Comments: 25 Comments (Go to Comments)
Categories: Books, Interview
Tags: grand theft auto, grand theft childhood, gta, hitman, politics, science, violence
In 2007, results from a breakthrough Harvard video game study found that children used video games to manage their feelings, the stereotype of the socially stunted gamer was a myth, and there was no obvious connection between violent games and youth crime. Two of the researchers who conducted the study have written Grand Theft Childhood, due out this spring. Expanding on what they have already written, this authors promise to cut through the “myths and hysteria” about the affects of violent video games on children and address the real issues “parents, teachers and public policy makers” need to be concerned with. Co-author Dr. Cheryl K. Olson was kind enough to answer some questions I had about the book.
Grand Theft Childhood
Authors: Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson
Publisher: Simon & Schuster
Release: April 2008
Game Couch: “Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls” was published in the July 2007 Journal of Adolescent Health. Is Grand Theft Childhood a repackaging of the information for a general audience or something else?
Dr. Olson: The book was based on our two-year, $1.5 million research project at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School – particularly the surveys and focus groups we did with middle-schoolers and their parents, in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.
Our findings have been published in academic journals such Journal of Adolescent Health and Journal of Adolescent Research, with more papers to come. (Academic research takes a ridiculously long time to publish.) But from the start, our research was designed with parents in mind. We weren’t just interested in statistical significance; we wanted to help parents and policymakers understand what’s normal, when to worry about violent video games, and when video games might benefit some kids.
We also drew on years of studies done in the U.S., Europe and Australia, looking at data from many different fields so we could put media violence research into a larger perspective.
GC: Your website mentions that other studies have been misconstrued. In what way and how was the study you conducted different?
Dr. Olson: Until now, the most-publicized studies came from a small group of experimental psychologists, studying college students playing nonviolent or violent games for 15 minutes. It’s debatable whether those studies are relevant to real children, playing self-selected games for their own reasons (not for cash or extra credit!), in social settings, over many years. But media reports and political rhetoric often ignore that distinction.
Also, the most-published researchers have built their careers around media violence. Their studies were designed under the assumption that violent video games are harmful, which dictated the questions they asked and how they framed their results. Media violence is just a small part of what we do, so we could look at the issue with fresh eyes and no agenda.
A few of the ways our research was different: Our studies focused on real kids. Our survey involved over 1200 kids in two states, far more than previous studies of middle-schoolers. Our kids were an ethnically and economically diverse group. Unlike earlier studies, virtually every child at school on the day of our survey filled one out; this high “response rate” means our results are more representative of typical kids. We also surveyed parents, to see how parents and kids differed in their views. Our surveys and focus groups actually asked children why they played video games, and looked at how those motivations were different among subgroups of kids (including children with symptoms of attention deficit disorder and depression).
Another big difference: We did not set out to prove that violent games cause aggressive behavior. First, you can’t show cause-and-effect with a one-time survey. Second, the causes of aggressive behavior are extremely complicated; teasing out the specific contribution of video games is near impossible, especially since kids who are already aggressive seem to prefer violent games and movies.
Instead, we focused on identifying markers of risk: patterns of game play that were associated with problem behaviors, that parents and pediatricians could spot.
GC: One of the findings of the original study (reported in a Massachusetts General Hospital press release) was “Children who play violent games are more likely to play to get their anger out,” and the study noted that while violent video game playing is up, youth crime is in decline. Doesn’t this run contrary to the popular view that violent video games indoctrinate children into a culture of violence?
Dr. Olson: Many children in our survey, as well as our focus groups with boys who play violent games, said they played games to manage their feelings. This included playing games to “help get my anger out,” to forget problems, to relax, and to feel less lonely. Children who played at least one M-rated video game “a lot in the past six months” were significantly more likely to agree that getting anger out was one reason they played video games.
GC: Despite the massive amounts of research conducted, the debate on violent video games is polarized. What would it take to get to a real discussion of this issue?
Dr. Olson: When we began our research, we didn’t fully grasp how politicized and emotional this topic was. An entire chapter of our book is focused on why the experts disagree. It starts with very basic things, such as the definition of “aggression.”
It may take a new generation of researchers and advocates, open to both pros and cons of video games (and who’ve played video games themselves!), to start truly productive discussions.
GC: Grand Theft Auto IV is coming out soon. If I’m the parent of a teenager, what do I need to know about this game and my kid to decide if they should play it or not?
Dr. Olson: One of the most surprising things in our research was how many kids aged 12 to 14 are playing Grand Theft Auto games; the series was #1 among boys, and #2 among girls. So, parents can assume that their teens will play GTA IV sometime, someplace. We recommend looking at screenshots, trailers and reviews and getting familiar with the content, so that you can talk with your kids about your concerns.
If you decide to buy or rent the game, watch your child play until you feel comfortable with his/her response to it. Ask him to teach you something about how to play; most kids welcome the chance to do this. If your child seems angry or upset after playing GTA IV, or is playing for long hours by himself, reconsider your decision.
