Many studies have demonstrated a link between violent media, such as video games, and aggressive behavior in children. What if science can show there's a real, longterm effect on the chemistry of the brain, as a study by Indiana University hints at?
Teens who play violent video games show increased activity in areas of the brain linked to emotional arousal and decreased responses in regions that govern self-control, a study released on Tuesday found.
The study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to record tiny metabolic changes in brain activity in 44 adolescents who were asked to perform a series of tasks after playing either a violent or nonviolent video game for 30 minutes.
Attempts to forbid the sale of violent video games to children have failed in several states. If it could be shown that they cause actual harm, would that change the nature of the debate? Or would it still be a First Amendment issue? Most law dealing with juveniles (sexual-consent provisions, for example) hold that children don't have the same ability as adults to make informed judgments. Even if I know violent video games will change my brain chemistry, maybe I want to play them anyway. But would letting the kids play with them fall into the same category as letting them drink? Just wondering.
Comments
I have to admit that even at my age (54)...I enjoy a rousing bout with my playstation and a copy of RAINBOX SIX from TIME TO TIME...(once every few months).
There are more factors that lead to chemical changes in the brain, and video games are but a part of that. Everything from parental "disputes" to a dog barking triggers something "upstairs".
As an adjunct, if you were to consider not just the chemical but physiological changes in the ENTIRE BODY due to excessively LOUD (120+Db) music, which permeates most all facets of our society, you'd find some scary results. Funny, I don't see any "secondhand noise" advocates breaking down any congressional doors.
But that does explain why children have trouble learning in school.
I would think that the frequency and duration of these activities which are deemed harmful is what needs to be addressed, rather than the activity per se.
Video games can be fun, IF it doesn't become obsessive, although there are some video games that push the boundaries of discretion and taste.
And when it comes to discretion, the first line of defense should be the parents.
Another case of personal responsibility, I suppose.
B.G.
There's a problem with your assertion - this study doesn't show or hint at long-term effects as far as I can tell. This study is about short term effects, and only indicates arousal of the fight or flight response.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying there aren't any long term effects, just that the study doesn't show any. I am in agreement with Bob that the parents should be the first line of defense. The primary thing is to teach kids the difference between fantasy and reality as well as how to manage their time.
I don't know about longterm effects, either. I just said, "What if . . .?" Would that change how we argue about the issue?
I suppose it's your headline that made me think you were making an assertion - 'Real Harm'. I see a lot of reactionary headlines for studies that don't actually reflect what the study says and it gets on my nerves. Also you do say that the study hints at long term effects, which I don't think it really does.
The fact is, if short term effects are harmful, long term effects are certain to be cumulatively harmful. Even if one becomes calloused to the emotional assault with time and repetition, what psych professional would claim that is no longer a health issue?
Psychologists used to think that expressing aggression in man-made scenarios was a healthy release, but for a long time now they've concluded acting out aggressive feelings merely reinforces them.
Nobody wants to open this can, because video media is so much a part of Americans' daily lives (and child rearing routines).
That should tell us plenty about the need to examine this in spite of ourselves. There is a correlation.
Makes me feel that those psychologists should be lumped in the same batch as Shakespeare's lawyers....(if you get my drift).
Kids are acting out aggression in a MUCH more "aggressive" stance these days....I'm thinking gun-toting, drug dealing, bullying types here.
That's a far cry from dipping a girl's pigtails in the old ink fountain...
Child-rearing should be the sole domain of the PARENT(s) with an assist from a church or a school...and not be meted out to SONY, NINTENDO, or MICROSOFT.
Besides, for the money THOSE "big 3" are making, you'd think WE (as parents) would be seeing some more bang (no pun intended) for OUR bucks...right?
B.G.
There are some kids who play these games and it has no harmful effects and others it does. When kids act out on things derived from violent games it's a symptom that something else is wrong. Being teased at school, crappy parents, child abuse. Any good parent would not let their child play these games or listen to some of the violent music that is out. If the demand for these games dropped, they would not be made. They should only be for people 18 or older.