WORK: Videogame Violence

I came across a story on page three of the Telegraph yesterday, boasting of the benefits of gaming. While the article conceded that violent gaming could lead to violent behaviour, it also quoted Professor Craig Anderson of Iowa State University as saying that pro-social games – games with a positive message that encourage positive behaviour – could have positive effects on those who played them. Conveniently, Anderson was giving a lecture that night at Macquarie University, a lecture that the newspaper touted as being a “must see for any parent”. So, being the parent of an Xbox 360 and numerous other consoles, I decided to head along to this lecture after finishing up my work at the newswire. While I was at it, I also agreed to cover the lecture for IGN Australia and Kotaku AU.

Not knowing exactly what the lecture would be about, I walked in with an open mind. I must confess that, as open as my mind was, I was hoping I’d get a good hour and a half of some academic telling me how good videogames were, because that’s what I wanted to hear. But that’s not what I heard. Well, not really.

The first slide that went up on the screen told me that violent games increased levels of aggression in gamers, and that the effects were almost immediate in those who were exposed to any form of violent media. Damn.

The second slide informed me that long-term exposure to violent media from a young age would lead to increased levels of aggression well into early adulthood. Double damn.

The next one was an anecdote from Anderson himself. As a social psychologist who focused on the impacts of violent media, he said he received lots of angry emails from teenagers saying things like:

“I’ve been playing videogames all my life and I haven’t killed anyone…yet.”

“Videogames don’t cause people to be violent, so stop doing your stupid research or I’ll kick your ass.”

It appeared that an overwhelming number of gamers were not only irrational idiots towards South Australian Attorney General, Michael Atkinson – they were irrational idiots towards anyone who said anything remotely bad about videogames. Triple damn.

It was a strange lecture because while there was a lot of data about the dangers of gaming, there was also a lot of information missing about the benefits of gaming. According to Anderson, a pro-social game – one that encourages positive behaviour – is one that is completely non-violent, and while the research available supports that these ultra-clean games can have a positive effect on gamers, there simply wasn’t enough research into games that have both positive and violent elements.

When I asked Prof. Anderson what he thought of games like Gears of War 2 and Resident Evil 5 where you can play in co-op mode and help out a fellow gamer, he hesitated. There wasn’t sufficient research for him to make any conclusive remarks, so he could only offer me the most diplomatic answer someone in his position could give: “My guess is that games that have a mix of helpful and hurtful behaviour probably have more of a mix of effects, there are gonna be multiple effects – some are likely to be positive, and other harmful.”

A lot of time was spent talking about research methodologies, which I won’t discuss here because it was all very long and tedious (although if you’re interested in knowing more, drop me a comment or email and I can post some of the scattered notes I took while I was at the lecture). But Anderson did say some very interesting things that seemed to sum up the mentality of many gamers out there.

He said that gamers don’t like it when academics and scientists do studies that prove the negative impacts of videogames because they assume that if something is proven to be bad, then it will be taken away from them. They panic, they get angry, and they get abusive in their attempt to defend something they’re so attached to. But what they need to realise is that just because something is proven to have negative effects doesn’t mean it’s going to be banned. Scientists and researchers are there to provide the facts so that the public can make informed decisions when it comes to deciding on public policy, and what any country decides to do in terms of passing laws about videogames is up to that country – not academics.

I walked away from the lecture unsure of what to think. The pro-social games that Anderson described excluded many children’s games because even in a title like Ben 10 Alien Force, there’s some zapping and blasting to be had. So that leaves very few games with pro-social content and many games with potentially detrimental material. I agree that violent games will, in all likelihood, heighten aggressive thinking because it makes sense to behave a certain way after you’ve been in a situation when you have to think aggressively and competitively.  Does this worry me? Not really. I’d like to see more solid research behind this before I start to panic.

ANYWAY, story time!

KOTAKU AU: THE GREY AREAS OF GAME VIOLENCE

In light of the furor surrounding Australia’s R18+ games rating debate, Distinguished Professor Anderson, Director of Centre of the Study of Violence at Iowa State University had some words of wisdom to impart: “a discussion is certainly worthwhile”.

Speaking at a guest lecture on Monday night at Macquarie University, Prof. Anderson presented findings from studies that linked violent videogames to aggressive behaviour, and ‘pro-social’ games (games with no violence) to ‘pro-social’ behaviour.

Initially, he made it seem very black and white: children who played games that simulated positive activities like Chibi Robot and Mario Sunshine became more helpful, whereas violent videogames lead to immediate signs of increased aggression in gamers. The comparisons in the risk factor of violent gaming was alarming. According to Anderson, violent games were more likely to increase levels of aggression in people who played them, more than substance abuse, low IQ, poor socio-economic background, and poor relations with parents. Furthermore, the likelihood of violent games causing aggressive behaviour was higher than asbestos exposure causing cancer, and nicotine patches assisting smokers in quitting.

However, Anderson conceded that there are grey areas where there simply aren’t enough studies about videogaming to make any conclusive statements.

