Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

November 12, 2010 -

A new Rasmussen poll of Americans on the subject of violent videogames found that 54 percent of those polled believed that violent games lead to more violence in society.

The latest survey of 1,000 adults took place on November 8-9 and that 54 percent number held steady from a similar poll conducted in April of this year. In response to the question “How concerned are you about the level of violence in many video games today?” 69 percent indicated they were at least somewhat concerned, while 48 percent were “very concerned.”

29 percent were not concerned and 13 percent were not at all concerned.

65 percent of those polled, when asked “Should states be allowed to prohibit the sale or rental of violent video games to minors?” answered in the affirmative, while 25 percent answered no.

When posed the question about who is more responsible for limiting access to violent games, parents, game publishers or the government, only five percent chose the government, with the majority (71 percent) selecting parents. 21 percent thought the producers of videogames should be responsible.

Additionally:

Far more women than men favor state laws prohibiting the sale of violent games to minors. Adults with children at home are more likely to feel the responsibility of restricting such content falls primarily to the parent, while more adults who do not have children think video game makers should take responsibility.

A similar poll conducted by Gallup for the First Amendment Center also showed respondents selecting parents overwhelmingly, when it came to selecting who should screen the intake of violent games by kids.

Much like the Gallup poll, the Rasmussen poll shows that the public (apparently) is reasonably okay with states governing violent game intake, while putting the onus on parents, over the government, for screening out violent content… seems diametrically opposed.


Pic from Cheezburger.com

Comments

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

"Adults with children at home are more likely to feel the responsibility of restricting such content falls primarily to the parent, while more adults who do not have children think video game makers should take responsibility."

I'm not sure about that... I, and I think almost all of the people I see commenting on articles around the web who, like me, do not have children are certain that it is the parents' responsibility more than the government's. Sorry to revert to stereotype, but I think that assertion may be driven by the number of older respondents (including those whose children now have children of their own).

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

I wonder how much of the gender gap in those results is due to the asymetric exposure to games we got a generation ago.  Far more males then females grew up with games.....  so while a male in his 40s might have a good exposure, a female would be less likely to.... so we run into the standard generational problem but with a strange offset by gender.

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

I won't say "weird" results as they're perfectly predictable -- "contradictory" is more accurate.

It's all in the phrasing of the question.  Ask if states should be allowed to ban the sale of violent video games to minors and that sounds like common sense; ask if the government has a responsibility to keep minors from playing violent video games and that sounds like nanny-state overreach -- even though they mean exactly the same thing.

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

Seems to me that indicates exactly how bad people are at being proper parents.  I think the first question indicates that the government should protect children when they're out of the home.  The second question is more about implying government control inside the home.

People get all fired up when you talk about how they raise their kids inside their home.  But once the kids are outside playing or going to school or whatever, suddenly it's the government's responsibility to essentially be their parent?  No, that is the stupid part IMO.  That's called sheltering your kids and not preparing them to interact with the rest of the world when they eventually have to leave the house, and you're a bad parent.

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

That's an interesting point and a perfectly valid reading of the questions.  That's the trouble -- it's hard to tell what any given respondent would infer from the wording.

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

Damn it I love the image used for this one.

And aren't most polls considered bullshit anyways? :/

-------

GamePolitics, it's time for a mobile version of the site, don't you think?

-------

"WARNING GUARANTEE: This post contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress."

Re: Another Violent Game Poll, More Weird Results

Depends on what you mean by "most polls" and who is doing the considering.

If, when you say "most polls", you include unscientific polling sources like websites where anyone can vote, then yeah, it's fair to say that most polls ARE bullshit.

But if you limit it to scientific polls, well, that's sort of a different story.

There are a few major, respected polling agencies in the US.  They use random sampling and significant sample sizes; if their studies are performed correctly then they're generally a fair reflection of public opinion.  But they have their biases too -- Zogby tends to be way off-base in my observation, and Rasmussen tends to skew toward a more conservative bias than most of the others.  (That's probably not really relevant in this particular poll; as we've discussed on GP ad nauseam, this isn't really a liberal-versus-conservative issue; regulating the sale of violent video games has proponents and opponents on both sides of that artificial divide.)

And a lot of it is in how you ask a question.  Simple questions produce the most reliable results: "Who are you going to vote for?" questions tend to be pretty reliable (though in a close race, can only reliably tell you that the race is close, not necessarily call the winner).

More complex or abstract questions don't draw results that are as clear or reliable, and the phrasing of a question is very important.  As I noted in my earlier reply, the contradictory results of this poll are actually pretty predictable; people will give different opinions on the same issue depending on how it's phrased.  Frame it as a states' rights issue and people will support it; call it government responsibility and they won't.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenKrono - Many of the people pushing gender issues aren't nice people? I'm sure not everyone's a sweatheart but so far, everyone I've seen with such a critique had absolutely nothing to back them up.09/19/2014 - 10:46am
InfophileI think there's a qualitative difference between a site and a hashtag though. GP can ban anyone from commenting, so they can have the image they want. But anyone can use any hashtag and try to poison it. Granted, that hasn't happened to the other one yet09/19/2014 - 10:13am
E. Zachary KnightKrono, your comparison to GP does not work. We do not need to get rid of GP, because no one associates GP with trolls and abuse. The same can't be said for gamergate.09/19/2014 - 10:09am
Krono@Michael You don't remember the "other hashtag" because no one actually uses it. We're talking 836,983 uses of #gamergate over it's lifetime, and 8,119 for the "alternative". 47,129 uses on the 18th vs 41. With #notyourshield at 140,133 uses & 5,209 uses09/19/2014 - 9:48am
Kronoresearch it. Changing tags to get away from trolls would be like wiping GamePolitics and restarting under a new name to get away from people calling Jack Thompson a filthy names in the comments section.09/19/2014 - 9:35am
Sleaker@quiknkold - seems like all that page is is a bunch of random developer opinions and rumors that we're supposedto do what with?09/19/2014 - 9:31am
Kronoas an opportunity to push back against them. It's one of the things muddling the issue. @conster A new hashtag would do nothing to improve anything. Trolls will simply follow to the new hashtag, and it will confuse the issue for anyone attempting to09/19/2014 - 9:25am
Krono@Andrew aaah. Yes, I'm sure there's some of that. Part of the problem is many of the people pushing gender issues are not very nice people. Basically the latest incarnation of moralists we've seen in the past couple decades. Naturually some will take this09/19/2014 - 9:23am
quiknkoldhttp://www.nichegamer.net/2014/09/real-gamedevs-sound-off-regarding-the-gamergate-controversy/09/19/2014 - 8:35am
MaskedPixelanteMeanwhile, in news that actually DOES matter, Scotland voted "NO" to Scottish independance.09/19/2014 - 8:20am
ConsterSeriously? "We shouldn't make a new hashtag - it's better to associate ourselves with psychos than to decrease our visibility"?09/19/2014 - 7:54am
Michael ChandraI forget what it is exactly, but there already is another hashtag that some use, exactly to separate themselves from the abusive behaviour. So don't bother lying to me.09/19/2014 - 7:06am
quiknkold2 to 3 or more09/19/2014 - 6:53am
quiknkoldMichael Chandra : I'll say this. The only reason they havent used another hashtag is because it would look like a form of dividing the arguement. Using another Hashtag has come up, and they feel like if they made a new hashtag, it'll split the debate from09/19/2014 - 6:53am
Michael ChandraYou want a debate? Build a wall between you and the poisoned well. Make clear you despise it, despise the behaviour. Then get into the other issues you are troubled with, and don't say a single word again about the poisoned well.09/19/2014 - 3:46am
Michael ChandraAnd someone claiming #notyourshield was to be taken serious, when chatlogs show they wanted it going to hide even more harassment behind? Yeah, not buying a word you're saying. You poisoned your own well.09/19/2014 - 3:45am
Michael Chandraallegedly fired over giving a game a mediocre review and the company threatened to pull ads? Sorry but I ain't buying this.09/19/2014 - 3:45am
Michael ChandraBut people arguing this is horrible and just about ethics, even though there's very little support that journalistic integrity was actually violated here, while they never spoke up when a journalist was09/19/2014 - 3:43am
Michael ChandraIf people start with condemning the way GamersGate was used as a misdirection, then use a better hashtag, that would work in convincing me they mean it.09/19/2014 - 3:43am
Andrew EisenOoo, this one came down to the wire! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/749082525/nefarious09/19/2014 - 1:03am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician