers and younger children.

Agreed. Being desensitized to graphic violence, especially in a society with no moral absolutes, is a bad thing for kids and mentally unstable adults.

"Children don't naturally kill; they learn it from violence in the home and most pervasively, from violence as entertainment in television, movies, and interactive video games."
-LTC Grossman

Makes sense to me.

Panzer Out

I disagree - Study 1 is a correlational study that uses self-report measures - two fatal flaws in studies of this kind.  The cross-sectional nature of the data and the correlational analysis rules out ANY causal inference, and the number of confounds is huge (for examples - more aggresive people spend more time playing violent video games, or bad students spend more time playing video games, and end up more agressive as a rersult of their poor academic performance).  The self-report measure are also notoriously unrealiable in studies of aggression.  

Study 2 is much more rigorous, but I do not really see them eliminate the confound that they themselves have identified in earlier(inconclusive) research - namely that EXCITEMENT, not violence, is what causes the increased psychological arousal and hence agression.  For the control group, slow-paced and unexciting games were chosen - I find this odd (suspicious even), since they were aware of the potential confound, and could have chosen more exciting games (like auto racing) for the control group, but did not (they do try to control for this difference statistically, but I still find it strange).

All these guys found is that in the very short-term, people's behavior right after playing a very violent video game, is slightly more agressive than people who played a much less violent (and much more boring and repetetive) video game.  They showed no effect of overall state hostility, and they showed no long-term effects other than immeditately after the game.

It is worth noting three things (1) the agressive behaviors demonstrated immediately after the games were in a computer-mediated setting.  They were not agressive in face-to-face behavior towards other, but over a computer network.  Would the effects exist in actual human interaction?  Who knows?  The researchers didn't bother to check.  (2) Prior studies have found a very inconsistent link between violent video games and even short-term effects on agression, and a meta-analysis of those studies woudl likely show no effect (even for the short term), and (3) Another explanation could be that BORING video games reduce and mute the normal increase in agression and competetive behavior that exciting video games (whether violent or not) trigger.


... just my 2 (nerdy) cents.

I've played virtually every violent video game made since Wolf3d and Doom.  I think this stuff is a crock.  I agree with the poster above that alot of this "violent aggression" they "measure" in these tests is excitement.  I get pumped playing a good game, especially with other people.  That goes for a good sports game and a good violent shooter.  (you should see me and my buddies playing Virtua Tennis 2k2 on my old Dreamcast, talk about crazy fun).  It's the competitive nature and the thrill of the game, but I don't think it makes someone violent.  At least not a normal, mentally stable person.  Average video gaming age is like 25 or something now...

And muscle memory from a video game?  Give me a freakin break.  You don't gain jackshit in the way of skills playing video games, and you certainly don't learn to really pull a trigger.  Clicking a mouse or moving a joystick does not a real life gun fighter make.  Muscle memory being responsible for shootings from playing video games, now that's one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in awhile.  These accidental shootings during robberies happen because we are dealing with mental midgets handling weapons they are not proficient in using.

I play violent video games and they haven't made me violent...and if you tell me they did, I'll kick your a$$!  [;)]

Bradd

I play a lot of GT3 and Vice City and my spurts of violent urges have actually gone away!

Some EX-army psych weirdo says that games like Doom are firearms trainers.  He's the fckn weirdo.

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000322_videogames_feature.html[/url]

"I'm a fckn goofball"

[img]http://media.abcnews.com/media/OnAir/images/abc_grossman_000321_a.jpg[/img]



I told you he was a nutcase:



Brady Bill extends it's reach.[rolleyes]

Good points, and you are right to critique the study design and methodology.  Still, at least it's an attempt to do science, rather than sit around and say, "Well, I think...", or "I feel...", or "It didn't happen that way to me!".

Yes, period.

Read "On Killing" by Grossman and that may help you to understand that constant exposure to that type of desensitizing violence and instant "point-shoot" operant conditioning will have an effect. That being said, after many many hours of watching the Roadrunner and the coyote do their thing, my brother and I never once:
1. Dropped the other off a cliff
2. Dropped an anvil on the other's head
3. Ordered anything from Acme

Good parents+good parenting+an unspeakable terror of what your Daddy will do to you if you screw up+ the ability to feel shame=good kids who become good adults.

And never once did I have the urge to grab Woody Woodpecker by the neck and wash his head thru the golfball washing device.

I totally agree with that - and I'm not trying to say "NO, there is no link".  Part of what I wanted to draw attention to for the people that didn't read the study, was that (a) the study is limited in generalizability and (b) there are other studies out there that are inconclusive.  Overall, I don't think even the issue of short-term effects has been sufficinetly addressed, and there is virtually no data on long-term effects.

I do totally agree that DATA is the only answer - and I try not to draw any conclusions unless they are empirically supported.  I do respect these researchers for their studies (and JPSP is a very strong journal) - I just wanted to point out some shortcomings to those that were interested but didn't have the patience to read it.