One reassuring thing we found is that most children who play GTA don’t see the characters as role models, and don’t see the game as like real life. In fact, the “unreality” is one thing they like about the series. They can test boundaries and try things that, as one boy put it, “hopefully, will never happen to you. So you want to experience it a little bit without actually being there.”
One of the biggest draws of GTA seems to be not the violence but the open environment and array of choices: “You can be a good guy and a bad guy at the same time.” Every child will play the game differently.
GC: It’s an election year and one of the issues important to gamers is government regulation of video gaming. What level of involvement do you think the government should have with preventing M-rated games from reaching minors?
Dr. Olson: All previous laws of this type have been overturned, so it’s unlikely that future attempts to ban sales of M games will succeed.
Another issue: We used the M rating as a proxy for violent content in our research, but there’s tremendous variation in this category. Look at the SWAT series vs. the Hitman series: they are both rated M and have similar content descriptors, but one is all about preventing bloodshed and the other…is self-explanatory.
Parent education seems the only feasible way to go.
On March 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 am, Paul wrote:
This was a wonderful interview. Great job,
On March 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm, Nils wrote:
Very well done interview. I’m really happy to see someone at least trying to be objective in researching the issue. Most researchers seem to already have their mind made up before asking the first question.
On March 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm, Vas wrote:
This really made me smile, and it’s completely true. I personally play first-person shooters to get anger, stress and boredom out of my system, and thats near exact as to what they’re trying to prove; it’s what teenagers and adults alike play it for. You arent going to see some 12 year old kid playing Vice City one day, and selling cocaine the next, which is what most parents and “Experts” blow it up into. I get a kick out of it.
On March 4th, 2008 at 8:04 am, Chris wrote:
Gratz on the Newsweek mention!
On March 7th, 2008 at 9:25 am, Silvercube wrote:
I’m 19 and I don’t like GTA.
Its true – maybe I get my anger out in games like DOA 5 and Super Smash Bros. but better in a game then in real life.
Does violent video game desensitize the act of killing?
I don’t know.. I don’t think I would ever have a gun in my home in the first place.
On March 7th, 2008 at 9:26 am, Silvercube wrote:
lol DOA 5.. Ok my brain is not thinking. I mean DOA 4! lol.
On March 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm, Lester Spence wrote:
Hey! This is a good interview. But her arguments against the experimental data are weak. Yes most experiments are conducted on specialized populations (i.e. college kids) and because of that there are questions about generalizability. Yes many of the scholars are violence specialists and may be predisposed to look for trends where they do not exist.
This is the bottom line though–the only way to get at causality is through experiments. Surveys can show associations, and have been USED to articulate causal arguments. Hell, I’ve done it. But experiments are the only way. Take two groups of similarly situated folks, subject one of them to the treatment, one to the control. If there is a difference…it HAS to come from the treatment. In this case you can’t say how long the effect lasts, you can’t say whether the effect is heightened among certain types of gamers. But what she can’t say is that the effect is B.S.
Now if she’d have conducted her OWN experiments on a group of randomly selected “real folk” (either kids, or hardcore gamers) then she could make the claims she does.
But as it stands? Until I read more, the experiments win out.
On March 7th, 2008 at 5:00 pm, J. Thompson, Esq wrote:
Silvercube: “Does violent video game desensitize the act of killing?”
I think one way to answer that question is by asking, “Who cares?” If the juvenile crime rates aren’t rising, you don’t even have correlation between violent actions and violence in media, much less causation.
Another approach is to look at children who are raised in climates and cultures of real-life violence. Does anything that happens in GTA o Postal come close to events in Darfur, Cambodia, WWII-era Europe, or even Israel and Palestine? If growing up in these traumatic real-life environments doesn’t lead to daily murder sprees in those countries’ schools, it seems awfully safe to suggest that video games don’t, either.
On March 8th, 2008 at 12:06 am, Outsider wrote:
“If growing up in these traumatic real-life environments doesn’t lead to daily murder sprees in those countries’ schools, it seems awfully safe to suggest that video games don’t, either.”
But have you see the drawings of young palestinian schoolkids? Their minds are certainly not normal.
On March 8th, 2008 at 1:47 am, Mike wrote:
How about Israeli kids? Would you call them normal? Mentioning just the Palestinians and neglecting the Israelis reflects our horribly lopsided media bias and imo you might want to think about this.
On March 8th, 2008 at 6:39 am, MDC wrote:
Thanks, Mike, I was thinking the same thing.
I really hope this study gets the Concerned Mothers Brigade to STFU for a few minutes, but given that its conclusions can’t be sensationalized by newspapers looking to stir up a little fear, I have a feeling the media is going to relegate it to the back pages, then hype the next pile of garbage from one of Jack Thompson’s buddies.
On March 8th, 2008 at 9:08 am, Scott wrote:
The problem is that there is just too much money to be found in the “research”. Any view can be supported by statistics and this is no different, but the tipping point comes when government and the media start paying for the “right” research. Anything that gets media attention gets funding and anything that mentions the good of the children is going to get a ton of funding. I have played video games all my life and do not believe that violent video games have the stupendous affects that researchers are saying. My children play Halo3, and occasionally Call of Duty 4, and in my view they are still growing up to be productive, intelligent members of society.
On March 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am, Nic wrote:
On the topic of israeli kids and palestinian kids I can only wonder what kind of phsychological effects their conflict has caaused
Ive seen pictures of israeli kindergardeners getting to draw on artillery shells with crayons and chalk, drawing happy faces and all sorts of things, Did they know where these shells were going? they did, But did they know what destruction it would wreak? maybe not. We shouldent worry about GTA IV when kids are drawing butterflies and flowers soon to be used military munitions
On March 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm, John wrote:
Glad to see a more systematic study. It was frustrating to see media handle this without any responsibility, calling upon opinions of wrong people with no sense of science and statistics. This is akin to studies that show negative correlation between prevalence of pornography and sexual violence in societies.
On March 8th, 2008 at 12:19 pm, John wrote:
@Lester Spence
Your emphasis on experiments is misplaced.
You need to worry about causality only IF correlation has been established.
The current data does not even suggest correlation. How do you propose to conduct experiments meaningfully anyway? Experiments are near impossible to do when so many factors are involved that cannot be controlled. Showing experimentally that kids get excited by playing games is about as valuable as saying they get excited when playing contact sports. There is a long road between a laboratory behavioral response to violence in social settings.
On March 8th, 2008 at 8:36 pm, Mark Collins wrote:
I’ve long known this to be true. As an adult, I started playing carmageddon. Now, at the time, i was going through the worst years of my life. And yet, I could play this game, immerse in the virtual unreal violence, get my frustration out, and then deal with my life on an even keel. I had never had the patience to play a game for more than 2 or 3 hours, but that was more than enough. It really does help. I suggest it to adults. Whether it’s Diablo, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, Metal Gear 4, or whatever. Like Steven King said in an aritcle “Why we watch horror movies.” You gotta feed the gators.
On March 10th, 2008 at 2:14 am, benoe wrote:
Interview is great.
Wheteher are these great folks (Dr Olson, GameCouch staff, you, commentreader)aware the global (I mean GLOBAL) effect of findings of the study? Despite the fact that these is maintaned by mere 1200 american kids and their parents?
Are these findings true on Middle East kids? Central European kids? What to do to make sure?
Personally I (a CE adult with a little game expertise) was not surprised, at least I have a really serious study to quote. But I cannot withstand against international oppositions.
On March 10th, 2008 at 10:58 am, Michael wrote:
The ‘Nature vs. Nurture’ debate (which IMO lies at the heart of this and other similar controversies) is ancient. Adding video games as a potentioal nututrer seems to do very little to change the various arguments from either side of this debate.
On March 10th, 2008 at 11:26 am, Paul Kroon wrote:
Is this interview even real? I have doubts it sounds like the questions were geared by the reviewer to benefit the interviewed Doctor.
The web site is nothing but a glorified ad to sell the book.
On March 11th, 2008 at 4:38 am, Terry wrote:
@ Paul Kroon — This is a real interview. Like all my interviews, I asked questions I was interested in learning the answers to.
On March 13th, 2008 at 7:57 am, Nathan wrote:
In a Dr. Spock society where everyone is worried about self-esteem and dresses our children like little skanks, it is nice to see that someone in the scientific/psychological community has finally started pointing the finger of blame back on those who actually cause the problems. I’ve played FPSes and other violent games since High School, and I personally agree that it is just a way to blow off steam without actually having to go to jail for it.
Today’s media likes to hype anything that will sell, and parents and lawyers want to blame video games when little Jimmy goes bonkers and shot his class mates, or blame McDonald’s when you spill coffee on you own lap.
It all comes back to being responsible for your own actions, but sadly society today teaches us that it’s not our fault when we do wrong…such a sad state of affairs.
On March 13th, 2008 at 1:21 pm, Anthony wrote:
The thing that has been bugging me about all this over the last couple of weeks is the idea that playing violent video games is a way to alleviate violent tendencies. I hope people that would commit these kinds of violent acts would get real help.
On March 13th, 2008 at 1:26 pm, Terry wrote:
@ Anthony – I don’t know. There was the study I mentioned here which “showed” we are generally safer when violent movies are released because the people inclined to commit violent acts are watching them instead of acting out. While treatment is preferable, I do think pacification has its place.
On June 8th, 2009 at 4:49 am, Ziv wrote:
I tend to believe that the intital opinion affects the studies results.
However, no doubt that your attitude toward games, not your aptitude, will determine your altitude ..
On June 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 am, johnstevens wrote:
?»?
Yes, it is a good resource.