Are Video Game Hazardous to Children?

[Hobbes]

Warning: Video Game Playing May Be Hazardous to Your Child?s Health

This is an on going debate, anyone's thoughts?

I'm of the mindset that the parents should be in control of what their kids do.

[Kong]

If your child chooses to play violent video games then that might be a sign that they have some anger management issues that they should work through before it is too late. However if your child is healthy and well balanced then I do not think any movie or video game will do much to change that.

I do think that video games (TV, computers, Internet, phones etc.) take away from needed time for physical activity. I think the lack of physical activity has more to do with pent up hostility than the actually content of the game.

I believe that children are very rarely every helped with censorship and banning.

Proper research and educating parents is nearly always helpful. The link Hobbes provided said that the researchers did not want to expose the test subjects to violent video games for prolonged amounts of time. That makes any results they receive meaningless. They had reached their conclusion before they began the research. A big no-no in the scientific world.

I am not a parent and do not plan on ever becoming one. I think that would make my opinion count a little less.

Germany has banned violent video games for years.

BPjS/BPjM = German Bundespr?fstelle f?r jugendgef?hrdende Schriften/Medien = Federal Examination Office for Youth-Endangering Publications/Media.

It would be a good place to look for case studies and comparisons to see if banning games makes a difference.

I live in Czech Republic and I grew up in America. Both place allow children to purchase the same types of video games. America has higher reported % of child violence. Perhaps it is not the video games that are causing it.

[sabby]

Being a parent of two, I found the article very interesting. My view point on this is that if your a rational human being that can differentiate between real life and make-believe, then there is no problem.

My concern would be the so-called "outcasts" in schools, the ones that are not accepted by their peers, that may play these games and just one day "snap" or try to gain acceptance or respect by performing something s/he saw or performed on a game or saw on the internet.

I watch what I play around my daughters. Most of the shooters that I see, I have no interest in playing just because that is not my genre of games. Some of the RPG games I play (Diablo, Dungeon Siege, Titan Quest, etc.) do have blood effects on them but I normally do not play them in front of them. My six year old (four at the time) has come in while I've played Diablo II and saw all the blood. When she came in, I paused the game and explained to her that it was just a game and none of it was real. She then proceeded to tell me to chase after the monsters. Have I screwed up her life by playing this game, probably not, I've done more damage by being her father than that video game has done.

This should be a wake-up call to parents to actually be parents. Video games should be entertainment, not a baby-sitter. My wife and I try our best every day to raise our daughters the way we think is best. Parents need to stop turning a blind eye toward their children and their activities.

I'll get off my soap box right now and let others chime in.

[nu_skool]

I have younger brothers who have seen some violent games that involve killing such as Diablo, Halo, and some others as long as they know the difference between a video game and reality i dont think video games are to blame for all the violence. In my opinion the only way a video game could make a child believe vioolence i right is if they were raised playing that game all the time and never being told that it wasnt real.

[Kugyince]

A few notes on our good Professor Craig A. Anderson:

Testified at the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on "The Impact of Interactive Violence on Children." Tuesday, March 21, 2000.

Anderson & Dill 2000 article influenced the Indianapolis Ordinance increasing parental control over their children's access to violent video games. Consulted with the City of Indianapolis attorneys involved in subsequent lawsuit by the video arcade industry to block enforcement of the ordinance. (Indianapolis won this case, but lost in a higher court.)

Consulted with and testified to the St. Louis County Council and Justice, Health, and Welfare Committee on a proposed ordinance to increase parental control over their children's access to violent video games and movies (October 12, 2000). The ordinance passed and survived initial court challenges, and later was overturned.

Served on the Media Violence Expert Advisory Panel for the Surgeon General's report on Youth Violence (August-December, 2000). The chapter prepared by the panel was eventually reduced by the Surgeon General's staff to small section of the final report.

Served on two panels at the public policy conference titled "Playing by the Rules: Video Games and Cultural Policy." The Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago, October 27, 2001.

Gave a Plenary Address titled Media Violence, Video Games, & Societal Violence at the 16th Penetanguishene Conference, "Managing violence in the new millennium: Global, Institutional, and Community Perspectives." Hosted by The Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, Midland, Ontario, Canada, June 12-14, 2002.

Gave a Plenary Address titled "Deleterious Effects of Playing Violent Video Games" at the 34th Conference of the International Simulation and Gaming Association, August 25-29, 2003.

Gave a Keynote Address titled "Violent Video Games and Other Violent Entertainment Media" at the International Ratings Conference on "Classification in a Convergent World," Sydney, Australia, September 21-24, 2003. Sponsored by the Office of Film and Literature Classification, Federal Government of Australia.

