# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I do not believe that playing video games can affect the violent scale of children. In all of these sources, they had stated how the evidence of an actual link towards hostile, violent behavior was flawed. It can affect your thoughts making them more aggressive but can't actually drive you to do certain actions. Therefore, the studies show how there isn't an powerful connection between video games and violence o be proved. I actually think that players can acquire a sense of strategy when they learn from these situations to defend themselves. It is shown that movies can impact one more than video games.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2Jq7vPxYGg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association case on June 27, 2011, that ruling not only established that video games were covered under the First Amendment but that video game content could not be regulated by governments. Part of the reason for the court ruling was that psychological research linking violent games and violence was "unpersuasive". Though psychological research is often used in the courtroom in issues relating to child safety, the lack of consistent findings connecting video games to violent behaviour in children helped sway the court against regulation.

Moral panics over the potentially damaging effects of media violence on children are hardly new. Along with Frederic Wertham's crusade against comic books during the 1950s, similar concerns have been raised over violence in movies, television, and the Internet though the link between media violence and violent behaviour in children has never been reliably demonstrated.

Beginning in 1983 when U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop implicated violent video games as a leading cause of family violence, news stories about video games such as (allowing players to run over "gremlins") and Custer's Revenge (with a naked Custer avoiding arrows to have sex with a Native American woman) have helped reinforce the idea that graphic violence in video games was potentially harmful. In 1994, the video game industry established the Educational Software Rating Board (ESRB) as a voluntary system where video games could be rated according to violence or other inappropriate material. Rating video games according to age-appropriate categories was intended to prevent underage children from playing games considered too intense for them.

But the controversy was hardly settled. After the Columbine high school massacre in 1999, family members of the shooting victims sued 25 video game companies which they blamed for the deaths. In particular, the game Doom came under intense scrutiny over reports that the Columbine shooters may have been influenced by the spectacle of shooting various targets to accumulate points.

Influenced by the massacre and the question of whether media violence may have been a cause, Senate Committee Commerce hearings were held in 2000. During the hearings, Senator Joe Lieberman (whose campaigning against video games helped create the ESRB rating system) raised the apparent connection between video games and violence and even suggested that media violence could turn children into killers. In condemning the ESRB system, Senator John McCain suggested that the rating scheme was "nothing but a smoke screen to provide cover for immoral and unconscionable business practices."

At the same time, there was a sharp rise in research studies examining the link between child violence and video games though the results were rarely consistent. In an excellent overview of video game studies recently published in American Psychologist, author Christopher J. Ferguson of Texas A&M International University pointed out that many scholars working in the area of child violence added to the moral panic with studies that were often flawed. While psychological studies designed to correct for these problems continued to show a link, other studies turned up no relationship at all between video game violence and antisocial behaviour in children. The debate over video games has led to a serious split between different groups of researchers which was as much about politics as research findings.

Along with handing down a decision on video games and the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has taken a hard stand on the credibility of psychological research in general. Part of the problem seems to come from the lack of real consensus among researchers and the heated arguments they tend to make defending their own view on whether video games led to violence. In his review, Christopher J. Ferguson pointed out some of the main problems that helped influence the Supreme Court decision. These include:

Lack of real agreement over whether a consistent relationship between video game violence and real-life violence

Problems over how aggression is actually measured. Since there are no commonly accepted tests of aggression, researchers often use laboratory measures that may not be valid or reliable enough to test the link between media violence and aggressive behaviour.

The possibility of publication bias. Usually studies with positive results get published in professional journals while negative findings often go unpublished. Many researchers tend to ignore studies that disprove their own research which can slant their own conclusions over whether a link exists.

The problem of small effect sizes. How large a correlation does there need to be between video game violence and real life aggression? Almost all meta-analyses agree on a correlation of about 0.15 which, while significant, is really not that large. Researchers also debate whether an effect size that small is enough to rein in the entire video game industry as a result.

