Video Games and “Moral Panic”

by on January 23, 2009 · 24 comments

Many folks are discussing Christopher Ferguson’s latest paper on “The School Shooting / Violent Video Game Link: Causal Relationship or Moral Panic?” And with good reason. It’s an important look at how “moral panics” develop in modern society, in this case around video games. [Moral panics is a subject I have written on at length here many times before.  Alice Marwick's brilliant article on "technopanics" is also worth reading in this regard].

As I’ve noted here before, Ferguson has penned many important articles raising questions about the claims made by some other psychologists (and politicians) that there is causal relationship between exposure to violent video games and youth aggression. Ferguson has shown there are reasons to be skeptical of such claims — both methodologically and practically-speaking. More on that down below.

In his latest piece, however, Ferguson, a professor at Texas A&M’s Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice, is more fully developing moral panic theory, which he describes as follows: “A moral panic occurs when a segment of society believes that the behavior or moral choices of others within that society poses a significant risk to the society as a whole.”  To illustrate the various forces at work that drive moral panics, Ferguson uses this “Moral Panic Wheel”:

Moral Panic Wheel [Ferguson] This image makes it clear that there is no one group or factor responsible for moral panics. Rather, it is the combination of many forces and influences that ultimately bring such panic about. Activist groups and agenda-driven researchers obviously play a part. Ferguson notes that:

As for social scientists, it has been observed that a small group of researchers have been most vocal in promoting the anti-game message (Kutner & Olson, 2008), oftentimes ignoring research from other researchers, or failing to disclose problems with their own research. As some researchers have staked their professional reputation on anti-game activism, it may be difficult for these researchers to maintain scientific objectivity regarding the subject of their study. Similarly, it may be argued that granting agencies are more likely to provide grant money when a potential problem is identified, rather than for studying a topic with the possibility that the outcome may reveal that there is nothing to worry about…

Ferguson points out that the media and politicians also play a key role in whipping up a frenzy:

The media dutifully reports on the most negative results, as these results ‘sell’ to an already anxious public. Politicians seize upon the panic, eager to be seen as doing something particular as it gives them an opportunity to appear to be ‘concerned for children’. Media violence, in particular, is an odd social issue with the ability to appeal both to voters on the far right, who typically are concerned for religious reasons, and on the far left, who are typically motivated by pacifism…

Importantly, Ferguson also notes that the generation gap fuels the fires of moral panics: “[T]he majority of individuals critical of video games are above the age of 35 (many are elderly) and oftentimes admit to not having directly experienced the games. Some commentators make claims betraying their unfamiliarity,” he says.

Now, let’s get back to Ferguson’s more general skepticism of what other psychologists or social scientists have said about violent video games causing real world violence. [I highly recommend this layman-friendly essay that Ferguson wrote as an introduction to his thinking on the topic]. In his latest piece, he summarizes what is wrong — both from a methodological and real-world perspective — with that research. Here’s some of what he has to say:

  • “Seldom are actual physical acts of aggression examined” in that research
  • “there are considerable difficulties in generalizing the results from laboratory tests of aggression to real world serious acts of aggression”
  • “the generalisability of these results to real world acts of serious violence is dubious”
  • “most correlational studies fail to take account of potentially confounding ‘third’ variables such as personality, family violence, or genetics. A few do, and consistently find that the link between video game violence and aggression is greatly weakened by the inclusion of ‘third’ variables.”
  • “[there are] significant problems in the violent games literature related to the use of unstandardized, unreliable aggression measures, as well as publication bias.”
  • “the empirical link between violent gameplay and serious acts of aggression or violent behavior appears to be slim at best.”
  • “In at least one recent court case, it was pointed out that even some social scientists have cherry-picked data that support the panic view, ignoring unsupportive research.”

