Video game violence and its effect on kids

[farley2k]

I am going to be on a panel about video game violence and its effect on kids (hence my clever title!) and I was really surprised by the wealth of data which shows a connection between playing video games and violent behavior.

Once current book Grand Theft Childhood seems like it debunks the link but when you dig a bit deeper you find that one of their key findings is

"Boys who played any M-rated game “a lot” were twice as likely to be in a physical fight, to hit or beat up someone, to "damage property for fun," to steal something from a store, to get poor school grades, or to get into trouble with a teacher or principal (at least once during the past year, compared to boys who played games with lower age ratings)."

Only “hitting or beating up someone” was significantly linked to near-daily game play (regardless of game content).

However, as days per week of play went up, both girls and boys were significantly more likely to be bullies. Girls who played games nearly every day were significantly more likely to be bullies than other girls (12% vs. 3%), and more likely to be victims of bullying (17% vs. 6%

Many, many other studies show similar things. Reading around the web the only thing I have foudn to refute these findings are pretty lame arguments about methodology, or lack of causation. However even those are only criticisms of some studies.

Basically there is a lot of good evidence for a link between playing violent video games and violent behavior.


So now I am wondering what should I say on my panel. I like violent video games! I don't want to see them reduced or go away, but isn't that just like someone who likes smoking? The evidence is there it is increases violent behavior. Do I just ignore that?

What do you do?

[Two Sheds]

Haven't read the book and I'm only responding to your quotes.

But my question is pretty basic: do violent video games cause aggressive behavior, or do aggressive people gravitate towards violent video games? I suspect it's a little of both.

edit: Then again, it's obviously not an across-the-board thing. Young children? I can buy a suggestibility argument. But I've been playing all manner of violent video games since I was a young-un, and I've never been in so much as a fistfight. Anecdotes aren't evidence, of course, but there you go.

[Jag]

The same could be said for violent movies, violent songs, violent TV, etc. The answer isn't to stop making them, the answer is to educate parents and restrict sales to minors.

It pisses me off beyond belief that my son is watching a simple baseball game and is subjected to violent commercials for TV shows and Movies. Images of people being beaten and killed. Hell, I'd rather they show nudity rather than violence. The problem is much deeper and routed in our culture. Focusing on video games ignores the bigger issue.

[EvilHomer3k]

Games are not played in a vacuum. There are lots of things that affect kids behavior. If a kid plays games 7 days a week for several hours each day that seems to indicate that the parents are not doing a lot of parenting. I would bet that lack of a good parental role model would lead to kids getting in trouble at school. I would also bet that if there was a study on how much time parents spend with their kids that you would see an inverse ratio of time spent with kids and kids getting into trouble.

and more likely to be victims of bullying (17% vs. 6%)

One question I have is why would playing violent games make someone more likely to be bullied?

[Exodor]

It pisses me off beyond belief that my son is watching a simple baseball game and is subjected to violent commercials for TV shows and Movies. Images of people being beaten and killed. Hell, I'd rather they show nudity rather than violence. The problem is much deeper and routed in our culture. Focusing on video games ignores the bigger issue.

I ran into this same issue with football on CBS. Please, more graphic ads for your 10000 CSI spin offs in the middle of a Sunday afternoon.

[Boudreaux]

I'm in the middle of that book, and just got to the chapter where they're presenting some of their key findings. The point about "casuation" isn't lame, it's really the crux of the problem. From the data they collected you can make a case that adolescents who play M-rated games, particularly those who list multiple M-rated games among their favorites and who play 5 or more days a week, are the same kids who are also most likely to be involved in aggressive behavior - fights, bullying, vandalism, etc. What you can't make a case for is the argument that the violent games had anything to do with their real-life aggressive or violent behavior. There's no proof that playing violent games altered their behavior or judgment in any way.

Are kids aggressive punks because they play M-rated games, or do they play M-rated games because they're aggressive punks? That's the thing nobody's been able to figure out.

[Shinjin]

This bit strikes me as something completely contradictory:

Girls who played games nearly every day were significantly more likely to be bullies than other girls (12% vs. 3%), and more likely to be victims of bullying (17% vs. 6%

If the same stimulus (playing video games) increases the population of both bullies *and* victims, then I don't think the conclusion can be that violence is increased. Poor social interaction maybe, but not violence per se.

[Two Sheds]

Are kids aggressive punks because they play M-rated games, or do they play M-rated games because they're aggressive punks? That's the thing nobody's been able to figure out.

It's like I'm not even here.

And I completely agree that it's not just video games. I don't think anybody can disagree that, at the very least, violent video games, movies, etc., can establish a casual attitude towards violence. The solution isn't to take away "bad" influences, it's to make sure there are enough good ones to counteract them.

[The Preacher]

Games are not played in a vacuum. There are lots of things that affect kids behavior. If a kid plays games 7 days a week for several hours each day that seems to indicate that the parents are not doing a lot of parenting. I would bet that lack of a good parental role model would lead to kids getting in trouble at school. I would also bet that if there was a study on how much time parents spend with their kids that you would see an inverse ratio of time spent with kids and kids getting into trouble.

Exactly. And I would layer a little bit on top and say not just parents who let their kids play games that long, but more emphatically parents who let their kids play M-rated games that long.

The same basic findings have been made about violence on tv and play guns. The reality is that children have been exposed to violent media ever since there was media. Whether it was kids seeing Punch and Judy puppets smacking the shit out of things, listening to The Shadow on the radio, watching "Have Gun, Will Travel" Paladin on their black and white, or living the pastel life with coke smugglers on Miami Vice, violence in the media is nothing new. Nor is it new for gameplay, wherein prior generations relieved the not-so-glorious cowboys versus Indians or even more racially stereotyped WW2 conflicts (hint, the Japanese were not called Japanese).

So is it really the marginal change in media and its level of interactivity that drives childhood violence? Or is it something deeper? "It takes a village" has perhaps become cliche, but isn't that the reality? Violent video games certainly aren't causing teenagers to procreate nor are they the reason for the abject poverty, drug use or gang affiliation.

It behooves us to peel the onion a little deeper than these studies have. Otherwise, we are just treating the symptoms, not the disease itself.

[Grifman]

So now I am wondering what should I say on my panel. I like violent video games! I don't want to see them reduced or go away, but isn't that just like someone who likes smoking? The evidence is there it is increases violent behavior. Do I just ignore that?

What do you do?

Sure you like them but you're an adult. Why don't you just say that you don't think these games should be banned any more than violent movies, but that access to them by minors should be restricted?

[EvilHomer3k]

Nearly 37 percent of serial killers had once been in the Boy Scouts, compared to only three percent of the general male population.

http://www.gullible.info/archive.php?id=562

Does being a boy scout make someone more likely to become a serial killer or do serial killers tend to go into scouting?

No convicted American serial killer had ever attended pre-school as a child.

http://www.gullible.info/archive.php?m=2006-04

So pre-school will assure that your child doesn't become a serial killer. Unless they go into scouting, of course.

Beware of people attempting to twist statistics into causation. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[theohall]

their key findings

I took the time to read the whole info presented in that link. While it does point out the "bullying" thing, it also states the following:

It’s important to note that:

1)These sorts of problems are very common among young teens, and do not mean that they are delinquents or bad kids.
2) Most young teens who play M-rated games do not have serious problems.
3) Based on our survey results, the average 12-year-old boy plays at least one M-rated game “a lot”; in other words, by definition, some amount of violent game play is normal for young teen boys.

A review of research from many countries (plus our own findings) suggests that kids with the following characteristics may be at higher risk of problems from violent video games:
An aggressive temperament; a violent or neglectful home or neighborhood situation; being developmentally delayed; having inadequate supervision, or fewer options for healthy activities.

Boys who rarely or never played video or computer games were more likely to get into fights or have problems at school. For some boys, not playing may be a marker of social problems. (This does not mean that not playing video games caused their problems!)

Benefits of Video Games

• Games may encourage and provide an outlet for creativity.
• Games allow teens to try on roles and behaviors in a safe environment.
• Games can provide practice in planning and anticipating consequences.
• Games may help teens manage difficult emotions (coping with stress, anger).
• Games may promote involvement in sports/exercise (boys who played realistic sports games spent more hours per week on physical activity).
• Games can improve visual/spatial skills (especially valuable for girls).
• Games provide a focus for socializing (especially for boys).
• Games may provide a source of self-esteem and pride (especially for kids with ADHD and learning disabilities).

Bottom line - it comes down to responsible parenting. There are lots more benefits than the negatives aspects listed in their key findings. And those negatives could be tied to other issues - like letting their kid play games way too much.

