06 Mar 2007
The American Sociological Association (ASA) has published a report claiming that there is no link between violent video games and homicidal behaviour in children.
Following high profile school shootings in the US, most famously at Columbine High School, many reports have attempted to create a link between such events and violent video games such as the first person shooter Doom.
The ASA article focuses on why people are so ready to blame video games for violent attacks by troubled teens, pointing out that in the 10 years following Doom's 1993 release, homicide arrest rates among juveniles fell by 77 per cent.
School shootings remain extremely rare; even during the 1990s, when fears of school violence were high, students had less than a seven in 10 million chance of being killed at school.
The ASA said that video games and other violent entertainment are being used as a "folk devil" and have no real impact on the behaviour of children.
Jonathan Freedman, of the Department of Psychology at Toronto University, reviewed every media-violence study published in English and concluded that "the majority of studies produced evidence that is inconsistent or even contradicts" the claim that exposure to media violence causes real violence.
According to the ASA article Do Video Games Kill? (PDF) such studies do not demonstrate that media violence causes aggressive behaviour, only that the two phenomena exist together.
"Excluding a host of other factors (such as the growing unrest during the civil rights and antiwar movements, and the disappearance of jobs in central cities) may make it seem that a direct link exists between the introduction of television and homicides. In all likelihood any connection is incidental," the article states.
The report points out some of the inconsistencies that have been found in a single journal.
For instance, a 2001 meta-analysis in Psychological Science concluded that video games "will increase aggressive behaviour", while a similar review published the same year found that "it is not possible to determine whether video game violence affects aggressive behaviour".
A 2005 review found evidence that playing video games improves spatial skills and reaction times, but not that the games increase aggression.
Finally the article also delves into the murky waters of racial and societal separation by suggesting that "the video game explanation constructs the white, middle-class shooters as victims of the power of video games, rather than fully culpable criminals".
"When boys from 'good' neighbourhoods are violent, they seem to be harbingers of a 'new breed' of youth created by video games rather than by their social circumstances," the report states.
"White, middle-class killers retain their status as children easily influenced by a game, and victims of an allegedly dangerous product. African-American boys, apparently, are simply dangerous."
The conclusion arrived at by the ASA is that, when looking at the problem of homicidal and violent children, society needs to look at the broader social contexts and note the roles that guns, poverty, families and the organisation of schools may play in youth violence in general.
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Sneak peek at the forthcoming glass-based machine
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Software Design Architect (Windows Database Application...
Lead Java Developer - Fast growing, young and international...
Job Specification Graduate Support Engineer...
Job Specification For: Software Developer...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
Responsibility is the issue
Vee is partially right. I don't know that violent games are any more desensitizing than, say, the violent action-movies most of us enjoy watching, but where Vee hits it on the head is simple - parents need to be aware of what their child is playing and make sure the child understands what they're dealing with. The ESRB rating system is there for a reason and parents should be aware of what their child is playing - M-rated games are marked that way for a reason, just like R-rated movies. Some parents have faith in their child's ability to handle mature content, and they can certainly allow the child to play M-rated games if they feel it's appropriate, but they need to at least understand what these ratings signify. Regardless of the medium, the core issue remains the responsibility of the parent in staying in touch with what their child is doing.
Posted by: Patrick 12 Nov 2009
Shoot em ups don't help
It it hard to judge or measure whether violent video games cause young people to be violent or act aggressively, but in my opinion, the more violent images that children are exposed to the more likely they are to be desensitized to it. As a teacher of 5 - 11 year olds I have witnessed 'copycat' type behaviours in which the children mimic things they have seen in so called 'beat em up' and 'shoot em up' games. The aim of many of these games is to be the best fighter or killer, should this be encouraged? Also, many parents appear to be completely unaware of the content of some of the games their children are playing, and also the ability of some portable consoles to connect to the Internet. As well as this, many of the children have game playing equipment, tvs and computers in their bedrooms. I would always advise parents to keep children's bedrooms free of this type of equipment, and view and play with their children in a communal area.
Posted by: Vee 17 Apr 2009