Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: violent video games in CH

[Joanie Connors (jvcphd]

*Science Briefs*


* Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions *
*by Craig A. Anderson **Psychological Science Agenda*

October 2003
* Volume 16 . No. 5*

After 40+ years of research, one might think that debate about media
violence effects would be over. An historical examination of the research
reveals that debate concerning whether such exposure is a significant risk
factor for aggressive and violent behavior should have been over years ago
(Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Four types of media violence studies provide
converging evidence of such effects: laboratory experiments, field
experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Bushman & Huesmann, 2000). But the development
of a new genre—electronic video games—reinvigorated the debate.

Two features of video games fuel renewed interest by researchers, public
policy makers, and the general public. First, the active role required by
video games is a double-edged sword. It helps educational video games be
excellent teaching tools for motivational and learning process reasons.
But, it also may make violent video games even more hazardous than violent
television or cinema. Second, the arrival of a new generation of
ultraviolent video games beginning in the early 1990s and continuing
unabated to the present resulted in large numbers of children and youths
actively participating in entertainment violence that went way beyond
anything available to them on television or in movies. Recent video games
reward players for killing innocent bystanders, police, and prostitutes,
using a wide range of weapons including guns, knives, flame throwers,
swords, baseball bats, cars, hands, and feet. Some include cut scenes
(i.e., brief movie clips supposedly designed to move the story forward) of
strippers. In some, the player assumes the role of hero, whereas in others
the player is a criminal.

The new debate frequently generates more heat than light. Many criticisms
are simply recycled myths from earlier media violence debates, myths that
have been repeatedly debunked on theoretical and empirical grounds. Valid
weaknesses have also been identified (and often corrected) by media
violence researchers themselves. Although the violent video game literature
is still relatively new and small, we have learned a lot about their
effects and have successfully answered several key questions. So, what is
myth and what do we know?

*Myths and Facts*
*Myth 1.* Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as
some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But
when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic
techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency.
Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive
behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and
decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for
experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational
studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear
comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).

*Myth 2*. The studies that find significant effects are the weakest
methodologically.
Facts: Methodologically stronger studies have yielded the largest effects
(Anderson, in press). Thus, earlier effect size estimates —based on all
video game studies— probably underestimate the actual effect sizes.

*Myth 3.* Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand
characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have
been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the
years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have
consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example,
variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the
same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman,
1997).

*Myth 4.* Field experiments are irrelevant (aggression measures based
either on direct imitation of video game behaviors (e.g., karate kicks) or
are normal play behaviors.
Facts: Some field experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching,
hitting, pushing, and pulling hair, behaviors that were not modeled in the
game. The fact that these aggressive behaviors occur in natural
environments does not make them "normal" play behavior, but it does
increase the face validity (and some would argue the external validity) of
the measures.

*Myth 5.* Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is
useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing
causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured
variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern
science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific
fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted
correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They
allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to
study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of
plausible alternative explanations.

*Myth 6.* There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious
aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to
delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent
criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).

*Myth 7.* Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations
to be more susceptible to violent video game effects than others, the
research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not
consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more negatively
affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected
than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are
more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not
consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently
affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some
significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much
larger research literature on television violence has found such effects
and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger
literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune
to negative effects of media violence.

*Myth 8.* Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for
adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by
parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However,
experimental studies with college students have consistently found
increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy
violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant
increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable
for everyone) violent video games.

*Myth 9.* The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger
than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of
lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass.
Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels
of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk
factor (Rosenthal, 1986).

*Myth 10.* Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced
increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies
because the measured aggression did not occur immediately after the violent
video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have
controlled potential arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by
those who played the violent game.

*Myth 11.* If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent
crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a)
exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth
violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or
the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption
is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of
the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is
clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute
to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media
violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.

*Theory*
One frequently overlooked factor in this debate is the role of scientific
theory. Pure empirical facts often have relatively little meaning and are
seldom convincing. When those same facts fit a broader theory, especially
one that has been tested in other contexts, those facts become more
understandable and convincing. Recent years have seen considerable progress
in basic theoretical models of human aggression (for recent integrations
see Anderson & Bushman, 2002b; Anderson & Huesmann, in press; Anderson &
Carnagey, in press).

