backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 61 comment(s) - last by dennett316.. on Nov 29 at 9:52 PM

A study at the University of Michigan links TV and video game violence to real violence

It seems like the debate on video game and TV violence and its effects has reached proportions we've only seen in the climate-change communities lately. Another distinguished professor, L. Rowell Huesmann, the Amos N. Tversky Collegiate Professor of Communication Studies and Psychology, has published a study, conducted at the University of Michigan, confirming the violence to violence link in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

Contrary to findings recently published by Christopher John Ferguson of the Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice at Texas A&M International University, Huesmann's study suggest that on-screen violence does have a strong correlation to violent behavior in adolescents and in adults. The study reviewed more than fifty years of research on the effects of media violence.

"The research clearly shows that exposure to virtual violence increases the risk that both children and adults will behave aggressively," said Huesmann.

"Children are also spending an increasingly large amount of time playing video games, most of which contain violence. Video game units are now present in 83 percent of homes with children," Huesmann added.

Huesmann's article states that children in the United States typically spend three to four hours a day watching television. Better than sixty percent of these television programs contain violence, and around forty percent of those, heavy violence.

Huesmann goes on to say that there is only one more aggressive risk to public health than exposure to media violence: cigarette smoking on lung cancer.

"As with many other public health threats," Huessman says, "not every child who is exposed to this threat will acquire the affliction of violent behavior. But that does not diminish the need to address the threat—as a society and as parents by trying to control children's exposure to violent media to the extent that we can."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The local grocer would agree...
By kileil on 11/28/2007 1:04:18 PM , Rating: 4
... because I stomped the crap out of those mushrooms.




RE: The local grocer would agree...
By FITCamaro on 11/28/2007 1:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
But they didn't make you any bigger did they. When will the violence against vegetables end?

I play violent video games and I'm offended. Who do these guys think they are to tell me that violent video games cause me to be violent? I'm gonna go stab this Christopher Ferguson.


RE: The local grocer would agree...
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 11/28/2007 1:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ferguson's study showed little to no link between media violence and violent behavior, I believe. :)


RE: The local grocer would agree...
By tmouse on 11/28/2007 1:49:31 PM , Rating: 3
He did not realize that because he was to violently enraged.


RE: The local grocer would agree...
By FITCamaro on 11/28/2007 3:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah what he said!

My bad though. Chris can live. Rowell gets stabbed.


RE: The local grocer would agree...
By Ryanman on 11/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: The local grocer would agree...
By zander55 on 11/28/2007 7:22:16 PM , Rating: 4
wrong side of the political swing set kidddo.


By DigitalFreak on 11/28/2007 2:01:55 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe they should do a study on reading comprehension and people who post in blogs... :-)


RE: The local grocer would agree...
By 3kliksphilip on 11/28/2007 2:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
I like the way they compare it to lung cancer and smoking. As if as many people a year die or suffer from videogame related attacks compared to those two things it's compared to. Maybe the people who were supposed to read this survey were meant to be far older and are more likely to be affected by a life of cancer or diseases due to smoking, increasing how dangerous people watching a load of animated pixels on a screen appear. Still, I can stick it to society by working in McDonalds, opening the door for people, building up my rep and being generally nice to everybody. It's those people who wouldn't touch a videogame in their life who are the problem, driving about with loads of bass in their cars, chucking half eaten happymeals out of their windows and smashing windows late at night, leaving ME to clean up the pieces. If everybody sat infront of their PC, there would be far more killing, but none of it would be real.


By shamgar03 on 11/28/2007 2:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
suffer from videogame related attacks

Lol.


By mindless1 on 11/29/2007 1:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
IF it is true that the videogames and TV are causing, or at least associated to the violence then yes, a following theory that the attacks were video game related isn't so far fetched.

Cause and effect isn't so simple though, another significant factor is the influence of other activities these children and adults might've otherwise been engaged in if they hadn't been sitting there watching TV or playing video games, as other social interactions or productive behaviors can also foster a sense of responsiblity and respect for others, at least at a basic level where one doesn't go out assaulting people.

