New Study on Violent Videogames: They're Bad

Another study is out on the effects of violent videogames on youth behavior, but the professor conducting this one has said it now proves "conclusively" that makes more aggressive, less caring kids, regardless of age, sex or culture.

According to an article on YubaNet, The study, published today in a the Psychological Bulletin's March issue, was conducted by eight researchers, and headed up by ISU phychology professor Craig Anderson. Videogame researchers from Japan also were part of the team. They used approved methods for combining and analyzing stats from previous related literature to look at how violent games affect thoughts and behaviors in individuals ranging from elementary school age to college undergraduates.

According to Anderson:

"We can now say with utmost confidence that regardless of research method -- that is experimental, correlational, or longitudinal -- and regardless of the cultures tested in this study [East and West], you get the same effects," said Anderson, who is also director of Iowa State's Center for the Study of Violence. "And the effects are that exposure to violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior in both short-term and long-term contexts. Such exposure also increases aggressive thinking and aggressive affect, and decreases prosocial behavior."

However, he does throw in a caveat:

"These are not huge effects -- not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang," said Anderson. "But these effects are also not trivial in size. It is one risk factor for future aggression and other sort of negative outcomes. And it's a risk factor that's easy for an individual parent to deal with -- at least, easier than changing most other known risk factors for aggression and violence, such as poverty or one's genetic structure."

Unfortunately, the study is not available yet online, but it will be interesting to see if the study even mentions ESRB ratings. Violent games usually get an M rating, meaning that only teens 17 and older can be playing these games. Anderson said the debate on thes games needs to change focus:

"From a public policy standpoint, it's time to get off the question of, 'Are there real and serious effects?' That's been answered and answered repeatedly," Anderson said. "It's now time to move on to a more constructive question like, 'How do we make it easier for parents -- within the limits of culture, society and law -- to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?'"

Uh, how about ensuring that kids NOT play the games unless they are within the right age range? As with any medium, children unsupervised or given direction when reading, listening or playing material not suited for their age range will form their own values and opinions. It is up to the parent to ensure that this material is not in their hands to begin with, or at least be there to answer their questions and discuss the content with them. I do agree with Anderson here:

"Just like your child's diet and the foods you have available for them to eat in the house, you should be able to control the content of the video games they have available to play in your home," he said. "And you should be able to explain to them why certain kinds of games are not allowed in the house -- conveying your own values. You should convey the message that one should always be looking for more constructive solutions to disagreements and conflict."

Games are not babysitters and violent games are not for kids. It is incumbent on the parents, not the videogame makers or publishers, to keep these games out of the hands of children, based on the ESRB ratings.