Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
478-479)
PROFESSOR KEVIN
BROWNE
24 MARCH 2009
Q478 Chairman: May I remind all those
present of the Register of Members' Interests where the interests
of members of this Committee are noted. This is the final session
in our inquiry on knife crime which started in October last year.
Professor Browne, we are absolutely delighted to have you give
evidence to us on a particular aspect of knife crime and that
is the effect of the watching of video games on young adults.
In all the submissions that have been made to the Government and
indeed from the Government on this issue they have maintained
that there is no link between violent video games and the possibility
of violence by those who watch them. Do you think that that is
a correct view or do you think there is evidence that goes the
other way?
Professor Browne: It is a view
that is not supported by scientific evidence. The scientific evidence,
as reviewed in the Lancet in 2005, which was authored by
me and my colleague, looked at all the available evidence in the
English scientific literature. It became very clear that there
are well-established short-term effects of children or teenagers
watching violent video films, DVDs or playing violent computer
games and then behaving aggressively in the hours and weeks afterwards.
The effect size has been measured and the effect size is equivalent
to the effects of using condoms to prevent HIV or the effect size
of putting fluoride in the water to reduce tooth decay. It is
an effect size that has considerable public health consequences.
The scientific lobby is very clear that media violence has effects
on children and adolescents in the short term. The debate that
is left is one involving long-term effects, ie if you watch violent
films aged eight does that make you more prone to be a delinquent
or a criminal at 16? That is still open to question. The scientific
evidence for that is both pro and against, so there is a balance.
Some studies do not find a link over long-term effects and some
studies do. However, the studies that have been carried out have
been mainly to do with non-vulnerable groups, school children
that have been followed up over time. Most of this research is
American and they have not looked at vulnerable groups. In the
UK, with Home Office funding in the late 1990s, we did look at
young offenders and how they react differently as a vulnerable
group to media violence than non-offenders and we found indeed
that they do. First of all, they watch more media violence in
any case. Non-offenders have a more varied diet of film and game
entertainment. They will be interested in comedies. As they grow
up they are going to be interested in films that have non-violent
sex in and they also like action movies and some violent movies,
but this is in proportion to a varied diet.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q479 Mr Streeter: I am not sure how
many other colleagues watched the DVD that was sent round to us
but it was pretty horrific. I watched it this morning. One of
the things I noted in the video games was that it is not just
the violence to the victim but the sense of power you felt from
the person actually carrying the knife and sticking it in someone's
face or that sort of thing. You have talked about the link between
video games and films and violent behaviour. What about carrying
knives? Is there any evidence that there is a link between these
kind of power films and carrying knives?
Professor Browne: Yes. We know
that children and young people are influenced by heroes in the
film and less so by villains. If you live on a diet of violent
movies that hit first and ask questions afterwards, which fits
in with a violent offender's frame of mind, then you are likely
to copy what that violent hero does. Violent heroes in movies
are people like Claude Van Damme, Stephen Siegel and to a certain
extent Arnold Swarzenegger. They play heroes that are violent
first and they will copy those heroes in that violence if they
come from a violent family background. The thing I wanted to emphasise
about our research for the Home Office in the late 1990s is we
found a distinct difference between children who grew up in a
violent environment and children who did not. Children who grew
up in a violent environment and who witnessed real violence in
their community or family were very prone to copy and imitate
what they see on the screen, but this is not direct imitation.
This is what confuses people who ask the question about whether
films have an effect. A child or a teenager that copies something
from a movie will put it within their own behavioural repertoire;
they will not copy it directly. For example, there is a computer
game called Carmageddon which is about running down pedestrians
in a car. It is a game where you drive a car and the more pedestrians
you knock down the higher the score. A teenager watching this
who has not yet got a driving licence will not obviously get in
a car and start mowing people down in a car because he will not
have access to a car, but he will interpret what he sees in the
film, if he comes from a violent background, and perhaps get on
a bicycle and run over people on the bicycle. So you have got
to see film being used within the behavioural repertoire of the
child or the young person. They would not directly copycat. It
is the expectation of the media that the only evidence that they
see as valid is where they see direct copycatting.
|
