Since we've been discussing the impact of violent video games on aggressive behavior, I thought you guys might enjoy reading this article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2272879/
The author is discussing whether the Supreme Court will or should limit the sale of violent video games to minors, and specifically discusses the meta-analyses by Anderson et al and by Ferguson on this topic (the ones I asked you guys to skim for class). Just goes to show the VERY real-world implications of this type of research.
most of the comments on that article are about how it's the parents' responsibility to keep these games out of the hands of younger players, which is true in my opinion. The bottom line is that it's all about making money. If the government prohibits the sale of M rated games to minors, then developers will eventually stop making them. Personally I don't think the government should prohibit sales of games because I haven't seen enough evidence that violence in games correlates to more aggressive behavior. I've been playing M rated games with my parents' knowledge since I was in 3rd grade, and I certainly don't think I'm an aggressive person.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think an important thing to note is that sociological studies have found no link between violent video games and crime. That seems to be the main concern of most people....that increased aggression will lead to crime as is often acted out in the games. However, there is no evidence to support that it happens. So yes, aggression increases...but aggression isn't always a bad thing. Aggression can be channeled into appropriate outlets (e.g. football). I definitely don't think there's enough evidence of bad consequences for the courts to step in yet.
ReplyDelete