I also feel that I can be a little bit of a smart-ass on this topic because I have actually conducted several laboratory research studies using violent video games myself.  (Not related specifically to agression, but still [:D] ).  

Do racing games cause you to roadrace more?

Without good parenting I believe kids may be more impressionable to video games, movies, music, etc. etc.  I think this is why our culture has changed so much, and has become progressively more violent over the years.  The "family" has been destroyed, leaving kids with pathetic examples and role models to grow up with, instead of caring, devoted mothers and fathers.  This is clearly visible in many African-American communities.

College age kids have probably already evolved into their violence comfort zone.  When I was in school there were kids who would fight virtually every weekend and those that never fought.

My experience is that games and TV definately DO influence a kid.  A certain 3/4 year old I know quickly mastered most educational computer games he played and when bored would investigate some of the other loaded games like QuakeIII, Urban Terror and Soldier of Fortune.  At the time I though it was cool how a 3-4yo could shred on Quake III.  He also played some kids games like Lego Island and Harry Potter which contained some nice coloquialisms that were funny in the game but inapropriate in situations like pre school.  Also TV seemed to be influencing his use of certain phrases about destoying, defying and conquering.  He also started kicking, punching, head butting and shooting(with finger) staff at pre-school.  After an threatened "suspension" from pre-school, it was decided to try no computer/no TV for a few weeks to see any impact.  WOW...behavior started improving in about one week.  It has been about two months now.  Teacher and other parents comment and affirm the positive turnaround.
   

Hell yes

By all the arguments that are used, would serving in the INFANTRY not make people much more likely to kill?

After all, you are trained how to kill, and you spend lots of time (in a fully immersive environment) "playing" at fighting with actual guns.  You are actually pulling triggers (so the whole muscle memory argument should be much stronger).

Going by the logic of people who claim that video-games make people more violent, men who served in the Army infantry and similar Marine units should be FAR more likely to kill people than men in the civilian population in general. (It should be even more likely for men who actually served in war).

I don't know the statistics, but I would bet a lot of money that veterans murder less than non-veterans.


.... just an interesting thought.

[flame suit on]

IMHO: It's all about two things:

1. Parenting.
 
  If the kid has good parents/parenting, not
  even GTA Vice City at 6 y.o. is going to
  screw him up.

2. The kid's sense of right and wrong.

  Sure, I listen to Eminem and play violent
  video games. I also have a developed sense
  of right and wrong. Am I going to act on
  these influences? Of course not! I also
  believe that the smarter the kid is, the
  less likely that they'll be influenced by
  these things.

This is and remains total bullshit. A videogame does not simulate the tactile sensation of holding a firearm in your hand and the X-pounds of trigger pull nor the recoil. It does not make somebody any more aggressive; on the contrary, many people find that violent video games lets them take out their anger safely.

Violent video games are often blamed for the same reason guns are blamed for crimes: lack of responsibility.

Beside the point - if you really want to see what the XBOX can do, get him a game called "Halo".  This is a first person shooting came like medal of honor but you shoot aliens instead of people.  The game is somewhat PC in that sense.

Play the game with him.  With time, you WILL see why the game is so addicting.  These modern shooting/assault games played on large televisions will make you believe you are actually in battle.  Your heart rate increases and you actually become SCARED when being attacked.  The enemies become wise to your moves and it gets harder to outsmart them.

I'll admit it, I'm 27 and love the first person shooting games for the XBOX.  I hadn't owned a video game since I was a teenager and everyone had Nintendo, but when I saw the capabilities of the XBOX, I couldn't believe it.  With a loud stereo home entertainment system and a big screen TV, it is almost like a battle simulator.  The games are also incredible challenging.  

[img]http://www.bungie.net/images/site/halo/screenshots/scrn_091.jpg[/img]

Careful what you ask for, you just might get it!  [;D]

According to this article, "Veterans (are) more likely than others to be in prison
for a violent offense but less likely to be serving a sentence for drugs".

However, "male veterans were incarcerated at less than half the rate of adult male nonveterans".

I would conclude, based on a very cursory look at this particular article that veterans don't end up in prison as often, but when they do, it's likely to be for more violent offenses.  Draw your own conclusions...

There's alot more, but you may have more patience than I for reading through this stuff.

[url]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vpj.txt[/url]

That's as easy to answer as this question:


[b][size=4]Does porn make kids want to have sex?[/b][/size=4]


Hell yes! Kids do what they see being done. Anyone who doesn't get this by now is a fucking moron.

Edited to add:

That being said, I'll refer you to this quote.

Well, there you go blaming parents.  Isn't that what you're doing?  That's as much of an over-simplification and over-generalization as blaming "society"...

Fun, this "blame game", huh!  [;P]

There are plenty of people studying teens, and others who commit violent acts.  Just do a google search on "teen violence" and spend a few months reading, or try any of the professional journals available via MEDLINE.  

