All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Aug. 27, 2019 - Skeptoid
17:24
Skeptoid #690: Video Games and Violence

Data does not support the popular belief that video games promote violent behavior. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Blaming Games for Violence 00:14:56
There's a notion popular among the older generation that violent video games cause young people who play them to develop violent behavior.
But when we look at the larger picture, we see that every generation has always vilified younger people's behavior that they see as deviant.
Today we're going to find out what the science shows.
That's coming up next on Skeptoid.
Hi, I'm Alex Goldman.
You may know me as the host of Reply All, but I'm done with that.
I'm doing something else now.
I've started a new podcast called Hyperfixed.
On every episode of Hyperfixed, listeners write in with their problems and I try to solve them.
Some massive and life-altering, and some so minuscule it'll boggle your mind.
No matter the problem, no matter the size, I'm here for you.
That's HyperFixed, the new podcast from Radiotopia.
Find it wherever you listen to podcasts or at hyperfixedpod.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Video games and violence Today we're going to take a long look at a subject that has been appearing in the news almost for as long as video games have existed.
The question of whether or not playing violent video games leads to violent behavior in real life.
The belief has already led to ratings on video games that imply a negative impact from playing them.
All-out bans on violent video games appear on ballots every year.
Major retailers like Walmart have removed displays and signs for the games, while other retailers restrict their sale to customers below certain ages.
Everywhere we turn, the belief that violent video games cause real-life violence impact gamers and the gaming industry.
We're going to have a look at what the science says.
To today's older generation, baby boomers and Generation X who grew up jumping Schwenn stingrays off plywood ramps in the middle of the street, in other words, me, the behavior of Generation Z, those too young to remember 9-11, seems alien.
Older folks grew up before smartphones existed and video games were rudimentary novelties, whereas their children grew up never knowing anything but smartphones and social media.
To us, their behavior seems incomprehensible and unnatural.
To them, our behavior seems incomprehensible and unnatural.
It is perfectly normal for either generation to fear that something's not right with the other generation's behavior, as it represents a type of social interaction that is dramatically different.
This phenomenon is not limited to the current generation.
20 years ago, kids were playing the original first-person shooter games and other role-playing video games, often for hours and sometimes for days, a type of behavior that was completely foreign to their parents, who'd had nothing even remotely like a video game when they were that age.
So it should not surprise us that the default reaction of today's parents, or any parents in recent generations, independent of any science or studies, is to suspect that some of our children's behavior is deviant and therefore very likely the cause of whatever problems they might be having.
This is how our pattern-seeking brains work.
They weave anecdotes together into a bite-sized narrative that seems logical and confirms our suspicions.
The surprise shouldn't be that, despite data to the contrary, some people think violent video games drive violent behavior, and gaming is an addiction requiring treatment.
Rather, the real surprise would be if those beliefs didn't exist.
For a long time, the standard answer to this question coming from the scientific skepticism community has been that the science is clear that violent video games do not make kids more violent or aggressive in real life.
And while this may well be a defensible position, my experience of trolling through the literature on this question is that the literature is absolutely, positively not clear on this.
Rarely have I encountered a topic on which the literature is more contentious.
Early on in the research for this episode, I discovered that selecting references was going to be a problem.
Normally, on a subject, I can say, this large authoritative study found X and the consensus agrees.
But in this case, many of the most prominent papers disagree, and each is followed by boatloads of letters and dissents.
I would have had to step into the role of gatekeeper to select specific references and present them as authoritative, which I'm not qualified to do.
From my survey, it appears to me that the literature falls into three camps.
First, that violent video games do increase violence or aggressive behavior in kids who play them.
Second, that they don't.
And third, which is the largest camp, is a more nuanced view and is the closest thing to what I'd describe as a consensus.
To understand this more nuanced view, let's take a look at perhaps the most impactful publication on the subject.
It's the 2015 Resolution on Violent Video Games by the American Psychological Association.
It's widely cited and being the APA's official position paper, wields maximum authority in the eyes of the media.
It asserts both that violent video games increase aggressive behavior and decrease pro-social behavior.
However, the resolution carefully discriminates between aggression and violence.
All violence, including lethal violence, is aggression, but not all aggression is violence.
This distinction is important for understanding this research literature, which has not focused on lethal violence as an outcome.
Insufficient research has examined whether violent video game use causes lethal violence.
The popular press, however, has scarcely comprehended this difference, and what's happened is that this single publication has been waived as proof positive by both sides that their perspective is the supported one.
One side has mischaracterized it and cartoonishly oversimplified it into playing violent video games turns kids into killers.
The other side has trumpeted it as an affirmation that no good data supports the claim that violent video games correlate with violent behavior, which is indeed what it actually says.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding together.
