Videogames more dangerous than smoking?

Michael Parsons: Why do we play violent games?

According to Cancer Research UK, cigarette smoking is responsible for 30 per cent of cancer deaths per year in the developed world. In Britain in 2005, that would have equated to 46,000 deaths. What's the next most dangerous societal ill? Researchers from the University of Michigan say violent videogames and films.

According to Reuters, a new University of Michigan concludes that exposure to violence as depicted in TV, film and videogames "raises the risk of aggressive behaviour in adults and young viewers and poses a serious threat to public health."

This is the latest research in a string of work that looks into the impact of violent video games on the impressionable young minds of gamers. Last year, the University of Missouri-Columbia published research saying there is a causal link between computer games and violence, not merely a simple association.

In the most recent bit of research, L. Rowell Huesmann and his colleague Brad Bushman point out that this exposure -- what they call "virtual violence" from either in shoot-em-up video games or slasher films -- leads to aggressive tendencies, particularly on children and teens. The researchers looked at more than 50 years of violent films, TV shows and video games.

For society's benefit, we can only hope Huesmann and Bushman will be taken off the streets and locked up now that they've concluded their studies.

Comments

[Lars]

Touche on that parting shot. :-)

[John Carter]

If 30% of cancer deaths are caused by smoking, 70% are caused by not smoking. If, as I have seen suggested, one in four dies of cancer 75% die of a cause other than cancer. Since the final death rate is 100%, the endless cajoling by do-gooders to "save lives" does little more than encourage the ever-increaing tyranny of the "nanny-State,undermine human courage and aggravate the already horrendous increase in the world's population.

[tom, lancs, UK]

Other than turn your eyes square, or sitting engrossed while the building is on fire there's no danger from video games.

Undisciplined, weak-minded individuals that happen to have a playstation plugged into their computer on the other hand...

The mass-majority of people know that what happens on screen is different to reality! Although I don't see the appeal of films like Saw to the sane individual.

Baring in mind this is from an american institution where finding a gun is alot easier than the 10kids a year that find one in the UK; which is hardly a threat to our whole society.

I hope the education minister randomly clicks on this page, as the real cause for violence and illiteracy in the UK is not videogames but children without aims/rolemodels/a moral education!

[justin]

this is a crock of crap ive been playing games since i was 5 and i am 32 i have never hurt anybody it is people like you that ruin our funu dont see us saying the stuff u do is bad i bet i can prove evry thing u do is bad for u

[Levi]

If we all die anyway, who cares?

[Marc]

I've destroyed all my processed food with my frying pan; poured the booze down the drain; smashed my radioactive mobile phone to bits; blocked out all that nasty sunlight from entering my home; and installed a meteor detector on the roof!

Thought I'd live forever, but now I'm worried my neighbours kids will beat me to death with their games console!

Anyone reccomend a good locksmith?

[Bradley]

That violent media provides a 'scheme' for an act of violence, maybe even acts as a trigger event, is quite probable based on research and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of gamers (self-included) makes it otherwise - properly carried out research >is more objective/representative than> opinion that is based on one individuals personal experience.

BUT the charge of incitement to violence can be levelled against books as well (and has been, Catcher in the Rye and supposed links to assassination), should we ban any book with violent themes? Millions of people play/watch violent media without killing or hurting anyone. That a few nutters (that might have killed anyway - no way to prove either way after all, the worse massacre in a US school was in 1927) did something terrible is not enough to ruin things for others unless it was an epidemic. Given our society has an all time high average lifespan it shows this media has not whipped us into a widespread kill frenzy. I don't think Rhwanda can trace its ills to too many copies of Doom floating about.

/agree with Tom in Lancs last paragraph. Funnily enough, I think if media has done any real harm it is damaging sense of morality through dubious portrayal of lifestyles and so on (interesting study was done on the effect introducing tv to a remote town had, but it isn't as interesting for politicians)

[Oliver Henderson]

Who comes up with this stuff? I mean come on. I looked at this article and I have to say at first I thought it was a joke. A university coming up with such an idiotic idea as this. Well I did my research and found some interesting figures.

45% of under 16s regularily play video games (at least 3 hours a week)

In a survey of under 16's convicted of violent offences 37% play video games regularily.

Hmm doesn't seem to support the University of Michigan's conclusions, does it.

[Graeme, London]

This is nothing more than narrow minded misuse of statistics. What is the probability that a violent child or teenager has played a video game? Considering the percentage of console penetration into this age group - highly likely! This does not mean that video games are responsible. People are always looking for someone or somthing to blame other than themselves. Could not possibly be the fault of the parents, school, environment, diet, etc; they must have been 'turned' violent by games, films, books, cave paintings etc...

