Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Game researcher: 90-95% of psych studies flawed

Texas A&M International University professor talks about the problems with tying violent games to aggressive behavior.

With the flood of gaming legislation in recent years, the battle between the gaming industry and the states that want to outlaw sales of violent games to children has boiled down to one question: Do violent games hurt children? If the states can scientifically prove that they do, the constitutional protection that such games currently enjoy evaporates.

Ferguson says it's difficult to measure the impact games like Grand Theft Auto IV have on children.

Ferguson says it's difficult to measure the impact games like Grand Theft Auto IV have on children.

To answer that question, the states point to studies that show that children who play violent games subsequently engage in aggressive behavior. Meanwhile, the gaming industry and its allies tout studies that show no such link.

Recently, Texas A&M International University's Dr. Christopher J. Ferguson, author of the latter type of study, spoke with GameSpot to discuss some of the background issues that impact not only the battle over gaming legislation, but also all scientific research. Ferguson said that people need to be more skeptical of information presented to them as scientific research. For instance, Ferguson bemoaned the number of times that he's seen studies presented and promoted with conclusions that the research doesn't actually support.

A criminal psychologist himself, Ferguson cast a wary eye to much of the work done by his peers.

"I'll be honest with you, the quality of research in psychology generally is not very good," Ferguson said. "Maybe 90 to 95 percent is very bad. The way that we study questions, the way that we support our hypotheses are not very scientific, quite frankly. And social science is kind of an oxymoron, to some extent."

Regarding the study of violent games and aggression in particular, Ferguson was unconvinced that there was a good way to assess the effect that one has on the other. He noted that existing studies have tested a subject's willingness to annoy others with bursts of noise after gameplay as an example of aggression. As Ferguson emphasized, there is a big difference between such an action and the sort of school shootings or other violent outbursts that concerned groups try to pin on violent games.

"The sad answer is it's really hard to measure aggression in the lab. We really don't have any real good measures of aggression," Ferguson said. "We can't have kids knifing each other or punching or beating each other up, of course. So we have that ethical constraint on one hand, and is it possible to create an aggression measure that functions well and is valid? I haven't seen one yet."

More of the interview with Dr. Ferguson can be heard on the February 3 edition of GameSpot presents The HotSpot.

202 Comments

  • Nokoryous

    Posted Feb 10, 2009 9:17 am GMT

    in an economic crisis, you have to root for the guy who has no respect for the validity of his own career to lose his job and make way for someone useful. i'm with phase4illini, i think Dr. Ferg is trying to gain a little name notoriety here by selling out everyone else in his profession and telling a legion of gamers what they want to hear, not what is true.

    i'm no psych professional, but all i know is after playing hours on end of grand theft auto for several days, i find myself driving around in real life, sizing up cop cars and playing out scenarios in my head of what it would be like to t-bone them and just run away. i've almost run red lights after playing that game for no good reason! you can't dispute that inundation in a culture affects your behavior, even if it is a digital replication of a skewed reality. if you are spending more of your waking hours playing a game than tending to the other business of your life, what is your "reality" anyway?

  • gameking5000

    Posted Feb 10, 2009 2:14 am GMT

    Parents believe that violent games do have an impact on children and I think that's why the Wii sells very well.

    A good why to find out is to watch a child grow into an adult, which parents do. They have all the answers in my opinion.

  • leafdj

    Posted Feb 9, 2009 4:37 pm GMT

    @theone86
    Causality: The relation between causes and effects.

    I had no idea that was a real word.
    Go figure.

  • biggy887766

    Posted Feb 9, 2009 2:10 pm GMT

    irresponsible parenting...i can understand a 14 year old that is able to handle violence but just yesterday i was playing with some 5 year old on call of duty 4 and it raises the question does a five year old with only about 2 years life experience (i dont remember anything before 3 yrs old) have enough judgement power to distinguish whats right and wrong in a video game...i dont think so.

  • phase4illini

    Posted Feb 9, 2009 10:19 am GMT

    Ferguson seems to be the anti-Jack Thompson. Clearly these comments are made in effort to gain notoriety and name recognition, for why else would a scientist undercut his entire field?

