[Senate Hearing 106-1096]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-1096
THE IMPACT OF INTERACTIVE VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 21, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-656 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, Republican General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 21, 2000................................... 1
Statement of Senator Brownback................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 24
Witnesses
Anderson, Dr. Craig A., Professor, Iowa State University,
Department of Psychology, Ames, Iowa........................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Funk, Dr. Jeanne B., Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University
of Toledo...................................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Provenzo, Jr., Eugene F., Professor, School of Education,
University of Miami............................................ 39
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Shimotakahara, Danielle, Student, North Bend, Oregon............. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Steger, Sabrina, Pediatrics Nurse, Lourdes Hospital, Paducah,
Kentucky....................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Walsh, Dr. David, President, National Institute on Media and the
Family, Minneapolis, Minnesota................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Appendix
Goldstein, Jeffrey, Ph.D., Department of Social and
Organizational Psychology, University of Utrecht, The
Netherlands, prepared statement................................ 63
Lowenstein, Douglas, president, Interactive Digital Software
Association, prepared statement................................ 59
Video Software Dealers Association, prepared statement........... 71
THE IMPACT OF INTERACTIVE VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback
presiding.
Staff members assigned to this hearing: David Crane,
Republican Professional Staff; Paula Ford, Democratic Senior
Counsel; and Al Mottur, Democratic Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Brownback. I call the meeting room to order. Thanks
for joining us this morning. I want to thank my friend and
Commerce Committee Chairman, John McCain, for agreeing to hold
this hearing and offering a forum to discuss what has become an
important public issue.
We are privileged to hear today from two distinguished
panels of witnesses. I appreciate your presence this morning as
well. Coming from a long distance, I understand even one of you
forfeited your spring break and a trip to Mexico to come here
to testify in front of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, and
I appreciate that deeply.
I think it is also important to note who is not here today.
In putting together this hearing, we invited a wide variety of
video, PC, and arcade industry executives to testify. We
invited the leader of their trade association to testify, and
when each of them claimed to have a terribly important meeting
at this exact time, we extended the invitation to any member of
their company who could represent them, and still in every case
we were refused.
It is disappointing that the executives of Sega, Hasbro,
Hasbro Interactive, Nintendo, ID Software, Midway Games, the
Video Software Dealers Association, the American Amusement
Machine Association, and the Interactive Digital Software
Association could not be here today. All of them represent
powerful and profitable communications companies, but none of
them apparently felt they needed to communicate with the U.S.
Senate. Nor is this the first time that some of these companies
have refused an invitation to testify. This is a shame, but
more than that, it is shameful. It shows contempt for Congress.
It cannot continue.
We are here today to discuss the potential impact of an
increasingly powerful entertainment medium. Over the past
several years, the video, PC, Internet, and arcade industry has
dramatically increased in terms of profitability and
pervasiveness. Video games are no longer relegated to a corner
of the pizza parlor. They are now the basis of movies, the
inspiration for numerous toys, costumes, magazines, and
electronic spin-offs, and are found in an increasing number in
homes.
A few months ago, a study was released by the Annenberg
Institute of the University of Pennsylvania, which found that
the average child in America spends more than 4\1/2\ hours a
day in front of a screen watching television, playing video
games and PC games, and surfing the Internet. Kids spend more
time staring at a screen than they do in school or with their
parents, which means that what they watch and what they play
can have a profound influence on their young minds and young
lives.
When it comes to violent television and movies, literally
thousands of studies have pointed to a negative link between
watching violence and antisocial behavior, responses, and
attitudes, but despite the skyrocketing popularity and
profitability of violent video games, the impact and influence
of these games has largely escaped public and parental
attention.
Of course, the majority of video and PC games produced are
nonviolent. Many are educational as well as entertaining. Some
teachers have praised certain games for their effectiveness in
teaching math and motor skills, but there are many games sold
in toy stores across the country, advertised in venues
accessible to children, and demonstrably popular among young
people, which celebrate killing, carnage, and cruelty.
Consider just a few examples: The highly popular game Duke
Nukem combines the graphic killing of aliens with images of
scantily clad women. Advanced players get to murder naked
female prostitutes, some of whom are tied to posts and beg the
player to kill them. The games Carmageddon and Twisted Metal
cast the player as a deranged motorist, whose aim is to run
over as many pedestrians and other drivers as possible. The
more bystanders you kill, the higher your score.
In Grand Theft Auto 2, players can engage in drive-by
shootings, drug-dealing, and car theft as they simulate
gangster activity.
These may seem over the top, but they are actually among
the more popular games around. In fact, one survey of fourth to
eighth graders found that almost half the kids said their
favorite electronic games involved violence.
Now, defenders of these games say that they are mere
fantasy and harmless role-playing, but is it really the best
thing for our children to play the role of a murderous
psychopath? Is it all just good fun to positively reinforce
virtual slaughter? Is it truly harmless to simulate mass
murder?
That is part of what this hearing is about. We want to take
a hard look at these products and, more importantly, their
impact. If a typical child spends up to an hour a day playing
video and PC games, and I have two children of video-PC age,
and they do play a lot of games, it simply stands to reason if
they are playing that much of these games, that these
experiences will have some impact on their thoughts and
feelings. It is simply part of human nature that what we
experience affects our attitudes and assumptions and, thus, our
decisions and behavior.
The way in which they affect us is bound to be complex and
variable, but we need to start asking questions and getting
answers. Raising children is a precious duty and a precarious
task. It requires nurture, sacrifice, and lots of love, time,
and attention, but even the most devoted parents may find it
impossible to always know what their child is playing, or to
shield their child from images and messages that surround them
at school, the mall, at a friend's house, or at an arcade.
Many devoted, loving parents may not know about the
messages of these games. They may not know that their children
can participate in murder simulations at the local arcade, and
even if they do know, they cannot always shield them from the
harmful influences. We can no more shield our child from a
polluted culture than we can shield them from polluted air.
Parents, of course, have primary responsibility to protect,
raise, and care for their children, but it does not mean that
the companies have carte blanche to confuse and to corrupt
them. We all have a role to play in protecting and caring for
children, and in doing what we can to make our country safer
and our society more civil. I am hopeful that some of the
testimony we will hear today will shed light on a subject that
has generated so much heat.
Let me say as well, before we go to our first panel, this
has been an area of inquiry by the U.S. Senate for over a year,
and we have been concerned that we have not had the depth of
study on the impact of interactive violent games. There has
been a thought that these have an impact. There has been a
concern, a feeling that this is what is happening, but we did
not have the studies.
Today we will hear from a number of experts who are
studying this issue, and look at the central issue of how does
this impact a child? What does playing all of these violent,
interactive games do to a child? What does it do to a child if
they're playing a game where they commit mass murder, carnage
on the road, and are rewarded points for shooting scantily clad
prostitutes? What does it do to a child?
That is going to be the central question we are asking. We
hope to receive answers from today's hearing, and I am deeply
troubled that the industry is not here to say, yes, we have
studied this, and here is the impact. Rather, they seem more
concerned just about profitability than how their products
affect our children. I call on the industry to come forward and
answer these questions. Tell us. Tell us what the impact is. If
there is no impact, tell us that, and that you have studied
this and that you know that to be the case, but do not just
hide.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator from Kansas
Good morning. I want to thank my friend and Commerce Committee
Chairman John McCain for agreeing to hold this hearing, and for
offering a forum to discuss what has become an important public issue.
We are privileged to hear from a most distinguished panel of
witnesses today. I appreciate your presence here.
But I think it is also important to note who is NOT here today. In
putting together this hearing, we invited a wide variety of video, PC
and arcade industry executives to testify. We invited the leaders of
their trade associations to testify. And when each of them claimed to
have a terribly important meeting at this exact time, we extended the
invitation to any member of their company who could represent them. And
still, in every single case, we were refused.
It is disappointing that the executives at Sega, Hasbro, Hasbro
Interactive, Nintendo, ID Software, Midway Games, the Video Software
Dealers Association, the American Amusement Machine Association, and
the Interactive Digital Software Association could not be here today.
All them represent powerful and profitable communications companies.
But none of them apparently felt they needed to communicate with the
United States Senate. Nor is this the first time that some of these
companies have refused an invitation to testify. This is a shame, but
more than that, it is shameful. It shows contempt for Congress. It
cannot continue.
We are here today to discuss the potential impact of an
increasingly powerful entertainment medium. Over the past several
years, the video, PC, Internet and arcade industry has dramatically
increased in terms of profitability and pervasiveness. Video games are
no longer relegated to a corner of the pizza parlor; they are now the
basis of movies, the inspiration for numerous toys, costumes,
magazines, and electronic spin-offs; and are found in an increasing
number of homes.
A few months ago, a study was released by the Annenberg Institute
of the University of Pennsylvania which found that the average child in
America spends more than four and a half hours a day in front of a
screen--watching TV, playing video and PC games, and surfing the
internet. Kids spend more time staring at a screen than they do in
school, or with their parents--which means that what they watch, and
what they play, can have a profound influence on their young minds, and
young lives.
When it comes to violent television and movies, literally thousands
of studies have pointed to a negative link between watching violence
and anti-social behavior, responses and attitudes. But despite the
skyrocketing popularity and profitability of violent video games, the
impact and influence of these games has largely escaped public and
parental attention.
Of course, the majority of video and PC games produced are non-
violent. Many are educational, as well as entertaining. Some teachers
have praised certain games for their effectiveness in teaching math and
motor skills. But there are many games, sold in toy stores across the
country, advertised in venues accessible to children, and demonstrably
popular among young people, which celebrate killing, carnage, and
cruelty.
Consider just a few examples:
The highly popular game ``Duke Nukem'' combines the
graphic killing of aliens with images of scantily clad women.
Advanced players get to murder naked female prostitutes, some
of whom are tied to posts and beg the player to kill them.
The games ``Carmageddon'' and ``Twisted Metal'' cast
the player as a deranged motorist, whose aim is to run over as
many pedestrians and other drivers as possible. The more
bystanders you kill, the higher your score.
In ``Grand Theft Auto 2,'' players can engage in
drive-by shootings, drug dealing, and car theft as they
simulate gangster activity.
These may seem over the top, but they are actually among the more
popular games around. In fact, one survey of fourth-to-eighth graders
found that almost half the kids said their favorite electronic games
involved violence.
Defenders of these games say that they are mere fantasy, and
harmless role-playing. But is it really the best thing for our children
to play the role of a murderous psychopath? Is it all just good fun to
positively reinforce virtual slaughter? Is it truly harmless to
simulate mass murder?
That's part of what this hearing is about. We want to take a hard
look at these products, and their impact. If a typical child spends up
to an hour a day playing video and PC games, it simply stands to reason
that these experiences will have some impact on their thoughts and
feelings. It is simply part of human nature that what we experience
affects our attitudes and assumptions, and thus, our decisions and
behavior. The way in which they affect us is bound to be complex and
variable. But we need to start asking questions, and getting answers.
Raising children is a precious duty and a precarious task. It
requires nurture, sacrifice, and lots of love, time, and attention. But
even the most devoted parents may find it impossible to always know
what their child is playing, or to shield their child from images and
messages that surround them at school, at the mall, at a friend's
house, or at an arcade. Many devoted, loving parents may not know about
the messages of these games. They may not know that their children can
participate in murder simulations at the local arcade. And even if they
do know, they cannot always shield them from harmful influences. We can
no more shield our children from a polluted culture than we can shield
them from polluted air.
Parents of course have primary responsibility to protect, raise and
care for their children. But that doesn't mean that companies have
carte blanche to confuse and corrupt them. We all have a role to play
in protecting and caring for children, and in doing what we can to make
our country safer and our society more civil. I am hopeful that some of
the testimony we will hear today will shed light on a subject that has
generated so much heat.
video, pc and arcade game industry executives invited to testify
Mr. Minoru Arakawa, President of Nintendo of North America, Nintendo of
America, Incorporated
Mr. Masahiro Aozono, Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Toshiro Kezuka,
Chief Operating Officer (U.S.), Sega of America, Incorporated
Mr. Neil Nicastro, President and Chief Executive Officer, Midway Games,
Incorporated
Mr. Tom Dusenberry, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hasbro
Interactive
Mr. Todd Hollenshead, Chief Executive Officer, Id Software,
Incorporated
Mr. Alan Hassenfeld, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Hasbro,
Incorporated
Mr. Doug Lowenstein, President, Interactive Digital Software
Association
Mr. Bo Anderson, President, Video Software Dealers Association
Mr. Robert Fay, President, American Amusement Machine Association
Senator Brownback. Our first panel includes Dr. David
Walsh, who is president of the National Institute on Media and
the Family. He has done studies and is an expert on this topic.
Mrs. Sabrina Steger is here with us as well, from Paducah,
Kentucky. She had a child killed in a terrible tragedy that
happened there. And we have a teenage expert with us, Danielle
Shimotakahara from North Bend, Oregon, who is doing her own
work to try to improve the situation, the plight of children
and their education and their entertainment.
We will open the panel up, Dr. Walsh, and go to you first,
and we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID WALSH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE ON MEDIA AND THE FAMILY, MINNEAPOLIS,
MINNESOTA
Dr. Walsh. Senator, before we begin testimony, we do have a
couple of minutes of video clips, so that we have examples of
the games that we are talking about that are of concern. I
apologize in advance if some of these images are very
offensive, because I think they are, so we are doing it so that
people can see. One of the things in my testimony we will talk
about is the knowledge gap, and we are trying to reduce the
knowledge gap. The other thing is that you will see the advance
in the technology.
The first game is the one you mentioned, Duke Nukem. That
is about 3 or 4 years old. The two other games, from which
there are short, 1-minute clips, are Quake and Unreal. Quake is
a game that also the player can put skins on. What that means
is that the player can digitally superimpose images of people
that they know, or places that are real places, into the game
to customize it for their own use.
[A video demonstration was played.]
We actually made some attempts on Sunday, as we were
putting this together, to superimpose some images, but we did
not complete, so I am not sure exactly how much we did get
done, but we were going to try to customize it and then just
ran out of time before I had to come to Washington.
If I can just make one comment, or two comments, Senator,
that is, a 12-year-old child can walk into almost any store in
the United States and buy one of those games.
Senator Brownback. Any of those you displayed?
Dr. Walsh. Yes. We have actually had kids do it. In very
few stores would they have any trouble buying those games.
Then the other point that I would like to make is that we
watched that for a little over 3 minutes. Kids play these games
for hours and hours.
Senator Brownback. Please go ahead.
Dr. Walsh. Computer and video games are the fastest-growing
form of media in the lives of young people in the United
States, especially boys. They are also the fastest-changing.
The processing power of video game platforms has increased an
astonishing 188-fold in the past 7 months alone. The goal of a
virtual reality experience is right around the corner.
Most producers of these games are using the technology
positively to bring games to market that engage, challenge, and
entertain. There is a sizable segment of the game industry,
however, that produces games like we saw today that feature and
glorify violence and antisocial behavior. In this segment, the
``kill for fun murder simulators,'' that is the focus of
concern.
My comments are about these violent video games, not video
games in general, and I would like to both share data that we
have just completed and researched at the National Institute on
Media and the Family, and then also make some comments putting
the research in a larger context. We are releasing to you and
to your fellow Senators today extensive data in written form,
and I would like to just highlight some of the findings that we
have just released.
Many millions of teens are playing games, 84 percent
overall. 92 percent of boys now play. They are spending more
time playing games. Boys now average 10 hours a week. At-risk
teenage boys spend 60 percent more time playing games, and they
prefer the more violent games, than their other peers.
The more time spent playing electronic games, the lower the
school performance. Teens who play violent games do worse in
school than teens who do not. Youth who prefer violent video
games are more likely to get into arguments with their
teachers, and are more likely to get into physical fist fights,
whether they are boys or girls.
The knowledge gap between youth and parents about games is
enormous. Only 15 percent of the teens told us that they think
that their parents know about the ratings. Only 2 percent said
that their parents routinely check ratings. Eighteen percent of
the boys, almost 1 in 5, reported to us that their parents
would be upset if they knew what games they were playing.
In terms of the larger context, Senator, next month we will
observe the anniversary of the tragic murders at Columbine High
School, and once again as a Nation we will be confronting the
question, how could this have happened?
As we try to sort this out, I believe that we should
address the major role that media plays in shaping today's
youth culture. By saying that, I am not suggesting that video
and computer games directly caused the murderous rampage. I do
not believe that it was their favored game, Doom, that led them
to load up their guns. I do believe, however, that media shape
the norms, and the norms shape the extremes.
I doubt that anyone would argue against the statement that
what happened at Columbine High School last April 20 was
extreme. Unfortunately, there have always been, and there
always will be, youth who are drawn to extreme behavior, but
what qualifies as extreme depends on what's normal. If the
entire norm changes, then the extremes change with it. If the
norm is respect, then extreme might be a punch in the nose, but
when the norm is already in-your-face, then the extremes get
very, very tragic, and that is where media comes in.
I believe that whoever tells the stories defines the
culture. That is not new. It has been true for thousands of
years. What is new is that during the 20th Century we have
delegated more and more of the story-telling to mass media.
Computer and video games have become very influential story-
tellers for this generation of children and youth.
As I said earlier, most game producers take the story-
telling part to new heights. Others, however, do not. They
specialize in dishing out heaping servings of violence, mayhem,
and sexual degradation. Today, the average American child will
see over 200 violent acts of television alone by the time high
school graduation rolls around, and we have no idea how many
simulated murders they will have participated in if they are
playing video games like the three that we just saw.
While the research linking electronic games with attitudes
and behavior is in the early stages, the research on other
forms of media is so overwhelming that few researchers even
bother to dispute that screen bloodshed has an effect on the
kids watching it.
What do we think the effect of a steady diet of violent
video games like Soldier of Fortune could be? Last week, a 15-
year-old boy sent to me, and I did not ask him to do this, sent
to me an ad for Soldier of Fortune, a new game. Some of the
copy reads, ``Each gore zone gets a different reaction to keep
you from getting bored.'' In my judgment, the most insidious
effect of a diet of this kind of media is not so much the
violent behavior, but, rather, the culture of disrespect that
it engenders.
For every Eric Harris, Dillon Klebold, or Michael Carneal,
there are millions of other kids who are not murdering their
classmates, but they are putting each other down, pushing,
shoving, and hitting with increasing frequency all the time.
Games like these are redefining how it is that we are supposed
to treat one another, from ``Have a nice day'' to ``Make my
day.'' Too many of our kids are picking up the kinds of
messages contained in the final line of the Soldier of Fortune
ad, ``Now the only question is where your next target gets it
first.''
A Cree Indian elder said many years ago, children are the
purpose of life. We were once children, and someone took care
of us. Now it is our turn to care. We all, media leaders, game
producers, and parents, have to do a lot better job of caring.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Walsh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. David Walsh, President, National Institute on
Media and the Family, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Background
Concern about video game violence is not new. There were calls to
ban violent games as early as 1976 when Death Race, often acknowledged
as the first violent video game, appeared on the market. Of course, the
violence in Death Race seems tame in comparison with today's ``first
person shooters.'' As technology advances, each generation of violent
games became more graphic and extreme. The processing power of video
game platforms has increased an astonishing 188 fold in the past seven
months. The goal of creating virtual experiences draws ever closer. The
addition of sexual material and crude language raises additional
worries.
As the annual report cards issued by the National Institute on
Media and the Family have shown, the most violent games still find
their way into the hands of millions of children and teens. Since these
games have become implicated in the string of recent school shootings,
concern has reached new heights. This testimony brings together some of
the findings from research to determine if these concerns are
justified. In addition it provides findings from ongoing research being
conducted at the National Institute on Media and the Family.
Review of Research Literature
The first thing we learn from the research is that it is the
younger children who spend the most time playing games. According to
one study, the time spent playing video and computer games peaks
between the ages of eight and thirteen (Roberts, 1999). A study we
completed at the National Institute on Media and the Family found a
similar pattern with game playing time peaking between eight and
fifteen (Gentile and Walsh, 1999). We also know that youth, especially
boys, gravitate to the ``action games,'' which include the ``first
person shooters.'' In one study 50% of boys listed violent games as
their favorites (Buchman and Funk, 1996). A growing number of children
and teens now have the technological skills to customize the computer
games. A recent development is putting ``skins'' on the characters in
the games. This means that the player can insert the images of real
people and places thereby making the games even more realistic.
Many pre-teens and young teenagers therefore spend a significant
amount of time playing electronic games, with a preference for the
violent ones. We also know that they have easy and frequent access to
increasingly violent and realistic games. The next important question
is, of course, ``What are the effects of this?'' Because the ultra-
violent games are relatively new, the research literature is just
beginning to accumulate. Research findings appearing in the 1980s and
early 1990s are irrelevant because those studies did not include the
types of violent games that have proliferated in the past six or seven
years. For the last few years most experts have pointed to the vast
body of research on television violence. That research clearly shows
that a heavy exposure causes negative effects on children (Walsh,
Brown, and Goldman, 1996).
Because there has been so little relevant research specifically
focusing on electronic games, some state that there is no demonstration
of harm to children. That, of course, was the same argument used to
defend television violence for more than three decades. It was only
after many years of research that that argument was abandoned. That
argument, however, will become harder to maintain with regard to
electronic games, because some important research findings are starting
to appear that support the contention that the violence in computer and
video games may indeed have a harmful effect.
I would like to highlight the findings of two research projects
that found similar results independently. The first project was done by
our collaborator Paul Lynch at the University of Oklahoma Medical
School. Lynch has been studying the physiological reactions of
teenagers to video games for ten years. He found that violent video
games caused much greater physiological changes than non-violent games.
The changes were found for heart rate and blood pressure as well as the
aggression-related hormones, adrenaline, noradrenaline, and
testosterone. A very important finding in Lynch's research is that the
effect was much greater for males who pretested high on measures of
anger and hostility. In other words, the violent games do not seem to
affect everyone the same. Angry youth react much more strongly to
violent video games than do more easy-going kids (Lynch, 1999).
This finding was confirmed in a sophisticated research project
completed by Craig Anderson of Iowa State University and Karen Dill of
Lenoir-Rhyne College. In my judgement, Anderson and Dill have executed
the best study of video game violence to date. It will be published in
its entirety in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. They conducted two separate studies, one of which
was an experiment.
In the first study they found a positive correlation between real-
life aggressive behavior and violent video game play. In addition, they
discovered that violent video game play was correlated with
delinquency. Like Lynch, they also found that the correlation was much
stronger for individuals who are characteristically aggressive. It is
also noteworthy that Anderson and Dill found that the college students
who spent the most time playing video games had the lowest grade point
averages.
Correlational studies are important but do not establish a causal
link. It could be that aggressive people who get into more trouble
prefer violent video games. To begin to address the causal question,
the two researchers designed an experiment. They used games of the same
difficulty thereby ruling out frustration as a reason for aggression
that might result from playing a violent game. Those students randomly
assigned to play a violent game showed increases in aggressive thoughts
and aggressive behavior. The students assigned to a non-violent game
did not.
National Institute on Media and the Family Study on Computer and Video
Games--Preliminary Results
Douglas Gentile, Ph.D., Director of Research at the National
Institute on Media and the Family in collaboration with Paul Lynch of
the University of Oklahoma and myself have designed a program of
research to determine the effects of video and computer games on
children and teens. While the program of research will take a number of
years and sufficient funding to complete, I am able to report
preliminary findings in this testimony.
These results are based on responses to a survey administered to
137 teens in grades 8-12 in a large suburban school district near a
large midwestern city. 94 were students in general classes. 43 were
students in a special program for ``at risk students.''
Electronic Game Habits
84% of teens overall play electronic games. 92% of boys play
games.
The average teen plays video games for 1 hour at a sitting
(does not include teens who don't play).
Among boys only, the average length of game play at one
sitting is 84 minutes (almost 1\1/2\ hours).
25% of teens who play games say they understand all of the
ESRB ratings, with an additional 29% saying they understand some of
them.
Only 15% of teens say that their parents understand the ESRB
ratings.
90% of teens say their parents ``never'' check the ratings
before allowing them to buy or rent video games (another 8 percent
say their parents ``rarely'' check the ratings).
Only 1 percent of teens who play games say their parents have
ever kept them from getting a game because of its rating.
Only 56% of teens who own their own games say that their
parents know all of the games they own. Only 46% of boys who own
their own games say that their parents know all of the games they
own.
14% of teens (18% of boys) who own their own games say they
have games their parents wouldn't approve of if they knew what was
in them.
32% of boys who play video games download video games from the
Internet.
25% of teens (41% of boys) say they have played so much that
it interferes with their homework.
13% of teens (21% of boys) say they have done poorly on a
school assignment or test because they spent too much time playing
video games.
89% of teens (91% of boys) say that their parents ``never''
put limits on how much time they are allowed to play video games.
42% of teens (52% of boys) say that they sometimes try to
limit their own playing, but only 70% of them (67% of boys) are
successful in limiting their own playing.
The average teen likes a moderate amount of violence in their
video games (median = 5 on a scale of 1 to 10). Among boys only,
the average teen likes a fair amount of violence in their games
(median = 7 on a scale of 1 to 10).
Over three-quarters (77%) of boys who play video games at
least ``sometimes'' customize the video games they play.
41% of boys at least ``sometimes'' visit game sites on the
Internet, and 32% of boys at least ``sometimes'' play video games
over the Internet.
15% of teens (29% of boys) say they have felt like they were
addicted to video games.
Among boys only, teens spend an average of 19 hours/week
watching TV, 10 hours/week playing video games (includes teens who
play zero hours), 18 hours/week listening to music, and 1 hour/week
reading for pleasure. (When teens who never play are removed, the
average time/week playing video games is 11 hours.)
Among at-risk boys only, teens spend an average of 25 hours/
week watching TV, 16 hours/week playing video games (includes teens
who play zero hours), 19 hours/week listening to music, and
slightly more than 2 hours/week reading for pleasure (138 minutes).
(When teens who never play are removed, the average time/week
playing video games is 16\1/4\ hours.)
Boys expose themselves to more video game violence than girls,
and at-risk teens expose themselves to more video game violence
than general students (defined from violence levels of 3 favorite
games and frequency of playing each--based on Anderson & Dill
approach).
Effects: School Performance
Amount of time playing video games has a negative impact on
school performance, by many different measures: Teens who play more
each week, play more yearly, and have played more over their
lifetimes perform more poorly in school (as self-reported) than
teens who play less.
Teens who say they like to have more violence in their games
perform more poorly in school than teens who like less violence.
Teens who named more violent games as their favorite three
games perform more poorly in school than teens who named less
violent games as their favorites.