You say that if everyone sat in front of their PCs it would not be real but it ignores that everyone doesn't ONLY sit in front of their PCs, we are real people with real lives that do, more than just occasionally, get up, go out, and do other things.

Video games may sometimes relieve some anger, by merely consuming the player with a distraction for a period of time if nothing else, but what if the person playing were to actively seek to resolve the situation causing the aggression in productive ways instead of emotionally venting through violence, whether that venting be in a game or in attacking real people?


RE: The local grocer would agree...
By AstroCreep on 11/28/2007 1:18:29 PM , Rating: 6
No, man, you're supposed to eat the mushrooms and stomp on the turtles!
DAMN IT!


RE: The local grocer would agree...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/28/2007 1:21:32 PM , Rating: 3
Last time I did that everything tasted purple too.


RE: The local grocer would agree...
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/28/2007 1:26:49 PM , Rating: 5
The snozberries taste like snozberries!!!


By FITCamaro on 11/28/2007 3:03:32 PM , Rating: 1
Smugberries taste like a fart in a wine glass.


By NEOCortex on 11/28/2007 4:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
Futurama reference FTW!!
Reminds me, I need to watch Bender's Big Score soon....


By gigahertz20 on 11/28/2007 1:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qVA4kFewTo8&feature=rel...

Luigi: "Oh look it's a turtle!"
Little Girl: "What are you doing! You just killed my turtle!"


RE: The local grocer would agree...
By slickr on 11/29/2007 4:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
Do these stupid researchers came to think that not all play 24/7, 365days a year closed in their dark rooms, get totally off reality and become psychopats.

Even if you close yourself with the most happy book in one dark room 24/7-365 you are going to go crazy. I don't see what that has to do with tv and games.


or maybe...
By legoman666 on 11/28/2007 1:09:32 PM , Rating: 5
Did they stop to consider that maybe naturally violent people watch violent tv shows and play violent video games?




RE: or maybe...
By Cygni on 11/28/2007 1:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
These 'studies' are about as unscientific as they come in the first place. They are just produced as a way of generation public interest and research dollars. The reality is that there is just far too many variables associated with the development of behavior to ever standardize for an experiment.

Without a large group of separated identical twins with identical upbringings except for TV and video game playing, there will never be a definitive answer. And even twin studies have their problems.


RE: or maybe...
By geddarkstorm on 11/28/2007 1:48:55 PM , Rating: 3
Absolutely not. That's way too simple an explanation! ;)


RE: or maybe...
By Misty Dingos on 11/28/2007 2:45:46 PM , Rating: 5
I am also certain that Grock the caveman painted some fine cave paintings and his kids were influenced by that to kill all the mammoths. So we can blame Grock for the extinction of an entire species. And kids that read adventure stories in the 1820s went west and had real life adventures. Became mountain men and guides. Kids that read dime novels about the old west in the 1880s often went on to try to live out those fantasies in real life. Some were hung some did the hanging and some just became victims.

Being influenced by the media you expose yourself to is nothing new or ground breaking. It is also not any of your neighbors business.

Twits like this are the modern version of the village busy body. And should be treated as such. With tar and feathers.


RE: or maybe...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/28/2007 3:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
Fantastic insight, in my opinion. It must have been the Frisky Dingo thumbnail :)


RE: or maybe...
By teckytech9 on 11/28/07, Rating: 0
hmm
By 5c8wc4 on 11/28/2007 1:14:37 PM , Rating: 3
Its idiocy like this that makes people violent. What are these people going to do next?. Ban santa claus from saying ho ho ho....A yes they already did that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071115/wl_asia_afp/l...




RE: hmm
By FITCamaro on 11/28/2007 1:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
A guy I know put it best.

If Santa saying "Ho Ho Ho" insults a woman because she thinks he's talking about her, maybe she should rethink how she dresses.

That said ladies, feel free to wear mini-skirts, thongs, low ride jeans, pushup bras, and low cut shirts. Just please be 18+, not overweight, and don't get mad at us when we stare. :)


RE: hmm
By Oregonian2 on 11/28/2007 1:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder if she eats these:

http://www.hostesscakes.com/hohos.asp

Maybe they'll be sued for turning women into one.


RE: hmm
By Oregonian2 on 11/28/2007 1:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
.... because you are what you eat.

[Forgot to mention that]


RE: hmm
By Ryanman on 11/28/2007 3:30:54 PM , Rating: 1
I think we should outlaw the word christmas. Lets make the atheist minority like myself really angry about insignificant shit and bash on a holiday we didn't create : D


RE: hmm
By KashGarinn on 11/29/2007 3:50:26 AM , Rating: 1
I'm an atheist, but I still enjoy the christian culture and values I was raised up in. Face it, the holidays are more about enjoying the time with the people you love, with a little bit of friendly silliness tagged on. People have been celebrating yuletide long before stories about christ came into it.

Atheists don't take the kindness and sharing with friends and families out of christmas, they just remove the fictional bit.


RE: hmm
By clovell on 11/29/2007 1:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
Fictional, eh? Jesus of Nazareth was real. So was Saint Nicholas. You may not believe they were the Savior of Mankind and a Saint, repsectively, but they're not fictional.


Grain of salt...
By TheDiceman on 11/28/2007 1:04:24 PM , Rating: 5
I find it hard to put any belief into these types of studies for either side of the argument. No survey or controlled study can honesly sample a wide enough portion of the populace to give truely accurate results. Much like political polls in a campaign year, its all useless since everything can be changed by a sampling bias.

Personally, I grew up with both being an outside person but still playing video games and now, at 24, I continue to play games. They are one of my two methods of stress relief along with general exercise.




RE: Grain of salt...
By clovell on 11/28/2007 2:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that sampling bias is a real problem, but it's a problem that can be dealt with when researchers exercise due diligence. It's hard on laypeople to know what studies allowed bias - especially since experimental design is usually only reported in research journals.

That said, I wouldn't be so quick to throw out the Central Limit Theorem with the bathwater. Studies can be very accurate and can tell us a lot - if we do them right, keep them in context, and don't extrapolate our conclusions into the realm of fairy tales. Sadly, most of the good stuff goes unnoticed as the media tends to latch onto sensational conclusions.


Well DUH
By c4v3man on 11/28/2007 1:10:14 PM , Rating: 5
Who do you think is more likely to pick up a gun and shoot someone, a kid who has played a console shooter, or one of the remaining 17% who have not, who are sheltered from any content that displays a gun? Perhaps childred who don't play video games simply express their violence in different ways other than shooting someone. Who's more likely to kill someone, a person who sits in their house and watches tv all their life, or a person who drives a taxi/truck all day? The person who drives, of course. Does this mean that we should ban cars, since people who drive kill more people than those who don't? Sure, this is an unfair comparison, however I believe it illustrates the absurdity of the argument. It's not the violent video game that caused Timmy to kill his classmates, it's because Timmy grew up watching his dad beat up his mom, or maybe his parent's shouldn't have allowed Timmy to purchase said video game due to violent tendencies. Everyone's trying to point the finger at anyone but themselves. Simply blaming something that can't be fixed is even better, since you can use it as an excuse for your own poor behavior.




RE: Well DUH
By Screwballl on 11/28/2007 3:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
parents are to blame for allowing their kids to play these games.. and if the parents say its ok knowing what is in the game then they are likely violent in nature themselves and see nothing wrong with it.. then by the time these kids have their own grandkids they will be so void of common sense...
If someone has not seen it yet, watch the movie Idiocracy


its all in the head
By Screwballl on 11/28/2007 1:33:59 PM , Rating: 3
Video games help relieve stress, regardless if it is Tetris or Counter Strike. The person also needs to have the proper mental capacity to be able to separate fiction from reality.
Only those with mental deficiencies are affected by the games, but it is based on a preexisting condition, not of the game itself. If the person has a problem telling the difference between reality and TV or a game then it is not the game or TV show but the person.
X people breed X children, just fill in the blank. Sometimes X can be magnified in children with certain psychological problems such as Autism and Down Syndrome and these are the kids that parents need to keep away from the games/TV, not stick the kids in front of the TV or computer to play them 12 hours per day. Any lengthy and continued usage of a TV or game can result in a degraded and warped since of what is real and what is not.
As a gamer and having a child with subdued autism, I see daily how tough it is to keep them busy with creative activities rather than destructive activities. Keep the games fun like racing and puzzles, not the violent games that inflame the bad attitudes. For the rest of us that can tell the difference, game on!




RE: its all in the head
By DigitalFreak on 11/28/2007 2:04:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
X people breed X children


Breeding children is wrong...

...except in West Virginia


RE: its all in the head
By Screwballl on 11/28/2007 2:53:28 PM , Rating: 1
and Arkansas...
also I think some of the Mormon in Utah allows it as well...

guess both explains a lot.

Don't breed, practice breeding


RE: its all in the head
By FITCamaro on 11/28/2007 5:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
Practice makes perfect.

Except when mommy drinks and smokes during the pregnancy. But then its just the doctors fault.


...
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 11/28/2007 1:37:47 PM , Rating: 3
I just get a kick out of, just like global warming, each side of this argument has _facts_ to back their arguments. Are both sides right? Wrong? Completely missing the point? It's getting kinda silly.

Now, if you'll excuse me, my hunter was nearly killed by a fel cannon and I feel the need to go terrorize the local convalescent home.




RE: ...
By Screwballl on 11/28/2007 2:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
I find it more fun to send my (crazy) wife and daughter there. Drive them old people even more bonkers than they already are.


RE: ...
By clovell on 11/28/2007 2:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
They have conclusions 'based' on facts. Numbers don't lie; people do.


line em up!
By Moishe on 11/28/2007 1:00:47 PM , Rating: 5
Line up the lawyers for a decade(+) of the next big lawsuits!

Tobacco litigation is winding down and this would make a great replacement. I'm so excited I wanna kill someo.... uh..

nevermind




eh?
By Oregonian2 on 11/28/2007 1:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
It seems likely to me that there is a likely statistical connection, but perhaps not the implied cause-effect. Seems like an aggressive person is probably more likely to play aggressive computer games, or just compete generally, while a passive person is probably less likely to seek out aggressive competition in gaming (or TV watching). Seems reasonable. It's the implied cause-effect that is very suspect.




RE: eh?
By clovell on 11/28/2007 2:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. There could also be some confounding involved that further obscures the cause-effect relationship.


Family Issues vs. Violent Games
By AsicsNow on 11/28/2007 9:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they adjusted for family problems in the observed subjects with their statistics. That is a much higher risk factor than anything else. I have seen tons of papers get published in quality journals that have crap results due to not taking certain things into account in their statistical covariate analysis, so I don't really trust studies like this that seem to be funded by and done by people with an agenda unless they are really bulletproof in their methods, analysis, and assumptions.




RE: Family Issues vs. Violent Games
By clovell on 11/29/2007 1:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
Right on.


Guess its in how you look at it
By AlvinCool on 11/28/2007 3:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
Sure I play what this guy might call violent video games. Used to be heavy into Quake 2, now I play Counter Strike and Day of Defeat. I like first person shooters. I don't envision shooting people when I play, I play to see how fast my reflexes are and how fast I can comprehend and make a decision. Really helps my driving skills being able to respond instantly




RE: Guess its in how you look at it
By Ryanman on 11/28/2007 3:36:07 PM , Rating: 1
amen brother, Same here. It's not for the kill, I play for the skill.


Phiffel!
By TimberJon on 11/28/2007 4:07:20 PM , Rating: 3
Thats just bull crap. Another individual seeking some media attention...

