That’s what the numerous Christian and family groups think that they are doing by opposing the introduction of an R18+ rating. Last week, they claimed that video games have a worse effect than smoking. According to the cited study, video games are meant to have a greater impact on aggressive behaviour than smoking does on lung cancer. What they (conveniently) didn’t say was that this claim made in the academic study, has since been refuted several times.
On Thursday, they dug up the latest study from Professor Craig Anderson, who has been key in this field, examining the link between violent media and aggressive behaviour for many years now. This latest study was meant to be the largest ever, with a sample size of over 130,000 children under 16, of both Eastern and Western origin. As such, the Christian groups are using the findings of this study not only to oppose the introduction of an R18+ rating, but to question their right of sale in Australia.
This is the sort of behaviour that the ‘normal people’ have come to expect from these politically motivated groups, who in this case, will have powerful support from SA Attorney General Michael Atkinson, who also happens to be a staunch Catholic. Sure, their intentions are probably in the right place. They may genuinely want to protect the children. However, it’s disappointing that they’re taking a stance that not only makes no sense, but looks like they’ve simply attached themselves to the sensationalist headline rather than really examine the whole picture.
Just who is protecting the children?
At PALGN, we’ve extensively read through Anderson’s study (while we’re not psychologists, a background in statistics is all that is needed to understand what is going on) and we’ll have a full summary of it coming in the next few days, along with the opposing arguments. However, there are three aspects that are seemingly ignored by these groups:
- In statistical jargon, ‘significant’ only means that the result is different from zero. Just because a finding is ‘significant’, doesn’t mean that it will have a large impact. So in this case, while violent games are found to have an effect on aggressive behaviour, it doesn’t mean that it is a large and/or impacting one. Not to mention, Anderson and his colleagues “never said it was a huge effect”.
- The groups and politicians that cite this study seem to ignore the policy suggestions made, probably because the study does not make any mention of increased censorship and actually recommends something that requires more effort – responsibility and education.
- Though completely expected, the advocates of this study completely ignore the possibility that there are numerous other studies rebuking the findings here. If there are parties arguing on both sides, why is THIS study right but the others are wrong? Is it simply because the other studies don’t support their point of view?
Following the public consultation by the Attorney Generals (which incidentally has received the most interest in the history of Australian public consultations) interest has spiked in this issue from all sections of the community. However, when you review the facts that have been stated in our EveryonePlays article, you can’t help but wonder why the interest groups and politicians take the stance that they do. Since 2003, 570 games have been released throughout Europe with the equivalent of an R18+ rating. The vast majority of those games have been released in Australia with an MA15+ rating, with a relative sprinkling of those modified or banned. Chances are that if you ask someone on the street, they won't even realise that Australia doesn’t have an R18+ rating for games. They assume that games have the same system as movies and DVDs. Oops.
Clearly, the situation is flawed and kids are being exposed to mature games. There are two solutions that you’d imagine would rectify this. On the one hand, the long overdue R18+ rating ought to be introduced. Then, everyone will know that these games are not suitable for children, and no one will be able to feign ignorance. The alternative, is to have the Classification board really clamp down on the ratings, which is inevitably what the politicians and interest groups will latch onto. And again, this goes against the policy recommendations spelt out in Professor Anderson’s study, which they seem to otherwise desperately cling onto.
What the politicians and interest groups clearly haven’t considered is the potential impact to the Australian gaming industry that such a secondary move would have. These 570 games are likely to contain massive selling franchises such as Grand Theft Auto, Gears of War and Call of Duty. If all these flagship titles were to be banned, could you imagine the devastation to both the retail and development industries in Australia? There are over 500 gaming retail outlets (not including general retailers) and several burgeoning developers in Australia that would simply not be able to cope, as the groups interested in these games, namely the high percentage of adults (often tech savvy, single and with high disposable incomes) and international companies take their dollars overseas instead. And when you consider that video games have more money running through them than DVDs (according to iGEA), this is no 'drop in the ocean' amount that we’re talking about, nor an insignificant number of potential job losses.
Just what is the cost of censorship?
As Professor Anderson said in 2003, the effects of media violence (not just video games) have been debated for over 40 years. If these effects are really that bad, why is the debate still running? Furthermore, those who have not fully accepted Anderson’s findings across time claim that video games are the ‘new kid on the block’ and the ‘latest scapegoat’, just like action movies and comic books were in the past. Even so, we were surprised when we learned of the findings in a study by Professor Brad Bushman in 2007.
The religious groups will no doubt either feign ignorance or vehemently object to this when directed to Bushman’s study “When God Sanctions Violence: Effects of Scriptural Violence on Aggression”. Using similar methodology to the studies that examine how violent media (including video games) affects aggressive behaviour, the findings tell us that violent passages from the Holy Bible do have a “significant” causal effect on aggressive behaviour. This effect was especially prevalent for ‘believers’ and from any violent passage that directly mentioned God. This is not only the same effect found from playing violent video games, but from exposure to just about all violent media.
Just so you know, Professor Bushman is no mug. He has extensively worked with Professor Anderson on a number of his video game violence and aggressive behaviour studies over the years. This includes the development of the ‘General Aggression Model’ used to model aggressive behaviour following exposure to violent media. As a recognised academic, his results must be taken into consideration, just as much as anything produced by Professor Anderson. Now while the parties who have a conflict of interest in these findings will likely resort to (currently unproven) arguments such as ‘games have a greater effect because of interactivity’ (in the process, probably ignoring the thousands of children’s re-enacting bible passages, such as the Stations of the Cross over Easter litergies), we’d really appreciate some consistency and balance.
God's words or Kratos' anger? Both seem to make us aggressive.
Surely, if the Christian groups are serious about protecting children, the next appropriate move is to censor the bible and other religious texts? Surely, children shouldn’t be exposed to material that had a ‘significant’ effect on aggressive behaviour, let alone be the foundation to much of their formative education? If censoring games, R18+ movies and internet commentary is deemed appropriate, surely Michael Atkinson ought to be consistent and move against the bible’s violent passages next? After all, the word of God is surely more influential than Master Chief, Niko Belic, Marcus Fenix or even Kratos?
Of course not.
And not because the Christian groups will deny it or because someone like Atkinson will oppose it. Regardless of whether you actively practice your religion or whether you are an atheist, there is no point getting ridiculous about this. The fact is, censorship may be popular to some groups, but just like people need to be educated about the bible and its contents, so too do they need to be educated about video games. Education is a much more powerful tool protection tool than censorship. That’s a fact. Just like prevention is better than a cure. And what better way to educate (and empower, for that matter) parents and protect children from mature games than with the simple introduction of an R18+ rating?
In the coming days, PALGN will be providing you with a comprehensive summary of the studies that surround this issue, articles demonstrating the inconsistencies in the current classifications, as well as numerous ways that you can protect children from mature games NOW. Until then, the best thing that you can do is read about the issues here on PALGN, check out the EveryonePlays website and head to your nearest GAME store to sign a petition supporting the introduction of an R18+ rating. If you already have, make sure you explain the situation to as many people as you can. Chances are that the religious groups have already made up their mind about the issue, so it’s up to you to stand up and be heard, and show that you are taking the right steps towards protecting children from mature games.
Loading...
