Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2005-08-17 19:19:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:american psychological association, apa, elizabeth carll, video game violence

American Psychological Association Lashes Out at Violent Games

A press release issued earlier today by the American Psychological Association took a shot at violent video games.

The APA explained that it had adopted a resolution recommending a reduction in the level of violence in games marketed to children and youth. The policy decision was adopted at the recommendation of a special committee empaneled to study violence in games and interactive media.

"Showing violent acts without consequences teach youth that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict. Whereas, seeing pain and suffering as a consequence can inhibit aggressive behavior," said, psychologist Elizabeth Carll, PhD, (at left) co-chair of the committee responsible for the APA report.

"Violence in video games appear to have similar negative effects as viewing violence on TV, but may be more harmful because of the interactive nature of video games, Carll added. "Playing video games involves practice, repetition, and being rewarded for numerous acts of violence, which may intensify the learning. This may also result in more realistic experiences which may potentially increase aggressive behavior."

The video game industry was quick to respond. ESA President Doug Lowenstein issued a statement saying, in part, "...the APA has made it clear over a long period of time that it believes violent video games are harmful and thus justify enactment of unconstitutional restrictions on First Amendment freedoms. The APA continues to disregard a body of other credible research and analysis...which challenge claims that video games cause aggression or crime...In fact, just this week, a researcher at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign released the first long-term study on the effects of playing violent online video games and found that they do not cause any substantial real-world aggression. Nary a word of it is mentioned by the APA..."

EDITOR'S NOTE: The confusing, swirling morass of research continues to swirl...and confuse. It seems that whatever your position in this debate, there is a study - or studies - to support it. Where is the definitive research? Perhaps Senator Clinton's proposed $90 million study will be the answer.


(26 comments) - (Post a new comment)

towards kids?
[info]evirustheslaye
2005-08-17 11:46 pm UTC (link)
how exactly are these games marketed to kids its only once in a greate while that i see videogame commercials on tv and even then they show the games esrb rating after and i think maybe before the actual commercial.... what more do they want?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: towards kids?
[info]toshirotzu
2005-08-18 12:18 am UTC (link)
Some of them, if not most show the rating before and after the commercial as well as claim "This game is rated X for X" so not only is there a visual warning there's also an auditory warning. It's been awhile since I last heard a movie trailer say "This movie is rated R" and they always have the rating at the bottom of the screen in small print, in comparison to video games where the rating has it's own shot right in the middle of the screen in large print. Any parent who misses the rating isn't paying attention. Not to mention the rating's on the front and back of the boxes the games come in.

Anywho, "advertising to children" seems to mean showing a commercial on TV regardless of when and which station it's on.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
There is one thing i agree with them on ....
(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 12:51 am UTC (link)
Teach media literacy to children so they will have the ability to critically evaluate interactive media.



Sounds better then just shielding their eyes from everything negative. Teach kids why they shouldn't take the content they see in entertainment media so seriously and teach them why they shouldn't emulate it and there'd be no problems. Education is the key, not censorship.

(Reply to this)


[info]horrorkid64
2005-08-18 12:53 am UTC (link)
"In fact, just this week, a researcher at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign released the first long-term study on the effects of playing violent online video games and found that they do not cause any substantial real-world aggression. Nary a word of it is mentioned by the APA..."

This is interesting, because the study Mr. Lowenstein is refering to can hardly be called "long term". The German psychologist Maria von Salisch studied the effects of violent video games on children for a whole year (which is what I would call long term).

Results: no change in aggressive behavior of the children.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 12:54 am UTC (link)
Cool. Do you have a link to that study?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]horrorkid64
2005-08-18 01:04 am UTC (link)
Sadly, no. I've searched for an online version of that study, but have not found anything yet.

It was reported in the German newspaper "Die Zeit" about 4 or 5 months ago.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 01:11 am UTC (link)
Well, if you do find a link to it, post it up. It'll probably be in German but i can always use an online translator to translate it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]horrorkid64
2005-08-18 01:20 am UTC (link)
Here's a link to the article where the study was mentioned:

http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2005/12/Computerspiele

And here's the piece about the study:

Die Berliner Psychologin Maria von Salisch hat das in einer der wenigen Langzeitstudien in der Computerwirkungsforschung untersucht. Sie hat Zehnjährige aus sechs Berliner Grundschulen ein Jahr lang beobachtet. In diesem Alter sind Kinder in einer Phase, in der sie stark experimentieren, danach suchen, was ihnen gefällt und was nicht, herausfinden wollen, was sie können und was nicht. Auch bei Videospielen ist dies so. Kinder, die in der Klasse durch Hauen, Treten oder Beschimpfen aufgefallen waren – fast ausschließlich Jungen –, spielten zum Beginn der Studie zu Hause häufiger Ego-Shooter und aggressive Action-Spiele als die weniger aggressiven Kinder in der Klasse. Kinder, die eher durch Intrigen oder das Streuen von Gerüchten aufgefallen waren, spielten verstärkt Rollenspiele. Das waren nun wieder fast ausschließlich Mädchen.

