Do video games cause increased aggression among children?
Reading the evidence can keep a boy going for a long time. And it has. Other people may find video games addictive. Me? Well reading the academic studies is proving a hard habit to break.
The American Psychological Association appears to be convinced that the answer to the question at the beginning of this post is yes.
This prime mover in reaching this conclusion has been Professor Craig Anderson of Iowa State University. And Anderson pops up every time there is a big political debate on the topic and every time there is a court case.
He believes that the evidence is clear and strong.
Anderson put his case firmly in evidence before Congress, arguing that the impact of violent video games on violent behaviour was similar to the impact of smoking on the incidence of lung cancer. In particular he cites experimental evidence that after ten minutes playing a violent game subjects were more likely to behave in an aggressive manner.
Reading his evidence, however, it is hard to escape the feeling that he is overstating his case. In particular it is not clear whether his correlations are really causal. And it is not clear how long the impact of the game might last.
The science journalist Benjamin Radford is sceptical:
The approximately 200 studies on media violence are remarkable primarily for their inconsistency and weak conclusions. Some studies show a correlation between television and violence; others don't.
The assertion that video games make people violent got a boost in May of 2000, when the American Psychological Association issued a press release saying that violent video games can increase aggression. That conclusion was taken from a study by two researchers, Craig Anderson of Iowa State University and Karen Dill of Lenoir-Rhyne College in North Carolina. The pair claimed that they had found a link between violent video games and aggression.
Yet an examination of what the researchers actually found shows how tentative their conclusions are. The study seems to show some association between the playing of violent video games and concurrent aggressive behavior and delinquency. Yet, as any social sciences or psychology student knows, correlation does not imply causation.
He also points out that real world evidence of the impact of games is slight.
Radford's scepticism was shared by the Illinois District Court when it carefully reviewed the evidence while ruling on the constitutionality of a new state game law.
Having established that some of Anderson's research produced contradictory results and that other parts produced impressive statistics only be including the throwing of snowballs in a list of aggressive behaviours, the Court ruled that:
Neither Dr Anderson’s testimony nor his research establish a solid causal link between violent video game exposure and aggressive thinking and behavior.
Researchers in this field have not eliminated the most obvious alternative explanation: aggressive individuals may themselves be attracted to violent video games.
Even if one were to accept the proposition that playing violent video games increases
aggressive thoughts or behavior, there is no evidence that this effect is at all significant.
Dr Anderson provided no evidence supporting the view that playing violent video games has a lasting effect on aggressive thoughts and behavior – in other words, an effect that lingers more than a short time after the player stops playing the game.
Based on general psychological theories and long-term studies of television and movie violence, Dr. Anderson hypothesizes that frequently and intensely playing violent video games will have a lasting effect on young players. He does not, however, cite any data or studies to back up his hypothesis
Doesn't this ruling fly in the face of common sense? Isn't it obvious that these highly distasteful games must be damaging?
Not really.
For there is a rather obvious common sense point to be made in favour of the games. That is that players realise what they really are - games.
A major part of personality research stresses how we behave differently in different circumstances. Let me give you an example. Only a small proportion of children who are picky eaters at home or at school are picky eaters in both places. We compartmentalise.
Perhaps this insulates children somewhat from the impact of the games they are playing.
Tanya Byron's new task force is seeking better information for parents and other users of video games. This seems reasonable. One cannot be enthusiastic about the idea that young children are participating in horrible games.
But we should keep cool. The evidence justifying a more draconian stance is pretty thin.
Recent Comments