Consulted with Governor Blagojevich's office and attorneys and testified in the court case involving the video game industry's challenge to the 2005 Illinois law requiring parental consent for those under age 18 to access certain types of violent video games.

Co-hosted the October 20-21 National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy, along with the National Institute on Media and the Family.

Seems like he's made a descent career out of a vendetta of his without doing any real scientific research. You'll notice if you Google most of the foundations that you'll find their heavily sponsored by right-wing groups such including the Christian Coalition and the American Family Institute. Both of which donate large amounts of time, money, and man-power to Conservative Party candidates. He obtains grants the same way the "scientists" who say global warming is a fallacy do.

[stonecode]

In general I go along with the statement, that it's just a game and not reality. Any sane person should be able to see the differences. Another aspect is the point of view.

I've grown up with the C64, Amiga and Famicom. As a child I already played games like Fire Power (Amiga 500). You drive a tank and destroy buildings and you can kill people, with remaining blood splats.
But the kids today have a complete evolved multimedia entertainment. Photorealistic graphics and war cries in Hi-Fi are another level.

So the younger people will have a different understanding of the topic. We've grown up with videogames that were meant to entertain and kill time. They've grown up with games, that really try to emulate reality and consume time. For me that's also a reason, why retro gaming has gone through such a hype. I don't want a political correct interpretation of the medievil time or a total exact dying animation of my enemy. I just want to have fun, while building some castles in a different world and I want fun jumping on Koopas.

[Kugyince]

Very good point. Worth some rep.

[Kong]

Originally Posted by sabby

Video games should be entertainment, not a baby-sitter.

I think that is the key part to keep in mind. If your kid spends more time with Grand Theft Auto than he does with you then he might have some issues. But the same can be said of almost anything. I bet if a kid spent more time watching Tella Tubbies than he spent watching his parents he would be just as messed up as the GTA kid.

More often than not, it seems like the issue of violent video games, movies and music affecting youth is only discussed in the aftermath of some violent tragedy within a school in the U.S. Most of the notable cases (Paducah, Columbine, etc.) did involve students played violent video games and were fans of different types of media that portrayed and at times glorified violence.

The issue I have when people try to link these events to violent behavior by the children that view them is what about the thousands, if not millions of other pepole who take in the same media but do not commit any type of violent act? This point leads me to believe that the violent images may, in a way, desensitize these individuals to the consequences of violence. I do not believe that the games and violent images are direct causes of the violent behavior. Most of these young men (can anybody cite a violent incident that involved a female in the past 10 years that has gotten media attention?) are alienated youth who are at the very least afflicted with a mild mental disorder and do not have a very supportive home life. When you combine that with an extensive black market for weapons and easy access to directions on how to make home-made grenades, it really is only a matter of time before something gives.

[sabby]

Originally Posted by Kong

I bet if a kid spent more time watching Tella Tubbies than he spent watching his parents he would be just as messed up as the GTA kid.

Just watching Tella Tubbies for small amounts of time will screw you up for life. I have flipped the channel and just caught a glimpse, look how I turn out.:gasp:

[Kugyince]

I think I'm going to play the devil's advocate here since everyone's taking the easy road out.

Point 1: Sure parents are suppose to monitor their children but lets be adults here. Not all parents do, nor do they care to.

Point 2: Do you really think that everyone who's committed a violent act suffered from bad parenting?

Obviously parenting isn't the only factor.

[sabby]

It's not the only factor, but it's a major factor. In pro sports, you can tell which athletes did not have a stable parental figure in their lives. The "me-me" guys (T.O.) and the guys that seem to be always in the news for off-field behavior (Pac-Man Jones) didn't have a father figure to set them straight. You never hear about Donovan McNabb getting into trouble with the law, had parental stability at home. The way America obsesses over athletes if McNabb got in trouble it would be all over the news.

[Kugyince]

You're avoiding the main integer of the discussion. If both points one and two are true, wouldn't it be more prudent to further regulate media violence?

[Hobbes]

I see what Tenser is saying. The problem becomes where is the line drawn? Also who decides on the line? Also once you have a line, you have to understand that it is not a 1 size fits all solution. Hard questions usually require difficult solutions, but no one wants to deal with that. Easy answers only please.

I find it interesting that currently profanity is very regulated in the media, at least in the US (FCC) while violence is allowed. (South Park movie anyone? Loved it I thought it was brilliant). Sorry to those overseas, and outside the US, as most Americans I tend to focus only on our culture. Also here in the US sexuality is allowed to run ramped, although nudity still remains censored.

[sabby]

Originally Posted by Tenser

Obviously parenting isn't the only factor.

Originally Posted by sabby

It's not the only factor, but it's a major factor.

I was just commenting on the above statement. I think the only thing we can agree on is that there is not one solid reason for violent behavior in children (and adults for that matter). There are many factors such as parenting, economic background, internal and external environments, mental make-up just to name a few. In my opinion, the factors I have listed have more influence than any video game would or that matter should.

