Are computer games bad for behaviour?

When our children are increasingly glued to the flickering screens of gadgets and games consoles, is it any wonder that their behaviour is s

Computer games, like fast food, smart phones, TV, Facebook and Twitter, are designed to be addictive. So it goes. Let’s not waste time arguing about it. You see the effects on the behaviour of children who are drowning in media, children for whom the lid of censorship has been well and truly lifted, in classrooms every day.

In the 21st century, emotional neglect is hidden in children’s bedrooms and a million pixels. The links between excessive screen-time and ADHD, childhood obesity and conduct problems in the classroom are already well drawn. The National Trust has reused the emotive term NDD (Nature Deficit Disorder) first introduced by author Richard Louv in 2005 when he argued that: “diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses” were the result of “alienation from nature”. Dr Aric Sigman in his excellent book Remotely Controlled shows the link between attention deficit and addiction to screens – one read of that alone is enough to make you throw your TV away and dig out the Monopoly board.

Some parents will sense trouble immediately. Previously chatty and social play with the computer is replaced with blinkered, single focus attention to the screen. Family games are exchanged for solo games with a faster paced experience. It is the ‘Mario Kart moment’ – the moment you realise that the immersive and addictive nature of the game means the child is lost in it. Mastery is a strong motivation. Pulling some children away is like waking them from a deep sleep. It takes time for the real world to restore normal communication. Why would you allow your child unlimited access to such a powerful drug?

Unlimited play

The problem is not that there are games/computers/24-hour TV/smart phones, etc., but that there are parents who have stopped censoring them. I think we need to be straight with parents. Show them the evidence from the research, show them how giving open access leaves the door ajar to those who want to influence their children. We need to show them some tough love. To try and educate them into the long-term social, academic and emotional problems that can emerge. To be frank about the direct effect children’s habits at home have on their behaviour at school. To question the educational benefit of TVs and games consoles in bedrooms of primary age children.

Perhaps some parents don’t realise the damage they are doing. They can’t see it. Hidden behind an innocuous game/app/program are ideas, references and images that are coming too early for their children. Virtual cultures teach their own form of morality that many parents choose to ignore. Some parents have lowered the top shelf, left the keys to the sweet cupboard in the lock, turned their backs and walked away.

Of course, none of this would matter if the parents who chose to lift all restrictions from their children at home, educated them at home. They don’t. They send them to the same classroom as those whose parents will do everything they can to stop their children developing harmful addictions before they leave Primary school.

Setting an example

The trouble is that our argument against overuse of screens at home is undermined by our use of screens at school. Class sets of iPads, IWBs in every room, banks of screens lined up against the wall. Children who have no limits on screen-time at home may walk into classrooms where they interact with screens all day.

A recent ATL conference heard from Reception teachers who said their four- and five-year-old pupils spent their breaks pretending to “throw themselves out of the window of the play car in slow motion” and act out blood “spurting from their bodies”. If this had come from their own imaginations – cowboys and indians, slaying the dragon, AlienDeath! – we might feel more comfortable with it. (After all, there is nothing better than an over-enthusiastic, competitive slow motion death). But it has been inserted by the repetitive, addictive, layered learning of computer games. Not a child’s game but an 18+ Tour of Death Camp War Assassin Sniper Special Game: “Darling, nearly time for bed”, “Coming, mum, just a few Nazis to disembowel and I will be ready for a good night’s rest!”. Why would you allow it to get that far?

Of course, it is not just one game, one console or even one screen. Children are playing online games while they are chatting while they are watching TV. Multi-screening takes the addiction up a level. The flip side is that joint attention is considered a pivotal behaviour in the developmental of children’s language and social skills. But children are not being born into an ISpy books, cowboys and Indians, ‘out all day, back when you are hungry’ world. They need to be able to deal with ever-present screens and a range of new addictions that hang like forbidden fruit ever closer to their grasp.

There is still beauty in the analogue world. There is still manageable risk in the analogue world. Swamping children with digital media at home and at school, and then complaining that their behaviour is changing is an ever decreasing circle. Perhaps behaviour is not getting worse but its influences are getting more aggressive. Perhaps it is time that we tighten the lid on childhood in primary schools and question ourselves about the amount of screen-time we allow at home and at school.