Researcher Links Violent Video Games To Moral Maturity Development

[Gorrath]

snip

It looks at one angle only and draws a correlation without validating the correlation against a control. I'd contend (as I have above) that anybody spending a large amount of time in alone-time pursuits is likely to be somewhat less socially mature/adept than people with more balanced day-planners.

And yet your contention is not what they found when they compiled the results of the study. As was mentioned, individuals playing violent videogames for extended periods scored lower on the test. People playing non-violent videogames for extended periods did not score lower on the test. While I am perfectly inclined to agree that this study is imperfect and only part of a larger body of work that needs done, your assertion seems based on even less evidence than their's is. What's more, I find your description of the correlation they seem to be drawing to be a rather bad analogy. I do not say any of this with a confrontational tone by the by, I simply find that you might be discarding their findings out of hand while suggesting an alternative view that isn't backed up by anything in this particular study.

 

[Kyogissun]

If this researcher is building this research towards the concept of 'Kids showing negative behavior after playing violent video games can be indicative of the kid having more serious mental and social issues' then I'm all for this research. I mean the school shootings, the dude who was SUPPOSEDLY a reformed criminal who went and burned down the house in Webster NY and more, honestly I am all for video games being used as a tool to flag someone for studies of potential sociopathic behavior.

What I REALLY hope is that this wasn't done to be tacked onto the 'violent video games make people violent' debate. I feel the same way about violent video games, guns, alcohol and the like. None of those are harmful (Or at least, not harmful in moderation like alcohol) themselves... They're harmful in the hands of the wrong people.

But I like the think the more rational and sane people watching/partaking in this debate already are aware of that and the idiots on both sides proceed to attack the other side the moment they so much as blink.

 

[Bad Player]

As far as I can tell, the author of the study isn't saying games make kids DO anything. Before anyone freaks out, this study measured self-reported responses from children about their game-playing habits and did a correlation study to what they scored on a standard moral reasoning test. The author is making no claims of causation, nor is this a useless study. While there is no reason to believe that violent videogames make people act violently, studying correlations between our habits and our behaviors is not a waste of time.

Taken from the paper itself: "In summary, the present findings suggest that playing violent video games may hinder moral development in some adolescents."

While the author is not making definitive claims of causality, she is offering it as an implication of the study. And while she's not saying that video games directly cause violent behavior, she is suggesting that video games cause children to morally develop slowly, even if the claim isn't definite.

Is it not possible that people with stunted moral development are more drawn to violent video games than others? (Or perhaps Martians secretly brainwashed those kids, causing both a reduction in moral development and an attraction to moral video games? An unlikely explanation for the correlation, I admit, but you never know...)


Don't confound the arguments. Is it good for a kid to spend 3+ hours a day playing violent video games? Probably not. Should they be active in the community, helping out and volunteering, and being social? Sure. Should parents take an active part in their kids' lives, and make sure their kids are experiencing media appropriate for their age? Of course. Could violent video games cause stunted moral development? Sure, I can see that.

Should a research paper present correlation as causation? Nope.

(What they should have said is something like, "In summary, the present findings demonstrate a link between playing violent video games and hindered moral development in the study group. One possible explanation for this result is that the violent video games hindered the adolescents' moral development.")

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

109 is? not really a sample size I'd be terribly impressed with under most circumstances. From 7 schools whispers "cherry picked" to me. It sounds like someone couldn't get a decent grant, which is not usually very encouraging either.

All in all, I'm going to dismiss this one I think - unless I see some serious follow up or something really compelling in the original research.

 

[Sanunes]

Now, were they online with a bunch of jerks on an online service or doing single player games? For if they are online it might not be the nature of the game itself, but the group of people they are the cause.

 

[Gorrath]

While the author is not making definitive claims of causality, she IS offering it as an implication of the study. And while she's not saying that video games directly cause violent behavior, she IS suggesting that video games cause children to morally develop slowly, even if the claim isn't definite.