Originally Posted by Tenser

First, video games are not about stepping away from reality, they're only meant to be a source of entertainment. The two are quite different. Playing a video game to "step away from reality" is just another form of escapism. Much in the same reasoning why the alcoholic drinks or the drug addict abuses narcotics. Addiction and escapism are two branches of the same tree. I'm entertained by the thought of saving the princess but I don't do this to step away from reality, and I sincerely pity the person who does.

Originally Posted by Tenser

Link to quote

I totally agree with your statement here. I'm not sure who is getting protected if games are more strongly regulated. Do I believe that the current rating systems that are in place for movies and games are good? Yes. Do I think the penalties for allowing underage people to view movies and purchase games they aren't supposed to strict enough? No, because if they were, less people would run the risk of getting caught.

To sum up, I'm not sure more regulation is the answer.

[Kong]

If you are going to say "Some people do not make good parents therefore we are going to issue a set of rules that all children must follow" then why not take it a step further. Issue parent licenses before having children just like a driver's license is required to drive. A driver's license is required because if you do not know what you are doing then you can hurt other people. I think the same could be said about parenting.

It will never happen but in my version of Utopia you would have to pass a test before procreating.

There are really only four ways you can play these types of games.
1. An adult gives you $50.
2. You play at a friends house.
3. You download it from the Internet.
4. You steal it.

#1-3 are fairly easy to supervise. #4 is unlikely and if this is how the kid got the game then playing the game is not the source of the problem but a result of the problem.

And to answer Tenser's question - I do not believe that every kid that committed a violent act had bad parents. I believe in an even mixture of nature and nurture and not all of nurture is controlled by the parents. The best parents can have bad kids and vice versa.

Anyways I think the real question has nothing to do with parents. What is being asked is could a healthy happy kid be spoiled by playing a violent game.

I think the answer is no.

A case study would be very easy as well. Gather as many kids as you can who have parents that are willing to allow them to participate in the study. Divide them into 3 groups. Group A plays Violent games. Group B plays non-violent games. Group C does not play games. Day one - give everyone a psych exam. Day 365 give an exit psych exam. Compare results.

A separate but similar question. What do the parents here think of their children on the Internet? I think this is a much more important question because the possibility for good and bad are so much more extreme. For one you could download any game from the Internet so this question encompasses the first question.

[Kugyince]

Let me state two things before we continue this interesting discussion.

1) I personally do not agree with forced regulation. As long as a things are clearly labeled for what they are adults should be responsible enough to regulate themselves and their offspring.

2) I'm only stating opinions that I do not agree with to further a discussion I'm enjoying.

Now it's been awhile since I've looked but I do believe that a video game's ESRB rating barely gives out any information on the game. I would like to see a more descriptive rating. Why has it rated T for teen? Language? Violence? Sexual situations? Glorification of criminal acts?
_________________________________________________

Originally Posted by Kong

If you are going to say "Some people do not make good parents therefore we are going to issue a set of rules that all children must follow" then why not take it a step further. Issue parent licenses before having children just like a driver's license is required to drive. A driver's license is required because if you do not know what you are doing then you can hurt other people. I think the same could be said about parenting.

It will never happen but in my version of Utopia you would have to pass a test before procreating.

That is an extremely scary thought my friend. I do not believe you've fully thought of the repercussions of such an act before you stated this. At least I hope that is the case.

Who is to say who will be a good or bad parent until that person has had a child? Having a child completely alters a person's psyche in an unfathomable way. I'm sorry but I can't really explain it, it's something only another parent would understand. You can not judge someone on potential grievous acts.


Also, reproduction is a basic and fundamental human right. The ability to carry on one's own genetic lineage deserves to be allowed to every human, no matter how deprived they may be. Anything less would be a massive error. As a man interested in science you should already know the importance and benefits of a diverse gene pool from which to draw from.

Once you start picking and choosing who's allowed to pass on their genetic traits and who isn't you start entering one of the greatest sins. Maybe he shouldn't have a child because he's an ex-pedophile. Maybe she shouldn't have a child because she's mentally disabled. Maybe we could limit it to white, blue-eyed blond haired Christians? Altering the gene pool certainly worked in he Great Leap Forward for China and the Germans almost had it down pat in the 40's.

I know I'm pretty wet behind the ears around here, but I think everybody involved in this discussion can agree that a violent video game is not going to make a well-balanced, healthy, and mentally stable young person go out and committ a violent act upon another human being. It's my opinion that exposure to violent images could trigger a violent reaction in a person who has a predisposition for committing some type of violent act. Whether that's true or not, I can't say.

