Well, I have been trained in suceptability, (I am a training-Hypnotist) and also I have FIRST hand experience that VG can make you more aggressive (I myself used to be very aggressive with video games

Recap: Parents, don't be stupid. Everyone else: leave other people alone unless you have a reasonable suspicion of their children being put in harm's way.

That's complete bullshit. Video games won't make you more aggressive and neither will watching all the seasons of 24 (and while we're on the subject, imitating Jack Bauer is as bad as playing "real life GTA"). We are all influenced by our activities, at a variable extent. If you can separate reality from fiction, you can even play Rapelay (a really crappy game but controversial enough to be stated here).
My point being, if a video game can influence you really bad, you have a previous psychological fragility. Are kids more susceptible to be influenced than adults? Yes, they are. Would I buy GTA to a 9 years old kid? Hell no.

That being said, video games ratings are consultative, nothing more. It is up to the parents to determine if their children can or cannot play and they won't be sued if they don't follow the rating (except for pornographic content). If they happen to make a mistake, they'll have to take full responsability. Actually, I'll quote Phoeni6 because his conclusion is pretty good to my opinion:

I grew up around violent games, I used to play against my dad in Mortal Kombat on N64 back when I was between 2 and 5 years old. Actually the only GTA I played was Vice City and that was when I was 7 years old. God that game was fun. I despised San Andreas soo much.. even more that I was pushed into pirating it for my "friend", he said I'll give you $5 to copy San Andreas for me onto a CD, and if I don't do it he'll beat me up so what choice do I have? <--(I highly doubt that was influenced by VGs most likely his background in bullying)

Oh man.. my childhood is f***ing rough.... Dosen't help that I'm a shy, weak, nerd with very low confidence and terrible fitness. Sounds more like I'm describing Nagisa but that's who I am. My friend asked me to punch him one time (because he knows I'm really weak) and he told me to do my "hardest" punch, did that and it barely affected him, basically made him flinch slightly. FAIL! Also I completely disagree with "Anyone under the age of 15 is easily mold-able" That entirely depends on the person, but I got out of my "bratty" phase when I was 8, and by the time I was 11 I knew what was wrong and what wasn't

Read alot of this thinking 'Buuuullll Shit'.
When I was 7 my dad bought me Gremlins 1&2 (Amazing films) but they're 15s. It didn't make me feed animals after midnight or go on a murderous rampage. When I was 9 I played GTA for the first time with my 13 year old brother and his friend. That didn't affect me either. Hell, I debate ethics with my friends and in the discussion sections of this forum.
Age is an absolutely redundant way of measuring maturity. I know 15 year olds who can drink me under the table, when I was 13 my friends were watching horror films, when I was 11 a classmate had porn for a screensaver - it didn't make him a nudist.
I know people who've smoked since they were 8
I know people who've driven since they were 12, and people who are too scared to drive at 24.

Violent video games don't increase violence, idiots increase violence. I got started by some rather daft guys the other day, maybe a year or two younger than me. Leader of the group pulls out a rusty razor and asks me if I want to get stabbed. Now I could given him the satisfaction of beating me, encouraging him to do it again and again, or I could accept that the risk is actually very low. I told him to go for it, he swung it about a foot from my face, I walked towards him and he ran off.
So to answer your question, no, it's not wrong to give a violent video game to a child. It's wrong to let someone think intimidation/violence is the way to get what they want.

Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).

Problem being, statistics don't validate this theory. Taking the US as example, between 1995 and 2008, arrest rates for juvenile young crimes declined ("Crime in the United States, 2008," FBI website, Sep. 2009) while video game sales skyrocketed ("Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry," Entertainment Software Association website, May 2009).
With Anderson's logic, there should have been more violent crimes for youths, as they play more video games.

Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a.) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b.) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c.) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.

I did read it and I stated this knowingly.
(a.) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing;
This is true.
(b.) youth violent crime rates are decreasing;
This is also true, according to the FBI archives (from 2009).
(c.) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence.
Of course this is untrue.

This is not a myth but a valid argument. If exposure increases and video game violence is an important factor to societal violence, then the rate should increase. It doesn't.

This is not a myth but a valid argument. If exposure increases and video game violence is an important factor to societal violence, then the rate should increase. It doesn't.

Here's the thing, the research on whether video games cause violence is ambiguous at best. Most research papers will show a correlation between violent video games and violent behavior, but it does not mean that video games cause violence. It could be the exact opposite, in fact. Kids/teens who are already violent will look for violent video games to play. Or there could be a third factor (like the "angry" gene) that causes both. All that correlation tells us is that two events are connected in some way. Not that one causes the other.

I will agree with you that video games affect children. But, most of the findings say that the relationship is beneficial. On the physical side, it helps tone fine muscle control. It can also help teach skills like reading, listening, problem solving and understanding relationships. Obviously, the effects are the most beneficial when the games are labeled as educational.

I really hope these were your findings, too - or that your professor will correct you if they're not. Since it was the topic of my dissertation, I spent quite a long time researching this in depth.

As for topic at hand ... I don't think age labels are particularly useful. People who follow the labels are the kinds of parents who would monitor the content of what their children watch, anyway - and they're likely a better judge of how much their child can handle. People who don't follow labels won't notice that it's gone.

As wrong and as inappropriate as you think it is, it's your father's choice to let your brother play a game or not. One of the rights (and responsibilities) as a parent is to decide what's right for their children. And unless they're causing visible harm to the child, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Possible psychological problems 10 years down the line don't count, mind you. These can occur in people whose parents did everything right. If they were a punishable offense, no one would have any children.

It's kind of you to be worried about your brother, but you can't force your dad to listen. What you can do, however, is try to be a good influence on your brother. Try to encourage him to play other games, or give him room to talk about games and his experience. You can't replace a parent, but you can inject some positivity in your brother's life.

@Rob_Riv: I stated that the rate should increase if it's an important factor, which is different from "only" or "primary" (both being false). Even with being only an important factor, with an increase of exposure, the rates should increase. My conclusion being that it's not even an important factor, but a minor one.

This really does sum up this entire argument in my opinion!

In summary, we conducted a state-of-the art meta-analysis on
violent video game effects, one that includes data from more that
10 times as many participants as in meta-analyses conducted by
Ferguson and his colleagues. We included unpublished studies, as
recommended by virtually all meta-analysis experts. We created
and tested stringent inclusion criteria. We conducted appropriate
analyses to assess the impact of publication bias and found minimal bias. One could still argue that the magnitude of effects we
observed was so small that it is trivial, but most meta-analysis
experts, physicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists would disagree with Ferguson and Kilburn on this point as well. Our results
suggest that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts,
angry feelings, and aggressive behaviors and decrease empathic
feelings and prosocial behaviors. Moreover, we obtained similar
effects in Western and Eastern countries. Violent video game
exposure is a causal risk factor for later aggression.

Anderson et al. (2010) included 136 studies in their
meta-analysis; the sampling frame they used is highly inclusive of
both published studies and unpublished studies that have made it
into computerized databases. This is probably about as exhaustive
a sampling of the pre-2009 research literature as one could obtain
and far more than that used in any other review of violent video
game effects

Well, just because it's important, doesn't mean it's not being offset by other reasons.

Just because it's important doesn't mean there should be an increase. There should only be an increase if those three conditions are met.

Yes it should because the two previous are met.

I should try to dig out my references, but while there were a few strong studies that support a correlation between violence in video games and violent behavior (thoughts), most of the research was non-conclusive. The correlation was there, in various degrees, but it wasn't clear enough to suggest causal relationship - as much as that would be beneficial to know.

Bushman and Rothstein (2010) say that "Violent video game exposure is a causal risk factor for later aggression.", and their study was a meta-analysis of 136 studies.

What Anderson is saying, and what I agree with, is just that all three need to be met.

If there was a primary reason, that could outweigh this reason.

Don't be so foolish as to assume that a correlation means a causation.

The point is, sometimes common correlation comes from an entirely different source.
Maybe violent kids are ATTRACTED to violent video games.
Has anyone said that?

The statistics don't matter

I think Johnathan, that you are in danger of being a complete TOOL.

Your comment asking if your dad's access to his own child should be restricted on account of letting his child who is 9 play a violent video game,
offends me and as such i retort with "SFTU you massive twat"

have you ever seen a bunch of 9 year old boys playing?
what do you think happens if you give 2 9 year old boys stood in a field some sticks to play with?
within 5 minutes they are having sword fights.

This is because we descend from Hunter Gatherers - and the games that children play reflect this.
Catch, Hide and seek, play-fighting, dollies, collecting things etc.

Video-games do not make children violent - what turns children into shitty adults - is a lack of proper parenting.
When children only have the media and their mates to provide them with a moral compass - then you get issues.

A child playing a violent game containing "adult" themes for an hour but who has parents that show an interest in his world and provide him with skills and emotional tools to succeed in life, is going to be a lot more balanced than some kid who is ignored by their parents and spends 5 hours every day playing mario games.

Age rating are on the whole - complete bolloxs.
find me a 5 year old that doesn't know the word "fuck" and i shall give you £100
and then there is the massive hypocricy regarding flesh.

the questions we really should be asking is why can i show kids a cartoon in which one character spears the other in the head with a deadly lance - (an act which is illigal and Amoral) - but i cant show two characters kissing naked (something which is legal, positive and morally about as green as you can get)

Why is that?
what are we saying to children?
what does that say about society?
[pubic Hair Photo]
the first thing i saw when i came to this earth was a vagina the size of my head.
yet people are likely to bitch and moan about this picture....

why - thats not even a picture of a vagina, its a picture of some hair.
since when did hair become evil?
when has hair managed to kill people?
or hurt people - are you offended by hair?

why is this bad?
is it to protect the children?
from what?
what are you protecting them from?

it is a picture of the hair next to that which gives life.
and you are going to tell me its bad?

but here these picture -



the gun that has killed more people in the world than any other and a young child who has been shot by one.
THATS OK
No complaints there.

so whats the message the media (and the moderators on here) are sending out to the youth.

consentual sex between adults, appreciation of the human body in its true form (as a posed to the heavily censored and photo shopped versions) and any form of nudity is bad

because any reference to it is considered bad - taboo - and will get you banned from a forum.

and shooting an innocent child in the leg with an ak47 - thats ok - because no one even bats an eyelid.

It seems strange that cartoons and video games aimed at children are all about killing things - be it in a "child friendly way" such as in mario - or a more graphic way such as GTA - but anything sexual is a no no

even the picture posted above - sourced from wikipedia - which shows a womans pubic hair in an unsexual context will have some reaching for the ban hammer -

well bring it - use it - watch me not give a shit - i'm practically done here anyway

So should video games have age ratings. yes - but they should be suggestions - and if a parent wants to allow his child to play a "violent" game - then that is his or her decision.
same applies with films -

we cannot shield children from the adult world - but we can teach them how to react to these themes appropriately.

and shooting an innocent child in the leg with an ak47 - thats ok - because no one even bats an eyelid.

Also, I didn't know what fuck meant until I was 8 I had a sheltered childhood.

If you are really stupid enough to let your young child play GTA and Manhunt and such, then you have some problems.

It just all depends on the child, like me I knew what a lot of things meant because of my school, my parents or my video games didn't teach me any of it. It was a roughish school but it was the only one I could go to, I was bullied a lot. Although there are some games that are rated M but really should be PG or even G, like Burnout Paradise. Moderate violence? all you do is race and smash other cars for fun, Need for Speed is G-PG, so why is Burnout all of a sudden M? No idiot that has access to a car would do that anyway, unless there was something wrong with their brain.

I find that a little offensive >.> I played Manhunt when I was 6, I enjoyed it since it was a good game. GTA can be a good game yet there are so many idiots that think that the game "influenced" them to perform crimes in real life. Their only looking for an excuse to do terrible things. *sigh*

I find that a little offensive >.> I played Manhunt when I was 6, I enjoyed it since it was a good game.

That study was indeed proven wrong. Atleast it was when Good Game did their own research on it and had a chat with some experts. It depends on the indivdual, but it is mostly incorrect for most people in the world.

*sigh* ..http://www.abc.net.au/tv/goodgame/stories/s2215662.htm

research concludes that violent video game exposure is a causal risk factor for later aggression.

I'm gonna stop you there.
The research suggests that violent video game exposure potentially increases aggression later in life. That's your statement as it should be written. For it to 'conclude' anything they would have to take two children with identical aggression, expose them to the exact same environment only one has violent video games, and ten test them long term for increased aggression. From what I've gathered though this is a meta-analysis of studies most of which focused on whether violent people played violent games. This simply isn't enough to draw conclusions from. Hypothesis, yes, but not to say this causes this.
Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc is a fallacy.

The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior.

As with the aggressive behavior results, perhaps the most important finding relative to prior meta-analyses is the significant longitudinal effect of VGV on aggressive cognition. In combination with the experimental and the cross-sectional findings, the data provide strong evidence that playing violent video games is a significant causal risk factor for both short- and long-term increases in aggressive thinking.

Even the weak studies yielded significant overall effects on all six outcome variables. In sum, the only way one can "demonstrate" that the existing literature on violent video game effects does not show multiple causal harmful effects is to use an incredibly small subset of the existing literature, include some of the methodologically poorest studies, exclude many of the methodologically strongest studies, and misuse standard meta-analytic techniques.

Violent video game exposure is a causal risk factor for later aggression

For it to 'conclude' anything they would have to take two children with identical aggression, expose them to the exact same environment only one has violent video games, and ten test them long term for increased aggression. From what I've gathered though this is a meta-analysis of studies most of which focused on whether violent people played violent games.

VGV exposure was significantly related to higher levels of aggressive behavior. Most notably, in longitudinal studies even when sex and Time 1 aggressive behavior were controlled, amount of violent video game play at Time 1 significantly predicted an increase in aggressive behavior at Time 2.

My biological father, humph has gone and brought my NINE year old brother A GTA game for the PSP, now I have no problem with GTA myself it has a rating of 18+ in the UK, What do you think about this...Is my dad being really really Idiotic!!!! Or do you think that the age ratings are stupid!!!!

However, for many children age under 15 they can be directly effected by what they play! They are easily mold-able, they can be affected by things around them, their friends, family, games they play, people they see, everything effects them, playing a game that is full of drugs, violence and sex is just not suitable for a child of nine!!

Well, I have been trained in suceptability, (I am a training-Hypnotist) and also I have FIRST hand experience that VG can make you more aggressive (I myself used to be very aggressive with video games

There are also many studies done... eg this one:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1723

What are you talking about? You're clearly making up that "that study was indeed proven wrong". By the way, the research is a meta-analysis of 136 studies. Perhaps you should provide some evidence for your claims.

About Student Papers
This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations.