[acb-hsp] Pideo Game Manufacturers In Denial

[peter altschul]

Video Game Manufacturers Are in Denial
  Michael Brown Dec 23, 2012
  In the wake of the Newtown massacre, Senator John Rockefeller 
has "called for a national study of the impact of violent 
videogames on children and a review of the rating system," but 
the video game manufacturers claim there is "no connection 
between entertainment and real-life violence." Are they in 
denial?
  On Wednesday, December 19th, the Entertainment Software 
Association (ESA), which represents the $78 billion U.S.  
videogame industry, offered its "heartfelt prayers and 
condolences" to the families of the victims, stating that, "the 
search for meaningful solutions must consider the broad range of 
actual factors that may have contributed to this tragedy."
  For the ESA, however, it appears that one of those "meaningful 
solutions" does not include doing away with or greatly curtailing 
the availability of violent video games: "Any such study," the 
ESA stated, "needs to include the years of extensive research 
that has shown no connection between entertainment and real-life 
violence."
  This is reminiscent of the claims of the tobacco industry not 
that many years ago.  When their companies began to be sued by 
smokers for lung cancer and other diseases, they first claimed 
that research indicated that there was no connection between lung 
cancer and smoking.  Eventually, they grudgingly acknowledged 
that in some cases there could be a connection, but offered this 
defense in court (as summed up by their critics): "Yes, smoking 
causes lung cancer, but not in people who sue us." Are we 
witnessing the same pattern of denial, soon to be followed by 
gradual, grudging admission, when it comes to violent video 
games?
  On the one hand, there is damning anecdotal evidence, from the 
Columbine killers (obsessive players of "Doom," not to mention 
obsessives viewers of the C less-than ber-violent "Natural Born 
Killers" movie), to the Newtown killer (Adam Lanza obsessively 
played "Call of Duty").
  On the other hand, there are academic studies like those of N.  
L.  Carnagey and C.  A.  Anderson (Department of Psychology Iowa 
State University, Ames, IA), which examine the connection between 
violent media (including TV, movies, and video games) and violent 
behavior.  They noted that, "Despite how the news media 
[continue] to portray the effects of media violence, the research 
is clear: youth who view violent television tend to become more 
aggressive adults." With regard to violent video games, they 
noted that, "Because violent video games are a rather new type of 
violent media, the literature examining its negative effects on 
players is rather small, but a rather clear consensus has already 
been reached.  This consensus is virtually identical to the 
conclusions reached in the violent television literature: playing 
violent video games increases aggression. . . .  Recent 
meta-analyses have demonstrated that exposure to violent video 
games increases aggressive behavior, cognition, affect, and 
physiological arousal, and decreases helping behavior." To be 
sure, there are other studies that have questioned these 
conclusions, claiming that the issues are far more complex.
  Psychologist John D.  Grohol wrote that, "I have long been 
skeptical of the direct causation link some professionals 
pronounce exists between increased violence and playing violent 
video games (or video games with violence in them). . . .  So it 
wasn't surprising for me to read that more and more researchers 
are questioning these links, and suggesting that while there may 
be a link, it is a complex and nuanced one.  It's not one that 
easily fits into a 30-second sound bite."
  Grohol highly recommended the book written by psychologist 
Lawrence Kutner and sociologist Cheryl K.  Olso, "Grand Theft 
Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and 
What Parents Can D." Summarizing the results of the $1.5 million 
study carried out by Kutner and Oslo (who do, commendably, call 
for greater parental involvement), Grohol exclaimed, "Surprise, 
surprise! People who may already exhibit signs of anger or 
aggression may be drawn to such games.  The games don't cause the 
anger or aggression.  Such people may also be at greater risk for 
showing increased anger or aggression." In short, according to 
the study (citing only the most relevant results here):
  Teens who are already angry or aggressive likely should be 
limited in their playing of violent video games
  Teens should not play M-rated games
  Girls especially should not play M-rated games
  And of course, all things in moderation.  Playing a video game 
for 6 or 8 hours straight is unhealthy behavior at any age.
  So this is supposed to deny the connection between violent 
behavior and violent video games? It obviously supports the 
argument.
  Few, if any, are claiming that violent video games (or movies 
or TV shows) actually cause violent behavior.  But it cannot 
reasonably be denied that they contribute to violent behavior in 
many cases, in particular when played obsessively.  This seems 
undeniable in at least two ways: These games desensitize those 
who play them for countless hours, and the games help blur the 
distinction between reality and fantasy.
  Years ago, while in Rome, I read the stories of some political 
terrorists who spoke of the trauma they experienced after 
murdering for the first time, a trauma that dissipated and 
disappeared as they killed more people.  In contrast, the 
Columbine killers, just teenagers, reportedly laughed as they cut 
down their classmates and teachers in cold blood.  Tragically, 
this seems to be the new norm.
  Can the manufacturers of violent video games really deny any 
connection between their lucrative products and these horrific, 
murderous acts? Is there no blood on their hands?