I grew up an out of control violent kid with high-functioning autism. I was hospitalized many times starting at age 6. I even remember spending some great time at UCLA up on some unknown floor where all the doors are maglocked. (they have an awesome play area on the roof)

It was so bad, that I was sent away by my parents to a group home at age 9. Later to switch to a family home, where I guess you could say that I graduated..

At home, we didnt even have a TV. And when we did have one, I didnt get toys or video games. Mother watched those lovy shows like Anna green gables and little house on the prarie. Stuff I wouldnt sit and watch anyways.

With all that, I grew up to be a calm and mellow guy. I play the most violent video games there are, but I show no hint of aggression. Perhaps in some individuals it makes them want to crash into cars (twisted metal/vigilante 8) or just go out on a shooting spree (ahem.. grand theft auto) but I dont get any crazy ideas like that. I dont even feel it building up or being stored in my subconscious like some hidden energy.

People who are so easily influenced to action by violent video games either have a gaping social hole in their life, have chemical and/or mineral imbalances, have low-functioning autism or another branch of aspergers disorder and are therefore more inclined to be easily obsessed with something, trained their mind that they are some kind of super hero and need to save everyone from something, think that the world is out to get them so they need to get the world first, or are just posessed.




Martian to martian
By andrinoaa on 11/29/2007 5:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well hello , has anybody actually READ what is in the article?
Forget the headline which is Hype, the statements actually make sense without any sweeping generalisations




RE: Martian to martian
By andrinoaa on 11/29/2007 5:36:06 PM , Rating: 1
PS Stop trying to shoot the messenger. The research may or may not be flawed. Criticise the methodology, interpret the results, but please stop carrying on with a " holier than thou attitude " thats its all bullshit when clearly there is some correlation and concern.


uh-huh
By Zurtex on 11/28/2007 1:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
I've not had chance to read in to this one yet, but most studies like this turn about to be rubbish. The claims generated by them often greatly exceed the context of the study. I remember one that got people to play the orriginal Mortal Kombat and other such cutting edge violent games such as the original Doom. The participants where then shown a violent 'movie' and their heart race increased less than people who hadn't played said games.

The report then concluded that these people would be less empathic to real life violence...




Its just natural
By jbzx86 on 11/28/2007 1:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the deal:

As a species, humans are naturally violent. It is instinct to want to strike someone when they anger you. This is why a small percentage of kids choose to take their aggressions out on their peers.

Instead of wasting time blaming violent media for our violent tendencies, why don't we just take charge of ourselves and our kids. Kids need to learn the difference between video games and real-life. Consequences need to be established and for them to learn what they can do and what they absolutely cannot do.

My point: parents need to be more active in the lives of their children. Just spending an hour or two a day during the work week and taking ONE day out of every weekend doing something fun would make all the difference in the world.




By inperfectdarkness on 11/28/2007 1:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
i'm a big fan of postal 2. it's in no way close to reality.

i've been playing graphic fps's for 10 years, and 1 hour of CSI bothers me much more than any of it.

i'm a devoted fan of the US of A. i even work for the USAF. but the instant someone magages to abridge my freedom to enjoy adult-level amounts of sexuality and violence...is the instant i apply for residency elsewhere.

those who can responsibly appreciate a pasttime should not be subjudgated to the whims of those who lack total control over their own (or their children's) lives.

i've yet to see any video games (nay, tv or movies) depict the savagry and barbarianism that humans display towards each other on a regular basis. do a quick news-search for the words "galveston" and "child abuse" if you don't believe me.

the ideal world is one where every "vice" is legal, and social darwinism thins the herd of those who cannot control themselves.




Agree and Disagree
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/28/2007 1:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"not every child who is exposed to this threat will acquire the affliction of violent behavior."


I agree with the overall statement here, except for the word threat, I feel that he is being a little overzealous there. Common sense is a mitigating factor in our day to day lives and that is the big difference between doing what you want and doing what is right. All this stems from the parents ability to make sure their child is aware of real life vs video games.

quote:
"But that does not diminish the need to address the threat—as a society and as parents by trying to control children's exposure to violent media to the extent that we can."


Again with the "threat", seriously, has this guy ever attended a public school. Anyway, Violent media, hmm, where have I seen that lately, oh yeah, the evening news. Can anyone remember the last time they saw the news and didn't hear a story about a homicide, or police chase, or explosions going off somewhere with lots of deaths? And that is done on a daily bases with continous updates, but I guess it doesn't count as a threat since we can't interact with it, unless you were there.

Again I refer to the parent's ability to raise their kids properly and not leave it up to society as a whole.

I wonder who funded this study?




=/
By clovell on 11/28/2007 2:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "The research clearly shows that exposure to virtual violence increases the risk that both children and adults will behave aggressively," said Huesmann.

First thing I've got to say is that we need to realize that aggressive behavior is not the same as violence. There's quite a few doorma - I mean people - who could benefit from being more aggressive.

Second thing I've got to say is that even if the study does talk about violent behavior, I see no mention of criminal behavior. Sure, they're correlated, but it's best to watch your step on a slippery slope.

Last thing I'm gonna say, and it'll probably piss some people off - you put garbage in, you get garbage out. This concept is even more pronounced in kids. It doesn't usually become a problem until a person starts to lose touch with reality - but it is a problem. In kids, that tends to happen when parents don't do their jobs - whether that be letting Halo or Manhunt be your babysitter or flying into a drunken rage once a week and cussing out your kids. Kids learn what they live, more often than not. I'm not completely displacing accountability, but the situation isn't simply black & white.

Bearing that in mind, it'd be interesting to see if effects for environment (parents, extracurricular activities, etc.) were included in the analysis. I have an idea that you wouldn't see a significant link between video game violence and real violence if you studied a sub-population of kids with non-violent fathers who were active in their lives.

But, that's just me.




my view on this is
By meepstone on 11/28/2007 2:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think some people are voilent in nature more than others are and playing a violent video game isnt the cause of any of a persons problems. I think some ppl are going to be that way no matter what, biologically i think.

Now, most people play violent video games but are smart enough to know its a game and has nothing to do with reality and they leave the game at the door, or tv whatever you want to say.




Excellent.
By Spartan Niner on 11/28/2007 2:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
Their data set is about to get an extreme outlier. I feel a strong urge to eviscerate the researchers behind the study, but can't tear my gaze away from my screen and the poor sod holding his throat in Soldier of Fortune: Payback. Oh well, I'll just imagine it's the researcher as I slowly carve him up. What? You say video game violence carries over to the real world? Why should it when it's so much more fun in a game?

Delicious.*

*This post brought to you by Sarcastic Spartan.




Outliers
By piotrr on 11/28/2007 3:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
What is it with DailyTech "general" science news and presenting outlier studies as if they were entirely comparable to majority studies and practical consensus?

/ Per




Why don't they think simpler?
By dennett316 on 11/29/2007 9:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
How about this theory?
Those with a propensity towards violence are more inclined to be entertained by, and gravitate to, violent media.
You cannot say that games, or movies or books cause violence as that is patently ridiculous. Otherwise there would be vast crime waves every time a violent movie or game comes out.
Quote statistics all you like, but the fact is that some people are just plain violent - something is missing within their brain that stops regular people from committing unspeakable acts. You cannot ban something just because someone, somewhere may react violently, otherwise where would we draw the line?
How about banning the Bible so as to stop the possibility of brothers killing brothers? Or banning Shakespeare in order to stop young people committing suicide?

We are always looking for a complex answer to a simple question - why do these things happen? The answer is simple, because we are capable of great acts, as well as capable of foul. We need to accept that. A "normal" person will not suddenly become a killer because he plays Grand Theft Auto, no matter what the likes of Jack Thompson and Hilary 'Bandwagon Jumper' Clinton may have you believe.




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki