Supreme Court to consider CA videogame law

The Supreme Court will consider whether a 2005 California state law banning the sale of violent videogames to minors is unconstitutional, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The law would bar the sale of any videogame to anyone under 18 if, the Chronicle says, it "was so violent it was 'patently offensive' according to prevailing community standards for minors, and lacked literary, artistic, political or scientific value." It was never enforced. A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year struck it down on constitutional grounds. "Federal courts have overturned similar laws in Oklahoma, Louisiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and the cities of St. Louis and Indianapolis," which is probably why the Supreme Court has taken on the California case. Here's Reuters's coverage and a collection of past posts of mine on state laws concerning videogames. [See also: "Fresh debate on effect of violence in videogames" and "Play, Part 2: Violence in videogames."]

Fresh debate on effects of violence in videogames

The long debate over whether violent videogames increase violent thinking and behavior in players has heated up as the result of a study published in this month's issue of Psychological Bulletin. A Washington Post blog does a great job of presenting both sides of this latest iteration, represented by the study's authors, led by psychologist Craig Anderson at Iowa State University, and the researchers who are the main objects of the study's criticism: Christopher Ferguson and John Kilburn of the department of behavioral applied science and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University. Anderson's study analyzed previous studies of 130,000 male and female players of various ages in the US, Europe, and Japan. In an accompanying commentary in Psychological Bulletin, Ferguson and Kilburn write that the study shows a bias in the studies it selected for review and "found only a weak connection between violent video gaming and violent thoughts and deeds." Check out the article for some other important views on the subject, including that of Cheryl K. Olson and Lawrence Kutner, co-founders and directors of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media, who "studied real children and families in real situations" and published their results in the 2008 study "Grand Theft Childhood," which I blogged about here. [See also "Play, Part 2: Violence in videogames" last July and "Videogames & aggression: New study" about an early stage of Anderson's research.]

Play, Part 2: Violence in videogames

Last week I looked at what psychiatrist Stuart Brown says about the power of play and how it can mitigate aggression. This week a look at the videogame part of the picture....

Asked by a middle school teacher about violence in videogames at a recent media-literacy conference, Prof. Henry Jenkins said, "Every storytelling medium throughout the history of the world involves violence – the paintings in art museums, Shakespeare's plays, the Bible – have images of violence.... The question isn't 'Can we get rid of violence'" in art, civilization, or life? "We can't," said Jenkins, who has traveled around the US speaking at schools and talking with students, parents, and educators about the place of violence in the entertainment part of their lives, led research, held workshops for the videogame industry, and testified on Capitol Hill about videogame violence.

"What we need is for this storytelling medium to make sense of our aggression, trauma, loss, and violence in the way that art does this. We have to create a climate where the images of violence are not trivialized, where violence has an impact." Because the teacher was asking specifically about violence in World of Warcraft, which is set in medieval times, Jenkins mentioned a friend who's a medievalist, who told him that people "hacked and slashed all the way through medieval culture, but periodically medieval tribes would gather their dead and mourn them. That sense of mourning and loss gives awareness of the consequence of violence. We need to be asking, 'How do we build mourning into the games we play, how do we put ethics into them?... The deepest research suggests that media are least powerful when they seek to change our beliefs and behavior and most powerful when they reinforce them - those are the criteria we need to look at."

So I've been looking for signs of videogames becoming more compelling and sophisticated in that way - moving beyond random violence and shooting sprees for their own sake to story lines, character development, scenarios and conditions that powerfully convey the impact of violence. I saw one sign last year while reading a thoughtful review in Slate of Grand Theft Auto IV. He wrote, "I get the sense that freewheeling killing sprees will no longer be the main draw. This is partly because the central missions and story are so well-conceived and well-written compared with previous iterations of the game and partly because the violence is far more disturbing.... What makes Grand Theft Auto IV so compelling is that, unlike so many video games, it made me reflect on all of the disturbing things I had done" (see this for more).

The key consideration, Jenkins said, is whether the violence in a game, film, or any art is meaningful (again, does not trivialize the violence but rather gets the player or viewer thinking about its meaning and impact) or just a "media effect" (which has no educational value). "A focus on meaning rather than effects has helped us to identify some pedagogical interventions which can help our students develop the skills and vocabulary needed to think more deeply about the violence they encounter in the culture around them," Jenkins wrote in his essay, "The War Between Effects and Meaning."

Related links

Psychiatrist Stuart Brown, who I blogged about last week, recently told public radio host Krista Tippett that the research on videogame violence is "not very solid" and there is evidence that "a limited amount of videogames probably increases imaginativeness and skills."

Videogame numbers. US online gaming, which is growing at 10 times the rate of US Internet population, "attracted 87 million visitors [in May], representing a very healthy 22% increase over last year," comScore reported.

"Good game?: The behavioural effects of video games" in The Economist

Professor Jenkins's full talk, given at the New Media Literacies conference at MIT in May, is here.

Study on videogames and aggression released last year

New Media Literacies Project at MIT

Violent videogames 'forbidden fruit': Study

A study published in the journal Pediatrics found that violent-content warnings and ratings on games have the opposite effect they're intended to have. "While research has found that ratings increase the attraction to raunchy TV shows and movies, the hypothesis had never been tested with video games," the Chicago Tribune cites the researchers at VU University Amsterdam and the University of Michigan as saying. They tested "310 Dutch children ranging in age from 7 to 17. Participants read fictitious game descriptions and rated how much or how little they wanted to play each game." Their conclusion in the February issue of Pediatrics was that," although the PEGI system was developed to protect youth from objectionable content, this system actually makes such games forbidden fruits." [The Trib incorrectly states that the article is in the March issue of Pediatrics, but it wisely concludes with the idea of putting "M" ratings on algebra books.]

Court rejects CA's videogame law

California's became the latest state videogame law to be deemed unconstitutional in a federal court. The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Friday that "a California law restricting the sales and rental of violent video games to minors and imposing labeling requirements is too restrictive and violates free speech guarantees," Reuters reported. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the court declared the law unconstitutional "because even the most graphic on-screen mayhem is free speech, and there's no convincing evidence it causes psychological damage to young people." Though one of the bill's sponsors, State Sen. Leland Yee, urged officials to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, Reuters reported that the three-judge panel's unanimous opinion "could have a far-reaching impact on efforts by other states to establish mandatory video game labeling requirements."

Videogames & aggression: New study

A just-published article in Pediatrics looked at three studies - one in the US and two in Japan - which found that "playing violent videogames is a significant risk factor for later physically aggressive behavior and that this violent videogame effect on youth generalizes across very different cultures." The authors added that the research "strongly suggests reducing the exposure of youth to this risk factor." But context is important. The study's lead author Craig Anderson, a psychology professor at Iowa State University, told the Washington Post that the findings "should be understood in the larger context of a child's life." Playing 5-10 hours of a violent videogame isn't going to change a "healthy, normal, nonviolent child" into a violent one, Anderson said, adding that extreme aggression usually results from an array of "risk factors." The Post points out some such risk factors identified by the US surgeon general in 2001: "gang involvement, antisocial parents and peers, substance abuse, poverty and media violence." The study in Pediatrics reported that videogames are played in 90% of US homes with children 8-16 and "US average playing time of four hours a week in the late 1980s is now up to 13 hours a week, with boys averaging 16 to 18 hours a week," according to the Post. Here's coverage at Wired's geekdad blog and Health magazine. See also "US teens' gaming highly social."

New York's new videogame law

Gov. David Paterson today signed a law that establishes an advisory panel to study the effects of videogame violence on kids and establishes $100 civil penalties for "violations of labeling and parental control provisions," Newsday reports. Most videogame consoles already have parental controls, however (see this about a guide for them), and game ratings are available to all at ESRB.org. Critics are calling it "moral preening" after similar laws have been struck down as unconstitutional in other states. "Language making a felony of selling video games that are sexually explicit or contain depraved violence was lost during furious lobbying that derailed [New York's] bill in May 2007. That provision would have made the law among the strictest in the nation," Newsday adds. Let's now see if this version of the law passes constitutional muster.

Grand Theft Auto IV's realism all bad?

A lot of media reports about GTA IV's blockbuster release last week focus on the negative. Don't get me wrong, this violent game is appropriately rated "M" for ages 17+ only in the US, but listen to this in Slate.com and see if it isn't somewhat encouraging: "Based on my play experience [with GTA IV] so far and in talking with reviewers who have finished the game," Chris Baker writes, "I get the sense that freewheeling killing sprees will no longer be the main draw. This is partly because the central missions and story are so well-conceived and well-written compared with previous iterations of the game and partly because the violence is far more disturbing." It's no longer cartoonish, he writes. "Shoot an innocent bystander, and you see his face contort in agony. He'll clutch at the wound and begin to stagger away, desperately seeking safety.... I felt unnerved. What makes Grand Theft Auto IV so compelling is that, unlike so many video games, it made me reflect on all of the disturbing things I had done." Maybe this disturbance is healthy? Could it be that GTA4 signals a future of more thought-provoking game play (at least for healthy players)? Baker's view was echoed in a thoughtful New Zealand Herald piece covering GTA4's release: Some GTA players "have referred to the 'uncanny valley' hypothesis - that when facsimiles of humans, such as game avatars, look and act almost, but not entirely, like actual humans, it causes a response of revulsion" or "repulsion, eeriness or discomfort," CNET reports. Interestingly, this is in the context of New Zealand law, which says it's illegal for anyone to make a game rated R18 (this country's game rating for ages 18+ only) available to minors. Even parents who do so "could face three months in prison or a $10,000 fine" (the law, in effect since 1994, has never been enforced). [Here's Slate's Chris Baker in a discussion about GTA4 with readers of WashingtonPost.com.]

This just in: In its first week of release, GTA4 made $500 million in sales, the Wall Street Journal reports. Its maker, Take Two Interactive, said retailers sold more than 6 million copies worldwide, claiming that a record for first-week sales of a videogame." Halo 3 sold $300 million its first week, the Journal added.

'Grand Theft Childhood'?

The release this week of the latest version of Grand Theft Auto (IV) sparks a new flood of headlines about 1) how the hot videogame industry is headed for the stratosphere (USATODAY) and 2) videogame violence. Interestingly, a $1.5 million study by two Harvard Medical School professors funded by the US Justice Department found that the connection between violent videogame play and violent videogame players "may be more tenuous than previously thought," the Harvard Crimson reports. The study resulted in a new book by Profs. Cheryl Olson and Lawrence Kutner, Grand Theft Childhood, which says "videogames do not affect all children equally." The Crimson adds that "Olson said that gaming - including playing 'M'-rated games - is such a widespread teenage phenomenon that it should not be considered abnormal." What is abnormal, the authors suggest, is excessive videogame play. They advise a balance of gaming and other activities. A thoughtful post about Kutner and Olson's research in the OpenEducation.net blog suggests that parents play with their kids as "a great way to keep the conversation going and help you navigate the game. Parents may initially find the skills and dexterity very challenging but abandonment is not the answer." Why? Well, for one thing, the study cites the view of Michael Jellinek, M.D., professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, "that a parent’s awkwardness 'can be used to your advantage when it comes to strengthening relationships with your children'.” Here's the Chicago Tribune's meaty coverage of the swirl around GTA IV's release, Chicago-style.

Videogame 'Report Card' for 2007

Because "videogames" includes the word "games," there are still some parents who don't take videogames seriously enough, said David Walsh of the National Institute on Media and the Family this week. So parents got a "C" on the organization's 12th-annual "Video Game Report Card" (see p. 12 of the 26-page document). The videogames rating board, the ESRB, got a B- for its education efforts; the ratings themselves got a C+ (for "not being based on all of games' content and code, locked or unlocked," the latter meaning gamers' ability to modify the content); the game industry got a C; and the big national retailers got a D for not enforcing the ratings at point of purchase. "The institute conducted 58 sting operations and found almost half the time, children as young as 12, could buy games rated M for 'mature' - intended for kids 17 and older," ABC News reports. For holiday game shoppers, see p. 14 of the institute's report for lists of 10 recommended games and 10 "games to avoid for your children and teens." Other resources include the ESRB's ratings site, where you can search for a game title on somebody's wish list, the Washington Post's "Holiday Videogame Guide," a transcript of Post game columnist Mike Musgrove's
chat with readers on this year's videogames, and WhatTheyPlay.com's game reviews for parents. Here, too, is the Associated Press's coverage on the "Report Card."

Videogames: Great teachers for good & bad

They are very effective teaching tools, a new study found, including for teaching aggression. "Students who played multiple violent video games actually learned through those games to produce greater hostile actions and aggressive behaviors over a span of six months," reports Science Daily, citing a study of almost 2,500 young people - "Violent Video Games as Exemplary Teachers: A Conceptual Analysis" - to be published soon in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence. It worked with 430 kids in grades 3-5, 607 in grades 8 and 9, and 1,441 students with an average age of 19, assessing "aggressive thoughts and self-reported fights, and their media habits - including violent video game exposure. Teachers and peers were also asked to rate the participants' aggressive behavior." With the grade-school students, "playing multiple violent videogames increased their risk of being highly aggressive … by 73%, when compared to those who played a mix of violent and non-violent games, and by 263% compared to those who played only non-violent games." The study's authors are father and son J. Ronald Gentile, distinguished teaching professor emeritus of educational psychology at the University of Buffalo, State University of New York, and Douglas Gentile, assistant professor of psychology at Iowa State University. At the University of Victoria in Canada, researchers Kathy Sanford and Leanna Madill have some comments on the kinds of literacy videogames can teach.