“My guess is that games that have a mix of helpful and hurtful behaviour [like co-op shooters] probably have more of a mix of effects … some are likely to be positive, and others, harmful,” he said.

“We’d like to move in that direction but it’s very difficult to do that kind of research. I think it’s interesting that you can learn some teamwork and co-operative types of things, in many contexts those are positive skills.”

As certain as Anderson is of violent games leading to aggression, he doesn’t think it is fair to blame them for anti-social behaviour.

“When I see media reports that say ‘oh this German school shooter played Counter Strike and therefore that shows that playing Counter Strike causes school shootings’ – that’s not what that shows. In any specific incidence, you can’t know what proportion of this event is attributable to depression, to stopping taking medication, to poor family or parent child relationships, to the easy availability of guns, and what proportion of the blame belongs to violent media,” he said.

Anderson says that violent games are only one risk factor out of many, and that extreme acts of violence always require multiple risk factors being present.

Despite his beliefs that violent videogames can have detrimental effects on gamers, he states that his role as a social psychologist is to provide the scientific facts – not to decide on public policies on anyone’s behalf.

“Just because something is harmful doesn’t mean you have to pass a law restricting it. It depends on what other values come into play.”

“On personal values, let me give you an example about handguns… Let’s pretend that you are convinced that restricting handguns would dramatically lower violent crime rates in the United States. Does that mean you, personally, will also be in favour of strict handgun laws? Well, the answer to that is no. What if you so strongly value the ability to get a gun whenever you want that you’re willing to live with higher violent crime rates in order to serve this other value? That’s perfectly reasonable.”

According to Anderson, the same idea can apply to videogames.

“A discussion is certainly worthwhile, but what is the correct or optimal public policy is for Australia to decide. It’s not a scientific question as much as it’s a political and social question, and it’s one that Australians need to think about carefully, weigh the pluses and minuses, and try to come to some sort of consensus.”

IGN AU: GAME VIOLENCE DISSECTED IN AUSTRALIA

Australia, March 16, 2009 – In a guest lecture at Macquarie University on Monday night (AEST), Distinguished Professor Anderson, Director of Centre of the Study of Violence at Iowa State University spoke of the risks of violent videogames, presenting a series of findings that would surprise even the most seasoned gamers.

“Research was clear by 1975 that media violence caused aggressive behaviour,” Prof. Anderson said.

“We know that short term exposure to violent media can lead to aggressive behaviour and aggressive thinking within five minutes of watching a violent film or playing a violent game, while long term exposure can lead to aggression into early adulthood.”

To highlight this connection, Prof. Anderson examined the likelihood of violent videogames leading to aggressive behaviour by drawing on well-known examples of cause and effect. Such examples included the chances of regular consumption of aspirin leading to heart attacks, the chances of asbestos causing cancer, and the chances of condom use reducing the risk of contracting HIV. In all these examples, violent videogames proved to be a higher risk factor, going as far as being approximately three times more likely to happen than asbestos exposure leading to cancer.

On the scale of youth violence risk factors, violent videogames were more likely to increase aggression than substance abuse, poverty, and anti-social peers.

Anderson was careful to point out that this did not necessarily mean that everyone who played violent videogames would begin committing violent acts. Rather, violent games made players more prepared to think aggressive thoughts.

He cited another study where college students were asked to play a pro-social, neutral, and violent game, after which each was tested to see how willing they were to help their peers solve puzzles. The study showed that those who played non-violent, pro-social games were more inclined to be helpful by choosing easier puzzles for their peers to complete, whereas those who had just played violent games chose difficult puzzles to impede on their peers’ ability to complete the challenge.

While Anderson believes that this increase in aggressive behaviour is a cause for concern, he doesn’t think that violent games are solely to be blamed for anti-social behaviour.

“Extreme acts of violence always require multiple risk factors being present. You just don’t ever have a school shooter, for example, who only has one risk factor. It just doesn’t happen. There’s usually four, five, six, seven risk factors, sometimes more. Media violence is one of those risk factors.” he said.

“Does that mean playing violent videogames is going to create a school shooter? No, not if there aren’t any other risk factors. But in kids who have a lot of other risk factors, can it contribute to the likelihood of some sort of extreme violent behaviour occurring? Probably, it can. More so than other risk factors? We don’t know. There’s no data on it.”

Despite these findings, Anderson believes that games can be great teaching tools and, in many cases, can lead to positive behavioural changes. Titles such as Chibi Robot, Mario Sunshine, and Food Force were some examples of games he mentioned that lead to pro-social behaviour in children, encouraging them to be more helpful.

“There are some games out there that teach kids how to manage diabetes, ADHD and asthma, and kids who engage in those kinds of pro-social games experienced fewer health consequences,” he said.

Anderson’s lecture ended with what seemed to be the obvious: ways of reducing the impacts of aggression caused by violent games.

“We have empirical evidence that shows that adult involvement reduces the harmful impact of violent media,” he said.

“We have data on that from several studies now. It’s not conclusive, but it does suggest adult involvement is very important.”

So it seems like it’s not all doom and gloom. We can have our cake and eat it too. Sort