Get them to air the skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
Media abuse of the 2015 resolution was so rampant that two years later in 2017, one of the APA's 54 divisions, the Society for Media Psychology and Technology, published a clarifying statement that limited its discussion to societal violence, most specifically mass shootings, which was where the media best loved to heap its blame of violent video games.
The statement concluded, These days, just about every child, both boys and girls, plays video games.
Discovering that a young crime perpetrator also happens to play violent video games is no more illustrative than discovering that he or she happens to wear sneakers or used to watch Sesame Street.
This is a classic error, trying to predict something rare, such as a violent crime, by looking at something common, such as playing violent video games, or for that matter, drinking milk.
Confirmation bias has often resulted in the preservation of this false belief.
There have been several shooters who were initially linked to playing violent games, yet upon investigative review were found to be minimal consumers.
These include the perpetrator of the 2007 mass shooting on the Virginia Tech campus, who was found to have no notable exposure to violent games despite initial claims to the contrary.
And the perpetrator of the 2012 mass shooting on the Sandy Hook Elementary campus, who, although reported to have several outdated action-oriented games in his home, was reported by witnesses to mainly play non-violent games, such as Dance Revolution.
Notably, the paper even mentioned the generational problem we discussed earlier.
When a perpetrator is a young male, news media and policymakers often pay extraordinary attention to their media habits.
However, when the perpetrator is an older male, or more rarely a female, the issue of media violence is typically ignored.
Really, what we have here is an attempt to blame a certain unfamiliar, unpredicted behavior, the act of violence, on another unfamiliar yet observed behavior, the playing of violent video games.
When confronted with something that's hard to account for, like an act of great violence, our natural human tendency is to somehow rationalize it by seeking identifiable patterns that can at least appear to explain it.
When a young person does something deviant, our native pattern-matching tendency is to look for something else deviant, which explains it.
The division then laid out a set of recommendations which were better tweaked than those given in the APA's original 2015 paper, given all the media misunderstanding that had taken place in the intervening two years.
The weight of research evidence is unable to support links between violent video games or other violent media and societal violence, it said, and its recommendations were for the media to more properly use some terms and avoid other things altogether.
Its final recommendation, number six, was, News media would benefit from remembering that discovering a young male perpetrator of a crime also happened to play violent video games or watch violent movies is not remarkable given the commonness of such media use among young males.
Such disclosures should not be treated as significant or as causes.
So let's return to the difference between aggression and violence, a difference which may seem insignificant to many laypeople, but to the researchers writing these papers, the difference is a huge one.
It was explained in the division's 2017 statement.
While violence refers to a narrow class of behaviors intended to cause serious physical harm, aggression is a much broader category of behaviors, including many very mild behaviors and some, such as sports aggression, competition, or debating, that are socially sanctioned.
Being an aggressive soccer forward is hardly the same as being a mass shooter, which is a point that one would think shouldn't need to be made, but it's a point that the news media gets wrong nearly every time they report on this subject.
But moreover, aggression is pretty broad and widely found among the general population.
Aggression has many causes, such as family history and mental health.
Consumption of violent media is also widely found among the general population, almost always with no ill effects.
So even this connection is a tenuous one.
So let us conclude by summarizing three key ideas that convey the closest thing we have to a scientific consensus on these questions.
First, violent media, like video games, does not cause violent behavior.
This is an overwhelming finding, despite a fringe of dissent.
Second, violent media, like video games, is one factor in socially sanctioned behavior that is aggressive.
This too is an overwhelming finding, though also with a fringe of dissent.
Third, the degree to which violent media, like video games, causes aggressive behavior is very small.
Aggressive behavior can be caused by multiple factors, and there are other far more powerful causes, like family violence, peer delinquency, and mental health.
If a person has acted aggressively, consumption of violent media, while possibly a factor, is almost certainly one of the weakest influences.
This finding is also a majority consensus, but with dissent on both sides, some finding violent media to be a more significant contributor to aggression, and some finding it to be practically zero.
That's what we know, and it's a far cry from what's usually reported.
Every time there's a highly publicized act of violence, you can practically bet that some reporter will dig up the fact that the perpetrator had played violent video games.
Support Skeptoid Premium 00:02:24
Don't stand for it.
Go to the comments section and set them straight on the science.
You can grab references from the transcript page for this episode on skeptoid.com.
Remember, to form the best solution to a problem, we need to have an accurate understanding of the problem.
Sensational explanations may sell newspapers, but they don't save lives.
And a great big skeptoid shout-out to premium members Topher, Mallory Graydon, Ross Blotcher from the Oh No Ross and Carrie podcast, and Katie Jacobs.
I love connecting with you guys every week and with all the other wonderful supporters and listeners who have been on this journey with me for nearly 13 years.
Each premium member brings the show to an average of 100 new listeners.
So by supporting Skeptoid, you're really supporting your fellow humans who need it.
It's easy to do.
Just come to skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone, this is Adrienne Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the teacher's toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX
Export Selection