NPR science correspondent Shankar Vedantam had a great spot on NPR’s Morning Edition today about the disputes among social scientists over the impact of violent video games on kids. [“It’s A Duel: How Do Violent Video Games Affect Kids?”] You won’t be surprised to hear I wholeheartedly agree with Texas A&M psychologist Chris Ferguson, who noted in the spot:

Ferguson says it’s easy to think senseless video game violence can lead to senseless violence in the real world. But he says that’s mixing up two separate things.  “Many of the games do have morally objectionable material and I think that is where a lot of the debate on this issue went off the rails,” he said. “We kind of mistook our moral concerns about some of these video games, which are very valid — I find many of the games to be morally objectionable — and then assumed that what is morally objectionable is harmful.”

I’ve written about Ferguson’s work and these issues more generally many times over through the years here at the TLF. Here are some of the most relevant essays:

• Video Games, Media Violence & the Cathartic Effect Hypothesis
• More on Monkey See-Monkey Do Theories about Media Violence & Real-World Crime
• Video Games, Free Speech & the Lunacy of “Ecogenerism”
• Video Games and “Moral Panic”
• Video Games, Violence, & Social “Science”: Another Day, Another Fight
• Do video games create cop killers?

In these essays, I’ve tried to make a couple of key points about the social science literature on “media effects” theory:

(1) Lab studies by psychology professors and students are not representative of real-world behavior/results. Indeed, lab experiments are little more than artificial constructions of reality and of only limited value in gauging the impact of violently-themed media on actual human behavior.

(2) Real-world data trends likely offer us a better indication of the impact of media on human behavior over the long-haul. And all those trends show encouraging signs of improvement even as video game consumption among youth and adults increases.

(3) Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Of course, whether we are talking about those artificial lab experiments or the real-world data sets, we must always keep this first principle of statistical analysis in mind.

(4) Finally, it’s worth reconsidering whether more weight should be given to the “cathartic effect hypothesis” in these debates. 

A bit more on this final point since I feel quite passionately about it…

The battle over media effect theory goes all the way back to the great Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. While Plato thought the media of his day (poetry, plays & music) had a deleterious impact on culture and humanity, Aristotle took a very different view. Indeed, most historians believe it was Aristotle who first used the term katharsis when discussing the importance of Greek tragedies, which often contained violent overtones and action. He suggested that these tragedies helped the audience, “through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.” In Part IV of his Poetics, Aristotle spoke highly of tragedies that used provocative or titillating storytelling to its fullest effect:

Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of events inspiring fear or pity. Such an effect is best produced when the events come on us by surprise; and the effect is heightened when, at the same time, they follow as cause and effect. The tragic wonder will then be greater than if they happened of themselves or by accident; for even coincidences are most striking when they have an air of design. We may instance the statue of Mitys at Argos, which fell upon his murderer while he was a spectator at a festival, and killed him. Such events seem not to be due to mere chance. Plots, therefore, constructed on these principles are necessarily the best.

And for me, that remains the best explanation for how humans process dramatic depictions of violence and tragedy. We humans are unique among all mammals in our ability to adapt to changes in our environment and to process new and different forms of content and culture. We process. We learn. We assimilate. We adapt. Thus, we can enjoy the “tragic wonder” of watching a violent Greek drama or playing a violent video game without running for the kitchen to find a knife to plunge into somebody’s back. We can separate fantasy from reality and we do so every day of our lives.

Yet, many social scientists today, echoing Plato, continue to search for proof that the alternative is true and that depictions of violence on the stage or screen will have a direct and quite deleterious impact on human behavior. They subscribe to the “monkey see-monkey do” theory of media effects. Again, I think that’s utterly bogus and flatly contradicted by real-world facts. After all, if there was anything to their theories, shouldn’t it have shown up sometime, somewhere in real-world data trends by now?

Still, don’t expect this debate to ever end.  Just wait till virtual reality technologies go mainstream!  Oh boy, now that will have the “monkey see-monkey do” crowd whipped into a lather.  I look forward to the debate (and to playing those VR games with my kids!)

I’m hoping to get some input from readers as I look to finish up an amicus brief for the forthcoming Schwarzenegger v. EMA video game case. (Respondent briefs are due in mid-Sept and the State of California just filed its brief with the Court today). You will recall that the Supreme Court accepted the case for review in April, meaning it will be the first major case regarding video game speech rights heard by our nation’s highest court. It raises questions about the First Amendment status of games and what rights minors have to buy or play “violent” video games.  One section I hope to include in the brief I’m working on deals with how other forms of media content are increasingly intertwined with video game content. In it, I explain how video games are less of a discreet category of visual entertainment than they once were. I’d welcome ideas for other examples to use relative to the ones you see below.

I begin by discussing games that were inspired by major motion pictures, such as both the recent Star Wars and Lord of the Rings movie trilogies, for example.  I also note that many games were inspired by notable books, such as the LotR games being inspired by Tolkien, and The Godfather video games that were inspired by Mario Puzo’s novel of the same name. I also make mention of The Terminator movies starring California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, which inspired a wide variety of video games, many of which featured his likeness.

More importantly, I highlight how many video games are now inspiring movies, music, books, and comics, including: Prince of Persia, Max Payne, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Doom, Final Fantasy, Halo, and Gears of War. The characters and storylines in the books, comics, and movies based on these games often closely track the video games that inspired them.  Increasingly, therefore, games are developed along parallel tracks with these other forms of content. Thus, to regulate games under the standard California proposes in this case raises the question of whether those other types of media should be regulated in a similar fashion.  Should every iteration of the original game title be regulated under the standard California has suggested if those books, comics, or movies contain violent themes?

If so, it raises profound First Amendment issues—especially for novels and comics. Moreover, to not regulate those other forms of media while regulating game content raises its own set of First Amendment issues. “[T]his type of facial underinclusiveness undermines the claim that the regulation materially advances its alleged interests,” argued the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in ESA v. Foti (2006). After all, what good does it do to merely regulate “a tiny fraction of the media violence to which modern American children are exposed” if all other forms of expression remain available? (See, AAMA v. Kendrick, 2001)

So, again, I’d welcome more (or better) examples to include in this short section of my brief to help me drive this point home to the Court.

I might also make mention of another type of entertainment that could be impacted by this decision and which no one else seems to be thinking about: theme park attractions. Ironically, just a few months ago, my wife and I took the kids on a vacation to Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida.  One of the attractions that my kids — ages 8 and 5 — enjoyed most was “Terminator 2: 3D.” It was their second favorite after the spectacular SpiderMan ride.

But here’s the thing about that Terminator 2 attraction at Universal Studios: it was a surprisingly intense and seriously violent experience. The show features cinematic action combined with real-life actors who run throughout the arena firing shotguns at cybernetic robots that come out of the walls or floors.  During some segments of the show, water sprays the audience, smoke fills the chamber, and the seats and floors vibrate violently as battles take place on stage and on-screen. The actor hosting the show is also choked to death by a cyborg! [see video below at 2:20 mark.]

Now, here’s what’s most interesting to me about the “Terminator 2: 3D” attraction:

1. Children are admitted without restriction to the “Terminator 2: 3D” attraction even though the depictions of “violence” they witness and physically experience are far more intense than any regular movie or video game.
2. Arnold Schwarzenegger filmed segments for the cinematic portions of the “Terminator 2: 3D” attraction.  Of course, this is the same man who would later sign the California video game bill into law and have his state squander millions of taxpayer dollars in court defending it.  All on the ground that we need to keep kids away from “violent” media.  But apparently the kiddies weren’t on his mind when he helped created the “Terminator 2: 3D” attraction!

Again, don’t get me wrong here: My kids loved the T2:3D experience, and Mom and I couldn’t be happier we took them to see it. (We loved it too!)  And, at least so far, my kids have not become murderous thugs or social degenerates from experiencing this intense show, as some in the “monkey see, monkey do” crowd imply will occur if kids see violently-themed entertainment.

Regardless, I think this begs a serious question:  If Gov. Schwarzenegger — or any other lawmaker for that matter — would regulate “violent” video games on the grounds that the experience is too intense and damaging for kids psychologically, then why not regulate theme park attractions on similar grounds?  The “Revenge of the Mummy” ride at Universal Studios (also based on a movie) serves as another example. At one point you are sent to Hell and placed in an imaginary tomb while flames shoot out the walls all around you so that you feel like you are going to be cremated alive.  You can literally feel the heat from the flames on your face.  You cannot possibly convince me that there is any video game experience as frightening as that.  But all the kids went wild!  My daughter made us ride it with her three times!  (Our 5-yr old boy couldn’t go on that one because of a height restriction, but there was no age-based or other type of restriction / warning on the ride.)

Anyway, I welcome more input here about other rides or attractions that are “violent” and that could be impacted by an adverse, anti-free speech ruling by the Supreme Court in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA case.  (I’ve also thought about discussing how many kids are in the audience at boxing, MMA, wrestling matches and other violent sports).

In my opinion, it is up to parents — not the government — to determine what games, movies, music, books, magazines, and theme park attractions that kids get to see, hear, and experience.  I can appreciate that some parents have heightened sensitives about some of these things, but they have the ability — and the responsibility — to make appropriate media determinations for their kids.  We shouldn’t expect The Terminator Arnold Schwarzenegger to be our national nanny.

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”:

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.

(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.