On Monday of this week, GP carried an item, No "Direct Causal Link" Between Games & Violence in APA Report.

It sparked a bit of controversy. It was suggested in certain quarters that GP ignored the views of Dr. Brad Bushman (left) of the University of Michigan, a member of the APA committee which issued the August, 2005 resolution.

That's not at all correct. In raising a particular question we turned to the two listed contacts for the APA study, Dr.Elizabeth Carll, committee co-chair and Dr. Dorothy Singer of Yale. There were a total of six committee members involved in the report. Dr. Bushman was among them. Not feeling the need to contact all six, we went to the two that the committee itself suggested.
( Read more... )

If you listen closely to the debate over video game violence, you'll hear some misinformation bandied about on both sides of the issue.

One troubling theme we've heard lately involves an incorrect interpretation of a game violence study issued in August, 2005 by the American Psychological Association. The bad information that GP has been hearing lately runs along the lines of:

"The American Psychological Association last year found a direct causal link between violent video games and teen violence."

That's not correct. It's wrong.

In the public policy debate over video game content, it shouldn't be related as fact to legislators. Nor should it be fed to an already game-wary public.

For clarification, GamePolitics went to the source - the American Psychological Association itself.
( Read more... )

In today's New York Times, health columnist Anahad O'Connor looks at a pair of well-publicized recent studies on game violence, concluding:

"THE BOTTOM LINE: Studies generally show that violent video games can have short-term, or momentary, effects on children, but there is little evidence of long-term changes."

O'Connor is contrasting the study released by the American Psychiatric Association last month with another released around the same time by a researcher from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The APA's Dr. Elizabeth Carll summarized her group's report, saying, "Showing violent acts without consequences teach youth that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict...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..."

On the other side of the debate, Dr. Dmitri Williams (seen at left) of the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana found no strong link between video game violence and real-world aggression.

"I'm not saying some games don't lead to aggression, but I am saying the data are not there yet," Williams said. "Until we have more long-term studies, I don't think we should make strong predictions about long-term effects, especially given this finding."

While Williams did allow that games are becoming increasingly violent, he says that the positive effects of games are not well understood.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Amen!

"If the content, context, and play length have some bearing on the effects, policy-makers should seek a greater understanding of the games they are debating. It may be that both the attackers and defenders of the industry's products are operating without enough information, and are instead both arguing for blanket approaches to what is likely a more complicated phenomenon."

"Based on my research, some of the potential gains are in meeting a lot of new people and crossing social boundaries. That's important in a society where we are increasingly insulated from one another...Some video game researchers also feel that playing leads to significant advances in learning teamwork, managing groups and most importantly, problem solving.

"How often can someone direct and coordinate a group of eight or 40 real people to accomplish a complex task, as they do in these role-playing games? That's a real skill...Games are about solving problems, and it should tell us something that kids race home from school where they are often bored to get on games and solve problems. Clearly we need to capture that lightning in a bottle."

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.