News for the Week of April 15, 2007

There has been a lot about videogames in kid-tech news of late, including the latest research and some really meaty commentary offering parents insights into a phenomenon (and a $7 billion industry) we all need to know more about...

Cartoon vs. explicit violence: Same impact?

New research from Iowa State University found that playing "cartoonish" violent videogames that display no blood "had the same short-term effect [on 9-to-12-year-olds and college students] of increasing aggressive behavior as the more graphic teen (T-rated) violent games." This was a finding in the first of three studies by the ISU researchers in a book just released by Oxford University Press. Check out this interesting finding about the player's intention vs. the game's gore: "What seems to matter is whether the players are practicing intentional harm to another character in the game. That's what increases immediate aggression - more than how graphic or gory the game is," said one of the authors, ISU psychology Prof. Douglas Gentile.

Gamer parents' rules for gamer kids

For the first generation ever, videogamers are parents, and "whoops, now we've got to make sober calls about what sort of entertainment is good or bad for our children," wrote gamer and columnist Clive Thompson in Wired. What sorts of calls are they making? Clive called members of his "gamer posse" to find out. "As you'd expect, I found that joystick-wielding parents are much better than Hillary Clinton at parsing the nuances in various types of combat games." One uses "the Lego rule" at his house: no toys or games "that replicate 20th century weapons." That's actually the Lego company's rule. "So his four children can play games like Halo, since it contains only futuristic, fantasy war, where you're killing only green- or blue-blooded aliens. The same goes for Roman swordplay titles," Clive writes of his fellow gamer dad's rules. That rules out Grand Theft Auto. As for game addiction: "Most gamer parents told me they don't allow more than an hour a day, and some only allow gaming only on weekends."

A psychiatrist's view

In his practice, psychiatrist Jerald Block in Portland, Ore., has seen a lot of avid gamers, including "numerous players who have logged over 3,000 hours in a year on just one game [that's 57+ hours/week, 52 weeks/year]," he writes in a commentary in the Rocky Mountain News. Having researched the mass shooting in Columbine, Colo., he's writing in protest of a recent court decision to block access to the statements made to the police by [shooters] Eric Harris's and Dylan Klebold's parents. Dr. Block writes that the decision could delay much-needed further research for 20 years. Note, however, what he has learned so far: "Starting in their sophomore year, Klebold and Harris began getting into trouble at home and school... One way they were punished was to ban them from using computers. Unfortunately, doing so also cut them off from the most important relationship in the two adolescents' lives. In addition to being the best of companions, their computers also served another purpose. The computer games they played defended others from the two teenagers' anger. Initially, rather than hurting others, they killed virtually... After getting banned from their computers, the two teenagers' rage erupted... Why is this important? Since the attack on Columbine, computer games have become vastly more popular and immersive. Tens of millions of people play computer games each day... Like Harris and Klebold, many people play games, much to the exclusion of other activities... The real risk of computer gaming has little to do with the content. Instead, we need to worry about how gratifying the virtual can be. Abruptly prohibiting or discontinuing someone's computer use may inadvertently release unanticipated emotions that might result in tragedy, as happened at Columbine."