Teens who expose themselves to more violence in video games
perform more poorly in school than teens who expose themselves to
less violence in video games.
Effects: Arguments with Teachers
Teens who prefer more violence in their video games get into
arguments with their teachers more frequently than teens who prefer
less violence in their video games.
Teens who expose themselves to more violence in video games
argue more frequently with their teachers than teens who expose
themselves to less violence in video games.
Effects: Physical Fights
Amount of time playing video games is positively correlated
with getting into physical fights, by many different measures:
Teens who play more each week, play more yearly, and have played
more over their lifetimes are more likely to have gotten into a
fight in the past year than teens who play less.
Similarly, teens who say they are more familiar with video
games are more likely to have gotten into a fight in the past year
than teens who are less familiar with video games.
Teens who prefer more violence in their video games are more
likely to have gotten into a physical fight in the past year than
teens who prefer less violence in their video games.
Teens who named more violent games as their favorite three
games are more likely to have gotten into a physical fight in the
past year than teens who named less violent games as their
favorites.
Teens who expose themselves to more violence in video games
are more likely to have gotten into a physical fight in the past
year than teens who expose themselves to less violence in video
games.
Significant Differences between General and At-Risk Teens
At-risk teens perform more poorly in school.
At-risk teens name more violent games as their three favorite
video games.
At-risk teens get into arguments with parents, peers, and
teachers more frequently than general teens.
Among boys only, at-risk boys are less likely to say they
usually feel ``positive'' after playing video games.
Some Significant Differences between Boys and Girls
Boys are more familiar with video games than girls.
Boys play more frequently than girls.
Boys are more likely to own their own games than girls.
Boys play longer at each sitting than girls (means = 84 and 40
minutes, respectively).
Boys like more violence in their video games than girls.
Boys play more each week than girls (means = 10 and 3 hours,
respectively).
Boys name more violent games as their three favorite games
than girls.
Boys expose themselves to more video game violence than girls.
These sample sizes provide data accurate to 10% when
generalizing to general populations of teens, and to 17%
when generalizing to at-risk populations of teens.
Additional studies will need to be completed before we can claim
that there is a demonstrated cause effect relationship between video
game violence and real life aggression. However, the recent research
developments show that the concern about the impact of violent video
games is justified. It should act as a spur for both more research and
for greater vigilance over the video and computer game diet of children
and youth.
Senator Brownback. Could you hold that ad up again? Could
you explain it?
Dr. Walsh. That is an advertisement for a new game which
was just released called ``Soldier of Fortune,'' and the torso
is divided up into different segments called gore areas, gore
regions, and it is to keep the player from getting bored. When
you hit the different areas, then different things happen.
The other reason I brought this is that the industry
announced last fall that they were implementing an advertising
code of conduct and would be cracking down on advertising which
is inappropriate. I would submit that this is inappropriate in
gaming magazines that kids subscribe to.
Senator Brownback. I would, too. Thank you very much for
your testimony, and I will look forward to asking some
questions I have for you.
We will next go to Mrs. Sabrina Steger. We are pleased you
are willing to come and share your testimony with us. Mrs.
Steger, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MRS. SABRINA STEGER, PEDIATRICS NURSE, LOURDES
HOSPITAL, PADUCAH, KENTUCKY
Mrs. Steger. I am the person that you do not want to be. I
live a parent's worst nightmare. The nightmare does not go
away, and the saying that time heals all wounds is greatly
overrated. I looked into a casket and saw my little girl. There
are no words to describe how it feels. Nothing looks the same
or feels the same after seeing your own child lying in a
casket.
On December 1, 1997, the 14-year-old boy took the sum total
of influence on his life and five guns into Heath High School.
After watching students pray, he opened fire on them. Kayce,
Jessica, and Nicole died that day. So did this country's belief
that schools are a safe haven for our students.
When I learned that my daughter, Kayce, might be involved,
I rushed back to the hospital that I worked at for 20 years. As
I approached the emergency room, arms held me back. Every time
I tried to get close to Kayce, arms stopped me. Those arms were
connected to familiar-sounding voices, but they were trying to
stop me from doing the only thing that mattered, getting to my
little girl. I still have nightmares about those arms.
I am here today to ask you not to be an arm, an obstacle
that makes it harder for parents to protect their children. We
believe that the Heath shooter was influenced by the movies he
watched, the video games he played, and the Internet sites he
accessed. Video games are a common form of entertainment, and
more and more often they are violent. Even before Kayce was
killed, my kids did not play violent games, but I did not know
how big the monster was.
Despite what some parents think, these are not the games
that we played. Today's games are so sophisticated that some
even have recoil after a shot is fired. They are so real, the
military uses them to train soldiers. But the soldiers are
adults, and the simulations are carefully monitored. Yet the
video games are as effective as the simulators. Just how
deadly? The Heath shooter, despite practicing only once before
the murders, did not miss a shot.
The recent Diallo case involved police firing 41 rounds and
hitting the man 19 times. Less than half the shots fired by
trained policemen hit their target, but 100 percent of those
fired by teenagers hit students in the kill zone, one shot per
victim. He did not shoot until they fell. He had learned his
games very well.
My son Dustin was 9 years old when his sister was killed.
He was at the hospital when she arrived, and he watched the
paramedics take her off the ambulance doing CPR. He saw her
lying lifeless on the stretcher. He looked at his parents, the
ones who could not protect Kayce, and wondered if they could
take care of him. He and his sister, Becky, saw their home
change from one of laughter to one of tears. They saw their own
childhoods end that day. Their lives and futures were forever
changed the second the killer decided to pull the trigger.
Dustin has a PlayStation, and he enjoyed racing and sports
games. He wanted a skate-boarding game for a long time, but was
disappointed when he got it. The tricks are ``sweet.'' For
anyone without children, that means real good. But every time
the skate-boarder falls, blood squirts. Dustin does not want to
see the blood, but it cannot be turned off. My son does not
have the choice of playing a game the way he wants to, without
gore.
Some ask if video games have that much influence. The
advertising industry is built on 30 to 60-second spots that
influence what soft drink or car we buy, or what candidate we
vote for. How, then, can we deny that hours of repetitive video
play does not have a gargantuan effect on impressionable
children and adolescents?
For months after Kayce died, I was in denial. My head knew
she was dead, but my heart believed she would walk through the
back door again. Denying the truth does not change the truth.
As a nurse, I am in the business of recognizing signs of
illness and promoting healing, and I see an America addicted to
violence and in denial of that addiction. It permeates our
homes, playgrounds, and schools. We try to tell ourselves that
it is somebody else's problem, an isolated instance. Well, my
isolated instance was 15 years old, with cute little dimples,
and the dream of becoming a police officer. She had a heart, a
soul, a face, and a name, Kayce Michelle Steger.
Numbness helped me get through the first months after Kayce
died, and frankly there are still times when I wish for the
buffering numbness to protect me from the horrors of reality.
Numbness helps me to function on a bad day. But when America is
numb, more children die. Numbness prevents dealing with an
issue. With violent video games, time is life.
Studies show that one of the most common effects of violent
interactive games is desensitization, a type of numbing. The
studies since the 1960's show that children are affected both
physically and emotionally by the violence. One recent study
shows differences measured by scanners and the brain wave after
exposure to violence. In these games violence is sterile,
acceptable, and even desirable. Blood on the screen has no
odor. It cannot be touched. Screams are controlled by the
volume button, and slaughter by the on-off button. Too often,
the volume is on high. Death is repeated each time the restart
button is touched.
My daughter's killer, who played ``Doom'' and ``Mortal
Kombat,'' planned for months to take over the school. He
dreamed of being in control at the loss of his classmates, and
he intended to return to school the next day and be admired for
his bravery. The game industry knows how to make cheap, easily
produced, first-person games, and they market to kids who
sometimes feel vulnerable during a time of many physical and
emotional changes. The games promise them power and control.
That is as intoxicating to some as drugs or alcohol.
The industry also knows how to make a new, safer game, but
it costs more to produce and market. It is time for a new
generation of games that place value on human life. The United
States is committed to the right to free enterprise, and I say
bravo, and I say just as strongly hear, hear to the notion that
with rights come responsibilities.
We are suing the makers of the violent video games that so
profoundly influenced Kayce, Nicole, and Jessica's killer. Our
lawsuit is not about free speech. It is about product
liability, plain and simple. Any person or company that makes a
product is responsible for the harm that comes from its use.
The same standards hold true if the product influences a person
to harm himself or others. Car-makers like to make cars safer
partly due to product liability cases. Let them make games
however they wish, but when they do the equivalent of falsely
yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, they have to accept
the moral and legal obligations for their irresponsibility.
Sometimes, the best way to make a company understand safety and
responsibility is through their pocket-books.
A few weeks after Kayce was killed, someone suggested we
should quit talking about the murders, forget about the
lawsuit, and get back to normal. It is normal for us to have
three children at the dinner table, but there are only two.
When my husband and I should have been discussing college
choices for Kayce, we were discussing tombstone choices. When
my daughter Becky asked, mom, how do I be older than my big
sister, I did not find any answer from Dr. Spock. The shooter
took normal away from my family, as all shooters do with every
victim of gun violence.
The person who wanted us to get back to normal was saying
that we made him uncomfortable by reminding him of something
bad. Video game makers want us to go away, too. They do not
want us to demand changes that might affect their bottom line.
They do not want us to make the world better. But our children
are worth it.
I live with the fact that I was powerless to prevent
Kayce's death that morning. I would be letting her down, making
her death even more senseless, if I did not do whatever I could
to try to prevent the death of another child.
I may not have much power, but the U.S. Senate does. Please
help us prevent the death of innocent children, the victims of
killers influenced by violent video games. First, ban the sale
of games rated for mature audiences to minors. Do not let them
have such easy access. Next, fund a public awareness campaign
to educate Americans about the dangers of these games. As the
gentleman said, parents do not know how bad these games are.
And finally, help us hold accountable the makers of these
dangerous products. Let accountability stand in the courtroom,
and not be abridged by favoritism in the back rooms. Ending
violence is a public health and a civil rights struggle. It is
time to leave the comfort and stupor of denial and open our
arms to balancing rights with responsibilities, and remedying
our horrible national addiction to violence.
Thank you. This is why I am here [holding picture].
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Steger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mrs. Sabrina Steger, Pediatrics Nurse,
Lourdes Hospital, Paducah, Kentucky
I am the person you do not want to be. I live a parent's worst
nightmare. The nightmare does not go away and the saying that time
heals all wounds is greatly overrated.
On December 1, 1997 a fourteen-year-old boy took his thoughts and
feelings, the sum total of the influences in his life, and five guns
into Heath High School. After watching students pray, he opened fire on
them. Kayce, Jessica, and Nicole died that day. So did this country's
belief that schools are a safe haven for its students.
When I found out that my daughter, Kayce, might have been involved,
I rushed back to the hospital I've worked at for 20 years. I had just
finished a midnight shift. As I approached the emergency room, there
were arms holding me back.
Every time I tried to get a little closer to Kayce, arms stopped
me. Those arms were connected to familiar-sounding voices, but the arms
were trying to hold me back from the only thing that mattered--getting
to my little girl. I still have nightmares about those arms, those
obstacles keeping me away from Kayce. I am here today to ask you to not
be an arm, an obstacle, that makes it harder for parents to keep their
children safe.
We believe the Heath High School shooter was influenced by the
movies he watched, the video games he played, and the Internet sites he
accessed. With his easy access to guns, his violent urges were allowed
to take on a life outside his own troubled mind.
Video games are a common form of entertainment for many young
people and more and more often the games are violent. Even before Kayce
was killed, I did not allow my kids to play violent games, but I did
not know how big the monster was. It isn't Pong or Pac-Man these kids
are playing. Despite what some parents think, these are not the video
games we played.
Today's games are so sophisticated that some of them even have a
recoil after a shot is fired. They are so real that the military uses
them to train soldiers. But, the soldiers are adult men and women, not
impressionable children. And, the simulations are carefully controlled
and monitored, not played whether or not there is adult supervision.
Yet, the video games are as effective as the simulators. Just how
deadly are they? The Heath High School shooter did not miss one shot.
From the criminal investigation, we know he practiced only one time
with the gun prior to committing murder. A recent case in the news
involved police officers firing 41 rounds and striking one man with 19
shots. Less than half of the shots fired by trained policemen hit their
target, but 100% of those fired by a teenager hit students in the kill
zone, one shot per victim. He didn't shoot until they fell. He learned
his game all too well.
Statistically, the average twelve-year-old has seen 8000 murders.
Today I am here to tell you about one murder that affected one family,
my family. It is being lived out in different stages by the families of
the 13 people killed by gun violence every day, 365 days of the year.
My son Dustin was nine when his sister was gunned down. He was at
the hospital when she arrived. He saw Kayce taken out of the ambulance
with paramedics doing CPR on her. He saw her lying lifeless on a
stretcher a little later. He looked at his parents, the ones who could
not protect Kayce, and wondered if they could take care of him. He and
his sister Becky saw their home change from a place of laughter to a
place of tears. In so many ways, they saw their own childhoods end that
day. No more innocence, no more carefree days--their lives and futures
were forever changed the second that the killer decided to pull the
trigger.
There are plenty of kids, who like most adults, who do not want
gratuitous violence in video games. My son has a Playstation and he
enjoys racing and sports games. For a long time, he wanted a
skateboarding game. He finally got it, but he was quickly disappointed.
The tricks are ``sweet'' (for anyone without kids, that means real
good), but every time the skateboarder falls blood squirts. Dustin does
not want to see the blood, but there aren't any controls to stop it. My
son who does not chose blood and guts does not have the choice to play
the game the way he wants to. The game is very seldom played.
Violent video games and movies desensitize users to the violence by
making it sterile, acceptable and even desirable. Defilement and
carnage all too prevalent on the silver screen is easily transferred to
any home by video games seen through hand held screens, TV screens and
computer monitors.
Blood on the screen has no odor and it cannot be touched. Screams
are controlled by the volume button, and slaughter by the on/off
button. But, the button is too often ``on,'' the volume on high, and
death repeated each time the restart button is touched.
Some question if video games can have that much influence on young
people. The entire advertising industry is built on the knowledge that
30 to 60 second advertisements influence what soft drink or car we buy,
and what candidate we vote for. How can we then deny that hours on end
of repetitive video game violence does not have a gargantuan impact on
impressionable children and adolescents?
For months after Kayce died, I was in denial. My head knew she was
dead, but my heart did not believe it. Part of me believed that she was
going to walk through the back door again. I was going to hug her for a
week and ground her for a month.
As a nurse I am in the business of recognizing illness and injury
and being proactive about healing. And, I see an America both addicted
to violence and in denial about this addiction. It permeates our homes,
playgrounds, and schools. We try to tell ourselves that its somebody
else's problem, and isolated incidents. My isolated incident was 15
years old with cute little dimples and the dream of becoming a police
officer. She had a heart, a soul, a face, and a name, Kayce Michelle
Steger.
Numbness helped me get through the first months after Kayce died
and frankly, there are still times when I wish for the numbness. It is
a buffer; it protects our emotions from the horrors of reality. For me,
numbness helps me to function during a bad day. For our country,
numbness allows more children to die. When we are numb, we don't deal
with the issue. With violent video games, time is life.
Studies show that one of the most common effects of violent video
is desensitization, a type of numbing affect. Scientific studies since
the 1960s prove that kids are affected by the violence. One recent
study even demonstrates a change in brain patterns measured by a
scanner. My daughter's killer, who played Doom and Mortal Kombat,
planned for months to take over the school. He dreamed of being in
control of the lives of his classmates and he intended to return to the
school the next day to be admired for his bravery.
The game industry knows how to make games and they know kids. They
know that some adolescents have feelings of being vulnerable during a
time of many physical and emotional changes. The games promise them
power and control that is as intoxicating to some kids as alcohol or
drugs. And just like with alcohol or drugs, kids deny the effects it
has on them.
The game industry also knows how to make a better game. But new
games that are safer for children to use cost more money to produce and
market. The first-person shooter game is cheap and easy and there are
thousands of young kids waiting for a new gun to blow away more
victims. It is time for a new generation of games--a generation that
places value on human life.
As early as the 1960s we recognized the harmful effects of other
adverse influences. So great was the public outcry against tobacco and
alcohol it forced bans on TV advertising and limited availability of
tobacco and alcohol products. It is time to raise our voices again.
The United States is committed to the rights of free enterprise,
and I say ``bravo.'' And, I say just as strongly ``here, here'' to the
notion that with rights comes responsibilities. We are suing the makers
of the violent video games that so profoundly influenced and warped
Kayce's, Jessica's and Nicole's killer. Our lawsuit is not about free
speech. It is about product liability. Plain and simple.
Any person or company that makes a product is responsible for the
harm that comes from the use of the product. The same standard holds
true if the product influences a person to harm himself or others. Car
makers learned to make safer cars partly as a result of product
liability cases. The same product liability standards that apply to any
other manufacturer are the standards we expect of those who produce
violent entertainment.
By holding entrepreneurs of violent entertainment to the these
standards we are taking steps to keep us all safer. Let them make games
as they wish. But, when they do the equivalent of falsely yelling
``fire'' in a crowded movie theater, then they have to accept moral and
legal responsibility for their irresponsibility. We do not ask them to
conform to any standard of decency. We expect them to be accountable
when their product cause harm to others. Sometimes, the best way to
make a company understand safety and responsibility is through their
pocketbooks.
I looked into a casket and saw my little girl. There are no words
that come close to describing how it feels. Before Kayce died, I was an
Intensive Care Unit nurse, taking care of dying children. I tried to
put myself in the parents' place as I cried with them when their
child's heart wasn't beating any more. I thought I was as close as I
could be without losing a child of my own. I know now that I wasn't
even on the same planet. Nothing looks the same or feels the same after
seeing your own child lying in a casket.
A few months after Kayce was killed, someone suggested that we
should quit talking about the murders and forget about any lawsuits and
just get back to ``normal.'' It is normal for us to have three children
at the dinner table, but there are only two. When my husband and I
should have been discussing college choices for Kayce, we were
discussing tombstone choices. When my daughter Becky asked, mom, how do
I be older than my big sister. I didn't find any answer from Dr. Spock.
The shooter took normal away from my family, and all shooters do with
every victim of gun violence.
The person who wanted us to get back to normal was saying that we
upset him and made him uncomfortable by reminding him of something bad.
Video game makers want us to go away too. They don't want us to speak
out about the poison they put into children's minds. They don't want us
to demand changes that might affect their pocketbooks. But all of our
children are worth more than any bottom line. I live with the fact that
I was powerless to prevent Kayce's death that morning. I would be
letting her down, making her death more senseless if I didn't do
whatever I could to try to prevent the death of another child.
They say that losing a child is the ultimate tragedy. Its even
worse when the senseless death of a child shows us nothing and allows
the senseless death of another little girl and another little boy.
I may not have much power, but the United States Senate does. Let
accountability stand on its own merits in the court room, and not be
abridged by favoritism in the back rooms. Please help us prevent the
death of innocent children, the victims of killers influenced by
violent video games.
First, ban the sale of these games to minors.
Next, fund a public awareness campaign to educate
Americans about the dangers of these games.
And finally, help us hold accountable the makers of
these dangerous products.
Ending violence as we know it is both a public health and a civil
rights struggle. It is time to leave the comfort and stupor of denial.
It is time to heal, and in doing so, open our arms to balancing rights
with responsibilities, and remedying our horrible national addiction to
violence.
Senator Brownback. Thank you for sharing that powerful
testimony of a difficult situation for you and your family. We
deeply appreciate your willingness to come here today and to
share that with us.
Our final witness on this panel is Miss Danielle
Shimotakahara from North Bend, Oregon. Danielle is, I believe,
12-years-old, and has started her own campaign dealing with
violent video games. Danielle, we would love to have you
testify. If you could get those microphones up right next to
your mouth, it is pretty directional, so you need to talk right
into it.
STATEMENT OF MISS DANIELLE SHIMOTAKAHARA, STUDENT, NORTH BEND,
OREGON
Miss Shimotakahara. On the day of the Columbine massacre in
April 1999, I came home from school and told my mom about the
graphically violent video games that are at pizza parlors,
bowling alleys, skating rinks, and other places where kids hang
out. I told her that I did not think that little kids should be
playing them. I asked her what we could do to get rid of them.
I felt that a petition signed by kids might influence
businesses to move or replace them with nonviolent ones. I
designed a petition to get rid of violent video games in places
where children hang out. I brought my mom to see these games
because she had never seen them. She was shocked. She helped me
with the design for a petition. She helped me do research about
violence in the media and on electronic games. I made a
bibliography and put it with the petition.
I think these types of games are disgusting. Kids as young
as 3 years old can use mounted guns to shoot people to pieces
and watch blood splatter on the screen. Kids get points for
killing people. Parents eat pizza while their kids blow
somebody up. I have friends who play them. Their eyes look
crazy when they play them, and they get excited when the blood
splatters and parts of bodies fly.
On some machines they can make choices about what type of
gun to use. I think it teaches kids bad things. Some older kids
can get bad ideas from it, and little kids can have nightmares.
I think it is important to keep these types of coin-operated
video machines away from the eyes and hands of children. I do
not think these games are entertainment. I do not think it is
entertaining for a kid to eat pizza or a hot dog and watch
someone kill someone on a gaming machine.
These machines are almost everywhere that kids go. I think
it is important to especially keep little kids away from them,
because they do not know whether they are real or not. Little
kids still believe in Santa Claus. Psychological research says
that children under the age of 7 do not know the difference
between fantasy and reality.
I think it gives a message to older kids that it is okay to
kill people. The killer is the hero even if he is killing
policemen. Kids identify with the hero. Kids play them so many
times they become desensitized to seeing blood or bodies
exploding. The more people they explode, the more blood
spattering they see in some games. They are also learning
conditioning, when they shoot guns at people and get points for
it.
I think it is sad that they are laughing while they are
doing it. The boy who did the killing in Arkansas a few years
ago learned to shoot a gun by playing these types of games. He
had excellent marksmanship. I think that it teaches some kids
to be violent, and I think a few of those kids will think about
acting it out on innocent people. Others actually might be
influenced to do it. I think it is the same as selling alcohol,
drugs, pornography, or tobacco to kids.
These video machines are similar to the ones that are used
to train police officers and the military. Parents are not
always with older kids to see what they are playing, and so a
lot of kids do not know, and I think they need to know. I
became even more inspired later in May when I read that Disney
removed its violent video games from its arcades, and my mother
saved the article to show people.
I think everyone needs to be educated on the potentially
harmful effects of these machines on kids. Little kids get
nightmares from playing these games. I had an educational table
at Children's Health Carnival on March 10. One kid who was
probably 8 or 9 says he likes playing these games, but he also
gets nightmares from them.
Violent blood-spattering gun-mounted coin-operated video
games are almost everywhere young children go. I feel these
machines are a bad influence on young children. Children climb
on chairs or get on footstools to use them at pizza parlors,
skating rinks, and movie theaters.
Mom and I watched a 3-year-old girl splatter blood on one
of these machines at a pizza parlor while the babysitter helped
her balance on the footstool. She was holding a mounted gun,
and when she missed the mother hollered from the table, ``Aim
higher next time.'' I told my mom that the babysitter should be
fired, and she said, ``I think the parent should be fired.'' We
talked to the mom about how dangerous it is to expose little
kids to this violence, and I think she understands now.
I want people to learn and think about these machines. I
know that a lot of parents did not even know that these types
of games were being played by their kids until I started this
petition. Parents do not go into the game room at pizza
parlors. They just give out the quarters and eat their pizza
with other parents. Every parent should go in the game room and
check out what games are there. It makes you feel sick just to
watch them. I get cards and letters and phone calls from
parents telling me that they threw out violent software video
games when they heard about my petition.
The petition is not a valid petition because it contains
the names of both children and adults. Some are 5 years old.
They can hardly print. They print in very large letters. Their
big printing makes an even bigger statement. I believe that
this is our voice as children. There are 3,000 to 4,000
signatures on the petition, and people and kids are still
signing it. We are young, and we cannot vote, but we can
express our opinions in this way.
The project is going to continue for a long time, because
it is really hard to convince some people about the dangers.
Some will not even listen. Some parents do not think it is
harmful for a child to make blood splatter and body parts
explode. I do not understand why they think it is okay to do
this killing.
It takes a lot of time to make a change, and I discovered
that some people can be very stubborn and refuse to listen when
they are making a lot of money from something, even if that
something is not a good thing. I learned that wording is
important on a petition. The petition states, ``We are asking
businesses to voluntarily remove these machines.'' Until a law
is passed, a business needs to make its own decision.
Teresa Sherwood, the owner of Dave's Pizza in North Bend,
Oregon, said that she was having trouble getting the business
that she leased her violent machines from to come and take it
away. She said, ``I had to be persistent to get nonviolent
ones. He said that he only had a few nonviolent ones and they
were in other places.'' She said, ``After your petition came
around, I got pushy. I told him my patience was gone and he had
to come and get it. It sat there for a month unplugged before
he came for it.''
She said that she had not noticed any change in the amount
of business that she gets since she took out the violent ones,
and there are still lots of kids there. She said, ``The kids
loved the new basketball one. They go crazy over it.'' Some
business owners told me that they would lose money if they took
them out, but her story proves otherwise.
More parents now pay attention to the video games that
their kids play. Some businesses moved them into an adult area
or turned them off. One businessman said that he would not
renew the lease for his machine. I think that all of society
will benefit and the world will be a better place when these
machines are not in places where kids go to eat and play.
Some of these machines include Area 51, with two mounted
guns, all the Mortal Kombat machines, where they use their
fists to make body parts splatter, Police Trainer, where they
use sniper rifles and two mounted guns and look through a
scope, CarnEvil, that uses two mounted shotguns, and Silent
Scope, where they use mounted sniper guns and sneak up on
ordinary people and shoot them for no reason.
I think that it would be a good idea for Senators to go to
a place like an arcade or a pizza parlor and try out these
machines so you know what they do. If you feel too embarrassed
to go by yourself, offer to bring your teenager or a close
friend's son or daughter to play or watch a violent video blood
splatterer. You will see first-hand what it is all about.
I took my petition to the Oregon State Senate, where 29 out
of 30 Oregon State Senators signed it. Senator Veral Tarno
invited me to the Senate, where I spoke to the Judiciary
Committee. I presented the petition to city councils, churches,
and civic officials. Resolutions were written and passed as a
result. The Oregon-Idaho Conference of United Methodist
Churches passed two resolutions, and one will go to the
National Conference in Cleveland in June. Coos Bay passed
Resolution 99-18. Oregon State Senator Veral Tarno is presently
working on a draft for legislation regarding violent video
gaming machines.
My project involves other activities: an educational play
on video game violence that I am going to work on with my
church youth group, lapel buttons, and a Cool-No-Violence
window/door sticker that I designed for businesses that do not
allow children access to these types of machines. This sticker
is like the No Smoking sticker, except it has a violent video
game image on it and a slash across it with the words, Cool-No-
Violence, and C-NO-V. I designed it and Fran Holland, who is a
local graphic artist, further developed it on her computer. I
had a donation for a few tee-shirt transfers for the Cool-No-
Violence logo.
It is a controversial issue. I have been called names. Some
business owners got very angry. They said that they make money
from these machines and they do not want to lose money. It is
not an easy project. It is really hard to do, but I think it is
important, and maybe there will be fewer kids thinking that
they should kill somebody.
I would tell other young people that it was a really good
thing to do. If you feel something needs to be changed to make
society safer and better, you can do it. It is a lot of hard
work, but it pays off. Do not think just because you are young
people will not listen to you. I discovered that adults do
respect us as kids.
I strongly feel that young children should not be exposed
to these types of games, and that if a business wants to have
them, they should put them in an area of their business that
restricts access by young children to playing them, as well as
seeing someone else play them.
[The prepared statement of Miss Shimotakahara follows:]
Prepared Statement of Miss Danielle Shimotakahara, Student,
North Bend, Oregon
My name is Danielle Shimotakahara and I am 12 years old.
On the day of the Columbine massacre in April of 1999, I came home
from school and told my Mom about the graphically violent video games
that are at pizza parlors, bowling alleys, skating rinks and other
places where kids hang out. I told her that I didn't think that little
kids should be playing them. I asked her what we could do to get rid of
them. I felt that a petition signed by kids might influence businesses
to remove or replace them with nonviolent ones. I designed a petition
to get rid of violent video games in places where children hang out. I
brought my Mom to see these games, because she had never seen them. She
was shocked. She helped me with the design for a petition. She helped
me do research about violence in the media and in electronic games. I
made a bibliography and I put it with the petition.
I think these types of games are disgusting. Kids as young as three
years old can use mounted guns to shoot people to pieces and watch
blood splatter on the screen. Kids get points for killing people.
Parents eat pizza while their kids blow somebody up. I have friends who
play them. Their eyes look crazy when they play them and they get
excited when the blood splatters and parts of bodies fly in pieces. On
some machines, they can make choices about which type of gun to use. I
think it teaches kids bad things. Some older kids can get bad ideas
from it, and little kids can have nightmares. I think it is important
to keep these types of killer coin-operated video machines away from
the eyes and hands of children. I don't think these games are
entertainment. I don't think it is entertaining for a kid to eat pizza
or a hot dog and watch a person kill somebody on a gaming machine.
These machines are almost everywhere that kids go. I think it is
important to especially keep little kids away from them, because they
don't know whether they are real or not real. Little kids still believe
in Santa Claus. Psychological research says that children under the age
of seven do not know the difference between fantasy and reality.
I think it gives a message to older kids that it is O.K. to kill
people. The killer is the hero, even if he is killing policemen. Kids
identify with the hero. Kids play them so many times that they become
desensitized to seeing blood or bodies exploding. The more people that
they explode, the more blood splattering, they see in some games. They
are also learning conditioning when they shoot guns at people and get
points for it. I think it is sad that they are laughing while they are
doing it. The boy who did the killing in Arkansas a few years ago
learned to shoot a gun by playing these types of games. He had
excellent marksmanship. I think that it teaches some kids to be
violent, and I think a few of those kids will think about acting out
that violence on innocent people. Others actually might be influenced
to do it. I think it is the same as selling alcohol, drugs,
pornography, or tobacco to kids.
These video machines are similar to the ones that are used to train
police officers and the military. Parents are not always with older
kids to see what they are playing so a lot of parents don't know, and I
think they need to know. I became even more inspired later in May when
I read that Disney removed its violent video games from its arcades and
my mother saved that article to show to people. I think everyone needs
to be educated on the potentially harmful effects of these machines on
kids. Little kids get nightmares from playing these games. I had an
educational table at a Children's Health Carnival on March 10. One kid
who was probably eight or nine says he likes playing these games, but
he also said he got nightmares from them.
Violent blood splattering gun mounted coin operated video games are
almost everywhere young children go. I feel these machines are a bad
influence on young children. Children climb onto chairs or get up on
footstools to use them at pizza parlors, skating rinks, movie theaters.
Mom and I watched a three year old girl splattering blood on one of
these machines at a pizza parlor while the babysitter helped her
balance on the footstool. She was holding a mounted gun, and when she
missed, the mother hollered from the table, ``Aim higher next time.'' I
told my Mom that the babysitter should be fired and she said, ``I think
the parent should be fired.'' We talked to the Mom about how dangerous
it is to expose little kids to this violence and I think she
understands, now.
I want people to learn and think about these machines. I know that
a lot of parents didn't even know that these types of games were being
played by their kids until I started this petition. Parents don't go in
the game room at pizza parlors. They just give out the quarters and eat
their pizza with other parents. Every parent should go in the game room
and check out what games are there. It makes you feel sick just to
watch them. I get cards and letters and phone calls from parents
telling me that they threw out violent software video games when they
heard about my petition.
The petition is not a valid petition because it contains the names
of both children and adults. Some are five years old. They can hardly
print. They print in very large letters. Their big printing makes an
even bigger statement. I believe that this is our voice as children.
There are 3000-4000 signatures on the petition and people and kids are
still signing it. We are young and we can't vote but we can express our
opinions in this way.
I discovered that a lot of kids that I thought were playing these
games were surprisingly not playing them. One of those was a boy in my
school, Jack Rabin, who later helped me do a presentation to a City
Council meeting. I definitely learned not to judge people by what I had
heard about them from others. You have to meet and talk with them,
yourself. I realized that it is easier to prevent younger kids from
playing these machines than it is teenagers, because teenagers have
been playing them for a long time. I determined that parents have to be
involved in what their kids are doing, and that kids need to have
limits, even though we sometimes disagree.
The project is going to continue for a long time, because it is
really hard to convince some people about the dangers. Some won't even
listen. Some parents don't think it is harmful for a child to make
blood splatter and body parts explode. I don't understand why they
think it is OK to do this killing. It takes a lot of time to make a
change and I discovered that some people can be very stubborn and
refuse to listen when they are making a lot of money from something,
even if that something is not a good thing. I learned that wording is
important on a petition. The petition states, ``we are voluntarily
asking businesses to remove these machines.'' Until a law is passed, a
business needs to make its own decision.
Teresa Sherwood the owner of Dave's Pizza in North Bend, Oregon
said that she was having trouble getting the business that she leased
her violent machine from to come and take it away. She said, ``I had to
be persistent to get nonviolent ones. He said that he only had a few
nonviolent ones and they were in other places.'' She said, ``After your
petition came around, I got pushy. I told him my patience was gone, and
to come and get it. It sat there for a month unplugged, before he came
for it.'' She said that she has not noticed any change in the amount of
business that she gets since she took out the violent ones, and there
are still lots of kids there. She said, ``The kids love the new
basketball one. They go crazy over it.'' Some business owners told me
that they would lose money if they took them out, but her story proves
otherwise.
More parents now pay attention to the video games that their kids
play. Some businesses moved them to an adult area or turned them off.
One business said that he would not renew the lease for his machine. I
think that all of society will benefit and the world will be a better
place when these machines are not in places where kids go to eat and
play.
Some of these machines include Area 51 with two mounted guns, all
the Mortal Kombat machines where they use their fists to make body
parts splatter, Police Trainer where they use sniper rifles and two
mounted guns and look through a scope, Carnevil that uses two mounted
shotguns, Silent Scope where they use mounted sniper guns and sneak up
on ordinary people and shoot them for no reason. I think that it would
be a good idea for Senators to go to a place like an arcade or a pizza
parlor, etc. and try out these machines so you know what they do. If
you feel too embarrassed to go by yourself, offer to bring your
teenager or a close friend's son or daughter to play or watch a violent
video blood splatterer. You will see first hand what it is all about.
The project is still ongoing and I still have more educating to do.
With the help of many organizations, I have been working with the
Southwestern Oregon Medical Society Alliance to raise more than $8000
to bring an internationally recognized speaker to the area to speak on
this issue on April 24, 25, and 26. I will be appearing with this
speaker as he does presentations at seven middle schools. He will also
speak at parent, student, mental health professional, and police
groups, and for the general public. The speaker will be Lt. Col. David
Grossman, an expert on TV, movie and video game violence. I will answer
questions on a radio call in show with him as well.
I took my petition to the Oregon State Senate where 29 out of 30
Oregon State Senators signed it. Senator Veral Tarno invited me to the
Senate, where I spoke to the Judiciary Committee. I presented the
petition to city councils, churches and civic officials. Resolutions
were written and passed as a result. The Oregon-Idaho Conference of
United Methodist Churches passed two resolutions and one will go to the
National Conference in Cleveland in June. Coos Bay passed Resolution
99-18. Oregon State Senator Veral Tarno is presently working on a draft
for legislation regarding violent video gaming machines.
My project involves other activities--an educational play on video
game violence that I am going to work on with my church youth group,
lapel buttons, and a Cool-No-Violence window/door sticker that I
designed for businesses that do not allow children access to these
types of machines. This sticker is like the No Smoking sticker except
it has a violent video game image on it and a slash across it with the
words, Cool-No-Violence and C-NO-V on it. I designed it and Fran
Holland, who is a local graphic artist further developed it on her
computer. I had a donation for a few tee-shirt transfers for the Cool-
No-Violence logo. I gave one to Bishop Paup at the church conference
where there were more than 900 delegates. I read a quote from Martin
Luther King Jr. about peaceful means to achieve peaceful ends. I have
no more Tee-shirts but I will pay for the other materials by putting my
clothing on consignment. A local business, concerned with the health of
children, may sponsor the making of Tee-shirts that have this logo on
them.
The local newspaper in Coos Bay called The World, has been covering
this peace project on the front page and a recent editorial discussed
it. Education Week and Guideposts for Kids also interviewed me for an
article. The Oregonian newspaper will have an article on it today,
March 21.
I just received the Prudential Spirit of the Community Award as the
top Oregon Middle School Volunteer for 2000. My project was chosen from
20,000 applications and I get to come back to Washington, D.C., where I
will meet 103 other honorees and participate in national recognition
events in May for four days. One event will be a Congressional
breakfast. I just found out my project has also been selected as a
finalist for another award chosen from 100,000 applications from 99
countries.
It is a controversial issue. I have been called names. Some
business owners got very angry. They said that they make money from
these machines and they don't want to lose money. It is not an easy
project. It is really hard to do this, but I think it is important and
maybe there will be fewer kids thinking that they should kill somebody.
I would tell other young people that it was a really good thing to do
and if you feel something needs to be changed to make society safer and
better, you can do it. It is a lot of hard work but it pays off. Don't
think just because you are young, people won't listen to you. I
discovered that adults do respect us as kids.
I strongly feel that young children should not be exposed to these
types of games and that if a business wants to have them, they should
put them in an area of their business that restricts access by young
children to playing them as well as seeing someone else play them.
Added written Testimony of Danielle Shimotakahara, age 12, to the
members of the United States Senate Commerce Committee on
Science and Transportation on March 21, 2000.
This is a list of some of the commonly found coin operated violent
blood splattering video games in public places that I know about.
CarnEvil--Mounted guns and blood and body exploding. The head
comes off first when you shoot, then the characters walk around
with their heads off and after 5 or so more shots they explode.
Many of the characters are covered in blood. It is a two player
shooter. CarnEvil is in a movie theater lobby in my hometown.
It has an advertisement that says ``CarnEvil is more than just
the scariest shooter around, it's an awesome cinematic
experience . . . the most frighteningly realistic first person
shooter ever unleashed on the living.'' Tort and Rodz are two
characters ``plucked from the most vile insane asylums . . .
their urge to kill is fueled by self-torture-making them almost
unstoppable.''
Police Trainer has sniper rifles. There is no negotiation,
and the police just shoot everybody. There are 2 mounted guns
and a scope.
Lethal Enforcers--You leave different kinds of bullet holes
in your victims. Female hostages who plead ``help me'' too
often are shot.
The House of the Dead and House of the Dead 2--These are
called light gun games. You have a handgun and it is important
to do head shots to kill your victim. Bodies lose their limbs,
heads and chests and they also can have gaping wounds that you
can see through.
Silent Scope has a mounted sniper gun with a scope. You sneak
up on people and shoot ordinary people for no reason. When you
kill, blood splatters everywhere. You get extra points if you
shoot your victims in the head.
Time Crisis and Time Crisis 2--This has a realistic recoil
action gun. Guns make sounds like real gun sounds. It is 3D.
Mortal Kombat series, Mortal Kombat Ultimate--This has
joysticks. You use your fists and legs and feet. Bodies explode
blood when you hit them. Mortal Kombat Ultimate says on the
screen--``There is no Knowledge that is not Power.'' Does that
mean that if you know how to kill someone, then you will have
power?
Area 51--This one has 2 mounted guns. Bodies explode and
blood splatters on the screen. The gunfire sounds realistic.
Steel Gunner 2--This one has mounted guns. Bodies are blown
in half, arms fly off, blood splatters and a charred lower body
remains on the screen.
Games like Doom, Quake, Blood, Resident Evil, Carmaggedon and Duke
Nukem all shoot people to pieces. Eating the corpses of soldiers
happens in one software game. Duke Nukem has nearly naked women who ask
to be killed. They combine sex and violence. They have people with sexy
bodies blowing one another up, and getting power because of it. Men and
women in hardly any clothing fight one another.
Carmaggedon, which is also a coin-op game was banned in Brazil,
because it caused road rage. You get points for killing pedestrians
with your car. A girl wearing a bikini will splatter on the windshield.
You can chase an old man who walks with a cane and hunt humans with
your car. Pedestrians scream and blood splatters.
My Mom and I were at a pizza place taking notes on these machines
when two 8 year boys, that we knew came up to play. My Mom and I had
just used Steel Gunner 2 to see what it would do and she said out loud
``This one makes bodies explode.'' The kid said ``Cool.'' My Mom asked
him if he really said ``cool'' and he said ``yes.'' Then she said, ``So
you think it is cool to blow somebody to pieces and watch the blood
splatter everywhere? He got really quiet. Then his mother came rushing
around the corner, and said--``No, you are not playing that one.'' She
said that she did not know about these games until my petition and now
she is watching for them everywhere. She said that if you turn your
back for a minute, they are playing them, and she was ordering a pizza.
His mother said she saw a father playing CarnEvil with his young son,
that evening in the lobby of the movie theater as they were waiting for
a movie to start. Another boy who was maybe 10 came by later, and he
didn't have any money. He went to the Steel Gunner 2 and just stood
there looking at the screen. He held the gun in his hand for 5 minutes,
just watching the screen. I think it must be really hard for parents,
because these games are everywhere. I think these kids feel they have
power when they hold the guns. I think they get addicted to them, and
they want to do it more and more.
I am going to ask city councils to start work on passing ordinances
so that these machines will not be seen or used by young children in
places where we hang out. Another problem is that the violent games are
often right beside basketball or car racing games. When you play a car
racing game, and someone plays a violent one beside you, you still see
the blood splatter on their screen.
On March 28, I spoke to the North Bend City Council. They gave me
an award for the work I am doing to make everyone aware of these
machines and for trying to figure out a way to get rid of them in
public places.
I asked the mayor and the City Council to help me. I told them
about the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. I asked them to figure
out a way to enforce those ratings. Area 51 and Ultimate Mortal Kombat
are rated M, meaning 17 and up. I don't think anyone should be using
these machines, but there must be a way to enforce the present ratings,
so at least little kids can't see or play them.
The ESRB does not always rate these games properly, so I think they
need to work on that. A software one called DeerAvenger is rated T,
which is 13 and up. The deer hunt humans and use an M-16 to blow
hunters to pieces. The assistant manager at my local Wal-Mart said that
people and parents keep bringing that one back because there is
pornography in it.
I am asking people to start writing letters to their mayors, city
councillors, newspapers, and government officials about these violent
games and they are doing that. I was the guest speaker at a banquet for
Court Appointed Special Advocates for children. They are volunteers
that speak in court for abused children. I told them about these games
and they were surprised. They wanted to know where they could find
them. They gasped when I told them about bodies exploding and blood
splattering. Parents and others really don't know but they are
learning.
In conclusion,
1. I think the ratings by the ESRB need to be made stricter.
2. Until the ratings are made stricter, I think City Councils
need to enforce the present ESRB ratings, because that would at
least prevent some kids from playing or seeing some of the
violent ones.
3. I think these games are not good or useful for anyone.
4. I think everyone needs to learn and become educated about
the harmful effects of these games (machines) on kids.
5. I think people should try one or two of these games or
watch somebody else play them to see what they do.
6. I think people should call or write lawmakers, mayors,
etc. and express their opinions about these violent blood
splattering games/machines.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Danielle, for your
testimony, for giving up your spring break to come here, but
more importantly, for your heart, for getting out and taking
that petition forward. I hope you get 3 million signatures on
it. I think it is very possible.
There are a number of Senators on the panel with us.
Senator Dorgan has another committee mark-up he has to go to,
so I would like to give the floor to Senator Dorgan first, then
when we go to questions, we will run the 5-minute clock.
Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, Thank you very much. I have
an Appropriations Subcommittee meeting that started at 10, and
I regret that I must go to that at this point, but I wanted to
just make a brief comment or two.
First, Senator Brownback, let me thank you for holding this
hearing. We have been involved, I guess I have been involved
about seven years here in the U.S. Senate in hearings on the
subject of television violence, and I have introduced
legislation, worked on the V chip and a range of things with
Senator Kerry and others, but this is an important issue, the
issue you raise about violence. Violence on television--
violence on interactive games--is an important issue.
Mrs. Steger, I know the pain of losing a child, and I can
barely speak about it, and the strength that you have
demonstrated, coming to the Senate and bringing to life the
memory of your daughter, and a description of that tragedy, and
describing the things you think should be done to avoid
tragedies like it in the future is quite remarkable, and I want
to thank you for being willing to do that, and to share that
story with the U.S. Senate.
Danielle, thank you for coming here from Oregon and taking
your time to appear, and thank you for the spunk and the energy
you describe, and the efforts you are making.
Dr. Walsh, I appreciate your testimony. Just as with the
subject of television violence, in my judgment, there is no
question--there is no question at all any longer of whether
this kind of excessive violence that is projected to our
children affects their behavior. Yes, of course it does. Of
course it does.
We had the study of this community in Canada that for some
unusual reasons was unable to get television for some time.
Almost a couple of decades before, the rest of the surrounding
communities had television, and comparing the children in that
community with the other communities showed a dramatic
difference in aggressive behavior. Why? Because one was subject
to a steady diet of violence suggesting that grownups solve
their problems by shooting each other, stabbing each other, and
hitting each other.
We should be able to entertain adults in our country
without hurting our children, and that is the question here.
With respect to the excessive violence in television
programming, yes, that still exists, with excessive violence in
some areas, and also these interactive games.
I have children who--well, let me rephrase it. It is very
hard to be a parent and be vigilant all the time, watching what
is coming into your living room on that television set, and
watching these video games, and so people say, well, this is
none of anybody's business except the parents. Well, that is
not true at all.
Yes, it is the parents' business first, and there is no
substitute for good parenting. That is certainly true, no
substitute for good parenting, but it is almost impossible for
the best parents in our country to try to create a curtain
beyond which this excessive culture of violence is not
permeating the lives of our wonderful children.
So again, Senator Brownback, I spoke longer than I
intended, but these are important issues. They are issues we
cannot and should not ignore. Difficult, yes. Do they involve
questions people will relate to with censorship and so on? Yes.
These are all difficult questions, but all of us want to
protect children in this country. We have the right, it seems
to me, to expect that we can protect our children, and we also
have the right, as Mrs. Steger said, to hope and believe that
when we send our children to school we are sending our children
to safe places of learning, not places where someone will come
with guns and destroy our childrens' lives.
So let me again thank you for the hearing, and thanks to
the witnesses. I apologize that I cannot stay for the entire
hearing. I really would like to do that. Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. Thank you for
your leadership on this topic for a long period of time. I
think we are going to start getting into some of the nuts and
bolts of what we can do to move this debate forward, and we
need to begin that now. I have some questions for the
panelists. As I said, we will go through 5 minutes of questions
for each of the Members.
Dr. Walsh, I have been very disappointed, as I stated at
the outset, that the industry would not come forward and
testify. I am curious, have you had direct discussions with the
video game industry about these video games, and how did they
respond to you about these violent products that they are
putting out?
Dr. Walsh. Senator, we at the National Institute on Media
and the Family have published the annual video and computer
game report card each of the last 4 years, and at the
conclusion of that report card we always make recommendations
as to things that we think could be improved, and that has
brought us into fairly regular dialog with the industry.
The industry representatives that I talk to deny that there
is any causal link, that there is any harmful effect.
Senator Brownback. Have they studied this? Have they
commissioned studies to find that out, or do they just deny it?
Dr. Walsh. Not that I am aware of. When there is, when
there is something in print that kind of speaks to their side--
for example, there is a theory that some people will sometimes
write about and which I like to call the catharsis hypothesis,
which basically says that actually these games are helpful,
because it helps kids drain off this aggressive energy. It is a
theory, but there is absolutely no research to back it up. All
of the research in terms of the catharsis hypothesis actually
goes in the opposite direction.
And so when people write about those things, they share
that information, but in terms of hard research showing there
is no effect, one of the difficulties with research is that it
is very difficult to get it done. It is very difficult to get
it funded. This is very quickly advancing technology. I mean,
literally the game processing, or the power of the game
processors, is jumping by light years from month to month.
Senator Brownback. You made a statement that we will just
around the corner have virtual reality experiences in these
games, so that we will be, what, in a surround-sound room?
Dr. Walsh. 3-D. Holographics.
Senator Brownback. We will be able to use chain saws on
people with virtual reality?
Dr. Walsh. The stated goal of the industry is virtual
reality experience, and technologically they are making
wonderful progress and a lot of the good game producers are
producing very good games.
Senator Brownback. Will it be likely those virtual reality
experiences will involve killing?
Dr. Walsh. Well, if past history is any indication, yes,
they will. With the new gaming platforms that are coming out,
the Sega Dreamcast which came out last September--if I could
just share some numbers to give the Senators an idea, the power
of a game is measured in processing polygons per second. The
polygon is the little picture element, the pixel that makes up
the picture.
If we were meeting this time last year, a Nintendo 64 was
kind of the state-of-the-art. It processed 350,000 polygons per
second. The Sega Dreamcast came out in September. It processes
3 million polygons per second. Sony Play Station 2, which was
released in Tokyo on March 4, processes 66 million polygons per
second, and Bill Gates announced 2 weeks ago that the X-box
that Microsoft is producing and will release in 2001, processes
150 million polygons per second, so the technical advances are
just absolutely staggering.
Senator Brownback. Do we know what the impact would be of a
virtual reality killing spree game on a person's----
Dr. Walsh. We can hypothesize. We do not really know,
because we are unable to do the research, because it does not
exist. What we do know from some of the research, and you are
going to hear from some of the best researchers in the country
in a couple of minutes, is that these things do have an effect.
Some of the research we have done at the National Institute
on Media and the Family, what I think is interesting and
important, is that not everybody reacts the same. What we found
is that it is kids who are already angry and hostile who get
the biggest effect from these games, and they get more angry
and hostile. So it seems that one of the things that happens
with research is, if you take a look at all kids, that a lot of
the effects get masked because different kids have different
reactions. As we get more sophisticated, we have to develop the
ability to figure out which kids are most likely to be
affected.
Senator Brownback. Very interesting.
Mrs. Steger, again, thank you for your testimony, and I
know it is a very difficult thing to relive here, as I am sure
you relive it many times every day, what you and your family
went through. Do you think Michael Carneal's immersion in
violent entertainment contributed to his murderous actions?
Mrs. Steger. Yes. Plain and simple, yes, I do.
Senator Brownback. Why do you say that?
Mrs. Steger. Based on all of what we have understood, he
did spend a lot of time doing that, and he spent--he came from
a two-parent home. He did not have any socioeconomic
disadvantages. You know, it is like, how do you blame a lot of
other things that we want to blame kids. We want to say kids
are angry because they are not intelligent, they do not have a
good home, they do not have this or that. Well, this killer had
all of those things, so it came from some place else.
Senator Brownback. Danielle, you said in your testimony,
that parents do not know their kids are playing these games. Is
that what you found out as you carried your petition around?
Miss Shimotakahara. Yes. Most parents do not know what
their kids do when they go into the arcades. They just sit
there, give out the quarters, do whatever they want and their
kids go off and do whatever.
Senator Brownback. You said in your testimony, too, that
when some of these kids come away from playing these games they
look really different. Could you describe that for me?
Miss Shimotakahara. Well, when they play them they are
focused on that. Nothing else matters. Nothing else is
happening, just the game. That is all there is, and when they
come away from it, sometimes that is all they think about. Like
in school, they do not focus on school. They think about going
home and playing their game.
Senator Brownback. Are your friends and classmates ever
stopped from buying a violent video game?
Miss Shimotakahara. Because of my petition?
Senator Brownback. No, when they go to a store to buy a
video game, are they ever stopped from buying a violent one?
Miss Shimotakahara. I only think they would be if their
parents say that they cannot buy that. I think if it was up to
them, they would probably buy whatever they could.
Senator Brownback. What is the most popular video games
that kids are playing?
Miss Shimotakahara. I have seen most people play Area 51. I
think that is one of the most popular ones.
Senator Brownback. Do you think violent video games affect
the students that you know?
Miss Shimotakahara. I think that they do not care when they
are playing the games, and there are a lot more wanting to
fight. They want to argue. They do not want to just have a nice
conversation.
Senator Brownback. Thank you. Senator Kerry, thank you very
much for being here today.
Senator Kerry. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
having this hearing on a topic that is obviously deeply
troubling to a lot of people. It has got a lot of question
marks out there, but I think common sense sort of dictates to a
lot of us what Mrs. Steger has been saying and what Danielle
has been saying. Thank you, both of you, for your testimonies.
It is terrific to have you here, and I know very difficult for
you, Mrs. Steger.
Paducah, as Columbine and others, has sort of become seared
in all of our consciousness in this country and, unfortunately
there are more lamentations than there are substantive actions
that somehow really make a difference, and I think that
troubles all of us, which is obviously one of the reasons for
this hearing.
Danielle, let me ask you a couple of questions, if I can.
Have you played some of these violent games?
Miss Shimotakahara. I have not played them for fun, but I
have gone into pizza parlors to see what they actually do. I
have played them to see, like, first-hand what you have to do,
but I have not played them out of fun.
Senator Kerry. And when you say you have not played them
for fun, did you have an initial sort of reaction to them, that
you just did not like them, or did they disturb you? What was
it about these games that made you make this conscious sort of,
they are not fun, I do not want to do them for fun?
Miss Shimotakahara. Well, I have just found better things
to do than play video games so I never really played them
before, and I was never really around them, so I never really
liked them.
Senator Kerry. Now, would you say that most of your friends
who play them, do they play by and large in the pizza parlors
and various places where they can find these machines in
public, or do they play them more on their own computers
privately at home?
Miss Shimotakahara. Well, I have some friends who mainly
play them in the pizza parlors, and they play some of the games
on their computers, but I would say they mainly play them in
public areas.
Senator Kerry. Well, it seems to me that that is sort of a
key here, which I will mention in a minute.
Dr. Walsh, I was very interested in your testimony, which I
read, and I am sorry I was not here, but you draw the
conclusion that at-risk teens perform more poorly in school.
At-risk teens name more violent games as their three favorite
video games. At-risk teens get into arguments with parents,
peers, and teachers more frequently than general teens, and
among boys only, at-risk boys are less likely to say they
usually feel positive after playing video games.
In addition to that, boys are more familiar with video
games than girls. Boys play more frequently than girls. Boys
are more likely to own their own games than girls. Boys play
longer at each sitting than girls, almost double, 84 minutes to
40 minutes. Boys like more violence in their video games than
girls. Boys play more each week than girls, 10 hours versus 3
hours. Boys name more violent games as their three favorite
games than girls, and boys expose themselves to more video game
violence than girls.
If I am correct, no girl has engaged in any shooting or
violent act in a school in this country. Am I correct in that?
Dr. Walsh. Not that I am aware of. I am not aware of any.
Senator Kerry. Now, is there something particular about the
interactivity that makes a difference?
When I grew up, and when we grew up, we obviously saw a lot
of killing on TV, whether it was Hopalong Cassidy, or Treasure
Island, or the Road Runner. I mean, there was violence. The
Road Runner gets killed. The Road Runner gets back up and he
runs again, and you have your next incident, and he usually
gets run over, mashed, killed, or something, but we did not
relate to it, obviously, in the same way.
This interactivity clearly--and I have played some games--
not some of the violent ones like that, but some of the early
ones, and it gets you going. It churns you up. You are kind of
into it, and clearly for a younger mind to have that level of
violence engaging you, I would assume, as a parent and just as
a person, it has an impact on you. I mean, I can remember
finishing a Pac-Man game and sweating, and there is an
intensity to it.
Is it the interactivity that is so different, that really
does something to a mind? What is it about that interactivity
that then might lead somebody to not have a sense of
consequences about their actions, or that distinguishes between
the normal sort of violence you see and this particularized
kind of violence?
Dr. Walsh. I think you bring up a very important point,
Senator. Psychologically, I am in a completely different role
when I am playing an interactive game. When I am watching a
movie, and that can be engaging as well, as we all know, I am
in the role of observer.
When I am playing one of these games, I am in the role of
participant, and so the entire psychological position is
different, and so it is my actions that are causing the
reaction, which makes it much more engaging and, as you said,
you experience yourself--and I think many of us have, it is
much more engrossing.
Getting kids, when they are playing video games, to kind of
pay attention to something else is very difficult, and recent
research we did, we asked the kids, is it interfering with your
school work, and you will see, I do not remember the exact
percentages, but a significant percentage said yes.
We asked kids, have you tried to limit the amount that you
play, and the kids say yes. Only a fifth of them are successful
in limiting the amount that they play, and so it is a very,
very engaging, and depending on the type of the game then, you
kind of almost start to take on the mind set, because you are
playing it from the point of view of the perpetrator.
Senator Kerry. Well, I am convinced--I mean, I remember
when I was a prosecutor in the DA's office, certain kinds of
games were not allowed in certain kinds of establishments.
These were in adult establishments, and they usually had to do
with gambling of one form or another, but nevertheless there
was restricted access with respect to certain kinds of games
for reasons of public policy, for judgments of morality and so
forth.
It seems to me, I mean, I think all of us would be pretty
loath to have some kind of grandiose Federal reach here, and
needless to say, there were obvious constitutional questions we
are all aware of, but I for the life of me do not understand
why, given the level of violence we are witnessing, given the
correlation that so many studies now have made, what is it that
is happening on our city councils, and what is that is
happening in the mayors' offices, and what is it that is
happening or not happening in chambers of commerce, Lion's
Clubs, Elks, and all of these civic institutions of a community
that are permitting these kinds of games in a community? They
have local ordinance capacity to prevent any of these games
from appearing in a public place today.
Dr. Walsh. Senator, one of the barriers we have to overcome
with adults is ignorance about the games. I am not talking
about ignorant people. I am talking about ignorance about the
games. There is a technological barrier. With other forms of
media we can share the media, so, for example, my kids watch
television, I watch television. My kids watch films, I watch
films. My kids play video games. I cannot do it.
The technology is only 30 years old, and so typically, with
exceptions, most people over 30 are not adept at the
technology, and so they cannot play the games. Therefore, they
do not pay as much attention, and they are called games, and so
most people assume from that that they are harmless.
The knowledge gap that we have to overcome I think is an
educational challenge, and I think my experience is, once
people start to find out what is in these games, then they
start to take it more seriously.
Senator Kerry. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should
undertake a major effort to educate. I mean, we should be
writing and sending to city councils and boards of aldermen and
mayors and all of the civic institutions of the communities
across this country notice of these studies, and of the level
of violence that is at large, and the testimonies of people
like Mrs. Steger and Danielle Shimotakahara, and try to have an
impact here, because they have the ability to make these
determinations.
We do not need some great legislative effort. We need to
educate people and make them aware. Now, I wonder if we need
more studies? Do we have, sort of, the conclusive link that
would allow people to be able to make this nexus that is so
critical?
Dr. Walsh. We are really in the early stages of the
research, Senator. We do need more studies to be able to really
identify the cause and effect and, of course, the technology is
changing so quickly. Games kids are playing today have faint
resemblance to games they were playing 6 years ago.
Senator Kerry. I will lay odds that the vast majority of
parents in this country do not have a clue what virtual killing
looks like or feels like. They do not have a clue how real it
is and how subversive it could be to a kid who already does not
have good communication with the parent, or who already feels
alienated, or who already is growing up with all the problems
teenagers have.
I mean, you look at what these kids were doing out in
Columbine, and they may come from a quote, good home, and they
may have two parents, and they may--but there are plenty of
kids from good homes and two parents who are not connected to
reality or to their parents, or to any of the goodness around
them, and it seems to me it is just common sense. We have got
to have a little more common sense applied.
Dr. Walsh. Common sense really does work. We have a
community education initiative at the National Institute on
Media and the Family, and we have a community education program
in that we have some video clips of video games. Invariably,
when we show parents those clips, you can hear a pin drop when
it is finished. Parents are saying, I had no idea. You are
absolutely right.
Senator Kerry. Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I would
just like to perhaps invite you to work, and maybe we could
work on some kind of a significant outreach educational effort
that is obviously not legislative, but might have far more
impact faster if we were to engage in that.
Senator Brownback. I think that is an excellent suggestion,
and it is one that one of the panelists made. Mrs. Steger is
making that point, that we need a public relations, we need a
public education campaign about what these are all about, and
what they are doing to our children, and that those abilities
to deal with this do exist at the local level.
Senator Kerry. Can I make one final comment?
Senator Brownback. Please.
Senator Kerry. Danielle made the best point of all, that it
is the parents who need to be fired. Now, obviously we do not
want to fire them. We want to get them engaged.
But the bottom line here is, Danielle, you have got a
parent or two parents who are deeply involved in your life, and
they have made a difference, and you are making good judgments.
Too many of our kids in this country are going home from school
to households that have no parent in them until 6, 7 in the
evening, and even then parents come home and they are not
involved, and there is no engagement.
So the great task for America is not just to lament, or to
sort of focus on the games themselves. It is to focus on the
choices that we have in our communities and in our families,
and we need to do a better job with after-school programs, with
all of the kinds of things that engage kids in something other
than 10 hours a week of distraction in front of a screen in
violent endeavors, and our education system ought to be doing a
hell of a lot better job, frankly, of making sure those choices
are available and people are aware of these kinds of things.
It is a big task, and there is no one solution to it, but I
really hope we can get serious about it.
Senator Brownback. I do, too. Thank you very much, Senator
Kerry.
Dr. Walsh, one final question for you. Who are these games
marketed to? Are they marketed to adults, the violent games, or
are they marketed to the children?
Dr. Walsh. That is another one of the concerns, and we have
identified that in the annual video game report cards. For
example, Senator, there are Duke Nukem action figures that kids
can buy in toy stores.
Senator Brownback. At what age?
Dr. Walsh. At any age, and of course action figures are
attractive to younger kids.
Senator Brownback. It is my contention that the companies
are actually marketing all of these games to children. It would
be
interesting to me to find out from the companies how are they
doing their marketing, and how are they devising their
marketing
strategy.
They will not agree to testify. We know they are using
psychological analyses to determine, how do we get these games
to move, and move off of the shelf, and yet they will not
respond.
Dr. Walsh. We actually have data, documents we have turned
over to the Federal Trade Commission, which are actual
documents of advertising agencies for a video game producer,
their plan to market this game to teenagers, and the game was
rated for adults, so we actually have some data, and the
Federal Trade Commission now has it. We have given it to them.
Senator Brownback. We need to find out a lot more from
these companies.
Thank you very much. It has been an excellent panel, and we
thank you for sharing the difficulty and your heart and your
hope.
The next panel consists of Dr. Craig Anderson from the
Department of Psychology at Iowa State University, Dr. Eugene
F. Provenzo, School of Education, University of Miami, and Dr.
Jeanne Funk from the Department of Psychology of the University
of Toledo.
I might tell the people viewing this, or listening to this
testimony, these are all expert witnesses who have studied this
issue extensively and are here today to offer their expertise
and what they have learned to date. I would also ask the
panelists, if you have suggestions or recommendations based
upon your studies and your findings, please feel free to share
those with us as well.
Dr. Anderson, thank you very much for joining us. The floor
is yours.
STATEMENT OF DR. CRAIG A. ANDERSON, PROFESSOR, IOWA STATE
UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, AMES, IOWA
Dr. Anderson. Thank you, Senator. Distinguished Senators,
ladies and gentlemen, my name is Craig Anderson. I am a
professor of psychology and chair of the Department of
Psychology at Iowa State University. I have studied human
behavior now for over 25 years. Much of that time has been
devoted to studying human aggression, what we typically call
violence.
I am very happy to be here to speak with you today about
the problems of exposing young people to interactive violence.
In particular, I would like to talk about violent video games.
Though there are many complexities in this realm of behavioral
research, there is one clear and simple message that parents,
educators, and public policymakers such as yourselves need to
hear. Playing violent video games can cause increases in
aggression and violence.
A second message to take away from my report is also very
important. There are good reasons to expect that the effects of
exposure to violent video games will be even greater than the
well-documented effects of exposure to violent television and
movies. I will return to this point a little bit later, but
first I want to highlight some facts concerning TV and movie
violence.
Fact 1. Exposure to violent TV and movies causes increases
in aggression and violence.
Fact 2. These effects are of two kinds, short-term and
long-term. The short-term effect is that aggression increases
immediately after viewing a violent TV show or a movie. The
long-term effect is that repeated exposure to violent TV and
movies increases the violence proneness of the person watching
such shows.
Fact 3. Both the long-term and the short-term effects occur
to both boys and girls.
And Fact 4, the effects of TV and movie violence on
aggression are bigger than the effects in the medical field and
in other fields that we typically believe are really huge. For
instance, the effects of, again, TV and movie violence are
bigger than the effect of exposure to lead on IQ scores in
children. They are bigger than the effect of calcium intake on
bone mass. They are bigger than the effect of homework on
academic achievement, and they are bigger than the effect of
exposure to asbestos on cancer.
Now, you might ask why I consider TV and movie violence
research when we are explicitly talking about interactive
violence, in this case, video games. There are several reasons,
and I will just hit these real briefly.
First, the psychological processes underlying TV and movie
violence are also at work when people play video games, and the
second reason is that the research literature on TV violence
effects is vast. It is huge. We understand what is going on
there, whereas the literature on video game violence is
relatively small.
Now, let us consider some facts derived from this
relatively small research literature that is specifically
focused on video games. Number 1, the amount of time our
children and youth spend playing video games continues to
increase annually. No big surprise there.
Number 2, young people who play lots of violent video games
behave more violently than those who do not.
Number 3, playing a violent video game causes an increase
in aggressive thinking, 43 percent more aggressive thinking in
one recent study.
And Number 4, playing a violent video game causes an
increase in retaliatory aggression, 17 percent more aggression
in one recent study.
Now, why does exposure to violent media increase aggression
and violence? We do not have nearly enough time for that
particular talk, but basically children who are exposed to a
lot of violent media learn a number of lessons that change them
into more aggressive people.
One way to think about this is to realize that the
developing personality is like slowly hardening clay. Various
life experiences, including exposure to violent media, are like
the hands that shape the clay. Changes in shape are relatively
easy to make at first, when the clay is soft, but later on
changes become increasingly difficult as the clay hardens.
Earlier, I said that there are good reasons to expect that
violent interactive media will have an even stronger effect on
subsequent violence and violent TV and movies, and there are at
least four different reasons for this. The first one is that
identification with the aggressor increases imitation of the
aggressor, and video games require stronger identification with
violent characters than does watching violent TV or movies.
Second, active participation increases learning. The
violent video game player is a much more active participant
than is the violent TV show watcher.
Third, rehearsing an entire behavioral sequence is a more
effective teaching tool than rehearsing only a part of it. The
video game player must choose to aggress and physically enact
the aggression in some way, whereas the TV viewer does not make
any such choices or take action, so that the video game player
really rehearses the entire behavioral sequence, whereas the TV
watcher does not.
And reason 4, repetition increases learning. The addictive
nature of video games and the frequency with which aggressive
choices and actions are required in order to win means that
their lessons will be taught repeatedly, much more frequently
than in most violent TV shows or movies.
I would also like to comment briefly on just several myths
concerning media violence.
Myth 1, violent media have harmful effects only on a very
small minority of people who use these media. We hear this
myth--we have heard it for 30 years involving TV violence. We
are now starting to hear it from the industry involving video
game violence. It is simply not true.
It is true that most people who play violent video games do
not end up in prison for a violent crime. It is also true most
people who smoke do not die of lung cancer. That does not mean
that the smokers have not suffered other ill-effects and,
similarly, people who play violent video games, even though
they may not end up in prison, that does not mean they are not
affected.
In fact, large proportions, we do not know exactly how
many, are affected. They become more aggressive people. That
may involve slapping their kids or spouses, getting in more
arguments, and so on. It does not necessarily mean they are
actually going to become mass murderers.
A second myth is that violent media allow a person to get
rid of violent tendencies in a nonharmful way. This is what Dr.
Walsh referred to earlier as the catharsis hypothesis. We have
known for over 30 years that that hypothesis is wrong. More
recently, it has resurfaced in the media as the venting
hypothesis. It is still wrong. In fact, the research quite
clearly shows playing violent video games or observing
aggressive actions increases aggression. It does not decrease
it.
Now, obviously many factors contribute to any particular
act of violence and, similarly, many factors contribute to the
development of an aggressive personality. More importantly for
this hearing, high exposure to media violence is a major
contributing cause of the high rate of violence in modern U.S.
society. Just as important, there are effective ways of
reducing this particular contributing cause. Reducing our
children's exposure to media violence could have an important
impact.
I thank you for your interest in this issue, and would
release the floor to whoever is next.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Craig A. Anderson, Iowa State University,
Department of Psychology, Ames, Iowa
Distinguished Senators, ladies, and gentlemen. I am Craig Anderson,
Professor of Psychology and Chair of the Department of Psychology at
Iowa State University. I have studied human behavior for over 25 years.
My first research publication, in 1979, concerned one potential
contributing factor in the outbreak of riots. My first publication on
video game violence appeared in 1987. Next month, the American
Psychological Association will publish a new research article on video
games and violence that I wrote with a colleague of mine (Karen Dill).
The article will appear in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, the premier scientific outlet for research in social and
personality phenomena. I recently wrote the ``Human Aggression and
Violence'' articles for both the Encyclopedia of Psychology and the
Encyclopedia of Sociology.
I am very happy to be here to speak with you today about the
problems of exposing people, especially young people, to interactive
violence, that is, violent video games. Though there are many
complexities in this realm of behavioral research, there is one clear
and simple message that parents, educators, and public policy makers
such as yourselves need to hear: Playing violent video games can cause
increases in aggression and violence.
A second message to take away from my report is also very
important: There are good reasons to expect that the effects of
exposure to violent video games on subsequent aggressive behavior will
be even greater than the well-documented effects of exposure to violent
television and movies. I'll return to this point in a moment.
TV & Movie Violence: Facts & Relevance
But first, I want to highlight some facts concerning TV and movie
violence, many of which were reported to a Senate hearing last year by
Professor Rowell Huesmann of the University of Michigan.
Fact 1. Exposure to violent TV and movies causes increases in
aggression and violence.
Fact 2. These effects are of two kinds: short term and long term.
The short term effect is that aggression increases immediately after
viewing a violent TV show or movie, and lasts for at least 20 minutes.
The long term effect is that repeated exposure to violent TV and movies
increases the violence-proneness of the person watching such shows. In
essence, children who watch a lot of violent shows become more violent
as adults than they would have become had they not been exposed to so
much TV and movie violence.
Fact 3. Both the long term and the short term effects occur to both
boys and girls.
Fact 4. The effects of TV and movie violence on aggression are not
small. Indeed, the media violence effect on aggression is bigger than
the effect of exposure to lead on IQ scores in children, the effect of
calcium intake on bone mass, the effect of homework on academic
achievement, or the effect of asbestos exposure on cancer.
Why consider the TV and movie violence research literature when
discussing video game violence? There are three main reasons. First,
the psychological processes underlying TV and movie violence effects on
aggression are also at work when people play video games. The
similarities between exposure to TV violence and exposure to video game
violence are so great that ignoring the TV violence literature would be
foolish. Second, the research literature on TV violence effects is
vast, whereas the research literature on video game violence is small.
Researchers have been investigating TV effects for over 40 years, but
video games didn't even exist until the 1970s, and extremely violent
video games didn't emerge until the early 1990s. Third, because the TV/
movie violence research literature is so mature there has been ample
time to answer early criticisms of the research with additional
research designed to address the criticisms. Thus, the various shoot-
from-the-hip criticisms and myths created by those with a vested
interest in creating and selling various kinds of violent entertainment
media have been successfully tested and debunked. I'll describe some of
the more popular ones in a few moments.
Video Game Violence: Scope & Research
Now, let's consider facts derived from the relatively small
research literature that is specifically focused on video games.
Fact 1. Video games are consuming a larger amount of time every
year. Virtually all children now play video games. The average 7th
grader is playing electronic games at least 4 hours per week, and about
half of those games are violent. Even though the number of hours spent
playing video games tends to decline in the high school and college
years, a significant portion of students are playing quite a few video
games. In 1998, 3.3% of men entering public universities in the United
States reported playing video games more than 15 hours per week in
their senior year in high school. In 1999, that percentage jumped to a
full 4%.
Fact 2. Young people who play lots of violent video games behave
more violently than those who do not. For example, in the most recent
study of this type exposure to video game violence during late
adolescence accounted for 13-22% of the variance in violent behaviors
committed by this sample of people. By way of comparison, smoking
accounts for about 14% of lung cancer variance.
Fact 3. Experimental studies have shown that playing a violent
video game causes an increase in aggressive thinking. For example, in
one study young college students were randomly assigned the task of
playing a violent video game (Marathon 2) or a nonviolent game (Glider
Pro). Later, they were given a list of partially completed words, such
as mu __ __ er. They were asked to fill in the blanks as quickly as
possible. Some of the partial words could form either an aggressive
word (murder) or a nonaggressive word (mutter). Those who had played
the violent game generated 43% more aggressive completions than those
who had played a nonviolent game.
Fact 4. Experimental studies have shown that playing a violent
video game causes an increase in retaliatory aggression. For example,
in one study participants were randomly assigned to play either a
violent game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent game (Myst). Shortly
afterwards, they received a series of mild provocations and were given
an opportunity to retaliate aggressively. Those who had played the
violent game retaliated at a 17% higher rate than those who had played
the nonviolent game.
Fact 5. Experimental and correlational studies have shown that
playing violent video games leads to a decrease in prosocial (helping)
behaviors.
Why Media Violence Increases Aggression & Violence
Why does exposure to violent media increase aggression and
violence? There are several different ways in which watching or playing
violent media can increase aggression and violence. The most powerful
and long lasting involves learning processes. From infancy, humans
learn how to perceive, interpret, judge, and respond to events in the
physical and social environment. We learn by observing the world around
us, and by acting on that world. We learn rules for how the social
world works. We learn behavioral scripts and use them to interpret
events and actions of others and to guide our own behavioral responses
to those events. These various knowledge structures develop over time.
They are based on the day-to-day observations of and interactions with
other people, real (as in the family) and imagined (as in the mass
media). Children who are exposed to a lot of violent media learn a
number of lessons that change them into more aggressive people. They
learn that there are lots of bad people out there who will hurt them.
They come to expect others to be mean and nasty. They learn to
interpret negative events that occur to them as intentional harm,
rather than as an accidental mistake. They learn that the proper way to
deal with such harm is to retaliate. Perhaps as importantly, they do
not learn nonviolent solutions to interpersonal conflicts.
As these knowledge structures develop over time, they become more
complex and difficult to change. In a sense, the developing personality
is like slowly-hardening clay. Environmental experiences, including
violent media, shape the clay. Changes are relatively easy to make at
first, when the clay is soft, but later on changes become increasingly
difficult. Longitudinal studies suggest that aggression-related
knowledge structures begin to harden around age 8 or 9, and become more
perseverant with increasing age.
The result of repeated exposure to violent scripts, regardless of
source, can be seen in several different aspects of a person's
personality. There is evidence that such exposure increases general
feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression and retaliation,
suspicions about the motives of others, and expectations about how
others are likely to deal with a potential conflict situation. Repeated
exposure to violent media also reduces negative feelings that normally
arise when observing someone else get hurt. In other words, people
become desensitized to violence. Finally, exposure to violent media
teaches people that aggressive retaliation is good and proper.
Violent Video Games vs. TV & Movies
Earlier, I said that there are good reasons to expect that violent
interactive media will have an even stronger effect on aggression and
violence than traditional forms of media violence such as TV and
movies. These several reasons all involve differences between TV and
video games that influence learning processes. The following four
reasons all have considerable research support behind them, but have
not yet been extensively investigated in the video game domain.
Reason 1. Identification with the aggressor increases imitation of
the aggressor. In TV shows and movies there may be several characters
with which an observer can identify, some of whom may not behave in a
violent fashion. In most violent video games, the player must identify
with one violent character. In ``first person shooters,'' for instance,
the player assumes the identity of the hero or heroine, and then
controls that character's actions throughout the game. This commonly
includes selection of weapons and target and use of the weapons to
wound, maim, or kill the various enemies in the game environment.
Common weapons include guns, grenades, chain saws and other cutting
tools, cars and tanks, bombs, hands, and knives.
Reason 2. Active participation increases learning. The violent
video game player is a much more active participant than is the violent
TV show watcher. That alone may increase the effectiveness of the
violent story lines in teaching the underlying retaliatory aggression
scripts to the game player. Active participation is a more effective
teaching tool in part because it requires attention to the material
being taught.
Reason 3. Rehearsing an entire behavioral sequence is more
effective than rehearsing only a part of it. The aggression script
being rehearsed is more complete in a video game than in a TV show or
movie. For example, the video game player must choose to aggress, and
in essence rehearses this choice process, whereas the TV viewer does
not have to make any such choices. Similarly, in video games the player
must carry out the violent action, unlike the violent TV viewer.
Indeed, in many video games the player physically enacts the same
behaviors in the game that would be required to enact it in the real
world. Some games involve shooting a realistic electronic gun, for
instance. Some virtual reality games involve the participant throwing
punches, ducking, and so on. As the computer revolution continues, the
``realism'' of the video game environment will increase dramatically.
Reason 4. Repetition increases learning. The addictive nature of
video games means that their lessons will be taught repeatedly. This is
largely a function of the reinforcing properties of the games,
including the active and changing images, the accompanying sounds, and
the actual awarding of points or extra lives or special effects when a
certain level of performance is reached.
Myths
I'd also like to comment briefly on a number of myths concerning
media violence. Many of these myths have been around for years. Some
come from well-intentioned sources that simply happen to be wrong;
others are foisted on our society by those who believe that their
profits will be harmed if an informed society (especially parents)
begins to shun violent TV shows, movies, and video games.
Myth 1. The TV/movie violence literature is inconclusive. Any
scientist in any field of science knows that no single study can
definitively answer the complex questions encompassed by a given
phenomenon. Even the best of studies have limitations. It's a
ridiculously easy task to nitpick at any individual study, which
frequently happens whenever scientific studies seem to contradict a
personal belief or might have implications about the safety of one's
products. The history of the smoking/lung cancer debate is a wonderful
example of where such nitpicking successfully delayed widespread
dissemination and acceptance of the fact that the product (mainly
cigarettes) caused injury and death. The myth that the TV/movie
violence literature is inconclusive has been similarly perpetuated by
self-serving nitpicking.
Scientific answers to complex questions take years of careful
research by numerous scientists interested in the same question. We
have to examine the questions from multiple perspectives, using
multiple methodologies. About 30 years ago, when questioned about the
propriety of calling Fidel Castro a communist, Richard Cardinal Cushing
replied, ``When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a
duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.'' When one looks
at the whole body research in the TV/movie violence domain, clear
answers do emerge. In this domain, it is now quite clear that exposure
to violent media significantly increases aggression and violence in
both the immediate situation and over time. The TV/movie violence
research community has correctly identified their duck.
Myth 2. Violent media have harmful effects only on a very small
minority of people who use these media. One version of this myth is
commonly generated by parents who allow their children to watch violent
movies and play violent games. It generally sounds like this, ``My 12
year old son watches violent TV shows, goes to violent movies, and
plays violent video games, and he's never killed anyone.'' Of course,
most people who consume high levels of violent media, adults or youth,
do not end up in prison for violent crimes. Most smokers do not die of
lung cancer, either. The more relevant question is whether many (or
most) people become more angry, aggressive, and violent as a result of
being exposed to high levels of media violence. Are they more likely to
slap a child or spouse when provoked? Are they more likely to drive
aggressively, and display ``road rage?'' Are they more likely to
assault co-workers? The answer is a clear yes.
Myth 3. Violent media, especially violent games, allow a person to
get rid of violent tendencies in a nonharmful way. This myth has a long
history and has at least two labels: the catharsis hypothesis, or
venting. The basic idea is that various frustrations and stresses
produce an accumulation of violent tendencies or motivations somewhere
in the body, and that venting these aggressive inclinations either by
observing violent media or by aggressive game playing will somehow lead
to a healthy reduction in these pent-up violent tendencies. This idea
is that it is not only incorrect, but in fact the opposite actually
happens. We've known for over thirty years that behaving aggressively
or watching someone else behave aggressively in one context, including
in ``safe'' games of one kind or another, increases subsequent
aggression. It does not decrease it.
Myth 4. Laboratory studies of aggression do not measure ``real''
aggression, and are therefore irrelevant. This myth persists despite
the successes of psychological laboratory research in a variety of
domains. In the last few years, social psychologists from the
University of Southern California and from Iowa State University have
carefully examined this claim, using very different methodologies, and
have clearly demonstrated it to be nothing more than a myth. Laboratory
studies of aggression accurately and validly measure ``real''
aggression.
Myth 5. The magnitude of violent media effects on aggression and
violence is trivially small. This myth is related to Myth 2, which
claims that only a few people are influenced by media violence. In
fact, as noted earlier the TV violence effect on aggression and
violence is larger than many effects that are seen as huge by the
medical profession and by society at large. Furthermore, preliminary
evidence and well-developed theory suggests that the violent video game
effects may be substantially larger.
For Good or Ill
I have focused my remarks on the negative consequences of exposing
young people to violent video games, and on the reasons why violent
video games are likely to prove more harmful even than violent TV or
movies. Although this may be obvious to many, I should also like to
note that many of the characteristics that make violent video games
such a powerful source of increased aggression and violence in society
also can be used to create video games that enhance learning of lessons
that are quite valuable to society. This includes traditional academic
lessons as well as less traditional but still valuable social lessons.
Caveats
Obviously, many factors contribute to any particular act of
violence. There is usually some initial provocation, seen as unjust by
one party or the other. This is followed by some sort of retaliatory
response, which is in turn interpreted as an unjust provocation. This
leads to an escalatory cycle that may end in physical harm to one or
both parties. How people respond to initial provocations depends to a
great extent on the social situation (most people are less likely to
respond aggressively in church than they are in a bar), on their
current frame of mind (those who have been thinking aggressive thoughts
or who are feeling hostile are more likely to respond aggressively),
and on the personality of the individual (habitually aggressive people
are more likely to respond aggressively than habitually peaceful
people). Short term exposure to media violence influences a person's
frame of mind, and long term exposure creates people who are somewhat
more aggressive habitually, but many factors contribute to current
frame of mind and to habitual aggressiveness. However, even though one
cannot reasonably claim that a particular act of violence or that a
lifetime of violence was caused exclusively by the perpetrator's
exposure to violent entertainment media, one can reasonably claim that
such exposure was a contributing causal factor. More importantly for
this hearing, my research colleagues are correct in claiming that high
exposure to media violence is a major contributing cause of the high
rate of violence in modern U.S. society. Just as important, there are
effective ways of reducing this particular contributing cause.
Educating parents and society at large about the dangers of exposure to
media violence could have an important impact.
Unknowns
The research literature on video games is sparse. There are
numerous questions begging for an answer that is simply not yet
available. Just to whet your appetite, here are a few questions I
believe need to be addressed by new research.
1. Does explicitly gory violence desensitize video game players
more so than less gory violence? If so, does this desensitization
increase subsequent aggression? Does it decrease helping behavior?
2. What features increase the game player's identification with an
aggressive character in video games?
3. What features, if any, could be added to violent video games to
decrease the impact on subsequent aggression by the game player? For
instance, does the addition of pain responses by the game victims make
players less reluctant to reenact the aggression in later real-world
situations, or do such pain responses in the game further desensitize
the player to others' pain?
4. Can exciting video games be created that teach and reinforce
nonviolent solutions to social conflicts?
Conclusion
Thank you for your interest in this issue. I'd be happy to address
your questions at this time.
Senator Brownback. Thank you for your research. You are
among the first researchers to talk about causal connection and
not just correlation. I want to explore that with you in some
questioning.
I think we have next on the panel Dr. Eugene Provenzo. Dr.
Provenzo, thank you very much for being here.
STATEMENT OF EUGENE F. PROVENZO, JR., PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF
EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Dr. Provenzo. Thank you for having me.
Let me say that I am a Professor of Education and my
perspective is different than my colleagues here, who are
psychologists. I am concerned about the stories we tell our
children and how they are constructed in our society. Much of
what I will discuss this morning is found in a new book that I
am working on entitled, ``Children in Hyperreality: The Loss of
the Real in Contemporary Childhood and Adolescence.''
I am arguing that children and teenagers are spending much
of their time in simulations rather than in the real or natural
world. This occurs at many different levels: in the video games
that are so much a part of the experience of contemporary
childhood, in the shopping malls and commercial civic spaces
where our children spend so much of their time, in television
programs, advertisements and movies, in theme parks where we
vacation, in the online chat rooms and discussion programs
through which we communicate and exchange information and so
on.
I think that this whole issue needs to be put in the
context of a larger issue of a loss of the connection to the
real world and an increasing movement into a world of
simulation. Video games are a very important part of this.
As suggested above, the hyperrealities that increasingly
shape and define the experience of childhood and adolescence
come in many different shapes and forms. Some are clearly more
detrimental than others. Since this hearing focuses on the
impact of interactive violence on children, I am going to
concentrate on what I consider to be the most disturbing aspect
of my research: the increasing romanticization of violence and,
more specifically, the frightening power and potential of the
new video game technologies.
I would like to argue that films and video games not only
teach children about violence, but also how to be violent. When
violence is stylized, romanticized, and choreographed, it can
be stunningly beautiful and seductive. At the same time, it
encourages children and adolescents to assume a rhetorical
stance that equates violence with style and personal
empowerment. It does matter that we romanticize and stylize
violence in films and video games. It does matter that children
and adolescents can put themselves into the virtual body of a
killer in first-person shooter games.
It matters because a video game or computer game is a
teaching machine. Here is where my perspective as an education
professor, as a pedagogist, is important. The psychological
studies are extremely useful and valuable. But there is a
simple logic here. I am an educator, and here is my logic.
Highly skilled players learn the lesson of a game through
practice. As a result, they learn the lesson of the machine and
its software, and thus, they achieve a higher score. They are
behaviorally reinforced as they play the game, and thus, they
are being taught.
Have you ever considered what it is, or are we considering
as a nation, what it is that they are being taught? In this
context, we might consider some of the games we have seen
displayed here. Games such as Quake, Blood, Doom, or the
recently released game Daikatana. These are games that provide
the player with a real-view perspective of the game. This is
very different from the earlier tradition of video games like
Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat, in which the user viewed
small cartoon figures on the screen and then controlled their
actions by manipulating them through a game controller.
In contrast, a first-person shooter actually puts you
inside the action of the game. The barrels of the weapons, like
pistols and shotguns, are placed at the bottom edge of the
computer screen. You can look right or left, up and down, by
manipulating the computer mouse or game controller. The effect
is literally one of stepping into the action of the game as a
participant holding the weapon. And as David Walsh has so well
developed, the fact that we have these increasingly powerful
technologies are making this more and more realistic all of the
time.
People like Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman, a former
professor of psychology at West Point, argues that first-person
shooter video games are ``murder simulators which, over time,
teach a person how to look another person in the eye and snuff
out their life.'' Games like Doom are in fact used by the
military and police organizations to train people. The Marine
Corps, for example, has adopted Doom to train soldiers in the
Marine Corps.
In a first-person shooter like Quake, there are no
boundaries or limits. The more extreme you are, the more likely
you are to win. That is the premise of the game.
Paul Keegan explains that in John Romero's recently
released first-person shooter game, Daikatana: ``Physical
reality suggests that you are sitting in a chair, operating a
mouse and a keyboard. But with the computer screen replacing
your field of vision, you believe you are actually creeping
around a corner, causing your breath to shorten. Afraid an
enemy is lying in wait, you feel your pulse quicken. When the
monster jumps out, real adrenaline roars through your body. And
few things in life are more exhilarating than spinning around
and blowing the damn things to kingdom come, the flying gibs,
so lifelike, you can feel the wet blood.''
Speaking of wet blood, this is my contribution to the
advertising material out there. [Professor Provenzo holds up a
recent advertisement for the video game Blood.] This is for an
extremely violent game, a first-person shooter, called Blood,
in which someone literally is sitting in a bath of blood. And
this is being advertised and directed, from what I can tell,
toward adolescent and child game players.
Now, what is going on here is clearly different than just a
game of cowboys and Indians. However, the creators of first-
person shooter games just do not understand that there is a
problem. John Carmack, the main creator of Quake, for example,
considers the game nothing more than playing cowboys and
Indians, except with visual effects. In a recent interview,
Carmack was reminded that in the past, kids playing cowboys and
Indians were not able to blow their brothers' heads off. His
response was to laugh and say: ``But maybe you wish you
could.''
Keep in mind this important fact. In first-person shooter
games, players are not responsible for what they do. There are
no consequences. There are no consequences for other children,
for families or society. It is not like when you were playing
cowboys and Indians, and if you hit somebody too hard the
person you were playing with would protest or be unhappy with
you.
As Mark Slouka explains in reference to the CD-ROM video
game Night Trap, the game allows its players ``to inflict pain
without responsibility, without consequences. The punctured
flesh will heal at the touch of a button, the screen disappears
into cyberspace.''
Games that employ first-person shooter models represent a
significant step beyond the tiny cartoon figures that were
included in Mortal Kombat in the mid-1990's. And again, the
whole fact that this is a changing technology, and a rapidly
changing technology, is I think something we have to keep an
eye on. In fact, there has been a continuous evolution of the
realism of these games as computing power has increased and
become cheaper.
In many respects, the content of violent video games
represents a giant social and educational experiment. Will
these ultraviolent games actually teach children to behave and
view the world in markedly different ways? To repeat an earlier
argument, video games and computer games are in fact highly
effective teaching machines. You learn the rules, play the
game, get better at it, accumulate a higher score, and
eventually you win.
As Mark Slouka argues: ``The implications of new
technologies like video games are social. The questions they
pose are broadly ethical, the risk they entail is
unprecedented. They are the cultural equivalent of genetic
engineering, except that in this experiment even more than in
the other one, we will be the potential new hybrids, the 2-
pound mice.''
It is very possible that the people killed in the last few
years as a result of school shootings may in fact be the first
victims or results of this experiment. If this is indeed the
case, it is an experiment we need to stop at once. Some things
are simply just too dangerous to experiment with.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Provenzo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eugene F. Provenzo, Jr., Professor,
School of Education, University of Miami
My comments this morning must be brief. Much of what I will discuss
is found in a new book I am working on entitled Children and
Hyperreality: The Loss of the Real in Contemporary Childhood and
Adolescence. It continues a line of inquiry I began in 1991 with Video
Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo,\1\ as well as in a number of articles
and book chapters.\2\ In this work, I am arguing that children and
teenagers are spending much of their time in simulations, rather than
in the natural or ``real'' world. It is an argument, which if true, has
serious implications for not only our children, but also for the future
of our society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eugene F. Provenzo, Jr., Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991).
\2\ See: Eugene F. Provenzo, Jr., `` `Brave New Video': Video Games
and the Emergence of Interactive Television for Children,'' Taboo: The
Journal of Culture and Education, Vol. 1, #1, Spring 1995, pp. 151-162;
and Eugene F. Provenzo, Jr., ``Video Games and the Emergence of
Interactive Media for Children,'' in Shirley R. Steinberg and Joe L.
Kincheloe Kinderculture: The Corporate Construction of Childhood
(Denver, Colorado: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 103-113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially, I believe that the unreal, the simulation, the
simulacra has been substituted for the real in the lives of our
children. This occurs at many different levels: in the video games that
are so much a part of the experience of contemporary childhood; in the
shopping malls and ``commercial civic spaces'' where our children spend
so much of their time; in television programs, advertisements and
movies; in the theme parks where we vacation; in the online chat rooms
and discussion programs through which we communicate and exchange
information; and finally, in the images of beauty and sexuality that
run as a powerful undercurrent through much of our culture and the
lives of our children.
As suggested above, the hyperrealities that increasingly shape and
define the experience of childhood and adolescence come in many
different shapes and forms. Some are clearly more detrimental than
others.
Since this hearing focuses on ``The Impact of Interactive Violence
on Children,'' I will concentrate on what I consider to be the most
disturbing aspect of my research--the increasing ``romanticization'' of
violence--and more specifically, the frightening power and potential of
the new video game technologies.
Let me begin by reflecting a bit on the information included on the
recently released videotapes made by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
shortly before the Columbine High School shootings last year.
It is very clear that Harris and Klebold wanted to tell the world a
story whose script they seem to have learned through the entertainment
media--particularly from ultra-violent films and video games. Harris
tells his story in front of a video camera with a bottle of Jack
Daniels and a sawed-off shotgun cradled in his lap. He calls the gun
Arlene, after a favorite character in the Doom video game.
Harris and Klebold saw themselves as important media figures, whose
story would be worthy of a filmmaker like Steven Spielberg or Quentin
Tarintino. The fact that Harris and Klebold created these videotapes
reminds me of the Mickey and Mallory characters in Oliver Stone's film
Natural Born Killers who became media stars as a result of a murderous
rampage across the country. It is no accident that the film was a
favorite of Harris and Klebold.
I would like to argue that films and video games not only teach
children about violence, but also how to be violent. When violence is
stylized, romanticized and choreographed, it can be stunningly
beautiful and seductive. At the same time, it encourages children and
adolescents to assume a rhetorical stance that equates violence with
style and personal empowerment.
It does matter that we romanticize and stylize violence in films
and video games.
It does matter that children and adolescents can put themselves
into the virtual body of a killer in first-person shooter games.
It matters because a computer or video game is a teaching machine.
Here is the logic: highly skilled players learn the lesson of game
through practice. As a result, they learn the lesson of the machine and
its software--and thus achieve a higher score. They are behaviorally
reinforced as they play the game and thus they are being taught. Have
you ever considered what it is they are being taught?
Consider first-person shooter games such as Quake, Blood, Doom or
the recently released Daikatana. These are games that provide the
player with a real view perspective of the game. This is very different
from the earlier tradition of video games like Street Fighter II or
Mortal Kombat, in which the user viewed small, cartoon figures on the
screen and then controlled their actions by manipulating them through a
game controller. In contrast, a first-person shooter actually puts you
inside the action of the game. The barrels of weapons like pistols and
shotguns are placed at the bottom center edge of the computer screen.
You can look right or left, up or down, by manipulating the computer
mouse or game controller. The effect is one of literally stepping into
the action of the game as a participant holding the weapon.
Lieutentant Colonel David Grossman, a former Professor of
Psychology at West Point, argues that first person shooter video games
``are murder simulators which over time, teach a person how to look
another person in the eye and snuff their life out.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Claymon, Deborah, ``Video-game industry seeks to deflect blame
for violence,'' Miami Herald, July 2, 1999, 3E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Games like Doom are, in fact, used by military and police
organizations to train people. The Marine Corps, for example, has
adapted Doom to train soldiers in the Corps.
Some critics claim that there is little difference between what
goes on in a first-person shooter and playing a game of Paintball,
where players divide up on teams and hunt each other in a wood or
elaborately constructed game room. To begin with, Paintball is acting
that takes place in the real world. You run around a little, get tired
and winded, bumped and scrapped. There are serious consequences for
getting out of control as you play--in other words--the fact that the
game is physical and tangible means that it has limits. These limits
not only include your own endurance, but the rules and procedures
followed by your fellow players.
In a first-person shooter like Quake there are no boundaries or
limits. The more ``extreme'' you are (a terminology often used in
describing the action of the games), the more likely you are to win.
Paul Keegan explains that in John Romero's recently released first-
person shooter game Daikatana:
Physical reality suggests that you are sitting in a chair
operating a mouse and a keyboard. But with the computer screen
replacing your field of vision, you believe you're actually
creeping around a corner, causing your breath to shorten.
Afraid an enemy is lying in wait, you feel your pulse quicken.
When the monster jumps out, real adrenaline roars through your
body. And few things in life are more exhilarating than
spinning around and blowing the damn things to kingdom come,
the flying gibs so lifelike you can almost feel wet blood.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Paul Keegan, ``A Game Boy In the Cross Hairs,'' The New York
Times Magazine, May 23, 1999, p. 38.
What is going on here is clearly different than just a game of
Paintball or ``Cowboys and Indians.'' However, the creators of first-
person shooters just don't understand that there is a problem. John
Carmack, the main creator of Quake, for example, considers the game
nothing more than ``playing Cowboys and Indians, except with visual
effects.'' \5\ In a recent interview, Carmack was reminded that in the
past kids playing Cowboys and Indians weren't able to blow their
brothers' heads off. His response was to laugh and say: ``But you
wished you could.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid, p. 39.
\6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind this important fact: in first-person shooter games,
players are not responsible for what they do. There are no consequences
for other children, for families, or for society. As Mark Slouka
explains in reference to the CD-ROM video game Night Trap, the game
allows its players: ``To inflict pain. Without responsibility. Without
consequences. The punctured flesh will heal at the touch of a button,
the scream disappear into cyberspace.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Mark Slouka, The War of the Worlds: Cyberspace and the High-
Tech Assault on Reality (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Games that employ a first-person shooter model represent a
significant step beyond the tiny cartoon figures that were included in
Mortal Kombat in the mid-1990s. In fact, there has been a continuous
evolution of the realism of these games as computing power has
increased and become cheaper.
Much of this has to do with the enormous increase in computing
power. A moderately fast desktop computer with a Pentium II chip that
could be purchased for under $1,000 today has the speed of a $20
million Cray supercomputer from the mid-1980s.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ David E. Sanger, ``High-Tech Exports Hit Antiquated Speed
Bumps, The New York Times, June 13, 1999, WK 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even more interesting is the availability of inexpensive game
consoles. Sony's dominance of this market has recently been challenged
by Sega's amazing 200 Mhz Dreamcast game machine--available for nearly
a year now in North America. It will soon be superseded by Microsoft's
X-Box, which is designed specifically for interactive gaming, and which
is set for release in the fall of 2001. The X-Box will be driven by a
600 Mhz Intel Pentium III chip. It will cost less than $500 and will
allow players to go online to play games. The machine and the programs
that will drive it represent what is potentially an extraordinary
virtual reality simulator.
Larry Smarr, director of the National Center for Supercomputer
Applications in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, believes that systems like
these represent ``the transition from people playing video games to a
world where we will create our own fantasies in cyberspace.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ John Markoff, ``Silicon Valley's Awesome Look at New Sony
Toy,'' The New York Times, March 19, 1999, p. C1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many respects, the content of violent video games represents a
giant social and educational experiment. Will these ultra violent games
actually teach children to behave and view the world in markedly
different ways? To repeat an earlier argument, video and computer games
are, in fact, highly effective teaching machines. You learn the rules,
play the game, get better at it, accumulate a higher score, and
eventually win. As Mark Slouka argues, the implications of new
technologies like video games ``are social: the questions they pose,
broadly ethical; the risks they entail, unprecedented. They are the
cultural equivalent of genetic engineering, except that in this
experiment, even more than the other one, we will be the potential new
hybrids, the two-pound mice.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very possible, that the people killed in the last few years
as the result of ``school shootings'' may in fact be the first victims/
results of this experiment. If this is indeed the case, it is an
experiment we need to stop at once. Some things are too dangerous to
experiment with.
Senator Brownback. Thank you. That was powerful testimony.
I look forward to exploring some more of it with some
questions.
Dr. Jeanne Funk of the University of Toledo, Department of
Psychology, thank you very much for joining us today.
STATEMENT OF DR. JEANNE B. FUNK, PH.D.,
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO
Dr. Funk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will address three issues: the general status of
research; my own work on violent electronic games; and my views
about our most pressing research needs. The obvious question
before us is whether exposure to interactive violence causes
violent behavior in particular individuals. I would like to be
able to answer that question for you, but the reality is there
is not yet a sufficient body of scientific research to make a
prediction about any individuals.
Having said that, I must also acknowledge that there is an
emerging body of research displayed by my colleagues which does
identify primarily negative relationships and effects. I am a
clinical child psychologist. And as such, my interest is in
what may cause individual, behavioral, and emotional problems.
Not every child who comes into contact with interactive
violence ends up behaving in an obviously violent manner. In
fact, most do not. My research goal is to identify which, if
any, children are at risk specifically for negative impact.
I began my research several years ago. In 1990, Nintendo's
success brought video games to national attention. And shortly
thereafter, I noticed a striking resemblance between the video
displays used in aircraft during the Persian Gulf War and some
popular video games. This recognition collided with my 4-year-
old son's demand for a Nintendo system.
As a scientist, I reviewed the existing research before
providing this technology to my child. I found that the few
studies which had been done focused on the relatively benign
games of the seventies and eighties, and defined violence from
the adult experimenter's perspective. So I began my research by
developing a category system based on children's perceptions.
With my colleague, Dr. Deborah Buchman, and my research
team, I have surveyed over 1,000 children to identify possible
risk features. We found associations between a preference for
violent games and lower self-evaluations of academics, social
acceptance, and behavior in fourth through eighth graders. I
would like to emphasize that this particular approach cannot
determine causal relationships. But these findings do suggest
that a strong preference for violent games may at least be an
indicator of adjustment issues.
Further, it seems unlikely that playing violent electronic
games will improve children's negative self-evaluations. I am
concerned that parents lack information about their children's
exposure to interactive violence. In a comparison study,
parents reported significantly higher estimates of supervision
than their children. And this is similar to what Danielle
reported from the other direction.
Most of the parents either named an incorrect game or were
not able to even guess their child's favorite game. And in 70
percent of these incorrect matches, the child's favorite game
was violent. We do have commercial ratings developed to help
parents. I compared the commercial ratings with consumer
perceptions of game content. For games with cartoon-type
violence, consumers did not agree with the rating system. In
most cases, the commercial ratings did not recommend
restricting access for younger consumers.
I will close with some specific recommendations. First, it
is essential that we increase the scientific knowledge base.
Public policy must be informed by data, not by our emotional
reactions to even horribly tragic events. Dramatic advances in
the realism of interactive violence intensify the need for
major research initiatives. As Dr. Walsh noted, the technology
now exists to personalize the visual image of game characters.
This is a complex topic, and we must amass enough
information to identify a convergence of findings. We need
programmatic research which examines both the immediate and
long-term effects of interactive violence. There are research
techniques which can determine causal relationships, but such
research requires a major funding commitment. Hopefully there
will soon be an opportunity for Congress to make such a
commitment. I am referring to the Multi-Agency Information
Technology Research Initiative. Funds would go to the National
Science Foundation, the Initiative's lead agency.
I would like to recommend that research on technology's
impact on children, both the positive and the negative, be a
major focus, and that the issue of interactive violence be
given special attention. Finally, I would like to emphasize
that there is an urgent need to answer the following questions:
How does interactive violence affect a child's behavioral,
social, emotional, and cognitive development? Are interactive
media more potent than other media in teaching aggressive
behavior? And does interactive violence influence perceptions
of reality or promote detachment from reality?
If we do not address these issues, violence may become an
even more serious social problem. I thank you for the
opportunity to bring these issues to your attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Funk follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Jeanne B. Funk, Ph.D.,
Department of Psychology, University of Toledo
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to speak with you about research on children and
interactive violence. I would like to address three issues: the general
status of research, my own work on violent video and computer games,
and finally my views about our most pressing research needs. I would
like to acknowledge that my research has been informed by the work of
many other investigators, although I will not specifically address each
relevant study.
The obvious question before us is whether exposure to interactive
violence causes violent behavior. I would like to be able to answer
that question for you, but the reality is that there is not yet a
sufficient body of scientific research to make a definitive statement.
Having said that, I must also note that there is an emerging body of
research which does identify primarily negative relationships and
effects. Early studies suggested that playing violent video games
increases aggressive behavior in younger children, while the results of
studies with older children have been equivocal. Dr. Craig Anderson's
recent studies provide evidence that
interactive violence affects the cognitions and behavior of young
adults, and I am currently examining this question with adolescents.
However, much more work is needed.
I am a clinical child psychologist. As such, my interest is in what
may cause behavioral and emotional problems for individuals. Not every
child who comes into contact with interactive violence ends up behaving
in an obviously violent manner. In fact, most do not. My research goal
is to identify which, if any, children are at risk for negative impact
as a result of playing violent video and computer games.
My research program began several years ago. In 1990, Nintendo's
success brought video games to national attention. Shortly thereafter,
I noticed a striking resemblance between the video displays used in
aircraft during the Persian Gulf War and some popular video games. This
recognition collided with my four year old son's demand for a Nintendo
system.
As a scientist, I reviewed the existing research before providing
this technology to my four year old. I found that the few studies which
had been done focused on the relatively benign games of the 70s and
80s, defining violent games from the adult experimenter's perspective
(Funk, 1992). Therefore, I began my program of research by developing a
category system based on children's perceptions (Funk, 1993).
Development of Categories to Examine Game Preference
To develop the category system I first asked 357 seventh and eighth
graders to list up to three favorite video or computer games. The 211
games listed by the initial study group were reviewed, and five general
categories based on children's perceptions of the primary action and
main goal were defined by me and a college student assistant with the
help of 12 children outside the primary study group. Each favorite game
was then categorized, again with the help of the 12 outside children.
Next, the category definitions and the list of ``favorite'' games with
associated categories were given to a group of 38 raters from the
original study group who identified themselves as regular game players.
These students were asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed
with the category assigned to each familiar game. The mean rate of
agreement with the category assignment was 94% (Funk, 1993).
Subsequently, the system was revised to separate violent and
nonviolent sports (Funk & Buchman, 1995), and now consists of the
following categories:
Revised Electronic Game Categories with Descriptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General The main action is a story or game with no
Entertainment fighting or destruction.
Educational The main action involves learning new
information or figuring out new ways to
use information.
Fantasy Violence The main action is a story where a cartoon
character must fight or destroy things and
avoid being killed or destroyed while
trying to reach a goal, rescue someone, or
escape from something.
Human Violence The main action is a story where a human
character must fight or destroy things and
avoid being killed or destroyed while
trying to reach a goal, rescue someone, or
escape from something.
Nonviolent Sports The main action is sports without fighting
or destruction.
Sports Violence The main action is sports with fighting or
destruction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveying Time Spent and Game Preference
The electronic game-playing habits of approximately 1000 fourth
through eighth graders have been surveyed using the categories and
definitions described above (Buchman & Funk, 1996). On average, boys
spend more hours each week playing electronic games than girls across
all grade levels. Average playing time generally decreases for both
boys and girls as grade level increases.
Average Hours Reported Playing Electronic Games in a Typical Week by
Gender, Location and Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Girls
Home 4.50 3.14 2.60 1.92 2.07
Arcade 1.18 .82 .58 .33 .45
Total 5.67 3.96 3.18 2.25 2.52
Boys
Home 7.14 6.12 5.40 4.87 3.89
Arcade 2.30 2.10 1.49 1.41 1.12
Total 9.44 8.23 6.89 6.15 4.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding favorite games, we found that children of all ages prefer
games with violent content. Girls tend to prefer fantasy or cartoon-
style violence, while boys prefer more realistic or human violence.
Percentage of Favorite Games in Each Category by Gender and Grade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy
n=289 n=241 n=197 n=187 n=157 n=169 n=126 n=177 n=166 n=183
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General 14.0 6.3 16.8 5.9 16.0 8.9 33.3 7.3 28.9 14.2
Entertainment
Educational 17.6 2.9 24.4 4.3 8.3 3.6 1.6 0.0 5.4 .5
Fantasy Violence 32.7 27.5 30.5 26.2 44.6 24.9 43.7 24.9 44.6 19.1
Human Violence 11.5 25.0 10.2 26.2 16.0 26.0 7.1 29.4 7.2 20.8
Nonviolent Sports 9.3 17.9 12.7 19.8 10.5 20.1 4.3 a 38.4 13.9 45.4
Sports Violence 14.7 20.4 5.6 17.6 5.7 16.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. n refers to number of games listed.
a When seventh and eighth graders were surveyed, there was only one Sports category.
The Importance of Violent Content
Several researchers have recently noted the importance of
specifically examining behavioral and emotional characteristics
associated with playing violent electronic games (Calvert, 1999; Dill &
Dill, 1998; Funk, 1993). Such play could be linked to negative
behaviors and emotions via various social-cognitive mechanisms: In
violent electronic games ``justified'' aggression is demonstrated,
practiced, and reinforced (Funk & Buchman, 1996). Violence is presented
as entertainment with no truly negative consequences. Players are
rewarded for choosing the pre-programmed violent actions, with little
attention given to any other conflict resolution alternatives.
From one theoretical perspective, playing violent electronic games
could develop and prime aggressive thought networks (Anderson & Dill,
in press; Berkowitz, 1993). Under certain environmental conditions,
aggressive behaviors would be more likely to be chosen subsequent to
desensitization and disinhibition. In addition, the repetitive nature
of playing violent electronic games may contribute to the development
of aggressive behavioral scripts (Guerra, Huesmann, & Hanish, 1995;
Huesmann, 1988). Once a script has been established through
observational learning and enactment, retention of the script will be
strengthened through fantasy rehearsal (Guerra, Huesmann, & Hanish,
1995). Anderson (1997) notes that repetition is a key to change in the
long term structure of thought and affect. In addition to providing the
opportunity for the development and rehearsal of aggressive responses,
exposure to interactive violence would also seem likely to decrease the
relative valence of prosocial behaviors.
Playing Violent Electronic Games and Self-Concept
To identify those children who may be negatively impacted by
interactive violence, I began to examine possible ``high risk'' game-
playing habits. With my colleague, Dr. Debra Buchman, and my research
team, I have surveyed over 1,000 children.
Because it reflects core attitudes and coping abilities, self-
concept was chosen as a target variable to examine relationships
between electronic games and adjustment. Susan Harter's
multidimensional, developmentally-based measure was used to examine
links among self-concept, time commitment, and a preference for violent
electronic games (Funk & Buchman, 1996). Using Harter's framework,
game-playing could theoretically have positive or negative
relationships with aspects of self-concept. If game-playing supports
self-esteem and does not impede the development of other key abilities,
a positive relationship would be found. However, if game-playing
contributes to lower competence in key areas, the relationship may be
negative. Alternately, significant correlations may simply reflect a
common etiology such as preexisting adjustment status.
In a group of 357 seventh and eighth graders (183 girls), a small
but significant negative association was identified for girls between
time spent playing video or computer games and perceptions of academic
competence, behavioral conduct, social acceptance, athletic competence,
and self-esteem. The one exception to the pattern of negative
relationships occurred on the scale with the lowest reliability (Job
Competence), and was thought to be related to the suitability of the
questions for seventh and eighth graders. No significant associations
were found for seventh and eighth grade boys (Funk & Buchman, 1996).
In a group of 179 sixth graders (98 girls), for boys, a stronger
preference for violent games was associated with lower perceived self-
competence in academic competence, social acceptance, and behavior. No
significant associations were identified for sixth grade girls.
In a group of 364 fourth and fifth graders (203 girls), a stronger
preference for violent games was associated with lower self-perceptions
of behavioral conduct for both boys and girls (Funk, Buchman, &
Germann, 1999).
I would like to emphasize that this research approach cannot
determine causal relationships. However, finding only negative
associations suggests that a strong preference for violent games may at
least be an indicator of adjustment issues for some children. Further,
it seems unlikely that playing violent electronic games will improve
negative self-perceptions in key developmental areas.
Parent and Child Perceptions of Children's Game-Playing
I have been concerned that parents lack information about their
children's exposure to interactive violence. I examined this question
by comparing children's and parents' perceptions of the child's playing
time, parental supervision, and the child's favorite electronic games.
In paired comparisons, parents reported significantly higher estimates
of supervision time than their third through fifth grade children
(total n = 70; 35 children). Most parents either named an incorrect
game or were not able to even guess their child's favorite game. In 70%
of these incorrect matches, children described their favorite game as
being violent. This suggests that parents may underestimate their
child's exposure to violence in electronic games (Funk, Hagan, &
Schimming, 1999).
Electronic Game Ratings and Consumer Perceptions
In the early 1990s, public concern about violence in electronic
games led to the creation of ratings systems. A comparison of
commercial ratings for popular electronic games with consumer
perceptions of game content was performed with the help of 201 fourth
graders, 145 college students, and 37 parents. For games with obviously
non-violent or very violent content, there was agreement between
consumers and the commercial system. However, there was considerable
disagreement about notable violent content in games with cartoon-type
violence. Despite the high level of agreement among consumers regarding
the presence of fantasy violent content, in most cases the commercial
ratings were unlikely to recommend restricting access for younger
consumers (Funk, Flores, Buchman, & Germann, 1999).
Preference for Violent Electronic Games and Psychopathology
It has been asserted that exposure to media violence is associated
with an increase in aggressive behavior. This association is being
examined in a small group (N = 32) of adolescents, including 12 from a
school for children with behavioral problems. The hypothesis being
examined is that a preference for violent games will be associated with
more behavioral problems, particularly externalizing problems such as
aggressive behavior.
Desensitization, Empathy, and Attitudes Towards Violence
Desensitization has been proposed as a primary mechanism by which
exposure to media violence may influence behavior. However, this
conceptualization has not yet been empirically examined. To begin to
understand desensitization as a result of exposure to electronic game
violence, a study was designed to examine associations among preference
for violent electronic games, empathy, and attitudes towards violence.
A background questionnaire requesting information about game-playing
habits, Bryant's Index of Empathy for Children (Bryant, 1982) and the
Attitudes Towards Violence Scale (Funk, Elliott, et al., 1999) were
administered to 52 sixth graders. Evaluation of these data is ongoing.
Another ongoing study is examining differences in empathic and
aggressive responses as these are related to playing a violent or
nonviolent electronic game. Following play, children are asked to
describe the likely sequence of events in response to descriptions of
common situations children may encounter. Pictures are provided to help
the children better understand the vignette. Half of the vignettes were
structured so that an empathic response was one reasonable response. In
the other half, an aggressive response was one possible outcome.
Children's responses are coded by independent raters. This work is
ongoing with elementary school age children and kindergarteners.
Recommendations
I will close with some specific recommendations. First, it is
essential that we increase the scientific knowledge base. Public policy
must be informed by data, not by our emotional reactions to even
horribly tragic events. Dramatic advances in the realism of interactive
violence intensify the need for major research initiatives. For
example, technology now exists to personalize the visual image of game
characters. But gaming is not the only way in which children are
exposed to interactive violence. Opportunities abound in chat rooms, in
MUDs, and on the Web. We have little scientific basis to even guess
what the impact of these experiences may be.
Research on the impact of interactive violence on children must be
integrated into a developmental research framework. Researchers with
relevant interests and expertise are spread across many different
disciplines (e.g., education, communication, psychology, sociology).
Moreover, proprietary and market-driven research, used for the purpose
of designing interactive media products for children, is not integrated
into an overall understanding of how children use or are influenced by
interactive media. To adequately examine the impact of interactive
violence on children we must develop a multidisciplinary research
infrastructure. This will allow us to investigate the broad issues and
to understand the tremendous potential of interactive media as well as
the dangers.
The impact of interactive violence is a complex topic, and we must
amass enough information to identify a convergence of findings. We need
programmatic research which examines both the immediate and long term
effects of interactive violence. There are research techniques which
can determine causal relationships, but these studies require large
groups of children and long-term followup. Such research requires a
major funding commitment.
Hopefully there will soon be an opportunity for Congress to make a
specific funding commitment. I am referring to the multi-agency
Information Technology Research Initiative. Funds would go to the
National Science Foundation, which is the Initiative's lead agency. I
would like to recommend that research on technology's impact on
children, both the positive and the negative influence, be a major
focus of this Initiative, and that the issue of interactive violence be
given special attention.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that there is an urgent need to
answer the following questions:
How does interactive violence affect a child's
behavioral, social-emotional, and cognitive development?
Are interactive media more potent than other media in
teaching aggressive behavior?
Does interactive violence influence information
processing and perceptions of reality?
Does interactive violence promote detachment from
reality?
In what ways can parents counter the influence of
interactive violence?
If we do not address these issues, violence may become an even more
serious social problem. I thank you for the opportunity to bring these
issues to your attention.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to questions.
References
Anderson, C. A. (1997). Effects of violent movies and trait
hostility on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive
Behavior, 23, 161-178.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (in press). Video games and
aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in
life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and
control. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and
adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413-425.
Buchman, D., & Funk, J. B. (1996). Video and computer games in the
'90s: Children report time commitment and game preference. Children
Today, 31, 12-15.
Calvert, S. L. (1999). Children's journeys through the information
age. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Dill, K. E., & Dill, J. C. (1998). Video game violence: A review of
the empirical literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 407-428.
Funk, J. B. (1992). Video games: Benign or malignant? Journal of
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 13, 53-54.
Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluating the impact of video games.
Clinical Pediatrics, 32, 86-90.
Funk, J. B. & Buchman, D. D. (1995). Video game controversies.
Pediatric Annals, 24, 91-94.
Funk, J. B., & Buchman, D. (1996). Playing violent video and
computer games and adolescent self-perception. Journal of
Communication, 46, 19-32.
Funk, J. B., Buchman, D. D., & Germann, J. (in press). Preference
for violent electronic games, self-concept, and gender differences in
young children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
Funk, J. B., Elliott, R., Urman, M., Flores, G., Mock, R., (1999).
The Attitudes Towards Violence Scale: A measure for adolescents.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1123-1136.
Funk, J. B., Flores, G., Buchman, D. D., & Germann, J. (1999).
Rating electronic games: Violence is in the eye of the beholder. Youth
and Society, 30, 283-312.
Funk, J.B., Germann, J., & Buchman, D. (1997). Children and
electronic games in the United States. Trends in Communication, 2, 111-
126.
Funk, J. B., Hagan, J., & Schimming, J. (1999). Children and
electronic games: A comparison of parent and child perceptions of
children's habits and preferences in a United States sample.
Psychological Reports, 85, 883-888.
Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Hanish, L. (1995). The role of
normative beliefs in children's social behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.)
Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 15. Social
development. (pp. 140-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information-processing model for the
development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13-24.
Senator Brownback. Thank you for the testimony and for your
thoughts. I do not know many parents that go to quite the
extreme that you did. I wished more did.
I want to explore some of this with you, particularly. Dr.
Anderson, you speak of a direct causal link and even state that
this is a closer causation than even smoking and lung cancer in
its impact. I want to explore that with you.
Is this based on your review of the research? Is it on your
research that you are tying in that causal link?
Dr. Anderson. The causal link, specifically focusing on
violent video games, comes from fairly recent research, much of
which currently is unpublished. Some of it will be published
next month. Some of it I have not gotten written up yet. I am a
new chair of the Department of Psychology, and so I go to a lot
of meetings and write a lot of memos. But I have been working
on that research. So, in fact, the causal statements that I am
making are, to a great extent, based on research that is so new
that the other panel members have not seen it or have just seen
very brief summaries of it.
But it is also based on a review of the few other studies,
the few other experiments that have been done over the last 15
or 20 years. The vast majority of those studies--there are a
number of them done with kids--school age, elementary, junior
high, and high school kids--and the majority of those studies
do find that kids who have been randomly assigned to play a
violent video game later behaved more aggressively than kids
who have been randomly assigned to play a nonviolent game.
Now, it is true that not all the studies find exactly the
same thing. And that is true if you look at the thousands of
studies done on television violence. It is also true in any
large area of research in any science, including medical
research. So what you really have to do in order to come to a
firm conclusion is look at the whole body of research.
If I remember my history right, Richard Cardinal Cushing
once said, when asked why he was calling Fidel Castro a
communist: When I see a bird that looks like a duck and walks
like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.
The point being you take several different perspectives on the
same issue, if you start to get the same answer, even though
each particular piece of evidence by itself is not totally
conclusive, eventually the overall picture does become
conclusive.
Senator Brownback. Dr. Funk, I want to get you into this
question as well, because you say we need to look at this
longer. But you suggest that the desire to play violent video
games is actually an indicator to watch for in our children as
leading toward something else that is of a negative nature and
behavior. So you do not necessarily dispute Dr. Anderson, you
are saying it also takes you down a wrong path. But you would
view it as something to watch for in children, to show a
correlation by other negative behavior. Is that correct, from
what your perspective is?
Dr. Funk. Well, I think that is correct, based on some of
the studies that I have done. And I certainly do not disagree
with Dr. Anderson, that there is a body of research coming
together that suggests there is a negative causal effect. I
feel that we are not there yet and that we need to carefully
gather more evidence before I would be comfortable saying, yes,
for certain individuals, there is a causal effect.
Senator Brownback. But you have no problem saying there is
a correlation?
Dr. Funk. Oh, absolutely, there is definitely a
correlation. But it may be that troubled children are drawn to
violent video games rather than the violent video games causing
the children to be troubled. However, I would also say that the
violent video game playing is not going to make them less
troubled.
Senator Brownback. You would not have any problem with the
thought that if you are playing these violent video games, it
does have a stimulating effect on the person that is playing
them and a stimulating effect that is generally more
aggressive?
Dr. Funk. I think there is an arousal effect. One of the
areas that I would like to look at is whether there is also a
detachment effect and an altered state of consciousness in
which they may even be more prone to learning, as Dr. Provenzo
suggested. So I think we need to look at that.
You heard Danielle talk about her friends having glazed
eyes after spending time playing violent video games. I think
that needs to be looked at.
Senator Brownback. And, Professor Provenzo, your point is
about this detachment effect, if I am understanding your
testimony correct, that people are getting separated from
reality. In fact, even some of the games suggest that they blur
the line between reality and fantasy. And it stays with you, I
think one of them even brags in their advertisement on it.
Dr. Provenzo. Absolutely.
Senator Brownback. That is what you truly fear; is that
correct?
Dr. Provenzo. Yes. I think that the culture of simulation,
which is becoming very prevalent because of media, including
video games, which are one form of media, are creating a
situation where it is very easy to step into these alternative
realities and live very heavily in them, and then to emerge
into a real world, and then have one's behavior based on what
one was experiencing in the virtual world. And it operates in
lots of ways.
I think also what it is doing, which is something we can
point to more directly and a little more easily, is scripting
people. We tell stories in our culture. And one of the stories
we are increasingly telling children about and adolescents
about is violence and that violence is not really dangerous,
but it is just something that is highly romantic, it is
hyperreal. So you get this sort of thing that you have in a
movie like Natural Born Killers, where violence is
extraordinarily romanticized, the main characters become media
figures.
What then happens, in turn, is you get individuals like
Harris and Klebold, who, in their tape prior to going out and
being involved in the shootings at Columbine, talk about the
fact that they are going to have their story told as a movie
and it is going to be perhaps produced or directed by people
like Spielberg or Tarantino. And I think that is very
frightening.
So what we are doing is we are giving scripts to kids that
are highly realistic, but, in point of fact, are not about a
real world; they are about a hyperreality.
Senator Brownback. Is there an analogy here between when we
used to stylize and romanticize smoking in entertainment and
violence now?
Dr. Provenzo. I think it is very similar. I think it is
sold in some of the same ways. This is a romanticization of
violence clearly. It is hyperreal.
Senator Brownback. You have got a bathtub full of blood and
a guy holding a gun.
Dr. Provenzo. Right. And it is for a game called Blood,
Blood II.
Senator Brownback. And what was the caption beside it, do
you recall?
Dr. Provenzo. It just says ``Blood?'' That is the only
thing that is on the ad. But to kids, this is a very popular
game. The kids know what it is immediately.
Senator Brownback. So it stimulates a positive response?
Dr. Provenzo. A romanticized response, a notion that
violence is a style statement. It is something that is cool. I
think that is the issue about a film like the Matrix, which, as
a science fiction fan and as an adult, I think is an extremely
interesting film and well done in many regards. It also has
some very disturbing elements in terms of the romanticization
of violence. And I think kids watching that type of film, I
think there are real problems, particularly kids who have a
tendency toward problems, as Jeanne was indicating.
Senator Brownback. And children, do not they, Dr. Anderson
or anybody on the panel, have difficulty recognizing between
reality and fiction up to a certain age?
Dr. Funk. I think it is very important that parents be
aware that children who are probably below the age of 7 or 8 do
have a tendency to become drawn into fantasy and may have
difficulty separating it from reality. And we do not know how
their developing personalities at those ages could be affected
by intense exposure to this sort of interactive violence. So I
think parents need to be especially aware of children under 10
to 12, that they monitor what their children are exposed to in
terms of violent interactive games.
Senator Brownback. Because they are so susceptible to that
blurred vision between reality and whatever image-making that
they may be drawn into or fantasy?
Dr. Funk. That is correct.
Senator Brownback. Please, Dr. Anderson.
Dr. Anderson. If I might add to that a little bit. I agree
with Jeanne completely in her statement that we need
considerably more research on these issues. There are a lot of
things that we just do not know. And one of them is there are
not any studies out there, at least in the video game
literature, looking at how much of a difference in effect does
sort of cartoon-like violence--we are assuming that that has a
less effect than very realistic violence. And there are some
good reasons for expecting that to be true, but there is no
research on it. There is no real funding for that kind of
research.
When I say that there is clearly a causal impact of playing
violent video games on aggressive behavior, there are a handful
studies that are the basis of that statement. And I would stand
behind that statement. But I also would say there are a lot of
things we do not know, a lot of the details. In fact, we do not
know hardly any of the details. And I think that is what Jeanne
really has been focusing on, and I would agree with her
wholeheartedly on that.
Senator Brownback. The nation was recently just shocked by
a 6-year-old boy in Michigan taking a gun to school and
shooting a 6-year-old classmate. Yet, I have read one
researcher saying that he was not surprised, given that it
seemed like, in his environment, a violent response was not
unusual, and the only thing that may limit us on how young a
child picks up a gun to shoot somebody is whether they can lift
the gun up or not.
Did any of you have thoughts about what is happening when
we have that type of situation, 6-year-olds shooting and
killing other 6-year-olds?
Dr. Funk. I think it must be that he did not realize the
permanence of that action and the reality of that action. And
that is really exactly what Dr. Provenzo is speaking about,
that it felt to him perhaps like a television experience.
Dr. Provenzo. He said at some point, if I remember the
quote correctly: This is not like TV. This did not come out
like TV. He was sort of shocked. It just was not working out
like a television program.
Dr. Funk. Right.
Dr. Provenzo. I think it is telling you something about
where he is constructing his view of the world from. It is
coming from media sources.
Senator Brownback. These are all three very good
statements. Professor, yours is a scary one. It is almost like
going into genetic engineering without any regulatory
atmosphere, without any care or concern about what mutation we
put out there. Am I characterizing what you are saying and
capturing your feeling correctly?
Dr. Provenzo. Absolutely. I feel very, very strongly that
what we are doing is we are talking about the construction of
our culture, and that this is done through educating people. We
educate people through a very broad selection of sources in
contemporary culture, and a lot of them are coming from media.
I think we have a profound obligation to understand what
the impact of those various media forms are. And what is
happening right now, because of computerization and the
extraordinary ability to create simulations of striking, of
extraordinary character and nature, we just do not know what
the consequences are of these types of simulations and the
reality that they are constructing.
Senator Brownback. But the likelihood of negative response
is extraordinarily high. As a matter of fact, Dr. Anderson, you
are saying it is causal and it is there. Dr. Funk, you are
saying it is correlated, at least now, and it could well be
causal as well. And under any scenario, you are saying this is
negative.
Dr. Provenzo. Yes. And I would like to make a comment in
this context about the issue for funding. We are researchers.
And I think one of the interesting things is, I know at least
in my case and I suspect in my other co-researchers' case, this
is not research that was funded or supported except within our
universities. This is stuff that we pursued because of our own
conviction and our interests. This is not an area that has
received a lot of attention.
It is, quite frankly, considered by some of our co-
researchers as being sort of trivial. And one of the questions
I frequently get is: Why are you messing around with games and
media? There are more important issues out there.
I would argue that this is one of the most profound issues
that we could be facing. And it is essentially an
interdisciplinary issue. It involves having to have, I think,
the insights of sociologists, psychologists, child development
people, educators, and media experts. And I think it is a very,
very complex question.
I think we are at a point right now that is very, very
similar to the emergence of television as a medium, in which we
are seeing a convergence of these electronic technologies
coming together in both the Internet, video games, television
in a new form of a convergence of these technologies. And I
think we have very, very little understanding of what they are
about.
It is sort of like we are in the year 1948 or 1949, when
television came on the scene, and we are not taking the
opportunity to ask ourselves: What is it that we need to
understand? What is the impact of what we are doing on our
children? How is it affecting our culture and society?
This is an enormously important opportunity to ask those
types of questions. I think we are missing that opportunity by
not pursuing this much more aggressively.
Senator Brownback. One of the video games that we saw a
clip of from Dr. Walsh was Duke Nukem. It involved sexualizing
violence. What problems would one anticipate this posing to
young children? Particularly since most of these games are
marketed to and played by boys, what does it do to them?
Dr. Anderson. At this point, there is no directly relevant
research on the video game, from the video game perspective.
From the television and movie violence literature, we can have
a pretty good guess that the impact is going to be anything but
good. It is going to lead to the creation of attitudes toward
women that are attitudes that frankly none of us in this room
would view as positive--negative attitudes toward women,
objectification of them, increasing sort of this notion that
violence against women is okay.
But, again, there is no research base that I know of
directly looking at this from the standpoint of what effect are
these kinds of video games having.
Dr. Provenzo. There are some unexpected consequences, I
think, that need to be taken into account. When I did my book
``Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo,'' I did a content
analysis of the main themes in the 47 most popular Nintendo
games. Nine of the 10 most popular games--and this is very
dated material, this was a book published back in the early
nineties--but nine out of 10 of the most popular games had as
their primary theme the murder, abduction, or implied rape of a
woman.
Now, when I went out and I interviewed--and some of it is
pretty benign, you know, it was rescuing the princess in
Princess Zelda. Other things were much more graphic and direct,
like Street Fighter II. But when I went out and interviewed
girls at the elementary level about being interested in video
games and being interested in computers, they said they wanted
to play with video games, they were interested in them, but, in
point of fact, they could not find games that they liked
because they all had sort of stupid boy things. I think that is
a code for saying they did not like the idea of being victims
playing the games.
Now, the video game companies come out and say, and I think
they are correct, I think it is a logical argument, video games
are the first entry into the culture of computing for girls.
And if girls are being discouraged from entering the culture of
computing, then there is a very serious issue here in terms of
gender discrimination as they progress through the educational
system and into professional careers.
Essentially, what we are doing is we are really
discouraging women from seeing computing as an interesting and
supportive environment if video games are, in fact, the portal
for entering the computer culture, which I think it is to a
large degree.
Senator Brownback. That is a troubling aspect, but the
objectification of women even more so here.
Dr. Anderson, would it be fair to say that there is a
public health impact to consuming violent entertainment?
Dr. Anderson. I would definitely say that, that it is a
public health, or should be, a public health issue. As Jeanne
was pointing out, sometimes our colleagues think that because
the word ``game'' is associated with some of the work that we
are doing, they think it is not very serious. And in my own
case, I actually had to convince some colleagues that when they
were compiling a list of faculty whose research has some
relevance to health psychology, that my name should be on the
list.
In order to convince them that my name should be on this
list, I had to point out to them that the Surgeon General at
one point said that death by murder is in fact a public health
issue. That did convince them.
Senator Brownback. Would all of you agree that there is a
public health impact to consuming violent entertainment?
Dr. Funk. Absolutely.
Dr. Provenzo. Absolutely.
Senator Brownback. As you may know, we give away spectrum
to broadcasters. And when we do so, there is a requirement that
their programming, quote, ``serve the public interest.'' It is
a very specific item, and it has been in there for a long
period of time, that since the spectrums are provided, that
they must be used in the public interest.
From the public health perspective, does violent
entertainment serve the public interest or does it undermine
it?
Dr. Anderson. I would say it definitely undermines it. It
is hard to imagine a redeeming feature to any of the really
violent media that is out there now. And certainly for kids.
Dr. Funk. Yes, especially in the case of children. I think
it is very important that we look carefully at the impact of
violent entertainment on children. It certainly does not serve
their interest.
Senator Brownback. Does it serve the public interest?
Dr. Funk. I do not believe that it serves the public
interest at all. But I recognize that there are certain
freedoms that we have in this country that obviously we all
respect.