Nach einem Jahr wurden die Kinder wieder befragt. Die meisten aggressiven Kinder spielten noch immer das aggressive Spiel. Die nicht aggressiven Kinder hatten das Spiel häufiger gegen ein weniger aggressives Spiel ausgetauscht. Und die, die es noch spielten, hatten ihr Verhalten in der Klasse nicht verändert. Sie waren in diesem Jahr nicht aggressiver geworden. Genauso verhielt es sich mit den Mädchen und den Rollenspielen.

It's not very detailed, so it's difficult to tell where possible flaws of that study might be. Measuring of aggression is actually pretty difficult.

Recommended for further reading:

A summary about studies of violence and games:

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/freedman.html

Ten things wrong with the media effects model:

http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
The article in english
(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 08:17 pm UTC (link)
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/05/0809videogames.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]gamepolitics
2005-08-18 12:55 am UTC (link)
I'd like to see a study on children who watch an NFL game, or play street hockey, or watch a news report of a Marine firefight in Iraq.

I'm willing to bet all of these things and more will give a short-term boost to aggressiveness. Probably in adults, too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jacque_q
2005-08-18 01:33 am UTC (link)
Good point

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 01:05 am UTC (link)
Well, whatever the case, I can name one thing that will cause violence without fail. Giving problem kids an implied get-out-of-jail-free card by blaming games. As the witch hunt on games continues, I'd bet money there will be at least a few cases where some punk kid somewhere starts a fight or whatever just because he thinks he'll be able to get away with it by saying "but the game made me do it!" Bad kids don't need something to make them bad. They just need a good excuse. Or, any excuse for that matter. Thank you APA, Jack Thompson, et al, for giving kids the Holy Grail of excuses.

One would think psychologists of all people would think of this...

-illspirit

(Reply to this)

*sigh*
(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 01:26 am UTC (link)
When Thompson reads the press release, we'll never hear the end of it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: *sigh*
(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 01:30 am UTC (link)
Jack posted that press release twice on an earlier thread, probably while wearing a shit-eating grin on his face.

Funny thing about Jack, though. For an ultra-conservative, he sure has a very liberal view of both violence and of cause and effect.

== BearDogg-X ==

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Wowser...
(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 01:49 am UTC (link)
>> "Violence in video games appear to have similar negative effects as viewing violence on TV, but may be more harmful because of the interactive nature of video games, Carll added. "Playing video games involves practice, repetition, and being rewarded for numerous acts of violence, which may intensify the learning. This may also result in more realistic experiences which may potentially increase aggressive behavior."

It must be great to have a PhD so that you can get your unsupported fantasies printed as if there is any weight to them... There is no credible evidence to suggest that "Playing Violent Video Games Increases Aggressive Behavior and Decreases Helpful Behavior".

A quick look at the references in the release shows that most of the sources they used were not research, but the conclusions of others. (Booth, L. (2001, November 26). Do you enjoy showering with men and picking on sissies? Join the military. New Statesman, p. 83.)

The APA has seriously undermined their already strained credibility on this one...

(Reply to this)

APA
(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 01:55 am UTC (link)
The APA's experiments are flawed and the scientific studies that they carry out are laughable at best. It does nothing but prove to me that kids with aggressive behavior are attracted to violent media.

The number of games sold increase every year and they seem to be getting more and more violent every year I agree. But where are the crime stats to back up these theories of increased aggression. Surely if year after year kids were being trained into becoming hooligans by their Playstation's there would be some rise in crime stats to back it up.

Of course young kids will get wound up playing video games the same as if they were watching cartoons on the TV, reading a comic, or even just playing sports. This just shows me that they were getting some excitement out of it, and definitely no reason to issue a stupid statement like the APA have.

-Godofyouall

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 02:47 am UTC (link)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I find it interesting that the majority of the games that come out are E-T, right? I mean, with all the video games out there, M rated games are somewhat of a minority, I think.

And as for the 90 million dollar study...do you think that money could be used for something better and more significant?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gamepolitics
2005-08-18 11:15 am UTC (link)
Eh...