Is it not possible that people with stunted moral development are more drawn to violent video games than others? (Or perhaps Martians secretly brainwashed those kids, causing both a reduction in moral development and an attraction to moral video games? An unlikely explanation for the correlation, I admit, but you never know...)

Don't confound the arguments. Is it good for a kid to spend 3+ hours a day playing violent video games? Probably not. Should they be active in the community, helping out and volunteering, and being social? Sure. Should parents take an active part in their kids' lives, and make sure their kids are experiencing media appropriate for their age? Of course. Could violent video games cause stunted moral development? Sure, I can see that.

Should a research paper present correlation as causation? Nope.

(What they SHOULD have said is something like, "In summary, the present findings demonstrate a link between playing violent video games and hindered moral development in the study group. One possible explanation for this result is that the violent video games hindered the adolescents' moral development.")

I think you and I have a different take on what the author is saying. Your proposed revision to the study's summary does not read any different in my mind than the one in the paper. It's worded differently, but I read the implication as the same. You seem to be suggesting that she says it's correlative but she totally implies is causative. I read the study and all I get from it is that it showed a correlation between extended periods of children playing violent games and what they scored on a standard morality test. I don't see the controversy here. As you noted, she is most certainly not making definitive claims of causation, just looking at casual links and asking people to consider possibilities.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Kiiiiiiiiiinda wish some of the commenters read the study before immediately responding.
As far as I can see, they made a case (maybe with some gaps, I think they could have used a better control group and just more groups in general) and presented what evidence they had, but it's a study by a group at a University. Not saying they're definitely correct, but it's kinda arrogant to just label them wrong because YOU aren't a psychopath. Cite other sources, worst case conduct your own study.
Again, they could be wrong and maybe there isn't a link between spending 3+ hours a day playing video-games and impaired social skills.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I read the study and all I get from it is that it showed a correlation between extended periods of children playing violent games and what they scored on a standard morality test.

Just figured I'd say "In summary, the present findings suggest that playing violent video games may hinder moral development in some adolescents." is not a statement limiting itself to correlation. It pretty clearly makes a point of reinforcing the idea that violent video games lead to those results, as opposed to say, someone who would score lower on those tests gravitating towards violent video games, or even that other factors that lead to a preference for violent video games also "hinder moral development". So yeah, by finding a correlation and then pushing an interpretation of what that correlation suggests with too small a sample size to rule out other possibilities they're implying causation.

 

[Agayek]

Kiiiiiiiiiinda wish some of the commenters read the study before immediately responding.
As far as I can see, they made a case (maybe with some gaps, I think they could have used a better control group and just more groups in general) and presented what evidence they had, but it's a study by a group at a University. Not saying they're definitely correct, but it's kinda arrogant to just label them wrong because YOU aren't a psychopath. Cite other sources, worst case conduct your own study.
Again, they could be wrong and maybe there isn't a link between spending 3+ hours a day playing video-games and impaired social skills.

Pretty much this.

I find it kinda disturbing how most everyone in this thread dismissed the results of this study without even looking at the evidence, with the only reason being some version of "I did/know someone who did that and I/they turned out fine". It's intellectual cowardice at best.

The study may or may not be wholly correct, I don't know (and honestly, I don't much care), I just find the sneering condescension for science that doesn't fit preconceived notions to be more than a little disturbing.

 

[Gorrath]

I read the study and all I get from it is that it showed a correlation between extended periods of children playing violent games and what they scored on a standard morality test.

Just figured I'd say "In summary, the present findings suggest that playing violent video games may hinder moral development in some adolescents." is not a statement limiting itself to correlation. It pretty clearly makes a point of reinforcing the idea that violent video games lead to those results, as opposed to say, someone who would score lower on those tests gravitating towards violent video games, or even that other factors that lead to a preference for violent video games also "hinder moral development". So yeah, by finding a correlation and then pushing an interpretation of what that correlation suggests with too small a sample size to rule out other possibilities they're implying causation.

I've never read an interpretation of the words "suggest", "may" and "some" in a study summary that somehow translated to "X causes Y". I get that a lot of people seem to be reading it to mean that, but I'm at a total loss as to why. As for people banging on about the sample size, correlative studies like the one here often have University mandated minimum sample sizes of between 30 and 100 depending on the University and the study. Nothing about the sample size included in this study is out of whack with what is proposed in the study.

 

[Gorrath]

Wait now hang on. Sociomoral Maturity? This is what now? Because Moral Maturity is a thing that doesn't exist, Morals are right and wrong and honestly that's a very subjective thing. Never mind that it will shift quite drastically depending on one's current situation, so yeah...

It also there's an interesting question that they seem to leave out. were they that way before or after? see there's the key point. It's onething to say that those that said they played 3 or mor hours scored lower, but were these individuals scoring higher before they developed the habit of playing violent video games 3 hours a day?

How do you even measure something like that, since the sort of questions I imagine carry a heavy amount of Social Acceptability Bias (ie people will give the answer they feel is socially acceptable rather than their real answer). Sort of like if you ask 100 people if they lie. Most will say 'No'. Anyone who knows human nature knows that anyone who says no is themselves a liar.

Same deal here, there are probably more than a few who would not admit to playing violent video games that much for fear of social stigma and as for the questions that pertain to sociomoral maturity well same deal, they'll pick the answer that society will approve, those that score lower may just be the ones who are more honest.

I don't intend to cause a big argument with you, but there are a lot more to morals than simply right and wrong. If that were the case there would be no such animal as the "moral dilemma". Sociomoral Maturity is measured by several standardized tests developed for the task. There is plenty of literature out there in academia about the development of morality and the tests used to measure it. The study here, while not above reproach, isn't using any bizarre methodology and that these tests are common practice in such studies.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I've never read an interpretation of the words "suggest", "may" and "some" in a study summary that somehow translated to "X causes Y". I get that a lot of people seem to be reading it to mean that, but I'm at a total loss as to why. As for people banging on about the sample size, correlative studies like the one here often have University mandated minimum sample sizes of between 30 and 100 depending on the University and the study. Nothing about the sample size included in this study is out of whack with what is proposed in the study.

It isn't that single statement that implies that. Multiple bits of the Implications and Future Research sections of the paper do. For another example, how about "Future research can expand these findings in a variety of ways. One direction for future research may involve investigation of how other individual variables, such as personality, socioeconomic status, and family situation, may mitigate the effects of violent video game playing on real aggression." implying that video games are the cause via claiming that all other factors mitigate the damage they do?

I'm not saying the study is completely bogus, as it does help to establish correlation, but that doesn't change that the study, whether intentionally or not, implies causation by exclusively and repeatedly relating the correlation to a single potential cause-effect relationship.

 

[Requia]

Now, were they online with a bunch of jerks on an online service or doing single player games? For if they are online it might not be the nature of the game itself, but the group of people they are the cause.

The most common video game reported as being played often in the study (about a third of the kids no less, over half of those in the violent game group) was the Call of Duty series, so yeah online play is significant. Importantly the researchers may not understand that, when they describe CoD they described a single player campaign, and said single player campaign is probably not what kids are playing. Though the most common nonviolent games are NHL/NFL games, and I think those are just as prone to online play these days, however that isn't necessarily the same culture of online play (at least I'm pretty sure hockey avatars don't tea bag each other).

[

Should a research paper present correlation as causation? Nope.

Don't judge a research paper you haven't even read, it does no such thing. And the correlation is not causation thing is internet pseudo-intellectual speak. You don't get to dismiss correlations that easy. It is a legitimate reason to look for alternate explanations for the correlation, but you have to actually *suggest* why the two would be correlated if it's not because of causation (IE, because Call of Duty players are raging asshats and spending three hours a day listening to them is probably a bad thing).

Andy Chalk: Please cite the fucking paper when doing science reporting. Also your headline says the opposite of what your article says, it implies that video games make kids more moral. Which would have been hilarious, but isn't true.

To all: THERE IS NOTHING FUCKING WRONG WITH THE SAMPLE SIZE. Jesus Christ you can do good statistics at n=10 if the effect size is strong enough, n=45 is fine. Small sample size issues don't even work that way, the problems you can get from small sample sizes are incorrect effect size estimates (not reported here, so not an issue) and false negatives (so for example it's possible nonviolent games have the same effect, but because the effect is weaker it was not detected).

 

[kanetsb]

Isn't letting kids play violent R-rated games illegal, even for research? That rating is there for a reason...

 

[Gorrath]

I've never read an interpretation of the words "suggest", "may" and "some" in a study summary that somehow translated to "X causes Y". I get that a lot of people seem to be reading it to mean that, but I'm at a total loss as to why. As for people banging on about the sample size, correlative studies like the one here often have University mandated minimum sample sizes of between 30 and 100 depending on the University and the study. Nothing about the sample size included in this study is out of whack with what is proposed in the study.

It isn't that single statement that implies that. Multiple bits of the Implications and Future Research sections of the paper do. For another example, how about "Future research can expand these findings in a variety of ways. One direction for future research may involve investigation of how other individual variables, such as personality, socioeconomic status, and family situation, may mitigate the effects of violent video game playing on real aggression." implying that video games are the cause via claiming that all other factors mitigate the damage they do?

I'm not saying the study is completely bogus, as it does help to establish correlation, but that doesn't change that the study, whether intentionally or not, implies causation by exclusively and repeatedly relating the correlation to a single potential cause-effect relationship.

Again, I don't read the same intent, real or not, in this statement that you do. There is nothing wrong with suggesting that, if there is a correlation between extended periods of violent video game playing and moral development, that future research may look at how other factors might mitigate the findings of correlation. If, for instance, it is found that kids playing violent video games for extended periods, who also have parents who are very involved in their moral development, don't exhibit any issues pertaining to real aggression, then you've got some hard data showing that the correlation they are seeing from moral development tests isn't strong. You could do the same with any of the factors suggested.

Honestly I'm not sure where you and others are coming from on these particular criticisms. In my experience with reading and critical analysis of scientific studies, I don't see anything particularly outrageous about the structure of the study or its conclusions. Nor, it seems, did the University where it was conducted or the editor of the journal in which it was published (Big disclaimer here, I know nothing of the standards of the University or the Journal, if someone can show that there are significant problems with either, I'll concede that point). I'm not saying that my opinion trumps anyone else's here, or that the fact that it was published in a journal makes me right, but I'm going to need something more substantive than what you've proposed to demonstrate to me that the paper is significantly flawed in how it was conducted or the conclusions reached.

Again, I'll grant it isn't perfect and there are parts of it I would have written differently if I were summarizing the findings, but I think there's some serious nit-picking going on (this is not an accusation aimed at you or anyone, just a feeling) to try and dismiss the study because they don't like what it says or what they think it says.

 

[Gorrath]

To all: THERE IS NOTHING FUCKING WRONG WITH THE SAMPLE SIZE. Jesus Christ you can do good statistics at n=10 if the effect size is strong enough, n=45 is fine. Small sample size issues don't even work that way, the problems you can get from small sample sizes are incorrect effect size estimates (not reported here, so not an issue) and false negatives (so for example it's possible nonviolent games have the same effect, but because the effect is weaker it was not detected).

Glad someone came to back me up on this. If you had ten people drink "chemical x" and five died while three got significantly ill, no one would be on here banging on about how the sample size was too small to show that there was a correlation between drinking X and negative effects on human health.

 

[Ickabod]

Causation =/= Correlation

Parents should educate themselves on what their children are doing and then parent accordingly.

 

[klaynexas3]

So those that are already less socially mature tend to play more video games. Why is that somehow a revelation? Or do they think the video games are causing it? That would be rediculous; you'd have to be socially retarded yourself to think such a thing.