Dr. Provenzo. Let me go back to the storytelling issue.
George Gerbner, is a wonderful media researcher. He talks about
the mean world phenomena and that television constructs, as an
example--but I think other forms of media--the idea that the
world is much meaner and crueler than it actually is. I think
video games do that, too. I think that is unfortunate. I think
we need to have better stories sort of percolating through our
brains than all the mean stories.
There is enough meanness in the world. I do not mean to
sound Pollyanna-ish. It is just, why do we need to excessively
emphasize this?
Senator Brownback. Do you believe, from a public health
perspective, that violent entertainment does not serve the
public interest?
Dr. Provenzo. I am not a psychologist. I am not a medical
health expert. But from the point of view of an educator, I
would go back to the notion of these are not--I am not saying
we should not have stories with violence in them. I am not
saying that violence does not play a role in art and in the
media. I just think that the excessive focusing on this to the
exclusion of other types of stories is really tragic for our
culture.
Senator Brownback. And harmful to our culture?
Dr. Provenzo. And harmful, yes.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much. I want to thank all
the panel members for being here today. I think this has been
very enlightening.
I am troubled by what I see. I have five children, and two
of them are avid video game players. And I was this weekend in
a video arcade with my children. And you do get very concerned
about what you see. It is the romanticized violence. It is the
excessive violence. It is everywhere. It is every clip. It is
all surrounding you.
It is sexualized violence. It is objectification of others.
It is removal of any sort of care for anybody else. And this is
about killing. It is not about caring. We try to monitor that
closely, and yet I cannot help but to think this is having an
extraordinary negative impact across this country. And that is
why we have started this set of hearings, to try to get that
information.
I appreciate your thoughts, too, about the need for more
research. I am hopeful that we can provide that sort of effort
and funding from Congress, to be able to do that, so we can
spread the information about what is taking place and learn
better what is occurring. Under any scenario of what any of you
have presented, it is not positive. It is negative. We just do
not know to what degree or how completely harmful it is to us.
The record will remain open for the requisite number of
days for people to provide additional statements for the
record.
Senator Brownback. With that, again, thank you all.
I thank the first panelists for coming and sharing your
great difficulty that you have been through, as well.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Douglas Lowenstein, President,
Interactive Digital Software Association
This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Interactive Digital
Software Association \1\ the trade body representing U.S. video and
computer game software companies that publish games for use in the
home. In 1999, the industry generated $6.1 billion in retail software
sales. IDSA's 32 members account for 90% of the edutainment and
entertainment software sold in the US.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IDSA's members only publish software for the home. The arcade
game business is a different sector with its own representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologize for not being able to appear before the Committee in
person. However, I had a long standing prior commitment in Arizona
which could not be rescheduled. I hope the testimony and attachments
which follow will be included in the Committee record, and I look
forward to a continuing dialogue with the Members about these important
issues.
The subject of today's hearing is The Effects of Interactive
Violence on Children. I certainly understand the interest in this topic
in the aftermath of tragic school shootings over the past few years, as
well as the frenzied media reports--often inaccurate and misleading--
about interactive entertainment in the months after Littleton. This is
an important topic which deserves a fair and balanced discussion.
By far the most exhaustive and objective analysis of this subject
was released this past December by the Government of Australia in a
study entitled ``Computer Games and Australians Today.'' This detailed
report, which is provided as an Appendix to my testimony, stands out
above all others for two reasons: first, it was carried out by a
government with a history of tough regulation of entertainment content
for the purpose of determining whether government regulation is
merited; second, unlike some of those who will appear before you today,
it was written by authors who lack preconceived points of view on the
issue of whether violent games lead to aggressive behavior. I think it
is especially helpful to the Committee since it provides an
independent, unbiased, peer-based evaluation of some of the research
you will hear about today. I will discuss this study in more detail
later in my testimony, but let me quote to you here the key conclusion.
``The accumulating evidence--provided largely by researchers
keen to demonstrate the games' undesirable effects--does
indicate that it is very hard to find such effects and that
they are unlikely to be substantial (emphasis added).''
The Computer and Video Game Industry Today
Any dialogue on the effects of violent video and computer games on
children must be carried out with an understanding of the broader
context of the interactive entertainment industry, its products, and
its customers. So before addressing the specific question of what the
prevailing research tells us about the effects of violent video and
computer games on children, I want to discuss briefly some facts about
the interactive entertainment industry as it stands today.
There are six critical points to understand:
Point One: The most frequent users of computer and video games are
adults, not kids. This is a surprise to many who still perceive the
industry as a toy-based business appealing to adolescent males. But in
fact, 70% of the most frequent users of PC games are over 18; and 38%
of these are over 36. The picture is similar for video game consoles:
57% of the most frequent users are over 18, and 20% are over 36. Those
products that contain violent content, and it is a minority of the
total produced (see below), are made to appeal to this adult
population.
Point Two: The vast majority of games do not contain significant
levels of violence, and the vast majority of top selling games are
largely non-violent. Of the top 20 best selling games in 1999, none
carried a Mature rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board
(ESRB), and only five carried a Teen rating. Looking at games sold by
type, the data shows that just over 5% of all games sold last year were
in the so-called ``shooter'' category which received so much attention
after Columbine, and this category is so broadly defined that it
includes such benign games as a Star Wars space war title and a version
of the classic arcade game Asteroids. In fact, if one were to focus
strictly on games like Doom, their percentage of the total market is
even lower.
Point Three: There is a mass market for games today which crosses
all ages, genders, and tastes. The notion that the industry should
homogenize content to appeal only to young users makes as much sense as
encouraging book publishers to stop publishing Steven King novels and
only issue books appropriate for young readers.
Point Four: While the market is diverse, 70% of all games made are
rated by the ESRB as appropriate for everyone. Only nine percent of the
more than 6,000 products rated by the ESRB have earned a Mature rating
reflecting the presence of significant levels of violence. ESRB ratings
have been lauded for their accuracy and reliability by such diverse
observers as Sen. Joe Lieberman and child advocate Peggy Charren. And
we know these ratings work when parents know about them and use them.
Last summer, a survey conducted for the ESRB by the highly regarded
Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. found that 73% of the parents
who were aware of the ESRB rating system find it helpful in making
informed purchasing decisions. We also know that nine out of ten games
are actually purchased by adults for their kids so they can, if they
choose, control the games their kids play. Finally, the Hart survey
revealed that three out of four parents under the age of 44 provide a
significant level of supervision over the games their kids play. So the
control really is in their hands.
Point Five: Between 1991-97, video game sales surged 128%.
Meanwhile, between 1993-97, a period covering the most dramatic growth
in video game sales, juvenile violent crime fell 40%. No one would say
that video games are responsible for falling crime rates. But these
numbers do suggest that those who point to games as a leading culprit
in youth violence do not have the facts on their side.
Point Six: Many of the games sold here which have prompted concern
about the effects of interactive entertainment on children are sold all
over the world. In fact, in some countries, even more violent games are
available. Yet, despite growth rates in foreign markets similar to
those in the U.S., youth violence in these countries does not even
approach the levels in our country. If interactive entertainment causes
violent behavior, why is violent crime among juveniles so low in
foreign markets with the identical products? This suggests we need to
look far deeper to identify the causes of youth violence than games.
Research on Interactive Entertainment
Let me now turn to the academic research. I have attached as an
Appendix to my testimony a report analyzing the research on video game
violence and other issues prepared at IDSA's request by Jeffrey
Goldstein, Ph.D., Department of Social and Organizational Psychology at
the University of Utrecht in The Netherlands. Dr. Goldstein has
authored and edited numerous books on media violence, including his
latest, ``Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment'', and
is a Fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the
American Psychological Society.
I will leave the scientific analysis to Dr. Goldstein and the
Australian Government's study, also attached as an Appendix. But I want
to make a few general points.
Australian Research
Let me turn here to the Australian study. This study updated a 1995
study conducted by Kevin Durkin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of
Psychology, University of Western Australia. In that study, which
reviewed all literature on the effects of video games on users, Durkin
concluded, ``Overall, evidence is limited, but so far does not lend
strong support to the claims that computer games play promotes
aggressive behavior.''
As noted earlier, the new study reaches much the same conclusion
after evaluating research carried out since the 1995 study was
published.
A few key points from the Australia study are worth reporting.
First, government researchers found in a national survey that ``most
people associate positive feelings such as enjoyment, happiness,
exhilaration, relaxation, and challenge with playing computer games'':
and that ``young players report that aggressive content is not the
central attraction of games. Many players said that they perceive the
aggressive content as fantastic and preposterous, with the result that
they do not take it seriously; they do not perceive their own actions
as harming others since they do not believe the characters are real or
suffer pain.'' This punctures the oft-repeated statement that kids
prefer violent games or that they take them seriously.
I want to cite briefly a few important studies covered by the
Australians. Derek Scott, as reported in the Journal of Psychology, had
hypothesized that the more aggressive games subjects played, the more
aggressive they would become. He set out to prove this point of view,
and failed. In fact, Scott found that the moderately aggressive games
substantially decreased feelings of aggression, whereas the highly
aggressive game resulted in no more of an increase in aggression than
the non aggressive game. ``Results are discussed in terms of a general
lack of support for the commonly held view that playing aggressive
computer games causes an individual to feel more aggressive,'' Scott
wrote. There are several other studies which have sought to prove that
the more aggressive the game played, the more significant the impact on
behavior, and the have not been able to demonstrate this link,
suggesting that there is not nexus between the level of aggression in a
game and behavior outside it.
The Australian authors also note a 1997 study by Dutch researchers
Van Schie and Wiegman who believed that the more users were exposed to
violent games, the more aggressively they would behave. In fact, they
reported, no relationship was found between the amount of play and
aggressiveness.
In sum, the Australian Government study concludes that, ``Despite
several attempts to find effects of aggressive content in either
experimental studies or field studies, at best only weak and ambiguous
evidence has emerged.''
Research Methodology
In evaluating any research on this topic, pro or con, it is
important to carefully evaluate the methodology, definitions, and
interpretation of the data. In this regard, Dr. Goldstein notes:
``Neither the quantity nor the quality of research on video games does
much to inspire confidence in solid conclusions about their effects.
Nearly every study suffers from vague definitions (of violence or
aggression), ambiguous measurements (confusing aggressive play with
aggressive behavior), questionable measures of aggression (such as
blasts of noise or self-reports of prior aggression), or
overgeneralizations of the data.''
Take, for example, the issue of how aggression is defined in the
studies. Psychologists define violence or aggression as ``the
intentional injury of another person.'' Yet, in video games, there is
neither intent to injure nor a living victim. Nonetheless, some
researchers loosely claim that the goal of certain games is to ``kill''
opponents. But there is no literal killing and it is a massive leap of
logic to suggest that vaporizing an animated character leads to or
causes real world killing.
Another flaw in some research on this topic lies in how the
research is carried out. Many of them, for example, are conducted in
lab settings which do not replicate even remotely the environment and
experience of those who play games for entertainment.
Dr. Goldstein writes: ``Experiments that claim to study the effects
of playing electronic games rarely study play at all. In reality, a
game player chooses when and what to play, and enters in a different
frame of mind than someone who is required to `play' on demand. Some
have argued that the link between media violence and aggressive
behavior is as strong as the link between cigarette smoking and cancer.
This is not so. We can measure the presence or absence of disease with
reasonable precision, but we cannot easily or reliably measure
aggressive behavior in laboratory settings. We have only indirect and
often questionable measures of aggression at our disposal.''
It is true that some research, including some you may hear about
today, claims that video games lead to aggressive behavior in the real
world. But often these are conclusions and speculation not supported by
the underlying research. It is argued, for example, that video games
reinforce murderous behavior! Last time I checked, murder was the
taking of a human being's life. Equating that to shooting alien
creatures is totally unsubstantiated, and requires one to assume that
the player will believe that what is permitted in the fantasy world he
or she voluntarily entered is sanctioned in real life.
In fact, rather than suggesting that playing violent games leads to
aggressive behavior in the real world, at best there is some weak
evidence that this activity may lead to more aggressive play. In 1999,
British researcher Mark Griffiths reviewed the literature on the
subject and noted that what some researchers report as aggressive
behavior is really only an increase in aggressive play--such as mock
battles or running around making believe you're killing aliens--with no
intent to injure, as required by the standard psychological definition
of aggression. This point cannot be overemphasized. There is a world of
difference between running around making believe you're killing aliens,
or martial arts play fighting, and picking up a real weapon and
shooting your friends. There is not a shred of evidence in the academic
literature to support the allegation that a violent video game leads to
aggressive behavior in real life.
Some researchers do claim that they have established a link between
playing a violent game and aggressive behavior, such as Anderson and
Dill. But their measure of aggressive behavior is not evidence of an
actual violent act or the actual intent to injure someone, but the
intensity and duration of noise blasts initiated by their subjects. I
am not a psychologist but I would suggest that basing a conclusion that
violent games lead to aggressive behavior on how loud and long someone
blows a horn is not a sound basis for policy or pronouncements. Another
measure used in this research is reaction time to aggressive words
flashed on a screen after playing a violent game. A faster response was
presumed to indicate aggressive thoughts. But it means nothing of the
sort, anymore than if one played a golf game and then responded faster
to the word ``putter'' means that you have golf on the brain. This kind
of weak data represents the high water mark for research seeking to
establish that violent video games lead to aggressive behavior, and it
is extremely weak and ambiguous at best, and is contradicted by other
research.
Yet another weakness in some of the research is that it fails to
control for the pre-existing tendencies that subjects bring into the
research. Griffiths points out that more aggressive children may be
drawn to more violent games. And the Australian authors suggest that
``it would appear plausible that the direction of effect is from player
to game. Computer games cannot turn players into boys. A more
reasonable interpretation is that people with certain characteristics
seek out certain types of games. It remains uncertain whether
involvement in aggressive games by already aggressive individuals
contributes to the exacerbation of their aggressive tendencies,
provides a harmless avenue for its discharge, or makes no difference.''
Television vs. Interactive Entertainment
Another statement often made about video games is that one can
extrapolate the effects of television research to computer games. This
is not only bad science, it may be wildly misleading. One difference
between video games and TV is that video game players exert control
over what takes place on the screen. They are participants in an
interactive system that allows them to regulate the pace and character
of the game. This, in turn, gives them increased control over their own
emotional states during play. A substantial body of research
demonstrates that perceived control over events reduces their emotional
or stressful impact.
Military Simulators
Over the last year, much attention has been paid in Congress and
the media to claims that the military's use of video game technology in
training suggests that these games when used in the home train kids to
kill. There is no evidence to support this wild claim, the purveyor of
it has absolutely no research on which the claim is based, and the
Pentagon itself dismisses the notion that it uses simulators to teach
soldiers to kill. I will not dwell on this issue here, but will be
happy to provide detail on this claim should the Committee desire.
Proactive Steps by the Video and Computer Game Industry
Does this mean we do nothing? The answer is no. Last Spring, I
testified before this Committee and pledged to take a series of steps
to address concerns about violent video games, including stepping up
promotion of the ESRB, working with retailers to uphold the ratings at
the point of sale, and addressing concerns about video game
advertising. We have redeemed all of these pledged.
Our industry has been and continues to be extremely proactive in
addressing concerns about the content of the small minority of products
which give rise to the concerns covered in this hearing. We agree that
some games are not appropriate for young children. That's precisely
what the ESRB ratings tell consumers. The single most meaningful step
industry and government can take to protect children from games that
may not be appropriate for them is to educate parents about how to use
ESRB ratings.
To that end, the ESRB mounted a major campaign last holiday season
to raise awareness and use of its ratings. This campaign included paid
ads in national publications with significant parent readership. It
also included a PSA featuring golf superstar Tiger Woods encouraging
parents to ``Check the Ratings'' before buying games for their kids.
ESRB also reached out to various national groups such as the PTA,
Mothers Against Violence in America, and the YMCA and YWCA to
distribute information about ESRB ratings to their constituents.
Another major element of the effort was to encourage retailers to
carry information about ESRB ratings in their stores, and to adopt
policies to uphold the ratings at the point of sale by not selling
Mature or Adult Only games to persons under 17. Such national chains as
Toys `R Us, Babbages, Electronics Boutique, and Funcoland all agreed to
either actively restrict sales of ``M'' rated games to persons under 17
or to use their best efforts to prevent such sales. In addition, the
ESRB printed and distributed over 5 million brochures on how to use
ESRB ratings to retailers.
Separately, the three major video game console hardware companies--
Nintendo, Sega, and Sony--all agreed this Fall to include in their
hardware packages information on the ESRB, a step which put critical
ratings information into the hands of millions of new consumers this
holiday season.
IDSA was active in other areas as well. This Fall, our Board of
Directors created a new Advertising Review Council within the
independent ESRB organization to develop and enforce an expanded
advertising Code which for the first time includes content standards
and various restrictions on the placement of ads for video and PC
games. The new ARC opened its doors for business February 1. The ARC
has
secured support for its content guidelines from the three major video
game magazine chains who have agreed to adopt the ARC code as their
internal standards and practices.
We're also pleased that the ESRB reached an agreement late last
year with AOL in which AOL will adopt the ESRB ratings on its game
service, a major step toward expanding ESRB's Internet presence.
We also welcome the study by the Surgeon General of the United
States into the causes of youth violence, and will cooperate with that
office as it proceeds.
Late last year, the IDSA conducted research asking parents who is
responsible for controlling the video games children play. The
overwhelming majority of respondents said it is up to the parents. Our
industry will continue to make products that appeal to people of all
tastes and interests. Some of these will not be appropriate for younger
consumers. But absent unconstitutional restrictions on content, and
absent any compelling scientific research showing that playing violent
games is harmful, the best way to ensure that kids don't play games
that are not suitable for them is to maximize parental awareness and
use of the existing rating system. Our industry pledges to you that we
will continue to actively promote the ESRB system to increase its
utilization by parents, and we hope you and others who share your
concerns will join us in that ongoing campaign.
Conclusion
While the subject of this hearing is the effects of violent
interactive games on children, I want to briefly point out that there
is a growing body of evidence that video games have many positive
effects on players, including enhancing educational performance,
improving spatial skills, improving cognitive development, and as
therapeutic tools to treat attention deficit disorders, among other
things. I hope we can address these benefits at some future hearing
rather than continually and exclusively focusing on the issue of
violence.
You will hear from witnesses who have generally expressed concern
about the effects of interactive entertainment on children. We did
provide the Committee with the names of other experts who do not share
these views, and we were disappointed that none of them were asked to
appear, or that the Committee did not seek out those with different
views on its own. For this reason, we have included two additional
submissions which evaluate all of the current research on the topic and
reach the conclusion that there is no compelling research which
supports the belief that playing violent video games in the real world
causes aggressive behavior in the real world. Put another way, there is
no scientific basis to argue that entering the fantasy world of Doom in
the home using a mouse causes players to gun down their friends in the
school yard.
But even if one were to agree with those who believe there is cause
for concern about the effects of violent entertainment on children, the
question is what can be done about it? Video games and computer games
are protected forms of expression under our Constitution. Some may not
like particular games, but the case law is clear that efforts by
government to regulate violent content is unconstitutional. For this
reason, I appreciate the fact that Senator Brownback has publicly said
that this hearing is not for the purpose of pursuing legislation to
regulate the video game or entertainment industries. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Goldstein, Ph.D., Department of Social
and Organizational Psychology, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
My name is Jeffrey Goldstein. I received a PhD in psychology from
Ohio State University, following which I was professor of psychology at
Temple University (Philadelphia) for nearly 20 years. Since 1992 I have
been with the Department of Social and Organizational Psychology at the
University of Utrecht, in the Netherlands. Among the books I have
written or edited are Sports, Games and Play (Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates), Aggression and Crimes of Violence (Oxford University
Press), Toys, Play and Child Development (Cambridge University Press),
and in 1998, Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment
(Oxford University Press). I am a Fellow of both the American
Psychological Association and the American Psychological Society. I
serve on the academic advisory committee of the Entertainment Software
Rating Board (New York), which developed a widely used system for
rating video and online games.
This overview of research on the effects of electronic games was
prepared at the request of the Interactive Digital Software Association
(Washington, D.C.), for whom I regularly review research on this
subject. I have read nearly all the published English-language research
on electronic games, which includes video and computer games, CD-ROM
and online games. Neither the quantity nor the quality of research on
video games does much to inspire confidence in solid conclusions about
their effects. Nearly every study suffers from unclear definitions (of
violence or aggression), ambiguous measurements (confusing aggressive
play with aggressive behavior, or using questionable measures of
aggression, such as blasts of noise or self-reports of prior
aggression), and overgeneralizations from the data. Experiments that
claim to study the effects of playing electronic games rarely study
play at all. In reality, a game player chooses when and what to play,
and enters in a different frame of mind than someone who is required to
`play' on demand.
Some have argued that the link between media violence and
aggressive behavior is as strong as the link between cigarette smoking
and cancer. This is not so. We can measure the presence or absence of
disease with reasonable precision, but we cannot easily or reliably
measure aggressive behavior in laboratory settings. We have only
indirect and often questionable measures of aggression at our disposal.
Research on Electronic Games
There are 4 types of research on electronic games: 1) Demographic
surveys describe who plays which games. 2) Correlational studies
examine the relationship between video game play and other behaviors,
such as aggression or school performance. 3) Experiments seek to
establish cause-and-effect relationships by requiring some individuals
to play video games and others to play other (or no) games.
Measurements are then taken to establish the effects of video games. 4)
Applied research uses electronic games as a medium for education,
training, medicine, and therapy.
The file drawer problem
Published research in scholarly journals does not represent all the
research on electronic games. Studies that fail to find statistically
significant results are less likely to be accepted for publication. So
the published record is an unknown fraction of all research, and it
tends to consist of those studies with statistically significant
results. This is known as `the file drawer problem' because studies
that do not find any effects of video games remain unpublished, locked
away in the researcher's files.
Surveys
Industry people can provide demographics of games players of the
growth of electronic games from a youth activity to one that cuts
across all ages and both sexes. Research by social scientists tends to
focus on potential problem areas, such as video game `addiction' or the
relationship between the extent of gaming and school performance.
Concerns about addiction to video games have lately given way to
concerns about internet addiction (Kraut, et al. 1998).
Studies that consider addiction to video games offer snapshots in
time rather than dynamic pictures of play over a period of weeks or
months. At any given moment, there are players deeply immersed in the
gaming experience, but this obsession is temporary, according to a
large-scale Australian survey (Durkin 1998).
Barrie Gunter (1998) concludes in his review of video game
research, ``There is international evidence that video games do not
preoccupy children and teenagers to the exclusion of other pursuits. .
. . Some children may admit to playing more than they think they
should, but few signs have emerged so far that video game addiction is
a growing social problem. Video game players do not differ
significantly from non-players in terms of other activities, including
sports.''
Correlates of Violent Video Game Play
Some studies compare the most frequent players of electronic games
with those who play less often (for example, Anderson & Dill in press;
Griffiths & Hunt 1998; Roe & Muijs 1998). In some studies, frequent
play with violent video games is correlated with lower school
performance, more aggression, delinquency, and behavioral and emotional
problems. The heaviest users of video game are males, and those who
prefer violent video games are most likely to be above average in
aggression, and to show other characteristics of aggressive men:
namely, poorer school performance, less interest in bookish activities,
more delinquency, and so on. These correlations do not imply causality.
According to one study (Roe & Muijs 1998), poor performance in school
motivates some boys to achieve success in the world of video games.
Following are descriptions of recent correlational studies of violent
electronic games.
Jeanne B. Funk and her colleagues (1999) claimed to examine whether
a preference for violent electronic games is ``associated with an
increase in problem behaviors'' in adolescents. Boys and girls at a
middle school and at a school for children with behavioral problems
completed questionnaires about their video game experience and problem
behaviors. The children were divided in half according to whether they
played video games ``high in violence'' or ``low in violence.'' For
girls, playing violent video games was not associated with any clinical
problems. Those who played violent video games scored higher on
something called ``thought problems,'' but this is not further defined
or described. Boys who played video games low in violence had higher
delinquency scores than boys who played more violent video games! Other
studies also fail to find that higher levels of violence in video games
has stronger effects than lower levels of violence (for example,
Anderson & Ford, 1986).
Comments on the Funk et al. study
The study cannot possibly show whether violent electronic games are
related to an increase in adolescent problems because it does not
measure changes in problem behaviors. It is a static study that
measures self-reports of play with violent games and self-reported
problem behaviors at one point in time. The study did not find more
violent video game playing among children at the school for adolescents
with behavior problems. Suppose instead of finding very little, Funk et
al. had found that those who played violent electronic games had more
behavior problem behaviors. What would that tell us about violent
electronic games? It would not imply that games cause these problems.
Some youngsters with problems may use video games as a way of coping
with problems. There is no way to draw sound conclusions from such a
study.
Craig Anderson and Karen Dill (in press) conducted a study on the
correlates of experience with violent video games. Seventy-eight men
and 149 women undergraduates at a midwestern university completed
questionnaires about their exposure to video game violence and paper-
and-pencil measures of delinquency, aggression, irritability, world
view, and grade point average. The university students indicated their
favorite games, and were asked to recall how often they played video
games in recent months, during the 11th and 12th grades, during the 9th
and 10th grades, and during the 7th and 8th grades. Also measured were
perceptions of crime and feelings of safety.
Results. As in some previous research, Anderson and Dill found a
positive correlation between experience with violent video games and
measures of aggression and delinquency. This does not mean that the
former is a cause of the latter. Highly aggressive youngsters are
attracted to violent video games (Goldstein, 1998). Both aggression/
delinquency and involvement with violent video games may be the result
of other factors, such as a high need for arousal, excitement, or
attention. Perception of crime was not significantly related to play
with violent video games. George Gerbner and others found that people
with the most exposure to television overestimate crime rates. Anderson
and Dill did not find that here; experience with violent video games
was not related to perception of crime.
Anderson and Dill write of their data as though they are describing
a causal sequence. ``The positive association between violent video
games and aggressive personality is consistent with a developmental
model in which extensive exposure to violent video games (and other
violent media) contributes to the creation of an aggressive
personality.'' In sum, Study 1 indicates that concern about the
deleterious effects of violent video games on delinquent behavior,
aggressive and nonaggressive, is legitimate,'' write Anderson and Dill.
But their study has nothing to do with the effects of video games,
deleterious or otherwise [emphasis added]. Correlation is not
causality, no matter how tempted one may be to argue otherwise. The
authors acknowledge this when they write, ``However, the correlational
nature of Study 1 means that causal statements are risky at best. It
could be that the obtained video game violence links to aggressive and
nonaggressive delinquency are wholly due to the fact that highly
aggressive individuals are especially attracted to violent video
games.''