[Mark.B]

Just because I used to play ghost recon does not mean that I'm going to join the army because I think you can dye 6 times in one battle

[brannon]

justin: thanks for painting such a positive portrayal of gamers as being smart, literate, coherent and mature.

it's nice to see an article on this topic which doesn't just devolve into demonising or crying; well played, you might just have created an internet first.

[John Tee-Rhodes]

I absolutely agree that videogames are not a 'menace to society'. I have been playing all manner of games for 20 years, with no ill effects (so my psychiatrist tells me...)
However, Justin proves a valuable point. He's 32 years old and yet has the literacy skills of a child. Games should not be a substitue for other forms of development/play. They should not provide an easy get-out for lazy parents, who find a £300 X-box easier than actual interaction with their young.

[Joe B.]

Give me a f**cking break! I have been an avid to hardcore gamer since I was a little kid. 90% of the gaming population know that what you see in the game is not real. Just because I'm a 6 1/2 foot tall guy in a suit of armor that weighs 2 tons in a game killing aliens doesn't mean that I'm gonna turn off my Xbox and go out and start shooting people. Weak minded idiots are the ones to blame for doing stupid stuff that sheds a bad light on gamers. And if your looking for someone to blame for the way children are turning out blame their lazy a$$ parents. If parents would stop babying their kids and start disciplining their children and watching what games they play then this issue wouldn't even come up. But their not gonna blame the parents, because it's easier to look for someone else to blame then to admit that they have screwed up their children's lives by letting them do and say whatever they want without fear of punishment. Parents are the ones to blame, not gamers. If you think your 12 year old will become violent after playing Gears of War or Grand Theft Auto, then guess what you need to do....DON'T BUY IT FOR THEM AND DON'T LET THEM PLAY IT! It's as simple as that. But our society says that you should allow your child to "express" themselves freely, and that if you punish them for said "expressions" you will mess with their internal dialog. Society is breeding weaklings who want to say that video games and a bad childhood caused them trauma that scarred them for life. And the shrinks of the world are getting rich by continuing to tell the uneducated public that gamers and the games they play are to blame. They know better, but they're too greedy to admit the truth: we are responsible for our actions, NOT what we see on TV, in the movies, or play in a game.

[Richard]

Ages ago there was a study on aggression and computer games, and it actually turns out to be relatively true. If you play a violent videogame or watch a violent film, then afterwards you will be more inclined to feel that violence is socially acceptable.

but then again, i suppose poor people don't have the money to play video games or watch movies so whats their motive?

[Jonathan]

In online games which I have played I know of at least 20 deaths ccaused by people who couldn't distinguish between reality and videogames.There is also the problem of addiction I know of 2 people in my year that will fail school because of it.

[James]

If 30% of cancer deaths are caused by smoking that means the other 70% have other causes - not that they are caused by not smoking. Obviously the death rate is 100% it always will be the figure you have to focus on is total deaths. What this has to do with videogames I don't know - very tenuous link I would say.

[Chris]

Never heard anything so stupid in all my life! I've been playing all sorts of games since I was a nipper and I'm 33 now, I have all my own teeth and hair and no worrying violent tendancies or urges.

And if anyone says any different I'll dragon punch them in the chops. HA DO KEN!

[Rusty]

In all decency, I feel fairly offended by the suggestion that smoking is better than gaming.

The implict moral obligation is not to kill, hurt, touch or yell at anyone. What we see in life reflects no true, honest aspect that actually shows this moral obligation. Books, TVs, radio, news, wars, 'patriotic' appeals and the like are hardly the pinnicle of society either.

So, could we stop attacking the teenagers who spend hours couped up indoors playing a game, based on the 'hunch' they are being (somehow) brainwashed that appears to border on the paranoid, and try analysing the teenagers who actually commit the crimes?

Last time I checked, you can't both play games and commit violent crimes at the same time. Likewise, you can't go outside, press E to pick up a weapon and press space to jump and W to run away.

[joe]

Not sure what the point of this article is. The strapline suggests that videogames may be worse than smoking, yet nowhere in the article is this backed up by even an opinion let alone a fact. Score yet another victory for the scientific vacuousness of all journalists. Still it's good for the sub-editor. Not as good for the reader.

[Gideon]

Now I understand why people go to prison for violent offences. Computer games! Of course, it is so obvious now.

There was me thinking it was the result of alcohol, drugs and poverty etc, but all along it was Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft's fault.

In fact has anyone considered whether any other problem can be linked with computer games?

[unknown]

Kill the government. Support communism.

[Alys]

I'm a "respectable" happily married woman of 45 - and I love violent computer games! It doesn't make me feel remotely aggressive outside the game - on the contrary, it de-stresses me. It's just something I do to relax in the evenings - more interesting than passive television-watching.