Were I at the conference - I'd basically say there is a concern for small percentage of children who due to excessive gaming might become bullies. However, here are the benefits discovered in relation to video games. Parents should be aware of their children's gaming habits and prevent them from playing games excessively. Only those who played games "a lot" were at issue, and even then it was a small percentage.

[Blackhawk]

When I was in my late teenage years, I was an angry, violent person. Guess where I went for entertainment? I didn't have a game system, but I read violent books and watched lots of violent TV and movies. Why? Because I was a violent person, so I found violence entertaining. If you'd done a study, you might very well have found that this kid who was watching all these violent shows was acting violently.

Today, I like to think of myself as a very imaginative person. I watch lots of shows and read lots of books that use imagination - sci-fi, for example. Did the shows make me imaginative, or was I drawn to them because that's the kind of person I am?

Obviously, I'm just one person, one example, but I don't think I'm too atypical, as most people I know tend to pursue entertainments that match their personalities. It is enough to make me really question the conclusions of research that points to a correlation between violent entertainment and violent behavior, based entirely on numbers as being a one way street.

[Bob]

What has the world come to that playing too many video games can make you a bully? Are our schools dominated by nerd-bullies? It sounds like an oxymoron.

[El Guapo]

My question is pretty basic: do violent video games cause aggressive behavior, or do aggressive people gravitate towards violent video games? I suspect it's a little of both.

[Shinjin]

What has the world come to that playing too many video games can make you a bully?

Perhaps this was the game played.

[Boudreaux]

Are kids aggressive punks because they play M-rated games, or do they play M-rated games because they're aggressive punks? That's the thing nobody's been able to figure out.

It's like I'm not even here.

Heh. I read what you said, and when I was typing out my reply I even started a sentence with "Like Two Sheds said...", then I thought "well that's stupid to just repeat what he said," and deleted it.

Then I went and did it anyway.

[farley2k]

I'm in the middle of that book, and just got to the chapter where they're presenting some of their key findings. The point about "casuation" isn't lame, it's really the crux of the problem. From the data they collected you can make a case that adolescents who play M-rated games, particularly those who list multiple M-rated games among their favorites and who play 5 or more days a week, are the same kids who are also most likely to be involved in aggressive behavior - fights, bullying, vandalism, etc. What you can't make a case for is the argument that the violent games had anything to do with their real-life aggressive or violent behavior. There's no proof that playing violent games altered their behavior or judgment in any way.

Are kids aggressive punks because they play M-rated games, or do they play M-rated games because they're aggressive punks? That's the thing nobody's been able to figure out.

It is a good book but keep in mind there are a lot of other studies which do show causation. My comment about it being a lame excuse was directed to the idea that since this one study didn't show it then we can disregard the many that do.

[farley2k]

Nearly 37 percent of serial killers had once been in the Boy Scouts, compared to only three percent of the general male population.

http://www.gullible.info/archive.php?id=562

Does being a boy scout make someone more likely to become a serial killer or do serial killers tend to go into scouting?

No convicted American serial killer had ever attended pre-school as a child.

http://www.gullible.info/archive.php?m=2006-04

So pre-school will assure that your child doesn't become a serial killer. Unless they go into scouting, of course.

Beware of people attempting to twist statistics into causation. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

LOL!

Stop wearing your seatbelt! Stop exercising! After all statistics are meaningless! Hell, take up smoking since it is only statistics that show it is dangerous!

It amazes me that someone who tries to eat healthy and exercise because statistics show it will help him live longer posts something like this.

In a million ways we all live our lives based on statistics but then when the statistics mean something we like is bad...well then statistics are stupid and lies.

[farley2k]

Bottom line - it comes down to responsible parenting. There are lots more benefits than the negatives aspects listed in their key findings. And those negatives could be tied to other issues - like letting their kid play games way too much.

Except their benefits are listed as "may" or "can" It might encourage creativity. It can provide practice in planning. The negatives are quantified quite well with statistics so why are the benefits lacking that? If they can show how much more likely a kid is to be a bully why can't they show how much more creative the kid is?

[ImLawBoy]

The negatives are quantified quite well with statistics so why are the benefits lacking that? If they can show how much more likely a kid is to be a bully why can't they show how much more creative the kid is?

Because no one can get funding on studies that show video games are good and should be less regulated.

[farley2k]

The negatives are quantified quite well with statistics so why are the benefits lacking that? If they can show how much more likely a kid is to be a bully why can't they show how much more creative the kid is?

