This article is reproduced with the permission of New Scientist for exclusive use by Nova users.

Mind-altering media
19 April 2007
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.
Helen Phillips

Devin Moore was just 18 when he was taken to an Alabama police station for questioning about a stolen car. He was initially cooperative, but then lunged for his captor's gun. He shot the man twice and ran out into the hallway where he shot a second policeman three times. He let off five shots at a third man before making his escape in a police car. All three men died from shots to the head. When Moore was finally captured, he is reported to have said, "Life is like a video game. You have to die sometime." Two years on, he sits on death row.

A civil case is being prepared by lawyers representing the victims' families, arguing that some responsibility for the crimes must be shared by Take-Two Interactive, publisher of the Grand Theft Auto game series; the Walmart and GameStop stores for allegedly selling the games to an underage Moore; and Sony Computer Entertainment, maker of the PlayStation. Moore is said to have played Grand Theft Auto obsessively, and the families' lawyers will try to persuade the courts that the games trained him to murder. Effectively, they claim, he was faced with a real-life version of a scene he'd already played out many times.

While we have yet to see what the courts conclude, stories like this paint a gloomy picture of the media's influence on young minds. It may never be possible to prove that a specific act of violence was the result of a particular experience, but plenty of surveys and studies have linked poor media habits with rising violence, childhood depression, attention deficit disorders and declining educational standards. Yet we also hear entirely the opposite: IQ scores are rising, and have been since at least the 1950s, when television was becoming common in our homes. What's more, regular gamers seem to perform better at tests of visual attention and spatial awareness.

So what are the effects of modern media on the brain - especially young, developing brains? Are TV and computers boosting our mental and social networking skills, or making us stupid, isolated and aggressive, with the attention spans of gnats?

One thing researchers agree on is that any technology we use will change the brain. There's nothing surprising or sinister about this, says Martin Westwell at the University of Oxford's Institute for the Future of the Mind. "You are who you are largely because of the way the brain cells wire up in response to the environment and the things you do," he says. "If you change the wiring you will change how we think." So how is the wiring changing?

Some say we're getting smarter. Steven Johnson, author of the book Everything Bad is Good for You, argues that the increasing complexity of media presentations and games, with their multiple plots and sophisticated layers, requires more complex pre-planning and problem solving than ever. Far from dumbing us down, popular culture is stretching us, Johnson claims, and the rising IQ scores (see "Rising IQ, falling standards?") are a testament to that.

There is some evidence to support such claims. Shawn Green and Daphne Bavelier of the University of Rochester in New York have shown that regular computer gamers have improved visual attention and can take in more information. They are better able to pay attention to things that are further apart or more rapidly changing, and can switch attention more quickly. Even short-term play produces immediate improvements.

Jonathan Roberts of Virginia Polytechnic Institute found that women, who usually fare worse than men at spatial rotation tests, improve when exposed to 3D video games (whereas men did not) to the point where the sex difference disappears. Some physical abilities improve too. James Rosser of Beth Israel Medical Center in New York found that gaming experience is the best predictor of surgeons' skill at keyhole surgery - more so than the years spent training or the number of procedures carried out.

Rene Weber of the University of California, Santa Barbara, points out that TV too can be beneficial. "Many people know more about safe sex, AIDS and drugs from soaps than from the formal education system or books," he says, though the influence of this medium varies widely from person to person. More intelligent people learn just as well from books. Less intelligent people benefit from a more engaging presentation.

As for whether the internet is making us more or less sociable, again it's a personal thing. Dmitri Williams of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has found that cyberspace amplifies our natural personality traits. The extroverts get even more social, and the introverted more isolated.

Drawing general conclusions about the effect of the internet is impossible, though, because it is so varied - from a source of information to a forum for chatting, playing games or being entertained. "Sometimes we are fairly passive viewers, other times we are up for a bit more of challenge. It is what we make it," Williams says.

When it comes to TV, however, there's no getting away from the fact that the bad news outweighs the good. One of the biggest studies was done by Jeffrey Johnson and colleagues at Columbia University in New York, who followed more than 700 families for 17 years, recording their viewing habits, health, backgrounds and various behavioural tendencies. Their findings confirm those of previous, smaller studies showing that the amount of TV watched during childhood and teens correlates with changes in attention and sleep patterns, among other things.

The group's latest analysis will be published next month, so Johnson can't reveal details yet, but says: "High levels of TV viewing may contribute to elevated risk for a type of syndrome which is often characterised by two or more of the following types of problems: elevated levels of verbal and physical aggression; difficulties with sleep; obesity and long-term risk for obesity-related health problems from a lack of physical exercise; and attention or learning difficulties."

One of the smaller studies, by Dimitri Christakis at the University of Washington in Seattle, found that young children watching double the average TV viewing hours (which were 2.2 per day at age 1 and 3.6 at age 3) were 25 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with attentional deficit hyperactivity disorder at age 7. Some research even hints at a link with autism, although this is very far from proven.

The overwhelming majority of studies about modern media and the mind, however, have focused on violence on and off the screen. Although there has been more than 50 years' worth of research, most people seem to have the idea that, while these studies suggest there might be a small link, the jury is still out. Wrong, says John Murray, a developmental psychologist from Kansas State University, one of the editors of the book Children and Television: Fifty years of research and author of US government-sponsored reports in 1972 and 1982. Murray is exasperated by this kind of ambivalence. He says it is impossible to conclude anything other than that violence on TV has raised the level of violence and aggression in our society - and while research on computer games has begun only recently, what there is suggests violent games have an even stronger effect.

"Video games are more worrisome than TV because they are interactive," says Murray. Children learn best by demonstration and then imitation, with rewards for getting things right. "That's exactly what video games do," he says.

Not everyone is affected, and we are not all affected in same way, but overall, media violence does affect viewers' attitudes, values and behaviour, Murray says. Hundreds of studies demonstrate this, so why the doubt?

One reason is that media reports tend to give equal prominence to the naysayers. The debate also has its hired guns, with industry organisations such as the Motion Picture Association of America sponsoring prominent books arguing against any links. And whatever their motives, it is easy for critics to highlight the limitations of the science. The ideal experiment would be to divide a large number of children into groups, expose the different groups to different types or varying amounts of TV or computer games for several years while keeping all other experiences identical, and then to follow their progress for life. This will never be possible or ethical. Instead, researchers have to rely on long-term surveys that don't prove causality, and lab experiments that do not demonstrate long-term effects. Nevertheless, the results from all these different types of studies add up to a compelling case.

The Bobo effect

One of the most straightforward demonstrations dates back to 1961, by Albert Bandura at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. He showed short films to pre-schoolers. Half saw a man beating up a plastic clown. The other half saw more innocuous images. After watching the film the children were allowed to play with all kinds of toys, including the doll. Those who had seen the beating went and punched it, even copying details like words the clown said. The Bobo doll studies show that children will imitate violent acts in precise detail.

It is not just children who are susceptible. This month a British man who had watched the horror film Nightmare on Elm Street 20 times was imprisoned after attacking another man with a home-made metal clawed glove, as happens in the film - one of many instances of copycat crimes.

Johnson's 17-year study shows a strong association between the amount of television watched during childhood and the likelihood of behaving aggressively towards others, even after compensating for other factors such as family background, previous aggression, neglect, neighbourhood and education. It's true that the causal relationship seems to run both ways - more aggressive people seem to watch more violent television - but this cannot explain the whole effect.

The findings show that television seems to raise aggression levels over time too. Young adults who had watched more than 3 hours of TV a day at age 14 committed five times as many aggressive acts - from threatening behaviour to actual physical assault - as those who watched less than 1 hour.

It's not just the obviously violent horror flicks and action movies that have this effect. Every hour of children's television portrays between 20 and 25 aggressive acts - more than on prime-time adult shows. Perhaps no wonder then that in the 1980s, Lesley Joy of the University of British Columbia in Canada and her colleagues showed that it doesn't matter whether the content is the best of public service broadcasting or the worst commercial drivel, it is the hours, not the content, that count.

Experiments in the lab have addressed the causal question, by dishing out particular viewing or gaming experiences followed by behavioural tests or questionnaires. This kind of study has shown that after watching just half an hour of violence, children have more devious and aggressive thoughts, are more likely to inflict punishments, and are less likely to cooperate.

Brain imaging and other physiological measures also reveal changes in emotional responses to violent images as a result of viewing violence or playing violent games. Bruce Bartholow of the University of Missouri, Columbia, has found that people with a history of game playing have a reduced brain response to shocking pictures, suggesting that people begin to see such imagery as more normal. Another study found that frontal lobe activity was reduced in youngsters who played a violent video game for 30 minutes, compared with those playing an equally exciting but non-violent game. This brain region is important for concentration and impulse control, among other things. A region called the amygdala, important for emotional control, was more aroused in those who experienced the violent game.

Other studies show that children store memories of violent media acts in brain regions reserved for long-term storage of significant events. These memories can pop back into the mind very rapidly, even when not wanted, as flashbacks.

The effects fall into three categories, says Murray. There's a kind of imitation effect, where we seem to learn by example how to behave in certain situations. There's desensitisation, which means we become less shocked by and more tolerant of violence. Finally, there is the "mean world" effect, where people feel more vulnerable after seeing images of bad situations.

These effects are not always bad. Take desensitisation - if you're training medical students you want them to get used to gore, rather than vomiting when they see blood.

Our values, attitudes, family and education also work to mitigate the effects. Home life has a very big impact. If your family portrays attitudes that differ from the violence on TV, that really lowers the risk, says Joanne Cantor of the University of Wisconsin. "If you live in a violent area or abusive home, it increases the likelihood that violence will have an effect. But even kids with good things in life are affected. Maybe they will not be more violent but perhaps more hostile in their interpersonal relationships."

The big picture is clear. Modern media such as TV and computer games are changing our minds, and the more we are exposed to them the greater the changes. They are making us smarter and better at some tasks, but worse at others. And there is no getting away from the fact that on-screen violence fosters off-screen violence.

The tough question is what to do about it. No one is suggesting there are any simple solutions. Ultimately it all comes down to the choices we make as individuals or parents. If children are too busy playing sports or socialising to spend much time watching TV or playing games, and play something like Dr Kawashima's Brain Training when they do have time, the benefits will probably far outweigh any downside. For those who spend hour after hour playing shoot 'em ups or watching gorefests, the results for them - and others - could be dire.

From issue 2600 of New Scientist magazine, 19 April 2007, page 33-37

Rising IQ, falling standards? On the one hand, IQ scores are rising - anything up to 25 points over a generation. At the same time, other educational measures are falling, and every year we seem to hear the same accusations about declining interest in reading, dumbing down and falling standards in exams. Which conclusion is right? Kids do appear to be doing much worse on practical tests of understanding space, volume and conservation of quantities. Between the 1970s and 2000, Michael Shayer of King's College London got British children aged between 10 and 16 to do tests such as pouring liquid into different-shaped containers and recognising which had the same volume. Over this time he found a decrease equivalent to 2 years of age. It seems likely that kids are spending less time playing the kind of physical games with sand and water that allow them to gain experience of volumes and densities. Mobile phones, computers and television may explain this kind of change, but that doesn't mean these technologies are always bad for our education. While computers may take up time once spent playing outdoor games, Shayer has also shown that computer games can be designed to improve the very skills that suffered in his assessments. What's more, the rises in IQ scores seem to reflect real improvements in visual and spatial skills. Scores on tests of abstract intelligence such as completing sequences of shapes have also improved, though there is no corresponding rise (nor any particular decline) in verbal or numerical skills. The mixed message is less confusing if you don't think of IQ scores as the be-all and end-all. Although IQ correlates highly with achievement in life, it's just one measure of abilities, and the tests have changed with the times. Equivalent IQ scorers in successive generations might not be equivalent if transported backward or forwards in time.

Advice for parents LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME WATCHING TV OR PLAYING COMPUTER GAMES The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends none at all for children under 2, and just 1 or 2 hours a day thereafter. With teenagers, attempts to limit times can backfire, and they are likely to seek out forbidden content. Even so, there should be some rules, such as no TV or games before dinner time, or until homework is finished. For all ages, alternative activities such as sports, hobbies and social events are the best way to avoid problems. SELECT CONTENT CAREFULLY High-quality, nonviolent shows or games can have a positive effect. Make sure they are aimed at your child's age group, and read reviews beforehand to ensure they are suitable. Balance pure entertainment with more informative content. Watch or play with your children. TALK ABOUT THE CONTENT Discuss what is real and what is make-belief, and explain the purpose of adverts. Ignoring violence can signal endorsement. Get children to empathise with the victims of violence. Criticising or dismissing violent acts as they happen may help up to around age 10. With teenagers, condemnatory evaluation of the violence from another influential adult, such as a teacher, has the greatest effect. KEEP TVS AND COMPUTERS OUT OF THE BEDROOM This makes it easier to monitor what your child is watching, playing or doing online, and how long they spend doing it. For more advice see www.tvtroubles.com or www.mindscience.org

For the latest from New Scientiist visit www.newscientist.com