    His comments are as foolish as they are naive. As a psychologist, how can he even attempt to separate environment from development. Video games, as with all other forms of media, are a part of the environment. It is a fairly sound psychological tenant that environment and genetics (nurture vs. nature) play roles in the psycho-social development of an individual. Does that mean that everyone who plays violent video games goes off on sprees of aggression? Absolutely not. But does that mean that video games and violent media, in the absence of a sound familial unit and other factors, may lead to altered or abnormal development, with potential flaws that lean toward aggression? A very definite possibility.

  • fantasyfacade

    Posted Feb 9, 2009 7:57 am GMT

    It's completely up to the parents. Each child is completely different and its up to the parent to let them play such games when they think they're ready and to enforce it as well. We all mature at different rates so while one14 year old may be mature enough to play GTA another wouldn't be.

    I've been playing these types of games since I was ten and they have not affected me in anyway like that. Just because I like crashing my car into a large crowd of pedestrians in GTA doesn't mean I will do it in reality. In fact the thought of it turns my stomach.

    There is a distinct difference between reality and video games and anybody of sound mind should be able to understand this. Half the time I wonder where some researchers even come up with their conclusions that video games cause violence.

  • Link_Destined_1

    Posted Feb 9, 2009 7:05 am GMT

    Aren't all studies flawed? After all, they are performed by, and on humans.

  • figo16v

    Posted Feb 9, 2009 5:01 am GMT

    "Ferguson says it's difficult to measure the impact games like Grand Theft Auto IV have on children"

    Its not a kids game. If your gonna let your kids do what they want, play what they want, when they want..

    Its up to parents to shape the way their kids turn out

  • theone86

    Posted Feb 8, 2009 12:47 pm GMT

    Lisandro, I think you are dead-on. It's too bad that other guy didn't appear because I think he really could've given a lot more credibility to a point that doesn't get a lot of respect in the circle of gaming by debating Dr. Ferguson. What he basically said was that you can't trust any research. What is the point in that? You're completely undermining your entire profession. Yes, as a researcher (and I know because I am studying to go into this field), you have to account for bias, but that doesn't render your research or your conclusion irrelevant. A good researcher is aware of their own bias and tries to find the most objective answer, but most importantly they don't backtrack.

    One of the biggest things that was nailed home in one of my first writing classes, stick to your thesis. It does you no good to go around throwing doubt on your own studies. That doesn't mean you always support your original thesis even if there's information that contradicts it, it just means that when you do finally arrive at your conclusion, hopefully in the most objective manner possible, you fully support that conclusion.

    One thing that bothers me to no end in this type of discussion is the focus on causality. Well, video games CAUSE violence, invariably, right? I don't know of many people who would support that statement, and the ones that do I think are being ascenine. Still, people like Dr. Ferguson are trying to misrepresent our opinions as such. When they paint us as crazy people who think video games magically enrage those who play them, it makes it so much easier for them to dismiss our opinion, and the worst part is that there's no one there to counter it. Just because you cannot prove a direct causality does not mean violent video games are not a factor in violent behavior.

    And as far as not being able to measure agression, are you kidding me? You can measure things like increased stress, a short temper, violent outbursts, agressive behavior and bullying, overly agressive rhetoric on forums, disrespect for animal life, militant rhetoric, and any number of other things. People have been using these to measure agression for years, since before video games held a prominent place in society. People use these factors to study behavior of sociopaths and serial killers. Does that mean that every time a kid exhibits behavior that is common to most sociopaths he will necessarily become one? Of course not, but by addressing the situation rather than saying, "Oh, the child will probably be all right," you can lessen the chance that something drastic will happen and at the very least improve the mental health of that child.

    As for his take on social science, I am very offended at that. I will admit social science is an imperfect science, I will admit it is based on qualitive data, but that does not diminish it in the slightest. It is an imperfect science because it deals with an erratic subject, but good social science can be just as informative and helpful, and even more so than a simple fact sheet. Take the Stanford Prison Experiment for example.