Because no one can get funding on studies that show video games are good and should be less regulated.

Really? So a multi-billion dollar industry can't give a few grants to prove their industry is good? I find that about as illogical as assuming every study is biased against video games.

It seems quite clear from the "Grand Theft Childhood" web site that they wanted to show that video games are not bad. I actually found the negative stats under a lot of positive spin.

[Blackhawk]

LOL!

Stop wearing your seatbelt! Stop exercising! After all statistics are meaningless! Hell, take up smoking since it is only statistics that show it is dangerous!

It amazes me that someone who tries to eat healthy and exercise because statistics show it will help him live longer posts something like this.

In a million ways we all live our lives based on statistics but then when the statistics mean something we like is bad...well then statistics are stupid and lies.

The quote means that statistics can be used to lie, not that they're lies themselves. You can often take statistical data and present it to bolster opposite sides of the same argument. You constantly see statistics used to 'prove' points that the statistics don't have anything to do with. Commercials do it all the time. So do politicians.

[Jeff V]

I think the point is statistics can be used improperly to support an ill-conceived premise. This may be such a case.

The statistic "12% of kids that play violent video games exhibit a tendency to behave like violent little shits themselves" cannot stand alone as condemnation of the violent video game industry without a whole lot of supporting questions being asked. For example, roll the clock back to before the age of Pong. What percentage of kids were violent back then? If you take my grammar school class as an example, I would say about 20%. So the rise of gaming actually helps keep the little bastards from acting out their fantasies in real life.

A certain percentage of kids are naturally aggressive. A certain percentage of kids have addictive personalities. A smaller percentage are both aggressive and addictive. There are probably a bunch of additional prime factors that further reduce the likelihood that a joystick jockey is suddenly going to degenerate into a gun-toting sociopath. Since we had plenty of violence in the past (are there statistics showing a significant increase in non-gang related juvenile violence over the past decade?), the influence video games may have on a given whackjob could be easily replaced by TV, movies, books, sitting on the front porch, etc.

We just watched a CEO Exchange video where the CEO of Activision cited a statistic that 99 44/100% of all people are able to distinguish fantasy from reality 100% of the time. How does that remaining 0.56% jibe with various mental health statistics in general? You can't sanitize the planet just to ensure that the easily influenced are never influenced by potentially harmful things.

[Shinjin]

Beware of people attempting to twist statistics into causation.

It amazes me that someone who tries to eat healthy and exercise because statistics show it will help him live longer posts something like this.

You mean eating healthy and exercising *doesn't* cause one to live longer?

[theohall]

Bottom line - it comes down to responsible parenting. There are lots more benefits than the negatives aspects listed in their key findings. And those negatives could be tied to other issues - like letting their kid play games way too much.

Except their benefits are listed as "may" or "can" It might encourage creativity. It can provide practice in planning. The negatives are quantified quite well with statistics so why are the benefits lacking that? If they can show how much more likely a kid is to be a bully why can't they show how much more creative the kid is?

At the same time, they "qualify" their key findings by stating their may be other issues - home environment, already had aggressive tendencies, etc. It might not just be the games.

Everything in the report has some type of qualifier attached, because there are simply too many variables.

The simple fact they state the bullying thing is tied to those who play "a lot" is a pretty strong indicator the kids shouldn't be playing "a lot" and should be doing other things besides just playing games. That's where the parenting factor enters the equation. So emphasize those two points 1) Don't let your kid play games excessively and 2) Be a better parent by knowing what your kids are doing (which is very difficult at the 12-14 year old age (this studies range), because they are trying to establish their independence).

[farley2k]

The quote means that statistics can be used to lie, not that they're lies themselves. You can often take statistical data and present it to bolster opposite sides of the same argument. You constantly see statistics used to 'prove' points that the statistics don't have anything to do with. Commercials do it all the time. So do politicians.

I completely agree with that. However after digging around a bit there are many "meta" studies which look at many other studies and merge there data which also show that violent video games increase violent behavior.

In fact I have yet to see a published study which does't show that. The best of them (from a video game players standpoint) say that the relationship may not be one of causation but simply correlation.

At some point we need to stop saying "oh, the stats are wrong. stats lie. etc." and face the fact that there is a consensus that violent video games increase violent behavior. Now that still doesn't mean they should be banned or even regulated more than they are now but I have read enough research to stop trying to argue that it isn't true.

[Kraegor]

research causes cancer in rats.

[ImLawBoy]

The negatives are quantified quite well with statistics so why are the benefits lacking that? If they can show how much more likely a kid is to be a bully why can't they show how much more creative the kid is?

Because no one can get funding on studies that show video games are good and should be less regulated.

Really? So a multi-billion dollar industry can't give a few grants to prove their industry is good? I find that about as illogical as assuming every study is biased against video games.

It seems quite clear from the "Grand Theft Childhood" web site that they wanted to show that video games are not bad. I actually found the negative stats under a lot of positive spin.

I should have put a question mark after my sentence. I don't know - that's one piece of speculation. Perhaps the industry feels that no one would pay any attention to an industry study - I know I would find it to be worthless. You really need an academic study to do that, and most (that I've seen) seem to take it as granted that video games are bad, and then try to justify that. Of course, I haven't looked at any of these studies in years, and even then I wasn't exactly giving them a fine-toothed comb. Take my opinions for the uniformed speculation that they are.

That said, it seems like you came into this thread wanting help on how to take the "pro-video game" side in a debate. Given how dismissive you are of anyone's comments that would support that side, I imagine that (a) you have turned are really no longer in the "pro-video game" side (note that doesn't mean you don't like video games, just that you'll be agreeing with the "anti-video game" side that they are a bad influence on children and should somehow be regulated), and (b) you're not going to end up with much of a debate.

[EvilHomer3k]

LOL!

Stop wearing your seatbelt! Stop exercising! After all statistics are meaningless! Hell, take up smoking since it is only statistics that show it is dangerous!

It amazes me that someone who tries to eat healthy and exercise because statistics show it will help him live longer posts something like this.

In a million ways we all live our lives based on statistics but then when the statistics mean something we like is bad...well then statistics are stupid and lies.

The quote means that statistics can be used to lie, not that they're lies themselves. You can often take statistical data and present it to bolster opposite sides of the same argument. You constantly see statistics used to 'prove' points that the statistics don't have anything to do with. Commercials do it all the time. So do politicians.

Exactly what I was trying to say. Statistics are often used to lie. I wasn't saying that these specific statistics are being used to lie. Just that it happens and someone on that panel will very likely use some statistics to lie. Statistics don't lie. People use statistics to support their lies.

If you took a baby and put them into a room and they only interacted with people through violent television and violent video games, they would likely believe that violence was the proper way to behave. Parents who don't watch what their kids watch/play are doing just that to a lesser degree. Parents who actively participate in those activities with their kids are going to have kids that behave more like their parents. It's not rocket science. Interacting with your kids will, in almost all cases, be a much larger determinant in their behavior than what they watch or play.

That doesn't mean I support kids playing GTA or watching Hostel. We actively participate in what our kids watch/play and limit it to content and amounts we feel is appropriate (mostly). The kids don't watch anything we haven't seen before and when they watch any movie that isn't rated G it is with us and has been pre-screened by us. Our kids watch Futurama. We watch it together. They know that bender says a lot of things that are not appropriate. It is ingrained in them to the point that when mommy says damn or stupid the kids correct her. Some parents might be appalled at our kids watching Futurama. But that's our choice and it's an active choice.

[Two Sheds]

My question is pretty basic: do violent video games cause aggressive behavior, or do aggressive people gravitate towards violent video games? I suspect it's a little of both.

I find your ideas intriguing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[EvilHomer3k]

That said, it seems like you came into this thread wanting help on how to take the "pro-video game" side in a debate. Given how dismissive you are of anyone's comments that would support that side, I imagine that (a) you have turned are really no longer in the "pro-video game" side (note that doesn't mean you don't like video games, just that you'll be agreeing with the "anti-video game" side that they are a bad influence on children and should somehow be regulated), and (b) you're not going to end up with much of a debate.

I think you can be pro-video game and still feel they should be regulated. I think many of us do feel that games should be regulated. We may disagree on the level of regulation, though. By regulated I mean that they should have ratings and if something is rated M a 12 year old kid should not be able to buy it. If a parent wishes to buy GTA for their 12 year old they should be able to do so.

[farley2k]

That said, it seems like you came into this thread wanting help on how to take the "pro-video game" side in a debate. Given how dismissive you are of anyone's comments that would support that side, I imagine that (a) you have turned are really no longer in the "pro-video game" side (note that doesn't mean you don't like video games, just that you'll be agreeing with the "anti-video game" side that they are a bad influence on children and should somehow be regulated), and (b) you're not going to end up with much of a debate.

I think I am at the point of wondering what is the appropriate line or stance once it is accepted that playing violent video games increases violent tendencies. I think that after reading the research I feel it is pretty conclusive that playing video games increases tendencies to act violently. It is pretty inescapable when you look at the research.

Does that mean they should be regulated more than they are? Does that mean that positive influences don't outweigh the negative?

[Jeff V]

Does that mean they should be regulated more than they are? Does that mean that positive influences don't outweigh the negative?

Twice this week, I was asked by two separate nephews to go with them to buy an M-rated video game. The older one is 18 in 10 days, the younger one, 14. Although the store claims 17 is the required minimum age for M-rated games, the store apparently will not sell to him because he does not have a driver's license.

What exactly are they proposing beyond this level of regulation? DNA Testing? Criminalize buying games for kids like they do beer and porn?

[The Preacher]

Can you link to the study that proves causation? Clearly it was not the GTA book.

[El Guapo]

That said, it seems like you came into this thread wanting help on how to take the "pro-video game" side in a debate. Given how dismissive you are of anyone's comments that would support that side, I imagine that (a) you have turned are really no longer in the "pro-video game" side (note that doesn't mean you don't like video games, just that you'll be agreeing with the "anti-video game" side that they are a bad influence on children and should somehow be regulated), and (b) you're not going to end up with much of a debate.

I think I am at the point of wondering what is the appropriate line or stance once it is accepted that playing violent video games increases violent tendencies. I think that after reading the research I feel it is pretty conclusive that playing video games increases tendencies to act violently. It is pretty inescapable when you look at the research.

Does that mean they should be regulated more than they are? Does that mean that positive influences don't outweigh the negative?

Assuming that the research is as conclusive as you indicate, then it becomes a question of how severe the violent effects are, and what can be done. The problem that you quickly run into is that a lot of the more severe options are either seemingly infeasible or bring a host of other issues with them. Probably the logical next step would be to actually make selling M-rated games to minors a finable offense (I don't believe it is at present). This would presumably help to reduce the number of violent games that minors have, but it seems like most stores are already checking ID, so I'm not so sure the effect would be huge here.

You could also try to prohibit stores from selling to people buying on behalf of minors. This is logistically difficult, of course, it being difficult to determine what people do with a game after they leave the store.

Beyond that, I think the next step would be to impose restrictions on the content of games, which I'm going to go out on a limb here and say most people here would oppose. I think the logical step here would be to give a federal agency (probably the FCC) the power to review and censor game content, as they currently do with TV. This would of course have a lot of bureaucratic costs, in addition to social ones. The government would be in the position of deciding what is socially acceptable, which is an inherently personal judgment (that the government would be taking away from parents). How would a Bush-dominated FCC (for example) treat Diablo?

Probably the more popular option here would be to help empower parents somehow, although that would be more complicated and more indirect. Insofar as a lot of the problems with video games are likely stemming from unhealthy situations where kids are just playing unsupervised with violent video games, things like funding after-school programs, helping lower income families with child care, and the like would probably help to reduce the number of working families who have to basically park their kids in front of the TV/X-Box.

Those are the basic policy options that come to mind, anyhow.

[Chaosraven]

Are there studies that discuss the lack of violent behavior before violent video games?

Like "Kids who played Cowboys and Indians in the fifties were more/less likely to:" or that sort of thing?

Come to think of it, I never beat kids up for their lunch money until I needed the quarters to play Missile Command...

Carry on.

[farley2k]

Can you link to the study that proves causation? Clearly it was not the GTA book.

I cannot remember which study it was I read but it was linked from this Wikipedia article. Sorry I can't be more specific. I will try to run through the article again. It lists a lot of studies.

[Kraegor]

Are there studies that discuss the lack of violent behavior before violent video games?

Like "Kids who played Cowboys and Indians in the fifties were more/less likely to:" or that sort of thing?

Come to think of it, I never beat kids up for their lunch money until I needed the quarters to play Missile Command...

Carry on.

Haven't you seen the commercials? Life was peachy keen back in the day. It's gone to hell in a hand basket since.

SSDD.

[McBa1n]

It's not the games, it's the parents.
Pretty simple, really.