Next, Ferguson does something I have been trying to do in all the papers and essays I have penned on this subject in recent years: Introduce real-world data! After all, if there is anything to the ‘monkey see-monkey do’ theory of media effects, then the lab research should be showing up somehow in the data we have about actual societal trends. Of course, when you do look at real-world data you find the exact opposite story, as Ferguson illustrates:

as violent video games have become more prevalent, violent crimes have decreased dramatically. This is true both for police arrest data, as well as crime victimization data. Similar statistics for reduced crime have been found in Canada, Australia, the European Union, and the United Kingdom using both arrest and victimization data. This is certainly not to say that violent video games are necessarily responsible for this decline, even partially. However, this certainly cuts away the basis of any belief that violent games are promoting societal violence. The correlation (an astonishing r = -0.95) is simply in the wrong direction. This would be akin to lung cancer decreasing radically after smoking cigarettes was introduced into a population, which is simply not the case.
games and violence

(Sources: C.F. Ferguson, ESA, Childsats.org)

I highly recommend Prof. Ferguson’s latest paper and hope that it can contribute to the shaping of a new dialogue about youth and media. We do need to be good stewards of our children and be mindful of watch they watch, listen to, download, and play. [I've written an entire book about how to do so.]  But we first need to bring this moral panic over games to an end so we can get on with a serious, level-headed conversation about how to better mentor our kids in an age of media abundance.  The current hysteria is not helpful.

SHARE: 24 comments

Adam Thierer / Adam is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He previously served as President of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, Director of Telecom. Studies at the Cato Institute, and Fellow in Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation.

  • http://danielperry.com DanielPerry.com

    A similarly disturbing trend is state prosecutors' increasing use of criminal libel laws to exercise jurisdiction over offensive Internet speech. Isn't this a form of reliance upon moral panic? And while these criminal prosecutions are (still) unusual, they seem to be catching the interest of prosecutors nationwide.

    Daniel Perry, Attorney
    http://DanielPerry.com
    http://twitter.com/DanielPerry

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    Daniel… I would love to learn more about that issue from you if you could share information here, or directly. (athierer@pff.org)

  • http://techliberation.com/author/berinszoka/ Berin Szoka

    Nice work, Adam. Did you draw that flow diagram on your Etch-a-Sketch?

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    The chart is really silly–it ignores, for example the demographic shift that underlies much of the decrease in violent crime. This connection between those two factors is explored in the Book Freakonomics, among others.

    But, of course, there are actual behavioral scientists that have explored the links between violent video games and violent behavior. Why don't you provide any links to those studies?

    In any case, here's a summary from the American Psychological Association:

    VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CAN INCREASE AGGRESSION

    May Be More Harmful Than Violent Television and Movies Because of the Interactive Nature of the Games

    WASHINGTON – Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies appearing in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Furthermore, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the researchers.

    “One study reveals that young men who are habitually aggressive may be especially vulnerable to the aggression-enhancing effects of repeated exposure to violent games,” said psychologists Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D. “The other study reveals that even a brief exposure to violent video games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants.”

    The first study involved 227 college students who completed a measure of trait aggressiveness and reported their actual aggressive behaviors (delinquency) in the recent past. They also reported their video game playing habits. “We found that students who reported playing more violent video games in junior and high school engaged in more aggressive behavior,” said lead author Anderson, of Iowa State University. “We also found that amount of time spent playing video games in the past was associated with lower academic grades in college.”

    In the second study, 210 college students played either a violent (Wolfenstein 3D) or nonviolent video game (Myst). A short time later, the students who played the violent video game punished an opponent (received a noise blast with varying intensity) for a longer period of time than did students who had played the nonviolent video game.

    “Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations,” said Dr. Anderson. “In the short run, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise.”

    “One major concern is the active nature of the learning environment of the video game,” say the authors. “This medium is potentially more dangerous than exposure to violent television and movies, which are known to have substantial effects on aggression and violence.”



    http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    Now with respect to Adam's etch-sketch effort, and without commenting on the nonexistent aesthetics of the very ugly thing he has made, it is clear that it is just a string of name-calling, organized in a bubble diagram.

    Outside of making Adam's preconceptions regarding cause and effect crystal clear, exactly what information does it bring to the debate? If it wants to be meaningful, I'd suggest removing the value-laden verbiage like 'fear' and 'uncritically'.

  • JD

    What is so wrong with using the word 'fear'? It has a psychological definition. As for 'uncritically', that has a straightforward meaning. It means devoid of criticism, a bit like the article you posted in your earlier post. Admittedly, you wouldn't expect an article coming from the APA to be critical of the study it is promoting, but that doesn't stop it from finding its way into the mainstream media.

    Also, in line with Ferguson's diagram, it concentrates on the most 'fear supportive' conclusion to the exclusion of all others. “One major concern” becomes the only concern reported. You cannot rely on every journalist to look back at the actual write up of the study and present whatever other possibilities the researchers may have suggested. Or look at other studies with differing conclusions. Or read up on what peers have said about the study.

