Yet another study states violent media doesn't cause violent behavior

Another study, but, of course, New Media Are Evil.

edited 22nd May '13 11:13:19 PM by JAF1970

This thread could equally-truthfully be titled "Yet another study offline media are going to ignore."

And as my podcast partner who is a developer himself would say, "It's not my job to raise your fucking kids. It's your fucking job to raise them."

There's an M rating on the game? DON'T BUY IT FOR YOUR 9 YEAR OLD.

I've looked through several different studies, and I've found that they really are more of a mixed bag than anything, with there being no big central statement that could be gathered from the total sum of them. The big link among most of them, though, seems to be more so a link between violent media and aggression that may or may not be there, but certainly crops up at least after sufficient prolonged exposure, with the amount needing to be excessive to induce dangerous levels.

Just one thing (and it's a pitfall that you fell to in the thread title)—most people tend to act as if these studies are trying to find causation, when, in fact, they are studying correlation. Correlation is not causation, and I wish more people would keep that in mind. Of course, if there is no correlation, then there will be no causation, but it is not exactly an equivalent concept. (Sorry, psych nerd here.)

Some, probably too many, parents just don't give a shit. A video game is a toy to distract the kids.

Years ago I worked at Sam's Club and a couple came through my line with a four or five year old in the shopping cart child seat. They were asking me what I knew of the PSP they were buying and if it was a good choice for their kid. PSPs were what, $300, back then? I told them the kid may have been too young but they were better off with a DS: cheaper, had more kid-friendly games that I knew of, and more durable.

They bought the PSP. The kid needed to be out of their hair. Problem solved. I don't know what games they bought down the road, from my experience they'd probably grab what they saw on a shelf, oblivious to what it was.

edited 23rd May '13 1:25:47 AM by Rotpar

but if they just needed him out of their hair...why not get the cheaper, more durable console?

was the kid set on the psp or something?

Probably. That or dumb parents

I don't recall the kid having much opinion on the matter, other then "Yay! Toy!". He was little too, pre-school age really.

edited 23rd May '13 1:44:07 AM by Rotpar

So dumb and probably bad parents

wow thats dumb.

or maybe (this is unlikely but whatever)

they're the sort of parents who want the kid out of their hair, but still think he deserves the best, and they're operating under the misguided belief that "more expensive = more quality", damned what anyone else says?

Well, I looked at the actual study linked to by the news article. Surprise surprise, it doesn't actually say what the news post says it does.

The study doesn't even attempt to isolate violent media, it just uses self reported history of all media exposure as a proxy, and investigates that along with a number of other (mostly self reported) variables as predictors of long term arrest history.

The news post's title is about as accurate a rendition of the contents of the article as would be another title

"Study finds bad parenting does not contribute to delinquency rates."

(They found no correlation between "maternal warmth" and arrest rates.)

My own pet peeve: people acting as if you need to disprove the idea that media causes violence. Science doesn't work like that. The burden is on those trying to prove a link between the two. . . and if the studies provide no determinable link? Then that does *not* mean you assume "Hey, they could still cause violence, its not disproven!"

My father at least tries to regulate the games I get.

I was started on Mario games.

Kids now are starting on Co D. /old

This kind of thing is rearing its ugly head again, is it? It really should be obvious that violent media doesn't breed violent behavior, quite the opposite really. Violent media can more often than not, quell violent feelings.

However, something that may breed violent intentions (no matter how minor they may be) would be the competitive nature of some video games. A lot of things have competitive nature though, so that's not really a good argument.

Blaming the game just seems like, once again, a scapegoat for parents that don't have the time/don't care to monitor what they're actually purchasing for their kids. Though not every case with a child playing game they aren't allowed to is a case of bad parenting. For example, one child who has a video game that another child isn't allowed could invite said child over to play the game. Or they could in turn let them borrow said game to play it on their own.

But then that would fall on the parents of the other child to monitor what their child is playing and showing to the other. I can remember that when I was younger, if I was to show a violent game to a friend I would first have to clear it with his parents by order of my father (granted, most parents just said "whatever" and left it at that).

How?

At least as problematic though, is the alliance effect: "I'm a fan of these media, therefore I am opposed to any study which suggests they contribute to violent behavior, and in favor of any research which suggests they do not." Or vice versa.

Plus, in real life, it makes little sense to concern oneself with the idea of "null hypotheses." What matters is prior probabilities. In the absence of a study's results, you don't want to assume a lack of relationship, you want to judge what's most likely based on your prior state of knowledge. The null hypothesis in a study on the relationship between violent media and violent behavior is that there's no relationship, but the null hypothesis in a study on the relationship between guillotines and mortality is also that being guillotined is not associated with dying.

edited 23rd May '13 8:37:02 AM by Desertopa

After the Newtown shooting my mom asked me if I was sure that I wante two of the games I had asked for for Christmas (One of which was XCOM). Cue me flipping out about how I wouldn't be going into a school to shoot kids, I'm protecting the Earth from aliens, and all the rest. My mom got me a few M games when I was younger, but it was more because he thought I would like it rather than not paying attention to the rating.

@Desertopa

In the same way that hitting a punching bag can relieve stress. I'm certainly not saying that someone who truly wishes to commit violent actions can be quelled by playing a violent video game, but rather that violent media can help eliminate the stress that may eventually become violent intentions.

I have to admit, that sounds like anecdotal evidence. (That is to say, you're generalizing from your own experience.)

@Kyler Thatch

I suppose that's a possibility, but it seems to be the consensus that I've gathered from those that I've spoken to.

I have serious doubts whether a video game site is more trustworthy, when they say that video games don't cause violent behavior, then a tabloid, when they say that they do. I'm not saying that they are lying, but I wonder whether they show the full picture. Good that they linked the study, so one can see much they misrepresented it.

Just as I find it stupid to blame violent video games for crimes, I find it questionable to act like they don't have an effect at all. I do believe that they desensitize to violence. It's not just logical, it's also personal experience. That doesn't mean that they make someone automatically a violent person (it's not like I ever became one), but combined with other factors, I'm sure that it can have a negative effect.

Actually, every study on the catharsis effect ("letting out" negative emotions in order to reduce their potency later on) has indicated that it's actively counterproductive. Hitting a punching bag when you're angry doesn't mean you have less anger bottled up later, it reinforces your tendency to become angry, and makes you want yo hit things when you're upset.

The catharsis effect is one of those things that feels like common sense, and selective perception can make it seem effective, but when we we actually test it, the evidence stacks up heavily against it.

If that's true, wouldn't that still be a better alternative? It would allow that to carry you until you can eliminate/come to terms with the source, wouldn't it?

Which is precisely why you *don't* want to ignore the null hypothesis. If your going to study a matter, you need to do it rigorously and without prior assumptions. The default assumption should be "no correlation until proven otherwise", because for the vast majority of things, there either is *no* correlation, or only trivial ones ( real correlation, but solely arising from a ubiquitous third variable ).

Ugh, can't these people give up already with their probables and Moral Guardian tactics?

The real flawless logic to teaching your kids tolerance is: Don't let your kids play online multiplayer games until they're at least in high school.