Can video games really to blame for violence among the younger generation? (weapon, violent crime)

[11thHour]

Video games are just an easy scapegoat. It's easier for parents to blame the video game instead of themselves.

[wclac]

Originally Posted by 11thHour

Video games are just an easy scapegoat. It's easier for parents to blame the video game instead of themselves.

Word. Some people can't handle kids or their parental job.

[emi__]

My games just make me hostile towards zombies and other shuffling creatures straight out of Hell trying to rip out my intestines.

Half-Life 2 and Silent Hill 2, respectively.

[cjma79]

I don't understand the question, they knew smoking a cancer were related all the way back to the mid-1950's.
Yes,, and others research said it didnt... But now we all know it does,,, and no new research will say it wont... meaning... that video games we still dont know...

Video games have been prevalent for about 25 years now, so sufficient data is available to analyze their impact on violent behaviors.
Show me the evidence,, because there isnt any.... like he said,, some say yes and some say no....

Regarding second hand smoke, many folks aren't convinced that the impact is fatal, as opposed to just creating some non-fatal medical problems.
yes, this is true,,, some people dont want to see the true in almost all researcher in the last 5 years on the subject...(Even Penn and Teller said they were wrong...)

The link provided was from the American Psycological Association web site.
The link was an opinion of a Prof.. a member of the association,, not the association opinion...

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by cjma79

I don't understand the question, they knew smoking a cancer were related all the way back to the mid-1950's.
Yes,, and others research said it didnt... But now we all know it does,,, and no new research will say it wont... meaning... that video games we still dont know...

Video games have been prevalent for about 25 years now, so sufficient data is available to analyze their impact on violent behaviors.
Show me the evidence,, because there isnt any.... like he said,, some say yes and some say no....

Regarding second hand smoke, many folks aren't convinced that the impact is fatal, as opposed to just creating some non-fatal medical problems.
yes, this is true,,, some people dont want to see the true in almost all researcher in the last 5 years on the subject...(Even Penn and Teller said they were wrong...)

The link provided was from the American Psycological Association web site.
The link was an opinion of a Prof.. a member of the association,, not the association opinion...

The fellow who wrote the article has a PhD in Psychology from Stanford University, and has published quite a bit about this subject and others:

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/fa...-2004/00AD.pdf

00Senate.html

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/fa...-2004/01AB.pdf

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/fa...-2004/02BA.pdf

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/fa...-2004/03AM.pdf


recpub.html

[NewToCA]

10. The claim has been made that in terms of the general public's beliefs about media violence effects, we are currently in a situation that is very similar to where the public was some 30 years ago in the tobacco/lung cancer issue. In what ways are these two cases similar? Dissimilar?

The medical research community knew that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer long before the general public came to hold such beliefs. In fact, there are still sizable numbers of smokers who don't really believe this to be true. The tobacco industry was quite effective keeping the public confused regarding the true causal effect of tobacco on lung cancer. Among other tactics, they promoted "experts" who claimed that the research was badly done, or was inconsistent, or was largely irrelevant to lung cancer in humans. The media industries have been doing much the same thing, seeking out, promoting, and supporting "experts" willing to bash media violence research.
The tobacco industry successfully defended itself against lawsuits for many years. There have been several lawsuits filed in the U.S. against various video game companies in recent years. As far as I know, none have been successful yet.
One big difference between the tobacco industry case and the violent media case is that the main sources of information to the public (e.g., TV news shows, newspapers, magazines) are now largely owned by conglomerates that have a vested interest in denying the validity of any research suggesting that there might be harmful effects of repeated exposure to media violence. The tobacco industry certainly had some influence on the media, because of their advertising revenues, but the violent media industries are essentially a part of the same companies that own and control the news media. Thus, it is likely to be much more difficult for the general public to get an accurate portrayal of the scientific state of knowledge about media violence effects than it was to get an accurate portrayal of the tobacco/lung cancer state of scientific knowledge. Given that it took 30-some years for the public to learn and accept the tobacco/lung cancer findings, it seems unlikely that we'll see a major shift in the public's understanding of media violence effects. Indeed, a recent study that my colleague Brad Bushman and I published ( American Psychologist,volume 56, 2001) suggests that the media violence/aggression link was firmly established scientifically by 1975, and that news reports on this research have gotten less accurate over time.


Video Game FAQs

[wclac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversy
What about this article? People, parents, the media, and religous groups always want to blame VG's.

Originally Posted by NewToCA

10. The claim has been made that in terms of the general public's beliefs about media violence effects, we are currently in a situation that is very similar to where the public was some 30 years ago in the tobacco/lung cancer issue. In what ways are these two cases similar? Dissimilar?

The medical research community knew that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer long before the general public came to hold such beliefs. In fact, there are still sizable numbers of smokers who don't really believe this to be true. The tobacco industry was quite effective keeping the public confused regarding the true causal effect of tobacco on lung cancer. Among other tactics, they promoted "experts" who claimed that the research was badly done, or was inconsistent, or was largely irrelevant to lung cancer in humans. The media industries have been doing much the same thing, seeking out, promoting, and supporting "experts" willing to bash media violence research.
The tobacco industry successfully defended itself against lawsuits for many years. There have been several lawsuits filed in the U.S. against various video game companies in recent years. As far as I know, none have been successful yet.
One big difference between the tobacco industry case and the violent media case is that the main sources of information to the public (e.g., TV news shows, newspapers, magazines) are now largely owned by conglomerates that have a vested interest in denying the validity of any research suggesting that there might be harmful effects of repeated exposure to media violence. The tobacco industry certainly had some influence on the media, because of their advertising revenues, but the violent media industries are essentially a part of the same companies that own and control the news media. Thus, it is likely to be much more difficult for the general public to get an accurate portrayal of the scientific state of knowledge about media violence effects than it was to get an accurate portrayal of the tobacco/lung cancer state of scientific knowledge. Given that it took 30-some years for the public to learn and accept the tobacco/lung cancer findings, it seems unlikely that we'll see a major shift in the public's understanding of media violence effects. Indeed, a recent study that my colleague Brad Bushman and I published ( American Psychologist,volume 56, 2001) suggests that the media violence/aggression link was firmly established scientifically by 1975, and that news reports on this research have gotten less accurate over time.


Video Game FAQs

[NewToCA]

I don't dispute Wiki stuff, too many authors (and flakes). Give me a specific study by a credible source and I'll take a look at it.

[wclac]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

I don't dispute Wiki stuff, too many authors (and flakes). Give me a specific study by a credible source and I'll take a look at it.

Some critics argues that video games are more addicting than television, to younger people. They say games take time away fro going outside and exercising. Yeah, in a rough neighborhood.

[cjma79]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

The fellow who wrote the article has a PhD in Psychology from Stanford University, and has published quite a bit about this subject and others:

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/fa...-2004/00AD.pdf

00Senate.html

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/fa...-2004/01AB.pdf

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/fa...-2004/02BA.pdf

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/fa...-2004/03AM.pdf


recpub.html

Ok, and now look at the problem
I can do the same..
Department of Psychology University of Toronto
Evaluating the Research on Violent Video Games

U. of Illinois
No strong link seen between violent video games and aggression

Study downplays link of video games to violence | Technology | The Observer