Whatever the status of the research so far, the only clear outcome is that the divide between pro- and anti-video game activists seems as wide as ever and both sides are citing research to support their arguments. In some cases, they are even looking at the same research studies and coming away with opposite interpretations of the findings.

So what does all this mean for parents of children wanting to play video games? And will any real consensus resolve the bitter division? While Ferguson argues that scientific debate like this is actually healthy, he also warns against the use of inflammatory statements by professional groups that misrepresent research. As one example, he referred to the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2009 statement which stated that "playing violent video games has been found to account for a 13% to 22% increase in adolescents' violent behavior; by comparison, smoking tobacco accounts for 14% of the increase in lung cancer." Not only are the figures in question exaggerated but the statement also implies a clear cause and effect relationship (which they then equate with the cigarettes causing lung cancer).

Aside from credibility issues, there is also the question of sponsorship. Should studies commissioned by the video game industry be taken at face value? How about studies put forward by anti-violence advocate groups which already show a clear bias on the subject? Many of these groups have a lot of time and money invested in promoting the dangers of video game violence and are hardly likely to be objective, especially if research they sponsor fails to meet their expectations. Scientists who receive research funding from advocacy groups, no matter where they stand in the debate, often find themselves in an awkward position of becoming advocates rather than impartial researchers.

All of which comes back to the familiar problem of science being used to promote moral panic, however justified that panic might seem. As Ferguson points out in his article, "scientists who are exposed to the violent imagery of some games and are subsequently offended may interpret ambiguous data in light of their emotional responses to offensive material". This is a problem that often lies at the core of many psychological research studies which are expected to guide public policy on controversial subjects, whether it involves child abuse, the harmful effects of rock music, or in this case, violent video games.

While the issue of whether violent video games are harmful for children is far from settled, every new tragedy that comes to light becomes introduced as evidence in the debate (including the Newtown massacre in December). That the latest statistics show youth violence at a 40-year low despite the popularity of video games is something that has to be considered, especially with media psychologists insisting that game violence is directly responsible for shooting rampages (along with psychiatric medication, availability of guns, or whatever other pet cause is being advocated).

So where does this leave us? That psychological research can be used and misused to promote one moral panic after another is hardly a revelation. Still, many psychologists have already spoken out over the need for more rigid guidelines in using psychological research as well as avoiding the use of overly broad statements than can damage the credibility of psychological research.

As for the question of whether video games are really harmful, the lack of a clear answer after decades of research suggest that the real problem may well lie with our not being able to ask the right questions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent Supreme Court ruling established that video games were covered under the First Amendment but that video game content could not be regulated by governments. Though psychological research is often used in the courtroom in issues relating to child safety, the lack of consistent findings linking video games to violent behaviour in children was "unpersuasive".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The question of whether violent video games have a harmful effect on children is a hotly disputed one.

And not just between the entertainment industry and medical experts.

It's also a contentious point among professionals who deal with children's health issues.

The topic is prominent enough that it prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to issue a recommendation last month about children watching violent movies and playing violent video games.

The report's authors stated they are frustrated by resistance to accept studies that link violence to the video games as well as the lack of action on the issue.

"Although there is broad scientific consensus that virtual violence increases aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, there has been little public action to help mitigate children's exposure to it," the authors wrote.
Read more: Children with autism more likely to develop video game addiction "
Aggression but not crime

A task force report released in August 2015 by the American Psychological Association (APA) concluded there's a definite link to increased aggression in children who play violent video games.

However, the task force members said it's uncertain whether that aggression correlates with criminal violence or juvenile delinquency.

The research was the first in this field to examine the breadth of previous studies, and to undertake multiple approaches to reviewing the literature.

The data demonstrated a consistent relationship between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behavior, cognition, and effect, according to the APA Task Force on Violent Media report.

Video game violence also leads to decreases in pro-social behavior, empathy, and sensitivity to aggression, the task force added.

Scientists have looked into the use of violent video games for more than 20 years, but task force chairman Mark Appelbaum, Ph.D., said, "There is very limited research addressing whether violent video games cause people to commit acts of criminal violence."

"However, the link between violence in video games and increased aggression in players is one of the most studied and best established in the field," Appelbaum, a psychology professor at the University of California at San Diego, said in a press release.

The APA report went on to say that no single risk factor consistently leads a person to act aggressively or violently, but rather it is an accumulation of risk factors that leads to the aggressive or violent behavior.

Violent video game use is one such risk factor.

Dr. Vic Strasburger, distinguished professor of pediatrics emeritus at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, said it goes deeper than violent video games.

"I've treated several school shooters and my best guess is that these kids have four factors that apply," Strasburger told Healthline. "One: They've been abused or bullied. Two: They have mental illness. Three: They are socially isolated. And four: They play violent video games."

"All four factors taken together produce a perfect storm," he added.
Read more: Does 'Pokémon Go' count as exercise? "
Other theories arise

The APA report was contradicted seven months later by another study that focused on children in Europe.

Researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health published their findings in the journal Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology.

The team of 13 researchers looked at the video game playing habits of more than 3,000 children across Europe in 2010.

They concluded children who played at least five hours of games a week had fewer psychological problems than students who didn't play the games.

The students' teachers also rated the video game players as better students.

"I think what we're seeing here is the evolution of gaming in modern society. Video games are now a part of a normal childhood," said Katherine Keyes, one of the 13 authors, and a professor of epidemiology at Columbia, in a U.S. News and World Report article. "It's no longer that kids who play a lot video games are the isolated, techy, brainy kids. What we're seeing here is that kids who play a lot of video games are socially integrated, they're pro-social, they have good school functioning, and we don't see any association with adverse mental health outcomes."

Keyes added there are down sides to playing a lot of video games.

"I want to be sure that we're not suggesting in this study that parents should let kids play unlimited video games because it's good for their mental health," she told U.S. News and World Report.

Another study that was published in October 2015 concluded that parents were an important factor in determining how much time children spend playing violent video games.

Researchers at Iowa State University used an online survey of both parents and children aged 8 to 12 for their conclusions.

They said children of "restrictive" parents who set firm rules spent less time playing violent video games.

In addition, children of "warm" parents who show approval through affection also played fewer video games.

However, the children of "anxious/emotional" parents who are often overprotective spent more time playing video games.
Read more: Most 2-year-olds use mobile devices "
Association urges changes in industry

There are calls for the video game industry to clean up its act.

After its study, the APA urged the video game industry to design games that include increased parental control over the amount of violence the games contain.

They also want developers to design games that are appropriate to users' age and psychological development.

In addition, they are encouraging the Entertainment Software Rating Board to refine its video game rating system. The hope of the APA is that the games' ratings "reflect the levels and characteristics of violence in games."

Entertainment Software Association (ESA) officials vehemently disagreed with the findings of the research in the latest APA report.

"Considering the APA's long-standing bias against, and attacks on video games, this slanted report is not surprising. Numerous medical professionals, researchers, and courts all debunk the fundamental thesis of their argument," they said in a statement to the video game news site Polygon.

When boiled down, Strasburger said that it's easy to pin aggressive behavior on violent video games but not necessarily crime.

"Many people would like to link first-person shooter video games and mass murders or even single murders, but that's virtually impossible to do from a scientific research point of view," he said. "Murder is rare. Video games are extraordinarily common."

Strasburger has come up with a simple hypothesis based on the research.

"The best we can say is that first-person shooter video games are probably not healthy for children and teens," he concluded.
Editor's Note: This story was originally published on August 14, 2015, and was updated by David Mills on August 18, 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
do video games cause children to commit crimes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Violent Video Games Create Aggression, But Do They Cause Kids to Commit Crimes?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The question of whether violent video games have a harmful effect on children is a hotly disputed one. And not just between the entertainment industry and medical experts. It's also a contentious point among professionals who deal with children's health issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Video supporting how video games do not cause violence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2Jq7vPxYGg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Expert: Video games don't trigger violence