The National Institute on Media and the Family issued its annual report card for the gaming industry yesterday. It noted a number of areas where the industry had regressed compared to advances made in previous years. You can download the report from this page on their site.
I believe that many of their observations are valid, but a few may be skewed. The most prevalent theme throughout the report is their concern with violent media. Though they recognize the maturation of the game-playing public in one sentence, they criticize the industry for making mature titles in another. The fact is that the violence in many of these games is less graphic than content in R-rated movies (which also are targeted to a 17+ year old demographic).
At one point toward the end of the report I found myself a little confused and I re-read a paragraph a few times to try to get my brain wrapped around the logic. Having not read the original book which they cited as research, I don’t know if this assertion is from NIMF or the researchers themselves. On page 14 in the second paragraph under the “Content” sub-heading of the “Research” section, the report cites the book, Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. In this paragraph they state:
Yet, both children and college students were more aggressive to others after playing the aggressive game, even though it did not include what most parents would consider “violent” content. It is important to remember that aggression is typically defined as intentional harm to victims, and not by how graphic it looks.
Correct me if I’m wrong (and chime in below), but according to this, the children and college students intentionally harmed others after playing this game. They define aggression as intentionally harming victims after stating that they players were more aggressive to others after playing the game. Really?
I have no doubt that media can influence behavior and significantly impact the viewer/player. I believe that this is a given. I’ve laughed and cried during films. I have friends who have yelled at their televisions in disgust when characters in their favorite show behave ignorantly. I have witnessed smack talk and elevated emotional reactions during competitive videogame sessions as well. However, I have witnessed all of this behavior during any number of events including baseball games, debate tournaments, and live music concerts. The fact is that we are emotional creatures and we react to input - virtual and real. Our media merely extend our experiential realm. As parents, we need to make sure that our children’s experiences are appropriate for their level of maturity.
Having said that, in spite of any concern I have with specific observations within this report, I whole-heartedly agree with their conclusion which states:
In short, the research published this year continues to provide more evidence about the power of video games to have both intended effects and unintended effects. This wide set of results makes it clear that parents must pay attention to and be involved in children’s video game habits.
This, I believe, is the truth. It is the reason that NIMF continues it’s work and it is why Chris and I created this very site. Download the report and read it. It’s not long and it’s worthwhile information for parents. I invite you to comment on it below or discuss it in our forums.
In a special December supplement of the Journal of Adolescent Health, a number of articles focus on media impact on violence. The suppliment entitled Youth Violence and Electronic Media: Similar Behaviors, Different Venues? is available is available online for free here.
There are a number of interesting articles focused on electronic-mediated bullying and harassment. Though much of this is not focused on gaming in general, these are important and relevant studies to parents. Noted in one of the studies was the fact that approximately 50% of the victims of “online social cruelty” did not know who the bully was. Thus, technology provides the method and opportunity for adolescents to remain anonymous while being hurtful to their peers.
Closer to home is this article on the effects of media violence. In this case, the researcher L. Rowell Huesmann, Ph.D. states that exposure to electronic media violence conclusively “increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior.” This is reinforced with a bar graph that notes the significance of known health threats and places “Media violence and aggression” second only to “Smoking and lung cancer” and above “Condom use and sexually transmitted HIV.”
Whether or not you agree with all of the observations and conclusions presented here, there is some important work and significant data worth noting. If for no other reason than to increase our awareness as parents. Because knowing what to look for helps us better to guide and inspire our children.
This brief article in the San Diego Union Tribune tells of a two-month undercover survey conducted by the National Institute on Media and Family. With the help of a number of youth organizations throughout the United States, they found that out of 60 stores nationwide, 47% sold “M” rated games to “teens younger than 18.”
First things first. If this means that these retailers are selling these games to 16-year-olds and under, then this is a problem that should be addressed. Retailers need to take a more active role in training their staff to properly identify whether or not their prospective customers are old enough to purchase said title. However, if this study is including 17-year-olds in this group, then we have a failure to communicate on a different level.
The ESRB rating “M” for Mature states that a game is intended for an audience who is 17+ years. By definition, these individuals may be minors (if they are not yet 18) and still be able to purchase the game. If this age seems an awkward cut-off point, keep in mind that it matches the age for entering an “R” rated movie without a parent or legal guardian.
Either way, retailers and parents need to be aware of the titles our children are buying and playing.
From GamePolitics comes news of an interesting documentary created by high school students from the Denver School of the Arts. It’s pretty balanced, well produced and hits some really great points. I congratulate the students and look forward to more level-headed pieces like this.
This article in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics identifies a link between viewing violent content and aggressive behavior. In particular, boys ages 2-4 who view violent video content or play violent videogames are predisposed to antisocial behavior evident five years later (ages 7-9).
Interestingly, there was virtually no correlation for the girls of the same age in this study. The researchers suggest that this could be attributed to the difference in socialization between genders.
Special thanks to avid reader David Stoddard for the info!
I found this article from the Guradian rather humorous. According to surveys from Popcap Games “60% [of parents] forbid girls from playing hardcore games - compared to just 37% forbidding boys.” That’s right, sexist parents! As Keith Stuart asks, “Imagine you’re the parent of a teenage daughter - which games would you be most afraid of her playing?”
