Can Video Games Make Kids Violent? Answers to Parents’ Top Gaming Questions

Dave Anderson PhD
By: Dave Anderson, PhD

Vice President, Public Engagement and Education; Senior Psychologist, ADHD and Behavior Disorders Center Read More

A child psychologist on Grand Theft Auto VI, aggression, meltdowns, and how to keep gaming in balance

A new installment of the mega-popular Grand Theft Auto video game will be released soon, and in a lot of homes the request has already landed: Can I play it? It’s one of the most anticipated game releases in years, and it has prompted a wave of questions from parents who listen to Thriving Kids, a podcast from the Child Mind Institute.

Parents are also wondering when gaming becomes a problem, what to do about meltdowns when it’s time to stop, and how to handle games that eat into sleep and schoolwork. Here are my answers to nine of the questions we received, starting with Grand Theft Auto VI.

My 13-year-old wants GTA 6. Should I let them play it?

Like earlier games in the series, GTA 6 involves committing acts of violence and robbery, a lot of swearing, and characters who draw players into all kinds of actions that would be crimes in real life. But it’s also a world that can be genuinely fascinating to explore and figure out.

There are a few ways to approach your child’s request. First, check the rating. GTA 6 is rated M for Mature (17+), and in some other countries it’s rated even higher. This is highly adult content.

Second, consider your child’s maturity level. Some 13-year-olds have already been exposed to this kind of content and handle it well, meaning it doesn’t seem to affect their behavior, their language, how they treat their peers, or basic habits like sleep and homework.

Other 13-year-olds may be more vulnerable. A child with ADHD, for example, may already struggle with executive functioning, time management, or stopping something they enjoy to do homework or go to sleep — playing video games may make those challenges worse. But these are concerns with any game a child engages with, whatever its content.

A child who already struggles with impulsiveness, verbal or physical aggression toward peers, or foul language may also be more vulnerable. We probably don’t want that child repeatedly practicing similar behavior through the game.

If you look at this content and decide it isn’t right for your 13-year-old, that’s a sound decision. And if you know your child well and feel they can handle it, you don’t need to feel guilty about that either.

Can playing Grand Theft Auto make kids more violent?

Parents have worried about violent video games encouraging kids to commit violence since the 1990s. Such a link is not supported by research.

But aggression is different from violence. A more developed body of research suggests that violent games may make kids who are already prone to impulsivity or aggression — such as verbal aggression, bullying, or physical aggression — more aggressive. Playing violent video games can also allow people to “rehearse” aggressive thoughts and acts, and some experimental research suggests this can translate to more aggressive thinking or behavior, especially when kids play a lot or play with friends.

But keep in mind: There are more powerful factors that can influence a child’s behavior. The effect of violent video games is small in relation to the quality of the parent-child relationship, whether a child has been exposed to violence or trauma at home, and how closely parents keep track of where their teens are and who they spend time with.

So, here’s the short answer: When it comes to violent acts, the research doesn’t support a link. When it comes to aggressive thoughts and a slightly higher chance of aggressive behavior, there is some evidence. And there are many real-world factors in a child’s life that matter more than the games they play.

My child says everyone else is playing GTA. How should I respond?

As a psychologist, I generally advise parents not to be the most permissive parent in their child’s friend group, but not to be the strictest, either. It’s best to aim for somewhere in the middle. The research on parenting points the same way. The goal is to lead with support and add structure when kids need it.

You may not think your child is ready for this content. You may worry it could make a mental health challenge worse, or your child may already be prone to aggressive speech or teasing that borders on bullying. Those are all good reasons not to let them practice those things in their free time, and you can feel confident holding that boundary. You might say: “Sometimes I’ll be in line with your friends’ parents, and sometimes I won’t. I love you, and I want to help you experience lots of other things in life.”

You can also try a middle path with conditions attached: Your child can only play the game in a shared space where you can see and hear what’s going on. They can explain the game to you, and you can keep an eye on their behavior outside the game, putting more limits if you see any concerning changes. But be clear with your child about what you’re worried about and what would lead you to step in. Gaming that starts cutting into sleep or schoolwork, for example, is a clear signal to set a limit.

My child watches Grand Theft Auto content on YouTube but doesn’t play the game. Is that different?

Lots of kids watch streamers play the games they like on YouTube or Discord or watch short-form clips on social media. For a child who isn’t allowed to play a popular game, watching can be a way to understand it and stay in the conversation with friends.

Still, it’s reasonable to be cautious. Research is still emerging on how short-form video affects kids’ attention — and an algorithm may keep feeding them more violent content. So, you might nudge your child away from short clips and toward longer videos that follow a story.

It can help to know what they’re watching. Is the channel about the graphics and gameplay? Is it about glorifying violent acts? Or is it about how a team works together to complete a quest? You might start by watching together and let your child watch on their own once you’ve approved the content, or only when you’re around to keep an eye on it.