    To start, the experiment is considered a massive failure in part due to an extreme lack of control. My point is not the experiment itself, however, my point is the methodology used in analyzing the final results. The experiment was studying human behavior, it was almost completely qualatative. You could not prove beyond doubt that the final results were, absolutely, and in every situation, cosntant. What you can do is study the behavior of those who participated and draw logical conclusions based on the behavior and the conditions they were in when they exhibited that behavior. It's a very common practice in scientific experimentation: You compare a control group to a treatment group. In this case, they are the same subjects. The control is the participants before entering in the experiment. They were screened for psychological stability and a lack of violent behavior in the past. Their past behavior is the control. They are then put into abnormal circumstances and monitored as they adjust to those circumstances. That behavior is the treatment group. It is a very scientific process, it is a sociological process, and the conclusions drawn using this process have been shown to hold true in other applications. I find it very offensive that this one man thinks he can dismiss an entire field of study that is recognized around the world and has seen such prominent members as W.E.B. DuBois, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, George Herbert Mead, Jean Baudrillard, and others contribute to it as junk science simply because he can't see direct causation.

    But what really pisses me off the most is this tactic of just trying to brush off arguments. It doesn't matter if we are 99.9 to the nth percent positive that there's a correlation, we have to be completely positive before we do anything, right? Well, 9 out of 10 test subjects, when exposed to these conditions, exhibited this behavior as detailed here, here, and here. Therefore, we conclude that these conditions did cause, or are at least a major factor in this type of behavior. That sounds like some pretty sound methodology to me, but apparantly it's not good enoug for Dr. Ferguson. No, we have to be absolutely certain of everything before we do anything to even attempt to address anything. That's absolutely ridiculous. If he can produce a study that is widely respected that makes absolute conclusions based on a very small majority, then maybe I could respect his opinion a little more. What he's doing is nitpicking. Oh, one study used someone acting in an annoying manner as a display of agression so it's automatically discredited. Are you going to give us the context in which that behavior was referred to? Are you going to tell us the conclusions that were drawn using that behavior? Are you going to go into any more detail regarding the contents of the rest of the study? No, you are using one small incident that, for all we know, could be taken drastically out of context by you in order to support your own hypothesis. That, my friend, is bad methodology.

    To conclude, I'm not really saying anything about legislation. That's part of what I hate about this argument in the first place, is that so often legislation is referred to in a general manner as a concern, but it is so very rare for someone to point out specific legislation, what exactly it does, and why exactly it is bad. It's modern day McCarthyism, stop the evil legislation, it's all bad, all the time!

  • zacattack214

    Posted Feb 8, 2009 8:53 am GMT

    What I meant was that people with depression or other such conditions, which may be controled to some extent once they are understood, would be diagnosed as mentally ill, when in reality they may just have irregular levels of serotonin or other nerotransmitters in their brain. Those with eating disorders would be either hospitalized or institutionalized, when in reality they may not be able to control their condition because of the same irregular levels of serotonin. We wouldn't be able to help people with schizophrenia because we wouldn't know that such a condition is caused by too much dopamine, and too little causes Parkinson. There is very little we can cure, but we can help alleviate symptoms. Basically psychology is important, whether you want to admit it or not--it is the study of behaviors and mental processes and essentially it's goal is to help people control or change harmful behaviors. To say such as thing is worthless is incomprehensibly stupid.

  • downloadthefile

    Posted Feb 8, 2009 6:19 am GMT

    vivendidoom, people may have bipolar disorder and then later learn they are manic depressives because those two are the exact same things. you even sounded slightly intelligent for a second there.

  • cleanslate1982

    Posted Feb 7, 2009 11:57 pm GMT

    Someone get this doctor a grant ASAP. It'd be money well spent for a change.

  • vivendidoom

    Posted Feb 7, 2009 6:57 pm GMT

    to: Zacattack214

    "Well, frankly Mush Mouth is wrong. Without Psychology we would have many people with problems that we would misdiagnose as mental illnesses."

    This statement is incredibly flawed. To say that people with problems are next to always never misdiagnosed is sadly wrong. I can vouch along with many other Americans and scientists that a misdiagnosed mental illness is very much a daily procedure by psychologists because pinpointing these problems are evidently more obscure than one might think. One may have bipolar, and later find that its not bipolar, its manic depression. To say one is aggressive is a judgment and therefore is measured my anyone's internal beliefs if one is too aggressive or not. To medicate is not to eliminate, but to obscure the symptoms one exhumes from a proposed diagnoses.

  • zacattack214

    Posted Feb 7, 2009 2:59 pm GMT

    Well, frankly Mush Mouth is wrong. Without Psychology we would have many people with problems that we would misdiagnose as mental illnesses. But to address the issue: The problem isn't only the bais researchers or the flawed research, it's the uneducated people who don't know the difference between a Correlational Study and an Experiment. A correlation does not prove causation. It's the people who don't understand that concept who try to link video games and violence, and many other things as well. You can only prove one behavior causes another if you conduct a proper experiment (control all confounding variables, take a perfect sample of the population of interest, and assign them randomly to control groups), and that isn't as simple as it sounds. Maybe violence can be caused by video games, but violence may also cause people to play video games (rather than act the behaviors out in the real world). Until there is a strict "one-way," cause-effect relationship defined, you cannot state positively that video game cause players to commit violent acts.

  • Mush_Mouth

    Posted Feb 7, 2009 11:33 am GMT

    Psychology's a totally useless profession anyways - it's full of people who overanalyze what people say and do, and then come up with some nonsensical conclusion as a result. Don't believe me? Sit in on a couple different psych classes at your local college and see what I'm talking about. In addition, most research that people come up with is total BS like this guy said - most of it is to push their own agendas. Unfortunately most people are stupid enough to believe it without questioning what's being passed as "facts". Big surprise, but that's how most elections are decided, too.

  • CreatureRising

    Posted Feb 7, 2009 5:20 am GMT

    I do get a little nasty when playing like Gears but certainly no because of the game. More of i hate those Dirty Chainsawers!

  • AfrosRockMan

    Posted Feb 7, 2009 3:48 am GMT

    All I can say is that having a bad father in my life has screwed me up more than any game. If anything, they help me relax and take my mind off things.

  • Lisandro_v22

    Posted Feb 6, 2009 11:33 pm GMT

    and I have more LOL

    Dr. Ferguson you'd better pay a little more attention to the topic because even a monkey can get a handgun in Texas

  • Lisandro_v22

    Posted Feb 6, 2009 11:28 pm GMT

    ok I love video games and I believe that it's pretty unlikely that they make you more aggressive. But anybody with a bit of common sense would find the things this guy says totally ridiculous how serious is a priest that tells you that God doesn't really exist, I really can't believe he as psychologist said that probably 95% of their researchs are bad and that they don't really support their hypothesis very scientifically (and he said "we") how can he speak about his peers when he was totally unprofessional too HE NEVER REALLY SPOKE ABOUT THE SUBJECT he just said we shouldn't believe in scientific research and that we can't measure aggressiveness but didn't really brought anything new to the topic and again he wasn't professional at all.

    Though I don't know if his theories apply for all psychologists they are totally true for him, 95% of what he said made me laugh and he came up with lots of hypothesis without any type of information to support them, and the most ridiculous stuff is to bring up numbers out of nowhere, please 95%? I HAVE DONE THAT IN SCHOOL, I wasn't born yesterday.

    yeah I believe in what you say but did you really studied psychology to say something anybody could?

  • PumpkinBoogie

    Posted Feb 6, 2009 6:02 pm GMT

    Hot damn! A smart and un-bias opinion from a research doctor with common sense (had to wonder if they were out there)! I'm gonna say what probably has been said a hundreds here already but....somebody go find more of these Dr. Fergusons, LOL.

    ....no seriously, we need more smart people like this speaking out for the cause.

  • Bart247

    Posted Feb 6, 2009 5:54 pm GMT

    The more you know, indeed! Thank you Dr. Ferguson

  • Cabose420

    Posted Feb 6, 2009 1:11 pm GMT

    I just got learnifyed! The more you know!

  • HavQ-san

    Posted Feb 6, 2009 9:57 am GMT

    Finally, a man of justice! If there only were more like Sir Ferguson..

  • Sydwynder

    Posted Feb 5, 2009 2:44 pm GMT

    Has anyone ever considered the notion that those select few people out there who are VERY disturbed and would act out violently could simply be more drawn to video games as opposed to reading books? Having healthy relationships? We don't know the predisposing factors that go into things like school shootings and the like. I'm convinced there's a lot more to the story and I adamantly oppose the notion that it's video games that cause people to do sick and violent things. Any time games get blamed for these sickos actions, its another sad example of a huge ill with society these days. That is, not taking responsibility for your own actions. Why take responsibility for myself when I can blame someone else? (heavy sarcasm)

  • necronaux

    Posted Feb 5, 2009 12:06 pm GMT

    "...the quality of research in psychology generally is not very good... 90 to 95 percent is very bad"

    Unfortunately, this information still won't stop them (politicians looking for hot-button issues so they can jump on their soapboxes and incompetent parents looking for someone to blame when their kids are messed up) from targeting the video game industry.

  • Mr_Versipellis

    Posted Feb 5, 2009 11:54 am GMT

    Gosh, it takes balls to say what he has... Good on 'im!

  • Slagar

    Posted Feb 5, 2009 6:04 am GMT

    You've got to appreciate this guys honesty. Not many people in academia would actually have the brains to be able to take a step back and realise - "what we do isn't perfect". Let alone announce it to the world. I bet he'd probably get a lot of flack from his peers for this too...

  • Slyfalco

    Posted Feb 5, 2009 5:19 am GMT

    you've just got to sit back and laugh at the whole thing. Is there a link between violent bahaviour and violent games. YES. about the same as there is for violent behaviour and TV, Films, Books and paintings of a violent nature. The world leaders are asking the wrong question. Try 'should violent media be exposed to children?' to quote BigBad95 'problem solved'.
    If the leaders are still confused then why are they doing this..

    http://uk.gamespot.com/news/blogs/sidebar/909182374/25945103/air-force-using-halo-3-as-recruiting-tool.html

    Surely using a computer game as a recruitment tool for the US Air Force will definately lead to violent behaviour.

  • BigBad95

    Posted Feb 5, 2009 2:14 am GMT

    Why don't parents notice that games have giant 18 stickers on the back of them and the 18 sticker means that it is not suitable for their children because it clearly states that the game contains adult stuff. but no they let their kids have what they want to avoid conflict and then its the parents that complain when their kids start acting violent. problem solved and its all down to poor parenting and parents not getting involed with their children.

  • TehUndeadHorror

    Posted Feb 5, 2009 2:13 am GMT

    Good show Dr. Ferguson!

  • kavadias1981

    Posted Feb 5, 2009 12:43 am GMT

    No amount of research can amount to anything until they answer that unanswerable question; Are violent people attracted to violent games or are those games responsible for violent people? Because results are so inconsistent it cannot be answered.

  • XeonForce

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 9:19 pm GMT

    When you buy a dog and it bites your child, do you run to the pet store and attempt to blame or even sue them? I didn't think so. When your child is traumatized by a violent movie, how can you blame the movie producers? You don't... So why do people still insist that it is the responsibility of game developers to protect our children? The average person is fat, the average person is lazy, the average person points their finger at everyone else. Come on already... this is not a debate, it's an excuse... seeing your kid play GTA should be like seeing your kid with a playboy. Parents need to make the connection that video games are not all designed for children.

  • Zerabp

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 6:57 pm GMT

    I just want to agree with everything ejd said. I'm both a gamer and a parent and while I personally am careful as to what i allow my children to be exposed to the majority of parents i know personally do not. With gamings growth as fast as it has been the amount of misinformation on both sides is growing as neither one has yet been willing to even try to approach a compromise. What most gamers don't get is that yes while the parent should be responsible, most parents just don't realize that games have and are still growing up with the people who originally got into them. This is why you can't just blame the parents as most game companies that produce mature games do as little as possible to inform parents about the content of the game. At the same time if parents are as concerned as they say they should pay a lot more attention to what they are purchasing for their children. If there was legislation to prevent violent games from being sold to minors it would actually take a lot of the pressure off the developers on what they could and could not put into a game. It's one of those things where a law that restricts one group (minors) frees another (developers). As they no longer would have to worry about what they put in the game. The reason some devs are so outspoken against it is because while they want to say their games are for adults and not geared towards children, they rely on sales to ignorant parents and devious children to push their product, and rely on cartoonish, and childish humor, to draw kids in (think the tobacco company of the gaming industry). One thing is for sure gaming will never be allowed to grow up if they keep aiming their "grownup" games towards children.

  • ejd3100

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 5:27 pm GMT

    I'm not saying that I agree with studies that were funded by groups who desire a certain outcome. But I do feel that it is important that gamers consider the possibility that violent entertainment CAN affect SOME people to different degrees. Sometimes that means cursing or talking aggressively to others. No "social scientist" is going to be able to conduct a study where people are isolated for a year. That's simply unethical and impossible. Longitudinal studies would certainly be beneficial. Sometimes new information is wrong, maybe sometimes we're afraid of it. There is plenty of more basic anecdotal evidence wherein kids get into fights and do things they saw in video games. Truth be told there are kids who get into fights and do things they've seen others do. Violence exists with or without video games. Parents have the responsibility and right to choose what their kids should be guarded from. But at the same time we frequently argue that parents aren't doing this. In saying that, the logical choice then would be for the government to support legislation that would restrict the sales of violent games to children. And what's so bad about that? Many theatres have been checking IDs for years to keep minors out of R rated films for the very same reason. But this is clearly a soapbox issue. Regardless of our beliefs, as gamers, if we are going to desensitize ourselves through our entertainment outlets, then it's best not to remain insular. The "us against them" mentality is just not suited for us if we want to be taken seriously as a demographic that, in actuality, consists largely of adults.

  • TheC0m1ssar

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 4:31 pm GMT

    Yet another piece of evidence to show that games don't cause aggressive behavior. It's nice to know that the educated are willing to prove the politicians wrong.

    And for the record, it's not just games that they should factor in, as Celeste said, there's plenty of other things that can also be a big factor in it.

  • -Celeste-

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 4:14 pm GMT

    IMHO, the studies are worthless. They examine one aspect of a persons life and rule: violent games = violent children. No where is the mention made of how the parenting, environment, and outside stimuli play a role. I'm sorry, but unless you isolate someone from all outside experience for a year or two, and feed one group a mix of games, another group non-violent games, and a third group purely violent games, you will NEVER have anything that "suggests" that violent games impact people.

    Outside influences will ALWAYS plays a roll in all of these "studies". I have yet to see one that eliminates all the various variables and factors so it may focus purely on the study at hand. Half the people running these things don't have any idea how to properly conduct controlled experiements and studies. Its not surprise that the results are skewed based on where they got their funding.

  • Skreb-Masters

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 2:21 pm GMT

    Is it harmful to children? Who cares, children shouldn't be allowed to play mature games. End of.

  • ejd3100

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 1:57 pm GMT

    Ferguson is right in saying that psychologists have a difficult time testing their hypotheses without violating basic ethical codes. However, in modern psychology, the results of studies don't "prove", they "suggest". I have read numerous studies on the impact that playing violent video games has upon people, particularly children. Based on what I've read, more often than not games--like many other forms of entertainment and media--can facilitate aggression in some individuals. What is important to note about these studies, however, is that they rarely suggest that people will actually commit violent crimes against others after playing violent video games; the resulting aggression is most likely very minor.

    In the end, the studies that are publicized are the ones with grave undertones, which the media and politicians are prone to publicize. Furthermore, little information about the studies are actually given by either one. Yes, studies are sometimes flawed or self-proving. Sadly, the ultimate truth is that such studies will likely end up in the hands of someone or organization with an agenda. As an avid gamer and a young psychologist, I can only hope that someone in the middle-ground will be heard and that this bickering will end. But it's nevertheless important for people to continue to reevaluate what is and is not acceptable in terms of terms of the entertainment and video games.

  • Ohaidere

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:58 pm GMT

    "Kids should be reading and thinking happy thoughts, no shooting and blowing things up.
    If your under 21 no guns of any kind in games, they just can't handle it. However I also believe that you must give the teacher back the ability to strike an unruly child. Kids have gotten more out of hand since wimpy parents stopped beating their children. This in combination with intense therapy and the teacher's ability to strike reinstated we will turn these kids back around in no time."

    While the obvious troll is obvious, I actually agree that teachers should be able to smack kids.

  • AtomBomb

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:56 pm GMT

    I agree in that it is the parents job to monitor the children, not everyone elses. To me it's like them blaming the goverment how porn is effecting their children while they supply it to them and let them have free roam of it. The parents need to have the backbone to control their children.

  • poodeek

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:55 pm GMT

    People with aggressive tendencies are more drawn to violent videogames. It's just a correlation and videogames shouldn't be confused and blamed as the causation.

  • F4ll3n_1

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:46 pm GMT

    It is true that a lot of these studies are flawed (though I think 90 - 95% is probably an exaggeration, though not by much). I mean, what we see here are the media summaries of the studies, whereas the actual studies themselves are weighty tomes of evaluations and tables and figures - and that is where you may often find that the conclusions aren't fully supported by what the study shows.

  • datbush

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:43 pm GMT

    in the end it all comes down to 1 of 3 things. parents looking for an excuse for their bad parenting, parents wanting to let the government do their job for them, or the law makers trying to control something they dont understand

  • NightWarriorR

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:43 pm GMT

    How come nobody tries and bans pornography because MOST underaged (below 17) have looked at it, and they can maybe connect it to sexual activities in teens and teen pregnancies,and thats the reason adult sites are supposed to say (18+ ONLY) but if they banned pornography all men around the continent would stand up in protest. With violent M rated games it is the same as adult sites ratings, does it stop the underaged from playing/seeing it - No, but it is the parents responsibility to not expose their children to things that they feel are unacceptable for their children to grow on.

  • dynomitemasta

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:41 pm GMT

    Kids should be reading and thinking happy thoughts, no shooting and blowing things up.
    If your under 21 no guns of any kind in games, they just can't handle it. However I also believe that you must give the teacher back the ability to strike an unruly child. Kids have gotten more out of hand since wimpy parents stopped beating their children. This in combination with intense therapy and the teacher's ability to strike reinstated we will turn these kids back around in no time.

  • Unholy_Terror

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:39 pm GMT

    While I agree that most people saying video games cause aggression is wrong, I don't believe that 90-95% of psych studies are flawed.

  • AstroChimp83

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:37 pm GMT

    I play violent video games (GTA, Halo, you name it). I've been playing video games since 8 years old (25 years old now).I do not kill kittens or perform other violent acts because of my almost 20 years of gaming. Kids with violent tendencies have other issues they need to deal with and their actions can't be blamed on a series of organized colored pixels flowing across a screen.

  • Chico_Azteca

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:27 pm GMT

    @bmaynard

    im no parent, im 20, and i think you are doing what a parent should do

    but many parents, specially young parents, will give anything to their kids to either keep them away from them or to spoil them

    that´s the real problem, gaming companies are not the parents of those children playing games like GTA4 of example, its stupid to blame the companies

  • jonnydd

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:27 pm GMT

    I agree with one of the earlier posters about how a crackdown on video games because of a school shooting is really putting the cart before the horse. They should deal with the issue of access to weapons first, and then any possible causes. Why that doesn't happen... well I can only imagine it must be very complicated to enact laws. Lots of different people with different ideas, powers, and agendas involved. I don't know much about lawmaking in the States, if anybody does, would be interested to hear.

    With an academic background in psychology myself, I have to agree that a lot of psych is crap. But there is also a lot of useful tools in it.
    And regarding if games cause violence, getting an "answer" is impossible because the "question" is to vague. There are too many factors involved. But I will say this: Obviously, games could be used as a scapegoat when some other factor is really more of an issue, as most people here have pointed out. But I do believe that it is possible for games to have some negative effect. But like many of these kind of questions, it's just too complicated. And when you do get an "answer", it's often in the sense of something like "X made Y more probable", not "X = Y".

    Some food for thought: If games have no effect on people, then why would a game about being, say, a slave driver or a Nazi gas chamber operator (presenting those roles in a positive way in the game) be generally considered unacceptable (as it would for any media, movies, books, etc)? Because people would consider the media as having some effect on the people interacting with the media. You could argue "what, I'm going to operate a Nazi gas chamber?! They don't even exist anymore! I should be able to play anything I want! There's no connect between what I play and what I do!" Yet there is.

    Mkae sure you hear me - I'm not supporting either side of the debate. I just feel its good to be informed of the factors involved.

  • bmaynard

    Posted Feb 4, 2009 12:21 pm GMT

    As a father of two, I keep the violent video games away from my children. They are 7 and 3. I think of myself as a responsible parent and gamer by keeping the violent games from them. I have been a gamer all my life, now at 34, and play the games that I want to play at night after the kids have gone to bed. They get to play and have plenty of games to choose from, there is no reason why young children should be playing games with so much death and destruction. Let 'em hold on to there childhood innocence for a while. I just use the game ratings system, and I pay attention to what my kids are doing.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!