November 28, 2007 -
A new study which appears to have the support of the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concludes that media violence - including video game violence - is an emerging public health threat second only to smoking tobacco.Published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, the study by L. Rowell Huesmann (left) of the University of Michigan holds that consuming media violence adds a significant risk that the viewer will act aggressively in both the short and long term.
In conducting his research, Huesmann reviewed over 50 years of data on exposure to various forms of media violence, including TV, film, video game and the Internet. Huesmann, a senior research scientist at Michigan's Institute for Social Research, told Science Daily:
The research clearly shows that exposure to virtual violence increases the risk that both children and adults will behave aggressively... More than 60 percent of television programs contain some violence and about 40 percent of those contain heavy violence.
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.
Based on their joint research, Huesmann and colleague Brad Bushman believe that media violence significantly elevates the chance that children and adults will exhibit aggressive behavior. How significant is the risk? According to Huesmann:
Exposure to violent electronic media has a larger effect than all but one other well-known threat to public health. The only effect slightly larger than the effect of media violence on aggression is that of cigarette smoking on lung cancer.
Our lives are saturated by the mass media, and for better or worse, violent media are having a particularly detrimental effect on the well-being of children.
As with many other public health threats, 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
Yeah you have to use actual HTML tags here.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
This is the most insane 'research' that I have seen in my life....
If I said that: I just did a study that air cases cancer after all everyone who has cancer breaths right???
THEN I WOULD HAVE A MUCH MORE REASONABLE ARGUMENT THEN THE ONE PRESENTED BY THE STUDY.....
Crime rates plummit as violence in media rises therefore media violence causes violence?????
Who ever said that aggression is bad????
Games worse than drugs, disause, poverty, guns etc????
WTF?!?!?!?!?!
These hacks are the worst spindoctors that I have ever seen....
Lemme get this straight- playing a video game or watching a violent movie is more dangerous than a car, living in poverty, disease, and doing drugs?
Can I have some of what they're smoking?
Over the last 50 years, society as a WHOLE has changed. Events have taken place on grand scales. And each individual reacts differently to those situations for a variety of reasons. It's nice of them to play the "placate card" with the bit about "As with many other public health threats, not every child who is exposed to this threat will acquire the affliction of violent behavior." But of course, then they spew out the further nonsense of trying to bolster the stereotype watch, play, or read violence and you'll be violent.
This "study" is nothing more than sensationalistic tripe to aid in the continuation of fear mongering and misinformation to cover up incompetency on the part of many researchers. It's a good thing there are a few good researchers out there doing some good work. I wish THEY would get more attention. But apparently, the journals and even the government LOVES sensationalism rather than TRUTH.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I think he should tell the truth and say "An incredibly small percentage of children, maybe 1 in several million will acquire the affliction of violent behaviour from media, and in those cases, it will more than likely be found that the child suffers from other mental and social problems."
"Exposure to violent electronic media has a larger effect than all but one other well-known threat to public health."
I think this is a ridiculous thing to say. What about the effect of dangerous driving? People in Ireland would argue that it is massively more of a threat than violent media. It's practically unknown for a week to go by without one or more fatal crashes. How about the health effects from consumption of drugs? Alcohol? Crime? Poverty? No, apparently make-believe characters killing each other is more of a threat than all of these...
Also, 2 very misleading statements:
"Children are also spending an increasingly large amount of time playing video games, most of which contain violence."
Maybe most video games contain violence, but are these the games the children are spending more time playing? 2 completely unrelated facts, but it seems to connect kids and violent games.
"Video game units are now present in 83 percent of homes with children."
I would hope that he takes into account the responsible homes where the parents do their duty and monitor the kid's media intake. And the homes where the children are infants.
I'd like to know what kind of drugs Bushman is on, so I know exactly what to avoid.
But don't you think there's at least some similarities in all of the studies. And granted all studies are not identical, but all scientific research are all unique and we're talking about social science, not physics. Of course, historical changes need to be taken into account and I think they already know that.
@ HandofCrom
It's nice to make comparisons to Japan, but there's huge cultural differences between America and Japan. So it's an iffy statement that you made. Studying what they watch isn't going to useful. It's how they interprete and make it.
Alright, they are similar. They all study the short term effects of media violence. This guy is taking that short term research and coming to long term conclusions. That does not fly in my book.
It seems to me that this guy hangs with John Bruce and we will see Johnny boy touting this as a huge victory for his side.
Why should we take into account "how [Japan] interprete and make it." when we completely ignore how the US interprets and makes violent media. Violent media is violent media no matter where you go. I agree that we have different societies, laws, norms, and mores but that is something that all these researchers don't ever take into account.
I will be back with more after I read the whole thing.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
Listening to this crap every day makes me angrier than any videogame ever could.
The affliction? I don't understand these people. They try to make out violent behavior like something that springs from the void, into the pure innocent, helpless child's brain, [i]injected[/i] by the vile media. None of these people seem to remember that violence is part of human nature. There were children bullying (and killing) other children looooong before video games were even conceptualized. Could it be that by indulging in violent media, we're satisfying a primal part of our nature, a part that would eventually scream to get out in other, much more [i]real[/i] ways? I think Disturbed's song "Violence Fetish" sums this up rather well, actually. Pacifism is a noble goal to strive for, but given our history, on a large scale, just untenable. Free will's a bitch, eh?
I can pretty much guarantee that if humanity were suddenly given utopia, say aliens come down and give us technology so advanced that not a single person goes without food or medical care, or even really has to work at all, we'd [i]still[/i] be finding reasons to kill each other. Without pesky everyday concerns, perhaps even moreso.
Different people have different interpretations of media violence, but all researchers are clear and unified in their interpretaion? Gotcha. I guess researchers are not people. Either that or there is a specific scientific definition of "media violence"
Yet he goes on and blames violent media and calls it the second most dangerous thing to youth health.
Yet they remain theories. They have not been solidified into fact.
Here he talks about time displacement or the act of replacing one activity with another. The examples he uses as replaced activities are interesting. Reading and athletics. Athletics happens to be some of the most aggressive and violent activity a child can engage in. I would think that athletics would have some kind of detrimental effect on children.
Reding on the otherhand can be calming and educational. But take a look at some of the most popular books with children and you will see a lot of violence. Harry Potter, Lemony Snicket, Spiderwick, etc.
Let me stop here for now so that this comment does not get too large.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
Similar in the sense that most research doesn't focus on the INDIVIDUAL and the complex nature of individuals. They find what appears to be a common ground, determine a statistic, then sets that common ground as a stereotype for the whole of a particular group throughout the species.
"violent video games increase aggression". Therefore, people who play violent video games are statistically probable for being aggressive.
OOOOoooooo....
Except that the study didn't take into account a great many factors. Some of those factors include, but aren't limited to:
Genetic factors.
Personality types of the individuals.
Emotions an individual feels while playing
Life experiences of the individual which shape a great many factors over time. Experiences from the tiny forgotten type to the "life altering" events.
Mood of the individual at the time of the study.
Likes and dislikes for a form of media, a particular genre, a particular product.
Capability of playing a particular type of game or even a particular type of console.
How the individual reacts to a particular product.
How the individual reacts to other situations, interactive or non-interactive and WHY (using all the above factors in those situations as well).
But researchers don't care about nor do they record these factors. They ignore the complexity of these factors and their play on an individual at any given moment. These factors zip past us when they happen to us as well. "second nature" is a way to describe how we treat that complexity.
But the overwhelming majority of the studies being reviewed have the simplistic "they externally appear to be more aggressive, so the media/product makes them more aggressive". It doesn't matter how the study is performed and it doesn't matter the "side comments" they make. In the end, that's all these studies amount to. And doing a "review" on those studies does nothing whatsoever other than to support them by not taking into account those complex factors any more than the specific studies themselves do.
Is it possible to do a study on these issues? I truly think there is a very possible way to do a study on the issue of aggression in general and get far more realistic and intelligent data from such a study without leading to stereotypes of any group of individuals. And, quite frankly, I think it would be far more useful to the science of psychology and mental health than these limited misused studies have been.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Haven't you heard? Playing games and choosing to smoke a legal product are the reasons all of those things exist! Yes, even the asbestos! Damn anyone for enjoying something someone else doesn't agree with. :)
Well I wouldn't say they don't care about the factors you mentioned, but i guessed they "controlled" these factor by having a large and diverse sample population, so people in the low and high extreme of a variable would cancel each other out.
If you look at Richard Tremblay's work, mentioned earlier. He only talked about genetic factors and nothing about social, emotional expression or social competence. So I wouldn't jump on saying he doesn't care about other factors.
Besides, doing a study to investigate all these factors would take a lot of resources and time. and for data analysis of this type, the result can be rather tenuous I think. (better ask my stats teacher)
Yeah, they'll be doing it to everything...
First it's smoking
Then Trans Fat
Then Booze
Then Video Games
on and on and on...
But they are wrong - as usual - more JUNK Science. I play video games, from slow tactical types to fast violent types. It's actually a good place to get rid of stress.
What this clown and others need to realize is that many of us, have a very strong grasp of what is reality and what isn't.
Actually, what angers me more than anything is blatant stupidity pushing an agenda. And this study is chock-full of it.
Its not the thrill of playing the game but the game itself that makes people more aggressive. It is not the fact that most violent games are very competitive and when you make someone play a competitive game and then make them perform a competitive agression test they will show more aggression to others.
Nope it is the violent content.
Hey look he is coming to a "causual" conclusion.
Translation:
"This study is directly related to what I am writing about and I have to include it. But since it does not support my preconcieved notions, it is completely flawed and therefore worthless."
Give me a break.
Here he is again debunking research that does not support his thesis. He has not facts to back this up, just his opinion.
That is all I have. Feel free to continue debunking and otherwise complaining about this "study"
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
I've been waitng for them to try this too. Once you say something is almost or just as bad as smoking - the big public health boogeyman - everyone's alarm bells go off. The only problem is smoking has major, demonstrable and physically tangible effects while the media violence is far more nebulous. They're really reaching here as the comparison is fallacious on a lot of levels. As Overcast said, it's just more junk science.
Also, how much does anyone want to bet that certain politicians - especially those running for president - (*cough!*Billary*cough!*) will pick up this ball and run with it?
Wishful thinking, I suppose.
I do like the genetic research study as it does focus on another of those many factors. But it's still limited.
And when researchers make the argument about how much time and resources it takes to do a more thorough study, the word that seriously comes to mind first (and maybe a little biasedly): lazy.
Frankly, when it comes to studies that rely on such complex issues and so heavily on chaos theory as well (dang that uncertainty principle!), I hold very little interest in statistics. I'm not even a big fan of profilers because more ofen than not, we'll hear about successes but not how often they may be wrong. I keep having this image of the so-called "professional" who made all sorts of claims about the Branch Davidians in Waco... but had never met a single one and couldn't really back up any of his claims with FACTS.
Statistics have their uses. Unfortunately, too many folks love to use, or rather MISuse them, to create idiotic stereotypes about many groups of individuals.
I do believe there ARE good researchers out there. But like so many other good people in various professions, they get ignored in favor of the bad sensationalistic ones.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Scary medical terms are coming to mind: containment, euthanasia, sterilization, quarantine, vaccination, treatment, infection, contagion...
Soon there will be a new STD called VGA: Video Game Aggression. Remember, kids: if you have sex with a gamer, you're playing all the games they've played before.
We all know it’s true.
Tobacco = Chemical that withers away organs and kills human beings.
Video Games = Media taken in through senses.
Last i checked, images and chemicals are not the same thing.
Although not expressly concluded to in the article, the health haard seems to be the possible violent actions stemming from the aggressive behavior. He cannot prove that people who are more aggressive are more violent. But they can make that assumption because they are researchers and what they ay goes.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
Serious studies don't get 10% as much attention as they deserve. Facts don't sell nearly as well as fear, but that's certainly nothing new.
@ EZK
Excellent analysis! Thanks for those points you mentioned. That's extremely helpful and points to the LARGE black hole in his summary argument and conclusion...
...lack of numbers.
Not once do you see him conclude with percentages or references to past studies and the number of subjects who were showing extra aggressive tendencies.
"As with many other public health threats, 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."
Without statistics or facts to define how many exposed children will show violent behavior (as if children aren't violent because they haven't matured enough to understand how to express their anger in other ways SHEESH) this becomes nothing but propoganda. Unless he can show facts behind this "study" it's nothing more than theory and speculation PROBABLY to get the CDC and gov't to fund a project to try and prove a link. This smells like maneuvering for funding to me and nothing more.
No problem. Simply doing my duty as a concerned and informed individual.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
I do think the media we consume affects how we behave. But I don't think it is useful to count up violent images as if all were the same, and think you have collected meaningful data that can be used to draw conclusions. I think the problem is not violence itself, but how it is presented.
It would not surprise me at all if it were true that neighborhoods where professional wrestling is broadcast have more schoolyard injuries than similar neighborhoods where it isn't. In fact, it would surprise me if that wasn't true. The message of professional wrestling is, "We are cool! Consume us over and over! We give you a buzz you can't get anywhere else! Woohooo!!"
However, depictions of violence can have exactly the opposite effect to what is usually described. Just like real violence, a depiction can make you more sensitive to future depictions of violence. Does Bambi make you want to hunt deer? Does Brokeback make you want to stomp queer? ... oh god, excuse me. I'm a horrible person.
The problem isn't violent media. The problem is junk media.
I just have to say...don't they teach you the scientific method at school anymore? The most important thing about conducting experiments is putting variables into account (like the different moods of the people at the time of the experiment, and their family values).
Reviewing 50 years of research is only likely to prove one thing: People love to scapegoat things. Whatever happened to finding the screams that went off from Elvis' gyrating his pelvis?
Consuming media is no where near threatening unless it is done without moderation. Then this just is as simple as any other form of entertainment as there is some risk of no moderation for many things in life.
Humans are naturally aggressive, and still trying to put blame that something will increase aggression is just silly. The testes increase aggression first and foremost, I'm glad they haven't gone with worldwide castration attempts; idiots.
A real threat should be idiocy coming from this guy, because spreading disinformation can cause many other problems than (like actual acts of murder) simply increasing aggression.
Next you are going to tell me that the president of the state lottery commission thinks that people spending money on lottery tickets leads to people being millionaires!
Call me cynical but anyone who has affiliations with so many things that have "aggression" in the title seems highly unlikely to say, "Nope, we looked at it and it doesn't have anything to do with aggression."
I'd be much more curious to see this tied (or tried to be tied more like) to actual incidents of violence. Doubly so by including it with several other, more well known and less mentioned causes IE poor family structure, social marginalization, levels of abuse (physical and mental) and so on.
Unfortunately, statistical studies are a right bi**c to handle, and without a -large- base pool, it can be hard to make any actual conclusions. As well, unless one is careful to include all income levels and social situations, some kind of bias will exist.
Which goes to prove that statistics can be used to prove anything.
Erm. Isn't this wrong? Isn't a public health threat by definition something that does have an effect on everyone? Not everyone is affected seriously, but nobody gets away clean; not all smokers will get lung cancer but smoking will damage your lungs in some way.
Interesting theory time! A small percentage of people exposed to X will exhibit negative effects as a result of the exposure. Therefore X is a public health threat. In this case, the statement is X = games.
Let X = nuts.
So could it be that some people are, in a way, mentally allergic to games?
.... sorry but this was a button pusher.
Guess it is safer to sit in your garage with your car running and the doors shut, dodging in front of a student driver or going to war in Iraq, then to be near the mind controlling media.
Admittedly well over half the households in the US have at least one game playing device (I have 4 just for myself) but this is historically the way of things. When televisions became affordable they were in the majority of homes. The again so were clothes washers but I cannot remember anyone complaining about those even though there were related injuries. It would seem that everything that cannot be strictly controlled rots the minds of the user (especially the kiddies, must save the kiddies)
The "report" was compiled from 50 years of other reports. Odd that I cannot find anything in there saying of the checked reports had anything to do with Media nor that he checked and used all available reports.... ie he picked and chose (for all we know he could have been using JBT's book or some other game hater). His bias is much at the heart of the issue and should be considered.
Use what you want and ignore the rest.
At least he admits "not every child who is exposed to this threat will acquire the affliction of violent behavior" What he kind of forgot to mention that is it not even a majority. Take a few and just a really paintbrush so you can paint out a picture about All.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/32356/home
Seriously, roll down and look at the list of articles in just that one issue.
Look at the first line in the abstract for the article "Young adults' media use and attitudes toward interpersonal and institutional forms of aggression":
"Links between media violence exposure and favorable attitudes toward interpersonal violence are well established..."
Really? Where?
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
What is it, Lassie? The connection seems to only be teneous at best? For all their fancy degrees, these researchers still haven't determined a causal link between a short-term increase in aggression and a long-term likelihood of violent behavior? Nobody enjoys violent entertainment in a vacumn, and thus other factors should be taken into account when a study linking it to ANY behavior is conducted? Good girl, Lassie!
I'd have to disagree entirely with their conclusions. The research on media violence in general has been very poorly done, as other scholars have noted (Freedman, 2002; Savage. 2004). Briefly, major problems include the use of unstandardized, unvalidated measures of aggression, the tendency to ignore negative results in a manuscript and focus only on positive results, and the failure to eliminate "third" variables such as family violence, genetics or personality. These are widespread failures in his field, and as such it's impossible to really assess much of value from the field as it exists.
The statement that media violence exposure risk is close to that of smoking and lung cancer has been debunked. The effect size for smoking and lung cancer is (r = .9), (Block & Crain, 2007) not (r = .4) as once claimed (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). This larger figure is supported by the American Cancer Society's data noting that 87% of lung cancers are directly attributable to smoking with a relative risk of 23 (meaning smokers are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers).
The effect size for media violence on violent behavior (even if you ignore all the significant problems I mentioned above) is (r = .1). There are many, many, many, many risk factors in life that are of much greater effect than media violence exposure.
and when I asked him about Block & Crain (2007) about the effect size and whether there was a response to their criticism:
Yes they responded, but not adequately in my opinion. They replied that they couldn't replicate Block and Crain's statistics...although I can't understand why not, as I could replicate them easily enough (in fairness, I can replicate how Bushman & Anderson, 2001 get their very different results too...it's just that their technique is not very good for converting medical data to psychological effect sizes). Despite Bushman & Anderson's response (2007) the data used in most medical studies can not be converted into the effect size r (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). My observation is that attempts to do so greatly truncate the observed effect size...which looks good to psychologists who want to think that our effects are as good as those seen in medical research...but they just aren't as even a little digging can reveal (I encourage anyone to read the American Cancer Society's statistics on smoking and lung cancer and see if they'd agree that 87% of violent acts can be attributed directly to media violence as is the case for smoking and lung cancer).