If it helps sort this confusion out, it would be a drop in the bucket.

I mean, by comparison, look how much money - and lives - we are pouring into Mr. Bush's war in Iraq.

I'd spend $90M for something important here on the home front.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 09:16 pm UTC (link)
Dennis, you are the creater of the site, but I feel the comment about Iraq is very much out of place for GP.

That said, yes, 90 mill is nothing for the US Budget. Pork can net more then 90 mill even...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gamepolitics
2005-08-18 09:59 pm UTC (link)
Well, no disrespect intended. I support our troops 500%. Here in PA we lost five soldiers just last week. One of the funerals took place today in town.

But this is Mr. Bush's war, without question, and history will judge him by it.

I guess it is off-topic. Guilty as charged.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
/spit
[info]hordelee
2005-08-18 05:52 am UTC (link)
The APA. What a collection of ego-stroking narcissistic fraudsters. Whores of the court, they are. Where is the definitive research, you ask? Couldn't tell you. What I can tell you is this; no year-long study is going to tell you jack shit about the effects media has on children. Short-term and immediate effects, of course it'll tell you about those. But so what? Children are in a state of constant emotional and mental flux, and measuring the permanent changes brought about in them and their adult emotional disposition requires lifetime studies, a large and committed research team, carefully constructed and operationalized research terms, a large and constant pool of research subjects and a fucking ton of money. This position taken by the APA is politically motivated; not to promote social activism, but moral entrepreneurship and to maintain their own "relevance" Fuck them.

Lee

(Reply to this)

Wow Pure and complete BS
[info]konstruct
2005-08-18 04:28 pm UTC (link)
"Based on the findings, the APA recommends:

1. Teach media literacy to children so they will have the ability to critically evaluate interactive media."

Not the responsibility of the industry but is the gaurdian's job

"2. Encourage the entertainment industry to link violent behaviors with negative social consequences."

Industry already does that (i.e. - jet grind radio)

"3. Develop and disseminate a content-based rating system that accurately reflects the content of the video games and interactive media."

ESRB already does that by submitting a rating system and describing objectional content

"4. Developers of violent video games and interactive media address the issues that playing these games may increase aggressive thoughts and behaviors in children and adolescents and that these effects may potentially be greater than the effects of exposure to violent television and movies."

Why address something that hasn't been scientificly proven?

I understand the need for jobs in the economy but if this is what APA puts out then this association needs its government funding pulled. That money can be used for better programs and perhaps more money for schools so the public school system wouldn't be such a joke and spit out these social retards who end up not knowing better.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 04:49 pm UTC (link)
I feel like the APA and the ESA spend a lot of time saying, "My brain scientist can beat up your brain scientist." But it never seems to lead to anything but more studies.

(Reply to this)

Much more then a partisan divide
(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 04:56 pm UTC (link)
As mentioned in excellent "The Economist" and "GameSpot" articles, this is no longer a simple issue of politics or opinions. The very outcome of the proposed 90 million study hinges on the people performing it. E.g. will they be young or old? "our" generation or "theirs"? People who have experience and have been exposed to a variety of gaming or those who still think Doom 1 is all the rage?

(Reply to this)

Errors in the APA statement and resulting press echoes
(Anonymous)
2005-08-18 07:15 pm UTC (link)
The APA resolution further confounds the "video game violence" issue by folding in data from old television violence studies. For example, an August 18 Associated Press story about the APA resolution states: "Research indicates exposure to violence in videogames increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive behavior and angry feelings among youth, the association said in a statement. Studies of videogames and interactive media show that the perpetrators of violence go unpunished 73% of the time, the association said." If you actually read the APA statement (which is NOT a new study, as implied in an article in today's Washington Post), the 73% figure comes from television research published in 1996 (and thus based on 10-year-old TV data), and in no way reflects the content of interactive games. Even worse, the APA didn’t cite the original TV study, but a one-page summary from the web site of Mediascope (http://www.mediascope.org/pubs/ibriefs/ntvs.htm). Citing a web site instead of an original source would be unacceptable from a college freshman, let alone a national organization of APA's stature.

(Reply to this)

APA sucks
(Anonymous)
2005-08-19 11:45 pm UTC (link)
This is one of the groups that claimed there are "thousands" of studies that "prove" violent media cause violent behavior. To date, absolutely no one has been able to find anywhere near a "thousand" studies done in total. Even Jackass Thompson is covering up this lie by saying there are "hundreds". Is the APA worse than Thompson?

(Reply to this)

(26 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…