Experiments with Violent Video Games
Much of what is written about video games with violent themes
assumes that
the media (including electronic games) affect vulnerable groups of
people in ways
that go against their grain, a `magic ray' approach to the media. In
contrast, I believe that people are extremely selective in the media
they use and attend to, and that the effects the media have on them are
pretty much the effects that the user is seeking.
Physiological reactions to video games
Electronic games are challenging, sometimes frustrating, exciting,
surprising, and often funny. While playing, individuals may experience
a range of emotions accompanied by physiological changes. In one study
with university students, heart rate accelerated while playing a
violent video game, and returned to baseline within 15 minutes
following play (Griffiths & Dancaster 1995).
Winning a competitive video game did not result in a rise in
testosterone level, as happens with the victors of competitive sports
and chess matches (Mazur, et al., 1997). This may be because players do
not regard video games as truly competitive, but see video game play
instead as a cooperative activity.
Positron emission tomography (PET) scans were taken while healthy
men played a video game. The neurotransmitter Dopamine, thought to be
involved in learning, reinforcement of behavior, attention, and
sensorimotor coordination, was released in the brain during play (Koepp
1998).
Violence and `violence'--Matters of definition
When people refer to ``violence in the media'' or ``violent video
games'' they rarely distinguish between real violence--people hurting
one another as in warfare or a slap in the face--and symbolic or
fantasy violence, in which characters engage in mock battle. Nor do
they distinguish between cartoon characters, fantasy figures in
electronic games, dramatic violence portrayed by human actors, and real
violence in news and documentary programs. Psychologists define
violence or aggression as ``the intentional injury of another person.''
However, there is neither intent to injure nor a living victim in an
electronic game. Anderson and Dill (in press) write that ``the goal of
the player in Mortal Kombat is to kill any opponent he faces.'' But
there is no literal killing here; something else is going on, namely,
play and fantasy. When discussing ``violence in the media'' people do
not usually mean literal violence.
An article by Dill and Dill (1998) further illustrates this
confusion. They write, ``If violent video game play indeed depicts
victims as deserving attacks, and if these video games tend to portray
other humans as `targets,' then reduced empathy is likely to be a
consequence of violent video game play, thus putting the player at risk
for becoming a more violent individual.'' The Dills write that perhaps
video games would have stronger effects than television because of the
active involvement of players. They argue that players must ``act
aggressively'' and are then reinforced for this ``aggression.'' ``In
violent video games, aggression is often the main goal, and killing
adversaries means winning the game and reaping the benefits. While in
real life, murder is a crime, in a violent video game, murder is the
most reinforced behavior. . . . The violent video game player is an
active aggressor'' according to the Dills, and ``the players'
behavioral repertoire is expanded to include new and varied aggressive
alternatives.''
Likewise, Anderson and Dill (in press) write, ``Each time people
play violent video games, they rehearse aggressive scripts which teach
and reinforce vigilance for enemies, aggressive action against others,
expectations that others will behave aggressively, positive attitudes
towards use of violence, and beliefs that violent solutions are
effective and appropriate. Furthermore, repeated exposure to graphic
scenes of violence is likely to be desensitizing. . . . Long-term video
game players can become more aggressive in outlook, perceptual biases,
attitudes, beliefs, and behavior than they were before the repeated
exposure. . . .'' To my knowledge, there are no studies of the long-
term effects of video games. There is no evidence that video games
actually have any of these effects.
Effects of violent video games
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (1995; 1999) has stressed the similarities
between combat training and violent video games. He could just as
logically have stressed their differences. Among the differences
between training soldiers for combat and playing video games are:
The motivations for undertaking the tasks are
different.
The individual can play or not, and can come and go,
as he pleases.
The intentions of the players are different.
The players' beliefs about what they are doing and why
differ.
There are many cues in video games that `this is play'
(for example, sound effects, fantasy figures, scorekeeping).
The behaviors reinforced (play vs. aggression) and the
reinforcements themselves are different.
The social relationships among the individuals
involved are different.
Experiments on the effects of violent video games on the behavior
of elementary school children typically fail to distinguish between
aggressive play and aggressive behavior. After playing a Mortal Kombat-
style video game, children, boys especially, are likely to engage in
martial arts play-fighting. To many adult observers, the boys are
thought to be acting aggressively, but in fact are engaged in
aggressive play, where there is no intent to injure anyone (Silvern &
Williamson 1987). Media violence research is clouded by such
ambiguities.
According to British psychologist Mark Griffiths (1999) ``the
majority of studies on very young children tend to show that children
become more aggressive after playing or watching a violent video game,
but these were all based on the observation of free play.'' This is
precisely the problem, confusing aggressive play with aggressive
behavior, that leads to fuzzy conclusions. In the rare study that
measures both aggressive play and aggressive behavior (for instance,
Cooper & Mackie 1986; Hellendoorn & Harinck 1998), violent games affect
the former but do not affect aggressive behavior.
In part because of these ambiguities, those who review the existing
research on violent video games arrive at different conclusions. Among
recent reviews, some conclude that violent video games are a cause of
violent behavior (Anderson & Dill in press; Ballard & Lineberger 1999;
Dill & Dill 1998), while others conclude that there is insufficient
evidence to draw any conclusion (Australia 1999; Durkin 1995; Gunter
1998; Griffiths 1999). Anderson & Dill review published studies on
video games and aggressive behavior, and conclude as have others, that
every study suffers from flaws in methodology, ambiguous definitions,
is open to alternative explanations, or results in inconsistent
findings. ``In sum,'' they write, ``there is little experimental
evidence that the violent content of violent video games can increase
aggression in the immediate situation.''
Anderson and Dill experiment
In an experiment by Anderson and Dill (in press), students played a
violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent game (Myst) that
were similar in their degree of difficulty, enjoyment, and frustration
(although men considered Wolfenstein 3D more exciting than Myst). One
hundred four women and 106 men from a midwestern U.S. university
visited the laboratory twice, playing each assigned video game 3 times
for 15 minutes per time. In the first session participants played the
game, completed the affective and world view measures, and played the
game again, then completed the cognitive measure. The cognitive measure
of aggressive thoughts was the time it took to recognize aggressive
words (for example, `murder') flashed on a computer screen. Aggressive
thoughts were not measured directly in this experiment, only reaction
time to words flashed on a screen.
During the 2nd session, particiants played the game again for 15
minutes and completed the behavioral aggression measure. Aggressive
behavior was measured during a `competitive reaction time task,' in
which the participant is told to push a button faster than an opponent.
If participants lose this race, they receive a noise blast at a level
supposedly set by their opponent. As their measure of aggressive
behavior Anderson and Dill use the intensity and duration of noise
blasts the participant chooses to deliver to the opponent. They write
that this is ``a widely used and externally valid measure of aggressive
behavior,'' but this is open to doubt because there is nothing in this
method nor in the instructions to the participants to indicate that
there was any intention to injure anyone in this situation.
Results: Greater exposure to violent video games predicted greater
aggressive behavior, particularly among those who were high in
aggressiveness to begin with, and this was especially the case with
men. The effect of violent video games was no different from that of
nonviolent games on state hostility, or on crime perception or feelings
of safety. The average reaction time to aggressive words was faster
among those who had played the violent video game. The researchers
interpret this to mean ``the violent video game primed aggressive
thoughts. This result suggests one potential way in which playing
violent video games might increase aggressive behavior, by priming
aggressive knowledge structures.'' [Does reacting quickly to aggressive
words indicate aggressive thoughts?]
There were ``absolutely no statistically significant effects of any
of the independent variables--sex, trait irritability, video game
type--on either the win or lose noise intensity settings.''
Participants who had played Wolfenstein 3D delivered significantly
longer noise blasts after lose trials than those who played the
nonviolent game Myst. ``Playing a violent video game increased the
aggressiveness of participants after they had been provoked by their
opponent's noise blast.''
Anderson and Dill write, ``The present research demonstrated that
in both a correlational investigation using self-reports of real world
aggressive behaviors and an experimental investigation using a
standard, objective laboratory measure of aggression, violent video
game play was positively related to increases in aggressive behavior. .
. . The convergence of findings across such disparate methods lends
considerable strength to the main hypothesis that exposure to violent
video games can increase aggressive behavior . . . The present
results confirm that parents, educators, and society in general should
be concerned about the prevalence of violent video games in modern
society, especially given recent advances in the realism of video game
violence. . . . The results of the current investigation suggest that
short-term video game violence effects may operate primarily through
the cognitive, and not the affective route to aggressive behavior . .
. Thus, the danger in exposure to violent video games seems to be in
the ideas they teach and not primarily in the emotions they incite in
the player. The more realistic the violence, the more the player
identifies with the aggressor. The more rewarding the video game, the
greater potential for learning aggressive solutions to conflict
situations.'' [emphasis added]
Comments on the Anderson and Dill experiment.
Can one generalize from the Anderson and Dill studies to real-world
video game players? Do their results justify the need to ``be concerned
about the prevalence of violent video games,'' and their increasing
realism? Their studies do not address the realism of video games, or
identification, or the effects of rewards, or attitudes toward conflict
resolution. Do more realistic games have greater impact? Do players
really learn that aggression is the solution to conflict? We do not
know.
There is no sense in which the participants in this experiment
played a video game, violent or otherwise. They were instructed to play
a video game for a few minutes. Whatever effects are found may not
generalize to the natural play setting in which real gaming takes
place. Playing a game at the urging of an experimenter does not
resemble the world of play. Almost no studies of the presumed harmful
effects of video games have considered how and why people play them, or
play at all.
No evidence is given that reaction time to aggressive words is a
valid measure of aggressive thoughts, or that noise blasts are intended
to injure another person.
Real acts of violence have been modeled on media images. The media
may give form to aggressive behavior. But I am aware of no evidence
that the media motivate individuals to commit aggression if they are
not otherwise inclined to do so.
The Attractions of Violent Entertainment
Some critics condemn the makers of violent entertainment for
marketing `violence for violence sake' (Grossman 1995, 1999). But that
is not what people seek. People are highly selective in the violence
they seek or tolerate. Violence, if it is to be entertaining, must
fulfill certain requirements: it must have a moral story in which good
triumphs over evil, and it must carry cues to its unreality--music,
sound effects, editing, a fantasy story-line, cartoon-like characters.
The audience for violent entertainment
Many who condemn violence in video games eagerly devour the latest
novel by Stephen King. Men particularly like violent entertainment. For
the majority of consumers, the violence is a means to ends, a device
valued more for what it does than for what it is. The consumers of
violent entertainment do not share a single motive. Some play violent
video games to experience excitement, some to become experts and
impress their friends, others because the games are challenging. Some
young people play widely vilified games in order to elicit predictable,
if negative, reactions from teachers, parents, or girls. Immersion in a
fantasy world is also conducive to the pleasant transcendental
experience known as ``flow'' (Csikszentmihalyi 1990).
People can choose the degree of emotional content with which they
are most comfortable, just as they do when selecting music to listen
to. An undeniable characteristic of violent imagery is its emotional
wallop; it gives most people a jolt. Not everyone finds this kind of
stimulation pleasant, but some do. Even if players find the violence
repugnant, they can fine-tune their involvement in the game by focusing
on its' graphics, technique, or on their score, in order to control
their emotional involvement.
Youngsters are willing to expose themselves to unpleasant images
because the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. Players, like
media researchers, have overriding reasons for engaging with violent
themes.
Social identity
Violent entertainment appeals primarily to males, and it appeals to
them mostly in groups. These are social occasions, particularly
suitable for `male bonding' and communicating a masculine identity.
Boys may play violent video games alone in their rooms, but they are
almost certain to talk about them with their friends. In a survey of
Canadian youth, Stephen Kline (1999) observes, ``For many of the male
gamers, video gaming was part of a network of friendships and social
affiliations making gaming into a cool thing.''
The importance of context
Both the context of violent images and the circumstances in which
they are consumed play a crucial role in their appeal, and probably in
their effects. In order to experience pleasure from exposure to violent
images players must feel relatively safe in their surroundings.
Furthermore, there must be cues that the violent images are produced
for purposes of entertainment and consumption. Bloody images lose their
appeal when there are few cues to their unreality (McCauley 1998). If
the violent imagery does not itself reveal its unreality, the physical
environment may do so. We are aware of holding a joystick or remote
control, of playing a game on a console or computer screen. Without
background music, special effects, or fantasy characters, images of
violence are unattractive.
Electronic Games in Education, Therapy, and Science
In her book Playing with Power, Marsha Kinder (1991) notes that
video games `have considerable educational and therapeutic value for a
diverse range of groups--including adolescents, athletes, would-be
pilots, the elderly in old-age homes, cancer patients undergoing
chemotherapy, stroke victims, quadriplegics, and young children
suffering from palsy, brain damage, and Down's syndrome.'
Electronic games are used to teach and reinforce skills in
education, science and medicine. Games are used increasingly to study
learning (Blumberg 1998; Rieber 1996), memory (Shewokis 1997),
motivation (Wong 1996), cognitive processes (Kappas 1999), attention
and attention deficits (Pope 1996), and spatial abilities (Subrahmanyam
& Greenfield 1998; Tkacz 1998). Electronic games have been developed to
teach safe sexual practices to adolescents, and to help diabetic
children better manage their illness (Lieberman 1998).
Sometimes the hardware is of interest. Commercial electronic games
have much to recommend them as psychological tests. The equipment is
robust, inexpensive, small, light and portable, scoring is completely
objective and the rules for any given game are the same for every
player. An American mountaineering expedition to the 7,700 meter high
Tirich Mir used two games to measure performance, Simon Says to measure
short-term memory, and Split Second to measure pattern recognition and
reaction time. The games operated normally even at 7,000 meters under
the extreme conditions of the climb (but the batteries had to be warmed
by the climbers). ``What seems beyond doubt is the possibility of
testing performance under extreme conditions by means of electronic
games'' (Jones 1984).
Spatial abilities
Video games are among the most successful means of reducing the
traditional sex difference in spatial abilities (Subrahmanyam &
Greenfield 1994).
Video Games in Therapy
Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder is characterized by the
inability to sustain attention long enough to perform activities such
as schoolwork or organized play. Treatments include brainwave
biofeedback training, in which systems feed back information to
trainees showing how well they are producing the brainwave patterns
that indicate attention. Pope and Bogart (1996) developed a video game
that expands this concept by becoming more difficult as the player's
brainwaves indicate that attention is waning. The trainee can succeed
at the game only by maintaining an adequate level of attention.
Video Games and the Elderly
Electronic games can speed reaction times, hone cognitive skills,
and may retard memory decline among the elderly (Drew & Waters 1986;
Dustman 1992; Goldstein 1997).
What's Missing from Games Research?
The motivation to play is powerful. In seeking a site for a
research project, I visited rehabilitation centers for people with
severe handicaps. In nearly all of them, people were playing computer
or video games, one man with his feet because he did not have the use
of his arms, and one woman who had no movement in her arms or legs
played by blowing through a straw. It is precisely this spirit of play
that is missing from psychological experiments of video games.
Young people bring their entertainment choices and experiences to
bear on their intense concerns with questions of identity, belonging,
and independence. Much of their public behavior--the clothes they wear,
the music they listen to, and the games they play--has a social
purpose. How else are we to understand the fads of body piercing and
tattooing, or the popularity of horror films or violent video games,
except in reference to peer groups? Until researchers look, not at
isolated individuals forced to play a video game for a few minutes as
part of a laboratory experiment, but at game players as members of
extended social groups, we are unlikely to come to terms with violent,
or any other, entertainment.
References
Anderson, C. A., & K. E. Dill. (in press). Video games and
aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in
life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Anderson, C. A., & C. M. Ford. (1986). Affect of the game player:
Short-term effects of highly and mildly aggressive video games.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 12, 390-402.
Ballard, M. E., & R. Lineberger. (1999). Video game violence and
confederate gender: Effects on reward and punishment given by college
males. Sex Roles, vol. 41, 541-558.
Blumberg, F. C. (1998). Developmental differences at play:
Children's selective attention and performance in video games. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 19, 615-624.
Cooper, J., & D. Mackie. (1986). Video games and aggression in
children. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 16, 726-744.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The flow experience. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Dill, K. & J. Dill. (1998). Video game violence: A review of the
empirical literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol. 3, 407-428.
Drew, B., & J. Waters. (1986). Video games: Utilization of a novel
strategy to improve perceptual motor skills and cognitive functioning
in the non-institutionalized elderly. Cognitive Rehabilitation, vol. 4,
26-31.
Durkin, K. (1995). Computer Games, Their Effects on Young People: A
Review. Office of Film & Literature Classification. Sydney. [255
Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia]
Durkin, K., & J. Low. (1998). Children, media and aggression:
Current research in Australia and New Zealand. In U. Carlsson & C. von
Feilitzen (Eds.), Children and Media Violence. UNESCO International
Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen. nordicom.
Goteborg, Sweden: Goteborg University.
Dustman, R. E., R. Emmerson, L. Steinhaus, D. Shearer,, & T.
Dustman. (1992). The effects of videogame playing on neuropsychological
performance of elderly individuals. Journal of Gerontology,
Psychological Sciences, vol. 47, 168-171.
Funk, J. B., J. Hagan, J. Schimming, W. A. Bullock, D. Buchman, &
M. Myers. Playing violent electronic games and indices of
psychopathology in adolescents. (1999). Paper presented at the American
Psychological Association annual convention.
Goldstein, J. (1999). The attractions of violent entertainment.
Media Psychology, vol. 1, 271-282.
Goldstein, J. (1998). Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent
Entertainment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, J., L. Cajko, M. Oosterbroek, M. Michielsen, O. van
Houten, & F. Salverda. (1997). Video games and the elderly. Social
Behavior & Personality, vol. 25, 345-352.
Griffiths, M. (1999). Violent video games and aggression: A review
of the literature. Aggression & Violent Behavior, vol. 4, 203-212.
Griffiths, M., & I. Dancaster. (1995). The effect of Type A
personality on physiological arousal while playing computer games.
Addictive Behaviors, vol. 20, 543-548.
Griffiths, M., & N. Hunt. (1998). Dependence on computer games by
adolescents. Psychological Reports, vol. 82, 475-480.
Grossman, D. (1995). On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning
to Kill in War and Society. Boston: Little Brown.
Grossman, D. (1999). Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to
Action against TV, Movie & Video Game Violence. New York: Crown.
Gunter, B. (1998). The Effects of Video Games on Children: The Myth
Unmasked. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.
Hellendoorn, J., & F. Harinck. (1997). War toy play and aggression
in Dutch kindergarten children. Social Development, vol. 6, 340-354.
Jones, M. B. (1984). Video games as psychological tests. Simulation
& Gaming, vol. 15, 131-157.
Kappas, A., & A. Pecchinenda. (1999). Don't wait for the monsters
to get you: A video game task to manipulate appraisals in real-time.
Cognition & Emotion, vol. 13, 119-124.
Kinder, M. (1991). Playing with Power in Movies, Television and
Video Games. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kline, S. (1999). Video game culture: Leisure and play preferences
of British Columbia teens. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.,
Canada.
Koepp, M. J., R. N. Gunn, A. D. Lawrence, V. J. Cunningham, A.
Dagher, T. Jones, D. J. Brooks, C. J. Bench, & P. M. Grasby. (1998).
Evidence for striatal dopamine release during a video game. Nature,
vol. 393, 266-268.
Kraut, R., M. Patterson, V. Lundmark, S. Kiesler, T. Mukopadhyay, &
W. Scherlis. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces
social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist,
vol. 53, 1017-1031.
Lieberman, D. A. (1998). Health education video games for children
and adolescents: theory, design, and research findings. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,
Jerusalem, 1998. (available online at www.clickhealth.com/lieb98/
diabetes.htm)
Mazur, A., E. J. Susman & S. Edelbrock. (1997). Sex difference in
testosterone response to a video game contest. Evolution and Human
Behavior, vol. 18, 317-326.
McCauley, C. (1998). When screen violence is not attractive. In J.
Goldstein (Ed.), Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent
Entertainment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pope, A. T., & E. H. Bogart. (1996). Extended attention span
training system: Video game neurotherapy for attention deficit
disorder. Child Study Journal, vol. 26, 39-50.
Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing
interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds,
simulations and games. Educational Technology Research and Development,
vol. 44 (no. 2), 43-58.
Roe, K., & D. Muijs. (1998). Children and computer games: A profile
of the heavy user. European Journal of Communication, vol. 13, 181-200.
Shewokis, P. A. (1997). Is the contextual interference effect
generalizable to computer games? Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 84,
3-15.
Silvern, S. B., & P. A. Williamson. (1987). The effects of video
game play on young children's aggression, fantasy, and prosocial
behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 8, 453-462.
Subrahmanyam, K., & P.M. Greenfield. (1998). Computer games for
girls: What makes them play? In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From
Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Tkacz, S., & P. LaForce. (1998). Sex of player and practice in
lateral discrimination and videogame performance. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, vol. 84, 3-15.
Wong, K. K. (1996). Video game effect on computer-based learning
design. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 27, 230-232.
______
The Australian Study has been retained in the Committee files.
______
Prepared Statement of the Video Software Dealers Association
Mr. Chairman,
Thank you for allowing the Video Software Dealers Association
(VSDA) to submit a statement for the record at the hearing on the
impact of interactive violence on children.
We want to assure the committee that VSDA and our members are
concerned about the level of youth violence in our society. While we
have no expertise in the relationship between video game violence and
youth violence, the home video industry believes we have a role to play
in helping parents ensure that their children do not gain access to
video games that the parents deem inappropriate for them. We want to
share with you the actions we have taken to assist parents in this
regard and enlist your involvement in this effort.
Established in 1981, the Video Software Dealers Association is a
not-for-profit international trade association for the $17 billion home
entertainment industry. VSDA represents over 3,000 companies throughout
the United States, Canada, and 22 other countries. Membership comprises
the full spectrum of video retailers (both independents and large
chains), as well as the home video divisions of all major and
independent motion picture studios, video game and multimedia
producers, and other related businesses that constitute and support the
home video entertainment industry.
Video game sales and rentals are an important and increasing
segment of the home video industry. In 1998, the domestic home video
game market generated about $2.7 billion in software sales and about
$800 million in rental revenue.
The members of VSDA agree with the premise that the best control is
parental control. As stated in the final report of the Congressional
Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence, which was issued two weeks
ago, ``[p]arents and other adults responsible for the development of
children should be vigilant about protecting them from exposure to
inappropriate programming.'' There is no better place than in a home
video store for parents to control the content of the video games and
movies to which their children have access. For this reason, VSDA-
member retailers have taken action to aid parents in making more-
informed entertainment choices for their families. We do this through a
program we call ``Pledge to Parents.''
The centerpiece of Pledge to Parents, established by VSDA in 1991,
is a commitment by participating retailers:
1. Not to rent or sell videotapes or video games designated
as ``restricted'' to persons under 17 without parental consent,
including all movies rated ``R'' by the Motion Picture
Association of America and all video games rated ``M'' by the
Entertainment Software Rating Board.
2. Not to rent or sell videotapes rated ``NC-17'' by the
Motion Picture Association of America or video games rated
``Adults Only'' by the Entertainment Software Rating Board to
persons aged 17 or under.
In addition, as part of the Pledge to Parents program, many
retailers solicit from customers written instructions regarding what
types of video games and movies can be rented or purchased by family
members. For instance, a customer can limit all of his or her children,
regardless of age, to videos rated ``E'' (Everyone: content suitable
for age six and older) by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or
indicate that one child is permitted to rent ``E'' games while another
can rent ``T'' (Teen: content suitable for age 13 and older). Thus, our
voluntary system allows parents, if they so choose, to be even more
restrictive than any industry- or government-enforced system would be.
In 1999, we updated our Pledge to Parents materials and provided
the revised kit, at no cost, to each retail member of VSDA. We have
also offered to provide the materials at cost to any other video
retailer that requests them.
Each Pledge to Parents kit contains the following:
Customer Flyer and Parental Consent Form--These
materials provide information about the Pledge to Parents
program and allow customers to indicate their restrictions or
authorizations on video and video game rentals and sales by
their family members.
Terminal-Topper Sign--This sign, to be displayed near
the cash register, draws customers' attention to Pledge to
Parents and the retailer's ratings enforcement policy.
ID Check Sign--We encourage retailers to post this
sign, which indicates that IDs will be checked when
appropriate, throughout their store and remind customers of the
retailer's voluntary ratings enforcement policy.
Video Game Ratings Poster and Brochures--The poster
and brochures are designed to help customers make informed
decisions concerning their children's video game rentals.
MPAA Theatrical-Size Ratings Poster--This poster
provides customers with movie ratings information to further
assist them with their selection of movies.
We have encouraged our members to make maximum use of the Pledge to
Parents materials and provide ratings and content information to
customers of all ages. We also have strongly urged our members to check
IDs whenever appropriate. We are pleased to report that the response to
this program from our members has been extremely positive.
As part of the relaunch of Pledge to Parents, we conducted a
substantial public outreach campaign that reached millions of consumers
through television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet. The purpose of
this campaign was to make parents aware of the resources available to
them in video stores.
And we think parents are taking this message to heart. By and
large, parents appear to be making good choices for their children's
game playing and movie viewing. According to VSDA's VidTrac for the
week ending March 12, 2000, all of the 10 top renting video games, and
21 of the top 25, were rated ``E'' or ``T.''
The voluntary Pledge to Parents program demonstrates our industry's
commitment to the communities in which we live. Video stores and their
employees are part of the neighborhoods where they are located. They
often know their customers by name. They know what is acceptable and
what is not acceptable in their communities. They take pride in the
entertainment they bring into people's homes. And they realize that
their reputations and livelihoods are on the line every time they sell
or rent a video game or movie. Video retailers would not put their
businesses at risk by providing to children games that their parents
don't want them to have.
Finally, we must keep in mind that, in addressing the issue of
violence in American society, the government cannot infringe the
constitutional rights of video retailers and consumers--or of parents
to raise their families as they see fit. Ultimately the responsibility
for raising children lies with their parents, not the government and
certainly not video store clerks.
Recognizing this, the Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence
recommended that members of Congress meet with the entertainment
industry to learn more about entertainment ratings systems and how to
communicate information about the ratings systems to parents. We would
be pleased to work with you to implement this recommendation.
The nation's video stores are doing their part to make sure that
America's children are not exposed to violent video games without their
parents' consent. Home video provides parents with the greatest control
of their children's electronic game playing. Voluntary programs, such
as VSDA's Pledge to Parents, are the best way to help parents exercise
that control.
Thank you.