I'm currently playing Bioshock, and they don't come much more gruesome than that. And - very responsibly - it has an 18 certificate on the box, as do most games with a high level of violence. So it's up to the parents, isn't it, not to break the law by allowing their children to play these games.

[Isaac]

I'm 19 and computer games have been around since i can remember, i've been playing all types of games, including "violent ones" for a long time. The last thing i'd do is pick up a gun and shoot someone. All my friends are gamers, and none of them would pick up a gun or knife, or bazooka in some games :P, and shoot someone, or blow up a building for no reason.

[dez]

its all a conspiracy. they realize games are taking over.

[Prakash]

I have played Video Games for a long long time now and it is true .I get aggresive and my KILLER instincts come out.
My point is we should ban Video Games coz they are the root cause of this .Besides that we need to ban a few more things.

1> Sports - Come on look at Football, Ice hockey ,Rugby , Cricket even Tennis ,every one wants to HIT some thing or some one.It is so sad.

2> Movies - Oh forget violent movies,I saw HUGE amount of violence while watching ICE AGE and SHREK .Ban them too...

3> Cartoons - Hey ACME wanted to KILL the ROADRUNNER and TOM wants to EAT JERRY...Ban them all.

4> Democracy/Dictatorship/Monarchy - This has caused more deaths in wars than Video Games. We should ban them too.

This is SAD...I can go on and on...

[Robert]

Our family had its first computer when I was a mere five years old. My dad was a progressive believer in the power of personal computing, and made it a point early in the lives of myself and my brother to have a PC. It was a simple 486 DX, but I was elated to come home from school (Kindergarten onwards) and tinker around on it each day. I was particularly fond of first-person shooters, and even to this day it's one of my favorite genres. I was very young when games like Doom, Corridor 7, Quake and Duke Nukem were released to the world, but my parents did not dally in letting me play them. The games were scary and thrilling in the mind of a five to seven year old child, and that is what held my attention. It was an escape to a nerve-wracking, but engaging alternate universe. More importantly, however, it was clearly indicated that these alternate worlds were simply that: Fantasy. I was never to be negatively inspired by the games, because immaterial virtual reality does not and should not affect reality. My father, particularly, educated me on this principle. He understood that it might ruin some of the mystique, but he always told me that it was for a greater good. At each step in my relatively short life, I have respected him and appreciated him for this lesson. Under that teaching, I was left largely to my own devices within the bounds of common decency. To that end, I have grown up on the internet; endlessly-connected, constantly entertained, and immersed in a world of fake guns, zombies, fake people and false emotional responses.

I am not ashamed to have lived a large portion of my life virtually, digitally. But, I have never lived my reality in anger, spite or aggression as a result of the virtual. My father is an honest, educated, good man who clearly established the demarcation. He, by me, proves that studies like these are less of a science and more of agenda purveyed by self-aggrandizement.

As a Buddhist who pulls elements from Theravada and Nichiren, betterment of myself and the world around me is of the highest importance. To spread the message of compassion, acceptance, wisdom, love and progressivity is a sacred responsibility that directly interdicts the "Results" of their testing.

I attribute many of my personal and professional successes to having a computer so young, and parents who gave me the liberty to do and see the vast world of digital media without consequence. I am a better person for having killed Satan with a plasma rifle.

[Another Rusty]

I was surprised to see the majority of replies here be very well written and thought out (with some exclusions :) ).

I would like to add my thoughts:

Backing up the post by Rusty, why did the tagline include a reference to smoking? If the study was sponsored by a cigarette company then maybe it has a point but no where is this linked.

The study by the university shows that younger people are more aggressive due to violent media <- note, nothing to do with deaths.

The posted 'news' compares it to deaths by smoking. Why?

[Jason]

Isnt saying playing Doom makes you more likely to cause violence the same as saying playing John Madden Football makes you more likely to go play football? Or playing sim city makes it more likely I will go build a house?

[Angus C]

"However, Justin proves a valuable point. He's 32 years old and yet has the literacy skills of a child. Games should not be a substitue for other forms of development/play. They should not provide an easy get-out for lazy parents, who find a £300 X-box easier than actual interaction with their young."

While I certainly agree with your point about parenting there is an argument to be made for the merits of computer and video games as a medium in developing learning and literacy in young audiences, a subject which is covered well in a book called 'what video games have to teach us about learning and literacy' (roughly) by an author whose name escapes me at the moment, perhaps James Paul Gee, but I'm sure you can google it.

Speaking personally, while I have a lot of respect and gratitude for the way my parents have raised me, I also believe that a large part of my youth spent gaming and dealing with the concepts that games often shoulder on the player (problem solving - to simplify - although it can also include recognising and adapting to a framework of rules that all games provide, reading through large tracts of text - although this has fallen by the wayside slightly with modern gaming technology I suppose - and also morality occasionally) have helped with my mental development in some way over the years.