Most such models take a social cognitive view of human aggression,
integrating social learning theory, advances in cognitive psychology,
script theory, developmental theories, and biological influences. Using
such general models, media violence scholars now have a clear picture of
how media violence increases aggression in short and long term contexts.
Immediately after exposure to media violence, there is an increase in
aggressive behavior tendencies because of several factors. 1. Aggressive
thoughts increase, which in turn increase the likelihood that a mild or
ambiguous provocation will be interpreted in a hostile fashion. 2.
Aggressive affect increases. 3. General arousal (e.g., heart rate)
increases, which tends to increase the dominant behavioral tendency. 4.
Direct imitation of recently observed aggressive behaviors sometimes occurs.

*Repeated media violence exposure increases aggression across the lifespan
because of several related factors. 1. It creates more positive attitudes,
beliefs, and expectations regarding use of aggressive solutions. 2. It
creates aggressive behavioral scripts and makes them more cognitively
accessible. 3. It decreases the accessibility of nonviolent scripts. 4. It
decreases the normal negative emotional reactions to conflict, aggression,
and violence.*

*Unanswered Questions*
Several major gaps remain in the violent video game literature. One
especially large gap is the lack of longitudinal studies testing the link
between habitual violent video game exposure and later aggression, while
controlling for earlier levels of aggression and other risk factors.
Indeed, of the four major types of empirical studies mentioned earlier,
this is the only type missing. There are such studies focusing on
television violence but none on video games.

Another gap concerns potential differences in effect sizes of television
versus video game violence. There are theoretical reasons to believe that
violent video game effects may prove larger, primarily because of the
active and repetitive learning aspects of video games. However, this is a
very difficult question to investigate, especially with experimental
designs. How does one select violent video game and television stimuli that
are matched on other dimensions? On what dimensions should they be
equivalent? Number of bodies? Amount of blood and gore? Realism of the
images? There are a couple of unpublished correlational studies that have
compared the effects of television and video game violence on aggression,
using comparable measures of violence exposure. Both yielded results
suggesting a larger effect of video game violence. But the issue is not
settled.

Finally, more research is needed to: (a) refine emerging general models of
human aggression; (b) delineate the processes underlying short and long
term media violence effects; (c) broaden these models to encompass
aggression at the level of subcultures and nations. Several different
research groups around the world are working on these various issues.


References

Anderson, C.A. (in press). An Update on the Effects of Violent Video Games.
Journal of Adolescence.

Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (1997). External validity of “trivial”
experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General
Psychology, 1, 19-41.

Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on
aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological
arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific
literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353-359.

Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (2002a). The effects of media violence on
society. Science, 295, 2377-2378.

Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (2002b). Human Aggression. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 27-51.

Anderson, C.A., & Carnagey, N.L. (in press). Violent evil and the general
aggression model. Chapter to appear in A. Miller (Ed.) The Social
Psychology of Good and Evil. New York: Guilford Publications.

Anderson, C.A., & Huesmann, L.R. (in press). Human Aggression: A
Social-Cognitive View. Chapter to appear in M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.),
Handbook of Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications.

Bushman, B.J., & Anderson, C.A. (2001). Media violence and the American
public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American
Psychologist, 56, 477-489.

Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2000). Effects of televised violence on
aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.). Handbook of children and the
media (pp. 223-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rosenthal, R. (1986). Media violence, antisocial behavior, and the social
consequences of small effects. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 141-154.





------------------------------

American Psychological Association
Science Directorate
750 First Street, NE • Washington, DC 20002-4242
Phone: 202-336-6000 • Fax: 202-336-5953 •





On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Sharon Villines <sharon [at] 
sharonvillines.com>
wrote:

>
>
> > On Nov 30, 2016, at 8:27 AM, Catya Belfer <catya [at] pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Put a curtain on the door?
> >
> > Do you disallow R rated movies?
>
> I’m also wondering about what is defined as “violent”. I’m not familiar
> with these games but I’m sure there must be a range of what is considered
> violent. And when do teens and preteens register violence? These are
> fantasy games and have been found to increase cognitive abilities as well
> as physical perception. Assuming that the teen sees what an adult sees is
> not always true.
>
> When American folk musician Joan Baez, the great anti-war crusader of the
> 1970s, allowed her son to play with toy guns a whole generation went into
> shock.Her response was that her  son knew full well the difference between
> fantasy play, aggression, and murder.
>
> It’s a hard line. Same with R rated movies. Do women have a right to
> disallow R rated movies that trivialize and advocate abuse of women? Who
> decides which demean women and which are just good fun?
>
> I think this my be a good area for actively sharing feelings in an
> intergenerational group, and not having a policy unless everyone thinks it
> is appropriate and workable. The kids in the realm of violent games and the
> watchers in the case of R-rated movies might be the ones who can define
> this most clearly. But a conversation may be all you need to calm fears on
> both sides.
>
> Sharon
> ----
> Sharon Villines
> Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
> http://www.takomavillage.org
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>