I believe the issue about parents being able to control what their children view is kind of a non-issue. Like Kong said, there are ways kids can get involved in things without having their parents know about it. The smarter the child is the more likely the child will be able to con his or her parents. A lot of kids with good parents do some pretty messed up things. Many factors play a part in those particular things, but bad parenting is not always one of them.

In reality, probably the worst thing a video game can do to a child is cause them to have a decreased amount of exercise and physical activity which could in turn lead to poor health in general. This, of course, probably does not happen to the majority of children who play video games, but I think it would be easier to find a correlation between those two things as compared to video games and violent behavior...anybody agree?

[Kong]

:@: Tener. Actually I have thought about this before.

I am not talking about anything difficult. How many people do you know that could not eventually pass a driver's test. They probably had to take a class at least once before passing but the test is easy. All I am saying is have the same level of class/test for parenting. The scary part is to enforce this you would have to give mandatory temporary birth control injections to anyone that has not yet passed the test. Or use a monetary punishment like China does (China taxes citizens that have children without permission.)

I think there would be two different levels of extreme that this could go to.
1. A basic test similar to a driver's license test.
2. A screening policy conducted by a trained psychiatrist that would deny people that are predicted to abuse their children or make other grave mistakes.

I believe that this second option would be a step too far. I believe your comments are more towards option 2 while I am talking more about option 1.

While I think a mandatory parenting course would be beneficial I know I stand in the minority and it will never be mandatory.

China's Great Leap Forward and their One Child Policy are two separate things and neither the OCP or the Final Solution has a direct correlation to requiring would be parents to take a class first.

What about my Internet question? How much freedom should parent's give their child on the Internet?

[BigChunk76]

My biggest problem with the whole"video games cause violence" arguement is when parents automatically use that as the reason for why their children hurt another person. For example, I read about a 17 year old who killed a 14 year old. The parents automatically claimed the murder was because "he was obsessed with the game "Manhunt". However, police investigations showed that the 14 yeard old was the one who owned the game despite the fact he was under 18. The police finally found that the murder was because of a drug-related robbery

On the other hand, the investigations of the Columbine School shootings uncovered that one of the shooters was obessed with the game Doom. It was shown that he had created levels that were based on the school and were most likely used as an early planning stage of the shooting.

The first case shows that many parents love to jump on the "video game violence" bandwagon. However, if the 17 year old was the "obsessed" with Manhunt he would have found a way to obatin the game to play all the time. Also, these kids were obviously already involved in wrong doings before the violence took place.

The Columbine case shows that although Doom may not have been the main reasone why the 2 kids shot up their school. However, it does show how videogames can be used beyond their intended purpose, espcially with games getting more and more realistic everyday.

EDIT: Just for reference Case 1 happened in the UK while the Colombine shooting was in the US

[V ideoY3K]

Here's another one of the old topics I decided to breathe new life into. I just want to know what you all think about this. Me? Personally I don't think video games are hazardous to children unless they're 7 or 8 years old & playing GTA or any type like that. And there are way too many FPS out there, & I believe all they do is teach a 7 or 8 year old that it's okay to shoot people. I think parents should be sit with their 7 or 8 year old when they play those type of games & every once in a while tell them that it's not alright to shoot people or run them over with a car. The kids should be thought that though not as aggressive as in GTA, every time you break a law, the cops will get you & put you in jail. And cursing is wrong too.

[Dudebro]

And there are way too many FPS out there, & I believe all they do is teach a 7 or 8 year old that it's okay to shoot people.

Maybe some kids. I doubt most would assume a game translates to real life. How is a video game any different than a violent movie? When I was young(like second grade?) I watched terminator, I never once thought it was a good idea to kill anyone. I hate this line of thinking. IT'S A VIDEOGAME NOT A MURDER SIM. The only games this should apply to is games like Postal or Manhunt.

[V ideoY3K]

Originally Posted by Dudebro

Maybe some kids. I doubt most would assume a game translates to real life. How is a video game any different than a violent movie? When I was young(like second grade?) I watched terminator, I never once thought it was a good idea to kill anyone. I hate this line of thinking. IT'S A VIDEOGAME NOT A MURDER SIM. The only games this should apply to is games like Postal or Manhunt.

I do admit that there are some that are okay even for a child to play. Virtual Cop is my favorite.
I also like the Tom Clancy & SOCOM games because thinking encourage thinking first before stepping into the line of fire, just like in a war.
An expert can run and gun on those & still beat the levels. But if you're a beginner, you're better off safe then sorry.

[laserboy1134]

It's your responsibility to keep your kids away from games. If a game is rated M for Mature, then it's made for Mature people. Video Games don't make you do stupid crap, your own stupidity does. If there is a house where your child would have access to those games, tell the parents not to let your child play it there. Take responsibility.