Age matters here, too. For kids in middle school or younger, I’d monitor more closely — any site where they watch gaming videos will probably serve up more content with similar themes. With an older teen watching on their own device, it’s reasonable to say, something like, “Help me understand why this is valuable to you. Let’s watch some together, and then I’ll trust you to watch on your own.”

My child can focus on something like Grand Theft Auto for hours but can’t focus on homework. Why?

Almost everyone focuses better on something they enjoy than on something they don’t. It’s why so many of us procrastinate, scrolling social media or knocking out small, easy tasks instead of the one big thing we need to do. Kids are no different.

We want to teach kids how to sequence and prioritize tasks, how to bring their focus to something even when it isn’t the most interesting option, and how to build persistence. (My recent Thriving Kids episode with Julia Leonard, PhD, goes deeper on persistence.)

A helpful first step is bundling. If you’re going to allow your child to play video games, make sure it comes after homework. Your child shows you evidence that their homework is finished, and then they get access to games, whether that’s up until dinner, bath time, or getting ready for bed. They can also earn more time by getting down to work sooner. If you aren’t home in the afternoon, gaming can start once you get home.

Are some kids more vulnerable to problematic gaming than others?

Problematic gaming — excessive gaming at the cost of one’s well-being — follows a recognizable pattern. A child plays for very long stretches, more and more over time, and becomes increasingly distressed when they have to stop. Gaming starts to crowd out the things that matter for their development: schoolwork, real-life friendships, sleep, even eating properly.

Problematic gaming rarely happens on its own. Often a child has a co-occurring mental health condition. A child who is depressed may withdraw from activities and friends and find comfort and distraction in gaming, which then reinforces their depression. A child who struggles to make friends may find it easier to connect with people online and retreat into the digital world, making it harder to make friends in real life. A child with attention challenges may find it harder to put the brakes on fun and novel activities to do something less rewarding.

So yes, some kids are more vulnerable. But there are effective treatments both for the underlying conditions and for setting boundaries around gaming. For some kids, that means enforcing a break from gaming — for a short time or a longer one — because they can’t yet put on the brakes on gaming themselves. For others, it may mean moderation, with conditions in place to make sure their other responsibilities get done.

My child melts down when it’s time to stop playing. What should I do?

A meltdown at the end of gaming time can be a sign of problematic gaming, but on its own it’s just one indicator among several. It’s actually very common, especially for younger kids, to have a meltdown when they’re asked to stop something they enjoy and to do something less fun, like come to dinner, start homework, take a bath, or go to bed.

So, think of this as a lesson in emotion regulation, a set of skills kids learn in stages.

The first step to helping kids self-regulate is modeling. How do you regulate your own emotions, and do you talk about it out loud? Do you take deep breaths, step away for a break, reach out to someone, or do something distracting for a moment to reset?

The second step is reinforcement. How do you respond when your child does calm down? Do you give them positive feedback? Can they earn an activity or a special privilege when they practice these skills?

The third step is teaching these skills directly. Does your child know what emotion regulation looks like? (You can learn more about how to teach emotion regulation skills to kids of any age through the free resources, including short videos, that we have here.)

Finally, when your child does melt down, can you sit with their big feelings? As long as they aren’t screaming at you, refusing to go to bed, or getting physically aggressive, you can calmly acknowledge it by saying something like, “I know it’s hard to stop playing, but it’s time to get ready for bed.”

When that isn’t enough, a consequence can help. Tell your child that their gaming time depends on their ability to stop calmly. For example, a child who gets 30 minutes of gaming at night and melts down when it ends might lose 10 of those minutes the next day. Just make sure consequences, when needed, are applied consistently.

Many parents’ first instinct is simply to take the game away. That is an option, and you may need to use it. But try this process first — it can build skills that help with almost anything you’re trying to teach your child.

Should gaming be earned through chores, homework, or good behavior?

Much of life runs on a kind of social contract. When you get your responsibilities done, finish your homework, treat your sister kindly, and speak respectfully to your parents, you have access to certain privileges. For younger kids, that might be a favorite activity or dessert. As kids get older, it might be an allowance. For teenagers, it might be their social life, their curfew, rides, or a little money for meals out with friends. And in the working world, meeting your responsibilities is how you earn your salary.

That doesn’t mean every privilege has to depend on chores, homework, and good behavior. Systems like this take energy to run, so save them for when your child really needs to build a skill and fade them back as that need lessens. A child who does the dishes now and then, picks up their room, does their homework, and keeps safe hands around their sister may not need their 30 minutes of gaming tied to any of it. You can simply give them a set amount of gaming time each day.

When you are seeing problems with contributions at home, effort at school, or behavior, video games can absolutely be made contingent on those things.

What should parents do if they think gaming is affecting sleep, school, or friendships?

Sleep, school, and friendships are core areas of a child’s wellness and development.

Whenever parents ask about screens, video games, or phones, I go through a checklist. Think about your child’s diet and hydration, physical activity, sleep, mood, friendships online and off, investment in school and homework, and whether they take part in at least one extracurricular activity or hobby. We also want to think about their relationships with parents and friends, and whether they have a supportive adult in their life.

These are the building blocks of a child’s wellness. When a child’s screen time is in balance with them there is less cause for concern.

When gaming cuts into sleep, set a time when screens end, and keep all devices out of your child’s room at bedtime.

When schoolwork is slipping, structure the afternoon so homework comes before gaming.

When you’re worried about extracurriculars or time with friends in real life, look for ways to restore that balance. You can remove games for a short or long period if you need to. Kids don’t need games to live.

At the same time, we don’t want to dismiss kids’ interests or tell them gaming is terrible. You can say: “This is your interest, and I want to support you in it. I also want to support your wellness as a whole.”

Sometimes restoring that balance is still really hard. It may lead to a lot of conflict, big fights, or your child becoming more aggressive or disrespectful. That’s the time to reach out for help, perhaps with a school counselor or therapist.

This blog post is adapted from the Thriving Kids episode “Can Video Games Influence Children and Teen Behavior?” Listen on Apple Podcasts, watch on YouTube, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Have a question for a future episode? Email podcast@childmind.org.

The post Can Video Games Make Kids Violent? Answers to Parents’ Top Gaming Questions appeared first on Child Mind Institute.

AI-assisted Home-based Intervention for ADHD Children

Conditions: ADHD – Attention Deficit Disorder With Hyperactivity; ADHD – Combined Type; ADHD – Inattentive Type

Interventions: Device: Generative artificial intelligence assisted diary platform home-based intervention; Behavioral: Consultations and psychoeducation on child emotional management

Sponsors: National Taiwan University Hospital

Recruiting

Integration of an FDA-Authorized Digital Autism Diagnostic Tool Into an Outpatient Developmental Pediatrics Workflow: Preliminary Quality Improvement Study

<strong>Background:</strong> Long wait times and specialist shortages delay autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis, often beyond the period when early intervention is most effective. Digital diagnostic tools may help increase diagnostic capacity by supporting clinicians in delivering timely autism evaluations within routine outpatient care. <strong>Objective:</strong> This study aimed to conduct a preliminary assessment of the integration of a digital autism diagnostic device (Canvas Dx) into an outpatient developmental pediatrics workflow, including a descriptive evaluation of agreement between device outputs and specialist clinical diagnoses and an exploration of clinician and caregiver experience. <strong>Methods:</strong> A single-center, prospective quality improvement study evaluated the implementation and performance of Canvas Dx in a specialty developmental pediatrics clinic. Canvas Dx is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–authorized digital ASD diagnostic device approved for use in children aged 18 to 72 months with caregiver or health care provider concern for developmental delay. Eligible children were consecutively prescribed Canvas Dx during the study period and completed the assessment as part of routine clinical care. Device diagnostic outputs were compared with the final specialist clinical diagnoses. Clinician and caregiver feedback was collected to explore their experience with the assessment process and perceived workflow impact via poststudy surveys that captured both structured quantitative questions and open-ended qualitative questions. <strong>Results:</strong> A total of 28 children were included (mean age 52.2, SD 13.8 months; 7/28, 25% female), with an autism prevalence of 67.9% (19/28) based on specialist diagnosis. The device generated a determinate result for 22 (78.6%) participants. Among participants with determinate device results, sensitivity was 94.1% (95% CI 73%-99%) and specificity was 80% (95% CI 37.6%-96.4%). Positive predictive value was 94.1% (95% CI 73%-99%), and negative predictive value was 80% (95% CI 37.6-96.4%) when compared with specialist diagnosis. These estimates were imprecise, particularly for specificity and negative predictive value, because of the small number of participants without an ASD diagnosis. Clinicians reported improved insights and ease of use during evaluation visits, and caregivers reported high satisfaction with the assessment process. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> This preliminary quality improvement assessment demonstrates the feasibility of integrating Canvas Dx into a routine outpatient developmental pediatrics workflow and provides initial descriptive data on agreement with specialist diagnostic determinations and clinician and caregiver experience. Given the small sample size and resulting imprecision of diagnostic performance estimates, these findings should be interpreted as preliminary and used to inform larger prospective evaluations of diagnostic performance and workflow impact.

Effectiveness of the Autism Pupil Screen (APS) Detect Pupillometer for Identifying Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in Routine Healthcare

Conditions: Autism Spectrum Disorder

Interventions: Device: Autism Pupil Screen (APS) Detect PLR Assessment #1; Other: Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers, Revised with Follow-up (M-CHAT/R-F); Other: Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2); Diagnostic Test: Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2); Other: Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL); Other: Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Third Edition (ABAS-3); Device: Autism Pupil Screen (APS) Detect PLR Assessment #2; Device: Autism Pupil Screen (APS) Detect Assessment #3; Procedure: Well-child check

Sponsors: Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories; Palouse Pediatrics; Pullman Regional Hospital; Washington State University; SEL Health Clinic

Recruiting

Symptom severity at first digital self-assessment is not associated with greater subsequent booking of professional care on a Saudi mental health platform: a cohort study of 5,524 users

BackgroundDigital mental health platforms routinely deliver self-administered symptom scales on the assumption that users with more severe symptoms are more likely to enter professional care. That assumption is rarely tested with linked participant-level data, and almost never in the Arabic-speaking Gulf.ObjectiveTo examine whether symptom severity at a user’s first self-assessment predicts booking a professional session within 90 days, across four symptom domains, on a Saudi commercial digital mental health platform.MethodsRetrospective cohort analysis of 10,100 first assessments — depression, generalized anxiety, panic, and obsessive-compulsive scales — contributed by 5,524 unique users of the Talbinah platform and linked to demographic and session-booking records through a pseudonymous (SHA-256 hashed) user identifier. The primary outcome was any session booked within 90 days after the assessment. Severity was banded by the established cut-offs for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, and by percentage of scale maximum for the panic and obsessive-compulsive measures, for which no severity thresholds are established. Per-scale multivariable logistic regression estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for severity band (reference None/Minimal), adjusting for age, sex, and device type. Pre-specified sensitivity analyses used 30- and 180-day windows, an attended-session outcome, percentage-of-maximum banding applied to all four scales, and a subset with no prior booking (incident help-seeking). Reporting followed STROBE.ResultsUsers were young (mean age 26.7 years, SD 8.1) and predominantly female (78.1%); 16.6% of first assessments were followed by a booking within 90 days. No severity band on any of the four scales was associated with higher odds of booking (severe vs None/Minimal: depression aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51–1.01; generalized anxiety 0.76, 0.49–1.16; panic 0.83, 0.52–1.31; obsessive-compulsive 1.01, 0.59–1.74). One severity contrast was statistically significant, in the opposite direction: moderate depression was associated with lower odds of booking (0.66, 95% CI 0.45–0.97). Older age (aOR ~1.2 per decade) and iOS device use (1.4–2.0) were associated with booking across scales. This absence of a positive severity–booking association was consistent across 30-, 90-, and 180-day windows, the attended-session outcome, and percentage-of-maximum banding; a nominal association for moderate anxiety seen under percentage banding did not persist with validated GAD-7 cut-offs. Estimates for the panic and obsessive-compulsive scales, which lack established severity thresholds, are exploratory.ConclusionsOn a Saudi digital mental health platform, greater self-reported symptom severity at first assessment was not followed by higher subsequent booking of professional care, consistently across specifications, and for moderate depression was associated with lower odds of booking; demographic and access-related attributes showed stronger associations with booking than symptom load did. Self-screening on its own appears insufficient as a pathway into care.

Predicting behavioral escalation in students with autism using physiological and movement data

IntroductionBehavioral escalation in students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) presents significant challenges in educational and community settings, often leading to reactive interventions after behaviors become observable. This study investigated whether physiological and movement data obtained from wearable biometric sensors could retrospectively identify precursors of escalation and inform proactive support strategies.MethodsPhysiological and movement data were collected from 30 students with ASD in naturalistic classroom environments using wearable sensors. Measures included heart rate variability (HRV), galvanic skin response (GSR), skin temperature, and accelerometer data. Behavioral observations were used to identify escalation events, and machine learning models, including Random Forest, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, were trained on previously collected physiological and behavioral data to classify pre-escalation states. Model performance was evaluated retrospectively rather than through real-time deployment.ResultsAmong the models tested, the LSTM network achieved the highest classification accuracy (85.2%) in identifying pre-escalation states. Physiological changes associated with escalation were detectable approximately 2 to 5 minutes before observable behavioral manifestations. HRV and GSR emerged as the strongest predictive features, while inclusion of accelerometer data further improved classification performance. These findings suggest that measurable physiological patterns precede overt behavioral escalation in students with ASD.DiscussionThe results support the feasibility of using wearable biometric data and machine learning approaches to retrospectively identify antecedent physiological markers of behavioral escalation. Interpreted through frameworks drawn from Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), these physiological signals may function as both antecedents to challenging behavior and indicators of internal emotional or regulatory states. Although real-time implementation was not evaluated, the findings provide a foundation for future predictive monitoring systems designed to facilitate earlier intervention, reduce reliance on reactive or punitive responses, and promote more inclusive and emotionally responsive educational environments for neurodiverse learners.