    The public should not accept it without casting a critical eye over it. The manner in which the APA has presented this study (neatly packaged for fearmongering media coverage) is not condusive to this. In a way, your post shows us a spoke in the 'Moral Panic Wheel' and validates its crude, etcha-sketched existence.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    JD:

    Substituting value neutral factual phrases like “information” for “fear” could be the beginning of modeling the interactions of a complex system, but assigning the name 'fear' and adjectives like 'uncritically' beg the question of whether or not those 'fears' are justified.

    For example, the model could describe the set of actions by which a famine is prevented, by the actions of democratic system to get the information about a famine out, and causing politicians to react to that information thereby preventing a famine.

    The model that describes how a system interacts is one set of information. Whether or not any particular action, given a certain set of circumstances, is justified is a different question. Adam has conflated those two very different things, and this leads to fuzzy thinking about the interactions between elements in the system, as well as the particular case he seeks to criticize.

    To give a concrete example, if someone where opposed to gun control, one could make a chart of the legislative process, describing such steps as 'repressive legislation sent to fascist president for signature' Such a description would cloud whether the legislative process was being criticized in its entirety or if just that particular result was being protested.

    What I see described is the normal process whereby concerns are studied, publicized and acted upon in a democratic society. Describing such steps as “Politicians Promote Fear for Political Gain” could also be described as “Politicians educate public about dangers” or “Politicians react to concerns of Public”

    Of course, then it would be clear what Adam is really opposed to: democratic processes themselves. This is because he realizes there is no hope that normative democratic processes will result in a conclusion that is acceptable to Adam Thierer.

    But it is quite typical to find libertarians at odds with democracy and free expression of ideas. It is rare, however, to find them actually admit it.

  • JD

    Firstly, I must agree that there is certainly some degree of bitterness towards the media and politicians present in Adam's post.

    But, with regards to your point about the model showing nothing more than a democratic process, perhaps the most important thing to take from this is its innappropriate usage. When reporting a famine, there is no 'famine' industry which could be damaged by misinformation. Preparing for (or telling people to prepare for) the worst case scenario in the case of a famine or any other kind of disaster is common sense, but focussing on specific conclusions which would suggest that people should avoid violence in all video games could be considered unnecessary.

    But overall, this entire concept relies on how much people react to studies being reported in the media. I'd imagine these reports do nothing more than annoy sensitive video game enthusiasts and give a little self satisfaction those who've always held the beliefs that the conclusion supports. The point still remains, this process is not ideally applied to research into video games and aggression.

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    First, I didn't construct that diagram; it's pasted directly from the Fergeson article. Who gives a damn what it looks like; it's the substance that counts.

    Second, all this nonsense by “eee_fff” about how I don't believe in democracy is just more of the childish antics he brings to this site whenever he comments. Seriously, are you ever going to grow up? You wonder why many people here refuse to engage you in direct conversation, but do you ever bother reading what you are about to post and think about how to make it more civil and thoughtful?

    Regardless, to answer your criticism… I have no problem with democracies but I do have a problem with untrammeled majoritarianism. Our founders established a constitutional republic which placed certain limits on the ability of majorities to crush the rights of minorities. Some of these constitutional limits — speech rights, for example — are things that some (like “eee”) would apparently subject to the whims of mobs at every juncture, whereas I would like to see democratic rule within the confines of some constitutional limits.

    Third, I find it amusing that anyone could claim I am somehow fundamentally hostile to media since I spend 90% of my time on this site defending media freedom! But, on some occasions, media pushes too far and produces fear-based messages instead of fact-based messages because the former grabs more attention. On those occasions, they should be called out for it, just as Ferguson has done in his paper.

    Fourth, the study that “eee” sites above in the press release was addressed in my previous post on this subject if you follow the links.

  • Pingback: Are Gamers Served by More Government Regulation and Spending? | The Technology Liberation Front

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    JD:

    I agree with your assessment about the bitterness, and I used to find it strange that a libertarian site–ostensibly pro freedom–seems to reach some conclusions that are very freedom-unfriendly. But that's because there are some contradictions inherent in libertarianism.

    As to your point about that this is inappropriate usage of the democratic process, I can agree that such a thing could occur. But perhaps, although there is a video game industry that could be harmed, there is also a larger society that should protect itself. And every society has a duty and e right to protect itself.

    In the case of the video game industry, though the regulation has in fact been extremely mild: just a content warning on the package and a rating system. No sane person is calling for censorship.

    The point still remains, this process is not ideally applied to research into video games and aggression.

    Well jury's still out on that one–what evidence is there that the process hasn't served us well? There exist warning labels on video games and there also exists a strong social opprobrium against buying children violent games. That's a success.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    Second, all this nonsense by “eee_fff” about how I don't believe in democracy is just more of the childish antics he brings to this site whenever he comments.

    Adam, relax. I don't believe that you have a conscious antipathy towards democracy. I do believe that libertarian ideas, taken to their extreme, deny certain results of the democratic process. That's because society enacts rules to protect it, for example: zoning rules. Society also gets together to establish certain rights–such as to health care–that demonstrate the importance of the community, being grater than the sum of its parts. Libertarian ideals deny the validity of these efforts and thereby undermine community.

    But I am most interested in examples of libertarian arguments being used that actually harm instrumental freedoms–for example the stand towards net-neutrality, but that's a separate issue.

    Regardless, to answer your criticism… I have no problem with democracies but I do have a problem with untrammeled majoritarianism. Our founders established a constitutional republic which placed certain limits on the ability of majorities to crush the rights of minorities. Some of these constitutional limits — speech rights, for example — are things that some (like “eee”) would apparently subject to the whims of mobs at every juncture, whereas I would like to see democratic rule within the confines of some constitutional limits.

    But then why do so many here support the DMCA? Isn't that at odds with your ideals regarding freedom?

    Why do so many here at TLF oppose free software?

    Why do I find support for legal limits on the use of certain technologies, i.e., P2P?

    Why can't you decide which democratic body has the authority to tax internet sales?

    It seems to me that libertarian agenda is not at present one of individual freedom but one of corporate power.

    Now I will grant you that certain posters here (for example Tim Lee) don not seem to share the corporate power agenda, but he is the exception not the rule.

    I do find libertarians who say they are pro-freedom and then do things that destroy freedoms to be especially worthy of being rebutted, and called to accounts.

  • Pingback: Collier on “Why Technopanics are Bad” | The Technology Liberation Front

  • http://www.cogswell.edu/program_daa.htm California Animation College

    The School Shooting / Violent Video Game Link-Causal Relationship or Moral Panic ? And with good reason. It’s an important look at how “moral panics” develop in modern society, in this case …

  • http://www.cogswell.edu/program_daa.htm California Animation College

    The School Shooting / Violent Video Game Link-Causal Relationship or Moral Panic ? And with good reason. It’s an important look at how “moral panics” develop in modern society, in this case …

  • uggworld

    Today abercrombie and fitch runs hundreds of retail stores and is doing a very brisk business indeed. hollister is very popular and is often associated with campus sports and lesiure activities. The abercrombie outlet male model sets a new standard in modeling. Male college students are photographed shirtless or sometimes completely nude, frolicking on a beach to help sell hollister clothing. The Abercrombie hoodies and tees sell at a very fast pace, especially in college towns and universities all across the United States. You’d be hard pressed to step onto any college campus across America and not spot dozens of Ruehl No.925 in a very short period of time.

  • uggworld

    Today abercrombie and fitch runs hundreds of retail stores and is doing a very brisk business indeed. hollister is very popular and is often associated with campus sports and lesiure activities. The abercrombie outlet male model sets a new standard in modeling. Male college students are photographed shirtless or sometimes completely nude, frolicking on a beach to help sell hollister clothing. The Abercrombie hoodies and tees sell at a very fast pace, especially in college towns and universities all across the United States. You’d be hard pressed to step onto any college campus across America and not spot dozens of Ruehl No.925 in a very short period of time.

  • Pingback: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog

  • Pingback: Violent Video Games & Youth Violence: What Does Real-World Evidence Suggest?

  • Pingback: Online Gaming Kills Baby (A Korean Media Fairytale) : gordsellar.com

  • Pingback: The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog

  • Pingback: Kids, Media, Commercialism & Moral Panic

  • Pingback: Techno-Panic Cycles (and How the Latest Privacy Scare Fits In)

  • Pingback: Cultural Society & Creative Media : “Moral Panic” « louisecreativemedia

Previous post:

Next post: