In my last entry my explorations ended up focusing on specifically
online games and how they players of them might help push us forward as a
society. Today I want to step back to some of my initial questions about games.
How can games affect an individual?
Henry Jenkins, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (school webpage located here wrote an essay published at PBS’ website titled ”RealityBytes: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked.” In his essay Jenkins
covers a number of topics but I want to focus on only a couple, which matter to
me personally. It’s no secret that many anti-game groups and activists,
including disbarred attorney Jack Thompson, strongly believe that exposure to
violent games produces violently behaved children. Jenkins rebuts this argument
by educating his readers that per Federal crime statistics violent crime is at
an all time low over the past 30 years. He further points out that, apparently,
violent criminals have lower media
exposure (and the implication is all media, not just games) than the average
person. Jenkins’ kindly informs his readers that per a US Surgeon General
study, the prime factors in producing a violent criminal are mental stability
and quality of home life, neither of which inherently rely on media exposure.
In his second point Jenkins discusses how the articles and studies said
anti-gaming groups use are controversial themselves. It seems that they are
performed using questionable research methodology: content is taken out of context,
subjects “are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume
and may not understand”, and the laboratory environment is different, substantially,
from the environment in which the game was intended to be played. He concludes
this section by admitting that violent games may be a factor to increased
violent and aggressive behavior, but that no study has found them to be a
primary factor.
This article is interesting in that it argues against the
one of the major claims that anti-video game groups hide behind. It also
produces some interesting information while doing so. It confirms, for example,
that games are not solely marketed at children, with some games being
specifically marketed, and rated, for adults. It discusses, and debunks, the
theory that games are socially isolating by discussing multi-player games and
online multi-player games. But in the end the information essay doesn’t discuss
what effects a game CAN have on it’s players. To that end I set out to find an
article discussing exactly that.
Douglas Gentile is a PH.D. in the field of child psychology
at the Iowa State University. He and 5 other experts discuss the subject of the
effects, both positive and negative, that video games can have on their players
in an article titled “Brains on video games” published in Nature Reviews|
Neuroscience Volume 12, December 2011. A copy of the article is available at
Dr. Gentile’s website.
Dr. Gentile discusses that some positive effects games can produce, even citing
violent games such as Unreal Tournament, include improved perceptual and
attention skills. He also mentions that studies are showing evidence, as I
learned from Jane McGonigal’s Ted Talk (discussed in my last post), that social
games (such as MMOs) lead to, in general, positive helpful behaviors in their
players. This change can actually happen in less than a year; students who
played what he calls pro-social games early in the school year were
demonstrating helping behaviors later in the school year. A major point in the
article, which affects me personally, is the discussion of the addictive
properties of video games. I was interested to note that Gentile theorizes that
of gamers 8 to 18, only about 8% suffer from an actual addiction to games; he
does note that the term addiction is often misused and should is measured in
how damaging it is as opposed to how much consumption is involved. Additionally
Gentile discusses the potential games have for education and rehabilitation,
favorably; however he notes that games as of yet have not lived up to their
promise as an educational tool.
I liked this article. While I discuss here the responses of
one doctor, Douglas Gentile, the article actually possesses a significant
wealth of information from the other five doctors interviewed. At the personal
level I dislike seeing any corroboration of negative effects since it weakens
my personal bias in favor of games. But I like the acknowledgement academically
because I know we can’t overcome the negatives without knowing about them.
When looking at both articles I can see they are both focusing
on dispelling ignorance about video games. The first article is heavily biased,
no doubt. Jenkins concentrates on dispelling negative assumptions and myths
against games, presenting only a positive opposition. Meanwhile Gentile and his
peers respond in their interview as neutrally and honestly as possible,
presenting both the positives and negatives. As much as I would like to say
Jenkins commands my respect more, I have to honestly say I prefer Gentile’s
approach to the subject. He accepts and explores both sides, allowing his
readers, both fellow psychology professionals and the layman, to see that like
so much else the subject isn’t black and white. That appeals to me.
These articles do prompt a few additional questions to look
into. Addiction. How serious is video game addiction? How prevalent is it?
Separate from the articles, but relevant to the discussion
of violent games, are ESRB ratings effective in keeping content deemed
inappropriate for an age group away from that group?
No comments:
Post a Comment