NationStates Jolt Archive

Article about the report. For real report, see the Journal of Adolescent Medicine (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6220530.html)

We've argued about it over and over, but now they say that the only stronger correlation is that between Cigarette Smoking and Lung Cancer.

Does this mean that the ESRB rating system should be more strictly enforced? Or perhaps revised to include more games in the already restricted "Mature" rating level?

Admittedly, I hate censorship, and enjoy video games, including those that contain violence, but do our children need more protection than the average parent is willing to provide?

If it were enforced what would stop some nitwit (and there's no shortage of them) from buying games for their kids?

If you try to take away my violent video games, I'll hack you to pieces with a machete! :mad:

First thing to note is that a correlation doesn't equate to causation, especially not when dealing with psychology where concepts such as aggression are related to large number of variables including parenting, socialization, hormone levels, personality, social environment, education level and IQ (there are more, but those are just the broad ones).

This study is not new research so much as a review of all the previous studies over 50 years, albeit using meta-analytic techniques, which is always good (for note, it's not in Journal of Adolescent Medicine, that journal doesn't exist, its in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, but you can find a link to it on the author, Brad Bushman's page, it Huesmann and Bushman (2006)).

I have actually just skimmed the paper, it's an interesting read, and fits with all the previous research I've read on the subject*. I do have to wonder if the person writing the newspaper article was reading the same research. Conclusions to draw from the paper are: yes, repeat exposure to violent media causes a moderate but significant long-term increase in children's anti-social behaviour (effect size just under .2). Theoretical this will happen with ANY violence exposed to (peers/home), this paper just looked at media. How this behaviour is reinforced and viewed within said media is almost as, if not more, important than the violence itself. Also important is how parents react to the child's imitations of this behaviour, which will serve to shape the child's socialization.

My personal conclusions, yes, there should be age certificates on things. The long-term consequences of exposure to violence for adults was quite minimal, and generally mature adults can handle viewing violence as they already have well-established patterns of behaviour. But children probably shouldn't be exposed to excessive amounts of realistic violence (fantasy violence is much more detabable). However, media exposure to violence needs to be considered in the wider-framework of how kids are growing up, and is, overall, a somewhat moderate correlate. Of far more concern is exposure to abuse (especially neglect), domestic violence and poor parental attention, which tend to cause significantly greater effects on kids later chance of violence and criminality. Raise your kids well, chances are they won't be scarred for life if they happen to catch an episode of 24 on TV.

*I am currently doing research on the relation between personality variable and aggression, so I've seen at least some of this literature before.

First thing to note is that a correlation doesn't equate to causation, especially not when dealing with psychology where concepts such as aggression are related to large number of variables including parenting, socialization, hormone levels, personality, social environment, education level and IQ (there are more, but those are just the broad ones).

This study is not new research so much as a review of all the previous studies over 50 years, albeit using meta-analytic techniques, which is always good (for note, it's not in Journal of Adolescent Medicine, that journal doesn't exist, its in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, but you can find a link to it on the author, Brad Bushman's page, it Huesmann and Bushman (2006)).

I have actually just skimmed the paper, it's an interesting read, and fits with all the previous research I've read on the subject*. I do have to wonder if the person writing the newspaper article was reading the same research. Conclusions to draw from the paper are: yes, repeat exposure to violent media causes a moderate but significant long-term increase in children's anti-social behaviour (effect size just under .2). Theoretical this will happen with ANY violence exposed to (peers/home), this paper just looked at media. How this behaviour is reinforced and viewed within said media is almost as, if not more, important than the violence itself. Also important is how parents react to the child's imitations of this behaviour, which will serve to shape the child's socialization.

My personal conclusions, yes, there should be age certificates on things. The long-term consequences of exposure to violence for adults was quite minimal, and generally mature adults can handle viewing violence as they already have well-established patterns of behaviour. But children probably shouldn't be exposed to excessive amounts of realistic violence (fantasy violence is much more detabable). However, media exposure to violence needs to be considered in the wider-framework of how kids are growing up, and is, overall, a somewhat moderate correlate. Of far more concern is exposure to abuse (especially neglect), domestic violence and poor parental attention, which tend to cause significantly greater effects on kids later chance of violence and criminality. Raise your kids well, chances are they won't be scarred for life if they happen to catch an episode of 24 on TV.

*I am currently doing research on the relation between personality variable and aggression, so I've seen at least some of this literature before.

Firstly, yes, I know correlation does not mean causation. I have in fact had Psych 101.

Secondly, *MWAH*, someone knowledgeable on NSG!

Hey they are right!

I have this sudden urge to drop anvils on peoples heads!

Strange: I grew up watching the most violent slasher flicks made, and to date I have not killed (or assaulted) anyone. However, If I hear "Dominic the Donkey" one more time, that may change.

Strange: I grew up watching the most violent slasher flicks made, and to date I have killed (or assaulted) anyone. However, If I hear "Dominic the Donkey" one more time, that may change.

To Google I go!

*scampers off*

If it were enforced what would stop some nitwit (and there's no shortage of them) from buying games for their kids? for one it would take some of the heat off of the stores and programmers and put more responsibility on the adults buying games for their kids.

and reduce the number of lawsuits of the "This company's violent game damaged by child's fragile little mind" type.

Strange: I grew up watching the most violent slasher flicks made, and to date I have killed (or assaulted) anyone. However, If I hear "Dominic the Donkey" one more time, that may change.

>.>

<.<

you mean "and to date I have NOT killed (or assaulted) anyone..." don't you...

well... don't you? :eek:

...and to date I have killed (or assaulted) anyone. However,...

:eek: Mental note. Never piss off Big Jim P :p

the ESRB ratings are irrelevant.

kids arent exposed to violence because of the existence of violent tv, movies or games.

kids are exposed to violence because their parents let them see it. no rating system can keep a parent from buying an inappropriate game and letting the kids play it.

the ESRB ratings are irrelevant.

kids arent exposed to violence because of the existence of violent tv, movies or games.

kids are exposed to violence because their parents let them see it. no rating system can keep a parent from buying an inappropriate game and letting the kids play it.
The purpose of the ESRB and MPAA rating system is to INFORM the Parents/Guardians of children when a game/movie/TV show has exessive violence, profanity, nudity and other objectionable material. The responsiblity of enforcing the rating system still falls on the parents and to some extent, the movie theater/rental/shop.

The purpose of the ESRB and MPAA rating system is to INFORM the Parents/Guardians of children when a game/movie/TV show has exessive violence, profanity, nudity and other objectionable material. The responsiblity of enforcing the rating system still falls on the parents and to some extent, the movie theater/rental/shop.

yeah.

too bad so few parents take the advice. the number of 6 year olds seeing "saw" is far scarier than the movie.

This topic reminds me that my parents didn't let me watch Jurassic Park when it came out :(

They must have a lot of horror movies and video games in Palestine.

for one it would take some of the heat off of the stores and programmers and put more responsibility on the adults buying games for their kids.

and reduce the number of lawsuits of the "This company's violent game damaged by child's fragile little mind" type.



>.>

<.<

you mean "and to date I have NOT killed (or assaulted) anyone..." don't you...

well... don't you? :eek:

Yah, I fixed it.

The first R rated movie I ever saw was Carnosaur (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106521/), I was 6. I have yet to release a horrible virus to rid the world of humanity so the superior dinosaurs may inhabit the earth.

The first R rated movie I saw was Akira. I have yet to kill anyone or even do anything more than slap someone, and I feel horribly guilty about that to this day.

This topic reminds me that my parents didn't let me watch Jurassic Park when it came out :(

For a long time I wasn't even allowed to watch Rugrats...

For a long time I wasn't even allowed to watch Rugrats...

Three letters go here. I expect you can guess which.

Three letters go here. I expect you can guess which.

:confused:

:confused:

The letters were W, T and F. There would also have been a question mark.

yeah.

too bad so few parents take the advice. the number of 6 year olds seeing "saw" is far scarier than the movie.
I remember standing in line to see "Princess Mononoke" and next to me was a mother with several young kids. I calmly informed her that this movie might not be suitable for them and she scoffed saying it's a cartoon... totally ignoring the PG rating.

after the first beheading... I watched as she (and several other parents) drag their kids outta there.

and so I shake my head as people ignore the ratings and then complain how it's the movie industries fault...

They must have a lot of horror movies and video games in Palestine.

Or maybe just so many Palestinians have seen the real thing that it's not videogames or television that inspires more violence but actual violence that inspires violence? Then it's just a monstorous cycle of kids growing up to be violent becasue that's what their parents did and then their children do the same and so on...

But that's a lot of conjecture and speculation for two sentences. I would need to see some real, hard data.

The letters were W, T and F. There would also have been a question mark.

Ok, that's what I thought, and I'm not sure why they wouldn't let me watch it...

Also, they let my younger brother have an M-rated game (Diablo) before they let me have a T-rated game (The Sims).

I remember standing in line to see "Princess Mononoke" and next to me was a mother with several young kids. I calmly informed her that this movie might not be suitable for them and she scoffed saying it's a cartoon... totally ignoring the PG rating.

Princess Mononoke is PG-13.

Or maybe just so many Palestinians have seen the real thing that it's not videogames or television that inspires more violence but actual violence that inspires violence? Then it's just a monstorous cycle of kids growing up to be violent becasue that's what their parents did and then their children do the same and so on...

Almost as if my post were some sort of joke.

Also, they let my younger brother have an M-rated game (Diablo) before they let me have a T-rated game (The Sims).

Gender bias?

Gender bias?

I don't know. Could be. Maybe they thought that the violence and gore wouldn't be as bad as possible "sexual themes" in the Sims. But I don't remember there being anything sexual in the Sims... in the Sims 2 there were, but not in the Sims that I can remember.

Almost as if my post were some sort of joke.
Your sarcasm was still misplaced. Dying of asphyxiation predates the advent of plastic grocery bags, but that doesn't mean plastic grocery bags can't be a cause of asphyxiation in children.
Gender bias?
Doesn't the Sims have sex, or something? It has been forever since I played, but I seem to remember getting a baby somehow. And then it was taken away.

Ok, that's what I thought, and I'm not sure why they wouldn't let me watch it...

Also, they let my younger brother have an M-rated game (Diablo) before they let me have a T-rated game (The Sims).

they probably thought M= Mild. :p

Princess Mononoke is PG-13.

which makes it even worse. :p

Doesn't the Sims have sex, or something? It has been forever since I played, but I seem to remember getting a baby somehow. And then it was taken away.

The Sims 2 does, but IIRC in The Sims they just said something like "Do you want to have a baby?" when they fell in love and then if you said yes a baby appeared.

Except the ESRB/MPAA systems are both skewed against sexual themes as opposed to violence themes. So should a flawed system be more strictly enforced? Is the relationship strong enough with strong enough effects to warrant strict enforcement?

The Sims 2 does, but IIRC in The Sims they just said something like "Do you want to have a baby?" when they fell in love and then if you said yes a baby appeared.

No, there was sex in The Sims. It just wasn't associated with babies.

This topic reminds me that my parents didn't let me watch Jurassic Park when it came out :(


I wish my parents wouldn't have let me watch "It" when i was 10. It gave me nightmares for a week, and gave me plenty of reason to hate clowns. :(

The thing about correlations is they could actually be the reverse of what they indicate. People genetically prone to lung cancer could be more likely to smoke. People more likely to commit violence may be more likely to watch or play violent media. The latter, in fact, is a quite legitimate correlation just by stating it. It does make sense, unlike the former example, which is a bit absurd. In the end correlations don't really prove anything.

No, there was sex in The Sims. It just wasn't associated with babies.

Was it there before any of the expansion packs or not? They wouldn't let me get the Hot Date expansion pack so if it was in there I don't know. But I don't remember there being any in it without the expansion packs...if there was I couldn't see it and had no idea it was there, so it hardly could have been much cause for concern...

I can understand why my parents might have hesitated to get it for me, but I'm more concerned that they were more worried about a 13 year old playing a game that's rated T for people 13 and up than they were about a 10 year old playing a game that's rated M for people 17 and up...

I actually do think that the ratings should be enforced. I am usually against such measures, but as stated before, such things can be easily circumvented by parents who most likely buy the games for the kids anyway. I just hope it gets people to reconsider what they allow their kids to see. I'm not even saying that kids can't handle things, but in this case it should be up to the parents to decide if their children are at that stage yet.

Videogames are not the problem, violent videogames do not cause violence. Now back to the kitchen and make me a sammich or I'll knock your teeth out!

But seriously, every 5 year old should watch the Director's Cut of Robocop and Starship Troopers. Good for 'em it is.

We actually had Huesmann in as a speaker on the application of statistics in the real world a few years back...

What a hack

I dont trust his findings unless I get hold of the raw data myself he kept fucking up all kinds of things like picking wrong congressional models. Hell I am not even sure he could be trusted to fairly gather data.

I only spent 3 hours with the man but I would never ever take it on his word to interpret findings

I wish my parents wouldn't have let me watch "It" when i was 10. It gave me nightmares for a week, and gave me plenty of reason to hate clowns. :(

The book always scared me more than the miniseries...