But when the results of these "studies" are mentioned, they're almost completely ignored.  Not just here, but by most everyone in the real world too.  There are plenty of examples of "good" parents with bad kids, and bad parents with kids that never go on to do anything violent.

Everybody has their opinions, but nobody really knows anything.  Of course, if we really knew, then what would we talk about on the internet? [;D]

i believe violent video games affect some kids (a small percentage)and makes them more violent,but not all kids

just like some people can experiment with alcohol and turn into alcoholics and some dont.

just my opinion

Troy - Good points. I think one "risk factor" is a failure to distinguish between the world of their imagination and the world they live in, coupled with .

It would seem that parents would have some role in helping a child to make such distinctions, which is just the "scientific" process of comparing your idea about something with what actually happens. A lot of parents seem to have problems with this themselves - instead of forming their own opinions they rely on the authority of journalists, politicians, and university pundits. Thus, we get "gun control".

Another factor: kids need exercise, especially boys. Nothing helps to dampen and channel aggressive impulses so much as simply getting good and tired in some sporting activity.

While I agree that a video game does not simulate actually firing a firearm, what is missing is the realistic feedback of your actions, i.e., a body, which would make you pause and consider the consequences of your actions. The difference between playing "Deer Hunter" and actually doing it are seeing a living breathing animal, and actually killing it. And your comments, while completely valid, only really applies to adults, not impressionable children (I'm talking 6-14 or so), which was main point of this thread.

I'm not saying that video games are the ONLY thing that turns kids violent; that's like trying to find the ONE THING that started WWII.  What I'm saying, and studies are showing, is that violent video games,when combined with other factors (poor parental guidance, poor moral guidance, etc) leads to more aggressive behavior by children, because ITS NOT GUIDED.  While I take both of my boys out to the range on a regular basis, I also guide their thinking by stressing the consequences of their actions and the need for responsibility; in a video game there's non of that.  If a child gets his parenting by Nintendo or by watching Natural Born Killers, then what do you expect?


What LTC Grossman says, and I agree with it, is that these video games provide the same operant conditioning used by the military to desensitize troops to the act of taking another life.  Remember, these troops have already (in theory) been raised with the cultural prohibitions against killing.  A child, on the other hand, doesn't have that prohibition to begin with, and is in the processing of getting it through parenting.  So, if that type of conditioning is effective on a fully-developed (in the moral sense) adult, imagine the results on an impressionable child.

Interesting point, and again Dr. Grossman is far more eloquent about it than I could ever be. Read the book. Indeed, infantry training is all about enabling even timid souls to be effective weapons systems operators. There is also a tremendous amount of conditioning that goes along with it that you will only kill on command and only when released to do so. Indiscriminate killing only takes place in horrible units, and I would be very interested to know if the rate of murders committed by ex-GIs is lower or higher than those who did not serve. I believe it would be lower, but that is pure supposition on my part.

And that is why the most dangerous thing on the battlefield to an American fighting man is another American fighting man. We do something most armies don't do, we pull triggers. Out of 100 non-US soldiers maybe 10 at most will pull their trigger in battle, and of those maybe half aim at their targets. In the US military operant conditioning has raised that to ~70% in mech units and essentially 100% in airborne and light units. Operant conditioning is an excellent force multiplier. But again, once off the battlefield the same conditioning and expectations that enable us to kill are asserted, and we do not kill except in self defense.
We are more likely, but only when it is proper to do so.

I would tend to agree, but I don't know.


I agree.

Actually he is referring to equipping the boy with a mindset that enabled him to kill. I am sure he was predisposed that way to begin with. I agree with you about the parental responsibility thing.

My mom once said she was worried about my always playing violent PC games like Duke Nukem and Doom, and owning those nasty AK-47's.  She was afraid I'd become desensitized to violence and go on a killing spree like I do in the PC games.

I told her "Mom, tell you what.  I'm going to keep playing these games. But if they DO cause me to snap and I go on a killing spree, I'll owe you a Coke."

ROTFLMFAO!    [:D]

I'm calling bullshit on the LTC. My genecode fully described my two goals in life:

1) Survival
2) Procreation

It is in fact all the teaching and indoctrination from my family and society that prevents me from lashing out at people who threaten me and my family. It is also this indoctrination, that goes against my basic instincts, that prevents me from going out right now finding me a widehipped girl to bear my child.

Try raising a kitten alone. It knows pretty damn well before reaching puberty the concept of lashing out and hurting others.

*bzzzzt* wrong

Post-puberscent kids want to have sex, period. Whether you they grow up in a zoo or in the suburbs, your natural drive is all the guide you need. Porn doesn't make kids want to have sex anymore than it makes you want to have sex, it's just good jack-off material.

Well, you should know. You are definetly the EXPERT.

I agree with this. It's not the root cause of it, but it doesn't help when coupled with other factors like [b]bad parenting[/b].

Let me see if I've got this right:

If I play violent video games, I will become violent.

I don't play violent video games, but I do play Monopoly, and often win.

So how come I'm not rich? [%|]