Downward spiral
Posted on April 8th, 2008 by
This graph showed up on digg the other day. While statistics can be used to prove anything, it’s a pretty interesting comparison between ultra-violent game releases and real violence.
So what do you think? Does it mean anything? Can you give an explanation? Does it change your opinion on the gaming violence debate at all?
April 8th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Well, I don’t think it means that video games have caused a decrease in violence. Lots of other factors are at play – mainly the ones involving the economy but what this proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt is that video games ARE NOT making the problem worse.
I’m of the “catharsis” opinion though. I don’t think it’s ideal entertainment, but I do think that virtual violence and real violence are incomparable and that most people play violent games because skill tests are more “fun” when they’re also scary. It’s about virtual survival, not virtual murder.
Nice post Simon, thanks!
April 8th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
As much as I do believe in the correlation, the fact that the page cited doesn’t direct you to the graph shown doesn’t help to make its case.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Oh, the graph was made by someone else, using the data on that page. I’m not sure of the source, but here’s the digg link.
Of course there’s a lot of data missing here, but you can’t truthfully say that violent crime has risen with the introduction of violent videogames.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:46 am
OK, time for me to play devil’s advocate:
– First off, too much of this is subjective. All you have is year and crime data, and in this graph the data is rolled up into a total. There is nothing more – nothing to say that anything is having a certain impact. So while I agree that what GamerDad says is likely true, there is no ‘proof’. It is possible that the data might have dropped to 10 rather than 20 without the presence of violent video games. I would call it extraordinarily unlikely, but that doesn’t make it impossible.
– I would also call the collection methods suspect: you have 20 years of relatively flat data, then suddenly after the data is started to actual be collected it begins dropping considerably? Assaults drop by 2 or 3 times within a 10 year period after 20 years of being constant? Does no one else see anything wrong with this? I wonder what other legislation was done at the same time – perhaps something to rate cities and provide funding based on showing a % decrease in crime statistics per year?
I have seen other data that shows that reporting practices are a very powerful thing, and even heard direct accounts from safety folks at my old company that as the company strove towards ‘0 lost time injuries’, one of the best tools was to change the definition of ‘lost time injury’ … and to penalize facilities with rates above entitlement … so it would be impossible to know if actual injury statistics changed because it is mired in a reporting system that is rewarded to under-report.
But I *do* love the graph itself … because it forces the argumen: if violent video games are so bad, explain THIS! Visual presentation of data is a very powerful thing!
April 9th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I don’t know about that graph, per se, but I do have some data straight from the FBI. I saw a similar article with a similar trend back at the end of 2005 and I did some checking of my own. The numbers do add up. For whatever reason, we’re raising the least violent generation in 40 years, and no one wants to look at the stats.
The Truth About Violent Youth and Violent Video Games is the article that set me off down the government stats rabbit hole. Here’s a link to the blog article I wrote.
If you follow the links in there you can get to the FBI site itself and to the relevent data. I see that some of them are updated with the new 2008 information. A cursory glance still supports the thesis.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
That is a wonderful post, Colleen – it has been quite a while since I read that one, but it is every bit as relevent!
April 10th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Heh, kids are too busy glued to the boob tube to commit any violent crimes…
Seriously, though, if I had to pick a single motivating factor, I’d say that in the last 20 years we’ve had the richest poor people in the history of the world. What I mean is, the life lived by the lower quintile of the income brackets is the most luxurious of any “poor” people since the dawn of man. Everybody knows there’s a high correlation between the average income of an area and its violent crime rate, so when the standard of living goes up, the crime rate would be expected to go down, and apparently it has. “Poor” people probably have at least one TV, a VCR or DVD player, maybe even a car or two. The might even have an Xbox (see how I tied it together? =-) and so those who were statistically most likely to commit a violent crime have better things to do with their time now.
Just my Humble Opinion ;->
April 11th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I believe this past year saw a rise in violent crime. I am of the mind that games have little or no effect on actual crime rates. Besides, there are so many other factors that I think it would be impossible to isolate the effect of games.
As for catharsis, has there been any studies on the cathartic effect of games? I recall numerous studies from my grad school days that suggested cathartic therapeutic techniques (e.g. hitting a pillow) did little to reduce actual aggression.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:21 am
This is a wonderful site. Children should be playing video games instead of reading books. Thank you.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am
In what world is it an “either/or” proposition? My kids read books, play games, ride bikes and help me garden… Game time around here usually replaces TV time, I prefer an interactive entertainment to a passive one, for the sake of my children.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Jenny, I’m genuinely confused as to the meaning behind your comment, especially when looking at your site. If taken at face value it seems an odd thing for a librarian to say, and if taken sarcastically it jibes with the pro-gaming stance you take in your own blog posts.
Either way, welcome to the site.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I think that kids should be encouraged to engage in a variety of pursuits. It is funny that our kids have gotten punished for reading too much … 😀
August 5th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I just posted a new post on the subject. Not in response to Ms. Levine – but maybe inspired by the different ways her statement can be taken. Heck, I just took an opportunity to nail down my feelings on the subject. It’s on the front page.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I’m Jenny Levine of the ALA and I did not post the prior message concerning gaming in libraries. It appears that someone is impersonating me and posting comments under my name. The prior comment does not represent the opinion of the American Library Association or my own, which can be found at http://theshiftedlibrarian.com/tag/gaming-in-libraries/.
I’ve written extensively on the combination of reading and games, including two issues of “Library Technology Reports” (1, 2), both of which are available for purchase. You can also loan them through your local library. In addition, I’m organizing ALA’s 2008 Gaming, Learning, and Libraries Symposium that GamerDad himself will be speaking at and which includes an “instruction and literacy” track.
If you have any questions about gaming and libraries or about my work in this area, please do not hesitate to contact me at jenny@theshiftedlibrarian.com.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Thanks for the clarification Jenny. Love your blog, and love what you’re doing.