From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.misc
https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/safe-for-kids
How science proved that DnD doesnrCOt harm your kids
In the 80s, people thought D&D was corrupting their kids, so scientists investigated - here's how their work proved the satanic panic wrong.
How science proved DnD doesn't harm your kids - stock image of a
magnifying glass showing a stock image of RPG dice within the glass
Wargamer
Joe Stammeijer
Ah, DnD rCo great fun, super social and, as we explored in an earlier
article, even a great tool for therapy. No arguments there, right? The
public (and scientific) opinion of Dungeons and Dragons wasnrCOt always
this rosy, though rCo once upon a time, DnD was viewed as a menace.
My name is Dr Joe, WargamerrCOs Resident Psychiatrist, and today werCOre
going to explore the Satanic Panic, how scientists tried (and failed) to
find the harm in DnD, and how we proved that playing tabletop RPGs
doesnrCOt harm your kids. Or you.
Just donrCOt eat the dice.
Even the stars of Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves were shocked
to hear DnD inspired a rCySatanic PanicrCO, so donrCOt beat yourself up if itrCOs news to you too! It was a wild era.
Geopolitics and the redefining of the American psyche aside, the 1980s
showed a general tendency for public terror in the face of threatened corruption rCo and one of the many forms that took (primarily in the USA
but also the UK) was a widespread fear that DnD was corrupting the youth.
At the extreme end of the phenomenon, some people were fairly convinced
that DnD was leading young people into literal satanic worship. There
were relatively few of these extremists, but they were the thin end of
the wedge in an impressively pervasive sociocultural backlash. So many
people began claiming RPGs were causing harm, so loudly, that
researchers began actively investigating it.
The drivers of this (along with DnDrCOs part in it) have already been
really well explored in this Dicebreaker piece by Olivia Kennedy, so our
focus here is going to be the part science and research had to play in
the panic.
See, scientists hunted pretty thoroughly for proof that DnD harms
people, and rCo as werCOll see below rCo received a reassuringly empty haul for their efforts.
The hunt for harm
Now, some folks had made their mind up already rCo in their 1987 book rCyA Christian Response to Dungeons And DragonsrCO, Peter Leithart and George
Grant called the game rCLthe chief weapon used in this spiritual raid on
our childrenrCY, saying it was outright dangerous; an rCLintroduction to
evil, a catechism of occultismrCY and rCLa recruiting tool of SatanrCY. What an advertrCa
That year brought some slightly more professional work too rCo in 1987 researchers undertook a study looking for emotional instability in
players, starting out by highlighting the claim DnD was linked to
suicides, homicides and promoting those acts. What did they find when
they looked? Nothing. No link.
In an ideal world, scientists and their priorities should be immune to
peer pressure from a public flap like the Satanic Panic, but the
questions they started asking showed they were anything but. A 1991
article by Abeyta and Forest, for instance, hypothesised rCo based on the media portrayal at the time rCo that playing RPGs would be associated with increased criminality.
The paperrCOs opening lays out the public critique of DnD, even including
the claims it was linked to emotionally unstable behaviour, suicides and homicides. It explores the foundation of the organisation rCyBothered
About Dungeons and DragonsrCO (B.A.D.D.) in 1983; it examines claims that
DnD lead to a breakdown of the ability to differentiate fantasy from
reality; and it looks at previous academic explorations of RPG harm.
The researchers not only found no link between DnD and criminality, they actually found an increase in criminality-associated traits among people
who did not play RPGs.
The paperrCOs authors did comment that people denouncing RPGs rCLhave not considered the possibility that other factors besides role-playing may
be involved in the expression of the criminal behaviourrCY, and they do
really seem to have tried to explore the question impartially.
But the fact that Abeyta and ForestrCOs hypothesis was even accepted as a reasonable starting point demonstrates the sheer strangeness of the
Satanic Panic era. For a brief few years, folks were positively obsessed
with nailing DnD as the malign influence behind Satanic worship and even murder.
The Cultic Studies Journal published work in 1995 looking for a link
between satanic practices and playing DnD rCo i.e. directly investigating
the popular idea that DnD was just Satanism with a D20.
They assessed and compared multiple personality dimensions between DnD players, controls, and satanists (can you imagine the recruitment
posters?) and found rCo drum roll please rCo no link. They also found:
* Significant personality differences between Satanists and players.
* No evidence whatsoever that RPGs lead to satanic practices.
A 1998 paper similarly started off from a rCyDnD harmsrCO standpoint, suggesting previous research showed DnD players were rCLless empathic and
more introvertedrCY (if yourCOve read my earlier Wargamer article on DnD therapy, you already know this isnrCOt true; DnD players are more
empathetic). The research seems to start from a view that DnD must be associated with low mood or even suicidality rCo but finds no link.
One paper, published in 1990, did find a negative correlation. It was a
small sample size and the negative association they found was an
increased sense of alienation. Amid a public primed to see DnD players
as corrupted souls and devil worshippers, we probably shouldnrCOt be too surprised they felt a bit on their own.
Interestingly, this paper also found DnD players had fewer feelings of meaninglessness compared to non-players. Despite their alienation, the
RPGers still felt a stronger sense of purpose and self-identity than
their peers.
These papers all highlight the lack of evidence that DnD causes harm,
but it doesnrCOt seem to stop detractors from hunting for it. WhatrCOs brilliant about this process, though, is that itrCOs inadvertently built a great body of evidence to support the conclusion that DnD doesnrCOt cause harm.
So what was all the fuss about, then?
We know that DnD is now used for therapy, and has brilliant effects even beyond a therapeutic space. The unproven allegations of harm even led researchers to suggest a more useful question than rCyIs DnD bad?rCO might well be: rCyWhy do people falsely conclude that DnD is bad?rCO
ItrCOs a good question, too. Why did people feel so strongly that DnD was harmful? The authors of the 1991 paper mentioned earlier suggested the rCyavailability heuristicrCO likely had a part to play. This is the psychological mechanism that means more rCyavailablerCO or memorable events (things which come more easily to mind, like vivid or shocking moments)
have the illusion of occurring more often than they actually do.
It combines nastily with humansrCO inherent tendency to believe statements
and arguments that sound straightforward, logical, and intuitive,
regardless of whether theyrCOre true or not. The idea that playing fantasy games might make you lose touch with reality sounds half decent rCo until
you think about it properly and realise itrCOs nonsensical bilge.
That gruesome twosome, working together, is what makes folks jump on simplistic, scapegoating answers to complex questions. ItrCOs why, instead
of a logical, scientifically sound answer, we frequently see some very
bad ideas presented as the solution to the worldrCOs problems.
So you can relax rCo DnD is great fun, Satan isnrCOt coming to steal your dice, and the therapeutic benefits are something to be celebrated. The
hunt for harm came up short, and even managed to find some of the great
things DnD can do for you.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2